[Vision2020] Who Killed California?

Wed, 06 Aug 2003 10:29:31 -0700

Yeah, but what about the 36,000 Californians who invaded Idaho between 1995 
and 2000, with their weird California ways.....                              

                      Carl Westberg Jr.

>From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
>To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
>CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?
>Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Donovan,
>
>     You wrote:
>       "The fact is Mexicans that immigrate to the
>United States are doing far more for the country than
>most others. And certainly less damage to the economy
>than other legal immigrants."
>      You further state that the economy would collapse
>with severe ramifications  on both sides of the border
>if illegal immigration was stopped, that illegal
>immigrants rarely stay in the country, and that only
>emergency health care is provided to illegals.
>     Well, I not only have to disagree but to state
>that you are outright incorrect in those statements.
>
>   In 1994 with Proposition 187, California voters
>ATTEMPTED TO ban using tax money for non-emergency
>health care because they correctly saw it as both an
>attractant for more illegals and a severe strain on
>the tax-funded budget.  But proposition 187 was
>overturned in 1999 by a Federal judge, so California
>now provides  the following to both legal and illegal
>aliens: --Emergency Medicaid, --pre-natal care, --and
>nursing home care. (Can you imagine the cost of
>nursing home care? It's unbelievable.)
>
>And since emergency medicaid is given with no problem,
>the illegals simply go to and must be accepted by
>emergency rooms for any illness for themselves or
>anyone in their families. In other words, the
>definition of what emergency care is has been
>completely skewed.
>
>For the year 1994---and it has increased exponentially
>since then-- California's Medicaid expenditures for
>total noncitizens was $3.3 billion!!
>This was just one year!!
>And Eighty-two percent of emergency rooms in the state
>reported losing money. In Santa Cruz, hospitals are so
>crowded that they regularly close their doors to new
>emergency patients. When they're open, less urgent
>patients often have to wait up to ten hours on
>weekends.
>
>And the above is just in the area of healthcare. In
>education the effect of illegal immigration is just as
>traumatic. In California, half of all school age kids
>have at least one immigrant parent--and around ten
>percent are foreign born themselves.
>
>The California Dept. of Education estimates that in
>order to keep up with just the current population
>influx, that 16 new clasrooms would have to be built
>every day of every week---7 days a week for the next
>five years. And also the number of teachers would have
>to be doubled in the next ten years.
>
>Your statement that illegal immigrants almost always
>return to Mexico is clearly false. They currently have
>clear incentives to the contrary. In fact it is not
>uncommon for women who are in the advanced stages of
>pregnancy to come across and access a US emergency
>room for giving birth. Then, of course the new baby is
>an American citizen. This often gives rise to what is
>called PRUCOL immigration status. This status means
>that the whole family will qualify for any programs
>available to any citizen--AFDC, Supplemental Security
>Income, Unemployment and etc.
>
>You are correct that many illegals save money from
>employment and send these funds back to relatives in
>Mexico. This of course further reduces any positive
>impact their presence has on the US economy. They
>spend less money here so that it can be spent in
>Mexico.
>
>Here are some more facts I found:
>
>The Migration Policy Institute estimates that about
>2.3 million illegal residents live in California.
>(Jeffrey Passel, “New Estimates of the Undocumented
>Population in the United States, ” Migration
>Information Source“ May 22, 2002.
>http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=19)
>
>
>This is an increase of 300,000, or 15 percent, in the
>number of illegal residents since 1996 and an increase
>of 859,000, or 60 percent, since 1992. About 26
>percent of the country's illegal alien residents live
>in California, more than in any other state.(Beth
>Barrett, “Influx of Illegals Picks Up But L.A.
>Percentage Down, ” Daily News of Los Angeles, January
>24, 2002.)
>
>Illegal immigration cost California taxpayers $8
>billion in 1996.( The Net National Costs of
>Immigration: Fiscal Effects of Welfare Restorations to
>Legal immigrants, Donald Huddle, October 30, 1997.)
>
>California's border counties incurred $79 million in
>emergency care for illegal aliens, the highest cost in
>the country. San Diego County paid $50.3 million
>during 1999 for criminal justice services and medical
>care related to illegal aliens. Imperial County spent
>$5.4 million on illegal aliens in 1999, according to a
>study on behalf of the United States-Mexico Border
>Counties Coalition. It costs each person living
>legally in San Diego and Imperial counties about
>$18.56 per year to pay for the costs incurred by
>illegal immigration.(Jo Moreland, “Study: County Pays
>$50M Annually in Border Costs, ” North County Times,
>February 6, 2002.)
