Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The War Without End

There are many things that frustrate me about the society I live in.  Fake "reality" shows, celebrities that I would prefer to see exiled to another planet, and yes the opiate of our sports and popular culture, designed to keep the average American disinterested and uninvolved in policy matters, except those bankrolled by unregulated corporate money (the teabaggers and Cato Institute come to mind).  Probably the one annoyance I revisit the most in the post-9/11 world is the notion that we are somehow in a struggle for civilization which necessitates trillions of dollars of our money to alleviate in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq.  Because if there is one thing the peoples in those countries yearn and desire the most, other than not building anything Islamic within three block radius of ground zero, it is their boundless need to have Americans invade and democratize them.  Well, that and a government that lies through its teeth about ending one of the occupations in question.  Such is the nonsense that we were subjected to this evening.


Notice the nice play on words, how "combat in Iraq" is over.  This is the same man who, back in 2003, denounced going into Iraq at all.  Now, ending the war means keeping 50,000 troops in a war zone.  That is the new peace in this era of hope and change.  That is the new caving in to the forces of Communism, socialism, and Islamism to the editorial staff of The Wall Street Journal.  The President's speech is indicative of just how convoluted our language has become in this country.

And even when President Obama concedes the obvious, like how fighting in Iraq has stripped this country of resources that could have been better spent in the US, he followed it with this whopper:
But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake.  As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan.  We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists.  And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense.  In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies -- have been killed or captured around the world.
Yes, Mr. President, that is bringing the troops and monies home and using some of those resources to fight joblessness in America.  If this is what a so-called liberal (centrist) Democratic President thinks to be "learning the lesson of Iraq," then we are seriously doomed as a republic.  You know at least with the right, they will continue to live the Sisyphean illusion that the next non-white/non-Christian horizon awaits their liberation through drones and cluster bombs.  They could bankrupt and starve the whole of humanity and not care, unless you were wealthy or pre-born, of course.  But when the people who should know better believe that the best way to learn from the failures of a war is to extrapolate and perpetuate those failures on another country, we might as well start preparing ourselves for our own 476 AD because it is coming.

And just what is the future of great powers who do not realize that they have reached a period of overstretch with an unviable economic system?  No one talks about the Roman Empire in the present tense anymore.  For us, that means not only are we failing to learn the lessons that we should have comprehended and followed by now, but that future generations of policymakers (assuming any of them are literature and intelligent enough to follow history [an assumption one cannot make when one of the two major parties retains the likes of George Bush and Sarah Palin]) will be repeating those errors over and over again.  Except next time, when we choose to "free the oppressed" Muslim masses (who we personally hold in contempt when they are in our country) in such hotspots like Iran, we will not only be ending whatever respect and prestige we previously earned in the international system but will be putting ourselves in a position to be on the receiving end of the ultimate blowback, the kind our believers in the carpenter in the sky would like to see expedited for their quickened entrance into eternal paradise and happiness.  

All of that because our rational and normal leaders, the ones who do not believe in the aforementioned, simply cannot tell the difference between success and failure.  Let us finally recognize and really learn the lessons of both Afghanistan and Iraq.  You cannot invade and occupy countries that contain in many instances vastly different political cultures, belief systems, and values, with a long, violent tradition of resistance to any outside military presence in their countries, and expect anything other than a negative response and (save for a campaign of genocide) defeat.  Furthermore, great powers are not infrequently brought down (or presaged with their future descent) by their own greed and belief in their superiority against seemingly lesser enemies (the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest, the British in Gandamak and the Khyber Pass in the 19th century, or the Soviets in the same areas in the late 20th).  Small places can have tremendous impacts on otherwise dominant states who underestimate their enemies and overestimate their power projection capabilities.   If we understood this, there would be no mentioning of keeping 50,000 troops in Iraq or sending more to Afghanistan.  

