As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew
them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to
meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell
(pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball
or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pi ctures
playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers
to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the
American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think
that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here
you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are
providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball
Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the
Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just
don't understand how anyone would want him to be our
Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those
that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
; ; If this is blunt and to the point I
am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he
really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
America n Soldier
In 1979, Bernard Lewis, a former British agent, and an Oxford university specialist in Islamic studies, currently at Princeton, attended the super-secret Bilderberg meeting in Austria, and contributed to the discussion of “Muslim Fundamentalism”. The Bernard Lewis Plan, is the code-name for a top-secret British strategy for the Middle East. Lewis’ Plan endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote for the Balkanization and fragmentation of the entire Muslim Near East along ethnic and religious lines.[2]
Bernard Lewis
Lewis argued that the West should encourage nationalistic upheavals among minorities, such as the Lebanese Maronites, the Kurds, the Armenians, Druze, Baluchis, Azerbaijani Turks, Syrian Alawites, the Copts of Ethiopia, Sudanese mystical sects, Arabian tribes and so on. The result would be, in Brzezinski’s terminology, an Arc of Crisis. Brzezinski, who served as National Security Advisor during the Carter administration, believed that global dominance was dependent of control of the numerous states of Soviet Central Asia. In The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Brzezinski put forward a vision of creating a “global-zone of percolating violence,” leading to the break-up of the Middle East, into a mosaic of competing factions, and weakening the authority of existing republics and kingdoms, that could be skillfully manipulated to inhibit the integration of the Central Asian states.
According to The Grand Chessboard, a map of this zone of “percolating violence” encompasses all of Central Asia, extending westward to include Turkey, northward to include southern Russia, and eastward to the western borders of China. It includes the entire Middle East, where Brzezinski claims it is imperative for the US to retain control, especially in the critical Persian Gulf. And, the zone extends eastward to include Afghanistan and Pakistan, up to the latter’s border with India. Brzezinski had, in turn, been seduced by Bernard Lewis, into believing that Islamic fundamentalism could be played as a “geo-strategic” card to destabilize the USSR.
This strategy would be achieved by employing all the covert means made available through Illuminati channels, and with the CIA again exploiting the services of the Muslim Brotherhood, to foment revolution and deface the image of Islam. Despite all their posturing as defenders of orthodoxy, the Muslim Brotherhood are using the pretext of seeking to implement the global “caliphate”, or Muslim ruler, to seek the destruction of Middle Eastern societies, to conspire with the Illuminati towards the implementation of a New World Order, based on occult principles. As described by Robert Dreyfuss:
The real story of the Muslim Brotherhood is more fantastic than the mere imagination of the authors of espionage novels could create. It functions as a conspiracy; its members exchange coded greetings and secret passwords; although no formal membership list exists, its members are organized into hierarchical cells or “lodges” like the European freemason societies and orders. The Muslim Brotherhood does not respect national frontiers; it spans the entire Islamic world. Some of its members are government officials, diplomats, and military men; others are street gangsters and fanatics. While the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are at home in plush-carpeted paneled board rooms of top financial institutions, at the lower levels the Muslim Brotherhood is a paramilitary army of thugs and assassins.
At its highest level, the Muslim Brotherhood is not Muslim. Nor is it Christian, Jewish, or part of any religion. In the innermost council are men who change their religion as easily as other men might change their shirts.
Taken together, the generic Muslim Brotherhood does not belong to Islam, but to the pre-Islamic barbarian cults of mother-goddess worship that prevailed in ancient Arabia. As much as the peddlers of mythology might want us to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood and Ayatollah Khomeini represent a legitimate expression of a deeply rooted “sociological phenomenon”, it is not the case. Nor does the Muslim Brotherhood represent more than a tiny fraction of the world’s Muslim believers.[3]
In 1955, the Muslim Brotherhood relocated its headquarters from Cairo to London and Geneva, making more obvious its relationship with the powers installed there. In Geneva, its leader, Said Ramadhan, who was married to the daughter of Hasan al Banna, set up the Institute for Islamic Studies. In Cairo, Ramadhan had been indicted on charges of conspiring to murder Nasser, and was accused of maintaining ties with Israeli intelligence.[4] In 1973, Ramadhan founded the Islamic Council of Europe, with headquarters in London, together with Salem Azzam, of the important Azzam family.
By allying itself with a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Club of Rome and the Aspen Institute, in furtherance of the Illuminati’s objectives in Iran, used the same pretext of environmental and spiritual concerns, to orchestrate the overthrow the Shah in that country. Based on the same philosophy of “limits to growth”, the reason provided for his overthrew was the proposed expansion of his country’s nuclear industry. As explained by Peter Goodgame, in The Globalists and the Islamists, “with the rise in energy prices the development of the Third World was checked, but the Arab Middle East became greatly enriched. This was when the Globalists turned to their allies, the Islamists, to remedy the situation. Islam would be used to attack industrialization and modernization using the lie that human progress was un-Islamic and a Western plot against the servants of Allah.”[5]
The Existentialists
segment from The Trap
BBC documentary by Adam Curtis
As the Aspen Institute began agitating against the Shah, the Club of Rome shifted the focus of the Muslim Brotherhood in Western Europe around a new, synthetic, zero-growth version of Islam.[6] The Shah of Iran had originally been installed by a CIA sponsored coup, orchestrated by Kim Roosevelt, and H. Norman Schwartzkopf, father of the Gulf War General of same name. The reason was to overthrow Mossadegh, who had been popularly elected president in 1953. However, the Western powers later became opposed to the Shah’s attempts at developing the country’s nuclear power industry. First, the Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.
