CARTER BANNED IRANIANS FROM COMING TO US DURING HOSTAGE CRISIS

(Source) Trump is a monster, a madman
and a vile racist. He's just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.

During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.

Here's Jimmy "Hitler" Carter saying it back in 1980.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against "our values" after all. It may even be "who we are". Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.

Meanwhile here's how the Iranian students in the US were treated.

Carter orders 50,000 Iranian students in US to report to immigration office with view to deporting those in violation of their visas. On 27 December 1979, US appeals court allows deportation of Iranian students found in violation.

In November 1979, the Attorney General had given all Iranian students one month to report to the local immigration office. Around 7,000 were found in violation of their visas. Around 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the US.

Meanwhile any Iranians entering the US were forced to undergo secondary screening.

Interestingly enough, Carter did this by invoking the Nationality Act of 1952. A law originally opposed by Democrats for its attempt to restrict Communist immigration to the United States.

“If this oasis of the world should be overrun, perverted, contaminated, or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished,” Senator McCarran said of the law. He was a Democrat.

Now unlike Muslims, Iranians were not necessarily supportive of Islamic terrorism. Many were and are opponents of it. Khomeini didn't represent Iran as a country, but his Islamist allies. So Trump's proposal is far more legitimate than Carter's action. Carter targeted people by nationality. Trump's proposal does so by ideology.

Classifying Iranians as a group is closer to racism than classifying people by a racist supremacist ideology that calls for the mass murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as ISIS is doing today.

One of the neater subsets of the 1952 Act barred the entry of, "(11) Aliens who are polygamists or who practice polygamy or advocate the practice of polygamy."

I wonder which creed this might apply to.

Maybe the professional conservatives running around shrieking their heads off can calm down now long enough to have a rational conversation on the subject.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield#.VmeHQKyKAKO.twitter

Allen West “Our economy is shrinking and yet we’re still being fed a story that things are getting better”

(Allen West) This week the President dissolved his jobs council (which only met once in 2012) while another 169k people disappeared from the workforce. The “official” unemployment rate is 7.9% but there are now 89 million Americans no longer in the workforce. Black unemployment is 13.8%, it’s 9.7% for Hispanics and 23.4% for teens. Real unemployment (based on U6) is over 14%. Our economy is shrinking and yet we’re still being fed a story that things are getting better- only if you measure it by how many people are dependent on the government, I suppose. I'm more worried about what happens if America does do a short term recovery. a spike in petrol supply and fracking growth could create another bubble. Should that happen Obama could take credit for events that he was an impediment to. (Sultan Knish)The economy contracted by .1% and the unemployment rate has risen by 1%, all in defiance of the official projections. Job creation numbers are 40,000 off what they were supposed to be. 159,000 jobs were added, but 169,000 workers left the labor force.Consumer spending only rose .2 percent in December, at a time when consumers should have been doing a lot of their holiday shopping. The dollar fell against the euro and while Obama’s pals on Wall Street are doing well, no one else is. The Media and Immigration claims (THE MEDIA ACCORDING TO KNISH)Meanwhile we’re not supposed to pay attention to any of this, as the media keeps finding ways to explain it all away as part of the recovery. The media is claiming that Obama’s amnesty program for illegal aliens will fix the economy… because dumping 11 million unskilled workers into a marketplace with rising unemployment is a sure fix. And once we have 11 percent unemployment and millions more Mexicans on welfare, then the recovery really will be here.

Ed Koch Thinks NYT Should Apologize for ‘Intolerant,’ ‘Outrageous’ Editorial

(Photo: Getty)