Our policymakers in DC, including General Patraeus, must know by this point that Afghanistan is not going to turn out well for us, that it is not Iraq (if one were to call fighting for seven years a success for that country), and we are destined for failure.  If that is understood, and I believe it is at some level, then why the Robert McNamaraesque insistence that all is well and on track?  Politics?  Fear of an opposition that will accuse you of being a Satanic weakling if you do not favor roasting the intestines of your enemies over an open pit?  These are all open questions.  I would love nothing more than to have an answer.  Unfortunately, I do not think that we are going to be getting one, at least anytime soon.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

The Wrongs of the Right: Religious Hatred In The Heartland

Sometimes, being an educator is like being an anthropologist.  You get to know many people, learn about their lives, their foibles, hopes, dreams, and yes sadly their biases and prejudices.  And when you are an educator in the Bible Belt, the biases and prejudices can be really pronounced.   It never ceases to amaze me to listen to what seems to be otherwise normal folk transcend into the kinds of people I thought were relegated to history or only populating the madrassas of rural Pakistan.  Well, they are not in any madrassa.  They are here in the US, home schooling their children, brainwashing them with their version of the angry skygod, and instilling in them the kind of hatred that we claim to oppose in others.

The so-called "ground zero mosque" issue has stripped the right in this country of its Bush era fig leaf of merely wanting to bomb and occupy Muslims to save them for democracy.  They can no longer make that claim.  My students are at least blunt in stating what they really think (with ready voice given to those who believe all Muslims are representative of those responsible for wrecking our planes into our buildings nine years ago).  It can be hard dealing with them on occasion, if only because I want to allow them to express their views without any censorship or fear thereof (which I am an absolutist on in classroom settings), while at the same time regulating them to stick to facts, and playing devil's advocate to keep them honest--only to be left mourning over how young adults could be filled with such ignorance and who made them that way before they entered my class (such as referring to our President as "Nation of Islam," calling Muslims "the terrorists" and, depressingly enough, illegal immigrants from Mexico "the Islamic terrorists" [which I guess now means since I was raised Catholic would make me an Islamist, as well]).  

I decided one day to show my students the portrayal of their white immigrant ancestors in the Know Nothing press in the mid-to-late 19th century, but for whatever reason it never seemed to occur to most of them the connections between the portrayal of early Irish and Scots-Irish immigrants in the 19th century and Mexicans and Muslims today.  And that is the toughest part, not being able to connect and get the students to see our common humanity.

What is even more disheartening is to see where these misguided people take their ques from.  While it is easy to beat up on white Southerners, because they remain the most open in their views on race and religion in this country, one has to be cautious in negatively judging an entire region (there is just as much racism in the North and in every other part of this country and world).  There is nothing region specific about the campaign of religious and racial hatred of non-white/non-Christian peoples in this country that has taken place over the past few years (and especially since the election of a black man to the White House [the event that has triggered this consciousness in many whites in the US]).  Regrettably, this  booboisie manufacturization from Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and Fox "news" decided to make their presence known in New York City earlier today.  If anyone has any illusions about what the Tea Party Express looks like, here they are in all their bigoted glory.  Think of this the next time someone from the right attacks the NAACP for being "racist" against whites.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

To The Camps: The Racial Ratcheting of The GOP

Apparently, there are members of the ex-party of Lincoln who want to capture and imprison Mexicans in concentration camps.  Ironically, I unwittingly suggested this as a possibility in a previous post.  I guess it was only a matter of time.

----------------------------------------------------------
Florida Republican: Put immigrants in "camps"
State GOP candidate wants to "ship them out to the middle of the country and put up high walls"
by Justin Elliott

In an interview with Salon today, a Republican candidate for the Florida state Legislature stood by her controversial idea to arrest illegal immigrants and send them to "camps" where they can be held en masse.

"We can ship them out to the middle of the country and put up high walls and leave them there," said Marg Baker, the middle-aged real estate broker vying for the Republican nomination in the state's 48th district, north of Tampa.