In the behind-the-scenes discussions, at a symposium held by the Aspen Institute in Persepolis, Iran, in 1975, as described Robert Dreyfuss, “plans for reversing the Shah’s industrialization program and for turning Iran into a model dark ages regime were mapped out.”[7] Attending the Persepolis symposium were at least a dozen members of the Club of Rome, including its chairman, Aurellio Peccei, Sol Linowitz of Coudert Brothers law firm, Jacques Freymond of the Institute of International Studies in Geneva, and Robert 0. Anderson and Rarlan Cleveland, both Aspen Institute officials and associates of the Club of Rome in the United States. The Aspen Institute session stressed a single theme: modernization and industry undermine the “spiritual, nonmaterial” values of ancient Iranian society, and that these values must he preserved above all else.[8]
Ali Shariati
From 1975 onward, the Aspen Institute developed closer ties to the Iranian ministry of education, through agents like Manuchehr Ganji, who introduced the Institute to Iran. Mary Catherine Bateson, daughter of Aquarian conspirator Gregory Bateson, taught at Damavand College in Teheran, where she was a critical participant in this strategy, sowing the seeds of “antimaterialist” rebellion among the youth of Iran.
Instructions were passed to Professor Ali Shariati to intensify his political activity. “More than anyone else”, says Robert Dreyfuss, “Shariati was the guiding light behind the Iranian students and intellectuals who brought about the Muslim Brotherhood revolution.”[9] Ali Shariati, a Freemason, and many of the leading educators in Iran’s universities, were brought into the circle of opposition to the Shah. Shariati’s father was Aqa Muhammad Taqi Shariati, who, though he had also been a Freemason, started the Center for the Propagation of Islamic Truth in Mashad, Iran. Traveling often between Paris and Teheran, Ali Shariati built up a cult following among the youth of Iran.
Martin Heidegger
Shariati introduced Iranian students to the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, Frantz Fanon, Albert Camus, Jacques Berque, and Louis Massignon, all writers of anticapitalist existentialist camp, and all funded and guided by the same Club of Rome networks that gathered at Persepolis.[10] It was not Islam, but these philosophers, all followers of Nietzsche, who provided the ideological framework of terrorism. These philosophers themselves held various associations that prove them to be not mere thinkers, but actual propagandists promoted by the Illluminati. They presented arguments for anti-colonialist struggle, based on Bakunin’s anarchistic philosophy of violence as a purgative force.
A key figure in this tradition was the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Heidegger was indirectly influenced by Jacob Boehme, and ultimately Lurianic Kabbalah, through his interest in Friedrich Schelling, Freemason and friend of Hegel. Heidegger argued that, in order to escape the yoke of Western capitalism and the “idle chatter” of constitutional democracy, the “people” would have to return to their primordial destiny through an act of violent revolutionary “resolve.”[11]
Jean-Paul Sartre
This vision of the postmodernist revolution went from Heidegger into the French postwar Left, especially the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, eager apologist for Stalinism and the Cultural Revolution in China. Several of Sartre’s writings dwell on the theme that “dirty hands” are necessary in politics, and that a man with so-called bourgeois inhibitions about bloodshed cannot usefully serve a revolutionary cause, and in some of his later writings suggested that violence might even be a good thing in itself.[12]
In The Wretched of the Earth, Sartre’s protégé, the Martiniquan writer Frantz Fanon argued that violence was necessary for Third World peoples, not just as a way to gain their liberty, but also because it would cure them of the inferiority complex created in them by the White man and his colonial rule.[13] Fanon wrote the Wretched of the Earth after having travelled to Algeria in 1953, to join the National Liberation Front, or FLN guerillas, in their fight against French colonial rule. As reported by Pierre Beaudry, Frantz Fanon and Otto Skorzeny were the theoretician and the commando training officer of the FLN, both advocating terrorism as a means of achieving national liberation.[14]
Algerian War for Independence
Frantz Fanon
In 1958, the Arab Commercial Bank in Geneva, set up by Genoud, with the help of Otto Skorzeny, had helped to provide arms and money to both sides of the war of Independence in Algeria. Several Third Reich veterans, including Maj. Gen. Otto Ernst Remer, who served as Hitler’s bodyguard, helped smuggle weapons to the Algerian rebels seeking independence, while other Nazi advisors provided military instruction.[15]
Skorzeny became engaged in an ultra-right faction within the French Army, the French Secret Army Organization (OAS), in support of a conspiracy to block President Charles de Gaulle’s plans to grant independence to Algeria. The OAS was controlled from the outside by financier Pierre Guillain de Benouville, in cooperation with Allen Dulles of the CIA, Hitler’s Economics Minister, Hjalmar Schacht and Genoud.[16]
Francois Genoud had been in contact with Allen Dulles since 1943, and also through their joint support of the French Secret Army Organization (OAS) in Algeria.[17] When Allen Dulles was OSS Station Chief in Berne, Switzerland, he helped Genoud transfer Hitler and Goebel trusts into Swiss bank accounts.[18] Though more could be learned about Genoud’s contacts with the Americans, the State Department has yet to declassify sixteen documents relating to his case, while twenty-nine other documents relating to his application for a visa or permit to enter the U.S. remain classified.[19]
Francois Mitterand
The OAS fomented the war of independence in Algeria, of 1954 to 1962, by simultaneously aiding the fascist and colonial supporters of French Algeria, and the guerrilla fighters, represented by the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN). Instrumental in the conspiracy was François Mitterrand, a holdover of the fascist, Freemasonic organization called the Cagoule. It was through the initiative of Mitterand, that head of the OAS, Jacques Soustelle, was nominated governor-general of Algeria.[20]
The OAS teamed up with Skorzeny, who trained leading components of both the OAS and the FLN. Skorzeny was, at that time, also reportedly providing assistance to the right-wing fascist Jabotinsky networks of the Israeli Mossad, through the services of James Jesus Angleton’s CIA operations in Spain. In November 1954, the FLN guerrillas launched a series of attacks against the French military, and issued a proclamation calling on all Muslims of Algeria to join the fight for “the restoration of the Algerian State, sovereign, democratic, and social, within the framework of the principle of Islam.”[21] The response was given, not by the Minister of Defense, but by Minister of the Interior, Francois Mitterrand, who replied: “The only possible negotiation is war.”[22] Pierre Beaudry describes the atrocities that ensued:
In August 1955, the FLN was deployed to conduct the massacre of Philippeville, murdering 123 people, including women and children. Algeria’s Governor-General Soustelle ordered massive retaliation attacks, which, according to some estimates, killed 1,273 guerrilla fighters (the FLN reported 12,000 deaths). The truth is probably half-way, about 6,000 victims. The cycle of vengeance was on. Thousands of Muslims were tortured and killed in an orgy of bloodletting organized by the French Armed Forces and police. The idea was to unleash an unstoppable process of escalation of violence and retaliation.[23]
The Revolution in Iran
Aurelio Peccei
In 1977, by the Club of Rome, with the Muslim Brotherhood, created an organization to pursue to the retardation of Iran’s industry, called Islam and the West. Headquartered in Geneva, Islam and the West came was under the guidance of Muslim Brotherhood leader, and former Syrian prime minister, Marouf Dawalibi, in addition to two non-Muslim luminaries, Aurelio Peccei, and another original endorser of Planetary Citizens, Lord Caradon, Britain’s Jerusalem expert and former British ambassador to the U.S.[24]
One of the sponsors of Islam and the West was the prestigious International Federation of Institutions of Advanced Studies. Among its funders were Aurelio Peccei, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, and Robert O. Anderson. Islam and the West held its first planning sessions at Cambridge University in England. Backed by the International Federation of Institutes of Advanced Study, headed by Alexander King, Islam and the West assembled a policy outline in 1979, on science and technology for the subversion of Islam. Alexander King was also a Club of Rome member, and a founder of NATO. According to researcher Dr. John Coleman, when it was decided that a super-body would control European affairs, the RIIA founded the Tavistock Institute, which in turn created NATO.[25]
Marouf Dawalibi
Islam and the West declared: “We have to return to a more spiritual conception of life... The first lesson of Islamic science is its insistence on the notion of a balanced equilibrium which would not destroy the ecological order of the environment, on which collective survival finally depends.”[26] This argument was used to attack “Western” science and technological progress in Europe and North America.
Through the behind-the-scenes efforts of the Club of Rome, when the Shah introduced his plan for modernization, the Ayatollah Khomeini had emerged as the leader of the religious opposition. Up until his exile from Iran in 1964, Khomeini was based at the religious city of Qom, where, according to Radio Free Iran, as reported by Dr. Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent, he received a “monthly stipend from the British, and he is in constant contact with his masters, the British.”[27] Khomeini was kicked out of Iran and settled in Iraq. He lived there for a number of years until he was arrested by the Iraqi government and deported in 1978. French President D’Estang was then pressured to offer Khomeini refuge in France. Khomeini’s stay in France was financed by Francois Genoud.[28] As Coleman writes, “Once Khomeini was installed at the Chateau Neauphle, he began to receive a constant stream of visitors, many of them from the BBC, the CIA and British intelligence.”[29]
The BBC then became the Ayatollah’s main promoter. Dr. Coleman writes:
It was the BBC, which prepared and distributed to the mullahs in Iran all of the cassette tapes of Khomeini’s speeches, which inflamed the peasants. Then, the BBC began to beam accounts of torture by the Shah’s SAVAK to all corners of the world. In September and October 1978, the BBC began to beam Khomeini’s revolutionary ravings directly to Iran in Farsi. The Washington Post said, “the BBC is Iran’s public enemy number one.”[30]
Soon a large segment of the Iranian population, most of them young students, became opposed to the Shah, and were convinced that a return to “pure” Shiah Islam, under the Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership, was the only way to save their country. The Carter Administration, manipulated by Zbigniew Brzezinski, then collaborated with the British to topple the Shah and install Khomeini. In 1980, in accordance with the Nihilist philosophy he was serving, Khomeini proclaimed to the people of Iran, “destroy, destroy, destroy. There cannot be enough destruction.”[31] In his memoirs, looking back on the events that removed him from power, the Shah lamented, “I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know - but it is clear to me now, the Americans wanted me out.”[32]
Footnotes:
[1] Robert Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini, p. 101. [pdf]
[2] Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg. “British Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations”. Executive Intelligence Review. November 30, 2001.
[3] Robert Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini. p. 100.
[4] ibid. p. 106.
[5] Peter Goodgame, "Globalists and the Islamists".
[6] Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini, excerpt.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid.
[10] ibid.
[11] Newell, Waller R “Postmodern Jihad: What Osama bin Laden learned from the Left.” The Weekly Standard, Novemver 11, 2001.
[12] "Ideology of Terror". Encyclopædia Britannica.
[13] Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini, p. 107.
[14] Beaudry, Pierre. “The Algeria Paradox: Will Bush or Kerry Learn a Lesson from Charles de Gaulle?” Executive Intelligence Review, June 18, 2004.
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid.
[18] Henderson, Dean. “The Shah of Iran and David Rockefeller”. excerpted from Geopolitics: The Global Economy of Big Oil, Weapons and Drugs.
[19] Preston, David Lee. “Hitler’s Swiss Connection”, Philadelphia Inquirer. Jan. 5, 1997
[20] ibid.
[21] ibid.
[22] ibid.
[23] ibid.
[24] Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini, excerpt.
[25] John Coleman, The Committee of 300, "Tavistock Institute Of Human Relations".
[26] Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini, excerpt.
[27] Goodgame, "Globalists and the Islamists".
[28] Emory, Dave. Lecture: "Islamism, Fascism and the GOP".
[29] Goodgame, "Globalists and the Islamists".
[30] ibid.
[31] Dreyfuss, Hostage to Khomeini. p. 107.
[32] Goodgame, "Globalists and the Islamists".
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from realitythat they imagine that America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Pause a moment, reflect back.
These events are actual events from history.
They really happened!
Do you remember?
1.1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40.
2.In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
3.In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
4.During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
5.In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
6.In 1985 the cruise shipAchilleLauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
7.In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
8.In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
9.In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
10.In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
11.On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists between the of 17 and 40.
12.In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslimmale extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
13.In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 40.
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?
So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people...
Absolutely No Profiling!