Former Mayor Ed Koch is very upset with The New York Times at the moment.
The cause? An editorial on immigration, where the the publication of record saw a new opportunity to push for reform in the wake of Republican election losses this year. But Mr. Koch, in one of his regular missives typically containing movie reviews, instead used the space to accuse The Times of overreaching in its rhetoric.
“I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th,” Mr. Koch began. “The Times in its editorials rarely refers to ‘illegal’ immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as ‘undocumented,’ and its newest description is ‘unauthorized.’”
Mr. Koch went on to castigate The Times for its “full-throated call for amnesty,” and for using a straw man depiction, “hardliners against reform — including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists,” to make their argument.
“I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times,” the former mayor said. “The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides.”
View Mr. Koch’s full commentary below:
The New York Times Editorial of November 18th On Immigration Reform Is A Disgrace
I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th, entitled, “New Hope on Immigration.” It advocates, as it has for years, providing amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now residing within the borders of the United States.
The Times in its editorials rarely refers to “illegal” immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as “undocumented,” and its newest description is “unauthorized.”
In its editorial ,The Times libels those Americans who believe that the U.S. should not have open borders. No country in the world has an open-door policy. The Times editorial refers to the opponents of open borders and amnesty as, “The hardliners against reform — including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists.” It contrasts them with those “behind reform – student activists, business groups, farmers, labor unions, Catholic bishops, evangelical churches, African-Americans, civil-liberties organizations and regular American citizens who support legalization.” I believe a majority of Americans oppose the amnesty legislation. Because of their opposition, the proposal has been defeated several times in Congress.
Many of those opposed to an amnesty providing a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, support a compassionate response such as the “Dream Act.” That act, which President Obama implemented by executive order, allows youngsters brought here by their parents illegally to remain here, receive a green card permitting them to work, and exempts them from deportation pending passage by the Congress of the Dream Act. Many would support keeping families together and include the parents in the amnesty ultimately provided the youngsters covered by the proposed Dream Act. Supporting such a broad amnesty is a good example of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s comment “defining deviancy down,” meaning if you can’t control illegality, accept it and make it legal.
The Times in its full-throated call for amnesty and a change in immigration policy denounces opponents by stating they “despise illegals.” Untrue. The opponents believe the U.S. should enforce its immigration policy and not allow the law to be ignored and violated with impunity. Many of us believe that our current policy of permitting 750,000 aliens and 250,000 refugees to enter each year, all of whom are eligible for U.S. citizenship, should be amended to expand the number and allow more of those waiting in line for their turn to come in. The Times apparently believes no one should have to wait, and the walls should come tumbling down.
The Times even believes that those it refers to as “minor offenders” should be welcomed to stay, the “minor offenders” language generally referring to those who have committed misdemeanors where the crime is subject to up to a maximum one-year prison sentence. The Times states that “[t]here is enforcement work to be done like finding more effective ways to stifle illegal employment, but any strategy that fixates on deportation and the border is foolish and ineffective.” Ridiculous.
The Times objects to President Obama’s successful efforts to find and deport those who have committed crimes, other than the crime of illegal entry, resulting in 400,000 deportations annually. It opposes the federal government through Homeland Security using “state and local police officers” to help the feds in enforcing the law. President Obama’s policy has been to secure the borders before providing amnesty legislation. Amnesty legislation did not solve the problem in the 1980s when it was employed and won’t solve it now. Millions of people from around the world want to live in the U.S. and do not want to wait in line, as they must and do for every other country, including Mexico. Providing a blanket amnesty now simply encourages others to enter illegally and wait for the next amnesty.
I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times. The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides. The Times editorial can be seen at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opinion/sunday/new-hope-on-immigration.html...

via politicker.com

Obama wants Israel to have illegal immigrants from Hezbullah just like the US has

(Carl) wondes what they'll think of this in Arizona or Texas. The US State Department has slammed Israel for its treatment of asylum seekers.

The report, entitled 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, stated that though the government has ceased the practice of immediately returning African asylum seekers arriving via Egypt, it "continued to deny many asylum seekers individual refugee status determinations, which impacted their ability to work or receive basic social services, including health care."
The reports says that Israeli law allows most asylum seekers access to temporary asylum, however, refers to complaints regarding accessibility to the system and reports of discrimination.
Citing United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) data, the report says that out of 4,603 new asylum applications submitted during 2011, the government rejected 3,692, approved one and, 6,412 remained pending.
The US also viewed negatively government officials' use of the term "infiltrators" to refer to asylum seekers, as well as officials who directly associations asylum seekers with the rise in crime, disease and terrorism. Interior Minister Eli Yishai was specifically flagged as an instigator.
Meanwhile, as the report was released, Yishai reiterated his views, telling channel 10 that "all infiltrators must be imprisoned, with no exceptions," and that the state must transmit a message to them all, that Israel does not accept them.

Just think: The United States Obama administration wants Israel to be just like the United States, and have Hezbullah agents infiltrating as 'refugees' from Africa, just like the US has Hezbullah agents infiltrating from Mexico.
If you think that last statement is an exaggeration, consider this from YNet.

