AMERICA CANNOT AFFORD MORE
IMMIGRANTS
By
Frosty Wooldridge
January 30, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
January 30, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
Let’s
face it—the entire third world, which comprises much of Africa, Asia, Mexico,
Central America and South America would love to migrate to the United States of
America. Three to four billion human beings subsist on less than $2 daily.
Millions line up to immigrate legally each year. Millions more line up to
immigrate illegally. They move to America for a better life.
That’s
four billion wanna-be immigrants. As it is, America takes more immigrants than
all other countries combined. It cannot continue on its current path if it
expects to survive the 21st century with any sense of ecological, economical
and standard of living viability.
In a
five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and
Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates
the impact of overpopulation. Take five
minutes to see for yourself.
*
*
At
our current rate of legal immigration, our kids will have to deal with 75 million
immigrants within 24 years and 100 million more immigrants landing in this
country within the next 38 years. That’s a numerical fact. If Americans
continue to be apathetic, lethargic and just plain stupid, their kids will reap
horrendous consequences.
As
you can see below, our Congress continues dallying, delaying and obfuscating
any meaningful action. But it continues mass immigration without pause.
As
chairman of the Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Subcommittee of the
House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Hostettler held a hearing on July 18, 2006:
“Should we embrace the Senate’s grant of amnesty to millions of illegal aliens
and repeat the mistakes of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986?”
*
11 MILLION ILLEGALS? THEY’VE
BEEN USING THAT PHONY NUMBER FOR THE LAST TWO DECADES AS MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS
HOPPED OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND BREED LIKE BUNNIES FOR ANCHOR BABY WELFARE!
*
“Today
there are approximately 11 million illegal aliens in the United States, making
illegal immigration one of the most serious issues facing our nation,” said
Hostettler. “In May, the Senate passed legislation that would provide amnesty
for most of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S., in a way that is eerily
similar to the amnesty Congress granted in 1986.
“At
this hearing we have the opportunity to examine how the U.S. dealt with illegal
immigration 20 years ago, why that approach did not work, and the direction we
should take in light of our past failure. In 1986, there were approximately
3-million illegal aliens in the U.S. Congress responded by passing the Immigration
Reform and Control Act, or IRCA. There are several key features to IRCA. First,
it provided amnesty to 2.7-million illegal aliens in several different
categories.
“Aliens
who had been illegally present since 1982 were granted a general amnesty, while
agricultural workers who arrived more recently were granted amnesty under the
Special Agricultural Worker Program. The amnesty was accompanied by a plan
designed to stop employment of illegal aliens in the U.S. IRCA created an
employer sanctions scheme for employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens, and
required employers to check the identity and work eligibility documents of all
employees, to ensure lawful immigration status.
“At
the time, policy makers truly believed that it would be a one-time amnesty, and
the problem of illegal immigration would be solved. Congress rejected
recommendations made by the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy
in 1981, which stated, in part:
The Commission believes that
a legalization program is a necessary part of enforcement, but it does not
believe that the U.S. should begin the process of legalization until new
enforcement measures have been instituted to make it clear that the U.S. is determined
to curtail new flows of undocumented illegal aliens. Without more effective
enforcement than the U.S. has had in the past, legalization could serve as a
stimulus to further illegal entry. The Select Commission is opposed to any
program that could precipitate such movement.
“Then-Senator
Alan Simpson (R-WY), co-author of IRCA, affirmed his commitment to amnesty in
exchange by stating, “I firmly believe that a one-time only legalization
program is not only good public policy, it is good sense, and it is fully in
the best interests of this country.” Time showed us that IRCA has utterly and
completely failed, mainly due to the fact that Congress did not heed the
warning of the Select Commission regarding the need for real enforcement prior
to any discussion of such legislation.
“Illegal
immigration has not been controlled, but has increased significantly in the
past two decades. Employer sanctions have been enforced in a farcical manner.
Furthermore, the I-9 [Employment Eligibility Verification Form] system has
proved to be a failure, because an illegal alien can cheaply and easily obtain
counterfeit documents to show his or her employer. Employers, in a Catch 22
situation, cannot require additional proof that the documents presented are
legitimate for fear of running afoul of discrimination laws.
“In
May [2006], the Senate passed the Reid-Kennedy Amnesty, which is remarkably
similar to the 1986 amnesty. The Reid-Kennedy bill also provides several
categories of amnesty, including a general amnesty for anyone who can show that
he has been in the country for more than five years, and including an
agriculture amnesty. Again, proponents of the current proposals believe that
this amnesty will solve the problem once and for all. But Congress and the
administration have no credibility with the American people.