INSTEAD: They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women,little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agentswho are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss,
but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling
,,,,,,,,,,DO I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT?
HIS FATHER WAS A BLACK AFRICAN MUSLIM FROM KENYA ...WE HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF HIS AFRICAN FAMILY.
HIS MOTHER WAS A WHITE AMERICAN ATHEIST FROM KANSAS . WHERE ARE THE PICTURES OF HIS AMERICAN FAMILY?
HIS FATHER DESERTED HIS MOTHER WHEN HE WAS ONLY TWO YEARS OLD AND WENT BACK TO AFRICA BY WAY OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY HOW? WAS HIS FATHER WEALTHY?
HIS MOTHER MARRIED AN INDONESIAN MUSLIM AND THEN MOVED TO JAKARTA WHERE HE WAS ENROLLED IN A MUSLIM SCHOOL . WHEN HE REACHED HIGH SCHOOL AGE HIS MOTHER SENT HIM TO HAWAII TO BE WITH HIS WHITE GRANDPARENTS AND HE WAS PUT INTO AN EXPENSIVE PRIVATE SCHOOL. HE LATER WENT TO HARVARD UNIVERSITY HOW? WERE HIS GRANDPARENTS WEALTHY?
HE LIVES IN A $1.4 MILLION HOUSE OBTAINED THROUGH A DEAL WITH A WEALTHY FUNDRAISER. HOW?
HE 'WORKED' AS A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST IN CHICAGO . HE HAS NEVER HELD A PRODUCTIVE JOB OR RECEIVED A PAY CHECK THAT WAS NOT GOVERNMENT-FUNDED AND/OR TAYPAYER SUPPORTED.
THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS POSITION, NOR IS IT SUBJECT TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SET ASIDES; ON-THE-JOB TRAINING WON'T CUT IT.
HE ENTERED POLITICS AT THE STATE LEVEL AND THEN THE NATIONAL LEVEL WHERE HE HAS MINIMAL EXPERIENCE.
HE IS PROUD OF HIS 'AFRICAN HERITAGE' (A FATHER WHO GOT A WHITE GIRL PREGNANT AND DESERTED HER). WHERE IS THE PRIDE IN HIS 'WHITE HERITAGE'? (A MOTHER WHO FLAUNTED CONVENTION AND DID NOT BELIEVE IN GOD).
SOME MIGHT THINK THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO BE PROUD OF EITHER WAY.
HE BELONGS, AND HAS BELONGED FOR OVER 20 YEARS, TO AN 'AFRO-CENTRIC' CHURCH IN CHICAGO THAT HATES WHITES, HATES JEWS, AND BLAMES AMERICA FOR ALL THE WORLD'S PERCEIVED FAULTS. (INCLUDING CREATING THE AIDs VIRUS IN ORDER TO INFLICT IT ON AFRICANS). HE REPEATEDLY WHITEWASHES THE PASTOR, HIS CHURCH AND THE MEMBERS WHO CHEERED AFTER HEARING VITRIOLIC TIRADES AGAINST AMERICA . HE COULD NOT CONFRONT HIS PASTOR BUT HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE HE CAN CONFRONT NORTH KOREA AND IRAN. YEAH RIGHT ! !
DURING HIS VERY BRIEF TIME IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE HE HAS MANAGED TO AMASS THE NUMBER ONE ULTRA LIBERAL VOTING RECORD OUT OF THE ONE HUNDRED MEMBERS. HE HAS VOTED CONSISTENTLY FOR BIGGER GOVERNMENT AND HIGHER TAXES. HE HAS VOTED FOR BIG ENTITLEMENTS AND LEGISLATION THAT WOULD SEVERELY CURTAIL AMERICA 'S ABILITY TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND TO PROTECT OUR BORDERS AND OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS AROUND THE WORLD.
BUT, HE IS A GOOD ORATOR. ISN'T THAT A COMFORT? YEAH, I THINK I SEE HOW WELL HE COULD UNITE THE COUNTRY.
I THINK THE TRUTH IS THAT HE HOPES NO ONE WILL PUT THE PIECES TOGETHER.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your co-pilot. LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO OUR NEW CHIEF PILOT.HE HAS NEVER FLOWN AN AIRPLANE, IN FACT HE HAS NEVER EVEN SAT IN THE COCKPIT, BUT HE SAYS HE HAS RIDDEN ON PLANES BEFORE. WE ARE SURE HE WILL GUIDE US SAFELY THROUGH THE STORMS WE MAY ENCOUNTER ON THIS FLIGHT.
PEOPLE WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD THE STORY ABOUT THE WOLF HIDING IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING SO HE CAN DESTROY THEM FROM WITH-IN ? THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE WALL, DO YOU NOT HAVE EYES TO SEE IT ?
"No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now."
"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all."
"This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close."
"Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere."
"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."
Remember back in May when media gushed and fawned over a huge crowd in Portland, Oregon -- supposedly gathered to hear the words of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama -- but chose not to report the free concert given before his speech?
You have Democratic Superdelegates assigned to represent the your State’s Democratic Voters best interests at the DNC Convention August 25, 2008. In order to demonstrate a fair Primary Election, the DNC must put Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot for nomination.
Who do you want to see run as the Democratic Presidential Candidate? The popular vote during the Democratic Primary was so close people are still arguing who had more votes. We know who Clinton was when we voted. But Obama? Would you vote for Clinton or Obama after seeing him in action these last few months? Would you like to see McCain, Clinton or Obama as the President of the United States?
Even with manipulation of the popular vote in the Democratic Party Primary, Obama does not have enough delegates to secure the nomination. He is the self-anointed chosen one as the presumptive nominee. There are approximately 800 Superdelegates who will cast their final votes at the Democratic Convention August 25th. They will be making the final decision.
Fill out the form on the right to get your action toolkit, complete with "Warning: Product May Contain Rainforest Destruction" stickers.
Then, on August 13, gather your friends and join us for a "Stickering" Day of Action. Take your stickers and head to your nearest supermarket, where it's your job to make sure that products with palm oil don't leave the store without a warning label.
