Printable View
Republican files for District 4 against Hall
By: Brandy S. Chewning - Texarkana Gazette - Published: 12/07/2007
Kevin George has filed as a Republican Congressional candidate in Texas District 4, running against incumbent Ralph Hall.
George, from Celina, Texas, is against illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens. He supports making English the official language of the United States and keeping jobs in the country.
Describing himself as a “soft Libertarian,â€
No mention of the border fence--does he endorse it or does he feel it would trample landowers rights too?Quote:
George believes the corridor would make the United States more vulnerable to terrorism and would trample landowners’ rights.
"If You Can Read This Thank A Teacher If You Can Read This In English Thank A Soldier!"
There was more to this story but one has to subscribe which I chose not to do. Thought this should be mentioned in case anyone is interested more in what he has to say.
Thank you jean. :D
"If You Can Read This Thank A Teacher If You Can Read This In English Thank A Soldier!"
You're welcome MyAmerica. :)
I spoke with George's campaign manager last summer 'cuz I live in Hall's District 4. Because these candidates seem idealogical twins, the main reason for a new GOP candidate is Hall will be 85 at the next election. He's been a great representative, embracing all the conservative tenets but we've all seen the sad demise of Byrd and Thurmon. He's bright and alert right now but where will he be when he reaches the end of his next term? I think it's time for a change and will volunteer to work for George. He's only four miles away.
I haven't lived in that area for a while and didn't even realize he was still in office - 85 - wow!
It would be interesting to know this new man's stance on the fence. Does he think it is the end all or does he think if we are going to trample - right word - on landowner's rights and cede the Rio GRande to Mexico, we should give strict interior enforcement a chance.
nntrixie wrote:
Geez, I just finished reading another thread where you were shouting down the fence. Actually, you haven't been shy about sharing your negative views regarding the border fence for a couple days now. Well, just for informational purposes, I believe you're in the minority on this issue. I think it's safe to say most Americans want our borders secured and we know the only way that can happen is with quality fencing (physical fence, not virtual) and more border patrol agents. If not with fencing, exactly how do you propose we secure our borders? Strict interior enforcement will not secure our borders. Remember, more agents and quality fencing will not only drastically slow down illegal immigration, it'll also make it more difficult for smugglers and potential terrorist. All the interior enforcement and employer sanctions in the world won't stop the later two from entering illegally. A quality fence (the double-layered version) is not the problem, it's PART of the solution. Now all we have to do is get the Bush administration to adhere to the law that requires the fence and force them to expedite the building of it.Quote:
It would be interesting to know this new man's stance on the fence. Does he think it is the end all or does he think if we are going to trample - right word - on landowner's rights and cede the Rio GRande to Mexico, we should give strict interior enforcement a chance.
Oh, and please direct me to your source that states we are going to give Mexico the Rio Grande. Like I explained to you in another thread, fencing off a specific portion of your property doesn't necessarily mean you're giving the rest of it away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
(MOD EDIT)
Any portion of the Border Fence built in TX. must be HIGHER, because everything is BIGGER in TX.
When I visit Dallas/Ft Worth, almost every yard has a fence.
mw I don't want this to get personal.
I fear we are being sold a pig in a poke - time will tell -
If ALIPAC wants me to hush about it - I will - but if there is one thing I have learned in the 30 years of seeing this debacle unfold, we cannot take the government at face value here. Everything they do needs to be looked at from every angle.
That's all I am suggesting
nntrixie wrote:
I agree 100%. However, we can't stop pushing for what we want and need just because specific branches of our federal government is failing in the excercising of their duties and responsibilities. If anything, that should give us reason to push all the harder. The physical fence is the law, and it should be built as directed in the bill that was signed. To my knowledge no one, with the exception of DHS and Bush, wants a virtual fence. Oops, I guess Boeing wants it too :roll: . We're demanding a physical fence and that is what has been signed into law. :wink:Quote:
if there is one thing I have learned in the 30 years of seeing this debacle unfold, we cannot take the government at face value here. Everything they do needs to be looked at from every angle.
Actually, though, have you ever wondered just a little why the President and Chertoff are gung ho on this - on taking land to build it?
It is the law - but we have many other laws that have been on the books decades longer that they are ignoring.
If the people who live there are questioning it - why don't we at least listen to them? They have been living with it.
That's the same question I asked years ago, when I first talking about illegal immigration. People from other parts of the country would make fun, call names, etc., those of us in border states. I couldn't understand then why they wouldn't listen to the ones who were living it. The tune changed as they were impacted by it.
