You have to admire Ted Kennedy for one thing, he has patience. I can't say for sure but I believe Teddy has always dreamt of turning the USA into a socialist state and he has pushed us in that direction over the decades one baby step at a time. But sensing that his life could end before his dream is accomplished he's come up with a way to fast forward the US shift to socialism, amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens.
The mechanism for the acceleration will be health care because who will be paying for the health care of these new millions? Not their employers. Not the illegals themselves, Teddy saw to that when an amendment was defeated that would have required illegals to prove health coverage before they could get their Z-visa. So we're going to give 12-20 million uninsured, barely insurable low income workers the "right" to stay here with the "right" to medical care funded by taxpayers.
Naturally the fact that the vaunted 46 million uninsured will now become 58-66 million uninsured, many of whom are the children of the now legal, the hue and cry for taxpayer funded health care will grow louder. And when these new "citizens" eventually vote, if not sooner, we will find ourselves with nationalized, socialized medicine, the costs of which will be borne by the middle class citizens of the US whose ranks will not have grown. Tax increases are inevitable.
Teddy is a shrewd and patient man and if this catastrophe of a bill is passed he may yet succeed in creating his socialist state.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Geraldo Rivera - Race Hustler?
I've been keeping up with Geraldo Rivera's positions and comments over the course of the immigration debate because I've always considered him a small time ethnic/race hustler always advocating for the "Latino" community regardless of the impact to larger society, rule of law, etc.
I decided to do a little research on Geraldo when he basically accused Bill O'Reilly of racism the on 6/6 during an immigration debate.
Geraldo said that people like Bill (whites) didn't want to come out of their homes and see people like "my kids" (Geraldo's has four children), implying that Geraldo's kids are "brown" people.
Any sane person looking at Bill and Geraldo side by side could reasonably assume that both men were of European extraction and that Geraldo clearly had more in common physically with Bill than with any of the Mexican (largely poor Aztecs) immigrants up for amnesty. Since Geraldo is of Puerto Rican extraction he obviously has more European, maybe even 100%, in him than most Mexicans.
After a quick read of his bio I quickly learned that Geraldo's mother, Lillian Friedman, is Jewish! So Geraldo is even whiter than he may already have been if he were 100% Puerto Rican.
Now, back to his "brown" kids. None of Geraldo's five wives (4 ex's, one current) is "Latina". This is assumed by looking at their last names , none of which are Spanish. So, this makes his children only 25% Puerto Rican/Hispanic and hardly "brown". So what kind of intellectual honesty is there in a statement by him to Bill about seeing "people like my kids" across the street?
So, just what is Geraldo's angle here? Is he raising his white kids to think of themselves to be "brown"? How many "Hispanics" are actually white, mostly white, or at least half white in the USA? How many of them are aligned against the majority in the immigration debate because of some misplaced sense of ethnic loyalty?
Time for Geraldo to come clean about his "brownness".
I decided to do a little research on Geraldo when he basically accused Bill O'Reilly of racism the on 6/6 during an immigration debate.
Geraldo said that people like Bill (whites) didn't want to come out of their homes and see people like "my kids" (Geraldo's has four children), implying that Geraldo's kids are "brown" people.
Any sane person looking at Bill and Geraldo side by side could reasonably assume that both men were of European extraction and that Geraldo clearly had more in common physically with Bill than with any of the Mexican (largely poor Aztecs) immigrants up for amnesty. Since Geraldo is of Puerto Rican extraction he obviously has more European, maybe even 100%, in him than most Mexicans.
After a quick read of his bio I quickly learned that Geraldo's mother, Lillian Friedman, is Jewish! So Geraldo is even whiter than he may already have been if he were 100% Puerto Rican.
Now, back to his "brown" kids. None of Geraldo's five wives (4 ex's, one current) is "Latina". This is assumed by looking at their last names , none of which are Spanish. So, this makes his children only 25% Puerto Rican/Hispanic and hardly "brown". So what kind of intellectual honesty is there in a statement by him to Bill about seeing "people like my kids" across the street?
