Can't argue with Maggie's own written words.....
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
Margaret SangerFounder of Planned Parenthood
In Her Own Words
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On sterilization & racial purification:Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
On the right of married couples to bear children:Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932
On the purpose of birth control:The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12
On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, Happiness in Marriage (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
On the extermination of blacks:"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
On adultery:A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11
On marital sex:"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23) [Quite the opposite of God's view on the matter: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." (Hebrews 13:4)
On abortion:"Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
On the YMCA and YWCA:"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
On the Catholic Church's view of contraception:"...enforce SUBJUGATION by TURNING WOMAN INTO A MERE INCUBATOR." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.
On motherhood:"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Editor of The Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1938.
Founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world.
Her goal in life:Sanger admitted her entire life's purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194
Helped to establish the research bureau that financed "the pill," she contributed toward the work of the German doctor who developed the IUD. "Ernst Graefenberg and His Ring," Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine, July-Aug. 1975, p. 345, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, by Elasah Drogin
Sanger espoused the thinking of eugenicists -- similar to Darwin's "survival of the fittest" -- but related the concept to human society, saying the genetic makeup of the poor, and minorities, for example, was inferior. Pivot of Civilization, by Margaret Sanger, 1922, p. 80
On mandatory sterilization of the poor:One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65, in Margaret Sanger: Father of Modern Society, p. 18. Ellis believed that any sex was acceptable, as long as it hurt no one. The Sage of Sex, A Life of Havelock Ellis, by Arthur Calder-Marshall, p. 88
On eradicating 'bad stocks':The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."
Sanger featured in Life magazine, 1937, "Margaret Sanger celebrates Birth Control Victory."
.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD TODAY "We are not going to be an organization promoting celibacy or chastity." Faye Wattleton, President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1986 _______ "If your parents are stupid enough to deny you access to birth control, and you are under 18, you can get it on your own. Call Planned Parenthood." Planned Parenthood advertisement, Dallas Observer, Jan. 30, 1986 _______ "There are only 2 basic kinds of sex: sex with victims and sex without. Sex with victims is always wrong. Sex without is ALWAYS right." You've Changed The Combination, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. _______ "The question of whether or not to sell ourselves to men is a false one: The real question is how to sell ourselves in the way that is least destructive to ourselves and our sisters. Prostitutes don't need our condescension. What they need is our alliance. And we need theirs." The New Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Women's Health Collective, p 113 _______ "Sex is too important to glop up with sentiment. If you feel sexy, for heaven's sake admit it to yourself. If the feeling and the tension bother you, you can masturbate. Masturbation cannot hurt you and it will make you feel more relaxed." The Perils of Puberty, Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood, Denver, Colo. ______ "At Planned Parenthood you can also get birth control without the consent or knowledge of your parents. So, if you are 14, 15 or 16 and you come to Planned Parenthood, we won't tell your parents you've been there. We swear we won't tell your parents." Planned Parenthood employee lecturing students of Ramona High School, Riverside, Calif., April 21-22, 1986
_________
FACTS on Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood on Adoption:Of 6,000 clinic visit records examined from a Texas PP clinic, only 3 referred for adoption. (Aborting Planned Parenthood, by Robert H. Ruff, New Vision Press, 1988) Planned Parenthood's on Homosexuality & Marital Rights:PP has encouraged homosexuality and advocated compulsory sterilization of all who have two children. (Family Planning Perspectives (a PP publication), June, Oct. 1970) ______________
Planned Parenthood's Goal:Dr. Lena Levine in 1953, concerning Planned Parenthood's purpose and planned course of action: "... to be ready as educators and parents to help young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage. By sanctioning sex before marriage we will prevent fear and guilt. We must also relieve those who have these ... feelings, and we must be ready to provide young boys and girls with the best contraceptive measures available so they will have the necessary means to achieve sexual satisfaction without having to risk possible pregnancy." (Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953) ." ("Psycho-Sexual Development," quoted in Planned Parenthood News, Summer 1953, pg. 10) ________
Planned Parenthood on Pregnancy:PP has an unhealthy concept of pregnancy, as it views the state of gestation as an abnormal condition or disease. Speaking for the organization, Dr. Warren Hern refers to human pregnancy as "an episodic, moderately extended chronic condition ... May be defined as an illness ... Treated by evacuation of the uterine contents..."("Is Pregnancy Really Normal?" Family Planning Perspective, Planned Parenthood, vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1971, pg. 9)
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Oogler Chump And Chief
That is right, BHO and Frenchy get caught looking at an under age girl. They both are chumps!
Baby got Barack!
The leader of the free world and his French counterpart were caught sneaking a peek at a the pink-satin-draped booty of a 17-year-old junior G-8 delegate just moments before the summit's official group photo was snapped in Italy yesterday.
Obama: Full Economic Recovery Is a Ways Away
Obama wasn't the only head of state getting Yankee Doodle randy.
The president got a show of support for his stimulus package from French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- whose wandering eyes also couldn't help but take in the view.
The beauty who prompted the president to channel his inner Bill Clinton was identified as Rio de Janeiro resident Mayara Tavares. The girl from Ipanema had been selected to attend a meeting of young people held in conjunction with the summit.
The leader of the free world and his French counterpart were caught sneaking a peek at a the pink-satin-draped booty of a 17-year-old junior G-8 delegate just moments before the summit's official group photo was snapped in Italy yesterday.
Obama: Full Economic Recovery Is a Ways Away
Obama wasn't the only head of state getting Yankee Doodle randy.
The president got a show of support for his stimulus package from French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- whose wandering eyes also couldn't help but take in the view.
The beauty who prompted the president to channel his inner Bill Clinton was identified as Rio de Janeiro resident Mayara Tavares. The girl from Ipanema had been selected to attend a meeting of young people held in conjunction with the summit.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Planned Parenthood Is Ripping Off The Federal Governmet
Of course they are. The ultimate goal is to not only defund this murder machine, but to overturn R vs.W. The ACLC is one of America's finest organizations. God Bless em'.
http://aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=805
ACLJ Files Appeal Brief in Federal Appeals Court in Massive Fraud Case Against Planned Parenthood Affiliates in CA
This week in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the ACLJ filed an opening appeal brief in a multi-million dollar fraud case against Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates in California. We are representing a former employee of the PP affiliate in Los Angeles, who is now a federal whistleblower. A federal district court in California had dismissed the case, and we are seeking to have the lawsuit reinstated.
The federal False Claims Act (FCA) forbids government contractors from submitting “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds.
The allegation in this case is that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. No one should be permitted to scam the public treasury for profit. The FCA was designed to remedy such illegal runs on taxpayer money.
When the former PP staffer sued the PP affiliates in federal court, charging the defendants with having fraudulently overbilled the state and federal governments in the amount of tens of millions of dollars, the prominent law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP began representing the PP defendants in the case for free. The Skadden attorneys asked the federal district court to dismiss the case on technical jurisdictional grounds.
The federal district court accepted the Skadden arguments in part, and dismissed the case. Our attorneys then entered the case to handle the appeal. The basic question at this point is whether the former PP employee is a proper whistleblower under the False Claims Act, and the answer is “Yes.” Our brief dissects and refutes the arguments of PP’s attorneys point by point, explaining why the court of appeals should reverse the lower court’s judgment and reinstate the lawsuit.
There will be another round of briefs due in September. Oral arguments will follow. This case may well end up at the Supreme Court. We’ll keep you updated as it progresses.
http://aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=805
ACLJ Files Appeal Brief in Federal Appeals Court in Massive Fraud Case Against Planned Parenthood Affiliates in CA
This week in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the ACLJ filed an opening appeal brief in a multi-million dollar fraud case against Planned Parenthood (PP) affiliates in California. We are representing a former employee of the PP affiliate in Los Angeles, who is now a federal whistleblower. A federal district court in California had dismissed the case, and we are seeking to have the lawsuit reinstated.
The federal False Claims Act (FCA) forbids government contractors from submitting “false or fraudulent” claims for payment. The FCA also authorizes private individuals to bring suit against the offenders to recover the fraudulently obtained funds.
The allegation in this case is that PP affiliates in California illegally marked up the supposed cost of various birth control drugs when seeking government reimbursement, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of overbilling – at taxpayer expense. No one should be permitted to scam the public treasury for profit. The FCA was designed to remedy such illegal runs on taxpayer money.
When the former PP staffer sued the PP affiliates in federal court, charging the defendants with having fraudulently overbilled the state and federal governments in the amount of tens of millions of dollars, the prominent law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP began representing the PP defendants in the case for free. The Skadden attorneys asked the federal district court to dismiss the case on technical jurisdictional grounds.
The federal district court accepted the Skadden arguments in part, and dismissed the case. Our attorneys then entered the case to handle the appeal. The basic question at this point is whether the former PP employee is a proper whistleblower under the False Claims Act, and the answer is “Yes.” Our brief dissects and refutes the arguments of PP’s attorneys point by point, explaining why the court of appeals should reverse the lower court’s judgment and reinstate the lawsuit.
There will be another round of briefs due in September. Oral arguments will follow. This case may well end up at the Supreme Court. We’ll keep you updated as it progresses.
Jimmy Good Ol' Boy Carter
Let us not forget what this peanut farmer, and former Failure and Grief said about BHO. He is a blatant racist and bigot. Why anyone would defend him is beyond me!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sbcarter_08-25.html
JIM LEHRER: And do you think that -- if it happens that he is elected, or even just being nominated, is -- will send positive ripple effects throughout the country on the race issue?
JIMMY CARTER: Around the world. Around the world. And I think it already has sent a wave of approbation and admiration in many countries around the world, just knowing that this black boy who grew up with just a loving mother and grandparents -- and that was about all he had to start with -- does now have a chance to become the nominee of the Democratic Party for president.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/jimmy_carter_anti_semitic_9_11_conspiracy_nut/
Alan Dershowitz, writing in Front Page Magazine:
Recent disclosures of Carter’s extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?
And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews “the enemies of all nations,” attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States’ own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a “fable.” (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.
Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard’s decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: “This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan.” Carter’s personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.
In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.
The extent of Carter’s financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter’s friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter “$500,000 to help the former president establish his center…[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter’s different projects.”
Carter gladly acceptedthe money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, “the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.” BCCI isn’t the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center “in 1993 alone…$7.6 million” as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It’s worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government’s myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center’s Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia.
Beyond the antisemitism and general bigotry of Carter’s benefactors is the fact that they’re 9/11 conspiracy theorists, blaming our own military for the attacks on the twin towers instead of the radical Islamic zealots who really crashed the planes into the buildings. Carter knows that these contributions come from people who feel that way. He knows they’re coming from people who feel that the Jews are all members of some sort of global cabal and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Yet he takes them anyway, so one has to conclude that Jimmy Carter feels the same way.
And make no mistake about it, this money from the Arabs has strongly influenced both Carter and his foundation’s political views:
The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price. The bought quality of the Center’s activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center’s human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center’s website.
The Carter Center’s mission statement claims that “The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities.” How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel’s far less serious ones?
No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money?
