Why DC is hot on Amnesty? Thomas Jefferson said its "a natural tendeny of the Ruling Class to Usurp Power...

Senators Trent Lott and Lindsay Graham, along with Boxer and Clinton(see Senator Inhofe in an interview with John Ziegler on KFI) will most likely be supporters of the "Fairness Doctrine", an "legislative fix" to kill Talk Radio. Especially when these 2 GOP Senators lament over Talk Radio and frown on its effect which Lott describes as "is Running America and we need to deal with it" and Graham calls those of us that listen to it "The Loud People!" Why do all these National leaders yearn for AMNESTY? Lou Dobbs describes the 2 Political Parties of the United States as "opposite wings of the same bird" and Glen Beck describes Democrat and Republican Parties as headed towards the same destination only with the Democrats flying us to it in a "Jet and Republicans driving us there in a Bus!"

#1. It is New Voters as most Democrats know they will vote for them and Republicans think that Hispanics have the potential to vote for them as they tend to have more conservative values(anti-abortion and Christian).

#2.The Baby boomers had over 40 million abortions and now are approaching Retirement and Social Security Entitlements with out the necessary workers to support their Social Security benefits:

Social Security.gov

• "In 1950, there were 16 workers per one putting money into the system—which means that when somebody retired, there's 16 workers contributing to that person's retirement. Today there's 3.3 workers contributing for each beneficiary. And when youngsters retire, it's going to be 2.1—two workers per beneficiary. In other words, the burden of paying for retirees is increasing on workers."
  —President Bush, February 10, 2005

• The overall cost of Social Security is going to increase faster than the program's income because of the aging of the baby-boom generation, expected continuing low fertility, and increasing life expectancy. By 2031, there will be almost twice as many older Americans as there are now, with the number rising from 37 million now to 71 million. There are currently 3.3 workers for each Social Security beneficiary. By 2031, there will be 2.1 workers for each beneficiary. Beneficiaries are living longer, which means more years in which they will collect benefits. When the Social Security program was created in 1935, the life expectancy of a 65-year-old was 12½ years. Today, it is 17½ years.

#3. North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA an idea and policy authored by 41st President George H.W. Bush(10 year anniversary) implemented by President Clinton and secured by 43rd President George W. Bush(Who Promised to look "South" for the future of America in his Western Hemisphere speech in 2000!).

#4. Why go South? Europe will is fast becoming Islamicized and dying as you need 2.1 children per female to maintain population stability aka "replacement fertility rate." Read Mark Steyn's It's the Demography, Stupid

Physicians for life

• Europe should be starting to realize they face a serious depopulation problem--and it could have implications for the "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West:
  Europe is Losing 2 Million People per Year
• In Germany and Austria, the average number of children is 1.4 per woman. In western Europe, the figures for Spain, Portugal, and Greece are even lower. In eastern central Europe, the figures are lowest in the Baltic States, in Hungary, and in Slovenia. The average is higher in France, Ireland, and Scandinavia, on the one hand, and, on the other, in countries and regions with a large Muslim population. This is particularly true of Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Turkey, but not Bosnia.
  
  In nineteenth-century Europe, each woman still had 4.5 children. That was nevertheless only half what would have been biologically possible given life expectancy at the time. This is an indication of historical forms of birth control long before the introduction of the contraceptive pill in the late 1960s and the legalization of abortion in the mid-1970s.
  
• "At the same time, Muslims already living on the continent are having three times as many children as their white, European neighbors," the Pew report said
  
• "Given current birthrates, it is not impossible that in 25 years France will have a Muslim majority. The consequences are dynamic: Is it possible that secular France might become an Islamic state?" Ms. Amiel wrote.
  
  

#5. OIL! Israel and Iran will blow each other up and in the process render the Middle East a Chernobyl type mess. This will happen after Iran gets the "Muke"(Mullah's Nuke). After Canada(18) our next biggest supplier of "black gold" aka "Texas Tea" is Mexico, who provides us with 15% of our "Imported Oil"! We already get to refine a good percentage of their Oil needed for domestic consumption as their 6 refineries do not supply them with the quantity they need.

I continue to dig as a response to my cognitive dissonance over why our National Leaders including Republicans like President Bush and Senator John Kyl want Amnesty. In my quest to find an answer as to WHY most Washington DC Elites and Politicians are in favor of Amnesty in addition to 5 reasons listed above I have zeroed in on yet a 6th reason to consider when contemplating this "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma"!(Winston Churchill with regards to Russia).

#6. "USURPATION" "Immigration and Usurpation Elites,Power and the People's Will" is an interesting article linked to on Free Republic last year which delves into a potential issue stemming from Political Theory found in the writings of our Founding Fathers who grabbled with a potential problem they coined "Usurpation" and discussed in the Federalist Papers.

• "Usurpation"
  • Embedded with in our Constitution are mechanisms that will thwart the' "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …" With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.'

This article offers a fascinating exegesis on this determined drive for Amnesty from the Mexican and American perspectives. The author Fredo Arias King was an to Mexican President-Elect Candidate Vicente Fox from 1999-2000 who discussed immigration issues with 80 members representing both parties in the U.S. Congress and other U.S. public figures in overt 14 trips to attend political party conventions and other meetings between our two nations. Here are excerpts

• While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
• Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
• Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
• While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so—enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.
  

What could we call this "Social Engineering" or Electoral Architectonics or Planning Ahead. Maybe the leaders should clue us "Loud People" in to their thinking! What if their plan backfires? Seems strange but Demographic Trends are a force of Nature and looks like our leaders what to Capitalize on them in a way that will make them Feudal Lords or Duchys of our Time and Times to come. Talk Radio represents what our Founding Fathers described

"Vigilant and Manly which Actuates the people of America" is being assailed by the " 'Natural' tendency" described by Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson et. al. by of the political class to "USURP Power" and lord over the Electorate. As our Founding Fathers state our form of government is based on the "genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws" but its foundation is the American Independent Spirit. We are not Europeans who like Kings and Queens nor Feudal Lords! However our national leaders are gaming the system. They have taken allied themselves with the Mainstream Media and almost hijacked the entire "Fourth Estate" and now want Talk Radio and next will be the Blogophere! Read this Article America and get inside the machinations and guile of our scheming National Leaders. They want a Patron-Client scenario like exists in South America know Clientelismo or Clientelism....

defined by Brian Kermath of the University of Wisconsin

• Clientelism (also seen as clientalism or clientilism) refers to a form of social organization common in many developing regions characterized by "patron-client" relationships. In such places, relatively powerful and rich "patrons" promise to provide relatively powerless and poor "clients" with jobs, protection, infrastructure, and other benefits in exchange for votes and other forms of loyalty including labor. While this definition suggests a kind of "socioeconomic mutualism," these relationships are typically exploitative, often resulting in the perpetual indebtedness of the clients in what is described as a "debt-peonage" relationship. In some instances, patrons employ coercion, intimidation, sabotage, and even violence to maintain control, and some fail to deliver on their promises. Moreover, patrons are oftentimes unaccountable for their actions. Thus, clientelistic relationships are often corrupt and unfair, thereby obstructing the processes of implementing true sustainability.

Usurpation and Immigration Elites, Power and the People's Will learn about it at the Center for Immigration Studies as it is chalk full of insight into what has happened with the GOP. Along with Democrats they want to be like the old Dons of Alta and Baja California in Washington D.C. The Fairness Doctrine, Amnesty are catalysts that could bring this nightmare to fruition. Remember what our Founding Fathers wrote in the Federalists' Papers

• Constitution are mechanisms that will thwart the' "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America "

---

Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.