The report says that while Israel's laws "provide for the granting of temporary asylum and the government has established a system for providing temporary protection for most asylum seekers, there were complaints about the system’s accessibility and reports of discrimination."
The current laws, the report added, "Allow the Ministry of Interior to reject applications without appeal even at the registration stage, and exclude 'enemy nationals' from receiving asylum. The regulations fail to establish an independent appeal process."

You got that? The mean, bad Israelis exclude 'enemy nationals' (like 'Palestinians,' Syrians and Iranians) from receiving asylum. Oh the horror! /sarc
And look what everyone else gets:

While "recognized refugees receive social services, including access to the national healthcare system," the report noted that the government does not provide asylum seekers with public social benefits such as health insurance.
The report does, however, mention that in 2011 Israel granted temporary protection to refugees, primarily to Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers, and at times to asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Somalia.

They get access to the national healthcare system. Hello - we have socialized medicine here. So what does it mean to say that we don't provide them with health insurance? Many Israelis have no healthcare beyond the national healthcare system. Why isn't the State Department worried about them?
Sorry but this report is ridiculous. There's no reason Israel has to provide benefits that are going to encourage more people to come here illegally. Every country has the right to protect its own borders. And thank God our leadership does not include Obama.

If Israel... and the United States just let everyone in... then there would be no incentive to come at all... because it would be a huge ghetto hell. It's disgusting to cry bigotry at people that everyone says they hate... but we all know they are just jealous because the Jews take care of their own... which is something everyone else doesn't. You don't help people by reinforcing their poor values within your own borders.

France: Not all civilisations equal, minister says

(Islam In Europe via AFP): French Interior Minister Claude Gueant, who also holds the immigration portfolio, caused political uproar by claiming that not all civilisations are equal, with some more advanced than others.

"Contrary to what the left's relativist ideology says, for us all civilisations are not of equal value," Gueant on Saturday told a conference in the French parliament building, but closed to the media.
"Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that do not," he argued in his speech at a meeting organised by a right-wing students group.
"Those which defend liberty, equality and fraternity, seem to us superior to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred," he went on his speech, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.
(source)

it is a simple idea really... it shouldn't just be about Islam. We have lost all respect for details and the integrity of observation.

Obama Scolds Hispanic Roundtable: Stop Complainin’

What Obama should say to Latin America is that the U.S.A. will reform it's immigration laws when they do. I really don't get this hypocrisy. A Democratic Republic's very definition is to have borders to protect from arbitrary jurisdiction which is tyranny.

(Weaselzippers.us) They have no reason to complain, Obama flaunted his power and granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegals.

(Politico) — President Barack Obama showed some frustration Wednesday as he responded to questions about stalled immigration reform, chiding a Hispanic roundtable that “we live in a democracy.”
“This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true,” Obama told Hispanic journalists at an “Open for Questions” White House roundtable. “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And there is a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and comprehensive immigration reform passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself I can just go and do these things.” Obama’s brief moment of pique highlights his struggle to maintain Hispanic support amid disappointment over his failure to push immigration reform aggressively and the inability of Democratic lawmakers to pass the DREAM Act through Congress. The act would offer a path to citizenship for some young illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. Just 48 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Obama is doing, down from 60 percent in January, according to Gallup. Hispanics, meanwhile, comprise potentially decisive voting blocks in key 2012 states including Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico.

Soldiers loyal to Gaddafi are rounding up people and forcing them onto boats at gunpoint.

...When NATO bombardments against Libya began, Gaddafi vowed to “unleash an unprecedented wave of illegal immigration” on Europe. And the ships have been arriving from Libya since. REDRAW RAFTS or SOLDIERS details and story from Newsweek and  h/t Elder Ziyon

France and Italy in call to close EU borders in wake of Arab protests

Sarkozy_and_Berlusconi are demanding European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send migrants home.

