When the News Isn't Fit to Print ... Blog

Archive for April, 2010|Monthly archive page

THE DIRTY LITTLE IMMIGRATION LIE

In Disappearing Ink, The Enemy Among Us on 30/04/2010 at 05:52

Editor’s Note: Last November we posted an essay on one of the least reported scandals involving illegal immigration into the United States. Our focus was primarily on Mexico but the problem exists across the board and it is monumental. We have reedited and posted it again tonight to address the current situation in Arizona.

If your children or grandchildren are in school they are probably brainwashed five days a week by teachers or professors who have a Liberal agenda and who themselves were likely propagandize into progressivism.

They are grilled daily that liberalism is humane and conservatism is racist and intolerant. They are told that a government immigration policy that oppresses struggling migrants is nothing less than American arrogance, steeped in racial prejudice.

If you are a true conservative you know that they are either intentionally prevaricating or incredibly ignorant, but in either case they are subversive. Recently we researched an issue the Liberal media and academics seldom address and here are some facts you may not know about our racist immigration non-policy:

Every year – and even the government doesn’t have accurate figures – the State Department estimates that as many as 100,000 OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) are smuggled into the U.S. and auctioned into slavery to pedophiles and pornographers.

Long ago the Russian mob, many of them former KGB, learned that it is easier to bring human traffic http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/russia.htm into America through Mexico than to take it out.

If anyone is kidnapped in this country, the full force of government is brought to bear; in Mexico it is barely noticed. Thousands of women and children from all over the world are lured to Mexico every year by these mobsters, and then kidnapped and sold via the Internet.

Considering these shocking statistics, one has to wonder just what motive some in the U.S. government—senators, congressmen, judges and others—have for not taking action on our borders to stem the tide of illegals arriving every day.

Well, that’s the $1 billion question, now, isn’t it?

During last September’s ACORN scandal one would have thought the networks and every news outlet in the country would have scrambled to fully expose the sex trade operation inside that radical group, but instead the media stampeded to “out” Andrew Breitbart at BigGovernment.com.

It would be great if we could mark this off as a conspiracy theory but it is no theory. Anyone who has worked in Hollywood after dark knows that white and child slavery is prospering here. And thousands more young women are moved against their will to Saudi Arabia, Japan and other countries around the world.

I’ve said before that I am not a conspiracy theorist and I’m not, but neither am I naïve. I was pursuing a music career at 17 in Hollywood, and there is virtually nothing I haven’t seen. I’ve seen nine and 10-year-old girls hooking on Sunset Blvd; I’ve seen boys only slightly older doing the same on Selma Avenue.

Who stands to gain in the merchandizing of human life? Well, I am always more fascinated than shocked whenever I watch Bill O’Reilly expose judges who release pedophiles back into society, or state legislators who refuse to help pass Jessica’s Law.

The dirty little secret on illegal immigration is that on this side of the border people are making vast sums of money to keep traffic flowing. It stands to reason that many of those people hold important positions in our government.

It is a relatively simple thing to stem the tide of illegals passing into the U.S. if we have a desire to do so, but it will take the support and activism of the American taxpayer.

We have seen the depths of depravity to which so-call “community organizations” will go to advance their radical agenda in the United States, and even good men have turned their heads.

John McCain is on Fox News almost nightly decrying the situation on the Mexican border as though it all erupted last year. This is a decades-old nightmare for tens of thousands of women and children.
Even those in the mainstream media who are aware of this epidemic brand those of us who call for extreme measures to end human trafficking as racists.

While Barack Obama fuels racial hatred over Arizona’s new immigration laws thousands of people are undergoing unspeakable horrors. It is time for every honest American to stand with Arizona in this fight. It is time politicians like John McCain stop pandering for votes and do something about illegal immigration.

Advertisements

THE OTHER N-WORD AND THE MAINSTREAM LEFT

In The Haters, Weekly Rant on 29/04/2010 at 05:13

When Rush Limbaugh yelled into the golden EIB microphone at “Femi-Nazis” in the 1990s, only the dimwits in Rio Lindo believed that he actually meant they were Nazis. Rush was using hyperbole to drive home a larger point.

That isn’t the interpretation Katie Couric would have you believe, but it is nonetheless true.

The use of metaphor and hyperbole is a recognized journalistic mechanism used to put forth a salient point. Glenn Beck has used the Nazi comparison in likening many of the Obama and Bush administrations’ methods, and, while it is not hyperbole, he makes an historical argument.

Right now the so-called “mainstream” media and Democrat politicians are fueling Arizona protests by leftist front groups by implying that the state’s new alien identification law is racist, akin to apartheid and Nazism. This week both Couric and Diane Sawyer shamefully represented the dispute as racist.