>
>
>Under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
>(SCAAP), the federal government has reimbursed
>California only $240 million of the more than $600
>million the state spends annually to lock up illegal
>immigrant felons. San Bernardino County alone spends
>more than $2.6 million to house illegal immigrants in
>its jails.(Claire Vitucci and Bettye Wells Miller,
>“California Highways Hit Hard, ” Press-Enterprise,
>February 5, 2002.)
>
>So, if Mexican citizens wish to work here and
>agricultural employers need them, fine. We should
>allow this through formal guest worker programs where
>set dates are enforced.
>
>The worker comes in on this date and he either leaves
>or is escorted back on another set date.  But we
>shouldn't continue the current scheme wherein the
>illegal "guest worker" brings his family that then
>relies on public services such as healthcare and
>education. Then the guest worker family increases and
>the American born children are now citizens. And then,
>as discussed above,the family will usually be allowed
>to stay because they have family members with citizen
>status.
>
>     Excuse me for mistaking your wish that Pat "go
>back to Europe" because he disagrees with current
>immigration and trade policies for the rough
>equivelant of the "love it or leave it" mentality.
>I've gotta admit I still don't see the difference
>though.
>
>   You are quite mistaken about who is treating who
>like sheep. The column is attempting to inform the
>electorate into STANDING UP to the government.  I
>hardly see how that's treating anyone like sheep,
>certainly not the illegal immigrants who are merely
>caught in the middle of this issue. If anyone is
>treating them like sheep it's the current system where
>their status is constantly unsure and they constantly
>receive mixed signals from both the US and Mexican
>governments.
>
>Next,I'm troubled by your wish that all non-Indians
>and non-Mexicans leave California. Such a statement
>brings to mind the openly racist Aryan Nations
>philosophy that certain areas should be reserved for
>only certain racial groups. I had thought I had read
>in other of your posts that you disagreed with racist
>philosophies. I think you do disagree with them, but
>are merely confused in thinking that racism isn't
>racism if it ispromoted against certain ethnicities by
>certain other ethnicities.
>
>Your views on trade are myopic in the extreme and
>quite frankly surprising in that they exactly mirror
>those of GW Bush---a president you have often and
>bitterly criticized. You apparently see no problem
>with a situation in which US workers are abandoned in
>favor of Corporate investment in economies such as
>China--a totalitarian country where not only is child
>labor and forced prison labor is used but where many
>of the major manufacturing and trading corporations
>are owned by the People's Liberation Army.
>
>Apparently, from reading your statement about stock
>ownership, you have adopted the fashionable corporate
>view that these sort of near-slavery labor standards
>are perfectly OK.
>
>But I have a difficult time squaring this present
>stance with your former statements that one of your
>primary interests is assisting the disadvantaged. Of
>course that is part of the strategy isn't it? Out of
>sight, out of mind. After all China is thousands of
>miles away. If we don't have to see the sweatshops,
>the political prisoners working for no wages, and the
>children forced to work long hours instead of
>attending school then we shouldn't worry about it.
>TL
>
>
>
>
>--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>---------------------------------
>
>Tim,
>
>I was not advocating the old "Love it or Leave it"
>philosophy. I was advocating the old "don't be a
>hypocrite" philosophy.
>
>
>I understand that Pat Buchanan was not directly
>blaming the Mexicans for the destroyed economy. I know
>Buchanan would never give Mexicans enough intelligence
>to do it themselves. He more or less treats them like
>the sheep that graze the fields to the roots
>destroying the grass permenintly and the rich white
>guys as the farmers that let them onto the field.
>Sorry, don't buy it.
>
>
>None-Indians and none-Mexicans are now nearly two out
>of three people in California. I find them the
>immigration hazard that destroyed California. If 2/3
>people got out of California it would be just fine and
>you can't disagree with that.
>
>
>The fact is Mexicans that immigrate to the United
>States are doing far more for the country than most
>others. And certainly less damage to the economy than
>other legal immigrants. Did you know that the United
>States imports highly trained Europeans that work for
>half the wages of their American counterparts. These
>are real jobs. The Mexican immigrations are not taking
>jobs that pay $100,000 a year for just $45,000. They
>are taking the jobs nobody will do for $5.25 an hour.