“Why
should Americans have any reason to believe that the supposed enhanced
enforcement provisions in Reid-Kennedy will be effectively enforced by the
administration any more than successive administrations have enforced IRCA? The
administration will probably implement amnesty for millions of illegal aliens
quite quickly. Enforcement will likely lag behind, if it occurs at all.
“We
will find ourselves in exactly the same place we found ourselves 20 years ago. Amnesty
sends out the message that the U.S. is not serious about enforcing our laws. It
is an affront to the millions of immigrants...who wait their turn and use the
legal immigration system. When the U.S. grants amnesty and forgives law
breaking, it encourages more illegal immigration in the future. The grant of
amnesty in 1986 did nothing to resolve the illegal immigration problem; it made
the problem worse, as increased numbers of illegal aliens pour across the
border waiting for their turn.
“With
an amnesty, a new wave of illegal aliens will come to wait for theirs. I
believe that Benjamin Franklin once said that “The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” We
cannot expect to solve the problem of illegal aliens by encouraging law
breaking through amnesty. It didn’t work in 1986, and it will certainly not
work in 2006.”
It
won’t work in 2012. Our U.S Congress continues to dither while millions flood
into our country. We face ominous consequences as to numbers, languages,
cultures and poverty. It is not possible to continue on our current immigration
path.
This
is why:
“Immigration
by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results
of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for
future generations: in a word “Mind boggling!” www.NumbersUSA.org
I
don’t know why Americans aren’t marching in the streets, screaming at every
mayor, governor, U.S. senator, House rep and media outlet. I am beyond
understanding why our citizens choose this accelerating death spiral of our
country. But because of our apathy, the immigrants keep pouring into this
country at over 100,000 per month (legally), they birth children at 900,000
annually and the illegals never stop their onslaught. Folks, we face incredible
consequences, but we continue our apathy that will lead to our demise. I have
been writing these warnings weekly for 20 years and still, no action by
Americans or our leaders. We must want to destroy our civilization and way of
life. We will get our wish if we continue on this path.
For
further information, you may visit www.TheSocialContract.com to read about the devastating effects of mass immigration.
Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he interviews top
national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at www.themicroeffect.com at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time
zone.
Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world,
cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles,
on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years.
His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS";
“STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”;
“MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND
THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER:
ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He
lives in Denver, Colorado.
PAT BUCHANAN’S NEW BOOK: “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America
Survive to 2025?”
*
THE BELOW ARTICLE COMES FROM MEX-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES, WHICH
IS NOW 10% OWNED BY THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, MEXICAN CARLOS SLIM.
THE TIMES IS NOW THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA PROPAGANDA FOR
OPEN BORDERS AND AMNESTY. YOU SIMPLY WILL NOT READ ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRUE COST
OF MEXICO’S INVASION, WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS, OR CRIME TIDAL WAVE IN THE
TIMES!
February 26, 2012
With
Book, Buchanan Set His Fate
As the
conservative polemicist Pat Buchanan prepared last fall for the release of his
book “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?,” some friends who
worked with him at MSNBC were worried. The book, they told him, would provoke
controversy and threaten his professional well-being.
Undeterred, Mr.
Buchanan began his book tour, but his friends were right. He stopped being
asked to appear on shows on MSNBC, the cable news channel where he had been
employed for nearly 10 years. On Feb. 16, the channel said in a brief
statement: “We’ve parted ways with Pat Buchanan. We wish him well.” (MSNBC IS TO LIBERALS WHAT FOX IS TO
CONSERVATIVES. IT IS THE LA RAZA NEWS! IT PUSHES LA RAZA NEWS AS MUCH AS
MEX-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES!)
Why was he pushed
out? To Mr. Buchanan, 73, a white Catholic, his departure was a disappointing
overreaction both to the book — which conveyed his long-held concerns about the
effects of demographic changes in the United States — and to complaints about
it by liberal advocacy groups.
In the
pessimistic book, he bemoaned that birthrate trends and “Third World” immigration were precipitating “the end of white America.”
At MSNBC, “there
was apprehension that my book would cause some kind of explosion and firestorm,
which it did not,” Mr. Buchanan said by telephone on Saturday. “To be honest,
I’ve never had a better reception for a book I’ve written.”
