The state has custody of 464 children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in the west Texas prairie town of Eldorado, including a baby born to a teen mother Tuesday.

First submitted as a letter to the editor of an Orange County California Newspaper. The newspaper won't print it.

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get
down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here.

These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2007 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life.

I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed) Rosemary LaBonte

………………………………………………………………………………………

This is a country of legal immigrants. More importantly, this has been a country of grateful immigrants. It is blessing to be an American. It would serve immigrants well to demonstrate their love for this great nation and thankfulness for the blessing we've all received by being given the opportunity to live here. In fact, it has served most immigrants well as immigrants have demonstrated their gratitude throughout history in the U.S. since the first Thanksgiving feast to the present.

Increase in Latino Citizens in Calif. Could Impact Politics

La Opinion, Posted: Apr 29, 2008 (NCM News)

SACRAMENTO—A recent study by the Center for Policy for Immigrants in California revealed that 2.3 million legal immigrants in California are eligible for naturalization, and if they become naturalized, the number of Latino citizens will increase by 10 percent, reports Spanish language newspaper La Opinion. According to the report, 900,000 immigrants eligible for citizenship are Mexicans, while 800,000 are Asians. The report also revealed that 1.2 million children born to immigrant parents would be eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election. Two-thirds of these minors are Latino. Rob Paral, author of the study asserts, “This report indicates that California is the center of immigration in the country, and if all legal immigrants are incorporated in the voting process, the change of the electorate in California will be dramatic.”

……………………………………………………………..

Republicans wake up! We cannot continue the alarmist approach to immigration problems. Yes, immigration is at a state of crisis. No, we are not going to win with the current approach.

President Bush made significant inroads when he was elected to the presidency and received twice the national support of Latinos than Republicans in the two previous elections. But it hasn’t lasted. Our rhetoric of deportation and deprivation of social programs for illegal immigrants has lost us almost all of our support from the Latino voters.

Requiring photo ID would be a great start in order to prevent illegal immigrants from committing voter fraud, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about legal voters. This article is about immigrants eligible for citizenship.

It has been and still is my position that illegal immigration hurts legal immigrants the most because illegal immigrants compete for the same jobs and don’t pay taxes. However, I don’t believe that most legal, Latino, immigrants eligible to vote see it that way. They see deportation of illegal immigrants or lost jobs for illegal immigrants, rightly or wrongly, as unjust suffering of friends, neighbors, and fellow human beings.

Republicans have a lot in common with Latinos and we need to cultivate friendship and loyalty on that basis:

-         Catholics in general are the largest group of swing voters because they often favor government policies that contribute to the poor, are opposed to some of the wars that conservatives support, but have strong family values, work ethic and most poignantly are pro-life.

-         We should be able to get the Catholic, Latino vote by focusing on strong families, pro-life policies, and by constantly sending the message that conservatives care about the poor through private giving as well as wage war in order to help those suffering and oppressed in other countries.

-         We need to adopt immigration policies that will not hurt the families of Latinos (or anyone else). It seems to me that there is nothing worse to a Latino than a breaking up the family support system and preventing the bread-winner from supporting the family.

-         We can oppose illegal immigration without being alarmist and without supporting policies that are going to harm the families and friends of those whose support we need.

There is too much at stake here. There are too many issues that matter. We cannot afford to throw away the Latino vote and damage GOP-Latino relations for years. Don’t be mistaken. Here in California Reagan had great support from Latinos when he was governor, it was the more liberal Republican, Pete Wilson that lost the Latino vote. Latinos will support a conservative, as long as we support Latinos.

What do I support? A Reagan-esque Plan.

-         Build a fence. Stop illegal immigration. Enforce our borders and our laws.

-         Focus on winning the Latino vote, not deporting illegal immigrants.

-         Grant guest workers visas immediately for those that can prove they’ve been working here for the past year.

-         Put illegal immigrant who are not guilty of crimes unrelated to illegal immigration in the back of line to become citizens.

-         Create path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that requires them to pay their debt by paying a large fine close to the taxes that they’ve not paid over years of working in the U.S. Other options could include joining the military for a number of years in order to gain citizenship; obviously the military can set the standards for enrolment.

-         Audit employers. Heavily fine employers of illegal immigrants.

