Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiOpen Letter to President-Elect Obama
Dear President-Elect Obama:
You have been receiving a great deal of advice since November 4, 2008
from people and groups who either want you to advance policies not
covered in your campaign or who want you to be more specific about
initiatives you emphasized.
There are two suggestions which may not be among your store of
recommendations that need to be considered before you take office on
January 20, 2009.
First, the public would benefit from a concise recounting of the state
of the union and where the Bush Administration has left our country. As
is your style, you can render such a bright line of serious problems
inside and outside the government in a matter-of-fact manner.
Otherwise, a blurring of who was responsible for what can taint your
presidency.
Second, you need to make a clean break from the Bush regime’s law of
rule to our declared commitment to the rule of law as in the firm
adherence to constitutional requirements and statutory and treaty
compliance. There is a Bush-Cheney stream of criminal and
unconstitutional actions which are on auto-pilot day after day. You
have pointed out some of these abominations such as a policy and
practice of torture and violations of due process and probable cause.
The task before you is to break these daily patterns just as soon as
you ascend to the Presidency or be held increasingly responsible for
them. This can be significantly accomplished by executive orders,
agency or departmental directives, whistle-blower protections,
enforcement actions and explicit legislative proposals.
With Americans wishing you well in this most portentous of times, the
last thing they want to see is you tarnished by the preceding rogue
regime and its ruthless monarchical forays. To avoid this contagion of
power over law and its contiguous accountabilities at a time when you
are striving for a “clean slate” administration, you must be decisive
and eschew any excessive harmony ideology which has seemed to be your
nature vis-à-vis those who are powerful but are opposed to your views.
One possible impediment to your making a comprehensive clean break for
restoring the rule of law is that you have too easy an act to follow.
There are a long list of violated civil liberties that need to be
restored (the American Civil Liberties Union has compiled a list of
immediate actions for you to take), and resolute commitments must be
made so that it is clear the United States, for example, will not
engage in, or countenance, torture. Only a few restorations, however,
would produce a sense of relief and flurry of accolades -- but they are
hardly sufficient.
There are also regulations and interpretations of statutes that
scholars believe to have been erroneous as a matter of law. As one
guide for your new era of overdue regulation or reregulation—given the
corporate wrongdoing these days—you may wish to refer to the Center for
Progressive Reform’s report By the Stroke of the Pen.
The Bush lawlessness and state terrorism are like a contagious disease.
If you do not remove their sprawling incidence, you will become their
carrier. This means you must move fast to eject the mantle of war
criminality and repeated unconstitutional outrages committed in the
name of the American people here and abroad.
Sincerely,
Ralph Nader
142 Comments so far
Show AllRalph Nader is a man of conscience, dedicated to the rule of law,
pointing to the necessity of standing against the criminality of
these past eight years. And, the world is in agreement with him.
Ralph Nader has also well described our election processes which
leave us with candidates who are part of this corrupted system.
US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi/2006 immediately announced that
"Democrats had been elected to end the war" -- yet in complete
reversal Pelosi has backed re-funding of the wars for two years.
Few feel it is too early to question the direction that Barak Obama
intends to take us when most of us are stunned by his appointments.
And, once again, we have bailed out corrupt capitalism while American
citizens once again suffer the consequences of this economic system
which is essentially organized crime.
Where the discussion of the most urgent of our problems - Global Warming?
Where the call of government at every level for Electric Cars?
A mandate to subsidize both manufacture and purchase?
Where a renewed pledge to peace in the world by reigning in the MIC?
Unfortunately, Ralph Nader is not our next president ---
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
I think that we are to busy supporting the Israel to handle change in our world.
We are two busy trying to fix the problems in the middle east.
Israel and the Palestinians are fighting because we supply Israel with weapons.
Terror will strike again because of AIPAC!!!
Why electric cars Mr. Bush is an oil man
In case you do not know, Google AIPAC!
www.democracy.org
Nader spoke at the demo on the Gaza invasion in Wash DC today 1/10/09. Was that covered in the US media? About as well as his presidential campaign. One had to watch international TV news on Free To Air television via satellite to learn about what is happening in our own contry
You all should take the time to visit www.democracynow.org. The real news! See what your Government is realy involed in! You want Gaza strip. You cant get any closer than this.
How does everyone feel about AIPAC? I feel that this agency is very influential in all aspects of our Government. I personaly will never suport the killing of the inocent!
Herman Schmidt
Some have already pointed out Ralph Nader's strengths and weaknesses. The strength is a pretty good platform, the weakness is Ralph Nader as a candidate. What is needed is for Nader to recruit good people around him, attracted to his campaign but competing for electoral office, including the presidency. What Ralph needs to do is let go, become the gray eminence of a vibrant part.
mtidwell
Ralph Nader, as usual, is right on target. His is the clearest, wisest advice of all. If President Obama acts on it, confidence in our revived democracy has a chance.
Every four years the circus comes to town, and a new set of clowns are marched out to greet us and sorry to say every four years the people pick a new clown who runs the same game on them. The people never learn, and that's what the clowns want..
Obama, I fear is another clown,snake oil salesman, and zionist stooge.America needs more Ralphs and less clowns.
*Big sigh*... So many Obamaniacs, so little time....When will y'all understand that he isn't going to prosecute, or even set the record straight on Bushco...He's already sold OUT! You are wasting ink, Mr. Nader, as much as I admire your trying to remind Obama of who he COULD be.
Jesus wasn't a Liberal, he was a revolutionary.
als
Jesus was a PROGRESSIVE. Obama is a "progressive" ... (Liberal is not a popular word at the moment) ... and they are going to take that word "progressive" and progressively TWIST it so we can no longer use it in any meaningful way ... Hillary's a "progressive" too ya know. LOL!
WE need a POPULIST. Nader and Kucinich and Sanders and others are POPULISTS.
"A rose by any other name ..." but there is no name that can ultimately disquise the stink of a skunk. We have yet to see if Obama is a skunk. We shall see very soon.
A revolutionary doesn't turn the other cheek.