Dershowitz concludes:
It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real ntegrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter’s sad legacy.
Jimmy Carter is an embarrassment to this country.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/sbcarter_08-25.html
JIM LEHRER: And do you think that -- if it happens that he is elected, or even just being nominated, is -- will send positive ripple effects throughout the country on the race issue?
JIMMY CARTER: Around the world. Around the world. And I think it already has sent a wave of approbation and admiration in many countries around the world, just knowing that this black boy who grew up with just a loving mother and grandparents -- and that was about all he had to start with -- does now have a chance to become the nominee of the Democratic Party for president.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/jimmy_carter_anti_semitic_9_11_conspiracy_nut/
Alan Dershowitz, writing in Front Page Magazine:
Recent disclosures of Carter’s extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?
And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.
They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews “the enemies of all nations,” attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States’ own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a “fable.” (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.
Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard’s decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: “This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan.” Carter’s personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.
In reading Carter’s statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler’s government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.
The extent of Carter’s financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter’s friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter “$500,000 to help the former president establish his center…[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter’s different projects.”
Carter gladly acceptedthe money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, “the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists.” BCCI isn’t the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center “in 1993 alone…$7.6 million” as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It’s worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government’s myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center’s Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia.
Beyond the antisemitism and general bigotry of Carter’s benefactors is the fact that they’re 9/11 conspiracy theorists, blaming our own military for the attacks on the twin towers instead of the radical Islamic zealots who really crashed the planes into the buildings. Carter knows that these contributions come from people who feel that way. He knows they’re coming from people who feel that the Jews are all members of some sort of global cabal and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Yet he takes them anyway, so one has to conclude that Jimmy Carter feels the same way.
And make no mistake about it, this money from the Arabs has strongly influenced both Carter and his foundation’s political views:
The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price. The bought quality of the Center’s activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center’s human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center’s website.
The Carter Center’s mission statement claims that “The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities.” How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel’s far less serious ones?
No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money?
Dershowitz concludes:
It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real ntegrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter’s sad legacy.
Jimmy Carter is an embarrassment to this country.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Colonial Comrade and Chump
A friend of mine informed me about this well written article. Good ol' Comrade and Chump B Hussein O being exposed for who he truly is......I guess I can refer to him as Colonial and Chump too!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.
Like many educated intellectuals in postcolonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign "isms", instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.
The tropes of America's racial history as a way of understanding all things black are useless in understanding the man who got his dreams from his father, a Kenyan exemplar of the African Colonial.
Before I continue, I need to say this: I am a first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria. I travel to Nigeria frequently. I see myself as both a proud American and as a proud Igbo (the tribe that we come from -- also sometimes spelled Ibo). Politically, I have always been conservative (though it took this past election for me to commit to this once and for all!); my conservative values come from my Igbo heritage and my place of birth. Of course, none of this qualifies me to say what I am about to -- but at the same time it does.
My friends, despite what CNN and the rest are telling you, Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself -- those of us who know our history -- have seen this movie before. Here are two main reasons why many Americans allowed Obama to slip through the cracks despite all of his glaring inconsistencies:
First, Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious. Second, and most importantly, too many Americans know very little about Africa. The one-size-fits-all understanding that many Americans (both black and white) continue to have of Africa might end up bringing dire consequences for this country.
Contrary to the way it continues to be portrayed in mainstream Western culture, Africa is not a continent that can be solely defined by AIDS, ethnic rivalries, poverty and safaris. Africa, like any other continent, has an immense history defined by much diversity and complexity. Africa's long-standing relationship with Europe speaks especially to some of these complexities -- particularly the relationship that has existed between the two continents over the past two centuries. Europe's complete colonization of Africa during the nineteenth century, also known as the Scramble for Africa, produced many unfortunate consequences, the African colonial being one of them.
The African colonial (AC) is a person who by means of their birth or lineage has a direct connection with Africa. However, unlike Africans like me, their worldviews have been largely shaped not by the indigenous beliefs of a specific African tribe but by the ideals of the European imperialism that overwhelmed and dominated Africa during the colonial period. AC's have no real regard for their specific African traditions or histories. AC's use aspects of their African culture as one would use pieces of costume jewelry: things of little or no value that can be thoughtlessly discarded when they become a negative distraction, or used on a whim to decorate oneself in order to seem exotic. (Hint: Obama's Muslim heritage).
On the other hand, AC's strive to be the best at the culture that they inherited from Europe. Throughout the West, they are tops in their professions as lawyers, doctors, engineers, Ivy League professors and business moguls; this is all well and good. It's when they decide to engage us as politicians that things become messy and convoluted.
The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the "will of the people" becomes completely irrelevant.
Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.
In his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father -- an eloquent piece of political propaganda -- Obama styles himself as a misunderstood intellectual who is deeply affected by the sufferings of black people, especially in America and Africa. In the book, Obama clearly sees himself as an African, not as a black American. And to prove this, he goes on a quest to understand his Kenyan roots. He is extremely thoughtful of his deceased father's legacy; this provides the main clue for understanding Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Sr. was an African colonial to the core; in his case, the apple did not fall far from the tree. All of the telltale signs of Obama's African colonialist attitudes are on full display in the book -- from his feigned antipathy towards Europeans to his view of African tribal associations as distracting elements that get in the way of "progress". (On p. 308 of Dreams From My Father, Obama says that African tribes should be viewed as an "ancient loyalties".)
Like imperialists of Old World Europe, the ACP sees their constituents not as free thinking individuals who best know how to go about achieving and creating their own means for success. Instead, the ACP sees his constituents as a flock of ignorant sheep that need to be led -- oftentimes to their own slaughter.
Like the European imperialist who spawned him, the ACP is a destroyer of all forms of democracy.
Here are a few examples of what the British did in order to create (in 1914) what is now called Nigeria and what Obama is doing to you:
Convince the people that "clinging" to any aspect of their cultural (tribal) identity or history is bad and regresses the process of "unity". British Imperialists deeply feared people who were loyal to anything other than the state. "Tribalism" made the imperialists have to work harder to get people to just fall in line. Imperialists pitted tribes against each other in order to create chaos that they then blamed on ethnic rivalry. Today many "educated" Nigerians, having believed that their traditions were irrelevant, remain completely ignorant of their ancestry and the history of their own tribes.
Confiscate the wealth and resources of the area that you govern by any means necessary in order to redistribute wealth. The British used this tactic to present themselves as empathetic and benevolent leaders who wanted everyone to have a "fair shake". Imperialists are not interested in equality for all. They are interested in controlling all.
Convince the masses that your upper-crust university education naturally puts you on an intellectual plane from which to understand everything even when you understand nothing. Imperialists were able to convince the people that their elite university educations allowed them to understand what Africa needed. Many of today's Nigerians-having followed that lead-hold all sorts of degrees and certificates-but what good are they if you can't find a job?
Lie to the people and tell them that progress is being made even though things are clearly becoming worse. One thing that the British forgot to mention to their Nigerian constituents was that one day, the resources that were being used to engineer "progress" (which the British had confiscated from the Africans to begin with!) would eventually run out. After WWII, Western Europe could no longer afford to hold on to their African colonies. So all of the counterfeit countries that the Europeans created were then left high-and-dry to fend for themselves. This was the main reason behind the African independence movements of the1950 and 60's. What will a post-Obama America look like?
Use every available media outlet to perpetuate the belief that you and your followers are the enlightened ones-and that those who refuse to support you are just barbaric, uncivilized, ignorant curmudgeons. This speaks for itself.
America, don't be fooled. The Igbos were once made up of a confederacy of clans that ascribed to various forms of democratic government. They took their eyes off the ball and before they knew it, the British were upon them. Also, understand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.
L.E. Ikenga can be reached at leikenga@gmail.com.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
President Ronald Reagan's Address to the Nation July 4, 1986
Happy 4th America. President Reagan......If B. Hussein Obama had one half of one percent of your dignity and honor......
Not In The Constitution
There is no constitutional right that states a it is illegal to use a "racial" slur against a fellow countryman. Recent time we have heard the hate spewed from rev. Wright. Jesse Jackson has also used the label, "Hymies" referring to Jews. Let us not forget Jackson High/Low light taped when he thought nobody was listening, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/07/17/jackson-also-used-n-word-in-taped-conversation-critical-of-obama/
Jackson's comment came when he was discussing Barack Obama, saying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is "talking down to black people," and "telling niggers how to behave."
Jimmy Carter used the word "boy" while talking about B. Hussein Obama. Then when Imus made a "nappy headed ho" blast it was the end of the world. Even the evil and sick KKK has the right to use racial slurs.
Like it or not, these types of comments are legal as long there are no threats of violence involved. We see it everywhere from all different races. And the slur directed at the mayor of Los Banos, while vile, is the right of the speaker.
Sadly, guys like Al, Jesse, and our president realize that there is a double standard in this country. And an effective way of silencing opposition is to brand them "racist." The only reason it has worked is because many a white person will not stand up to these racist thugs. All one needs to do is substitute a white guy for Jackson, and let them use Jackson's slurs.....
»
jheaton's blog
Jackson's comment came when he was discussing Barack Obama, saying the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is "talking down to black people," and "telling niggers how to behave."
Jimmy Carter used the word "boy" while talking about B. Hussein Obama. Then when Imus made a "nappy headed ho" blast it was the end of the world. Even the evil and sick KKK has the right to use racial slurs.
Like it or not, these types of comments are legal as long there are no threats of violence involved. We see it everywhere from all different races. And the slur directed at the mayor of Los Banos, while vile, is the right of the speaker.
Sadly, guys like Al, Jesse, and our president realize that there is a double standard in this country. And an effective way of silencing opposition is to brand them "racist." The only reason it has worked is because many a white person will not stand up to these racist thugs. All one needs to do is substitute a white guy for Jackson, and let them use Jackson's slurs.....
»
jheaton's blog
Friday, July 03, 2009
A Big Shout Out
I would like to thank all the liberal/progressive,racist,bigots, drunks and infanticide supporters for visiting The Boot. It is quite obvious that you come here not only to educate yourself to what is good and moral, but it must also be therapeutic for you too. Knowing that by day you lead an evil and immoral life, and at night, when you place your head on the pillow you have to wrestle the demons that haunt you.
I am glad that I provide you deviants with an outlet for your hate,racism, sexism, and pure ugliness. So bring it on and spew away, you are the reason I post the truth. With any luck your children and grandchildren will forgive you for all of your acts of darkness that they have suffered at you hands.
I am glad that I provide you deviants with an outlet for your hate,racism, sexism, and pure ugliness. So bring it on and spew away, you are the reason I post the truth. With any luck your children and grandchildren will forgive you for all of your acts of darkness that they have suffered at you hands.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
A True Champion
Alexis was one of my all time favorite boxers. Pound for pound he was the baddest man on the planet in his prime. He was always the nice guy in a brutal sport. I will have to go find my tapes of his two fights with Aaron Pryor.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-box-arguello-dead,1,6391970.story
MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) — Alexis Arguello, who fought in one of boxing's most classic brawls and reigned supreme at 130 pounds, was found dead at his home early Wednesday.