Together, we're going to make the statement that people really do care about human rights and the environment, and we're willing to take action! It will be just what we need to get companies to sign on to our pledge to stop using palm oil and to bring even more pressure on ADM, Bunge and Cargill.
Fill out the form on the right and we'll get in touch and send you everything you need to join in the Stickering Day of Action on August 13.
The toolkits will contain:
25 stickers for each person taking action.
A step by step guide to taking part in the action, and reporting back.
Info on upcoming Day of Action conference calls, and ways to check in with RAN staff if you need more support.
People all across the country will be heading to their local supermarkets to label and sticker every product with palm oil on the shelves.
Sign up and help build the pressure to stop destroying rainforests for palm oil!
Fill out the form on the right and get your stickering toolkit!
Click "Sign Now" to sign up and get your toolkit for the day of action!
You'll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he'd worn one after 9/11 but then stopped because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism."
So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses -- hence, the Democratic nomination -- Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he's running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country 'tis of thee.
In last week's column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama's brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles -- on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecom immunity for post-9/11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad -- as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.
Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Obama immediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton explains the inexplicable by calling the November -- i.e., the primary season -- statement "inartful." Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary -- "Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
Obama's seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What's left?
Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.
Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obama will have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama's cynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.
The shift has already begun. Thursday, he said that his "original position" on withdrawal has always been that "we've got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable." And that "when I go to Iraq ... I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."
The flip is almost complete. All that's left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in determining the ultimate pace of the withdrawal.
Done. And with that, the Obama of the primaries, the Obama with last year's most liberal voting record in the Senate, will have disappeared into the collective memory hole.
Obama's strategy is obvious. The country is in a deep malaise and eager for change. He and his party already have the advantage on economic and domestic issues. Obama, therefore, aims to clear the deck by moving rapidly to the center in those areas where he and his party are weakest, namely national security and the broader cultural issues. With these -- and most importantly his war-losing Iraq policy -- out of the way, the election will be decided on charisma and persona. In this corner: the young sleek cool hip elegant challenger. In the other corner: the old guy. No contest.
After all, that's how he beat Hillary. She originally ran as a centrist, expecting her nomination to be a mere coronation. At the first sign of serious opposition, however, she panicked and veered left. It was a fatal error. It eliminated all significant ideological and policy differences with Obama -- her desperate attempts to magnify their minuscule disagreement on health care universality became almost comical -- making the contest entirely one of personality. No contest.
As Obama assiduously obliterates all differences with McCain on national security and social issues, he remains rightly confident that Bush fatigue, the lousy economy and his own charisma -- he is easily the most dazzling political personality since John Kennedy -- will carry him to the White House.
Of course, once he gets there he will have to figure out what he really believes. The conventional liberal/populist stuff he campaigned on during the primaries? Or the reversals he is so artfully offering up now?
The irony, of course, is that the McCain campaign couldn’t have picked a more hypocritical line of attack. Below you’ll find a comprehensive list of reversals from the Republican nominee, numbered and organized by category for easier reference.
Remember, McCain recently said, “This election is about trust and trusting people’s word.” Just a few days prior, the McCain campaign admonished Obama for trying to “have it both ways” on issues.
I should note that there’s nothing offensive about a political figure changing his or her mind once in a while. Policy makers come to one conclusion, they gain more information, and then they reach a different conclusion. That is, to be sure, a good thing — it reflects a politician with an open mind and a healthy intellectual curiosity. Better to have a leader who changes his or her mind based on new information than one who stubbornly sticks to outmoded policy positions, regardless of facts or circumstances.
So why do McCain’s flip-flops matter? Because all available evidence suggests his reversals aren’t sincere, they’re cynically calculated for political gain. This isn’t indicative of an open mind; it’s actually indicative of a character flaw. And given the premise of McCain’s presidential campaign, it’s an area in desperate need of scrutiny.
The perception people have of McCain is outdated, reflective of a man who no longer has any use for his previous persona. What’s wrong with a politician who changes his or her views? Nothing in particular, but when a politician changes his views so much that he has an entirely different worldview, is it unreasonable to wonder whether it’s entirely sincere? Especially when there’s no other apparent explanation for five dozen significant reversals?
McCain has been in Congress for more than a quarter-century; he’s bound to shift now and then on various controversies. But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned literally dozens of positions he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops — though that’s part of it — it’s more about the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops. That the media still perceives McCain as some kind of “straight talker” who refuses to sway with the political winds makes this all the more glaring.
Here’s the list.
National Security Policy
1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.
3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.
6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.
Foreign Policy
7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.
8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.
Military Policy
14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.
16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.
17. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
18. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.
19. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
Domestic Policy
20. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
21. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
22. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
23. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
24. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
25. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
26. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
27. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
28. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
29. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
30. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
31. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.
32. McCain opposed gay adoption before his campaign concluded he didn’t really mean it.
33. In the Senate, McCain opposed a variety of measures on equal pay for women, and endorsed the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision. In July, however, McCain said, “I’m committed to making sure that there’s equal pay for equal work. That … is my record and you can count on it.”
34. McCain was against fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act before he was for it.
Economic Policy
35. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.
36. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.
37. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.
38. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
39. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
40. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
41. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.
42. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.
Energy Policy
43. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.
44. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
45. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.
46. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.
47. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
48. McCain was for national auto emissions standards before he was against them.
Immigration Policy
49. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
50. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
51. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”
Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law
52. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.
53. McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
54. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform
55. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
56. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
57. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
Politics and Associations
58. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)
59. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
60. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
61. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
62. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
63. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
64. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
65. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
66. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.
As a native Iowan and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill’s provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in theUnited States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I’m excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.
Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.
Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as ‘in-state’ tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.
On CL Los Angeles - politics about the only posts that survive to the end of the day are GIBSON’S own.
All over the country 98% of the flagging is one man’s. RICHARD HILARY GIBSON’S. 98% of all illegal pornography posted on politics are attached to GIBSON’S posts. Gibson also removes posts on barter.