Baker was filmed advocating the camps idea at a local meeting of the 9-12 Project, Glenn Beck's activist group, earlier this month (watch the clip below). She told Salon today that she was upset at the way some had misinterpreted her comments. "They're trying to think I want to erect some sort of prison camps like over in Germany" -- which she is not, Baker said.

Asked if what she had in mind was more like the Japanese internment camps of the World War II era, Baker said, "something like that. But unfortunately in the Japanese camps they detaineed American citiziens. The only ones I want to detain are the ones who are illegal."

She added, "You've gotta have places for them to eat and sleep and breathe fresh air. It can be a tent city ... You don't want to make them too comfortable or they'll want to come back."

The AP reports that other Republican candidates for the seat have rejected the idea.

Baker's website lists five "reasons" not to tolerate illegal immigrants, including "prostitution."

She stressed to Salon that she would want all illegal immigrants, not just Hispanics, put in the camps. Though she added, cryptically, "the people are walking among us, and who knows."


----------------------------------------------------------

I do not know what is more depressing.  The incessant cheering for this racialist proposal, or that these same teabaggers think it an act of freedom to die by omission for not being able to afford health care, but who will in the same breadth want the federal government to bail them out to ensnare an entire group of people into concentration camps.  Small government for me but not for thee.

As with Robert Gibbs' whine-fest about the left (where is Mr. Gibbs outrage over this fascistic proposal?), I am not sure to what degree I take seriously any politician running for office who out of the blue starts talking about interning people in concentration camps.  Part of me views this as simply a politician appealing to the lowest common denominator of an unreconstructed racist electorate (who only take offense at the government when someone who does not look like them is in charge of it).  Still, it is the fact someone who aspires for higher office would even voice it at all that should sicken us at the thought of any citizen who would think so little of our fellow denizens.

What is even more ironic is that this was part of a Glenn Beck-inspired event, the same Beck who face-contorts his denunciatory comparison of progressives to Nazis and Maoists who want to destroy America and, yes, that's right, stick people in camps.


I am certain Mr. Beck will be on his show tonight to denounce Marg Baker for using a podium he enabled to advocate a similar totalitarian policy--that is, if by denounce you mean encourage and support.

I should not call this, but I would be willing to bet in the not too distant future (for anyone who wants to take me up on that bet and negotiate the terms) that there will be a candidate and/or teabagger who will advocate just murdering en masse "illegal immigrants" (i.e., non-whites and especially Mexicans).

BTW, if you would like to contact this wonderful soul, here are Marg Baker's particulars.  Go ahead and contact her and tell her what you think of her suggestion to collectively target people.  I am sure she is the kind of person who would welcome your input.

Marg Baker Campaign
(727) 938-6572
53 Freshwater Drive
Palm Harbor, FL 34684

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

The Spirit of the Proprietor: The FBI Logo

Apparently, our friends at the FBI do not like free online encyclopedia sites like Wikipedia using its image.  I mean, it is not like Wikipedia is advertising its usage or employing it for commercial purposes, keeping it within the law.  Actually, they are not, but such trifling details only emboldens our snoops.

-----------------------------------------------------
FBI to Wikipedia: Remove our seal


by John Sutter, CNN

(CNN) -- The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation has threatened Wikipedia with legal action if the online encyclopedia doesn't remove the FBI's seal from its site.

The seal is featured in an encyclopedia entry about the FBI.

Wikipedia isn't backing down, however. The online encyclopedia -- which is run by a nonprofit group and is edited by the public -- sent a chiding letter to the FBI, explaining why, in its view, the FBI is off its legal rocker.

"In short, then, we are compelled as a matter of law and principle to deny your demand for removal of the FBI Seal from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons," the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, Mike Godwin, wrote in a letter to the FBI, which was posted online by the New York Times.