Presidential spokeswoman Rosario Murillo confirmed Arguello's death and an autopsy was pending. The La Prensa newspaper reported Arguello — elected mayor of Managua last year — was found with a gunshot wound to the chest.
The 57-year-old Arguello retired in 1995 with a record of 82-8 with 65 knockouts and was a champion in three weight divisions. He was perhaps best known for two thrilling battles with Aaron Pryor and fights with Ray Mancini, Bobby Chacon and Ruben Olivares. "Alexis was one of the greatest fighters and world champions, but more importantly, he was a real man, true gentleman and loyal friend," Bob Arum, who promoted many of his fights, told The Associated Press. "He will be greatly missed."
http://www.latimes.com/sports/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-box-arguello-dead,1,6391970.story
MANAGUA, Nicaragua (AP) — Alexis Arguello, who fought in one of boxing's most classic brawls and reigned supreme at 130 pounds, was found dead at his home early Wednesday.
Presidential spokeswoman Rosario Murillo confirmed Arguello's death and an autopsy was pending. The La Prensa newspaper reported Arguello — elected mayor of Managua last year — was found with a gunshot wound to the chest.
The 57-year-old Arguello retired in 1995 with a record of 82-8 with 65 knockouts and was a champion in three weight divisions. He was perhaps best known for two thrilling battles with Aaron Pryor and fights with Ray Mancini, Bobby Chacon and Ruben Olivares. "Alexis was one of the greatest fighters and world champions, but more importantly, he was a real man, true gentleman and loyal friend," Bob Arum, who promoted many of his fights, told The Associated Press. "He will be greatly missed."
Sotomayor Reversed
While there is any doubt that Miss. Sotomayor will be confirmed, it is nice to see that there is some ammo that could be used to make the confirmation hearings a little more interesting.....that is if the repubs have the guts......but I doubt it. And Ruthy Bads went pure racist when she said, "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion."
This might be the death blow for Affirmative action and racial quotas. What a concept, actually getting a job and promotion based on your skills and not skin color or gender!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html
The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.
In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.
adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified.
This might be the death blow for Affirmative action and racial quotas. What a concept, actually getting a job and promotion based on your skills and not skin color or gender!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529409,00.html
The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance.
In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.
Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.
adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Say...I would Like To Visit Saychelles!
I really enjoy doing a bit of research on places that my Cluster Map shows I receive views from. The current Island is Saychelles. It is a beautiful island country that I am know placing on my list of places I would like to visit, but probably never will! Here is a link to some info....
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newspapers24.com/images/category/seychelles.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newspapers24.com/seychelles-newspapers/&usg=__62jB-GtUX0NJM9nPOh7IhGvh3rU=&h=226&w=300&sz=21&hl=en&start=37&um=1&tbnid=fM7iriEdrygRVM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSeychelles%2B(SC)%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1
Seychelles is an archipelago which lies in the western part of the Indian Ocean, and spreads over an Exclusive Economy Zone of around 1.3 million Square kilometers.
Lying 1593 km East of Kenya, 2813 km South West of India and 925 km North East of Madagascar makes this archipelago strategically located. It consists of 115 islands, of which 76 are coralline and the remaining are granitic. The main part of the archipelago is situated between 4 and 5 degrees South of the equator at a longitude between 55 and 56 degrees east, allowing it to enjoy a favorable climate. But Seychelles is also lucky to be situated in a zone free from cyclones. All the main islands are granitic and Mahe is the principal island (153 skm with 80% of the total population). The estimated population is 80,000 in 1998.The coralline islands are low averaging 1.5 meters above sea level and seldom exceed 9 to 15 meters in height Supplies of fresh water are scarce and settlements are small with rarely more than a hundred people. Many of these islands serve as rookeries for large bird population.In contrast the granitic islands rise from the sea to altitudes of 600 to 1000m. The topography is rugged with outcrops ofhuge boulders. Fresh water is provided by surface streams. Most islands are covered in luxuriant and verdant vegetation. White sandy beaches surrounding the islands are natural features of the Seychelles archipelago.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.newspapers24.com/images/category/seychelles.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.newspapers24.com/seychelles-newspapers/&usg=__62jB-GtUX0NJM9nPOh7IhGvh3rU=&h=226&w=300&sz=21&hl=en&start=37&um=1&tbnid=fM7iriEdrygRVM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSeychelles%2B(SC)%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1
%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26start%3D20%26um%3D1){kind=link}
Seychelles is an archipelago which lies in the western part of the Indian Ocean, and spreads over an Exclusive Economy Zone of around 1.3 million Square kilometers.
Lying 1593 km East of Kenya, 2813 km South West of India and 925 km North East of Madagascar makes this archipelago strategically located. It consists of 115 islands, of which 76 are coralline and the remaining are granitic. The main part of the archipelago is situated between 4 and 5 degrees South of the equator at a longitude between 55 and 56 degrees east, allowing it to enjoy a favorable climate. But Seychelles is also lucky to be situated in a zone free from cyclones. All the main islands are granitic and Mahe is the principal island (153 skm with 80% of the total population). The estimated population is 80,000 in 1998.The coralline islands are low averaging 1.5 meters above sea level and seldom exceed 9 to 15 meters in height Supplies of fresh water are scarce and settlements are small with rarely more than a hundred people. Many of these islands serve as rookeries for large bird population.In contrast the granitic islands rise from the sea to altitudes of 600 to 1000m. The topography is rugged with outcrops ofhuge boulders. Fresh water is provided by surface streams. Most islands are covered in luxuriant and verdant vegetation. White sandy beaches surrounding the islands are natural features of the Seychelles archipelago.
Friday, June 26, 2009
A Republican In Harlem
Of course, this is a story that would not be told by many in the media. I hope he spreads the truth to all that will listen that depending on Uncle Sam for all of ones needs is wrong, and relying on family and self is what is right. Below is a short interview and his homepage.
http://brandonbrice.com/default.aspx
http://hiphoprepublican.com/politics/outreach/2009/06/17/a-republican-in-harlem-brandon-brice-showing-the-community-side-of-republicanism-2/
Brandon Brice is a community organizer and an active Republican in Harlem. Republicans working in the black community is not generally a normal concept. Self-empowerment, financial success and small government are words usually associated with the Republican Party, but not community involvement. Brandon, however, shows that Republicanism and community work are not mutual exclusive but can co-exist.
Why are you in Harlem? You have a Bachelor’s degree from Howard University in Business, worked for the United Nations as well as corporate America, so why drop the larger salary to work in the community?
I’ve lived in Harlem for five years now and have seen a lot. The increasing numbers of single mothers, black folks losing their homes and livelihoods and seniors being displaced at rapid rates across uptown- it just isn’t right. I decided that I wanted to help my neighbors because Harlem is my community.
Do you think your community efforts fit within Republican values?
Yes! Getting people to understand how taxes, affordable health care, housing and small business opportunities affects them is being Republican. Educating people about certain opportunities and policies helps them to make informed decisions. This allows them to create the life they want for themselves.
What is one of your successes since working in Harlem?
I helped get a lot of kids get into college this year- some got into top schools including the Ivy League. For four years I have been in mentoring program that helps young black and Latino males get into college. I knew I had to commit myself to this program when I realized kids from the South Bronx and Harlem were not being asked questions like, ” what do you want to do with your life?” Or ,”what college do you want to go?” That to me was just unacceptable. If you want to keep kids out of jail, get them educated. Get them into college.
Where did you go to college?
Howard, and it was a great experience. It is a liberal school, so it was a good training ground for me to defend my ideas as a Republican.
So you were a Republican before college? Did you come from an affluent family?
I am a son of a single mother. And I became Republican while going to Howard. In high school, a teacher of mine told me to always keep an open mind about politics and to take a look at the history of the Republican Party. He was a Republican. I wasn’t sure about the Republican Party until my junior year at Howard, when I interned for J. Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House and Ken Melman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. After working with these leaders and looking at the history of the GOP, I am convinced of two things- that Republican policies can work and that Republican ideas are badly marketed.
What do you think are areas of development for the GOP?
We got to talk about the issues that matter to people. We can’t talk about stem cell research to people who got no jobs. We’ve got to address the issues by region and by need.
How can you be a black Republican in an Obama America? How can you tell other African Americans to consider any other party than the Democratic Party without feeling like a sell-out?
I’m a Republican, but I am a black man first. So deciding to become a Republican is based on who I am and what ideas can work best in the black community.
Brandon Brice is a graduate of Howard University and is a former fellow of the New Jersey Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. As a long time member of Republicans for Black Empowerment, Brandon is an active contributor to HipHopRepublicans.com. Brandon Brice has worked as a policy intern for the former House Speaker Honorable J. Dennis Hastert and has served as a fellow at the United Nations. He has been featured on C-SPAN’s Road to the White House, BET’s What’s At Stake and Hot97 with Lisa Evers. Brandon is a proud member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc, and attends the Greater Abyssinia Baptist Church.
http://brandonbrice.com/default.aspx
http://hiphoprepublican.com/politics/outreach/2009/06/17/a-republican-in-harlem-brandon-brice-showing-the-community-side-of-republicanism-2/
Brandon Brice is a community organizer and an active Republican in Harlem. Republicans working in the black community is not generally a normal concept. Self-empowerment, financial success and small government are words usually associated with the Republican Party, but not community involvement. Brandon, however, shows that Republicanism and community work are not mutual exclusive but can co-exist.
Why are you in Harlem? You have a Bachelor’s degree from Howard University in Business, worked for the United Nations as well as corporate America, so why drop the larger salary to work in the community?
I’ve lived in Harlem for five years now and have seen a lot. The increasing numbers of single mothers, black folks losing their homes and livelihoods and seniors being displaced at rapid rates across uptown- it just isn’t right. I decided that I wanted to help my neighbors because Harlem is my community.
Do you think your community efforts fit within Republican values?
Yes! Getting people to understand how taxes, affordable health care, housing and small business opportunities affects them is being Republican. Educating people about certain opportunities and policies helps them to make informed decisions. This allows them to create the life they want for themselves.
What is one of your successes since working in Harlem?
I helped get a lot of kids get into college this year- some got into top schools including the Ivy League. For four years I have been in mentoring program that helps young black and Latino males get into college. I knew I had to commit myself to this program when I realized kids from the South Bronx and Harlem were not being asked questions like, ” what do you want to do with your life?” Or ,”what college do you want to go?” That to me was just unacceptable. If you want to keep kids out of jail, get them educated. Get them into college.
Where did you go to college?
Howard, and it was a great experience. It is a liberal school, so it was a good training ground for me to defend my ideas as a Republican.
So you were a Republican before college? Did you come from an affluent family?
I am a son of a single mother. And I became Republican while going to Howard. In high school, a teacher of mine told me to always keep an open mind about politics and to take a look at the history of the Republican Party. He was a Republican. I wasn’t sure about the Republican Party until my junior year at Howard, when I interned for J. Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the House and Ken Melman, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. After working with these leaders and looking at the history of the GOP, I am convinced of two things- that Republican policies can work and that Republican ideas are badly marketed.