Senate Republicans Deny Democrats Consideration of Fair Pay Act

Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process

AP updated 8:50 a.m. PT, Mon., April. 28, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups [including the ACLU] opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

………………………………………………………………………………….

Big surprise of the day! Liberals oppose the prevention of voter fraud. Of course they do; fraudulent votes count towards democrats. You know it and they know. Here is one for you conspiracy theorists that believe that George Bush was voted in by fraudulent votes. Why would the Republicans make voter fraud more difficult by enforcing restrictions, if they needed to use it in order to get the votes they need?

And to top it off! Liberals refer to conservative efforts to enforce our laws as “a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor, and minority voters” from participating in an election. Why not call the liberal’s motives what they are? A thinly veiled effort to encourage voter fraud because they know it will help them. Let’s face it; criminals are much more likely to vote Democrat. If liberals had their way, criminals would be able to vote from prison, that way we’d have Dems running the country. Man! What standards!

We used to have standards for who could vote. The Dems want to do away with all of our standards of decency and competence to allow anyone to vote. Just one last thing, Dems are the ones who generally oppose, whether on principle or on pragmatism, the idea of requiring voters to pass a basic civics (in English). Why? They think that Republicans are the stupid ones. If Republicans really are the stupid ones, why not require a very basic minimum competency in order to vote? Come on Dems, you’ve got nothing to lose.

At any rate, this court decision is a victory for justice in this great nation!

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

Obedience to God is worthwhile.

Here is a partial list of the things God has given me and my wife in the past year, since we started giving ten percent of our gross income to the church (less than $200 a month):

-         I thought I needed a job in Santa Barbara. I had two interviews at one job and they turned me down. We ended up moving to Sacramento. I got good a good job in the field I hoped for after a couple weeks. It pays the rent, the car insurance, the gas, and the groceries every month.

-         My wife thought she was going to lose her temp job this May. The new person that was supposed to take her spot fell through. Now she has a job for the summer.

-         We got into a good apartment when we moved and we pay $300 a month less than the neighbors next to us because we got in when management changed and they ran a discount deal.

-         I got a flat tire and an oil leak on my Vespa. The repair cost less than expected.

-         Both of our computers broke. Dell sent my wife a brand new computer ($1000+). My computer was fixed. So was my ipod.

-         We’re getting a great tax return ($2000+).

-         Saving the best for last, Pepperdine offered me a full ride scholarship to their law school for the next three years ($150,000+). I didn’t even pray for a full scholarship. I thought it was too bold, but my in-laws prayer for it. And God answered.

If you are not obedient to God, what are you waiting for? I’m not guaranteeing that you’ll prosper financially, but you will be blessed exceedingly and far beyond your expectations. It will happen time and again. Each time you will ask yourself, “why didn’t I trust God?”

(Reporting by David Morgan, editing by Jackie Frank)

Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:44am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain accused North Carolina's Republican Party of being "out of touch with reality" over its refusal to pull an advertisement criticizing Democrat Barack Obama.

……………………………………………………………………………………….

I think McCain is onto something here. Let’s face it, the conservative pundits with the exception of Medved and a couple others, were wrong on McCain. We (not that I’m a pundit) thought that McCain didn’t stand a chance. Furthermore, we thought that McCain was not conservative enough for the Republican Party and we didn’t want him to win. Well, the base was wrong; Republicans and independents won McCain the nomination. Maybe, we are out of touch with reality. Maybe, McCain is right.

As for strategy, this is a win-win situation. Obama’s pastor hurts him as a candidate. It keeps Hillary in the race longer. So, the Republican Party can play the ad with its full effect. Meanwhile, McCain looks good to all of those people out there that do want a more, let’s say, traditionally polite campaign. The only thing I’m worried about is that the Democrats will eventually get privy to all of this and nominate Hillary, who I think will be harder for McCain to beat. The excitement for Obama is already wearing off, as all excitement does.

Finally, we need the conservative base to vote for McCain. Don’t abandon him just because he isn’t as conservative as you are. It will just be a shot in the foot of the Republican Party, if we do.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

In an NBC interview aired on Friday, the Arizona senator said he has done all he can to persuade the state party to cancel the television ad that criticizes Obama as "too extreme" because of controversial remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable," McCain told NBC's "Today" Show.