Mr Nader does make a lot of excellent points on his articles and letters and while I am grateful for his info, I wish that Nader would actually help local and state level candidates for office for a change. Nothing is going to change in Washington until we raise the voter turnout on the local elections and state level too. It's local elections that affect us all the most in our lives more than the presidential elections and yet we keep neglecting local elections. And then we wonder why the corporate interests, AIPAC, NRA, etc ... keep laughing at us. Can somebody please tell me what is wrong with the idea of building it from local to national ?
I was also very upset and saddened when I met 1 young man and 2 young women in my state running for local seats as Independents and sharing Nader's ideas only for them to get no help from Nader on campaign advice or how to relate the issues effectively enough to the people. They called for his help and even wrote to Nader several times. Nader never responded and they languished. Nader can keep running for president until he is 200 for all I care but if he's not going to help people in local races and even those running for Congress who share his vision run and win, how can I or anyone take Nader seriously ?
.Nader runs as an independent. That is quite enough of a difficulty without you wanting him to expand into something even more difficult.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Helping local campaigns isn't Nader's niche but he could have at least directed them to a source of help. Lefties need to practice cooperation, one of their key principles. The best advice for those running for local offices is to embrace localism. The society has to be re-organized such that the political/economic power is shifted away from the elites and toward the people. So your friends can emphasize the benefits of the people shifting their individual exchange/association to the local level. Examples abound. Just pick the local small farmers, craftsmen and merchants as examples. Explain how they give the community its economic soul, while far-flung elite enterprises suck the soul out of every community. Get those small time locals into the meeting to explain their points of view. Some of them will be tied into the elite network but those connections are unnecessary. Localism has to be discussed and implemented. There are a few other elements too (1). But it all has to take place in the minds and hearts of the people. The chimp squads in Washington are, and should be FOLLOWERS, not leaders. The people MUST lead themselves. When they fail to, the society flounders as this one does today.
(1) Other elements of the progressive platform include the general enlightenment of the people, economies driven by the people, not by the elites, limits on power concentration to ten man-powers, full costs in retail prices, complete recycling in materials production/consumption (all materials including food/fuels), land/water/food rights.
snydly
GREAT POST AND IDEAS. If you haven't already, please take a look at Thomm Hartmann's books on the corporation and marketing techniques used against us.
If the all glorious Nader had not run in 2000, he would not have had to write this letter. What a hypocrite.
als
Please read (if you can) the following paper. Within has been gathered plenty of evidence to the contrary of your THEORY.
"The Global Dominance Group: 9/11 Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities in Context" By Peter Phillips, Bridget Thornton and Celeste Vogler; ucsaction@ucsusa.org
I could as "justifiably" accuse Obama of being the reason Nader did not win!
" ... and don't it make my brown eyes BLUE!" LOL
.Why on earth demonstrate such ignorance for all the world to see? If you have any sort of reading comprehension then read and remain silent until such time as you understand something!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
More bull. More DEMOCRATS voted for BUSH in Florida and across the nation than people who voted for Nader. The pot is calling the kettle black. Shame on you.
Correct --
300,000 Democrats in Florida voted for Bush --!
3,000+ "butterfly ballot" votes went to Pat Buchanan --
Thousands of votes went to Libertarians and Socialists --
600+ "illegal" military ballots were counted for Bush --
GOP fascist rally stopped the vote counting in Miami-Dade County MANDATED
by the Florida State Supreme Court. No police interference --
US Supreme Court put Bush in Oval Office --
Press recount concluded that Gore won overall no matter how you count
the votes -- including in Florida!
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
If Bush and Gore had not run in 2000, we would not have had the bad government of the last eight years.
Your implication is that had not Nader run, Mr. Gore would have been president, then all would have been just fine.
First, the US Supreme Court unconstitutionally stopped any recounts. The Ten Amendment should have controlled state sovereignty, therefore the recounts could have gone forward.
But, as you must know by now, the courts are only arms of the ruling elite.
Stop blaming Mr. Nader for something he had no control over.
Not bad, it took 40 posts and most of the day before a Nader basher nut job showed up. That's progress.
Sooner or later, the Dems will get it. But it will take many more sore spots in the behind.
Obama has surrounded himself with Clinton and Bush Cronies. If he does not
take a stand against Isarel the first day that he is sworn in, it will be
a shining example of what we are in for, more of the sell-out Clintonistas.
This weird framing of disappointment that Obama has appointed "sell-out Clintonistas" continues to obscure the truth: Obama's agenda and record have always been further Right than Bill Clinton's, and much further Right than Hillary Clinton's. "Sell-out Clintonista" appointments are better than George H.W. Bushinista appointments.
The real question is, why aren't Nader, Kucinich and other progressives being asked to serve in the Obama administration? Every time he appoints a right-wing, "business-friendly" Democrat, he claims it's so he can have the benefit of a wide range of viewpoints. Apparently Obama's concept of a wide-range goes from moderate Democrat to right-wing Democrat, and then further right to moderate Republican. Progressive view-points won't be entertained by Obama.
Nice try. Bringing up the 'Clintonistas' as sort of a 'bad administration' poster child, I mean, but BushCo and his drunken band of econo- and ecolo-rapists and criminals sold America much further down the river than the Clintons ever did. And... they did it on purpose. The Clinton's had an excellent staff. Barack Obama could choose from much, much worse.
Ralph would make an HISTORIC COMMERCE SECRETARY.
The Corporations must be de-humanized, and accountable.
In fact, this idea could go viral---Change.org
Secretary of this or that are positions appointed and dicated to by the prez and his staff. So, unless you believe O and his staff are anti-corp, Nader as secretary of anything is a waste of his ability and A POSITION HE IS MUCH TOO WISE TO ACCEPT.
Better if Nader is elected president and he shutters the oval orifice for four years to prove to the whole world that we do NOT need a chimp-in-chief, just like we do NOT need fossil fuel, bankers, doctors, lawyers, war, and all the rest of the elites' rackets. Neither do we need religion, countries or possessions (per Lennon).
snydly
Cardboard cutouts and Foxnoise?
Bravo Ralph Nader! I wish you were president. I think I'll print this and send it to Obama with my name added.
I've been saying for a long time, you don't have to do anything to be a spectacular success of a president today, just stop fucking things up every single day. It will be like how good you feel when you stop hitting yourself with a hammer.
Thank you, Mr. Nader. I am so glad I voted for you.