What do you think are areas of development for the GOP?
We got to talk about the issues that matter to people. We can’t talk about stem cell research to people who got no jobs. We’ve got to address the issues by region and by need.
How can you be a black Republican in an Obama America? How can you tell other African Americans to consider any other party than the Democratic Party without feeling like a sell-out?
I’m a Republican, but I am a black man first. So deciding to become a Republican is based on who I am and what ideas can work best in the black community.
Brandon Brice is a graduate of Howard University and is a former fellow of the New Jersey Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. As a long time member of Republicans for Black Empowerment, Brandon is an active contributor to HipHopRepublicans.com. Brandon Brice has worked as a policy intern for the former House Speaker Honorable J. Dennis Hastert and has served as a fellow at the United Nations. He has been featured on C-SPAN’s Road to the White House, BET’s What’s At Stake and Hot97 with Lisa Evers. Brandon is a proud member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc, and attends the Greater Abyssinia Baptist Church.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
No Vacancy
At what point will American citizens realize that we will not be able to accept any more immigrants, either legal or illegal. When will we realize that the people we do let in must have a skill or a profession other than "laborer." Most illegal alien coming to the states are grunt workers. Not doctors, scientist, or professors.
One may ask, "who will do the jobs that others will not?" Easy, cut off unemployment payments and force those who are abusing this system to work. When a person is hungry enough, they will work for food.
We have allowed to many unskilled people into this country for too long. It has been a drain on social services and law enforcement. So comrade and chump and all the other politicos can speak all they want about their beloved "immigration reform," but until we fix the "free lunch" mentality that has infected so many, we will continue to slide into the sludge status of a third world nation. Below is some good reading on the topic of immigration.
http://www.answers.com/topic/immigration-act-of-1965
Although technically just a group of amendments to the existing Immigration and Nationality Act, the Immigration Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, in actuality fundamentally reshaped American Immigration for the remainder of the twentieth century and beyond. It abolished the national origins system set up in the Immigration Act of 1924 and modified by the Immigration Act of 1952. While seeming to maintain the principle of numerical restriction, it so increased the categories of persons who could enter "without numerical limitation" as to make its putative numerical caps—170,000 annually for the Eastern Hemisphere with a maximum of 20,000 per nation plus 120,000 annually for the Western Hemisphere with no national limitations—virtually meaningless within a few years. Its expansion and modification of the existing preference systems is shown in the Sidebar. Although little noticed at the time and virtually ignored in most general histories of the period, it can be seen as one of three major legislative accomplishments of 1965, the high-water mark of late-twentieth-century liberalism, along with the Voting Rights Act and the establishment of the Medicare and Medicaid system.
The final passage of the 1965 act was somewhat anticlimactic. The struggle to scrap the 1924 national origins formula had been going on in earnest since the end of World War II. Liberal immigration policy goals were established by President Harry S. Truman's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization in its 1953 report, Whom We Shall Welcome. That report was highly critical of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, which was passed over Truman's veto. The reforms it urged and all attempts at systemic change were frustrated in Congress, although a number of statutes and executive branch actions added groups of immigrants, largely refugees, to the admissible mix.
The personnel changes in Congress accompanying President Lyndon Johnson's sweeping 1964 victory and the gradual diminution of religious, ethnic, and even racial prejudices in the nation at large made immigration reform an idea whose time had come. To be sure, a few restrictionist die-hards, such as Senator Sam Ervin (Democrat from North Carolina), tried to maintain the status quo. Ervin insisted that the McCarran-Walter Act was not discriminatory but was instead "like a mirror reflecting the United States, allowing the admission of immigrants according to a national and uniform mathematical formula recognizing the obvious and natural fact that those immigrants can best be assimilated into our society who have relatives, friends, or others of similar background already here." What Ervin never admitted was that the "mirror" was badly distorted, like those at amusement parks, and reflected not the population of the 1960s but that recorded in the 1920 census. But most in Congress simply acquiesced. The final passage of the bill in the Senate was by voice vote, while in the House it was approved overwhelmingly, 326 to 69.
Many scholars have characterized the 1965 act as a prime example of "unintended consequences," and it is clear that even its most influential advocate, President Johnson, seems not to have understood what its effects would be. In the signing ceremony staged on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, Johnson remarked: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to our wealth or our power." The president was not indulging in un-characteristic understatement. He and his advisers saw the 1965 act as redressing injuries done in 1924 and 1952, what he called the wrong done to those "from southern and eastern Europe."
In practice the law has worked quite differently from the ways in which any of its sponsors expected. Looking backward and expecting the future to resemble the past, they ignored the evidence of data available to them. As Table 1 shows, growing numbers of Latin Americans and Asians had been coming to the United States since World War II, and once such persons had permanent resident status, a whole cohort of relatives became eligible to enter the country as second preference immigrants. And as soon as these immigrants became U.S. citizens, as unprecedented numbers of them did in the minimum five-year waiting period, more persons became eligible as first, fourth, and fifth preference immigrants, while others could enter exempt from numerical preference. After the 1965 act went into effect, this kind of chain migration, in which related immigrants follow one another as links in a chain, accounted for a preponderance of all nonrefugee migration.
Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the law involves the presumed twenty thousand cap on entries from any one nation. That cap, which never affected Western Hemisphere nations, applies only to those entering from the Eastern Hemisphere who are subject to "numerical limitation." In 1985, for example, forty-eight thousand Filipinos and thirty-five thousand Koreans entered legally, to list only the two largest national groups from the Eastern Hemisphere entering in that year. The twenty thousand cap has been chimerical.
If scholars ignored or downplayed the 1965 law for a long time, by the 1980s, when immigration had become a major issue in American public life, many of the discussions, whether in blame or praise, overstated its influence. For example, a 1989 Rand study reported: "After a lull lasting more than 40 years, immigration to the United States began to increase considerably in the late 1960s after the passage of the 1965 Act." The two great changes that took place in American immigration in the second half of the twentieth century—the steady increase in the number of immigrants and the steady reduction of the once dominant share taken by European immigrants—were clearly in evidence before the enactment of the new law in October 1965, as One can only speculate whether or not, had Congress understood what the results of its actions would be, the 1965 act would have been passed in anything like the form that it finally assumed. Most of the few scholars who have addressed this question have answered it in the negative.
Bibliography
Barkan, Elliott R. "Whom Shall We Integrate? A Comparative Analysis of the Immigration and Naturalization Trends of Asians before and after the 1965 Immigration Act (1951–1978)." Journal of American Ethnic History 1, no. 3 (Fall 1983): 29–57. Documents naturalization as a factor in chain migration.
Bean, Frank D., Georges Vernez, and Charles B. Keely. Opening and Closing the Doors: Evaluating Immigration Reform and Control. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand, 1989. A social science study.
Gillon, Steven M. "That's Not What We Meant to Do": Reform and Its Unintended Consequences in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Norton, 2000. Chapter 4 deals with the 1965 Immigration Act.
Kennedy, Edward M. "The Immigration Act of 1965." Annals 367 (September 1966): 137–149. A contemporary account by a leading advocate of immigration reform.
Reimers, David M. Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America. 2d ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. The best account of post–World War II immigration.
National Origins: Our New Immigration Formula (1924)The American Review of Reviews (No. LXX, No. 3) September 1924 George Wheeler Hinman, Jr.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1315840/posts?page=68
When the United States first undertook to curtail the flow of immigration, the problem of finding a reasonable formula upon which to base the fair distribution of quotas among the various nationalities affected immediately presented itself. The problem was a most troublesome one, complicated by political considerations at home and by diplomatic difficulties abroad.
Assuming the actual curtailment of immigration to be desirable, there still remained to be passed upon several important matters. Nationally speaking, the people of the United States were entitled to first consideration. Hence, it was essential that any basis of restriction should be one which would conserve their interests. There was, in addition, the desire to afford fair treatment to the peoples of other nations, hundreds of thousands of whom had left their home lands to begin their lives again in the New World. Those seeking asylum from political or religious persecution had traditionally found in the United States a haven of refuge.
Emergency Law of 1921
The first actual move to curtail immigration numerically was the emergency quota law of May 19, 1921, restricting the admission of aliens in any year to 3 per cent of the number of foreign-born persons of each nationality residing in the United States as shown by the census of 1910. In other words, there being approximately 1,401,900 persons of Italian birth resident in the United States according to the census of 1910, Italy was entitled to send 3 per cent of that figure, or 42,057 immigrants, to the United States each year.
It is difficult to justify this formula for restriction upon any basis save that of sheer expediency. There is no particular reason why the number of foreign-born of any one nationality should determine how many more that nation might send to Americas shores. The argument that, because so many had come in recent years, a proportionate number should be admitted in future years, is too far-fetched to be worthy of serious consideration. The history of American immigration is a story of successive waves from various sections of the Old World.
Early Predominance of Northern European Stocks
During the first two centuries and a half following the discovery of America, only 80,000 immigrants entered the area which is now part of the United States. At the close of these 250 years, these immigrants had grown by natural processes until the population of the area approximated 1,000,000 persons. Half a century later, the first census, that of 1790, showed the population of the United States to be almost 4,000,000, practically all of whom were descendants of the original 80,000. Excepting a small sprinkling of descendants of immigrants from France, Spain, Holland, and the Rhenish provinces of Germany, the population of 1790 was British and Irish.
The first American immigration law was enacted in 1820. No official record of immigration was kept by the national government prior to that date. From the best available sources, however, it has been estimated that approximately 300,000 immigrants entered the United States between 1783, the date of the Treaty with Great Britain acknowledging American independence, and 1820. Practically every one of the 300,000 came from the nations of northern and western Europe.
In all, there have been five great waves of immigration in American history. The number of immigrants entering the United States each year did not pass the 100,000 mark until 1842, when the total reached 104,565. The immigration wave then rose steadily until it reached its crest of 427,833 in 1854. This first wave was chiefly British in origin, although political disturbances in Germany drove a large number from that area of Europe to the United States. Almost all the immigrants came from the nations of northern and western Europe.
Rise of Southern and Eastern Europe as Immigration Factors
After 1854, the tide receded, but a second wave began sweeping in during the Civil War and rose to a crest of 459,803 in 1873. This wave, too, was mainly British and German, plus a touch of Scandinavian. For the fist time, moreover, there was a noticeable trace of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Numerically, they were negligible, crossing the 10,000 mark for the first time in 1871. The nations of northern and western Europe were still furnishing the great bulk of immigration.
The third wave began in 1880 and swept quickly to a high mark of 788,992 in 1882. Secondary crests in the same general movement were reached in 1888 and 1892. Although the immigrants of northern and western Europe still dominated, there was a most significant and insistent increase in the flow from the southern and eastern nations. In 1882, they were only 11 per cent of the total, in 1888, 26 per cent, and in 1892, 47 per cent. For the first time, Italy, Russia, Poland and Austria-Hungary were furnishing a considerable proportion of the annual immigration. The influx from Russia and Poland brought many immigrants of the Hebrew race.