Bedbug epidemic
spreads
to the United Nations

France and Italy have thrown down the gauntlet over Europe's system of passport-free travel, saying a crisis of immigration sparked by the Arab spring was calling into question the borderless regime enjoyed by more than 400 million people in 25 countries.Challenging one of the biggest achievements of European integration of recent decades, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi also launched a joint effort to stem immigration and demanded European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send new arrivals packing.
The French president and the Italian prime minister, at a summit in Rome, opted to pile the pressure on Brussels and the governments of the other 25 EU states, demanding an "in-depth revision" of European law regulating the passport-free travel that takes in almost all of the EU with the exception of Britain and Ireland.
Prompted by the influx to Italy of almost 30,000 immigrants, mainly from Tunisia, in recent months, the two leaders warned that the upheavals in north Africa "could swiftly become an out-and-out crisis capable of undermining the trust our fellow citizens place in the free circulation within the Schengen area".
The passport-free travel system known as the Schengen regime was agreed by a handful of countries in 1985 and put into practice in 1995. Since then it has been embraced by 22 EU countries as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, but spurned by Britain and Ireland. It is widely seen, along with the euro single currency, as Europe's signature unification project of recent decades.
But like the euro, fighting its biggest crisis over the past year, the Schengen regime is being tested amid mounting populism and the renationalisation of politics across the EU.
In other setbacks to borderless Europe, Germany, France and other countries have been blocking the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen in recent months, while the arrival of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants in Greece has fed exasperation with Athens's inability to control the EU's southern border.
The Franco-Italian move, following weeks of bad-tempered exchanges between Paris and Rome over how to deal with the Tunisian influx, is the biggest threat yet to the Schengen regime.
"For the treaty to stay alive, it must be reformed," Sarkozy said. Berlusconi added: "We both believe that in exceptional circumstances there should be variations to the Schengen treaty."
They sent a joint letter to the European commission and European council chiefs, José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, urging proposals from Brussels and agreement on a new system at an EU summit of government heads in June.
The commission said it was drawing up new proposals, tinkering with the current system, to be unveiled next week. But it has resisted, with the support of most EU governments, intense Italian pressure to label the arrivals from north Africa an emergency.
Under European law the border-free regime can be suspended only for reasons of national security, routinely invoked in recent years by member states hosting major international sporting events such as the World Cup or the European football championships, where individual countries contend with a huge, one-off influx of foreigners.
Sarkozy and Berlusconi insisted the rules be changed to allow more restrictions on freedom of travel. A new deal was "indispensable", they said. The June summit should "examine the possibility of temporarily re-establishing internal frontier controls in case of exceptional difficulty in the management of the [EU's] common external frontiers".
This, however, would clearly not be in the interests of Italy, which fears an end to the hostilities in Libya could spark an even bigger exodus. In that event, the letter said, the EU should provide "mechanisms of specific solidarity" including the distribution of immigrants among member states.
This will prove extremely divisive and will be rejected by countries such as Germany and Sweden, which have much higher numbers of asylum seekers than Italy, less restrictive immigration policies, and little sympathy for Italy's plight.
The concerted Franco-Italian initiative also called for accords between the EU and north African countries on repatriating immigrants, a policy certain to spark outrage among human rights groups, the refugee lobby, and more liberal EU governments.
Promising strong support for the democratic revolutions sweeping the Maghreb and the Middle East, Sarkozy and Berlusconi added: "In exchange we have the right to expect from our partner countries a commitment to a rapid and efficacious co-operation with the European Union and its member states in fighting illegal immigration."
Tuesday's move followed weeks of feuding between Rome and Paris over the Tunisian exodus. Furious at the failure of other EU countries to "share the burden", the Italians granted visas to the immigrants enabling them to move elsewhere in the EU. The Germans and the Austrians complained. The Belgians accused Rome of "cheating" on the Schengen rulebook. The French government promptly closed a part of the border with Italy briefly, re-erecting passport controls to halt trains.
But Berlusconi and Sarkozy, seeking to curry favour with the strong far-right constituencies in both countries, sought to bury their differences by urging the rest of Europe to buy into their anti-immigration agenda.

via guardian.co.uk
Photograph: Alessandro Di Meo/EPA

Why France Was So Keen to Attack Libya

Sarkozy's main rival is not Gaddafi, but rather Marine Le Pen, the charismatic new leader of the far-right National Front party in France. A new opinion poll published by Le Parisien newspaper on March 8 has Le Pen, who took over from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in January, winning the first round of next year's presidential election.