"We are in contact with outside counsel in this matter, and we are prepared to argue our view in court."
The whimsically written letter from Wikipedia says the FBI's reading of relevant law is both "idiosyncratic" and "more importantly, incorrect." It also notes that the FBI's seal appears on other websites, including in an online entry from Encyclopedia Britannica.

In a letter dated July 22, and also posted online by the Times, the FBI told Wikipedia it must remove the bureau's seal because the FBI had not approved use of the image.

"The FBI has not authorized use of the FBI seal on Wikipedia," the letter says. "The inclusion of a high quality graphic of the FBI seal on Wikipedia is particularly problematic, because it facilitates both deliberate and unwitting" copying and reprinting of the seal's image.

The FBI's deputy general counsel, David Larson, cities a particular law that says duplicating an official "insignia" is illegal without permission.

But Wikipedia strikes back on that point, saying the FBI redacted the most important part of that U.S. code, which defines an insignia as "any badge, identification card, or other insignia."

"Badges and identification cards are physical manifestations that may be used by a possessor to invoke the authority of the federal government. An encyclopedia article is not," Wikipedia's letter says. "The use of the image on Wikipedia is not for the purpose of deception or falsely to represent anyone as an agent of the federal government."

The Wikipedia letter also adds:

"Even if it could be proved that someone, somewhere, found a way to use a Wikipedia article illustration to facilitate a fraudulent representation, that would not render the illustration itself unlawful under the statute."

It's unclear if this tussle -- which has already made its way into a Wikipedia entry on the FBI's seal -- will be taken to court. For now, the tech press is weighing in, often with amazement.

On the blog BoingBoing, Rob Beschizza writes that this is a no-win situation for the FBI.

"The part that's hard to understand is why the FBI would seek to abuse the law in such petulant fashion," he writes, "knowing that it will be subject to public ridicule for its actions."

The magazine Vanity Fair posted the FBI's seal on its website in a symbol of jest. And, as the blog Geekosystem says, an editor on the site aggregator Reddit jokes that maybe the FBI got Wikipedia confused with WikiLeaks -- the site that's been causing a stir lately over leaked war documents.

Cindy Cohn, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told the New York Times, which first reported this story, that she found the whole ordeal to be "silly" and "troubling."

----------------------------------------------------- 

So, this government agency does not like a free encyclopedia when it posts its logo?  The same organization that spied on generations of pacifists, civil rights workers and leaders, which engineered the assassination of Fred Hampton, and tried to murder (who knows, maybe they did) Martin Luther King, Jr.--all on the taxpayer's dime, but now having their logo is considered overly invasive by our friends in federal law enforcement?

Dear FBI, if by chance either you or your NSA-Google colleagues are reading this (since blogger.com is a subsidiary of Google and your pals in Maryland), you are more than welcome to write a nasty letter to me.  My site is free, non-commercial, and I see nothing wrong with using the logo of your criminal organization.


Better yet, here are the coordinates, address, and picture of the FBI headquarters.

935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington D.C.


BTW, if you are from the Project Vigilant (an all "volunteer" private spy organization populated with ex-federal snoops who use  the force of law to involuntarily collect our internet data and hand it over to Uncle Sam, like the totalitarian informants that you are), I have this special gift, just for you, Executive Director of our Stasi.

 
Put that in my FBI file and smoke it.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Today's GOP: From the Party of Lincoln to Jefferson Davis

Back in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was running for re-election, then-Representative (and future Strom Thurmond exultant) Trent Lott riled up supporters of the Gipper during a speech before the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Mississippi, declaring, "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."  He was wrong, of course.  The Republicans of 1984 were bleeding hearts compared to the race-consciousness of the GOP today.

----------------------------------------------------------------  
Kyl: Illegal Aliens' Kids Shouldn't Be Citizens
Wants Hearing on 14th Amendment Which Grants Citizenship to Children of Illegal Immigrants Born in America

by Jimmy So

Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., said today that Congress should hold hearings to look into denying citizenship to illegal aliens' children born in the United States, as the fight over immigration widens into the explosive "birthright" issue.

Kyl told
CBS' "Face the Nation" that he supports a call by fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to introduce a new amendment to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Support is growing for this
stunning reversal from Graham, who in 2007 drew the ire of Republicans when he lobbied for granting legal status to 12 million undocumented workers, and along with President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., led the failed immigration reform effort that would have given illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

The 14th Amendment
was enacted in 1868 to ensure that states would not deny citizenship to former slaves. It reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Arizona's Republican
State Sen. Russell Pearce - the architect of the controversial immigration law that was largely struck down by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton - also separately proposed the same measure.

"The 14th Amendment [has been] interpreted to provide that if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl said. "So the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"


Kyl said Congress should hold hearings and invite constitutional experts to look at the state of the 14th Amendment. The growing support for the issue suggests the Republicans are exploring different strategies to fight the Obama administration's victory over the Arizona immigration law, after Bolton issued a preliminary injunction on key provisions.


Kyl is a supporter of the law.


"I think the court's decision was wrong," he said today. "
The governor and legislative leaders have talked about possibly tweaking - to use their phrase - the law to see if they can obviate the concerns the judge expressed. I don't think they can because her decision was very sweeping.

"I think it more likely that Congress could act to actually fix the problem," Kyl said, "by reaffirming that it is Congress' intent that the law be enforced, rather than having the administration decide that they don't want to thoroughly enforce the law."


Kyl said his support of the law has to do with illegal aliens taking jobs that Americans want; immigrants posing a burden on the state in the form of education, medical care and welfare benefits; and crime.


"To me the most important thing is the crime associated with it - not necessarily committed by illegal immigrants but committed on illegal immigrants, as well as the roughly 15 percent of the people who cross the border each year illegally who are criminals."


But this week's
"Face the Nation" host Harry Smith pointed out that crime has had a negative correlation with the arrival of immigrants. "Crime in Phoenix, for instance, is down significantly over the last couple of years," Smith said.

"That's a gross generalization," Kyl said. "Property crimes are up. Certain violent crimes on certain parts of the citizenry are up. Phoenix is a very large source of kidnapping. It's called the kidnapping capital of the United States because the illegal immigrants who are brought to Phoenix for distribution throughout the country are held in drop houses. They are mistreated, horribly treated."


Kyl said the law is not discriminatory. "But if you live here in Arizona you'll appreciate the fact that we have a great tradition, particularly with our neighbor to the south, Mexico. It's not a matter of being anti-Hispanic. It's a matter of wanting to enforce the law."


But Thomas Saenz, president of the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, disputed Kyl's claim.

"I think that whenever you enact something that requires police officers - as the law would have done - to engage in stereotyping, to engage in racial profiling, acting on what they understand to be the undocumented profile, that's going to result in discrimination against Latinos and others who may appear to be foreign, who may appear to be immigrants," Saenz said. "In that very practical sense, it is an anti-Latino law."


Saenz also lashed out against Kyl's support of the repeal of the 14th Amendment.


"I think it's deplorable," he said. "It's an attempt to turn our back on 150 years of constitutional history and tradition. I think it's contrary to the values of this country. I think it's an assault on the recognition that ours is a country of immigrants and always has been. The 14th Amendment is very clear: Anyone who is born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat, is a United States citizen. That has led to great success. It's part of what has made this nation the great nation that it is in 2010.


"I think determining to change that would be a grave mistake," he said.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 

The evolution of the Republican Party is complete.  The party that gave us Abraham Lincoln and Robert LaFollette is now ridden with the same people whose ancestors gave us the Confederacy, the Klan, and racial segregation.  Sound harsh?  Consider their view on repealing the cornerstone of our Reconstruction amendments in the Constitution because Mexicans gain citizenship rights for daring to be born here--an amendment that symbolized and identified generations of people to the Republican Party, well into the 20th century.  One wonders since white settlers were declared illegal immigrants by the Mexican government before the Texas "revolution" that we should strip all whites in the state of Texas of their citizenship rights.  After all, their first act in what would eventually become our second largest state was a violation of the law, and we would not want to violate the law, now would we?  I mean, the teabaggers name their movement after the Boston Tea Party, which were a group of law-abiding guys who believed you should follow the rules of your society.  Certainly, Samuel Adams (the revolutionary, not the overrated beer) would doth protest.

It should come as no surprise that their objection to the rule of law, with regards to the Fourteenth Amendment, is based on denying rights to another group of non-white people.  It is the same mindset that gave us the John Birch Society's invectives against the coming "Soviet negro republic" in the '50s, National Review's support for the supremacy and separatism of whites in that same era, and the exact same objection that white conservatives had in the 19th century to the amendment, to the point of open rebellion, which would culminate in the expulsion of our military and the end of Reconstruction (and the beginning of Jim Crow) in the South.

And for those who think this has nothing to do with race but the law, maybe you could explain Arizona State Senator Pearce's coming proposal to deny issuing birth certificates to children born to illegal immigrants, an expressed violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.  At least Senator Kyl is just being more honest about it and wants to get rid of the parts of the Constitution he dislikes.

For another representation of this racialist paternalism, no better examplar exists than the guitarist extraordinaire Ted Nugent.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 
NUGENT: Dear Mexico …
American dream is attainable for those who share our values

Bienvenido. Welcome. As the November elections draw nearer, political campaigns most assuredly will heat up and become more tense and filled with rancor. As with any election, you have to dig for the truth.

Immigration is one of the key issues at the forefront of the campaigns. Just as it has done to the law passed in Arizona, the Democratic machine will work overtime once again to demonize conservatives and the Republican Party as jingoists, racists, anti-civil-rights, anti-immigration, anti-minority and even anti-Mexican. I know, as I previously have been the target of its vicious personal lying attacks and smear campaigns straight out of the playbook of Richard Andrew Cloward, Frances Fox Piven and Saul Alinsky. Soulless.

Such attacks, of course, could not be further from the truth, but telling the truth has never been a plank in the political platform of the Democratic Party. If Democrats ever told Americans the truth about what they truly believe, the Democratic Party would cease to exist by tomorrow.

Rest assured, just as the Democrats lie to Americans, they also will lie to you. They will claim on one hand that they are your liberators. They will say anything, make any promise to get your support. Yet on the other hand, what they won't tell you is that once they have garnered your support, they ultimately will work to enslave you and ruin your families with Fedzilla programs and dollars that will destroy you and your families, much like the corrupt, abusive Mexican government you risked your lives to escape.

If you doubt this, look at what the Democrats have done to black America over the past 50 years. What once was a proud, strong people now lies in ruin because of Fedzilla programs designed specifically to enslave and destroy instead of liberate and build. Amazingly, black Americans still overwhelming vote for Democrats. Be wise and learn from their mistakes.

Conservatives greatly respect the work ethic, family values, diversity and independent spirit of the Mexican people. We harbor no ill will toward anyone because of race, creed, color, sex or ethnicity. We value hard work and judge people on their character.

Conservatives want to see people of Mexican descent reach their full potential in America. We are not satisfied with seeing anyone remain on the bottom rung of the ladder of success. We believe that through hard work, sacrifice and commitment, the American dream remains vibrant and within the grasp of anyone willing to work hard and reach for it. We also believe in less government, lower taxes and more freedom. As President Reagan once said, government isn't the solution, it's the problem.

We believe in immigration reform, although we do not believe in granting amnesty to those who have violated our immigration laws to get to America. We understand why people want to come to America but do not believe granting amnesty is a smart move.

Conservatives believe there should be an easier and simpler process for Mexicans to work in America legally and be part of the American experience. We do not believe anyone should have to live in the shadows.
Just as in Mexico, American conservatives believe one of government's most important roles is securing our nation. We must know who is coming into America and believe all individuals desiring to enter America should be subject, at a minimum, to a health and criminal background check.

American conservatives believe in protecting our borders and legal immigration. Mexico has immigration laws and rightfully protects its southern border with Guatemala, and America also has a right and responsibility to protect its borders.

A common language is vital to achieving the American dream, and thus conservatives believe learning the English language is a core component of achieving the American dream. Failing to learn the English language inhibits your ability to climb the ladder of success.

Though we believe you should be proud of your heritage, conservatives also believe if you want to immigrate to America, you should embrace our values, traditions and history just as our great-grandparents did when they arrived at Ellis Island 100 or more years ago. We believe everyone who wants to harvest all the bounties of America should also be willing to fully embrace American heritage and customs and assimilate into America.

Because of the Obama administration's continued endorsement of wrongheaded economic policies, America is going through tough economic times. Unemployment is high, economic growth is stagnant, at best, and government spending and debt are out of control. These are not favorable economic conditions for Americans or anyone else wanting to work in America.

You have a choice. Embrace the political party that believes in enslavement or embrace the political party with policies that promote greater individual liberty and freedom. That's not just your choice, but the choice of Americans.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 

Ah, yes, who better to teach those Mexicans and black people about how to be good law-abiding citizens than a man who has sex with underage girls (and if you believe Courtney Love, she was 12 when hooking up with Mr. Catscratch Fever), or a "patriotic" draft dodger who waves a flag for a country he purposely avoided serving when called upon?  Or how about the man who calls Obama voters the "black Klan," threatens to kick people out of his concerts who do not speak English, and supporting racial apartheid in South Africa?  Or how about using racial ephitets to describe blacks and Mexicans?  Here is Mr. Nugent in a few of his more honest moments of racial clarity.  
On the Confederate Flag: Those politically correct motherfuckers can take the flag down but I am going to wear it forever.
I`m a fun guy, not a sexist or a racist. I use the word n****r a lot because I hang around with a lot of n****rs.
On South Africans: Apartheid isn't that cut and dry. All men are not created equal. The preponderance of South Africa is a different breed of man. I mean that with no disrespect. I say that with great respect. I love them because I`m one of them. They are still people of the earth, but they are different. They still put bones in their noses, they still walk around naked, they wipe their butts with their hands.  These are different people. You give `em toothpaste, they fucking eat it ... I hope they don`t become civilized.
 http://www.whosdatedwho.com/celebrity/quotes/ted-nugent.htm
Those are some real values there, Ted.  How dare those Mexicans and non-whites take any government assistance.  I am sure the nuge flew all by himself to play before those troops in Iraq in 2005 and '07 (a group of people he made sure never to be a member of when it was his time in the late '60s), without any assistance from the American taxpayer.  And am I not the only one who finds it odd that the descendant of foreigners and immigrants (Nugent is an Irish name [btw, Ted, you might want to read up on what the early Americans thought of your ancestors' immigrating to this country]), who would not be where he is without the government (either educating him in Detroit public schools or providing him with the roads for all of his fans to go to his concerts) only seem concerned about the state when those who do not look like them receive those same benefits?

And getting back to the Fourteenth Amendment, and in homage to our most favored rocker-gun enthusiast, the Fourteenth Amendment is also home of the due process clause, which became the legal rationale in the 20th and 21st centuries to incorporate most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights on state and local governments (the Bill of Rights was originally only meant to apply to the federal government). I am sure Senator Kyl and Ted Nugent will now want to see the repeal of Heller v. D.C.  and  add  McDonald v. Chicago.  After all, those decisions, giving us the newly-minted individual right to have a handgun under the Second Amendment would not have happened, but for the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Oh, I think we know Senator Kyl or nuge will not soon be commenting on that one.  

For those of you who are immigrants in this country via Mexico, my apologies.  You truly deserve much better than what is being thrown at you today.