Although the third wave definitely receded after 1892, the immigration from southern and eastern Europe continued to occupy its position of prominence. Finally, in 1896, with a percentage of 57 of the total immigration, it passed numerically the influx from the nations of northern and western Europe. From that time until the operation of the quota law of 1921, except for the World War years, the nations of southern and eastern Europe continued to furnish more than half, and in some years more than three-fourths, the total.
In the fourth immigration wave, with the record crest of 1,285,349 in 1907 and secondary crests in 1910 and 1914, the few immigrants from northern and western Europe were completely submerged in the flood from Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. Of the record influx in 1907, 979,661, or more than three-fourths, came from the nations of southern and eastern Europe. For each succeeding year until the outbreak of the World War called a halt, the immigration from these nations exceeded two-thirds of the total. In 1914, it again crossed the three-fourths mark in a total immigration of 1,218,480, only a few thousand below the record figure of 1907. From all indications, only the declarations of war in August, 1914, prevented the year 1915 from setting a new record.
The World War checked the flow of immigration from Europe, which fell from above the million mark in 1914 to less than 25,000 in 1919, or only 18 per cent of the total for that year. The year 1920, however, started the fifth wave from Europe. The total for the year was 430,001, of which two-fifths came from southern and eastern Europe, one-fifth from northern and western Europe, and the remaining two-fifths principally from other countries of North and South America. The wave continued to rise; reaching 805,228 in 1921. Of this total, more than two-thirds came from southern and eastern Europe. Then the emergency quota law of May, 1921, called a halt.
Emergency Quota Worked Against Northern Nationalities
There was no denying that this emergency act operated in favor of those nationalities which of later years had furnished the bulk of American immigration. For fourteen years prior to the census of 1910, these later arrivals were bound to count heavily against the nations which had sent their immigrants to American shores in the earlier years. So it came about quite naturally that those nations in which had originated nearly four-fifths of the white population of the United States were assigned barely one-half of the total immigration quota.
General recognition was given the fact that the law of 1921 was only a makeshift measure designed to meet an emergency. There still remained unsolved the problem of working out a formula for the curtailment of immigration which would serve the interests of the American people and at the same time do justice to the peoples of other nations. In itself, the problem was sufficiently difficult, but this difficulty was greatly aggravated by national and racial controversies. The original sources of American immigration were the nations of northern and western Europe. The newer sources were the nations of southern and eastern Europe. This fact gave rise to the most involved disputes over the relative merits of races and nationalities. Physical, mental and moral characteristics were debated with some bitterness. Records of antiquity were ransacked by eager scholars to prove this or that doctrine of racial superiority or to disprove a doctrine advanced by somebody else. Much was written, and more was said; and but little of either had any real bearing upon the true issue involved in the search for a formula which would justly curtail American immigration.
Through all the storm of national and racial controversy, the search for an American immigration formula went painstakingly on. The crisis of 1921, with 5,000,000 unemployed in the United States and immigrants entering at the rate of almost 1,000,000 a year, crystallized the belief that the time had come to check the unlimited flow of aliens from abroad. The law of 1921, while it met the emergency, failed to provide a permanently satisfactory means for immigration control. There could be no justification for basing alien quotas on foreign born inhabitants of the United States and at the same time utterly ignoring the native-born. There was, too, a growing feeling that the law of 1921 admitted an excessive number of immigrants.
Recognizing Native-Born of Foreign Origin
All efforts were concentrated upon the task of reaching a solution which, while curtailing the flow of immigration, would at the same time recognize the claims of the native-born as well as those of the foreign-born residing within the United Sates. In other words, the purpose was to grant recognition to the descendants of those immigrants who had come to the United States in the earlier years and so no longer figured prominently in the compilations of the foreign-born.
The census of 1920 indicated that, of the white population of the United States, approximately 85 per cent had originated in northern and western Europe and 15 per cent in southern and eastern Europe. This was in marked contrast to the European immigration quotas of 1921, which, based upon the foreign-born as shown by the census of 1910, gave 55 per cent to northern and western and 45 per cent to southern and eastern Europe. In brief, if the origin of the native-born as well as of the foreign-born were to be considered, the quota of southern and eastern Europe would have to be divided by three, and that of northern and western Europe increased by nearly one-half. Any such change, so far as southern and eastern Europe was concerned, would be made more drastic as the total of all quotas was reduced. And yet, assuming that immigration should be curtailed on a basis of even-handed justice to all those who resided within the United States, it was hard to challenge the fairness of a principle which sought to recognize the rights of both the native and the foreign-born.
So the demand grew for the preparation of an immigration formula based upon the national origins of the American people as shown by the best available records, the census of 1920. There were numerous obstacles to the meeting of that demand. It would be no simple task to determine even with approximate accuracy the national origins of 95,000,000 persons, the white population of the United States. It was comparatively easy to estimate that approximately 85 per cent of that white population had come from the countries of northern and western Europe, but it was another matter to distribute that 85 per cent upon the face of the changing map of the Old World. And, as for the 15 per cent from southern and eastern Europe, the task was just that much more difficult.
Enemies of the principle assailed the idea of a national origins formula as hopelessly unworkable. It was unthinkable, they argued, that any calculator could distribute the quotas with any degree of accuracy. So strong was the opposition that many supporters of the national origins idea advocated the achievement of approximately the same general result by the building of quotas upon the basis of the foreign-born as shown by the census of 1890. This, of course, was a purely arbitrary method designed to restore the balance between the nations of northern and western Europe on the one hand and those of southern and eastern Europe on the other. Meantime, the opponents of the national origins idea were fighting bitterly to retain the census of 1910 as the basis of calculations.
A Basis Found in "National Origins"
The outcome of the struggle was a complete victory for both the national origins formula and the census of 1890, the latter as a stop-gap to control during the years prior to July 1, 1927 when the former becomes operative. During each of the years 1925, 1926, and 1927, quotas are to be assigned on the basis of 2 per cent of the foreign-born of the various nationalities as shown by the census of 1890. The total of these quotas will approximate 162,000, as against 358,000 under the emergency quota law of 1921. During those same three years, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly, are to work out a plan for admitting to the United States annually 150,000 immigrants with quotas distributed upon the basis of the national origins of the white inhabitants of the United States as shown by the census of 1920.
For example, approximately three-fifths of the white population of the United States originated in Great Britain and Ireland. Accordingly, the annual quota for Great Britain and Ireland for 1928 - the governmental fiscal and statistical year ends on June 30 of the calendar year - will approximate three-fifths of 150,000, or 90,000 immigrants. There is a saving clause under which no national quota for admissible immigrants may be less than 100. On the strict national origins basis, for instance, the Egyptian quota would be only three. The quota restriction does not apply to Canada, Newfoundland, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and the independent nations of Central and South America. In accordance with the traditional spirit of Pan-Americanism, there is no restriction upon these, if they meet the general requirements. On the other hand, no quotas are given those nationalities ineligible to American citizenship.
The national origins formula works a complete change in the distribution of immigration quotas. Of the total white population of the United States in 1910, approximately 12,000,000 were of foreign birth. Under the quota law of 1921, immigrants were admitted in quotas distributed among the nations in accordance with the origins of these 12,000,000. The national origins formula, however, takes into account not only these foreign-born, but also the native-born; and the immigration quotas are distributed in accordance with the origins of all the 95,000,000 white residents of the United States. In a typical State on the Atlantic seaboard, for instance, 27 per cent of the population is of foreign birth. Under the law of 1921, the remaining 73 per cent, the native born, had no voice in determining who should be admitted to the United States, for quotas were apportioned solely on the basis of the 27 per cent minority. Under the national origins formula, the entire 100 per cent receive equal consideration within the total of authorized immigration.
Selection at the Source
In addition to establishing a new basis for immigration restriction, the Act of May, 1924, also provides for regulating admissions by a system of immigration visas administered by the American consular service abroad. The new system goes as far as national sovereignty will permit in selecting American immigration at the source. Before any immigrant sails for the United States, he receives from the local American consul an immigration visa, to obtain he must answer certain questions bearing upon his admissibility. Unless his national quota is unfilled and unless he appears otherwise qualified for admission to the United States, he is denied the visa. In past years, tens of thousands of persons have reached American ports only to be denied admission, usually for reasons that could have been ascertained in their native lands. The system of immigration visas operates to reject the inadmissible alien before he leaves his native land.
How the New Law Will Work
A few outstanding cases will suffice to show the drastic effect of the application of the national origins idea to American immigration. Under the emergency law of 1921, the Italian quota was 42,057. Under the national origins formula, it will approximate 5,800, less than one-seventh of the former quota, and during the three years under the census of 1890, it will be 3,845, less than one-tenth. Czechoslovakia drops from 14,357 under the law of 1921 to 3,073 under the census of 1890, and again to about 1,300 under the national origins formula. Russia was allowed 24,405 by the law of 1921. She will have only 2,248 each year under the census of 1890 and about 4,000 under the national origins formula. Poland falls from 30,979 to 5,982 under the census of 1890 and finally to approximately 4,500 on the basis of national origins.
The case of Great Britain and Ireland presents the other side of the picture. Their quota under the law of 1921 was 77,342. It is cut to 62,574 during each of the three years on the basis of the census of 1890, but the national origins formula is expected to raise above the 90,000 mark. When it is recalled that about 45,000,000 of the American people today are descendants of Revolutionary War stock, the reason for this increase is not difficult to understand.
Next to Great Britain and Ireland comes Germany. The German quota under the law of 1921 was 67,607. It drops to 51,227 under the census of 1890, and then is cut to about 22,000 by the national origins formula. Only the British-Irish and the German quotas will exceed the 6,000 mark under the national origins formula. Together, they will form about three-fourths of the 150,000 immigration allowance granted all quota nationalities. Under the law of 1921, they composed barely two-fifths of the 358,000 total.
A National Immigration Policy Outlined
Although the cases of individual nations are of interest, the real importance of the national origins formula lies in its significance as a definite phase in the development of an American immigration policy. The adoption of the formula represents the premise that the time has come for the United States to erect a barrier against the flow of immigration from foreign lands. The minor premise is that the barrier shall be one which, however high it is raised, will admit each year a miniature replica of the American people as they are today.
The significance of the major premise can hardly be overemphasized. True, the quota law of 1921 provided for the numerical restriction of alien admissions; but the act itself was purely a temporary expedient to meet a critical situation, and effective for only one year. During that year, attempts were made to draft substitute immigration legislation of a more or less temporary character, and, when these attempts failed, the law of 1921 was continued in operation for another two years, still as an emergency measure.
There is nothing temporary, however, in the wording of the new immigration law adopting the national origins formula for immigration control. Debates on the floors of Congress indicated plainly that the legislators felt they were establishing a permanent immigration policy to be followed for many years to come. With the exception of a comparatively few representatives from urban centers containing large settlements of the foreign-born, both the Senate and the House of Representatives were practically unanimous in endorsing he principle of numerical restriction.