So, just what is Geraldo's angle here? Is he raising his white kids to think of themselves to be "brown"? How many "Hispanics" are actually white, mostly white, or at least half white in the USA? How many of them are aligned against the majority in the immigration debate because of some misplaced sense of ethnic loyalty?
Time for Geraldo to come clean about his "brownness".
Post America America
I'm sure I'm likely to be pilloried for the following but I feel this is a serious issue that must be thoughtfully and seriously considered. Those that dismiss the question are either not seriously considering the answer, like the prospect of the potential outcome, are in denial, or are knee-jerk Liberals controlled by their emotions and a revulsion of the reality of actions having consequences. The question is this, can "America" as we know it from its founding through the present day survive if whites become just another minority or if Latinos become the majority? Yes, the country known as the USA will continue to exist, the form of government won't change, and the borders aren't likely to move. But how can the character of the nation survive?
The character of a nation is a derivative of its people and the character of the USA is predominantly defined, for now, by the culture of its northwestern European founders and earliest immigrants. Later waves of immigrants were assimilated into the WASP culture of the USA and as long as immigration from WASP countries exceeded or matched immigration from other countries or the level of non-WASP immigration was low relative to the US population a balance was maintained. People assimilated and became part of the historical America.
Now we are faced with a situation, started by Ted Kennedy in 1965, that is changing the fundamental character of America threatening to break the future from the past. When Ted Kennedy made the decision to change US immigration law so Europe was no longer favored as the source of immigrants he set in motion the process of creation of post America America. How many problems do we face today because of this dramatic change in policy? A policy by the way that Ted guaranteed would not impact the racial balance of the nation. Did he know in fact that it would? Would we be faced with the swamp of "multiculturalism" and the cult of "diversity" that cost the nations billions in lawsuits every year if not for the '65 legislation? Would we be confronting domestic Islamism with its concomitant threats to freedom and liberty? Would we be debating whether English should be our national language? What would be the current state of Liberalism, the enemy of freedom loving people everywhere, if not infused with ethnic agitators to increase its base and fuel its power?
As we consider the prospect of legalizing 12-20 million poor, uneducated, non-English speaking, non-whites we need to consider the long term impact on our country, our culture, and our future. I personally look south across the Latin American landscape and dread the future. Were we bordered by China, Egypt, or Zimbabwe the future would be just as dim. There is no history of liberty, freedom, or prosperity in these countries. Culture does matter in spite of what Utopian cultural relativists claim.
Unfortunately race matters too. That is simply undeniable. If it weren't so we wouldn't have the NAACP, LULAC, MECHA, La Raza, the Congressional Black, Hispanic, etc. Caucus, Negro College Fund, et al. I could literally go on for pages. Race matters. Especially to those in the minority. In many cases it is all that matters. People are black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, etc. before they are a man, a woman, an American. Except for fringe white supremacists this can't be said of the white majority and I'm sure that is so because we are the majority. However, the history of whites in places like Nigeria prove the opposite since to my knowledge they didn't form whites only organizations seeking special recognition and preferences.
So, since race matters how is the treatment of US history going to be managed in the future? How do you teach a majority Hispanic class in Texas that Mexico was the enemy at the Alamo? That Santayana was a bad guy? It's human nature for people to identify with their own kind. How many blacks are history professors? Not many, since US history isn't appealing at a personal level to blacks. When viewed through the lens of race, US history isn't about the grand voyages of discovery by the early European explorers, the defeat of Britain to found the nation, the struggle of the civil war in terms of states rights, WWI or WWII. Rather US history is viewed from the perspective of slavery, racial oppression, and the struggles of the civil rights era. Not many people can rise above their race to embrace the history of their nation and be proud of it. People look for heroes in people like themselves. US history offers few heroes that aren't white. At least blacks have been here long enough to have a small group of heroes and great figures, even before MLK, to look up to. Who so for Hispanics? I predict that they will have almost no interest in US history and will instead look south for inspiration and historical continuity. They will seek tighter integration with Latin America while loosening the bonds we now have with Europe, trading the first world for the third.
