Mexican president insults U.S., Congress cheers

When Winston Churchill, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, addressed a joint gathering of the United States Senate and House of Representatives less than three weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was a speech delivered at the right time, in the right place, to the right people.  It helped strengthen and define Allied resolve for the looming battles against Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. 

Yet, among the many speeches delivered over the decades by foreign heads of state to the Congress of the United States, Churchill’s December 26, 1941 address was the exception to the rule.  Most foreign leaders who are afforded this honor deliver largely forgettable lectures about how wonderful are the ties between their nations and ours; and often in support of receiving financial or military support from Washington.

Few foreign leaders, however, possess the audacity exhibited earlier this month by Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon when he spoke to the House and Senate in joint session.  In his speech, Calderon as much as blamed the tide of extreme violence sweeping Mexico in recent months on the United States.  Calderon specifically singled out our government’s failure to reinstate the Clinton-era gun ban, which expired in 2004, as a major reason why some 23,000 citizens of his country have died as a result of drug-fueled violence since he became president in 2006.

In criticizing what he clearly viewed as a legislative “failing” of the Congress to pass gun-control legislation, Calderon crossed a line normally not breached by visiting heads of state – at least publicly.  Foreign leaders generally are more sensitive to the protocol that you don’t openly meddle in another nation’s domestic political agenda. 

The administration of President Obama may have urged Calderon to step into this fray as its surrogate; having correctly concluded that openly pushing the gun-control agenda this cycle would likely hurt not help Democratic candidates for Congress. 

Calderon added insult to injury, when he offered as evidence of America’s complicity in Mexico’s rampant drug-cartel fueled violence, the fact that “more than 80 percent of [guns and assault weapons seized in Mexico] came from the United States.”  In reality, this “fact” is not a fact at all, but rather a figure demonstrably proved to be false.  The “80%” figure (often boosted to as much as 90%) surfaced early in 2009, and was initially cited without challenge by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), officials at ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), and media personalities.

These bloated figures — offered as “proof” that lack of sufficient gun control in the US was fueling drug-cartel violence in Mexico – subsequently were shown to be completely false.  The vast majority of  firearms fueling Mexico’s violence were never able to be “traced” in the first place; and of those that were, they were shown largely to have entered Mexico’s burgeoning black market not from the US but from China, Russian organized crime groups, Spain, Israel, guerrilla groups in Colombia, and elsewhere.  The Mexican military, itself rife with corruption, is another source of purloined armaments for the drug cartel; though, of course, Calderon failed to mention this.

Thus, we witnessed a foreign leader accept an invitation to address a joint meeting of the United States Congress, and then criticize that body for not passing particular domestic legislation based on false and discredited data.  One might have hoped that such audacity would have elicited if not a “boo,” at least a raised eyebrow from the congressional audience.  National pride might have drawn at least stony silence.  Instead, the Democratic majority – or at least most of them – actually stood and applauded the insults delivered by Calderon.  They might as well have stood and said, “thank you, Señor; may we have another, Señor.”  How do you say “spineless” in Spanish?

155 comments Add your comment

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
1:16 pm

Mike: “We’ll fix the contradiction in November of this year.”

I am afraid such contradiction will take a lot longer to work out. The democrats will lose some seats, that is a historical inevitability. Many democratic voters don’t have the time, money and SUVs to go around in teabagging parties. And yet, they vote.

Incidentally, I -and many Hispanics- would have no problem voting for GOP candidates, if the party did not HATE US, that is!

II can’t help but ponder that ONE vote from a Hispanic kid who has been denied education by the anti-immigrants in Texas can turn the tables around and the GOP will kiss those 34 Electoral College votes -plus the 55 from California- goodbye forever!

“If current demographic trends continue, Hispanic electorate could make Republican electoral college victories an impossibility as early as 2020″ – Washington Post article.

-Ramon
Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
So quit calling me commie, will ya’?
100% Supporter of the position on immigration being
lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
1:23 pm

Michael: “CREATE 12 TO 20 MILLION JOBS FOR AMERICANS BY SENDING 12 TO 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS BACK HOME! ”

The above is clearly a communist idea, that is based on a fixed pie. We in the USA believe in growth. There are a LOT of jobs being created to feed, cloth, build homes, entertain and transport 20 million people. Just think of the tortilla, tamales and taco manufacturers! Not to mention Univision and its advertisers.