>If illegal immigrants stopped coming into the country
>then two things would happen. First, millions of
>Hispanics would be starving in Mexico. These
>immigrates live here for about 6 months and then go
>back to feed their families. Second, the food prices
>would more then double, making it cheaper to import
>food, which would be done, and farmers would go
>bankrupt. The only changes I would like to make is
>that the immigrants are given decent places to stay
>and healthy food and water.
>
>
>You are incorrect about the freebies. Illegal
>immigrates are given medical treatment only incases of
>emergency. To advocate otherwise would say that we
>should just let them die in the streets, I think that
>would be horrible. Food banks are given to everyone,
>and are usually donated by private citizens.
>
>
>You are correct that free trade does destroy
>businesses. But it also helps others. In fact, 1/3 of
>US business is done overseas. Even more important
>istariffs% of all new business is conducted with
>foreign countries. So image what type of impact
>creating tarrifs would make on US Businesses. If we
>raise our tarrifs, they raise theirs, and all profit
>is sucked out of the system and goes to the
>governments of the countries and not the businesses
>that earned the profit, which prevents growth and job
>prosperity. I would stick with taxing the companies on
>profits only.
>
>
>I would be pretty angry is I owned stock in a company
>that did $10 billion  in sales with China and the US
>Government slapped a tarriff on China and they did the
>same back and my business had to give 1/2 the profit
>to the Chinese government, wouldn't you be.
>
>
>No, Buchanan's idea doesn't work unless you have a
>monopoly on almost all products. Every time the US
>Government has put tarrifs on imports then inflation
>goes way up and it ends up hurting the world economy.
>
>
>Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Tim Lohrmann
>
> >To: Donovan Arnold
>
> >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?
>
> >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
>
> >
>
> >Donovan,
>
> > I was a little surprised to see you advocating
>
> >the old "America--Love It of Leave It" philosophy. Is
>
>
> >it a retro thing? That WAS big in the late '60s and
>
> >early '70s I understand.
>
> >
>
> > Oh well.
>
> >
>
> > I also disagree that Pat is attacking a weaker
>
> >group of people. The US Government as run by both
>Bush
>
> >and one Clinton administration can hardly be
>
> >considered weaker than him.
>
> >
>
> > And that's who he blames this mess on the
>
> >government. He's not blaming the illegal immigrants
>
> >themselves---just the governmental policies that
>
> >caused this mess. That's clear from the column.
>
> >
>
> > It's amazing when people who are breaking the law
>
> >by coming into this country suddenly have access to
>
> >free health care, education, food etc. etc.
>
> > Is this a reward for their crime?
>
> > Many illegal immigrants have visited informational
>
> >offices in their own countries that show them in
>
> >advance exactly which offices to go to in order to
>
> >take advantage of all the freebies. Who can blame
>them
>
> >for coming here and taking advantage of it? I'm sure
>
> >most of us would.
>
> > But can you imagine the effect on Medi-Cal, the
>
> >state education budget, law enforcement and etc.?
>
> > And what about the effect of the people of
>
> >California's faith in the democratic process when
>they
>
> >are not allowed to stop these goings on as much as
>
> >they try?
>
> >
>
> > You're absolutely correct that there are other
>
> >factors than the one mentioned in the column(9/11
>etc)
>
> >that have had an effect on consumer spending. But its
>
>
> >undeniable that Free Trade and unrestricted/illegal
>
> >immigration have had a huge negative effect on
>
> >California and many other states. The effect on wages
>
>
> >isn't confined to the agricultural sector at all.
>
> >
>
> > In CA and many other states a huge percentage of
>
> >construction labor is done by illegal immigrants.
>That
>
> >used to be a field where people could make a good
>
> >living in this country. They could start as laborers,
>
>
> >learn skills and work their way up, but that's denied
>
>
> >to American workers in many areas. This is but one
>
> >example of the suppression of wages by illegal
>
> >immigration. And of course one of the major negative
>
> >effects is, as mentioned above, on the social
>service,
>
> >education, law enforcement, and penal budgets.
>
> >
>
> > And if you don't believe that unfair and so-called
>
> >"Free Trade" hasn't had a devastating impact on the
>
> >areas mentioned in the article, you're simply
>ignoring
>
> >reality.
>
> > And here's a question for you. How much
>
> >immigration would be enough?
>
> > There are currently 1 million LEGAL immigrants
>
> >allowed into this country every year. To put that in
>
> >perspective, the 2002 Census estimate for the
>
> >population of Seattle was 570,000. So, in other words
>
>
> >LEGAL IMMIGRATION--each year, every year--equals very
>
>
> >TWICE the city of Seattle. EVERY YEAR! Been to
>Seattle
>
> >lately? Pretty crowded place, huh?