The US can manage immigration in numbers that don't threaten our existence but the massive numbers we are considering offering amnesty to and the millions upon millions that will follow them do indeed, in my opinion, threaten our national identity and this threat must be addressed honestly and openly. Hispanics, other minority groups, and many white Liberals will of course make any such discussion impossible to have and will berate anyone seeking such a discussion as a "racist". But why should we whites sit back silently while our country is transformed by guilty white Liberals, the ethnic lobby, and Big Business? Those that sit back and have absolute confidence in America to transform this polyglot wave into historically and culturally connected Americans are deluded.
This problem is one of our own making and the bleak future I describe doesn't have to happen if we have the strength and courage to call for an immigration policy that maintains our nations' character. We don't have to transform if we choose not to.
The character of a nation is a derivative of its people and the character of the USA is predominantly defined, for now, by the culture of its northwestern European founders and earliest immigrants. Later waves of immigrants were assimilated into the WASP culture of the USA and as long as immigration from WASP countries exceeded or matched immigration from other countries or the level of non-WASP immigration was low relative to the US population a balance was maintained. People assimilated and became part of the historical America.
Now we are faced with a situation, started by Ted Kennedy in 1965, that is changing the fundamental character of America threatening to break the future from the past. When Ted Kennedy made the decision to change US immigration law so Europe was no longer favored as the source of immigrants he set in motion the process of creation of post America America. How many problems do we face today because of this dramatic change in policy? A policy by the way that Ted guaranteed would not impact the racial balance of the nation. Did he know in fact that it would? Would we be faced with the swamp of "multiculturalism" and the cult of "diversity" that cost the nations billions in lawsuits every year if not for the '65 legislation? Would we be confronting domestic Islamism with its concomitant threats to freedom and liberty? Would we be debating whether English should be our national language? What would be the current state of Liberalism, the enemy of freedom loving people everywhere, if not infused with ethnic agitators to increase its base and fuel its power?
As we consider the prospect of legalizing 12-20 million poor, uneducated, non-English speaking, non-whites we need to consider the long term impact on our country, our culture, and our future. I personally look south across the Latin American landscape and dread the future. Were we bordered by China, Egypt, or Zimbabwe the future would be just as dim. There is no history of liberty, freedom, or prosperity in these countries. Culture does matter in spite of what Utopian cultural relativists claim.
Unfortunately race matters too. That is simply undeniable. If it weren't so we wouldn't have the NAACP, LULAC, MECHA, La Raza, the Congressional Black, Hispanic, etc. Caucus, Negro College Fund, et al. I could literally go on for pages. Race matters. Especially to those in the minority. In many cases it is all that matters. People are black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, etc. before they are a man, a woman, an American. Except for fringe white supremacists this can't be said of the white majority and I'm sure that is so because we are the majority. However, the history of whites in places like Nigeria prove the opposite since to my knowledge they didn't form whites only organizations seeking special recognition and preferences.
So, since race matters how is the treatment of US history going to be managed in the future? How do you teach a majority Hispanic class in Texas that Mexico was the enemy at the Alamo? That Santayana was a bad guy? It's human nature for people to identify with their own kind. How many blacks are history professors? Not many, since US history isn't appealing at a personal level to blacks. When viewed through the lens of race, US history isn't about the grand voyages of discovery by the early European explorers, the defeat of Britain to found the nation, the struggle of the civil war in terms of states rights, WWI or WWII. Rather US history is viewed from the perspective of slavery, racial oppression, and the struggles of the civil rights era. Not many people can rise above their race to embrace the history of their nation and be proud of it. People look for heroes in people like themselves. US history offers few heroes that aren't white. At least blacks have been here long enough to have a small group of heroes and great figures, even before MLK, to look up to. Who so for Hispanics? I predict that they will have almost no interest in US history and will instead look south for inspiration and historical continuity. They will seek tighter integration with Latin America while loosening the bonds we now have with Europe, trading the first world for the third.