All over the country on CL- politics and rants, 98% of the racist hate filled posts directed against people of faith, JEWS, CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, are by RICHARD HILARY GIBSON.
This is an unemployed and seriously mentally challenged Woodland Hills-Los Angeles attorney that has for four years commandeered CL. He is a sociopath and is apparently addicted to meth and homosexual pornography. If you object to his removing posts, he will as “Miguel Guido” send you an email threatening violence and calling you every name in the book. As attorney Richard Hilary Gibson, he will threaten to “sue you into bankruptcy if you expose me”.
Check out CL-Los Angeles,.... gibson has removed all the posts but his own again. Just like yesterday, and the day before, etc.
Los Angeles, a city of fifteen million and there is seldom more than a dozen posts after Gibson has removed everything except his own sewer-mouthed crap.
RE-POST:
REALITY CHECK: they don’t give a fuck about the Mexicans. Not the government of Mexico, nor the government of the formerly sovereign United States.
For Mexico it’s about securing their staggeringly corrupt economy, based on privately owned monopolies, into the hands of the few. To do that Mexico has found dumping their poor, illiterate, criminal and pregnant over our borders for pillaging is highly effective. Mexico takes no responsibility for educating their people or developing jobs, and the Mexicans they send over the U.S. border, all 38 million of them, send billions back. Next to the Mexican drug business, it’s the second highest revenue stream.
For the United States the Mexican invasion is all about DEPRESSING WAGES. And wages can’t be depressed enough to satisfy CORPORATE AMERICA which is why nearly all of FORTUNE 500 gives generously to La Raza, and has bought politicians that preach open borders and depressed wages.
In Mexican occupied CALIFORNIA, the same politicians that are in the corporate backrooms working on yet another BIT BY BIT amnesty against the legals’ wishes, are also working to import Chinese and Indians to take all our high-tech jobs. Travel to Silicon Valley and you’ll see how third-world California is. These Chinese and Indians, along with their extended families came over there because they would work cheap. There are no jobs for Americas.
Go into any sub-prime pillager, WELLS FARGO and BANK OF AMERICA, both major La Raza donors and find an American born employee. They don’t exist. They’re all Chinese, Indians, Iranians, or Russians that will work on the cheap. WELLS FARGO has lost many Class Actions suit brought by legal employees.
AT THIS MOMENT Assemblyman Mike FEUER, who is bought and paid for by every Mexican supremacist organization in Los Angeles, is fighting along with the rest of Sacramento to defeat E-VERIFY. We don’t hire LEGALS in Los Angeles.
What you will never, ever, ever hear the politicians fighting for this endless flood of illegals talk about is the assault to the American culture, language, flag, let alone laws, that the Mexicans are. Mexico is an utterly shameless country that not only dumps their poor and pregnant women off on us, but packs them with only a map for our border and a pocket full of Mexican flags.
THE NEW YORK TIMES is unabashedly an OPEN BORDERS, DEPRESS GRINGO WAGES, AMNESTY corporate mouthpiece. You will never read about the cost of the Mexican occupation. In California that cost is $15 billion per year while the state operates $15 in the red every year. Meanwhile the schools are in appalling shape, the roads, infrastructure, etc., are crumbling, and Mexican gangs have spread all over the state, along with the Mexican drug business.
In Sanctuary city Los Angeles, Mexican murder capital of America, illegals collect $40 million per month in welfare. There are nearly a thousand Mexican gang murders a year costing legals nearly a million each just to prosecute. How much in incarcerate the rest of their lives? This same city spends million and millions in Mexican graffiti abatement.
SO HOW MUCH IS THAT “CHEAP” MEXICAN LABOR? And at what cost?
THE ROAD TO WINNING OUR COUNTRY BACK WILL BE LONG.
Here’s how to speed it up. EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS GO TO PRISON. Watch the illegals get sent packing then. 47% of those employed in Los Angeles are illegals. And California’s unemployment rate hovers at nearly 7%.
BUILD THE WALL. Nancy Pelosi, who has hired illegals for her twenty-million dollar Napa winery, has vowed, along with her La Raza sisters, that the wall with NarcoMex will never be built.
ATTRITION: When the illegals are cut off free medical, welfare and our jobs, they will wonder back to NARCOMEX and instead of ranting about what the legals owe them, will start something entirely new, they will demand for once that their own government work for them, and not just the Mexican billionaires.
OF ALL THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, only Mitt Romney vowed that he would send the illegals packing. For all the rest, including the two left, it’s all about kissing the illegals’ ass to get the illegal’s illegal votes. Truly you don’t think they work for you when that’s going on. It’s all about their PAYMASTERS corporate America. The pillagers.
DATED FIGURES.... things don’t get better in CA’s slow drift to being a third-world country where NO LEGALS NEED APPLY HERE.
....................
SO, WHERE’S THE MERCY FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS? ENDLESSLY PILLAGE BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT TO DEPRESS WAGES
July 21, 2008
Editorial
Pushing Back on Immigration
There is nothing good about the country’s ever more merciless campaign of immigration enforcement. But at least there are emerging signs of resistance, from one of the most important, yet curiously disengaged, players in the debate: employers.
States and cities complain about the broken immigration system, but they can’t create the intricate web of policies needed to fix it — that’s up to Congress. All they can do is try to crack down locally on illegal immigrants and the businesses that hire them. The result has been haphazard enforcement without reform, which only makes the problem worse.
States have passed overly punitive laws to revoke the licenses of businesses caught hiring the undocumented and to force employers to participate in E-Verify, the deeply flawed federal system for checking workers’ documents. More than 175 bills relating to immigrant employment have been introduced by states this year.
As Julia Preston reported in The Times, business has begun pushing back. In Arizona, home to some of the most rabidly anti-immigrant politicians and advocates, a business group had huge success gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would soften some of the most stringent employer punishments enacted last year.
In other states, business groups have helped to kill tough immigration bills. They argue that they need workers, that it is too hard to avoid hiring undocumented ones, and that ill-conceived laws go overboard in punishing well-meaning companies and their legal employees. They are also pushing measures to bring in more legal workers and to fix the error-plagued federal system for verifying documents of new employees.