To executives at
MSNBC, however, the book’s statements were indefensible and, though they did
not say so publicly, incongruent with a channel that has branded itself as
progressive and forward-thinking and has a disproportionately high share of
African-American and Hispanic viewers.
Though Phil
Griffin, the president of MSNBC, denied that the channel’s political identity
was a consideration in the breakup, he said last week, “I want MSNBC to reflect
America in the 21st century, not the America of the 1940s.”
As cable news channels like MSNBC and Fox News Channel have grown
highly politicized, they have become arbiters of the bounds of acceptable
discourse — not always a comfortable role for those involved. A corporate
allergy to controversy sometimes exists, even though controversy is what
sometimes motivates channels to hire commentators and compels people to watch.
Timothy Stanley,
a British historian whose biography of Mr. Buchanan, “The Crusader,” was
released two weeks ago, said he thought the departure was a “marketing
decision” by MSNBC, a unit of Comcast. “They took an opportunity to get rid of
someone who was doing damage to their liberal brand.”
Mr. Buchanan has
always been an ardent conservative. That’s why he was hired by MSNBC in 2002,
after spending the previous 20 years as host of CNN’s “Crossfire” between
unsuccessful runs for president. At that time, MSNBC called itself “fiercely
independent” and had no clear political tilt.
Though accused by
some of hate and intolerance, Mr. Buchanan was, for a long time, the visible
conservative commentator on MSNBC. He was well liked by colleagues at the
channel, even by those with opposite views. “Nobody was more polite, gracious
and charming,” said David Shuster, who shared an office with him for several
years and is now a substitute anchor for Current TV, a liberal competitor of
MSNBC.
Mr. Buchanan was
paid well, too. By 2007, he was making more than $500,000 a year at MSNBC, the
most of any commentator, according to past and present MSNBC employees who
insisted on anonymity because contract details were confidential. The employees
said his salary was high in part because he was co-anchor of a show in 2002 and
2003.
And he was
writing conservative calls to arms all the while. In 2002, it was “The Death of the West: How Dying
Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization;” in
2006, it was “State of Emergency: The
Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.”
While the most
recent book is “much more comprehensive,” Mr. Buchanan said, “basically the
theme is the same one.”
But MSNBC is not
the same channel. In the last few years it has leaned to the left, particularly
in prime time, causing Mr. Buchanan to seem more and more like an outlier, even
on “Morning Joe,” the talk show co-hosted by Joe Scarborough, a former Republican member of Congress. Mr.
Buchanan occasionally came up against MSNBC’s boundaries. In early October he
referred to President Obama as “your boy, Barack Obama” in a debate with the
Rev. Al Sharpton, and some viewers took it as a racial slur, spurring him to
say on “Morning Joe” the next day that he was using boxing terminology.
Two weeks later,
“Suicide of a Superpower” was released and was picked apart by liberal groups
like Media Matters for America. Mr. Griffin, who had an advance copy, was
troubled by its overall lament of diversity and by specific insinuations,
including that American Jews had made a “collective decision” to decrease their
population through abortion and that the “diverse army of today” may not be
superior to the all-white Confederate Army of the Civil War.
In explaining
their points of view, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Griffin found themselves saying the
same thing, “Read the book.”
Mr. Stanley said
that “Buchanan is very clever and careful at not saying whether the end of
white America is a good or bad thing.”
The channel
halted Mr. Buchanan’s appearances. He started promoting his book on Fox News,
which has higher ratings than MSNBC, and other outlets. He rebuffed Mr.
Griffin’s proposal for an hourlong debate with Mr. Sharpton about the book. In
November, he fell ill and was hospitalized for 10 days, he said.
In January, as
Mr. Buchanan’s absence gained attention, Mr. Griffin was quoted as saying that
“the ideas he put forth aren’t really appropriate for national dialogue, much
less the dialogue on MSNBC.” They soon started discussing severance terms, Mr.
Buchanan said. MSNBC executives said they were relieved that his departure had
received relatively little attention when it was announced. Dismayed, however,
several of the channel’s hosts spoke up in support of him.
Mr. Scarborough
and his co-host, Mika Brzezinski, said in a statement that while they disagreed
“strongly” with the book, they believed “those differences should have been
debated in public,” on “Morning Joe.”
Chris Matthews, a
longtime friend, said on his show: “To Pat, the world can never be better than
the one he grew up in as a young boy — Blessed Sacrament Church and Grade
School, Gonzaga High School, Georgetown University. No country will ever be
better than the United States of America of the early 1950s.”