Hope. Change. Dream on.
Conservatives who ignore a genius like Ralph Nader gave us an an idiot President like Bush. Trust conservatives at your peril.
I don't. You don't have to worry about that. A good conservative is amoral. They create a system with a moral and spiritual vacuum with their I'll-get-mine-to-hell-with-you economics and career planning. Then, they cynically proclaim an atmosphere of spiritual poverty and propose to fill that void with the drivel of televangelists.
Anybody who points out their game is a godless liberal. People may be starting to notice this trick.
I don't. You don't have to worry about that. A good conservative is amoral. They create a system with a moral and spiritual vacuum with their I'll-get-mine-to-hell-with-you economics and career planning. Then, they cynically proclaim an atmosphere of spiritual poverty and propose to fill that void with the drivel of televangelists.
Anybody who points out their game is a godless liberal. People may be starting to notice this trick.
Nietzsche,
I don't think you're going to get anywhere saying things like that. Try looking at the work of George Lakoff and the (now defunct but still webbed) Rockridge Institute on framing. Read 'Don't Think of an Elephant'.
Conservatives are people who have a different view of the nature of the universe and humanity and whose view of morality comes out of that. Whether we agree with it or not, the people we have to convince--and get along with, in the end--are conservatives, and they ain't gonna be listening if we start right out calling them amoral. Most conservatives consider themselves extremely moral, and think liberals are amoral. It's not an argument you can win unless you engage them directly, on a much deeper level than this.
"Whether we agree with it or not, the people we have to convince--and get along with, in the end--are conservatives,"
That has already been done for the last 28 years and look what happened. You may have been benefitting economically because you were rich but not everyone is so lucky to grow a garden and own a mansion.
"they ain't gonna be listening if we start right out calling them amoral."
They never listen regardless. You're suggesting that we liberals simply fold our tents and let them give the middle finger. Yeah, that's worked for the last 28 years, hasn't it ?
"Most conservatives consider themselves extremely moral, and think liberals are amoral."
And that's why they are the amoral traitors. You may be one rich fat cat while the rest of us have to put up with rough hell but that doesn't mean the rightwing conservative crap that is serving you so well will work for us.
"It's not an argument you can win unless you engage them directly, on a much deeper level than this."
George Lakoff never said that engaging with people on a deeper level meant conceding to them. If you want to pander to them on everything, go right ahead and be an opportunist but that doesn't help the rest of us. I'll take it that you're one of the few that's better off now than you were 8 years ago, no?
NNathan,
The conservatives of the last 8 years and beyond, (maybe 28) are called neoconservatives specifically to signify that they differ from traditional conservatives—Edmund Burke et al—who believe in personal and governmental responsibility, etc. The recently deceased William F. Buckley would not have done the things the neoconservatives have done, I think. Nor would my father have, although he and I had some, shall we say, spirited disagreements… We also loved to go camping and birding together, no guns involved. Read George Lakoff.
I’m not sure who you mean when you say “they”. Do you know these theys by name? Have you tried listening and talking to them? All of them? Don’t be so quick to judge all of them if you haven’t.
Robert Moore and Douglass Gillette wrote a nice series of books on male archetypes; the first was called King, Warrior, Magician and Lover. They talk about a Jungian model, where because of whatever (too much to explain here) we split off shadow parts—the traits, thoughts, feelings etc. we refuse to admit are us. Anytime you do that, you end up with the archetype, a deep, universal-cultural pattern for a certain aspect of us, also split into 2. The King, for example, a principle of order and just and wise organization, gets split into the tyrant and the weakling—both bad, both revealed in each person by unconscious thoughts, feelings and actions, by the contradiction between conscious and un, etc.
So many times Bush would slip up and say something that revealed this—either reveal the truth hiding behind their lies, or consciously use the lie they knew we wanted to hear to hide what they actually believed and were doing. Clear Skies. Healthy Forests. No Child Left Behind. Mission Accomplished. The same happens outside people, in social systems, except the conscious part goes to one person or group, and the shadow to another. Students hold a large part of our society’s disowned conscience, racial minorities end up with our worry, rage, resentment, etc. Bush and bin Laden create each other through their actions, and each holds the mirror up to the other. They’re part of each other, and so are we and conservatives, splitting strength and weakness (tyrant and weakling) and caring and connection on one side with (most of the) rage and its concomitant ability to act strongly on the other. How else do you explain the inabilities of the Democrats for the last decade(s)? (You don’t actually need to answer that—the political reasons you will give are only the mechanisms through which deeper psychological forces manifest themselves.)
ezeflyer,
you keep picking out the worst examples and acting as if they’re the average. Where is that going to get us? Write off half of humanity as inhuman, unsalvageable and unconvincible and you doom us to perpetual war, where both sides will finally stoop to the kind of dishonesty, theft, secrecy, and abuse of power we have seen from Nixon, Reagan and Bush the Lesser. We will have conservative rule with liberals in death camps followed by liberal rule with conservatives in death camps. yin and yang. Yes, I agree we need to prosecute and imprison anyone involved in the crimes of the last 8 years, to prevent them and others from repeating and building on their actions, the way they built on Nixon’s actions and ‘corrected’ his ‘mistakes’, for example by making all his illegal acts over the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg legal in the PATRIOT ACT. But we also need to forgive them, and make their incarcerations as comfortable as possible (along with everybody else’s incarceration). We need a truth and reconciliation process.
eze, NN, from your latest I begin to get the idea you are using ‘conservative’ like many people used ‘anarchist’, later ‘communist’, now ‘terrorist’—as a projected repository of all the feelings and unconscious actions you can’t believe or tolerate in yourself. If we continue to do that, we will each beat our heads against the others’ wall and never solve anything. And we now have a deadline: climate catastrophe is likely not too far away unless we can start agreeing on action and take it.
Of course there are degrees and complications and multidimensional aspects. Why don’t we just not use the labels, or at least know when we do that they mean little and have even less to do with reality?