Workplace raids by federal agents have vividly exposed the widespread hiring of illegal workers, but many employers counter that they are not all scofflaws. Antidiscrimination laws bar them from looking too closely at employees’ identity papers, or checking their immigration status after they are hired. “The system is just as broken for employers as it is for immigrants,” a lawyer for two California companies told Ms. Preston.
As with anything in the immigration debate, there are complicated truths at work here. Many companies have operated with impunity in hiring and abusing undocumented low-wage workers, people who are all the more compliant because they are illegal. Like immigrants, good employers need a path to get right and stay right with the law. Current immigration law — with far too few visas and no path to legalization for the undocumented — does not provide one, and misguided state and local enforcement efforts simply layer on the confusion. They impose undue hardships on by-the-books businesses and reward the exploiters.
If the country is ever going to emerge from the immigration chaos that Congress bequeathed it last year, it will be because business interests — largely seen as AWOL in the bitter debate — finally joined the fight.
ILLEGALS ALIENS COST CALIFORNIA BILLIONS
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 7, 2004
Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California -- which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide -- $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.
A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state's already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.
The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration.
"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal-alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle-class tax base," said FAIR President Dan Stein. "Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become," he said.
California is estimated to be home to nearly 3 million illegal aliens.
Mr. Stein noted that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but do not match expenses. The total of such payments was estimated in the report to be about $1.6 billion per year.
He also said the total cost of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.
Gerardo Gonzalez, director of the National Latino Research Center at California State at San Marcos, which compiles data on Hispanics, was critical of FAIR's report yesterday. He said FAIR's estimates did not measure some of the contributions that illegal aliens make to the state's economy. "Beyond taxes, these workers' production and spending contribute to California's economy, especially the agricultural sector," he said, adding that both legal and illegal aliens are the "backbone" of the state's $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry.
In August, a similar study by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002, but paid $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion.
The FAIR report focused on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994, Mr. Stein said. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants at about $1.1 billion a year.
Mr. Stein said an enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants in 10 years is because of the rapid growth of the illegal population. He said it is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.
"1994 was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration," he said. "Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens.
"Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy," he said.
Mr. Stein said that the state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal-alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed, and that policies need to be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.
The net cost to the federal government in 2002 for public services provided to illegal aliens was $10.4 billion or $2,736 per household according to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies. Estimates for 2005 put the amount at $11.7 billion or $3,080 per household.
Illegal Alien Costs By Social Service
Lost Revenue: The U.S. may be foregoing up to $35 billion in lost tax revenue because of the growing size of the underground labor market using illegal workers in the cash economy, according to a January, 2005 report by the Wall Street firm Bear Sterns.
Health Costs: Medicaid costs for illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children are $2.8 billion annually, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. Approximately 70% of households headed by illegal aliens have at least one person without medical insurance, compared to 20% of all other households. The federal government spends $250 million each year reimbursing states for emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens, which is less than 10% of the true cost of those services.
Education Costs: The Center for Immigration Studies has shown that federal aid to K-12 public schools for the education of the children of illegal aliens is $1.4 billion annually, not including the cost of free school lunches. The total cost to state and local taxpayers for educating 3.5 million children of illegal aliens is estimated at $28.6 billion, according to a Federation for American Immigration Reform study.
Incarceration: Illegal aliens account for less than 5% of the U.S. adult population, but were 17% of the federal prison population in 2004, imposing a net cost of $1.8 billion in court and incarceration expenses.
Fortunately, Americans have seen through the protestors’ half-truths. A Rasmussen poll released last week showed widespread disfavor of recent immigration protests, with 26 percent holding a favorable opinion and 54 percent holding an unfavorable opinion.
....................
The Monitor's View
A survey released last week by the Pew Hispanic Center found more than four in 10 Mexicans are willing to leave their country to live in the US. One in five would risk a dangerous, illegal border crossing. Most surprising, one in three college graduates wants to flee. Before Washington takes up immigration reform this fall, it needs to take a hard look at Mexico's disillusionment.
Already, one in eight adults born in Mexico now lives in the US. And the Mexican economy is kept afloat partially by an estimated $16 billion sent back by immigrants to relatives.
Such numbers reveal a people so fed up with Mexico's dysfunctional politics and stagnant economy that their nationalism is wilting. While more than half of Mexico's 106 million people are officially poor, the Pew survey found an inclination to migrate "evident across a broad swath" of the population.
This wide push to leave is probably now as strong as the pull of higher wages, social advancement, and family connections in the US. And yet, Mexican leaders remain in denial about this propensity for mass exodus.
All this spells trouble for proposals by President Bush and some in Congress to set up a temporary worker program as a way to reduce the burden of illegal migration. The Mexican demand for such US "guest" visas could be, by some estimates, half a million a year. Yet the numbers in the proposals fall far short of that. The US could hardly absorb such a large wave of humanity without further challenges to its civic stability.
In other words, a guest-worker plan is a false promise of ending the waves of illegal border crossings.
The challenges on America's southern flank are only getting worse. Arizona and New Mexico this month declared emergencies along their borders with Mexico, citing a rise in crime related to drug and people smuggling - and an inability by Washington to stem the violence. And the US ambassador to Mexico also criticized its leaders for not curbing border violence; he made a point by closing the consulate in Nuevo Laredo.
Just five years ago, Mexico had great hope of reform after the ouster of the Revolutionary Institutional Party, or PRI, which had governed since 1929. But President Vicente Fox's reform efforts have faltered. The nation's three main parties remain internally divided and unable to compromise. Decades of oil wealth have left people too willing to take handouts rather than accept the kind of taxation that creates citizens with a stake in government. With Mr. Fox a lame duck, Mexico is heading for a presidential election next July that could see another weak leader. As dissatisfaction with politics and justice translates into Mexicans voting with their feet, the US needs to recognize that the "border issue" is much more of a "Mexico issue."