Therefore, your request in kindly denied, Dear Son Michael. Any other absurd suggestions?
Signed: America The Beautiful (If you’ll pardon my lack of modesty)

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
1:26 pm

“Presidents don’t offer opinions when they speak publicly to address a foreign nation’s government, they are make policy statements”

Okay, he offered the opinion of Mexico. A policy is the codification of an opinion(s). Care to offer something more substantial?

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
1:29 pm

To the anti-immigrant (or is it anti-Hispanic, you folks keep on confusing me) I ask the following exercise. There are some 30% of neo-Nazi, white supremacist haters, racists, etc. in your side of the issue. That is well known.

– Look at your left
– Look at your right

If none of hem is a hater of human beings, guess who is?

Williebee

May 31st, 2010
1:46 pm

“That is well known”… right just like Cynthia Tucker can look at a crowd and tell excaclty what percent are racistsl…as long as the crowd is white. We don’t have a problem with immigrants or with hispanics…just with those who are here illegally. Your post is a good example…we want to enfrorce our own laws and you think that is somehow racist or neo-nazi…without a shred of evidence I might point out.
When you don’t have facts…call names.

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
2:26 pm

Ramon, you need to get your facts straight pal. Neither one of these two major political parties have enough hack voters to elect their candidates. It is the independents that determine the outcome of who gets elected in this country. The Democrats are going to lose at number of seats. The Tea Party members are in the mainstream of American politics at the moment. Blast them all you want, that will only hurt your cause.

Now about this Hispanic business Ramon, using ethnocentric group mentality is what gets you off to the wrong step with a good number of people in America. We have only one culture of prominence to give respect to in this country and it is the American culture. We don’t acknowledge our ancestries or place them in front of our national identity, we are simply Americans. Are you starting to get the idea Ramon?

If not I’ll go about this in a different way. If I went to Mexico and started pushing America down the throats of Mexicans demanding my culture and my language be give a status equal to or greater than the Hispanic culture and the Spanish language I would expect the Mexicans to tell me to take my stinking gringo butt back across the border and stay out of Mexico. And if I was there illegally they would charge me with a felony and give jail time before throwing out of Mexico with the message of DON”T COME BACK!

Still think people in this country HATE YOU or people of Spanish descent; or is it more that respect for sovereignty and national identity is demanded by any host people of any host nation from all immigrants and visitors?

If you want respect and acceptance from the American people you earn it by respecting our laws, our culture, our language and our customs, which is something that can only be done through the legal means of immigration. And, yes, assimilation as an American – not as Hispanic American – is expected.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, “Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

If you’re thinking is to turn tables around you are only begging for trouble. I know too many legal Mexicans and Guatemalans immigrants to let your monolithic statement go unchallenged, they will never vote solid Democrat by reason the majority of them oppose abortion, gay marriage and really don’t support illegal immigrations when cornered on the issue, as I done with you in the above arguments. They have a very clear sense between right and wrong, a phony social justice they see right through as corruption and you know what I’m saying is true they HATE corruption because it has oppressed them their entire lives south of the border.

If you are not with the Democrats you are probably not a socialist but considering your views then it would make you a Liberal-tarian corporatist.

So now tell me, Ramon, why you HATE America, Americans and the regulated capitalism that is mandated in the articles of the Constitution?

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
3:08 pm

Michael: “CREATE 12 TO 20 MILLION JOBS FOR AMERICANS BY SENDING 12 TO 20 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS BACK HOME! ”

The above is clearly a communist idea, that is based on a fixed pie. We in the USA believe in growth. There are a LOT of jobs being created to feed, cloth, build homes, entertain and transport 20 million people. Just think of the tortilla, tamales and taco manufacturers! Not to mention Univision and its advertisers
.

Ramon, it is called enforce the laws of this country, which is not a Communist idea in any regard. It is in fact, actually a Constitutional idea in every respect, though, your obvious resentment of that idea is clearly Un-American and unabashed Ameriphobia.

Why do you hate the laws of this country?

Marilyn T. Porter

May 31st, 2010
3:14 pm

Calderone, of course, is RIGHT because it is the export of America’s misguided War on [some] drugs that is the true cause of the horrendous violence, brutality and corruption we see with the cartels.