You mistake my wanting to be effective for surrender or opposition—why are you assuming you know me? Why are you assuming I’m conservative? No one here is rich, pandering or conceding anything. I’ve simply seen the last 50 years of oppositional struggle fail. Even when we seemed to be winning everything, in the heady days of civil rights, equal rights, environmental progress… and although I didn’t see it then, there were shadows in the victories that meant we would always end up here, in these dark days, teetering on the edge of fascism. I don’t know if ‘m better off than I was 8 years ago but one thing I am is smarter than I was. And I see in your arguments more shadow, more fascism—liberal or otherwise it doesn’t matter. They have terrified me for 7 years. You make me sad.
Blur the definitions, muddy the waters and deflect blame. That's your conservative side speaking. Nazis, Fascists, serial killers, neocons, oligarchs, CEO's, klansmen, skinheads, rednecks, most golfers, most trophy hunters, most businesspeople and the nice little old conservative lady next door all contribute to putting the more authoritarian conservatives in charge.
"We will have conservative rule with liberals in death camps followed by liberal rule with conservatives in death camps. yin and yang."
No we won't because libs don't do that. The opposite of liberal is not the nicer sounding word conservative, but "authoritarian". Only authoritarians have ever had death camps.
You want to forgive and that's either your liberal humanist side speaking or you're a conservative trying to get off the hook.
"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested"
Tom Wolfe
eze,
Maybe you are younger than I am, maybe just more certain of your rightness or less exposed to different others… but recognizing complexity and nuance is not muddying the waters or blurring definitions; it is in fact an attempt to be very precise about definitions. Yes, there seems to be a paradox here, only by saying we all have liberal (nurturing family/human nature and the universe are essentially good or potentially good) and conservative (strict father/human nature is essentially evil) parts in us, one inside the other inside the other and so on, can I explain to myself what’s goin on.
I say young or unobservant because you seem not to have witnessed the contradictions within all aspects of the moderate and radical left movement when it was ascendant. Black Panthers, Yippies, hippies, feminists, etc. Liberals certainly do do that. FDR, Truman, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Lenin, Stalin, all professed and/or categorized liberals, all did what you are calling “conservative” things.
We all do it. Are you just going to relabel everyone who does something you don’t like? Then the left wing will be a very lonely place for you. Pacifica Radio/KPFA's Jennifer Stone calls this "hardening of the categories". It certainly is a heart problem. We'll be a lot more effective if we can get over it.
ezeflyer:all the old ladies I know are getting more radical as they are aging.
"A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested"
Tom Wolfe"
Ah-Ha....I keerp telling people there are more liberals that they think!
Liberals are people who go to the left only as far as the right will let them.
Conservatives are people who view nature as something to exploit, dominate and despoil. They are the masters of the universe, holier than thou and act more like beasts than humans.
Every serial killer is conservative as is every oligarch. So are many of our loving parents, seduced by the conservative media and the conservative authoritarianism of the military. Maybe someday they will realize that Jesus was a liberal.
ezeflyer,
We are all both liberal and conservative in different ways, so characterizing various groups of people as one or the other is a vast oversimplification of a wholly wrong assumption. Some conservatives act badly, it is true. Some even act horribly, as we have seen the last 8 and 40 years. So do some political liberals. If you were around in the 60s and 70s you may have been aware of the horrible racism, sexism and other-isms that abounded in various liberal movements—including the civil rights and women’s movements.
Not all oligarchs are conservatives, and although I don’t know the politics of many serial killers, Charles Manson was hoping for an arguably liberal “helter skelter”, and then there’s the biggest serial killer in history—-Stalin. I think you’d call communism a liberal doctrine, yes?
I have known many conservatives who loved nature; I have known many who were far too complex to pigeonhole this way, and the same for liberals. You do us all a disservice—and a strategically dumb one at that—-to label and dismiss and dehumanize people like that. Maybe someday you will remember that the Jesus of the scriptures hung out with (conservative) tax collectors and other sinners of all kinds, and forgave them everything.
I agree that we are all both conservative in some things and liberal in others. However, some of us are more of one of the two.
Stalin and Manson are liberals though they act(ed) like Hitler and Bush? Communism is a liberal doctrine run by Pol Pot, Caescescu and Stalin? Many have swallowed the conservative kool aid that says all communists are liberals although they act exactly like conservative capitalists.
Conservatives, authoritarians all, infiltrated and destroyed the liberal peace movement in the 60's and gave rise to Nixon, Reagan, hard drugs and flower child abuse.
I too know conservatives who love nature. Some love to go out and shoot anything that moves and log every forest they can to turn it into the ruin they ran away to the forest from. Others idea of nature is too often a manicured pesticide and herbicide laden golf course with a bermuda grass monoculture.
From my catechism, Jesus kicked out the money changers from the temple. The only conservative act I've ever read he did. I don't think he hung out with conservative money changers, but conservatives hung him from the cross anyway.
As far as the Bushites are concerned, it's not a matter of forgiving everything, but a matter of bringing them to justice so their crimes will not be repeated.
I love and loved my conservative parents and friends but I would do a disservice to future generations if I thought that by hiding conservative's crimes we could prevent them.
First of all, those people who you call "conservatives" are nowhere close to conservative.
"I have known many conservatives who loved nature."
Certainly not the conservatives of the last 28 years.
"...you must be decisive and eschew any excessive harmony ideology which has seemed to be your nature vis-à-vis those who are powerful but are opposed to your views..."
Is not the hallmark of leadership the ability to motivate people to move in concert? Is Nader here calling Obama's promise of change & recent success a character defect? Or some sort of impediment to dealing with the opposition to Obama's agenda, appointments, causes or concerns? I'm sorry, I guess I expected more from such an ordinarily thoughtful man, a otherwise passionate speaker & advocate whose passions got the better of his judgment in the rather despicable episode of RN calling his letter's addressee "an Uncle Tom" on FOXNews. The only difference I could tell between RN & Jimmy the Greek was that JG never got a second chance & while given a 3rd try, Nader still couldn't find the correct tone or temperament to rally the many diverse groups Obama was able to bring together & play "spoiler" in not just one election, but really two once you count the Dem primary. You stay classy, Ralph!
I think you missed the reference, which is to O'B's unwillingness to challenge power, instead taking recourse in "excessive harmony ideology". He has rightly pointed out that this is a kind of character defect which doesn't bode well for "change".