The survey gives Le Pen 23%, two percentage points ahead of both Sarkozy and Socialist leader Martine Aubry. On the basis of this opinion poll, Le Pen would automatically qualify for the second round run-off with one or other of the two mainstream party leaders.
Le Pen, who appeals to middle class voters, is riding high on voter dissatisfaction with the failure of the mainstream parties to address the problem of Muslim immigration. Since taking her post three months ago, Le Pen has single-handedly catapulted the twin issues of Muslim immigration and French national identity to the top of the French political agenda. In recent weeks, Le Pen has been a permanent fixture on prime-time television to discuss the threat to France of a wave of immigrants from Libya.
Gaddafi has already pledged that Europe will be "invaded" by an army of African immigrants: "You will have immigration. Thousands of people from Libya will invade Europe. There will be no-one to stop them any more," he warned on March 6 in an interview with the French newspaper Journal du Dimanche.
During a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi demanded €5 billion a year from the European Union to stop illegal immigration which "threatens to turn Europe black." At the time, Gaddafi asked: "What will be the reaction of the white Christian Europeans to this mass of hungry, uneducated Africans? We don't know if Europe will remain an advanced and cohesive continent or if it will be destroyed by this barbarian invasion. We have to imagine that this could happen, but before it does we need to work together."
Furious Europeans have compared Gaddafi's demands for cash to stop illegal immigration to a "Mafia extortion racket." But since the revolt in Tunisia in January, nearly 15,000 boat people (more than the total for all of 2010) have arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, a 20-square-kilometer island that traditionally has been a major gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union.
On March 14, Le Pen upstaged Sarkozy by visiting Lampedusa and telling undocumented migrants on the island that they were not welcome in Europe. "I have a lot of compassion for you, but Europe cannot welcome you," Le Pen said. "We do not have the financial means."

via hudson-ny.org

Gaddafi’s compound in Bab Al Azizia in Tripoli, bombed by American Forces in 1986.

Gaddafi’s bombed home at Bab Al Azizia, Libya, 1987, by Peter Arkell/Impact Photos

Google Earth image of Bab Al Azizia, location of Gaddafi’s compound in Tripoli, 2011
The most important aspect of the footage is the location where it was made. Gaddafi says, “I am in Tripoli”. More precisely, Gaddafi is located in front of his compound in Bab Al Azizia which was heavily bombed by the Reagan administration in 1986. Instead of rebuilding the shattered compound, Gaddafi chose to leave it as it is. The skeletal structure of the building acts as a powerful message of defiance and resilience. In 2003, just as Libya’s relationship with the West was thawing, Gaddafi even held a beauty pageant with international contestants, including British and American women, at this historically important site. The British photographer Muir Vidler produced a strikingly surreal series of photographs that depict the proceedings. The Bab Al Azizia compound would also become the backdrop to Nicolas Sarkozy’s state visit to Libya in 2007. The photograph clearly depicts Sarkozy’s discomfort for being turned into a strategically placed pawn by Gaddafi’s propaganda apparatus.

Muir Vidler, Libyan Beauty Pageant, 2003

Nicolas Sarkozy state visit to Libya in 2007

Hugo Chavez state visit to Libya in 2006

via visualcultureblog.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

so why is Obama attacking Libya.... hint hint... it isn't the Neo-Cons that influenced his decision. It is Europe. Obama may not like Sarkozy too much, but he is looking to quell his own incompetence.

Mexico's Drug War

The Mexican Drug War is an armed conflict taking place among rival drug cartels who fight for regional control, and between the drug cartels and the Mexican government, which seeks to reduce drug trafficking. Although Mexican drug cartels, or drug trafficking organizations, have existed for a few decades, they have become more powerful since the demise of Colombia's Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s. Mexican drug cartels now dominate the wholesale illicit drug market in the United States. Arrests of key cartel leaders, particularly in the Tijuana and Gulf cartels, have led to increasing drug violence as cartels fight for control of the trafficking routes into the United States.