The US can manage immigration in numbers that don't threaten our existence but the massive numbers we are considering offering amnesty to and the millions upon millions that will follow them do indeed, in my opinion, threaten our national identity and this threat must be addressed honestly and openly. Hispanics, other minority groups, and many white Liberals will of course make any such discussion impossible to have and will berate anyone seeking such a discussion as a "racist". But why should we whites sit back silently while our country is transformed by guilty white Liberals, the ethnic lobby, and Big Business? Those that sit back and have absolute confidence in America to transform this polyglot wave into historically and culturally connected Americans are deluded.
This problem is one of our own making and the bleak future I describe doesn't have to happen if we have the strength and courage to call for an immigration policy that maintains our nations' character. We don't have to transform if we choose not to.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Secession? Revolution? What does the future hold?
Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." and Thomas Paine said, "These are the times that try men's souls."
I hope and fear that with the looming threat of a mass amnesty that patriotic Americans, Americans that still believe in sovereignty, independence from "entangling alliances", the rule of law, and the gift of Western civilization will rise up and say enough is enough. How long must we tolerate a government that works not for the American people but against us? For surely the majority of the American people do not support an amnesty for illegal aliens, nor the massive demographic shift such an amnesty would impose on our nation. How long must we be subjects and not citizens?
It seems that our leaders work not for We the People but rather for the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, La Raza, MECHA, LULAC, et al. These latter groups represent people that are not even citizens of our country and yet they have a seat at the negotiating table for one of the most important decisions we will ever face.
It is obvious that the Democrats long term goal is to create a permanent majority via the importation of a new dependent class, one that will be forever enslaved to government largess. Democrats know that they can never hope to gain a majority of a prosperous middle class so they have to create a new class of voters that will help the Left realize its socialist agenda.
What are patriotic Americans to do? Can we pick a few states and secede from the rest of the nation? We all know a nation run on Liberal policies will collapse under its own weight. I say we pull a John Gault and secede. We leave the non-productive socialists to their own demise.
Another option is armed rebellion to take our government back from the disconnected elite and return it to We the People. Our Founders would be appalled at the current state of this nation wondering where our independent, self sufficient, rebellious spirit has gone.
I don't know if inciting rebellion is illegal but Jefferson's quote seems to imply if such a thing is necessary then carry on! We surely have enough patriots with weapons to mount another revolution.
If we don't now demand a return to our core principles then when war does come it will be a civil war and the dissolution of the nation into ethnic nations will be the result.
I hope and fear that with the looming threat of a mass amnesty that patriotic Americans, Americans that still believe in sovereignty, independence from "entangling alliances", the rule of law, and the gift of Western civilization will rise up and say enough is enough. How long must we tolerate a government that works not for the American people but against us? For surely the majority of the American people do not support an amnesty for illegal aliens, nor the massive demographic shift such an amnesty would impose on our nation. How long must we be subjects and not citizens?
It seems that our leaders work not for We the People but rather for the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, La Raza, MECHA, LULAC, et al. These latter groups represent people that are not even citizens of our country and yet they have a seat at the negotiating table for one of the most important decisions we will ever face.
It is obvious that the Democrats long term goal is to create a permanent majority via the importation of a new dependent class, one that will be forever enslaved to government largess. Democrats know that they can never hope to gain a majority of a prosperous middle class so they have to create a new class of voters that will help the Left realize its socialist agenda.
What are patriotic Americans to do? Can we pick a few states and secede from the rest of the nation? We all know a nation run on Liberal policies will collapse under its own weight. I say we pull a John Gault and secede. We leave the non-productive socialists to their own demise.
Another option is armed rebellion to take our government back from the disconnected elite and return it to We the People. Our Founders would be appalled at the current state of this nation wondering where our independent, self sufficient, rebellious spirit has gone.
I don't know if inciting rebellion is illegal but Jefferson's quote seems to imply if such a thing is necessary then carry on! We surely have enough patriots with weapons to mount another revolution.
If we don't now demand a return to our core principles then when war does come it will be a civil war and the dissolution of the nation into ethnic nations will be the result.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Illegal Immigration Emergency
Now that it appears as though a compromose (sell out) has been reached on immigration it is URGENT that we act to get an amendment proposed and passed that denies citizenship to the children of "guest" workers. It is ridiculous to not address this critical issue. If not addressed it will become a stealth approach to gaining citizenship for the parents of such children. Dems always tell us how we should emulate Europe and in this case I agree, Europe doesn't have birthright citizenship for the children of illegals.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The Touble with Somalis
A lot of stories regarding Somali Muslims have been in the news lately:
Somali Muslim cab drivers refusing certain passengers in Minnesota
Somali Muslim students offended by a ham sandwich in Maine
Somali Muslim cabbie tries to run down college students in Tennessee
and now Somali Muslims in TN demanding, and receiving, special prayer breaks and accommodations by Dell in an assembly plant. Thanks to the Gates of Vienna, 'The Submission Train" for this one.
So this begs the question, why are all these Somalis here? The answer is, Catholic Charities and the US Government. Thanks to them we now have hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't be more different than the people of the US. We are not only importing poverty we are now importing religious tension.
For some history on the Somali resettlement projects see this story on V-Dare.
We need to demand that our government stop resettlement into our country of those that are virtually unassimilable so we can possibly put a stop to the growth of the cancer of Islam in our country.
Somali Muslim cab drivers refusing certain passengers in Minnesota
Somali Muslim students offended by a ham sandwich in Maine
Somali Muslim cabbie tries to run down college students in Tennessee
and now Somali Muslims in TN demanding, and receiving, special prayer breaks and accommodations by Dell in an assembly plant. Thanks to the Gates of Vienna, 'The Submission Train" for this one.
So this begs the question, why are all these Somalis here? The answer is, Catholic Charities and the US Government. Thanks to them we now have hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't be more different than the people of the US. We are not only importing poverty we are now importing religious tension.
For some history on the Somali resettlement projects see this story on V-Dare.
We need to demand that our government stop resettlement into our country of those that are virtually unassimilable so we can possibly put a stop to the growth of the cancer of Islam in our country.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Illegal Immigration and Mexican Governmental Corruption
There are many many reasons to oppose illegal immigration and I've heard almost all of them except one: what role does illegal immigration play in the ongoing corruption of the Mexican government?
By not enforcing our borders we are contributing to the continued corruption within the Mexican government. We do this by allowing Mexico to export the people that, if forced to remain home, would demand change and thus force Mexico to open its economy, root out corruption, and stop the addiction to remittances from the US that result in Mexico actually assisting illegal immigrants in their trek across our border.
Instead we act as a relief valve to the social pressures that would, and should, form in Mexico.
We do a disservice to Mexico and ourselves by not forcing them to confront their problems. If we don't force Mexico to reform how long will it be before all 100 MILLION Mexicans are in the US demanding "rights" and citizenship?
By not enforcing our borders we are contributing to the continued corruption within the Mexican government. We do this by allowing Mexico to export the people that, if forced to remain home, would demand change and thus force Mexico to open its economy, root out corruption, and stop the addiction to remittances from the US that result in Mexico actually assisting illegal immigrants in their trek across our border.
Instead we act as a relief valve to the social pressures that would, and should, form in Mexico.
We do a disservice to Mexico and ourselves by not forcing them to confront their problems. If we don't force Mexico to reform how long will it be before all 100 MILLION Mexicans are in the US demanding "rights" and citizenship?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