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

McCain brings up an excellent point to remember. He is bringing us back to a traditional and historical perspective that makes the Republican Party look great! Let us thank McCain for that.

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

"I've done everything that I can to repudiate and to see that this kind of campaigning does not continue," he added.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Republicans, I understand that this comment hurts. But don’t be offended so easily. A McCain win will be a Republican win. Don’t let a little difference in election season become a big difference in the course that we take as a nation.

Ironically, if Obama had spoken about his pastor the same way McCain speaks about the Republican Party, we might actually respect Obama a little. Then again, Obama has no excuse for being in that nut’s church anyway.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Asked if the state party's unwillingness to heed his call raised questions about his leadership, McCain replied: "I don't know exactly how to respond to that."

North Carolina is one of two states holding the next crucial Democratic primaries on May 6 in the tight race between Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to oppose McCain in the November presidential election.

Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has come under fire for attending Wright's church in Chicago where the fiery black preacher made a number of racially charged statements about the United States.

Wright, who is now retired, said in a PBS interview that people are trying to paint him as "some kind of fanatic."

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

It is understandable that Wright is upset. He is not a fanatic. He is an entertainer and a fraud. As a privileged, American, male, W.A.S.P. I feel obligated to speak the truth at the risk of overstepping my bounds. Wright exploits the people that he claims to love and his rhetoric of victimization has done more to oppress black Americans than the evil and entirely morally repugnant, sad, sorry, little racists in the K.K.K over the last two or three decades. I can’t do anything for the black community, but I know what the black community needs. It is the same thing that every ethnic group needs; freedom, opportunity, personal responsibility, and leaders who will encourage it.

Back to Mac, McCain is the kind of leader who speaks to all Americans with the same message of freedom and responsibility. He could be the man to draw blacks back to the Republican Party. McCain leads by example. He stood in Arlington before a crowd that won’t vote for him on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination. Although I didn’t agree with him, he has visited Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina and may appeal to the blacks there. He walked the bridge in Selma on his tour of forgotten places. His example is admirable and it does not go unnoticed. Nothing will change during the campaign, but a McCain presidency shows promise for the improvement of race relations in the future of the Republican Party.

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

Published: April 25, 2008

BATON ROUGE, La. — Senator John McCain took direct aim at the Bush administration on Thursday as he stood in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, the area hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and declared the handling of the disaster “terrible and disgraceful” and pledged that it would never happen again.

Asked at a news conference outside St. David’s Catholic Church if he traced the failure of leadership straight to the top, Mr. McCain, who has said he wants to campaign with President Bush, said emphatically, “Yes.”

Later, Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus that if the disaster had happened on his watch, he would have landed his plane “at the nearest Air Force base and come over personally.”

………………………………………………………………………

McCain took a cheap shot at Bush with his criticism of the Katrina response. He falls right in line with the “government needs to save me” crowd. Look, flying to the disaster area is good for morale and PR. But that isn’t what is going to fulfill the promise never to handle a future disaster the way this disaster was handled.

The truth is that our country is too big for a federal response even to huge disasters. What we need is local disasters response forces and local responsibility. Bill Clinton’s FEMA failed. He missed a great chance to explain carefully that a large centralized government, which is what the Democrats want, is what allows these problems to happen.

It is easy to say what should have been done after the fact.  Criticizing the “little things” like making an appearance at the site is not constructive. McCain runs the risk of alienating the conservative base of the Republican Party that he needs to court.

By MICHELLE ROBERTS – 13 hours ago (4/24/2008 09:00)

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) The 437 children taken from the polygamist compound in West Texas are being scattered to group homes and boys' and girls' ranches across the state, plunged into a culture radically different from the community where they and their families shunned the outside world as a hostile, contaminating influence on their godly way of life.

……………………………………………………………..

Government agency, CPS, oversteps its bounds. CPS decides what is right and wrong for your children. Remind anyone of 1984?

Clearly, marrying underage women and polygamy is against the law and should be prevented. But taking these children, who are ahead of their mainstream peers in education and manners, away from their mothers is another issue. On what basis does the CPS take these children away from their mothers and from their homes?

…………………………………………………..

