In the end, though, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference.

A lot of our problems are essentially leadership problems. The good, honest people are cowed into silence by the media, while sociopaths willing to play both sides of the fence get elected. We need strong, unapologetic, politically incorrect conservative leadership. I agree on the national stage Tancredo is the best we have.

First of all, anybody know who Dave is? =) And if he thinks YOU’RE a fundamentalist, I think he’d die of apoplexy if he heard all of MY views. THis is a very interesting discussion because it centers rght at the conflict I go through every time I vote. Do I vote for the ‘least worst’ or do I not vote at all? How much should a candidate agree with my views before I choose to vote for him/her? What are the MAJOR issues that they MUST be firm on before they get my vote?

I agree with your short-term comments about losing an election or two. I am praying that is what will happen with the turnover in the House - that the Amercians will see that nothing gets better with the Democrats in ‘power’ (funny how all of a sudden it’s like they won the presidency because they have a slight majority in the House…anyway, that’s another issue).

And, of course, there are always people who vote AGAINST whoever’s in office, just because they want a change (my grandmother is one - it doesn’t matter if it’s republican or democrat, she just votes for the opposing party). =)

Anyway, I don’t feel discouraged - at least at this point, whatever happens in the federal govnerment, at least, does not directly affect my life (daily). There may be some hard decisions to make in the future, and we’ll make them when we have to, by day-to-day, we have nothing to complain about, so I’ll just thank God for the prosperity and peace He has given to us.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released Federal Reserve marketing materials created for “Directo a México” [Direct to Mexico], a new government program designed to facilitate the transfer of funds from immigrant workers in the U.S. – regardless of their legal status – to their relatives in Mexico. Judicial Watch obtained the marketing materials, prepared for presentations to financial institutions in California in early November 2006, from the Retail Payments Office of the Federal Reserve in Atlanta, Georgia.

Marketed as “the best way to send money home,” offering “more pesos for every dollar,” the Federal Reserve’s remittance program charges U.S. financial institutions $0.67 per item to transfer money from the United States to Mexican banks, ensuring a “highly competitive rate.” The Federal Reserve also provides participating U.S. financial institutions with Spanish language promotional materials to “help get your message out.” The program was reportedly launched in response to a directive from President Bush following the 2001 U.S. – Mexico Partnership for Prosperity created by President Bush and then Mexican President Fox. It makes no distinction between “legal” and “illegal” aliens.

The “Directo a México” marketing materials, which are targeted to banks, credit unions and other financial institutions in the U.S., include information on payment channels and benefits to Mexican recipients. These marketing materials also detail the number of Mexican migrants in the United States, 9,328,405, with no distinction between those here illegally or not. A separate list identifies Mexican banks receiving “Directo a México” transfers by branches (8,578) and total bank accounts (41,313,157).

While the federal government is subsidizing and marketing “Directo a México,” Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has seized millions of dollars en route to Mexico via Western Union, the largest U.S. money-transfer company. These financial transactions are allegedly linked to a sophisticated drug smuggling and human trafficking racket. Arizona courts have issued warrants that allow state investigators to intercept wire transfers that exceed $500 from 23 states.

“The taxpayer-subsidized ‘Directo a México’ program seems designed to facilitate the transfer of wealth by illegal immigrants outside the United States. This program undermines our nation’s immigration laws and is a potential national security nightmare,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “In the least, the Federal Reserve must limit this program to legal aliens and U.S. citizens only.”

Visit http://www.judicialwatch.org to view the “Directo a México” marketing materials.

If you think I’m a fundamentalist, you should meet some of my friends! Funny, I always thought narrow-minded people were people who called other people names without making any substantial arguments.

In regards to evolution, and particularly the scientific fact of microevolution (funny how- I presume- liberals like yourself run like little girls when someone actually has a useful set of policy suggestions stemming from the human sociobiological implications of microevolution: see The Bell Curve), I certainly will teach it to my children, but from a rational scientific point of view that is open to other explanations for the observed phenomena, not a closed-minded faith-based atheist humanist approach.

Tom

To your last: doubtful, probably not, and (as I’m sure has been previously discussed) more than likely. I have great faith in the ability of humanity to be galactically stoopud.

The only reason I voted for Keaton-Strayhorn over Kinky is because of Mr. Friedman’s views on abortion and gay marriage. Perry’s party loyalty at all costs (and devotion to the Bush family’s vision of a world without borders) automatically disqualified him in my book. And not that I would have voted for him, but I didn’t even know the Dems were fronting anyone until about three weeks before the general election.

I would go on, but I don’t want to further blur your very small fundamentalist blurry picture with more mindless drivel.

BTW — there are still people who worship at the altar of evolution??? What great faith they have to deny the preponderance of facts revealed by truly empirical research. I have to grudgingly admire such dedication.

There are always alternatives to losing an election- in the extreme, there’s always nullification, and short of that, secession if things get too bad. But if we lie to ourselves about our own principles and elect liars and cheats, we will eventually come to resemble the very things we oppose, and from that transformation and degradation there can be no appeal, not even of blood.

I see this as the long-run process: will America wake up in time to win peacefully, and short of that wake up in time to win non-peacefully, or will we go quietly down the road of Brazil and Argentina, once first world countries but now multicultural caste systems held together by various unifying myths?

I should have left it blank.