Being in the minority has never concerned me. Not asking questions and being wrong is what bothers me.
nntrixie wrote:
I definitely wouldn't call them gung-ho on taking (purchasing) the land or getting the fence built. They've been dragging their feet every bit of the way and delaying at each and every opportunity. They know Mexico does not want a physical fence, and they also know that Mexico is our #2 supplier of oil and #1 supplier of cheap labor.Quote:
Actually, though, have you ever wondered just a little why the President and Chertoff are gung ho on this - on taking land to build it?
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Bush administration wants the fence, or at least that's the impression I'm getting. Nothing could be further from the truth. They do not want to build the physical fence that has been signed into law. The American people need to rise up and get that darn fence built not only because it's the law, but because it is what's good for America and Americans. It was our anger over the open border situation and the fear of lost Republican seats in the U.S. Congress that forced the Republican controlled Congress to write the law. Those same fears were also what forced Bush to sign the Secure Fence Act of 2005 into law. Trust me, I know they law wasn't passed because it was something the majority of Congress or Bush wanted, they were forced in to it by the American people. We, the citizens of this country, can control those idiots in the U.S. Congress if we act as a majority on an issue. It was us (American people) that stopped the most recent attempt at comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act. If the American public would have sit on their hands and not risen up against those bills, both of them would have passed easily. Not only did we force the Congress and Bush to do something they didn't want to do, we also beat the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporate America. Isn't it about time we did the same thing with the fence? We accomplished half our mission by getting the law passed. Now it's up to us to see that the law is honored and the fence is built as envisioned.
I'm not so sure all the property owners living on the border are against the fence, are you? Isn't it possible many of them are just following the lead of local community leaders (mayors, local chamber of commerce, and business owners) because they've been encouraged to do so under duress? Isn't it also possible that some of them are holding out in the hopes of increasing the payout? Didn't I read somewhere recently that only 1/3 of the property holders have refused the feds authorization to access their property for evaluation? Obviously the other 2/3 feel the topic of land purchase is open for discussion.Quote:
If the people who live there are questioning it - why don't we at least listen to them? They have been living with it.
IMHO, I believe some of those fighting the fence are doing so out of greed, not because they want to retain ownership of the land. We all know the the press has a way of blowing things completely out of proporation and talking for only one side of an issue. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are more people in support of the fence than against it along the border. It wouldn't surprise me at all. :wink:
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
It is possible some people are holding back for money. It's possible they know the situation down there.
How long has that bill been passed?
How long has the bills been on the books about coming here illegally?
About working illegally? About not paying taxes? About stealing ID?
How many years - 20/30??
So yes, in comparison to the way they are enforcing the other laws - I'd say they are gung ho.
But time will tell ------- I pray you are right -
Look, the Bush administration and Count Olaf have done everything in their power to obstruct this fence, and ignore a duly-passed law enacted by Congress. Bennie Thompson-who shouldn't even be on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, let alone its chairman-has done his best to assist them, but his opinion does not count! It's already law, and the Bush administration needs to get its ass in gear.
You don't have to live in the Southwest, or be a Texas landowner in order to realize that fences and concrete REAL barriers work! Just take a trip to Tiajuana and watch how many illegal aliens you see crossing the border. You won't see any, because a fence exists to block them. Do you know why there have been hardly any Palis detonating bomb vests inside of Israel the past couple years? Because there's a separation barrier!
This is just common sense.
As for the Israeli fence - I don't think we will get anything like that here - and I know we won't get soldiers on the border with permission to enforce the border as Israel does. I would have more faith in the fence, if we did.
It just seems it bears some scrutiny - but time alone will tell.
If I have been wrong - here is my apology up front.
If I am right, apologies won't matter by that time.
The best protection would a platoon of soldiers with M-1 rifles standing on top of Abrams tanks.
Did you see that scene in Border?
You've got to have a death wish to try anything like that with them around.
Just ask the AQI agents from Fallujah.
Oh that's right, you can't.
BECAUSE THEY'RE DEAD!
Got their 72 doe-eyed houris when they tried that.
Yeah, that would be the optimal solution to this problem, but barring that I think a fence-even better, a wall-will suffice.
The best protection would a platoon of soldiers with M-1 rifles standing on top of Abrams tanks
That would be my wish. It would be nice if they would just untie the hands of the BP.