From: Remi (e-mail him)
Although I am a native-born English-speaking American, I also speak fluent Spanish.
Like many other Roman Catholics, I am greatly distressed by the direction my church has taken by encouraging illegal immigration. And recently I came across something in our parish that confirmed my worst fears about its alien pandering.
The Diocese of Nashville states that engaged couples should meet with their priest at least four months before an anticipated wedding date. This is the Bishop's stated fixed policy per its website.
Our local parish however, St. Thomas Aquinas, has two conflicting standards:
In the English-language bulletin, the pre-nuptial guidelines require that no wedding date can be set until an engaged couple meets with the priest at least six months before the anticipated wedding.
But in the Spanish-language bulletin, it states that the no wedding date can be set up until an engaged couple meets with the priest at least six weeks before the proposed wedding date.
Since I am one of the few native-born Americans in our parish that speaks Spanish fluently, this outrageous double-dealing goes unnoticed by most other parishioners.
Here is the word for word text that I copied from my Church's actual posting:
From the St. Thomas Aquinas Sunday English Bulletin:
"...Sacrament of Matrimony…Please contact the Office or Rectory at least six months before the date of the proposed marriage"
From the Sunday Spanish Language Bulletin
"…Sacramento del matrimonio …Por favor pongase en contacto con la oficina por o menos 6 semanas antes de la fecha de la boda." ("Sacrament of Matrimony…Please contact the office at least 6 weeks before the date of the wedding.")
In addition, the Church certainly fears an increase in abortions among the brides-to-be if a wait longer than six weeks is required, since many brides are already pregnant. Abortion rates are higher among Hispanics per the Alan Guttmacher Institute figures that VDARE.COM has previously published.
The likely explanation one would probably get from our unapologetically supportive-of-illegal-immigration pastor, Father Chad Puthoff, is that the Church made a typographical misprint. But my wife and I have been collecting both the English and Spanish versions of the bulletin for about six months. This is no error—it done completely by design.
My wife and I have already been denounced as racists, troublemakers, malcontents, etc— the usual litany of charges—when we speak out about this and other matters concerning our parish's preferential treatment of Hispanics.
From: Alice Gregory (e-mail her)
Re: Joe Guzzardi's Column: A Mexican Immigrant Asks Why Can't He Wave His Flag? Joe (And Ruben Navarrette) Explain
II understand the point Miguel Mendoza, the letter writer with whom Guzzardi corresponded and cited in his column, is trying to make. Mendoza feels that demonstrations involving the Mexican flag are acceptable.
Maybe…but more often foreign flag waving and its more offensive variation of flag hanging send a different message.
When Mexicans wave their flag, it is not done in celebration but to represent an act of defiance in opposition to American resistance to their illegal activities.
Gregory is recently retired. Although her family encourages her to return to work, she finds patriotic immigration reform activism more satisfying.
From: Augusto Perez (e-mail him)
Letter writer Mendoza fails to understand that Mexico continues to exert influence over what it calls "Mexican communities abroad," as it defines the term here in a Spanish-language only government website
That the vast majorities of these "communities" consist of illegal aliens and their children is of no importance to nationalists like Mendoza.
Defending waving the Mexican flag in the U.S. is the same if a gang member alleged that flashing his signs is not a breach of civil discourse.
That the galvanizing issue for many ethnocentric immigrants, most often Mexicans, continues to be the quest for legalization of illegal aliens proves that those who have citizenship have yet to shed the national loyalties they swore to forego when they took the oath of allegiance to America.
When Mexican lobbyists and apologists persist in cooperating with Mexico to further that country's agenda, it is tantamount to nullifying their citizenship.
Were it not for the fact that Mexico uses its Diaspora as a lobbying tool, all the flag waving might be ignored.
But the fact is that Mexico maintains a constant campaign to create links between their citizens and to have them think "Mexico first".
I propose that the U.S. end ill-conceived notion of tolerating dual citizenship. Foreign-born citizens, if they hold a passport from their native country, should be forced to surrender it immediately or his U.S. citizenship would be annulled.
From: Joe Mulvey (e-mail him)
Re: Today's Letter: A Connecticut Reader Predicts Senator Christopher Dodd Will Drop Out
There's so much more dirty laundry to hang out about immigration-loving Christopher Dodd's sleazy financial maneuverings.
Not only has Dodd been the recipient of generous AIG contributions but also his wife Jackie Clegg Dodd was from 2001 to 2004 an "outside" director of IPC Holdings, Ltd., a Bermuda-based company controlled by AIG. [Dodd's Wife, Too, Had Money Links to AIG, by Jennifer Fermino, New York Post, March 25, 2009]
In 2003, according to a proxy statement, Clegg received $12,000 per year and an additional $1,000 for each directors and committee meeting she attended—and she faithfully attended more than 75 percent of them. Clegg sat on the Audit and Investment committees during her final year on the board.
Furthermore, she served as the managing partner of Clegg International Consultants, LLC, which she created in 2001, the year she joined the board of IPC. Dodd's public financial disclosure reports with the Senate from 2001-2004 can be seen here.
Mulvey is an insurance executive.