The US should further beef up border security, but also help Mexico regain national integrity.
Legally hiring Mexicans is hardly a solution. ........................
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
MOST MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS GAVE UP JOBS TO TAKE CHANCES IN U.S.
December 7, 2005
Most Mexican Immigrants in New Study Gave Up Jobs to Take Their Chances in U.S.
By NINA BERNSTEIN
A report about the work lives of recent Mexican immigrants in seven cities across the United States suggests that they typically traded jobs in Mexico for the prospect of work here, despite serious bouts of unemployment, job instability and poor wages.
The report, released Tuesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, was based on surveys of nearly 5,000 Mexicans, most of them here illegally.
Those surveyed were seeking identity documents at Mexican consulates in New York, Atlanta and Raleigh, N.C., where recent arrivals have gravitated toward construction, hotel and restaurant jobs, and in Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Fresno, Calif., where they have been more likely to work in agriculture and manufacturing.
Unlike the stereotype of jobless Mexicans heading north, most of the immigrants had been employed in Mexico, the report found.
Once in the United States, they soon found that their illegal status was no barrier to being hired here. And though the jobs they landed, typically with help from relatives, were often unstable and their median earnings only $300 a week, that was enough to keep drawing newcomers because wages here far exceeded those in Mexico.
Among respondents to the survey, those who settled in Atlanta and Dallas were the best off, with 56 percent in each city receiving a weekly wage higher than the $300-a-week median. The worst off were in Fresno, where more than half of the survey respondents worked in agriculture and 60 percent reported earning less than $300 a week. The lowest wages were reported by women, people who spoke little or no English, and those without identification.
To some scholars of immigration, the report underlines the lack of incentives for employers to turn to a guest worker program like the one proposed by President Bush because their needs are met cheaply by illegal workers - and all without paperwork or long-term commitment.
Guest workers might instead appeal to corporations like Wal-Mart, the scholars said, where service jobs are now the target of union organizing drives.
"You can't plausibly argue that immigrant-dominated sectors have a labor shortage," said Robert Courtney Smith, a sociologist and author of "Mexican New York: Transnational Lives of New Immigrants." Instead, he said, the report and evidence of falling wages among Mexican immigrants over time point to an oversupply of vulnerable workers competing with each other.
But Brendan Flanagan, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association, which supports a guest worker program, disagreed. "In many places it is difficult to fill jobs with domestic workers," Mr. Flanagan said. "We've seen a simple lack of applicants, regardless of what wage is offered."
The migration is part of a historic restructuring of the Mexican economy comparable to America's industrial revolution, said Kathleen Newland, director of the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization based in Washington.
For now, Mexicans keep arriving illegally.
ISN’T IT ALL ABOUT FIGHTING BIG BUSINESS FOR A LIVING WAGE?
10,000+ Republican Supporters Sign Pledge to Not Vote for McCain
Over 10,000 former Ron Paul supporters have signed a letter to the GOP stating the reasons they will not vote for presumptive nominee John McCain. They feel that McCain can not beat Obama in the presidential race, and if McCain is the nominee, they will be voting for somebody other than McCain for president.
Colorado, July 21, 2008 -- As the Republican party calls for "Party Unity", most Ron Paul supporters have vowed to not vote for McCain for president. These Ron Paul supporters, arguably the most active grassroots group this election season, will move their support away from the Republican party to either Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, or even Barack Obama, if McCain is the Republican nominee. Ron Paul suspended his campaign in June of 2008, but his supporters remain active, and are supporting Ron Paul's new advocacy group, Campaign For Liberty. In an effort to keep Ron Paul supporters within the Republican party and defeat Barack Obama, http://www.lettertogop.com urges the GOP to reconsider "Party Unity" under John McCain, and will continue its efforts by reaching out to delegates to the Republican National Convention.
"I feel the Republican Party has ignored true conservative positions in recent years and Senator John McCain is just going to keep us going down a war path with no economic recovery in sight. Like Senator Obama keeps declaring, we need Change, but the Change we need is toward more freedoms, more economic sound principles, better relations will all countries, and LESS dependency on government programs. For these reasons I support a GOP nomination of Representative Dr Ron Paul, and I have pledged that support at http://www.lettertogop.com" - J. Adams - Golden, Colorado
Most Ron Paul supporters feel that John McCain is too liberal and too far from the Republican platform on many issues to deserve their vote. Many of them have already started supporting the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr, who is now polling as high as 9% in some states. Letter to the National GOP believes that if Ron Paul was the Republican nominee, it would pull most of the Bob Barr supporters back into the Republican party. This shift would be enough to defeat Obama in many states where Obama is leading according to current polls (http://www.zogby.com/50state/).
Ron Paul received over a million votes in the primaries. If it is a tight race, these one million voters could be the deciding factor of this presidential election.
Letter to the National GOP has accomplished its original goal of 10,000 pledges to not vote for McCain for president, and encourages all who are dissatisfied with McCain as the presumptive nominee to sign the letter at http://www.lettertogop.com.
For additional information on Letter to the National GOP, contact Kenneth Griffin or visit http://www.lettertogop.com.
DON'T MISS THIS:
A great motivational "call to action" letter that shows us what a sacrifice Dr. Paul has made for ALL of us over the last 30 years, and what our goals are for the next month and a half. We need to focus on the 2380 National GOP Delegates and help them understand how they are being mislead with a McCain nomination and "Party Unity". We can do this via the dvds4delegates project, Revolutionbymail to the delegates project, Operation St Paul, Nevada4RonPaul and more. Read all about it and the different activities that need your help in the "call to action" here:
http://www.lettertogop.com/calltoaction.html
If you have not signed up for email alerts from the Campaign for Liberty (CFL) yet - the new Ron Paul organization that will keep this movement going for good - please do @ http://www.campaignforliberty.com.
For those going to the Ron Paul Rally in MN on Sept 1 and 2, we have some camping on an organic dairy farm we are putting together, along with some speakers, bands, organic market and more to compliment the main rally. Find out more details @ http://www.ronstock08.com