We spend $40 billion a year so militarized SWAT teams can break down people’s doors and kill grandmas, children and dogs. We are insane to pursue this corruption-causing policy any longer.

The Drug war has caused much more death and misery than the drugs themselves.

All drugs need regulation, not just the legal ones. But only legal drugs can be regulated.

This is why we need to legalize all drugs.

Yes, ALL OF ‘EM !!!

What neocons won't answer

May 31st, 2010
4:26 pm

Why is it neocons insist on calling undocumented workers illegal aliens then turn around and call the criminals who knowingly hire them great Americans?

J.B. STONER

May 31st, 2010
4:31 pm

I tried to tell you Atlantan’s YEARS AGO about problem people. You thought I was crazy then. What do you yhink of me NOW??

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
5:18 pm

Why is it neocons insist on calling undocumented workers illegal aliens

Why do liberals insist on calling illegal aliens anything and everything but illegal aliens? Is the word illegal or alien hard to understand, have they been removed from the English dictionary/ What part of illegal makes it not a violation of the law or doesn’t make it a crime?

then turn around and call the criminals who knowingly hire them great Americans?

Strange isn’t it, I’ve asked the same question of the liberals on both left sides of the left for years. Then again, I not a liberal, or a neocon… probably explains everything.

Just saying…

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
5:58 pm

Oh goodie Marilyn, if we regulate it then we can control it, right? Oh, but how do we control it? Ooo, Ooo, May I… I just got a helluva brain storm idea: We’ll tax all those legalized drugs!

It will be wonderful. It fact, it will be so good and produce so much money for BIG GUB’MENT… just think of all the good, good, good, socialists nanny state programs that will be funded. mmm, mmm, mmm.

Is that about the way things will work Marilyn?

Just a few more questions if you don’t mind Ms. Porter? What happens to all the drug addicts your BIG GUB’MENT will be complicit in creating?

What is your BIG GUB’MENT going to do to treat the drug addicts for the additions your BIG GUB’MENT help to create by getting people addicted to all those good drugs?

Uh… Ms. Porter, I think we’ve all read the book “Alcohol and Tobacco Tax”, we’ve seen the movie to know how this legalized drug addiction flick ends.

But, if your BIG GUB’MENT is made to use, oh say, about 95% of all the tax money it collects off of these newly legalized drugs to pay for addiction treatments and addiction related institutionalizations, drug addict family assistance, so on and so forth… Um, guess not, huh?

Like I said, we’ve all read the book and seen the movie, we know how it ends.

ozz,

May 31st, 2010
8:12 pm

It is amazing how some apparently educated people can be so ignorant or seemingly so as at least one writer to this post. It is apparent he is a racist and perhaps even an illegal himself.

Now about Calderon and the house and senate members, and the democrats in particular. Calderon ought not ever be allowed to return to this country. He can not control his country, his people, and had absolutely no right to come here and blast this country. As for the anti American democrats who gave this freakin donkey hole a standing ovation when slamming our country. Every last one of them ought to be expelled from their respective positions. Obama ought to be impeached and tried for treason and fraud, (if he continues refusing to provide records proving his right to hold the office of president) though not by the sorry congress as in the Clinton circus Further more all illegal’s ought to be removed from this country immediately, including the anchor babies and their illegal citizenship revoked. If their home countries where not such s**t boxes perhaps they’d stay there. But they come here for a better life and want to live as they did in their country. Rather than adapting to the ways that made the U.S. great. Calderon is only concerned about two things, and really could care less about his countries people (much like Obama), he (Calderon) is only concerned about the billions of U.S. dollars coming there, and he DON’T want his people coming home. Let’s put the Marines on the border armed with orders to shoot and kill any/all illegal’s, put the drones in the air for patrol 24-7. That would stop the illegal’s from all countries, it would stop the flow of drugs, and it would stop the crimes and killings committed by the illegal’s. Lets let the immigration be supervised by Joe Arpiao of Maricopa county in AZ, he has the balls to stop the crimes.

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
8:34 pm

I called Michael an intelligent poster, until he wrote this:

“Why do you hate the laws of this country?”

Hey, Michael: Have you stopped beating your wife?

You may want to revise the definition of “logical fallacy”

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
8:43 pm

“Calderon ought not ever be allowed to return to this country.”

Is that your opinion, or is it based on some law? Care to mention the part of the Constitution on which your legal argument is based?

“It is apparent he is a racist and perhaps even an illegal himself.”

Generic accusations demote cowardice. The name is Ramon. Let’s say -for the sake of argument- that I am an illegal alien, or perhaps I happen to be posting from my native Venezuela. What is your point?

Perhaps the ACJ should prevent me from posting? Perhaps your writings automatically have more value than mine?

The problem with you far conservs is all these little unwritten rules. “Ramon is naturalized citizen fresh off the boat, while my ancestors came in the Mayflower”. Ever heard of a little book called the Constitution of United States?

Such Mayflower lineage plus a $1 will get you a cup of coffee (not in Starbucks, though!)

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
8:47 pm

Let’s make sure we know the people behind the AZ immigration law.

State Senator Russell Pearce wrote the AZ immigration law on behalf of his
constituents:

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHi6_l1XzA”

“http://www.economicrefugee.net/?tag=neo-nazi”

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
8:54 pm

“Today, on Memorial Day, Americans are honoring those who gave their last full measure of devotion to our flag. And especially today, we don’t appreciate a badgerer like Mexico’s presidente badgering us about our laws. We don’t heed no stinking badgerers.”

Well, that is tough, there are many, many things in life that we don’t need but still get. Should I start giving examples? How many do you need?

Incidentally, since you are so concerned about our soldiers, you are sincerely invited to comment on:

(a) US-citizen soldiers who happen to be Hispanic.

and most specially:

(b) US soldier who are citizens of foreign countries (legally defined as “aliens”).

You claim to be such a patriot, and I bet my right arm that you had no idea such category (b) even existed.

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
8:58 pm

Ramon, I have never called you an intelligent poster for a very good reason. You totally choose to ignore the Constitution and laws of this country. That is not very smart of you. However, your last totally off the wall loony comment underscores that fact immensely.

If you didn’t hate the laws of this country, you would be defending them instead of trying at every turn to defy them in support of illegality.

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
9:04 pm

Roja: “If Calderon wants to do something to “punish” the US [...]”

The rest of the comment was removed for useless because Calderon does not want to punish anyone.

Roja may want to read about “logical fallacy”.

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
9:10 pm

Michael: “You totally choose to ignore the Constitution and laws of this country.”

I fully respect the laws of this country. My position is EXACTLY the same as that of The US Chamber of Commerce, all churches, and The White House.

If I am told: “Ramon, the Chamber changed position last night”, I will change position accordingly without even checking what the change was about. Got that part?

BTW: I saw all democratic congressmen and about half republican congressmen standing and applauding. You have chosen to ignore the latter, in several postings. Care to comment on the Republicans who have blasted the AZ law?

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
9:18 pm

[Michael wrote:] “However, your last totally off the wall loony comment underscores that fact immensely”.

You are clearly referring to my criticism of your statement “why do you hate this country (or its laws)”.

Among educated people that is known as a “logical fallacy” and the standard example is “have you stopped beating your wife”.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

I ask you this. Let’s say that I wrote: “Hey, Michael, why do you hate our country (or its laws)”

Am I allowed to ask such question?
(please answer “Yes” or “No”).

What would your answer be? (Hint: Is it impossible to answer that question logically. It a semantic trap).

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
9:23 pm

I fully respect the laws of this country.

Hooey!

My position is EXACTLY the same as that of The US Chamber of Commerce, all churches, and The White House.

And none of that is EXACTLY the law or EXACTLY the Constitution. As well not all churches support the violation of immigration law. You have alot to learn Ramon.

You have chosen to ignore the latter, in several postings. Care to comment on the Republicans who have blasted the AZ law?

I actually did comment on those Republicans you’re referring to, you are slow so it’s understandable why you chose to miss it, since your “logical fallacy” is founded on your lack of political knowledge. A good number of so-called Republicans are Libertarians who support the same illegality as you because they are corporate puppets.

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
9:31 pm

I ask you this. Let’s say that I wrote: “Hey, Michael, why do you hate our country (or its laws)”
I’ll choose to ignore the first part of your last comment which is just loony silliness.

Am I allowed to ask such question?
(please answer “Yes” or “No”).

Yep!

What would your answer be? (Hint: Is it impossible to answer that question logically. It a semantic trap).