As for the Uncle Tom episode, I hadn't heard it, though assuming it's as you say, it is indeed unpleasant. I've noticed a lot of the same here on CD. While I think the basic sentiments may be right, at least in the case of RN (who is himself of Lebanese background, I believe), I haven't seen much in the way of "paleface" or "honkey" references when it came to Bush the Boys (and Girl). Seems that it's only when there's a non-white person around, that the racial signifiers come out.
Now why might that be? And who the hell are these white people, anyway? I've found some of the most corrosive racism I've experienced from people on the "left"...
"Is not the hallmark of leadership the ability to motivate people to move in concert?"
It is the hallmark of great American leaders to motivate people by freedom.
upon further thought, I would amend my above reply to:
It is the hallmark of great American leaders to motivate the people through their love of freedom.
"Their" being both leader and people.
Why do we need "dear leader" to "motivate people to move in concert"? The people are genetically programmed to move in concert. They share the same wants/needs and aspirations amd interests. The people overwhelmingly embrace progressive principles/policies. The people are intrinsically united to defend themselves against the elites' class war aggression. The people do not need the elites. Rather it is the elites who need the people.
Oh bull hockey. You are getting what you voted for (Obama, more of the same). Nader was right and as time goes on, that will be more evident. Dems have been duped again. They like the feeling as they have never known any other way. Feels good to bend over. Enjoy as Obama makes no changes in the enormous military-industrial-complex budget and stumbles us straight into depression and World War III. Obama will be presiding over what Capitalism always requires to get itself out of its cyclic massive funk: MORE EFFIN WAR! Way to go.
Thomas More,
So called illegal immigrants are humans too, and as far as I know, ACLU defends HUMAN rights, not just AMERICAN human rights. Got it?
"So called illegal immigrants are humans too, and as far as I know, ACLU defends HUMAN rights, not just AMERICAN human rights. Got it?"
The ACLU defends the "rights" of some humans, not others. They defend the "rights" of illegal aliens because they are the wage-slaves of illegal corporate employers. They do NOT defend the rights of working-class U.S. citizens who have lost their jobs, or whose wages and benefits have been slashed, because of the illegal wage-slave trade. Nor do they defend the rights of the spouses and children of these working-class U.S. citizens. These families have lost their middle-class life-styles, and become poor/both spouses working full-time/latch-key children families. The ACLU is blind to them. They don't matter to the ACLU, because . . . ? Well, because they represent higher labor costs to the illegal corporate employers.
So, in the end, being "human" doesn't really figure into whose rights the ACLU chooses to defend.
.There is, no question, something very, very wrong with your hateful position on this subject. I leave you to your own weirdness..
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Construction trades, meatpacking, building maintenance. Those are just a few examples of jobs that were once highly-coveted, single breadwinner jobs that have now become largely wage slave/no benefits jobs thanks to corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers. It used to be that a man could pay his home mortgage and support his wife and family in a middle-class lifestyle with a career job in a meatpacking plant. Today, it takes both Dad and Mom working in that plant full time. And they are no longer middle-class, they're poor.
Speaking of weird and hateful, how weird and hateful is it to ignore the plight of desperately poor U.S. citizens?
This is why I disagree with Thomas More on the nature of some people here who advocate for the corporate slave-trade. When I see the same "talking points" over and over again, it begins to look like an organized PR campaign. It's as if an email has gone out: if those who oppose the slave trade talk facts and figures, respond with name-calling and claim "racism." If they express sympathy for desperately poor U.S. citizens, respond by saying "there are jobs Americans won't do."
.Even paranoids have enemies.
The trend you note is almost a universal one and has much to do with the usurpation of our government by corporate monies, as well as the attacks on unions. It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the 12 million illegals estimated to be in this country. In fact a case can be made that this current furor over those folks is nothing more or less than a smokescreen to distract us from the real problems that beset our working class folks.
All working class people are allies, regardless of country of origin or current resident status. What you preach is divisive and plays directly into the hands of those who need us separate and quarrelsome. When speaking about organised propaganda efforts you should really consider whether you yourself have been the victim of such.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"The trend you note is almost a universal one and has much to do with the usurpation of our government by corporate monies, It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the 12 million illegals estimated to be in this country."
While you are absolutely correct about the trend and usurption by business, it obviously has something to do with wages, business uses them to depress real wages. Just as an example...before illegals were brought in to meat packing in Texas the wage was $19 per hour w/benefits, now its $9 per hour with reduced or no benefits.
And unions are colluding with business by accepting illegal aliens as members, actually advocating ther replacement of American workers in some cases by their attitudes and actions.
By the way, when there is a shortage of labor, wages go up.
The estimate is over 20 million...12 million is a talking point number. Quoted since the nineties which alone proves its false.
"All working class people are allies, regardless of country of origin or current resident status."
Absolutely true. if you are speaking of American citizens. If its the "citizen of the world argument" obviously false and most assuredly devisive.
You two guys should moderate your discussion. I don't know Naturally but I do somewhat know Ardee and he is defending what he thinks is right and proper, but he will look at every side at the same time he is defending his position. He gets a bit snippy with some things, especially comebacks, but his intent is good, his nature is precise (usually), but the most important quality he has (to me) is that he cares.
And I would point out that defending illegasl aliens doesn't mean someone approves of their exploitation by business or the abuses and misery it causes. It means they want these folks to enjoy the good life we do and don't consider costs sometimes. I'd ask someone before attributing a reason for what they do or say. I know...butt out. Couldn't help it.
.Thomas, thanks for the kind words. I do know that I tend to overdo criticisms when confronted with stupidity or outright lies. Naturally distorts the points I make, thinks a television show is an actual representation of sociological fact, and his attacks on "middle class"illegals ( how freakin absurd was that gem?) all raise the hackles on my neck....Red light alert in fact. There is something wrong with this guy guaranteed.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Of course ardee's claim that the transformation of good jobs into wage slave/no benefits jobs has "almost nothing whatsoever to do with the 12 [to 20] million illegals estimated to be in this country" is absurd on it's face. At best it's a ridiculous, uninformed opinion without any factual basis. At worst, it's corporate/ Wall Street/Chamber of Commerce rhetoric, generated and disseminated in the same way that the Tobacco Institute used to spew bought-and-paid-for "science" that there was no relationship between smoking and cancer or other diseases. There's big money in the corporate slave trade, just as there is big money in tobacco, and big money easily buys lots of pseudo-science "studies," propaganda and "opinions."
As to ardee's "citizen of the world" argument, the fact is there are nearly five billion people in the world who live in countries poorer than Mexico. By ardee's anti-regulation lights, all of those people should be welcome to come to the United States and take jobs here, and there would be no impact whatsoever on Americans' wages or standard of living, not to mention the federal budget.
While I can't know the motivations of ardee or anyone else in this forum, I do have a good understanding of rhetoric and I can tell you that ardee is very likely not participating in honest discussion here. There is no good-faith effort to engage on the issues and further mutual understanding. Instead, he ignores thorny facts and employs ad hominem attacks and mendacious claims designed to subvert understanding. Moreover, identical rhetorical constructions appearing time and again have the ear marks of "talking points," and that again indicates willing participation in disinformation rather than misinformed opinion or psychological denial.
Again, I admire your patient and well-mannered style, and am happy you are here and fighting the good fight.
"By ardee's anti-regulation lights, all of those people should be welcome to come to the United States and take jobs "
I don't see that. I believe he is arguing for the 20 million or so that are already here, not that it should continue. At least I have never seen him say otherwise.
He is however correct that these illegals are poor, poorly edicated, illiterate for the most part, many don't even speak Spanish that well. With their system of selecting teachers its not that surprising.
Some of the things I say would resemble talking points put forth by the immigrastion restrictionists. I don't discount "talking points just because they are "talking points" unless I know them to be false.
Thanks for the kind words.
.Not to belabor an argument already descended into chaos, one whose points have been lost, in part because of that nutjob, sadly.
I believe that the entire issue of the 12 ( not 20) million illegals has been raised to deflect the public's concerns from the real thievery and illegalities carried out by the Bush administration. I further believe that it has succeeded in splintering the people of this nation and has caused much more important issue to be hidden. It is far too easy to pander to peoples prejudices and hatreds sad to say.
If we have a problem with illegals here it is one of our own making. We remain silent when our corporations loot and pillage the economies of other nations and cause the citizens of those nations to be unable to feed their families. We villify refugees from American imperialism when we should be looking at the employers of those poor and desperate folks.
I will stand always against those who single out any race or body of people for discriminatory treatment ( and by the by, that is ALL the ACLU does) while avoiding thinking about the cause of the problem or the real villains here. We fail in our duty to this nation and this world because we fear a lessening of our bloated lifestyles, selfishnness rules apparently.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
.Your criticisms of me are ,in reality, a form of projection. You post very suspect, inflammatory and bigoted views of 12 million human beings and call that a progressive and accurate view of reality, sorry not so much.
The 12 million illegals actually come from many nations, the legal entry into this country takes upwards of seven years to complete and thus promotes such illegal entry. Your foam at the mouth accusations about corporate defending overlooks the simple fact that I have noted, time and again, that we have an illegal HIRING problem here int his nation, that I have attacked those who cheat illegals out of wages, keep them in deplorable conditions and are seldom punished for their numerous crimes.
I am happy to engage in rational discussion of real issues, and if you ever present any I will happily discuss them. Instead you post overblown and hyperbolic rants about nothing particularly real, and then make accusations when confronted with the silliness of your ideas and the suspect nature of your ideals.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I've presented the issues and my positions very clearly. You have ignored them and responded with ad hominem attacks and hate speech. Your posts have been abusive. You've been a bully. You are free to change your stripes if you can, but I doubt very much you will or truly want to.
American Civil Liberties Union. American....not human civil liberties.
Of course illegal aliens are humans too, who said they weren't. Calling them immigrants makes them not one whit less a criminal presence.
The first and only duty of the ACLU is to defend civil liberties, got it. Illegal aliens are criminals that deserve the protection of the ACLU, our courts and our system of justice while they are here.
Their job is not to assist illegal aliens to reside here. That is what they have been doing though. And the reason is thats where their funding is coming from...big business and its foundationss. I know you won't take my word for it, check out their funding source's.
The no human being is illegal thought up by Cardinal Mahoney is as bankrupt as the concept of globalization.
.OK Thomas, enough of the simple minded horseshit! You are far too intelligent to post this crap and expect to get away with it.
"So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." - ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin
The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.
These rights include:
* Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities. .
If the rights of society's most vulnerable members are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled. Support the ACLU today.
http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
".OK Thomas, enough of the simple minded horseshit! You are far too intelligent to post this crap and expect to get away with it."
Simple posts require simplec answers.
See above post at the end of my epic on the ACLU...Thery aren't devils, I didn't say they have not done good things and frankly still do, just that they have simply been bought on the question of illegal immigration.
Even the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't agree with their support of guest worker programs for God's sake.
The "cut the horseshit" was in response to that silliness regarding 'American' rather than 'Human'..thats really childish of you, and so very false as well. I do expect thought and intellect from you, not knee jerk stuff like that tidbit.
.The ACLU defends the law and the individuals right to justice under it. Your crackpot ally might see them as a part of some vaster conspiracy, allied with the forces of darkness, but I expect far better from you.
They ( ACLU) do not seek to win a popularity contest, they do not question the morals of or the profit centers involved ( naturally) only ensure that every single person, regardless of any factor gets a fair shot under the law.
http://aclupa.blogspot.com/2006/08/aclu-and-illegal-immigration.html
ACLU and Illegal Immigration
I thought I'd address some of the comments on the previous posting about the Hazleton a case.
One person asked about the ACLU's stance on illegal immigrants. The ACLU does not support illegal activity. That said, ALL people in this country--no matter what their status--have certain Constitutional and human rights. In fact, decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including "aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful."
It's worth noting that the Bill of Rights NEVER uses the word citizen--it uses the word "person." This wasn't an accident. (The word "citizen" is used in other parts of the Constitution.)
Of course, the federal government can find, arrest, and deport people who are here in violation of the federal immigration laws, provided they do so in a way that comports with the Constitution -- for example the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions on searches and seizures and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process -- and other federal laws. Similarly, the federal government can make, and has made, many lawful immigrants, as well as undocumented people, ineligible for certain welfare programs. However, there are legal and policy limits even in this area; we provide elementary education, emergency medical care, and other services to all persons regardless of status.