That was one of
Mr. Griffin’s points: that Mr. Buchanan was a product of a earlier era. Some
conservatives called his removal “censorship.” Others said it contributed to
the narrowing of the American mind — liberals at MSNBC, conservatives at Fox.
Mr. Buchanan seemed to agree; “the American people are divorcing one another,
they’re separating from one another,” he said. (He appeared on Fox on Feb. 17,
the day after his departure was made public, though he said over the weekend
that he had not been offered a job there.)
But Michael
Steele, the former Republican National Committee chairman, said he was asked to
be an MSNBC contributor last year specifically to create “greater ideological diversity.”
“I don’t believe
Pat’s departure is a signal that Phil is backing away from that,” Mr. Steele
said by e-mail. “Instead you’re beginning to see the emergence of ‘diverse’
conservative voices like Steve Schmidt, Robert Traynham, Meghan McCain and
Robert Costa appearing on various shows throughout the day and evening. No
doubt, Pat’s passion and fight will continue — it just may look and sound a bit
different.”
*
PAT BUCHANAN ON OBAMA’S
HISPANDERING FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES:
What is the response of
Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully
executed?
He is siding with the
law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a
Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is
commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to
fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
*
TOWNHALL.com
Whose
Country Is This?
Pat Buchanan
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
With
the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and
police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom
now reside there.
Arizona
acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to
protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration
laws.
"We
in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,"
said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created
an unacceptable situation."
We
have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.
What is the response of
Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully
executed?
He is siding with the
law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a
Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is
commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to
fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
He
has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on the Justice
Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's
civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona
who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in
their midst.
How's
that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership?
Obama
has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.
Undeniably,
making it a state as well as a federal crime to be in this country illegally,
and requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have a
"reasonable suspicion" is here illegally, is tough and burdensome.
But what choice did Arizona have?
The
state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling
and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in
services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain
is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.
Police
officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been
kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly
high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at
risk.
If
Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens
will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already
fleeing California.
A country that cannot control
its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.
What
we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into
ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot
control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.
The
tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right,
the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and Homeland Security.
Arizona
has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their
job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the
president of the United States.
Why
is Obama paralyzed? Why does he not enforce the law, even if he dislikes it, by
punishing the businessmen who hire illegals and by sending the 12 million to 20
million illegals back home? President Eisenhower did it. Why won't he?
*
OBAMA
THE HISPANDERING PRESIDENT SELLING OUT HIS OWN COUNTRY FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!
*
Because
he is politically correct. Because he owes a big debt to the Hispanic lobby
that helped deliver two-thirds of that vote in 2008. Though most citizens of
Hispanic descent in Arizona want the border protected and the laws enforced,
the Hispanic lobby demands that the law be changed.
Fair
enough. But the nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship"
-- i.e., amnesty -- that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned.
Al
Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new
Arizona law. Let him go.
JOBS?
NO LEGAL NEED APPLY HERE!
Let
us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million
jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children,
will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the
heaviest price.
Last
year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government
-- Bush and Obama both -- issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to
come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only
four other years in our history.
What
are we doing to our own people?
Whose
country is this, anyway?
America
today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws,
countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless,
under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and
punish businesses that knowingly hire them.
This
is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can
anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?
*
FAIRUS.org
The
Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy
According
to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or
otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the
department.
By
Ira Mehlman
Published on 12/07/2009
Townhall.com
Published on 12/07/2009
Townhall.com
The
setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a
“Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing.
Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration
and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a
mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United
States.
Arguing
the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she
described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the
administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to
serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and
workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”
Acknowledging
that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to
effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of
previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to
reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.
“For
starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where
it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight,
she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country
as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its
approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the
interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed
worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”
If
Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP
speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he
wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data
to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.
According
to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or
otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the
department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of
border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for
the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the
same 894 miles.
The
administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is
just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling
paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that
administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between
2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for
criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments,
and won 63 percent fewer convictions.
While
the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President
Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite
enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The
administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them
with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the
payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no
adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the
illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set
of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers
willing to accept substandard wages.
In
Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under
“effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of
immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard
to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything,
the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of
future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re
printed on.
As
Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy,
they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that
they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all
but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and
workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed
or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal
aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.
As
Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually
accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to
enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this
administration is “Mission Aborted.”
*
MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009
And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.
Monday, September 28, 2009
And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.
*
No comments:
Post a Comment