It's About the Power Struggle

The EU and virtually every developed country with falling birth rates have tried to use immigration to stay ahead of the curve. Immigration serves the interests of the left, giving them a new power base to work with that is hostile to the conservative order-- but it does not solve the underlying problems. Immigrants generally come in times of prosperity and begin leaving during a downturn. Since the economic downturn, Mexicans have been leaving the United States, and Turks have been leaving Germany. Migration follows economy. Few people move to countries where there are no jobs. And quite a few decide they no longer want to stay in them. Immigration is based on dreams of prosperity, socialism on inevitable decline. A socialist country will attract new immigrants so long as it has jobs, business opportunities and an improved standard of living. When it loses those things, even the natives will begin to flee.

read the whole thing via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

FOX Claims Penélope Cruz Will Bear “Anchor Baby,” Latino Republicans Protest

Our political discourse suffers from an impasse prohibiting genuine progress. That impasse is political correctness or, more accurately, cultural Marxism. It is the priority of emotion over reason. It is the assertion that, if someone is offended by an argument or the language used to articulate it, the argument is inherently incorrect. It is a retarding force upon intellect.

Political correctness is an effective force because most decent people do not want to offend and will make what seem to be reasonable concessions in order to maintain civility. There is also a tendency to confuse arguments based on emotion with arguments appealing to emotion. For instance, the argument against the Ground Zero Mosque appeals to the emotional impact its construction will have upon survivors of the Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001. That is not the argument’s basis, however. If Imam Rauf’s claim that he desires to build bridges between the West and Islam is correct, his insistence upon a course which agitates is illogical.
Political correctness is used like a sucker punch to unduly handicap one side of a debate. It is a tactic which emerged from the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century, with the objective of destroying our existing culture. We must therefore wonder why an ostensibly conservative organization would employ the tactic.
¡Somos Republicans!, a Hispanic group, has taken issue with Fox News Latino’s use of the term “anchor baby” in a headline referencing actress Penélope Cruz. She and husband Javier Bardem are opting to deliver their son in the United States rather than in Spain.

[Journalist Christina] Tárrega explained that the actors’ wish is for their son to have dual citizenship, and since the two own an estate in Hollywood — and Spain grants citizenship to foreign born if a parent is born in Spain — it is quite a convenient situation.

The citizenship status of Cruz and Bardem is not reported. Their status is relevant toward determining whether or not Fox News Latino’s use of the term “anchor baby” is accurate. However, ¡Somos Republicans!’ objection is not based on this criteria.

The term “anchor baby” is equivalent to other defamatory terms such as “wetback”, “pickaninny” and “tar baby”.  Media outlets should never use these demeaning terms in connection with precious babies, and it is unfortunate that we have to inform FOX News of this when they are typically viewed as conservative.

Next: The difference between defamatory and descriptive…

via newsrealblog.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Thinner

An expert on demography told Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service that Netanyahu's proposal is not unlike France's way of dealing with the gypsy population. Prof. Sergio Della Pergola of the Hebrew University said, “It is a little like what [French president Nicola] Sarkozy did with the gypsies: he sent planes to Romania with gypsy immigrants [on board] and paid each immigrant 300 Euro.”

The Ministry of Defense said Sunday that construction work on the security fence between Israel and Egypt will begin this month in an effort to stop the infiltration of illegal immigrants. At the same time, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu instructed government ministries to try and find African countries that would be willing to take in the illegals that Israel expels, in return for financial compensation. The demographer said there was “a bit of a paradox” in the construction of the anti-infiltrator fence. “On the one hand, one needs to prevent the entry of refugees and terrorists through the border. But on the other hand, it is actually a good sign that the border between Israel and Egypt is an open one, because it shows that there are no hostile incidents between the two countries.”

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Maine Voting to let Illegal Voters

Portland residents will vote Nov. 2 on a proposal to give legal residents who are not U.S. citizens the right to vote in local elections, joining places like San Francisco and Chicago that have already loosened the rules or are considering it.

via msnbc.msn.com

Just what we need in this economy: 80,000 more uneducated, unskilled Muslim refugees

Barack Hussein Obama, in a determination letter to Congress, has announced that he will allow an additional 80,000 immigrants – – mostly from Islamic countries – – to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011.

That’s 80,000 more leeches on the welfare rolls, not to mention potential terrorists from countries like Somalia.

Paul L. Williams, The Last Crusade

Mr. Obama says that the increase in Muslim immigrants “is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”

Refugee Resettlement Watch and other organizations have expressed grave concern that Mr. Obama is allowing so many immigrants into the country while so many Americans remain out of work and living in poverty.

According to the US Department of Labor, 14.8 million Americans remain unemployed. 6.1 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or over. This figure has been challenged by
the Union of the Unemployed who provide statistics that the actual number of unemployed Americans is 31 million.