As for those who say people should learn English when they come to this country, they might want to do some research on a little island called Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917, and they just happen to speak Spanish.
(Thanks to Omar Jadwat at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and our staff attorney Mary Catherine Roper for help on this!)
Thomas, when one lies down with dogs one will probably get fleas.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
P.S. The ACLU and LaRaza and their types are not that important here. I mention them simply because of my surprise and contempt for their actions regarding illegal immigration. Though I can at least understand it more from a Latino organization.
.It really would be better if your opinions about both those groups was accurate...
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"I do expect thought and intellect from you, not knee jerk stuff like that tidbit."
Ok, Ok! It was flippant! But the comments were flippant. Mia Culpa.
A. You mistake (on purpose?) my rejection of the ACLU's culpability in this as in their defense of the right of due process to anyone within our borders. Not so. I reject their attempts to protect illegal immigration. Two separate things. Don't try and defend illegal immigration with the rights we grant everyone citizen or not. And you know the difference.
B .we provide elementary education, emergency medical care, and other services to all persons regardless of status.
Yes, we do. By choice in some...education, we are not bound by law to provide an education to illegal alien children, we do it because we are a good and decent people. Emergency services are by law. We provide all publications in Texas by choice, not by law as we have a heavy Latino population.
Illegal aliens by the way, access very few welfare programs except by the back door as in food stamps for the citizen children, using CHIPS to provide pre natal services to pregnant illegal women, etc. Its not a major cost in any case.
C. "As for those who say people should learn English when they come to this country, they might want to do some research on a little island called Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans have been US citizens since 1917, and they just happen to speak Spanish."
I don't recall mentioning that myself. But of course Puerto Ricans living on an island speak Spanish. Whats wrong with Spanish? I did a quick check by the way, most speak English to of course. Bad example.
As to English. My view is thats up to the immigrant. If they don't they condemn themselves to poverty and menial jobs in their lifetime. You can't participate in a country if you cannot speak their language. I believe thats self evident. But in any case its not my job to decide what any immigrant should do. Thats why they come here I think. So they can do as they please.
For children,I favor English immersion simply because I believe thats the fastest way to learn English as has been proven, if bi-lingual teaching was best I wouldn't care. The only important thing about learning English is we are not going to have a bi-lingual country, so if someone immigrates here I would advise them to learn Engklish, but it still is a free country.
D. Let me ditch the "we can't round up 20 million people" canard before it arises. No one suggests that but the proponents of illegal immigrastion. There is no need to do it. Never was. Never will be.
If we abide by our laws they will leave anyway. If we change our laws the legality problem is solved and the economic problem will have to be some way or the other.
Your arguments are unlike most of your posts. Based mostly on emotion not reasoning. Frankly I feel emotionally the same in many ways, but this is a question of law and economics. Not emotion. No fleas on this dog.
What do you catch running with the business elite?
P.S. The states and local governments have every right to find and arrest illegal aliens as the ACLU and others are finding out.
.The ACLU does not now, and never has defended illegal immigration. That canard I will assume you swallowed from some right wing propaganda rather than any researched finding. What it does defend is the right of every human, legal or not, to due process. I defy you to prove otherwise.
As you have lumped my views in with those of other posters I will respond only to the charge of emotionalism. Damn skippy I'm emotional when millions of hard working and desperate people are tarred with such a broad brush, and when an organisation so worthy of oour respect and support is falsely villified by one who I respect.
When that nutjob 'naturally' claims that doctors, dentists, attorneys and CPA's vacation from their jobs in Central and South America to come mow his lawn or fix his roof I show contempt, when one whose worth I value shows such a biased and false opinion of an organisation that protects every single human beings rights under the law, then I get a bit emotional. I ask you, Thomas, to do the legwork and find the fallacy of your opinion.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
My reasoning that they protect and advocate illegal immigration is based solely on their attacks on communities that are trying to defend themselves against unreasonable costs and dangers. Yes, dangers. These aren't all good hard working people. Aside from that, their presence here is a criminal act. Period. Every single lawyer of the ACLU is sworn to uphold our law.
As I said, the ACLU isn't important here and we are both welcome to our consideration of their motives. I will not under any circumstances assert I might not be wrong about them. Perhaps they are simply making mistakes.
LaRaza and others assert information that I know to be false. The idea that these folks are not taking jobs from Americans is a tale for children. Most of their arguments are like that as far as I can see. I have been very careful to research all this, talk to as many folks as I could, speak to the AFL-CIO about their policies on this, The Southern Poverty Law Center for their opinions...thats how I know they disagree with the ACLU and others about Guest Worker programs. Many Latino writers...pro and con.
But I will research the ACLU again and talk to them again to make sure I am not making a mistake. But thery are not infallible and they have made mistakes before. Their major funding source's lend credibility that they assist business in their quest to bring in cheap labor, but it is not a fact.
These millions you speak of....I am not tarring them with a broad brush except to say they have come here illegally, they are taking jobs we can ill afford to lose for our own disadvantaged workers and increasing the cost to citizens and local governments exponentially. They are a net deficit to our economy and our own workers, but a very net profit to business.
Last year anyone that opposed illegal immigration were the one's demonized. Some rightfully so. There is certainly some racism out there. But the vast majority oppose it because it is not lawful, its not right nor is it fair to anyone. I may be wrong about the ACLU. But I am not wrong about illegal immigration.
Consider....all the arguments you hear are based on whats best for the illegal alien. Not what is best for our country. Not what is best for our own citizens. Not what is best for our own children. Not what is best for our own future.
You mentioned the length of time it takes to immigrate lawfully. 7 years or so I believe is what you said. I'd point out that there are so many people that want to come here and our government is so dysfunctional I'm not surprised. But no one has the "right" to come here. No one is entitled to the benefits of our country or our society except on our terms. No one is entitled to become a citizen of our country just because they managed to get here. And we do not "need" labor, thats obvious.
Let me also point out this discussion will not be just about illegal immigration, but about the abuses in legal guest worker plans (of which we have 11 already) These programs are bring in cheap labor too, at all levels. The H1B, 2 programs, etc. Thousands brought in to work in hotels and restaurant chains. Why would someone bring in people for that do you think?