>
> >
>
> > Of course no one knows how many ILLEGAL immigrants
>
> >come in each year. I've seen estimates ranging from
>
> >2-5 million illegals per year. Some stay and some
>come
>
> >back and forth. In any event there are millions upon
>
> >millions of illegals here in the country right now.
>
> >
>
> > And anyone questioning immigration and illegal
>
> >immigration is xenophobic?
>
> > I don't think so. No, it's nothing like a phobia.
>
> > It's a simple realization that this country can't
>
> >keep going on supporting this huge influx of people
>
> >indefinitely. California is finding that out for all
>
> >to see.
>
> > TL
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >--- Donovan Arnold wrote:
>
> >
>
> >---------------------------------
>
> >
>
> >Tim,
>
> >
>
> >Oh, he is not my cup of tea alright.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Pat Hitler, I mean, Pat Buchanan, (why I mix the two
>
> >up I don't know) is only correct about three things.
>
> >He is right it not the fault of Gov. Davis, he is
>
> >right it is the fault of US Government, and the fault
>
>
> >of Immigration.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >But he has the wrong immigration of people mixed up.
>
> >It was not the influx of Mexicans that is the
>problem.
>
> >It is the fault of an influx of Europeans. Ya see
>
> >m'kay, Mexicans and Native American Indians had
>
> >California for about 10-16,000 years before the
>
> >immigrants of Europeans came over. The land and
>
> >economy was just fine for that amount of time. Then
>
> >other people came into California, and less than 150
>
> >years of occupation the soil, environment, and
>economy
>
> >has gone to sh*t. Now, I tend to think the Mexicans
>
> >and Indians have a better track record. I am willing
>
> >to bet that if the United States withdrew from
>
> >California for another 10,000-16,000 years it would
>
> >recover nicely and be ready for another 150 years of
>
> >European abuse and raping of the land.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Now I know that the Mexicans had the audacity to do
>
> >something like be born in California before Europeans
>
>
> >even knew it existed, but I don't think they are the
>
> >ones responsible for the failing of the United States
>
>
> >and California economy. Mexicans picking oranges in
>
> >some farmer's field making $2 an hour did not fly two
>
>
> >airplanes into the World Trade Center. They didn't
>
> >forge and fake the income earnings of Enron,
>Adelphia,
>
> >and a whole host of others. They didn't engage in
>
> >inside trading like Martha Steward. They didn't empty
>
>
> >the Colorado River and drain California of it's
>
> >electricity, they didn't write the budget or tax
>code.
>
> >They didn't even withdraw their millions from the
>
> >stock market or stop supporting the airline industry.
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >What Buchanan is doing is attempting to attack a
>
> >weaker group of people that have little or no
>
> >political ability to withstand such attacks. It is
>
> >easy to blame the little poor guy for the mistakes of
>
>
> >the rich, powerful, greedy, and corrupt.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Pat Buchanan is the biggest causation and beneficiary
>
>
> >of immigration and free trade. It was the
>
> >administration that he was a part of, Reagan's, that
>
> >allowed for the largest immigration of Hispanics in
>
> >the history of the United States. It was also he that
>
>
> >was able to get a replacement value in his heart
>(yes,
>
> >I know he does have actually have one) because of
>free
>
> >trade policies with Japan.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >If this man has such a problem with immigration, he
>
> >should move back to Europe, if he has a problem with
>
> >free trade, he should give back his heart, after all,
>
>
> >he hasn't even used it in a while anyway.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >Donovan J Arnold
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >From: Tim Lohrmann
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >To: vision2020@moscow.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Subject: [Vision2020] Who Killed California?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Visionaries,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Even if he's not your cup of tea politically, you
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >gotta admit that Pat tells it like it is about
>"Free"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >trade and Immigration.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > TL
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Who Killed California?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > By Patrick J. Buchanan
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > With Gov. Gray Davis facing recall, a budget $38
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > billion in deficit, and a bond rating dropped
>
> >three
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >notches by Standard & Poor's to near junk-bond
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > status, the lowest of all 50 states, the Golden
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > State is no more.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Certainly, Davis, who misled voters about the
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > gravity of his budget crisis in 2002, and won
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >re-election by demonizing his GOP rivals, deserves
>
> >his
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >20
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > percent approval rating. But Gray Davis did not
>
> >kill
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > California.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > The United States government did. For what
>killed
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > California as the golden land was massive and
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >unrestricted immigration from the Third World, an
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > unrepelled invasion from Mexico, and a failure
>to
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > protect the U.S. manufacturing base and the
>wages
>
> >of
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >America's workers.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > During and after World War II, California became
>a
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > bastion of our defense, aerospace, auto and TV
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >industries. Hundreds of thousands were hired to
>
> >become
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > the highest-paid manufacturing workers on earth,
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > giving California the world's highest standard
>of
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >living. The average California wage once stood at
>130
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > percent of the average U.S. wage.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > In the 1970s and 1980s, however, Japan, a free
>
> >rider
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > on America's defense, began to engage in
>predatory
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >trade, attacking and killing, one by one, U.S.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >industries and capturing U.S. markets with
>subsidized
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >exports.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > California suffered first. Our TV industry was
>
> >wiped