Total of Admissions Fixed by Congress
The use of the national origins formula greatly simplifies the problem of numerical control. There is no longer the need for involved calculations with percentages and census statistics in order to determine just how many immigrants would be admitted to the United States under a certain scheme. The primary step in the use of the national origins formula is the fixing of a maximum total of admissions by Congress. In the present law, the annual total under the formula is fixed at 150,000, but, while the principle of restriction is definitely established, the total of authorized admissions may be changed at will. By 1928 for example, conditions may be such that Congress will feel warranted in authorizing a total of 300,000 quota immigrants annually. Two years later, perhaps, it may seem advisable to cut the total admission to 50,000. Congress will have only to survey conditions and then pass a simple resolution directing that for a stated period a stated total of quota immigrants shall be admitted annually to the United States.
Quotas National Rather Than Racial
Under the national origins formula, the distribution of this immigration total among the various quota classifications becomes merely an administrative function of the Executive Branch of the Government. Each nation already having contributed a certain percentage of the American people will be allotted a corresponding percentage of the immigration total as its quota. In other words, the American people are taken as they stand, and to them each year is added, in whatever number Congress may direct, an installment of European immigration reproducing in miniature the American composite.
All the quotas are national, not racial. No attempt is made to discriminate between the various racial groups within any nation. Each nation is allowed a fixed quota covering all who reside within its jurisdiction. Under the emergency law of 1921, for example, the quota for Turkey was 2,654 each year. In a typical year, only 158 alien admissions charged against the Turkish quota were actually Turks. There were, on the other hand, 658 Armenians, 631 Syrians, and 417 Hebrews. Indeed, more Greeks than Turks entered the United States under the Turkish quota during that year. The point was that all came from territory under the jurisdiction of the Turkish Government. Similar conditions prevail under the national origins formula, for the United States cannot presume to discriminate between the various peoples within the boundaries of a sovereign nation.
The underlying principle of the national origins formula is that the people of the United States today have a vested and equal right to say who shall join them. While the emergency law of 1921 permitted the foreign-born residents of the United States to determine the distribution of immigration quotas, the national origins formula gives equal voice to native-born and foreign-born alike. The formula seeks to avoid the charge of discrimination by treating all nationalities in proportion as they have contributed to the upbuilding of the American Republic.
The United States has departed definitely from the policy of encouraging white immigration from practically all sources, regardless of origin. Instead, there has been adopted the policy of stringent numerical restriction and the admission of aliens in proportion as the various nations of the Old World are represented in the existing make-up of the American people. The application of this new policy rests with the national origins formula, the adoption of which marked the most significant step in the direction of immigration control taken in three centuries of American history.
One may ask, "who will do the jobs that others will not?" Easy, cut off unemployment payments and force those who are abusing this system to work. When a person is hungry enough, they will work for food.
We have allowed to many unskilled people into this country for too long. It has been a drain on social services and law enforcement. So comrade and chump and all the other politicos can speak all they want about their beloved "immigration reform," but until we fix the "free lunch" mentality that has infected so many, we will continue to slide into the sludge status of a third world nation. Below is some good reading on the topic of immigration.
http://www.answers.com/topic/immigration-act-of-1965
Although technically just a group of amendments to the existing Immigration and Nationality Act, the Immigration Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, in actuality fundamentally reshaped American Immigration for the remainder of the twentieth century and beyond. It abolished the national origins system set up in the Immigration Act of 1924 and modified by the Immigration Act of 1952. While seeming to maintain the principle of numerical restriction, it so increased the categories of persons who could enter "without numerical limitation" as to make its putative numerical caps—170,000 annually for the Eastern Hemisphere with a maximum of 20,000 per nation plus 120,000 annually for the Western Hemisphere with no national limitations—virtually meaningless within a few years. Its expansion and modification of the existing preference systems is shown in the Sidebar. Although little noticed at the time and virtually ignored in most general histories of the period, it can be seen as one of three major legislative accomplishments of 1965, the high-water mark of late-twentieth-century liberalism, along with the Voting Rights Act and the establishment of the Medicare and Medicaid system.
The final passage of the 1965 act was somewhat anticlimactic. The struggle to scrap the 1924 national origins formula had been going on in earnest since the end of World War II. Liberal immigration policy goals were established by President Harry S. Truman's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization in its 1953 report, Whom We Shall Welcome. That report was highly critical of the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act, which was passed over Truman's veto. The reforms it urged and all attempts at systemic change were frustrated in Congress, although a number of statutes and executive branch actions added groups of immigrants, largely refugees, to the admissible mix.
The personnel changes in Congress accompanying President Lyndon Johnson's sweeping 1964 victory and the gradual diminution of religious, ethnic, and even racial prejudices in the nation at large made immigration reform an idea whose time had come. To be sure, a few restrictionist die-hards, such as Senator Sam Ervin (Democrat from North Carolina), tried to maintain the status quo. Ervin insisted that the McCarran-Walter Act was not discriminatory but was instead "like a mirror reflecting the United States, allowing the admission of immigrants according to a national and uniform mathematical formula recognizing the obvious and natural fact that those immigrants can best be assimilated into our society who have relatives, friends, or others of similar background already here." What Ervin never admitted was that the "mirror" was badly distorted, like those at amusement parks, and reflected not the population of the 1960s but that recorded in the 1920 census. But most in Congress simply acquiesced. The final passage of the bill in the Senate was by voice vote, while in the House it was approved overwhelmingly, 326 to 69.
Many scholars have characterized the 1965 act as a prime example of "unintended consequences," and it is clear that even its most influential advocate, President Johnson, seems not to have understood what its effects would be. In the signing ceremony staged on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, Johnson remarked: "This bill that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to our wealth or our power." The president was not indulging in un-characteristic understatement. He and his advisers saw the 1965 act as redressing injuries done in 1924 and 1952, what he called the wrong done to those "from southern and eastern Europe."
In practice the law has worked quite differently from the ways in which any of its sponsors expected. Looking backward and expecting the future to resemble the past, they ignored the evidence of data available to them. As Table 1 shows, growing numbers of Latin Americans and Asians had been coming to the United States since World War II, and once such persons had permanent resident status, a whole cohort of relatives became eligible to enter the country as second preference immigrants. And as soon as these immigrants became U.S. citizens, as unprecedented numbers of them did in the minimum five-year waiting period, more persons became eligible as first, fourth, and fifth preference immigrants, while others could enter exempt from numerical preference. After the 1965 act went into effect, this kind of chain migration, in which related immigrants follow one another as links in a chain, accounted for a preponderance of all nonrefugee migration.
Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the law involves the presumed twenty thousand cap on entries from any one nation. That cap, which never affected Western Hemisphere nations, applies only to those entering from the Eastern Hemisphere who are subject to "numerical limitation." In 1985, for example, forty-eight thousand Filipinos and thirty-five thousand Koreans entered legally, to list only the two largest national groups from the Eastern Hemisphere entering in that year. The twenty thousand cap has been chimerical.
If scholars ignored or downplayed the 1965 law for a long time, by the 1980s, when immigration had become a major issue in American public life, many of the discussions, whether in blame or praise, overstated its influence. For example, a 1989 Rand study reported: "After a lull lasting more than 40 years, immigration to the United States began to increase considerably in the late 1960s after the passage of the 1965 Act." The two great changes that took place in American immigration in the second half of the twentieth century—the steady increase in the number of immigrants and the steady reduction of the once dominant share taken by European immigrants—were clearly in evidence before the enactment of the new law in October 1965, as One can only speculate whether or not, had Congress understood what the results of its actions would be, the 1965 act would have been passed in anything like the form that it finally assumed. Most of the few scholars who have addressed this question have answered it in the negative.
Bibliography
Barkan, Elliott R. "Whom Shall We Integrate? A Comparative Analysis of the Immigration and Naturalization Trends of Asians before and after the 1965 Immigration Act (1951–1978)." Journal of American Ethnic History 1, no. 3 (Fall 1983): 29–57. Documents naturalization as a factor in chain migration.
Bean, Frank D., Georges Vernez, and Charles B. Keely. Opening and Closing the Doors: Evaluating Immigration Reform and Control. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand, 1989. A social science study.
Gillon, Steven M. "That's Not What We Meant to Do": Reform and Its Unintended Consequences in Twentieth-Century America. New York: Norton, 2000. Chapter 4 deals with the 1965 Immigration Act.
Kennedy, Edward M. "The Immigration Act of 1965." Annals 367 (September 1966): 137–149. A contemporary account by a leading advocate of immigration reform.
Reimers, David M. Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America. 2d ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. The best account of post–World War II immigration.
National Origins: Our New Immigration Formula (1924)The American Review of Reviews (No. LXX, No. 3) September 1924 George Wheeler Hinman, Jr.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1315840/posts?page=68
When the United States first undertook to curtail the flow of immigration, the problem of finding a reasonable formula upon which to base the fair distribution of quotas among the various nationalities affected immediately presented itself. The problem was a most troublesome one, complicated by political considerations at home and by diplomatic difficulties abroad.
Assuming the actual curtailment of immigration to be desirable, there still remained to be passed upon several important matters. Nationally speaking, the people of the United States were entitled to first consideration. Hence, it was essential that any basis of restriction should be one which would conserve their interests. There was, in addition, the desire to afford fair treatment to the peoples of other nations, hundreds of thousands of whom had left their home lands to begin their lives again in the New World. Those seeking asylum from political or religious persecution had traditionally found in the United States a haven of refuge.
Emergency Law of 1921
The first actual move to curtail immigration numerically was the emergency quota law of May 19, 1921, restricting the admission of aliens in any year to 3 per cent of the number of foreign-born persons of each nationality residing in the United States as shown by the census of 1910. In other words, there being approximately 1,401,900 persons of Italian birth resident in the United States according to the census of 1910, Italy was entitled to send 3 per cent of that figure, or 42,057 immigrants, to the United States each year.
It is difficult to justify this formula for restriction upon any basis save that of sheer expediency. There is no particular reason why the number of foreign-born of any one nationality should determine how many more that nation might send to Americas shores. The argument that, because so many had come in recent years, a proportionate number should be admitted in future years, is too far-fetched to be worthy of serious consideration. The history of American immigration is a story of successive waves from various sections of the Old World.
Early Predominance of Northern European Stocks
During the first two centuries and a half following the discovery of America, only 80,000 immigrants entered the area which is now part of the United States. At the close of these 250 years, these immigrants had grown by natural processes until the population of the area approximated 1,000,000 persons. Half a century later, the first census, that of 1790, showed the population of the United States to be almost 4,000,000, practically all of whom were descendants of the original 80,000. Excepting a small sprinkling of descendants of immigrants from France, Spain, Holland, and the Rhenish provinces of Germany, the population of 1790 was British and Irish.
The first American immigration law was enacted in 1820. No official record of immigration was kept by the national government prior to that date. From the best available sources, however, it has been estimated that approximately 300,000 immigrants entered the United States between 1783, the date of the Treaty with Great Britain acknowledging American independence, and 1820. Practically every one of the 300,000 came from the nations of northern and western Europe.
In all, there have been five great waves of immigration in American history. The number of immigrants entering the United States each year did not pass the 100,000 mark until 1842, when the total reached 104,565. The immigration wave then rose steadily until it reached its crest of 427,833 in 1854. This first wave was chiefly British in origin, although political disturbances in Germany drove a large number from that area of Europe to the United States. Almost all the immigrants came from the nations of northern and western Europe.
Rise of Southern and Eastern Europe as Immigration Factors
After 1854, the tide receded, but a second wave began sweeping in during the Civil War and rose to a crest of 459,803 in 1873. This wave, too, was mainly British and German, plus a touch of Scandinavian. For the fist time, moreover, there was a noticeable trace of immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. Numerically, they were negligible, crossing the 10,000 mark for the first time in 1871. The nations of northern and western Europe were still furnishing the great bulk of immigration.
The third wave began in 1880 and swept quickly to a high mark of 788,992 in 1882. Secondary crests in the same general movement were reached in 1888 and 1892. Although the immigrants of northern and western Europe still dominated, there was a most significant and insistent increase in the flow from the southern and eastern nations. In 1882, they were only 11 per cent of the total, in 1888, 26 per cent, and in 1892, 47 per cent. For the first time, Italy, Russia, Poland and Austria-Hungary were furnishing a considerable proportion of the annual immigration. The influx from Russia and Poland brought many immigrants of the Hebrew race.
Although the third wave definitely receded after 1892, the immigration from southern and eastern Europe continued to occupy its position of prominence. Finally, in 1896, with a percentage of 57 of the total immigration, it passed numerically the influx from the nations of northern and western Europe. From that time until the operation of the quota law of 1921, except for the World War years, the nations of southern and eastern Europe continued to furnish more than half, and in some years more than three-fourths, the total.
In the fourth immigration wave, with the record crest of 1,285,349 in 1907 and secondary crests in 1910 and 1914, the few immigrants from northern and western Europe were completely submerged in the flood from Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. Of the record influx in 1907, 979,661, or more than three-fourths, came from the nations of southern and eastern Europe. For each succeeding year until the outbreak of the World War called a halt, the immigration from these nations exceeded two-thirds of the total. In 1914, it again crossed the three-fourths mark in a total immigration of 1,218,480, only a few thousand below the record figure of 1907. From all indications, only the declarations of war in August, 1914, prevented the year 1915 from setting a new record.
The World War checked the flow of immigration from Europe, which fell from above the million mark in 1914 to less than 25,000 in 1919, or only 18 per cent of the total for that year. The year 1920, however, started the fifth wave from Europe. The total for the year was 430,001, of which two-fifths came from southern and eastern Europe, one-fifth from northern and western Europe, and the remaining two-fifths principally from other countries of North and South America. The wave continued to rise; reaching 805,228 in 1921. Of this total, more than two-thirds came from southern and eastern Europe. Then the emergency quota law of May, 1921, called a halt.
Emergency Quota Worked Against Northern Nationalities
There was no denying that this emergency act operated in favor of those nationalities which of later years had furnished the bulk of American immigration. For fourteen years prior to the census of 1910, these later arrivals were bound to count heavily against the nations which had sent their immigrants to American shores in the earlier years. So it came about quite naturally that those nations in which had originated nearly four-fifths of the white population of the United States were assigned barely one-half of the total immigration quota.
General recognition was given the fact that the law of 1921 was only a makeshift measure designed to meet an emergency. There still remained unsolved the problem of working out a formula for the curtailment of immigration which would serve the interests of the American people and at the same time do justice to the peoples of other nations. In itself, the problem was sufficiently difficult, but this difficulty was greatly aggravated by national and racial controversies. The original sources of American immigration were the nations of northern and western Europe. The newer sources were the nations of southern and eastern Europe. This fact gave rise to the most involved disputes over the relative merits of races and nationalities. Physical, mental and moral characteristics were debated with some bitterness. Records of antiquity were ransacked by eager scholars to prove this or that doctrine of racial superiority or to disprove a doctrine advanced by somebody else. Much was written, and more was said; and but little of either had any real bearing upon the true issue involved in the search for a formula which would justly curtail American immigration.
Through all the storm of national and racial controversy, the search for an American immigration formula went painstakingly on. The crisis of 1921, with 5,000,000 unemployed in the United States and immigrants entering at the rate of almost 1,000,000 a year, crystallized the belief that the time had come to check the unlimited flow of aliens from abroad. The law of 1921, while it met the emergency, failed to provide a permanently satisfactory means for immigration control. There could be no justification for basing alien quotas on foreign born inhabitants of the United States and at the same time utterly ignoring the native-born. There was, too, a growing feeling that the law of 1921 admitted an excessive number of immigrants.
Recognizing Native-Born of Foreign Origin
All efforts were concentrated upon the task of reaching a solution which, while curtailing the flow of immigration, would at the same time recognize the claims of the native-born as well as those of the foreign-born residing within the United Sates. In other words, the purpose was to grant recognition to the descendants of those immigrants who had come to the United States in the earlier years and so no longer figured prominently in the compilations of the foreign-born.
The census of 1920 indicated that, of the white population of the United States, approximately 85 per cent had originated in northern and western Europe and 15 per cent in southern and eastern Europe. This was in marked contrast to the European immigration quotas of 1921, which, based upon the foreign-born as shown by the census of 1910, gave 55 per cent to northern and western and 45 per cent to southern and eastern Europe. In brief, if the origin of the native-born as well as of the foreign-born were to be considered, the quota of southern and eastern Europe would have to be divided by three, and that of northern and western Europe increased by nearly one-half. Any such change, so far as southern and eastern Europe was concerned, would be made more drastic as the total of all quotas was reduced. And yet, assuming that immigration should be curtailed on a basis of even-handed justice to all those who resided within the United States, it was hard to challenge the fairness of a principle which sought to recognize the rights of both the native and the foreign-born.
So the demand grew for the preparation of an immigration formula based upon the national origins of the American people as shown by the best available records, the census of 1920. There were numerous obstacles to the meeting of that demand. It would be no simple task to determine even with approximate accuracy the national origins of 95,000,000 persons, the white population of the United States. It was comparatively easy to estimate that approximately 85 per cent of that white population had come from the countries of northern and western Europe, but it was another matter to distribute that 85 per cent upon the face of the changing map of the Old World. And, as for the 15 per cent from southern and eastern Europe, the task was just that much more difficult.
Enemies of the principle assailed the idea of a national origins formula as hopelessly unworkable. It was unthinkable, they argued, that any calculator could distribute the quotas with any degree of accuracy. So strong was the opposition that many supporters of the national origins idea advocated the achievement of approximately the same general result by the building of quotas upon the basis of the foreign-born as shown by the census of 1890. This, of course, was a purely arbitrary method designed to restore the balance between the nations of northern and western Europe on the one hand and those of southern and eastern Europe on the other. Meantime, the opponents of the national origins idea were fighting bitterly to retain the census of 1910 as the basis of calculations.
A Basis Found in "National Origins"
The outcome of the struggle was a complete victory for both the national origins formula and the census of 1890, the latter as a stop-gap to control during the years prior to July 1, 1927 when the former becomes operative. During each of the years 1925, 1926, and 1927, quotas are to be assigned on the basis of 2 per cent of the foreign-born of the various nationalities as shown by the census of 1890. The total of these quotas will approximate 162,000, as against 358,000 under the emergency quota law of 1921. During those same three years, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, jointly, are to work out a plan for admitting to the United States annually 150,000 immigrants with quotas distributed upon the basis of the national origins of the white inhabitants of the United States as shown by the census of 1920.
For example, approximately three-fifths of the white population of the United States originated in Great Britain and Ireland. Accordingly, the annual quota for Great Britain and Ireland for 1928 - the governmental fiscal and statistical year ends on June 30 of the calendar year - will approximate three-fifths of 150,000, or 90,000 immigrants. There is a saving clause under which no national quota for admissible immigrants may be less than 100. On the strict national origins basis, for instance, the Egyptian quota would be only three. The quota restriction does not apply to Canada, Newfoundland, Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and the independent nations of Central and South America. In accordance with the traditional spirit of Pan-Americanism, there is no restriction upon these, if they meet the general requirements. On the other hand, no quotas are given those nationalities ineligible to American citizenship.
The national origins formula works a complete change in the distribution of immigration quotas. Of the total white population of the United States in 1910, approximately 12,000,000 were of foreign birth. Under the quota law of 1921, immigrants were admitted in quotas distributed among the nations in accordance with the origins of these 12,000,000. The national origins formula, however, takes into account not only these foreign-born, but also the native-born; and the immigration quotas are distributed in accordance with the origins of all the 95,000,000 white residents of the United States. In a typical State on the Atlantic seaboard, for instance, 27 per cent of the population is of foreign birth. Under the law of 1921, the remaining 73 per cent, the native born, had no voice in determining who should be admitted to the United States, for quotas were apportioned solely on the basis of the 27 per cent minority. Under the national origins formula, the entire 100 per cent receive equal consideration within the total of authorized immigration.
Selection at the Source
In addition to establishing a new basis for immigration restriction, the Act of May, 1924, also provides for regulating admissions by a system of immigration visas administered by the American consular service abroad. The new system goes as far as national sovereignty will permit in selecting American immigration at the source. Before any immigrant sails for the United States, he receives from the local American consul an immigration visa, to obtain he must answer certain questions bearing upon his admissibility. Unless his national quota is unfilled and unless he appears otherwise qualified for admission to the United States, he is denied the visa. In past years, tens of thousands of persons have reached American ports only to be denied admission, usually for reasons that could have been ascertained in their native lands. The system of immigration visas operates to reject the inadmissible alien before he leaves his native land.
How the New Law Will Work
A few outstanding cases will suffice to show the drastic effect of the application of the national origins idea to American immigration. Under the emergency law of 1921, the Italian quota was 42,057. Under the national origins formula, it will approximate 5,800, less than one-seventh of the former quota, and during the three years under the census of 1890, it will be 3,845, less than one-tenth. Czechoslovakia drops from 14,357 under the law of 1921 to 3,073 under the census of 1890, and again to about 1,300 under the national origins formula. Russia was allowed 24,405 by the law of 1921. She will have only 2,248 each year under the census of 1890 and about 4,000 under the national origins formula. Poland falls from 30,979 to 5,982 under the census of 1890 and finally to approximately 4,500 on the basis of national origins.
The case of Great Britain and Ireland presents the other side of the picture. Their quota under the law of 1921 was 77,342. It is cut to 62,574 during each of the three years on the basis of the census of 1890, but the national origins formula is expected to raise above the 90,000 mark. When it is recalled that about 45,000,000 of the American people today are descendants of Revolutionary War stock, the reason for this increase is not difficult to understand.
Next to Great Britain and Ireland comes Germany. The German quota under the law of 1921 was 67,607. It drops to 51,227 under the census of 1890, and then is cut to about 22,000 by the national origins formula. Only the British-Irish and the German quotas will exceed the 6,000 mark under the national origins formula. Together, they will form about three-fourths of the 150,000 immigration allowance granted all quota nationalities. Under the law of 1921, they composed barely two-fifths of the 358,000 total.