I would also point out that business will hire an illegal or even a H worker before an American because even at the same wage the others are cheaper that the American worker because they don't have all those responsibilities as you do with a legal or an American.
Consider the impact of dropout rates, single mothers, etc on these populations and their next generations. Consider the environmental impact. Consider the impact of the erosion of our law.
I ask that you consider the question again. Also consider the cost and suffering to the illegals themselves. The folks that don't respect our law don't respect them and in many cases abuse them. This subject will be coming up soon enough.
My respects.
.Dammit Thomas, that you must descend into hyperbole to prove a dubious point really sucks. For the last time the ACLU does not attack communities or defend illegal immigration, I really wish you would stop the Rush Limbaugh impersonation.
The ACLU opposes inequality under the law and defends the rights of INDIVIDUALS. It only opposes "communities" when the courts in those places rules in a fashion that violates the law. That action is not attacks on communities but defense of law and justice.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The white Euros who occupied both North and South America were illegal immigrants.
Ursa
Ralph your absolutley right? But does Obama have the Kahuna's?
As far as the statement - free services to non citizens. Many of those non - citizens are paying Social Security that the goverment has knowingly collected and they will never see a dime.
OK, I'm confused as hell here.
Are you asking if Ralph is right or saying he is?
Does Obama have the Kahuna's what? Which Kahuna? Since Kahuna is Hawaiian for expert or wizard or priest or otherwise respected person, and the apostrophe denotes either 1) missing letters in a contraction (not the case here, but very useful in differentiating your, meaning possession, from you're, meaning 'you are', or 2) possession...I'm lost. So are you asking if Obama has the experts? or if he has the expert's?
Or did you mean cojones? Which would involve an entirely different part of the anatomy.
I hate to be like this, but a 5 sentence paragraph with 9 mistakes? Come on! We are trying to convince people who will use any excuse to dismiss us as fools and ignoramuses, and I don't see why we should load their guns and hand them to them. Try spell-check--and then look for all the things spell-check doesn't check.
WOW-I expected to read an assault on Obama but Ralph was thoughtful, the ideas dead on. Who here was saying yesterday Obama would dialogue with Hamas? Obama is a decent man. Maybe Ralph has hope, it sounded like it. I feel Ralph's calling beyond consumer advocate should have been as a philosopher, not politician. Who can enter the darkness without it entering them?
Right on Mr. Nader.
.Why on earth would you expect such from Nader? He has always been thoughtful, insightful and spot on in his assessments and platforms. Read his statements, speeches and position papers and quickly disabuse yourself of such notions. Philosophy is all well and good, but Nader is and always has been an activist.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. When you look long into the abyss the abyss also looks into you."
Frederich Nietsche
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
i believe Nader is correct. However, "the comprehensive clean break" wont be done. Unfortunately, it will be the path yielding a "sense of relief and a flurry of accolades." So Obama could look like a real hero, but the next administration will want to preserve power and property not dispense it overmuch. Cass Sunnstein, Obama's friend and mentor, gave this game away in an article assuring us all that Obama believed in free markets and would be unlikely to go after prosecutions of Bush people. When the rabble start rioting, Obama will call out the troops. Admiral Blair will be reading your mail and medical records...have your documents in order or else.
Repudiate the Bush 'First Strike' Doctrine...C+T= P...Cooperation plus Tolerance equals Peace...International LAW and Constitutional LAW are above Presidential Power.
Not gonna happen Ralph. Obama's make nice-nice method is the best way to do things IF we had 25 years and things we're not so good. He has 4, maybe 8, and seems intent on feeding the hand that bites him.
"...you must be decisive and eschew any excessive harmony ideology which has seemed to be your nature vis-à-vis those who are powerful but are opposed to your views."
Once again, Ralph Nader hits the right note.
Let his voice and others swell the chorus of the Union.
What can't be undone is what George has proven can be done by doing it: You can make all the laws you want, guarantee all the freedoms you want, grant all the rights you want, and the US citizen is still only four years away from having it not mean shit.
Any president who wants to can do anything he wants to and invoke national security or presidential privilege to render congress and the courts impotent.
It will probably take the next eight years just to restore the freedoms we enjoyed at home and the reputation we enjoyed as a nation prior to Ronald Wilson Reagan--- even if the best and the brightest work hard with the best of intentions.
Even should the best possible scenario play itself out, nobody can change the fact that it happened once, and can therefore happen again. This demonstration has not been lost on some ultra-right wing groups with a lot of money who just love power.
We'll temporarily overlook the fact that Obama will be attempting to govern from the center. Politically speaking, we're all just one big happy bi-partisan family, right? Wrong!
This bi-partisan bullshit will only last so long. Having republicans seated at the table of government is like sleeping with a snake in our bed. Republicans and republican ideology has been rejected by the voters, and it's time to dismiss the conservative ideology to the dustbin of history were it belongs.
To use a boxing metaphor: The republicans are on the ropes, so we can't let up. Now is the time to deliver the knock-out blow!
How about non-partisan for a change in governing? Just whats best for America. And if he doesn't govern from the center he won't last more than one term. Just as GWB wouldn't have except 9/11 saved him.
A brilliant letter by Nader with two of the finest suggestions that could be offered to the Presiden elect.
His only miss was to put forth the ACLU to provide a list. After selling out the American worker and the American citizen for the last few years they are off my Christmas list.
Kudo's to Ralph for his two suggestion's.
Agreed, Thomas Moore. ACLU has been fighting to allow the neo-slave trade for Walmart and other mega-corporations . . . otherwise known as corporate insourcing of low-wage replacement workers (illegal migrants). The neo-slave trade turns good jobs into slave wage/no benefits jobs, and subsidizes the illegal corporate employers' labor costs with taxpayer money in the form of food stamps, housing, medical care, etc.
Add to that the $60 billion a year the migrants send back to their home countries. Since wages paid have a "multiplier effect" (each dollar of wages paid has the impact of at least three and as many as seven dollars, because those dollars are spent and re-spent in the local community) that $60 billion has a negative impact of $180-$420 billion per year on the U.S. economy. (By contrast, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $200 billion per year.)