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > out. Our auto industry was reeling when Ronald
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Reagan stepped in to impose quotas on Japanese
>cars.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Reagan also intervened to save the semiconductor
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > industry, Big Steel and Harley-Davidson. Unlike
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >today's free-trade fanatics, Ronald Reagan put
>
> >America
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > first.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > But it was under Bush-Clinton-Bush that
>California
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > was irrevocably sacrificed to the gods of the
>
> >Global
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Economy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > During Bush I's term, millions of Mexicans began
>
>
> >to
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > flee north to seek jobs and take advantage of
>the
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >health care, welfare and free education American
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > citizens provided for their people. For
>one-third
>
> >of
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > the illegals, California became the destination
>of
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >choice.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > What the U.S. government should have done was
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > obvious, and was demanded by Americans: Enforce
>
> >our
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >immigration laws, halt the invasion, restrict
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > immigration from the Third World. But America's
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > politicians - out of fear of being brande
>
> >xenophobic
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >and to curry favor with Big Business, which
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > benefits from an endless supply of low-wage
>labor
>
> >-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >did almost nothing to protect America.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Californians tried to defend their state. As
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > illegals poured in by the hundreds of thousands
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >yearly, they passed Proposition 187, denying social
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > welfare benefits to illegal aliens who had
>broken
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > the law and broken into the United States.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > The open-borders coalition, repudiated and
>routed,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > ran to a federal judge, who annulled the voters'
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >victory. Davis then refused to appeal the
>overturning
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > of 187 to the Supreme Court. Hispanic voters
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > rewarded him in 2002, and California state and
>
> >local
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >budgets continued to hemorrhage.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > By the 1990s, an exodus of taxpayers had begun.
>
> >Fed
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > up with being fleeced to subsidize illegal
>aliens,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Californians began leaving for Nevada, Idaho,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Arizona and Colorado. Two million native-born
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Californians left the state in
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > the 1990s, as immigrants, legal and illegal,
>sent
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > poverty rates soaring in Los Angeles, Riverside,
>
>
> >San
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Bernardino and Orange counties.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > This, then, is what killed California:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > First, open borders. By failing to enforce our
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > immigration laws, America now hosts 31 million
>
> >legal
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >immigrants and their children and 10 million
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > illegals, most of them net tax consumers.
>
> >California
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > got the lion's share.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Second, global free trade and the trade deficits
>
>
> >it
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > produced, now running at an annual rate of $562
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >billion in May. This has killed millions of
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > manufacturing jobs, as thousands of companies
>
> >closed
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > factories here and shifted plants to Mexico,
>Asia
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >and China.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > The Third Worldization of California is now far
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > advanced. Yet those responsible, Bush
>Republicans
>
> >as
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >well as Clinton Democrats, still cannot
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > see what they have done to our country.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > But what is happening in California is not
>
> >confined
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > to California. It is happening across America.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Unless we elect a president who will enforce our
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > immigration laws and defend our borders, unless
>we
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > find a Congress that will jettison the
>free-trade
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >madness that is denuding America of her
>
> >manufacturing,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > what has happened to California will happen
>here.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > President Bush appears oblivious to it all - but
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > then, so did his father
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > before him.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >__________________________________
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
>
> >design software
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >_____________________________________________________
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > List services made available by First Step
>Internet,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.fsr.net
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
> >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >---------------------------------
>
> >MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months
>
> >FREE*
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >__________________________________
>
> >Do you Yahoo!?
>
> >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
>design software
>
> >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months
>FREE*
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail