||June 21st, 2007|
I enjoy your column. You write what many of us think, outraged by the militant demonstrators in OUR land, waving Mexican flags, holding signs reading "Reconquista!" "This is our stolen land" "We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us."
These people don't WANT to be assimilated into our society in the sense of transferring their allegiance to America--they want to remain Mexicans, living here for the benefits our country offers. They are not just poor hardworking good folks trying to feed their families--no problem there. The militants--mostly their children, half of whom drop out of school--have no interest in that. La Raza (literally, "The Race") and people like Enrique Morones are long-term troublemakers.
If one needs instruction in the deleterious effects of bilingualism, look north, where the French-speaking province of Quebec has been the tail wagging the rest of English-speaking Canada for years on end. The debate over "comprehensive immigration reform" in DC reveals how out of touch most of the Senators are; they would do well to come to North County for an education.
(Of course, the brief Spanish-American War in 1898 involved the Phillipines and Cuba, and has nothing to do with the Mexican War of 1846-48 fought over the U.S. annexation of Texas and other border disputes and ending with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, where we paid them $15 million even though we won the war with the capture of Mexico City in 1847.)
/s/ Aaron Keller
A Resigned Solution?
The state of our nation was brought up at our regular Men's Breakfast Fellowship this week. If the media polls are correct, the American people are now overwhelmingly against the Bush Administration. As preposterous as resignation may seem, it was thrown on the table for discussion. It was suggested that the most patriotic thing they could do for the good of the country would be to simutaneously resign immediately. This would be an easier sacrifice than a soldier facing enemy fire and death. An immediate and abrupt change could minimize the toll that dragging out a lame duck, impotent administration will wrought upon the country.
In 2006 the electorate chose a new Congress, now led by Pelosi and Reid. Nancy could take over the reigns by succession and be in a stronger position to fulfill the mandate. She could appoint a new Vice Pres. like Nixon did with Ford when Agnew resigned. Although it would be very traumatic for Hillary to lose the opportunity to be the first female president, she and Nancy, the then incumbent, could compete with all the other candidates for the nomination at the 2008 Democrat convention.
One of the most liberal in our group spoke up that he felt such an unprecedented idea was interesting but not a solution. It would cause more disruption than it would quell and would only complicate the problems facing our floundering government? While desperate conditions might justify desperate actions, most agreed that subject might be too drastic and counter productive. Who knows?
Also, someone at the meeting seeking volunteers pointed out that it revolves around three things: people who are willing but not able, able but not willing and the precious few people who are both willing and able. It was suggested we privately evaluate ourselves. Whether a president, vice president or just off the street, opportunities should not be overlooked.
God Bless America
/s/Henry M. Sanford
San Marcos, CA 92078
Letters to the Editor should be emailed (preferably) to:
They may also be faxed (if you insist) to:
3643 Grand Avenue, Suite B
San Marcos, Ca. 92078
Letters to the Editor are always welcome. Please limit them to 250 words or less. We always reserve the right to edit for content and/or for length.