The U. S. Census Bureau shows that the median household income for Americans has fallen to $49,777 – – a decline of 0.7% in the past year.

One in seven Americans no longer can feed themselves.

According to The Wall Street Journal, 14.3% of the American people live in abject poverty.

A refugee is defined by The US Department of Immigration and Naturalization as someone who has left one’s country due to persecution or a fear of persecution.

This accounts for the sharp rise of Somali communities throughout the country.

However, the definition of refugee is ‘fudged’ in several cases. “Refugees” who have not left their country due to persecution, according to Mr. Obama’s determination letter, can still be called “refugees” if they are from Iraq, one of the Islamic countries of the former Soviet Union, or Cuba.

According to Section 413 (a) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act, the Office of Refugee Resettlement is required to submit an annual report to Congress on the activities of the refugees.

The report is supposed to include the number who are on public welfare programs.

But no report has forthcoming from the Office of Refugee Resettlement since 2007.

via barenakedislam.wordpress.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Come To America! Buy Your Very Own S.S.# for $120 ! COME ON IN, ILLEGALS!

Come to America, this is the nitemare. Illegal slime are coming in, that are MURDERERS and not even wanted in Mehico… But the doors be wide open ova heeyah! Look at this video below people, this is what is going on, this is the Obama mania dream come true…… To turn America into the biggest 3rd world ghetto on planet earth.  WITH ANY LUCK, the libo-slime buckets will suffer some consequences one day when the illegal wetback slimes chop off their heads.

CHANGE!

Beck says not to be haaaaters… Sure, tell THAT to the Hartley family that you don’t bring up Mr. Beck.  Before one can forgive, one goes through hatred, rage and anger.  Its not all THAT simple, Beck.

via themadjewess.wordpress.com

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Jan Brewer: Arizona Fighting to Survive

This is pretty amazing.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents believe overwhelmingly that their department leadership has become so politicized as to compromise the effectiveness of ICE and the safety of American people. Their union has released a letter announcing its recent unanimous “vote of no confidence” in ICE agency heads, accusing them of “misleading the American public” regarding illegal immigration in order to further a pro-amnesty agenda.

In June, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council — an AFL-CIO affiliate — and affiliated local councils cast a unanimous 259-0 vote of no confidence in ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven. In a letter announcing the vote, the National Council criticized the directors for “misguided and reckless initiatives,” and said their leaders have “abandoned the Agency’s core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for policies and programs related to amnesty.”

{Among the claims in the letter]:

Senior ICE leadership dedicates more time to campaigning for immigration reforms aimed at large scale amnesty legislation, than advising the American public and Federal lawmakers on the severity of the illegal immigration problem, and the need for more manpower and resources within the ICE ERO to address it. ICE ERO is currently overwhelmed by the massive criminal alien problem in the United States resulting in the large-scale release of criminals back into local communities.

Kind of puts the Arizona illegal immigration enforcement in perspective, doesn’t it?

While ICE reports internally that more than 90 percent of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails after they are arrested by local police for criminal charges, ICE senior leadership misrepresents this information publicly in order to portray ICE detainees as being non-criminal in nature to support the Administration’s position on amnesty and relaxed security at ICE detention facilities.

The majority of ICE ERO Officers are prohibited from making street arrests or enforcing United States immigration laws outside of the institutional (jail) setting. This has effectively created “amnesty through policy” for anyone illegally in the United States who has not been arrested by another agency for a criminal violation.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

via island-adv.com

"Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner. The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years. "The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote. Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants. Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses. The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws. A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect. In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.

via huffingtonpost.com

what is even more offensive is that Obama's position of reporting to the United Nations before his own people. Perhaps he should report the position of the Mexican immigration laws in Mexico that are a lot more strict then it's American counterpart.

noahdavidsimon's posterous

Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.

A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.

via news.yahoo.com

Chris Matthews: Do Republicans Oppose Obama Because of His Race?

MATTHEWS: I can`t resist asking this. I got to ask this question. If we had about a million Heide Klums trying to cross the border, the Mexican border of the United States, you know, the gorgeous blond from Germany or whatever, do you think that would be a problem with immigration right now, or is it really just ethnic? The people from a different ethnic background.

it is racist to want a swimsuit model? if they are Mexican models that are at the border... and we turn them down,,, then maybe he has a point.

via newsbusters.org

AZ Immigration Law [Updated] OMG Obama bows to a DOG?