Dr. Bruce Perry, a child psychiatrist who testified for the children last week, said FLDS children may be easily taken advantage of by outsiders because of the strict control church leaders have had over their daily lives.

People who have left the sect "felt emotionally incapable of decision-making," he said.

…………………………………………………………………….

Do you think that a psychiatrist’s opinion on something as subjective as emotional capability to make decisions is a good basis for taking away these children from their mothers? If you think it is…don’t be surprised when a psychiatrist comes to CPS with evidence that conservative children are incapable of making decisions. It wasn’t too long ago that the UC Berkeley psychology department came out with a study showing that children that grew up to be conservatives were mal-adjusted and isolated individuals.

Am I on a slippery slope? You would have been called crazy years ago, if you thought that smoking in the street could be outlawed in a CA town (Calabasas), but it is. Laws are becoming stricter. The nanny state is growing. To liberals, just not voting for a Democrat is enough evidence of incapability of making decisions. And as you know, liberals only care about choice when it comes to killing babies. Just don’t say you weren’t warned.

…………………………………………………..

8 Homes and $18,500 to Jamaica’s Needy

Another great night on the show...

We had set out to build 'four' homes for the poverty stricken people of Jamaica with 'Food for the Poor', and we saw the audience respond. Our goal was 4 homes, and at $2600 a piece that equated nearly $10,000. When it was all said and done last night, the Northern California audience contributed over $18,000 and have helped to build 8 new homes for 8 needy families with 'Food for the Poor'.

If was amazing to see God work, as two individuals built a complete home themselves ($2600), and one military veteran and chaplain built 3 homes with his single donation. The rest came in donations of $130, $50 and those loved $10 donations. May God bless each and every heart...He will.

Today we are thankful, as we get back to our normal conversation on "The Eric Hogue Show".

………………………………………………………………………

Christians are good for the world. Look at the amazing good that is done for the poor through a Christian organization. This is the way it should be done. Private charity is good for the world. Government and taxes are not always the answer.

I just wanted to point out an example for anyone who says, “religion poisons everything” or Christians don’t practice what they preach.

Room for improvement? Yes. Room for total dismissal of Christianity? No.

What has Carter done besides rendering the Nobel “Peace” Prize meaningless? He has hindered any progress towards peace. He has broken a long standing American tradition that former presidents don’t publicly criticize current presidents. He has shamed the American public. His is making the Democrats look bad, but I would rather the Democrats look good and peace be achieved.

This rogue president is accepting tax payer money. And he should give the money back. The world would be better off without Jimmy Carter. At the very least, we shouldn’t have to finance his idiocy.

California lawmakers have moved forward on a bill that imposes severe limitations on the methods used to spank one's child. AB 2943 has passed out of the state Assembly's Public Safety Committee and it now heads to the Appropriations Committee.

The legislation is a resurrected version of Democrat Sally Lieber's bill from last year, minus the outright spanking ban. The bill prohibits using "implements" such as wooden spoons, paddles, rolled-up newspapers, switches, belts, or brushes -- essentially, allowing only the hand.

………………………………………………………………………………

Can you believe this America? Do the Democrats know how to raise your child better than you do? What happened to the liberal’s bumper sticker, “If you can’t trust me with a choice, then how can you trust me with a child?”  

Well, this is just another example, but it shows that liberals are only pro-choice when it comes to killing babies. You think you know when and how it is right to spank your child? Not anymore. The Democrats will decide for you.

I know they are hypocrites when they fly around in private jets. I know they strain out a gnat and swallow a camel when they wear hemp clothes or refuse a Styrofoam cup and then get in their Volkswagen bus and drive to the beach.

Okay, I’m starting to understand the anger. All I’m saying is this…it may be fun to eat a big juicy hamburger in front of a narcissistic vegetarian. But it still doesn’t make it cool to walk up to a recycling bin and throw your empty, plastic water bottle in the trash. Do your part. You don’t have to “go green” like the nincompoops who fight climate change because they forgot that there is real evil in the world. You just have to support responsible environmental policies that actually improve the cleanliness of the earth and benefit human beings. Conservatives should conserve energy and resources. We can defeat the left’s hysteria and come out ahead as long as we do not allow ourselves to be identified as Captain Planet’s arch enemies, Smog Hog and Pollution-man.