Clue: No it is not impossible to answer that question logically. Answer: Point out which law or in part of the Constitution I defy or support a defiance?

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
10:30 pm

[Michael wrote:}
"you are slow"
"your loony silliness."
"your lack of political knowledge."

Ad hominem (times 3). Again, please check the logical fallacies and avoid them.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

ps: How the heck can you determine that I am slow in this medium??

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
10:47 pm

[Mike:] “Strange isn’t it, I’ve asked the same question of the liberals on both left sides of the left for years.”

You must have been asking to deaf, blind people or something. Maybe they thought the question was rhetorical?

In any event, here is your answer: According to the 1st Amendment I have the right to use any friggin’ terms I prefer. You say tomato, I say tomate (that is Spanish). As long as the terms are correct, you have no right to force me to use your vocabulary (and vice versa).

People on your side keep on saying that an “immigrant” cannot be illegal. I advise a little reading on the orthogonality of terms, or at least of high school English. In laymen lingo, if you have a “car” you cannot force it to being of the “blue” color. Cars are free to be red, yellow, green, etc.

Likewise, “immigrant” (the word, not the person) has the freedom to be of the legal kind and of the illegal kind. It can also be a tall immigrant or a short immigrant, etc.

– An illegal exit is still an exit.
– An illegal turn is still a turn.
– An illegal act is still an act.
– An illegal immigrant is still an immigrant.

Don’t allow hate to cloud your intellect, is my advice to most folks in this forum.

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
10:52 pm

“You have a lot to learn Ramon.”

Ad hominem, times 4.

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
11:06 pm

[Poster Teddy Roosevelt wrote:] “Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Ah, I wish all problems were this easy to solve.

Due respect Mr. Roosevelt, but you are dead and last time I checked, I am not.

Like I said, the solution to the conundrum is simple. Next time I (or any of the readers) find myself in a time machine, I will make sure not to dial the knob to the year 1912 or close by.

Solved!

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
11:14 pm

How the heck can you determine that I am slow in this medium??

Because it is so painfully obvious. That is way my comments you complain about being Ad hominem (times 3) are not attacks or distractions. They are simply pointing out the obvious fact of your limitations. Unless of course you are being coy, which is doubtful.

Notice you brought nothing of substance back on the law or Constitution to counter my answers to your so-called impossible questions?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization Do you recognize this, Ramon? It is from the commerce section of the Constitution(article 1 Section 8 Clause 4). Got any idea why immigration would fall under the regulation of commerce?
I mean we are suppose to be a nation of immigrants, I mean immigration is all about compassion, right?
Didn’t notice anything about establishing a bunch of rules for guest workers, did you? You know, get here any way you want or can, wink n’ nod, wink n’ nod? I mean that old thing “uniform rule” must have been a typo, it really doesn’t only one legal means to immigrate into this country solely for the purpose of becoming a U.S. Citizen, right?

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. How about this Ramon, do you recognize it?
Still think the AZ law has no Constitutional bases?
When the federal government fails to enforce the laws or the Constitution, when the federal government fails to protect any State against invasion does that relieve the State government from all responsibilities to protect its’ citizens from invasion?

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
11:19 pm

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
11:06 pm

What was that about Ad hominem (times 3)? And it really is that simple in 2010 and will be the same in 2020.

Michael H. Smtih

May 31st, 2010
11:24 pm

Ramon F Herrera

May 31st, 2010
10:47 pm

You should take your own advise on high school English. Even your illegal BS can use improvement.

Michael H. Smith

May 31st, 2010
11:43 pm

In addition Ramon…

– An illegal exit is still an exit.
– An illegal turn is still a turn.
– An illegal act is still an act.
– An illegal immigrant is still an immigrant.

You are dead wrong according to the law. Illegal still means illegal in every illegal case and illegal aliens are not immigrants, they are illegal aliens. Need a translation of illegal alien? And not all aliens are still the same, legal aliens are lawful foreigners, illegal aliens are unlawful foreigners.

Your hate for the law makes you blind.

Danny

June 1st, 2010
1:03 am

Calderon fights a lonely battle that nobody wants. If the Americans want drugs, let them have it. Of course the sensible ones will stay out of it. The violence is a result of combating the cartels. Before that, things were under control. Mexico has nothing to gain by this battle. Calderon is risking everything to fight and keep drugs off the streets of America. He could have gone on the take like all his predecessors. His efforts will never be appreciated.

GTurner

June 1st, 2010
1:55 am

Whiners,

Guns don’t kill people. Crazed DRUG RUNNERS kill people. This Mexican Tool is simply the latest mouthpiece for Obama. Honestly, I’ve gotten enough “Douchebag-in-chief” fatigue, I’m basically ignoring him until November. When he responds to his loss of rubber-stamp by issuing EO’s, we’ll have to expend the energy to impeach his ass.

And PLEASE stop talking about “Left” and “Right”. This is about “Maximum” vs “Minimum”. Bush was a fascist (Totalitarian Right-Wing Regime) and Obama is a Communist (Totalitarian Left-Wing Regime). They BOTH SUCK!!! The Government that can give you everything is strong enough to TAKE everything, too. I’ll have no part of either, thanks.

Ramon F Herrera

June 1st, 2010
8:30 am

Ah, I love the smell of racism in the morning.

I think we need to send another Sherman to Atlanta.

-Ramon The Yankee

Ramon F Herrera

June 1st, 2010
8:46 am

“illegal aliens are not immigrants”

The problem is that we are not in a court of law, Your Honor.

I took this argument to where it belongs, two forums of specialists in the English language Professionals who make a living with English (the one we speak in America). My position won by unanimity. Your position lost by about 40 to 0.

You claim to know more about the English language usage than the editors of the USA newspapers and other media. Boy, if that is not misguided arrogance, I don’t know what is…

Using the term “alien” adds a connotation of hate. The term “immigrant” is devoid of judgment.

In current English usage in the USA (where I live, not sure what year it is in Atlanta), Jovians and Klingons are aliens, Guatemalans and El Salvadorans are not. Check any non-supremacist newspaper or TV channel.

Some reading on basic linguistics is recommended, specially the part about prescriptionism versus descriptionism.

Perhaps Mr. Barr could ask his editor?

Ramon F. Herrera

June 1st, 2010
9:27 am

The readers deserve this explanation of terminology. There are 3 terms being used to describe the people in question.

(1) “Illegal Alien” – This is the term in the books of law. Preferred by the anti-immigrants.

(2) “Undocumented Worker” – Preferred, for obvious reasons, by the supporters of the newcomers.

(3) “Illegal Immigrants” – Being neutral, it is the term of choice, widely adopted by the media.

saywhat?

June 1st, 2010
10:35 am

Why are conservatives such wimps? They hide in fear and volunteer to give up all their constituional rights in the name of “national security” when their sheepherders tell them to. Now, they get their panties all in a wad because somebody criticizes the U.S.? MAN UP PEOPLE! Stop being such whiners! Learn to take criticism without falling apart.Did you get you widdle feewings hurt? Well BOO FRIGGIN HOOO! Call a waaaaaambulance for the cry babies.

Jillian

June 1st, 2010
10:48 am

The cartels make 60% of their money selling marijuana in the U.S. and in our wisdom we’ve decided that the best thing we could do is to prevent any sort of competition against the cartels so they can have the entire U.S. marijuana market to themselves. Wow! And taxpayers pay for this absurd prohibition?!!

Dave

June 1st, 2010
10:55 am

When I saw that I voted out my senator. But then I planned on doing that when they ram rodded that health care package down our throats. There is an old saying in the workforcce that fits well here. You can do anything you want on your last days of work. these politicians need to be replaced by fresh blood. It is clear that they are too corrupt to even listen to there pretend constituants. Their real constitutants are the special nterest groups. NOT the ones that voted them in to office. After what has been seen going on in Congress and the Senate, anyone that don’t see that is a fool and don’t need to vote.

Steve Reeves

June 1st, 2010
1:49 pm

Last week it was census takers, this week it’s Mexicans. Sounds like Mr. Barr is bored and he’s trying to get a TV gig in Crazytown like Glenn Beck or Lou Dobb. Oops, scratch that. Didn’t work out so well for Lou Dobbs, and Glenn Beck’s ratings have dropped 50% since the peak of his popularity (along with 30+ sponsors). Wait! Maybe Bob Barr is waiting in the wings for Glenn Beck’s job! But can he cry and “emote” on cue? I’m pretty sure that’s in the contract.

[...] writes today about the insult to our nation leveled by Mexican President Felipe Calderon when he dared to [...]

[...] of his country have died as a result of drug-fueled violence since he became president in 2006.-[source] June 1st, 2010 | Tags: America, BATFE, Congress, Democrat, firearms, gun control, RKBA | [...]

JimInMT

June 1st, 2010
3:27 pm

Calderon can go back to the hell he owns in Mexico. Get out of my house you f***ing snake.

JimInMT

June 1st, 2010
3:28 pm

Furthermore, all those ash moles in Congress who cheered him should consider going to his nation to live, as that is what they deserve, preferably along the northern border of Mexico, where their lives will be subject to the same fate as the beheadeds there.

k moore

June 1st, 2010
3:38 pm

STEVE REEVES MABE YOU SHOULD MOVE TO MEXICO TO

ron2112

June 1st, 2010
4:39 pm

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Barr and enjoyed the article.
Now I would like to know if he’s up to another “IMPEACHMENT” before this spineless jelly-fish we have now weaken’s us more than boneiphone bILL did. It’s only as obviouse as the “TRANSPARENCY” what a joke of his admenistration that he is out to dissmantle the constitution, and should be impeached on the grounds of treason!

Rich

June 1st, 2010
6:12 pm

What do you expect? When every tryrant in the world from Norh Korea to Hugo Chavez kicks dirt in our face and Obama says we are sorry, you can expect more of the same.

mike

June 1st, 2010
8:37 pm

Don’t you folks get tired of all the negative bashing on here? I would have thought with all the energy you morons spend on posting your hate you idiots would come up with something positive to say at least once a month. Bobby is concerned about the Mexican President with all the other things going on in this country.

Michael H. Smith

June 1st, 2010
9:21 pm

Readers deserve much better explanations than the rants of ethnocentric bigots who must depend upon the social crutch of race to disguise their hate for America’s laws and the human right of a sovereign American people to make their own laws as they see fit. Unfortunately these mental cripples of ethnocentrism base their arguments totally on rhetorical suppositions in hopes it can rival the empirical substance of arguments based on the Constitution and the law, which are forever present and with us constantly in this country whether in or out of a court of law.

If it be thus that the term “illegal alien” appears written in the law, is it now understood that the law is anti-immigrant and the court favors xenophobia over equal justice when ordering “illegal aliens” deported?

Howbeit, if the law and they who accept the law are anti-immigrant and the court xenophobe, by what other favorable authority then does immigration exist for the “legal alien” to reside in the country and naturalize?

When the false assertion of undocumented worker is preferred by the biased opinions of myopic ethnocentrics to the unadulterated clarity given in law that certifies “unauthorized workers” ineligible for lawful employment anywhere in this nation of laws, shall the Republic be set aside by an overruling from the bigotry of ethnocentric biased opinions?

Where there are divisions of right or wrong, of visitor or trespasser, of immigrant or invader, of legal or illegal, can the merging of two diametric terms via the illusions of media, create a truly unbiased neutrality?

Ramon’s harangue has been taken before 280 million or so English speaking American experts. Over 70% of them approve of the AZ law and they say he is full mud and he needs better English speaking experts.

dawgydawg47

June 1st, 2010
10:25 pm

Why are we so politically correct? Where are the real men? You know, the ones that would stand for something. We are letting our country fall apart. Why? God forbid we hurt someone’s feelings. I truly believe most hard working Americans agree with me.

1. Secure the border
2. Make the Middle East a big sand box
3. Start executing criminals again.
4. Restore corporal punishment in schools.
5. Hold attorneys accountable for frivilous lawsuits.
6. Get the federal government out of our lives.
7. Make people on welfare take drug tests. (no pass, no check)
8. Make people on welfare do some kind of work. (pick up trash, etc…)
9. Create a special foodstamp aisle at the grcocery store. (It should have a big neon sign)
10. Decriminalize pot. Take the money out of the illegal trade.
11. Admit that Muslims around the world hate us.
12. Make an announcement that lack of parental involvement is really why our schools SUCK.
13. Make boys play football, not soccer.
14. Admit that unions and lawyers have almost ruined our economy.
15. Take responsibility for our actions. (it is not Mommy’s fault that you are a loser)
16. Let Israel defend itself.

Everyone I know feels the same way. Where do all these nut jobs live any way? The end!!!!