Then there’s Obama down­ing Amer­ica with Mex­i­can Pres­i­dent Philippe Calderon. He even stoops so low as to bow and shake Calderon’s fam­ily dog’s paw. Talk about an anti-American putz. Every­one knows that Mex­ico is a narco-terrorist state. The reported death toll from mur­ders attrib­uted to drug related vio­lence since Calderon took office in 2006 exceeds over 15,000. This stat proves that Calderon and his coun­try are los­ing their lever­age to car­tel blood­shed. How dare Obama per­suade Mexico’s pres­i­dent to come to United States Con­gress to rail against Amer­ica. His suc­cess is obvi­ously depen­dent on ille­gal vot­ers. Guess what makes this so jacked up? Mexico’s laws are nearly iden­ti­cal to that of the United States and Ari­zona. Mex­ico has a job­less rate that dwarfs ours. And Mex­ico is not expe­ri­enc­ing the mil­lions of ille­gals flood­ing into their bor­ders like the US. So why couldn’t our POTUS stand up for Amer­i­cans? After all, he took an oath to do so. But promises to the Amer­i­can peo­ple are minor in Obama’s world. Obama promised dur­ing his first year that he would make immi­gra­tion reform a top pri­or­ity. NOT.

via jenniferhanin.com

When you deal with Pawns in an over sized government you don't see the borders of the Chess game, you only see the color of the pieces.

When you engage in class and racial warfare, you assume that everyone else is too, and that you are only acting in self-defense.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com


People who don't believe in borders are totalitarian internationalists who are victimizing Latin Americans and encouraging a lower quality of life. The leaders do this because they are greedy and power hungry.

Now Washington D.C. has been put on notice that the states will act, even if Washington D.C. does not. And if the Federal government will not enforce the law, there are state governments that will. Immigration is not the end of it. The War on Terror remains an obvious area where the government has neglected its responsibilities in order to curry favor with Islam. And the next time an Islamic terrorist kills civilians in a more independent minded state, its residents may also decide that serious enforcement is needed.

via sultanknish.blogspot.com

Powerful people are against the measure because those who are against this will get the growing Hispanic support in our country. Sadly those people are using these Latin Americans and are guaranteeing these people a less sustainable life then they would if they stayed on the other side of the border. 

On today’s edition of the unbearable anti-male yenta hag-fest, faux-conservative and genuine airhead Elisabeth Hasselbeck condemned the new Arizona immigration law as being “very wrong.” She equated the Arizonans enforcing the law with the illegal aliens breaking it. “They’re both wrong.” The mindless Hasselbeck also called for national laws addressing illegal aliens. I guess she never heard: we’ve had them on the books for decades. They just aren’t being enforced. That’s why Arizona has to enforce them, moron. Here’s a tip, Elisabeth: the Immigration and Nationality Act–google it. Or try reading a paper.
via debbieschlussel.com

and Family Guy?

It's a shame when people make baseless comparisons:

via thejidf.org

Money saved by not enabling these people to come here where they are a burden could be used to show a model Democratic Republic (which represent it's constituents and not an infinite community) that would prove to be a beacon standard for other countries to follow. Mexico is a failed state because of the popular but unsustainable standards chosen by their leaders and we are looking to copy their poor ideas. The general view that supports so called Leftist / Liberal / progressive immigration laws that encourage abuse is elitist and racist because it pretends that if we copy the ideas Mexico does that we won't suffer because we are White and we can afford it.  To these power hungry elitists a Mexican illegal alien is no different than a US citizen, because they don't recognize nations as valid entities.

Do you really think these international socialists have any concern for the quality of life of Mexicans or maybe they just think that a nice nanny state run by white people with a token black figure head is the best way to run the plantation? The real racists are the arrogant ones playing GOD. Democratic Republics have limitations and checks and balances. Borders are what keep these checks and balances from representing a larger area then can be represented fairly. Do you remember the reason for the 1776 revolution? The idea was no taxation without representation. Obviously the revolution fell short, but we need to be still fighting for independence from those powers that think they know better then local representation.  People who don’t believe in borders are totalitarian internationalists who are victimizing Latin Americans and encouraging a lower quality of life. The leaders do this because they are greedy and power hungry.

http://xrl.us/AZLaw