This is not hyperbole or metaphor.

The difference being, when the Left calls you a Nazi or the equivalent of one, they mean it literally. They want the world to think you are dangerous, that you present a threat to human life. Al Sharpton, the poster boy for race-baiting rhetoric, means it when he calls Arizonans racists and Nazis.

The American Jewish community and every African American citizen should be outraged when Couric and the others use the disingenuous journalistic mechanism, “some say this is akin to Nazi Germany …” to create fear where no threat exits.

But it works.

Even Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush are running for the boondocks to distance themselves from the Arizona law. Why? Fear of minority voter backlash. Never mind that the Cuban migration of the 20th century had nothing in common with the mass invasion on the Mexican border.

Nothing any Bush does surprises me but Rubio is a disappointment.

Why is the Left so upset about this law? Let’s be clear: it does not give Arizona law enforcement the right to randomly stop and demand anyone’s legal status, in fact it specifically prevents it. They cannot arbitrarily, as Sharpton and Keith Olbermann suggest, inspect anyone’s “papers.”

What does the Arizona law actually do? In a nutshell: it requires proof of citizenship before and person can vote and receive social services; it requires valid identification (not papers, but a state ID, driver’s license or green card) to secure employment. It requires everyone – white, black, Hispanic and everything in between – to carry ID.

It requires that one must have legal status to be here. Anyone who has been through airport security in the last 10 years realizes that that is not too much to ask.

At the end of the day, friends, this is about Democratic votes, illegal votes, and if Republicans and the American people cave in to it, our most precious freedom is gone.

The Litmus Test Should Be For Presidents, Not Judges

In Back in the Day, The Wrong Right Turn on 28/04/2010 at 05:54

There is a simple reason the Founders did not require a law degree in the U.S. Constitution for court justices; they had drafted a succinct document that could be read and understood by everyone.

The Founders did not envision a future generation so unethical and dishonest and lacking in character that it would deliberately twist their words. Which of course has happened.

However, with only a couple of exceptions throughout the years, Republican presidents have been notoriously bad at picking Supreme Court justices.

We expect this of Democrat Presidents. Liberals have no regard whatsoever for “originalism” and have for years applied a rigid set of litmus tests for every nominee to the appellate bench as well as the High Court. Not so Republicans.

But even the highly venerated Ronald Reagan gave us Anthony Kennedy, who in recent years has gone outside the Constitution to render decisions. Reagan was 1 for 4 in the Supreme Court Justice department; he gave us Kennedy, the renowned Antonin Scalia and the complete scatterbrain, Sandra Day O’Connor. In fairness to the Dutchman, however, he did nominate Robert Bork, a fine and brilliant conservative, who was … well, borked by the Left.

George H.W. Bush cancelled himself out by giving us David Souter and Clarence Thomas, arguably the most maligned Supreme Court justice in U.S. history. Also, it should be noted, to his discredit, that he placed Sonia Sotomayor (who would make a good replacement for Judge Judy) on the appellate bench.

George W. Bush is an exception, and conservatives who hate him need to thank their lucky stars he had two terms. He gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito and elevated Roberts to Chief Justice, keeping the Court conservative after William Rehnquist’s retirement.

Eisenhower did a miserable job with the Court, giving us Earl Warren, whom Ike later lamented as “the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made.”

Add in the plethora of liberal justices who have sat on the court over the last 100 years and it becomes easy to understand the importance of selecting, not good justices, but good presidents. We have become top-heavy and bogged down with interpretive law.

Arizona’ s immigration law is a good reason for every conservative American without exception to vote from this year forward.

I have developed a litmus test for myself in all future Presidential elections: my candidate must not be a lawyer, must not have an Ivy League degree, and must not be a lifelong politician. I want a citizen-politician in the White House, one that serves and goes home.

My candidate must: have at some point in his or her recent past lived with and as the rest of us (wealthy is fine, just not inherently wealthy); they must have owned a business; possess common sense and faith in the Western God, and have a strong family life.

This does not assure us that judicial appointment made by conservative presidents will always be as conservative as their writings suggest, or that they will remain so later in their careers, but no liberal in modern history has ever veered to the Right.

The Founders’ original intent for the Constitution is vital if we are to keep America American, and most Americans do not want liberals on the bench.

In a few days, Barack Obama will field his second Supreme Court nominee to replace retiring Ford appointee John Paul Stevens, and his shortlist, as anyone would expect, is not liberal but über-liberal. Every Republican in the Senate must be held accountable for their vote.