A National Immigration Policy Outlined
Although the cases of individual nations are of interest, the real importance of the national origins formula lies in its significance as a definite phase in the development of an American immigration policy. The adoption of the formula represents the premise that the time has come for the United States to erect a barrier against the flow of immigration from foreign lands. The minor premise is that the barrier shall be one which, however high it is raised, will admit each year a miniature replica of the American people as they are today.
The significance of the major premise can hardly be overemphasized. True, the quota law of 1921 provided for the numerical restriction of alien admissions; but the act itself was purely a temporary expedient to meet a critical situation, and effective for only one year. During that year, attempts were made to draft substitute immigration legislation of a more or less temporary character, and, when these attempts failed, the law of 1921 was continued in operation for another two years, still as an emergency measure.
There is nothing temporary, however, in the wording of the new immigration law adopting the national origins formula for immigration control. Debates on the floors of Congress indicated plainly that the legislators felt they were establishing a permanent immigration policy to be followed for many years to come. With the exception of a comparatively few representatives from urban centers containing large settlements of the foreign-born, both the Senate and the House of Representatives were practically unanimous in endorsing he principle of numerical restriction.
Total of Admissions Fixed by Congress
The use of the national origins formula greatly simplifies the problem of numerical control. There is no longer the need for involved calculations with percentages and census statistics in order to determine just how many immigrants would be admitted to the United States under a certain scheme. The primary step in the use of the national origins formula is the fixing of a maximum total of admissions by Congress. In the present law, the annual total under the formula is fixed at 150,000, but, while the principle of restriction is definitely established, the total of authorized admissions may be changed at will. By 1928 for example, conditions may be such that Congress will feel warranted in authorizing a total of 300,000 quota immigrants annually. Two years later, perhaps, it may seem advisable to cut the total admission to 50,000. Congress will have only to survey conditions and then pass a simple resolution directing that for a stated period a stated total of quota immigrants shall be admitted annually to the United States.
Quotas National Rather Than Racial
Under the national origins formula, the distribution of this immigration total among the various quota classifications becomes merely an administrative function of the Executive Branch of the Government. Each nation already having contributed a certain percentage of the American people will be allotted a corresponding percentage of the immigration total as its quota. In other words, the American people are taken as they stand, and to them each year is added, in whatever number Congress may direct, an installment of European immigration reproducing in miniature the American composite.
All the quotas are national, not racial. No attempt is made to discriminate between the various racial groups within any nation. Each nation is allowed a fixed quota covering all who reside within its jurisdiction. Under the emergency law of 1921, for example, the quota for Turkey was 2,654 each year. In a typical year, only 158 alien admissions charged against the Turkish quota were actually Turks. There were, on the other hand, 658 Armenians, 631 Syrians, and 417 Hebrews. Indeed, more Greeks than Turks entered the United States under the Turkish quota during that year. The point was that all came from territory under the jurisdiction of the Turkish Government. Similar conditions prevail under the national origins formula, for the United States cannot presume to discriminate between the various peoples within the boundaries of a sovereign nation.
The underlying principle of the national origins formula is that the people of the United States today have a vested and equal right to say who shall join them. While the emergency law of 1921 permitted the foreign-born residents of the United States to determine the distribution of immigration quotas, the national origins formula gives equal voice to native-born and foreign-born alike. The formula seeks to avoid the charge of discrimination by treating all nationalities in proportion as they have contributed to the upbuilding of the American Republic.
The United States has departed definitely from the policy of encouraging white immigration from practically all sources, regardless of origin. Instead, there has been adopted the policy of stringent numerical restriction and the admission of aliens in proportion as the various nations of the Old World are represented in the existing make-up of the American people. The application of this new policy rests with the national origins formula, the adoption of which marked the most significant step in the direction of immigration control taken in three centuries of American history.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Illegal Immigration Hurts The USA
Great article exposing the negatives of illegal immigration.
http://www.lestdarknessfall.com/Pages/IllegalImmigration.htm
Stop Illegal Immigration!
Illegal Immigration Hurts Our Country
Illegal immigration is causing gross harm to our nation and it's time we do whatever it takes to put a stop to it. It is estimated that there are over 10 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. That is more than the combined 2003 resident population of the following 11 US States: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Here's a sampling of how illegal immigration hurts all residents of this country:
Suppresses wages and standards of living
Weakens our economy
Overwhelms social, educational, and medical services
Increases crime and weakens the rule of law
Let's cover these items in more detail.
Illegal Immigration Suppresses Wages and Lowers Our Standard of Living
In a capitalist economy, under true free market conditions, the cost of labor is simply a matter of supply and demand. This is theoretically how the United States' economy was designed to work. If there are more workers than jobs, all jobs pay less. If an employer cannot easily find employees with the skills they need, they offer more money to attract them. In a closed system, this works fairly well as population and economic growth are usually in equilibrium
Unfortunately, this is not how it works in this country. With the amount of illegal immigration that is allowed to occur, there are more low skilled workers than there are jobs. Thus, as illegal immigration increases, wages for those jobs decrease. If an unethical employer doesn't want to pay minimum wage, the employer can easily find an illegal immigrant willing to work for less because illegal immigrants are abundant and often desperate for even the smallest of incomes. By employing the illegal immigrant, the employer gains a number of advantages:
Lower cost of labor
No benefit costs
Unlimited hours, meager working conditions, etc.
In cases where employees are paid in cash and without records, the employer pays no money for Social Security, IRS, state disability insurance, etc.
Employers can get away with these practices, because their illegal employees stand to lose more if discovered. The employee won't dare complain for fear of being deported, and nothing will happen to the employer if they are caught. Criminal prosecutions of employers who use illegal immigrants are virtually non-existent and usually involve minimal punishment. As a result, employers who need unskilled laborers are encouraged to break the law and use illegal immigrants.
For every illegal immigrant that is employed for meager wages, there is a person who could legally perform that job that is not being employed. No matter how menial or undesirable that job is, there is a citizen or legal immigrant who would be willing to do the job at some price. If no illegal immigrants are available to work for a low rate of compensation, employers will have no choice but to offer more money until they find someone willing to do the work. Thus, the concept of minimum wages would be unnecessary because employers would have to use money and benefits to attract workers. Gardening, house keeping, manual labor and other low skill jobs would suddenly become more desirable to legal workers.
Let's assume that an employer is forced to hire a legal worker as a ditch digger, and in so doing must pay more to get someone to take that job. This raises the bar for people in that line of work and gets them a higher standard of living. Ditch diggers become more capable of buying goods and services, and become less dependent upon various types of government aid. They get medical insurance through their employer instead of the government. They buy their own food instead of getting food stamps. They place less demand on social programs, which should mean that less taxes are needed to support social programs. As less taxes are needed, legal workers are able to keep more of what they earn and use it to better themselves and our economy.
Now that the legally employed ditch digger is making more money, people with more marketable skills and credentials will need to get paid more money. After all, why go to college and pay up to $100,000 for an education if you will not make much more money than the ditch digger? Skilled labor will become a more valuable commodity because the value of labor in general is increased when the least skilled workers are well compensated. Thus, employers will have to offer even higher wages to educated/skilled laborers in order to provide an incentive for people to acquire education and skills necessary to perform those jobs. As a result, everyone makes more money. Since taxes are based on income, the government can maintain the same level of tax revenue while taking a smaller percentage of each worker's income since each individual income will be greater.
It is estimated that 44% of the decline in wages from 1980 to 1994 for unskilled workers and high school dropouts was directly caused by illegal immigrants depressing the cost of labor.
Illegal Immigration Weakens Our Economy and Currency
A huge number of illegal aliens come to this country for the purposes of getting a job that pays better than what is available in their own country. They then take a large portion of their earnings and send it back home to relatives. According to Time Magazine, the third largest source of income in the Mexican economy is money that is sent to Mexico from Mexican immigrants working in the United States. (Mexico is by no means the only country to receive this type of money. Immigrants from all over the world send US dollars back to their home countries).
As a result of this, money that should have been paid to a legal worker in the US and that would have presumably been used by legal workers to build a future for themselves in this country is instead sent out of this country. This means that the money is not being used to sustain and fuel our economy but instead subsidizes the economy of other countries.
Whenever a country loses more hard currency than it takes in, its economy suffers. Issues such as trade deficits are matters of great importance. If, for example, the United States buys a large number of goods from Japan and Japan buys few goods from the United States, Japan prospers and the United States weakens. Japan takes our money and pays it to their workers, who in turn spend it in the Japan and strengthens their economy. When illegal aliens send money to their home countries, they are in effect creating a severe trade deficit.
Illegal Immigration Overwhelms Social Services
The Federal Government requires health care providers to offer care to those who need it, even if they can't pay for it. As a result, health care facilities in areas with high populations of poor people often cannot make a profit because they spend so much of their resources treating people who cannot pay for these services. In general, illegal immigrants tend to be quite poor as they work for very low wages. They tend to not have health insurance and usually can't afford routine preventive medical care. When they do need medical care, it is often when they have become seriously ill or injured so the cost of their treatment is higher than an insured person who receives regular preventative care. Illegal aliens usually take their problems to a trauma center or hospital emergency room, where they are treated for free. Since the treatment facility gets no money for the treatment they render, they cannot afford to hire more workers. As a result, waiting rooms fill up, and some emergency rooms have announced that people should expect a minimum wait of 6 hrs before they can see a doctor, unless they have an urgent life threatening problem. As a result, everyone in that community suffers and gets less medical care as the medical facility loses it's ability to cope with the demand and lack of revenue.
This same problem happens in the public education system. Over the past decade class sizes have increased in American schools. A teacher told me that most districts in my area have more than 30 students per elementary school teacher. Can you imagine how hard it must be to teach 30+ 10 year olds anything, especially if a significant number of them don't even speak English? As a result of this problem, children of tax paying legal residents get less personal attention and a worse education because the public schools are spending their time and resources on people who aren't entitled to be here and who aren't paying into the system. That is grossly unfair.
This same problem affects our transportation system. Tax revenue governs our ability to maintain public roads and highways. Population growth estimates and census information contribute to our ability to predict the demand for transportation corridors. If people are sneaking into this country, avoiding many common forms of taxation and are avoiding being counted by census takers, we end up with too many cars for our transportation networks and not enough money to solve the problem. As a result, people who have played by the rules and live here legally find themselves spending more and more hours of their lives stuck in traffic rather than at home with their families.
The typical illegal alien household costs our nation about $7,000 more in aid than they pay in taxes. Since illegal immigrants are entering our country at an estimated rated of over 4,000 per day (specifically referring to the Arizona/Mexico border and not counting illegal entry in other places), the costs of illegal immigration are likely to keep growing at an incredible rate.
Here's a breakdown of some of the annual costs to the Federal Government (i.e. this doesn't count State and local government costs) of illegal immigration according to the Center for Immigration Studies:
Medicaid paid to illegal immigrants: $2.5 billion
Medical care to uninsured illegal immigrants: $2.2 billion
Food assistance programs for illegal aliens: $1.9 billion
Federal Prison and Court Costs for illegal aliens: $1.6 billion
Federal aid to local schools for illegal immigrants: $1.4 billion
Grand Total: $10.4 billion every year and growing rapidly
Other sources estimates the costs of illegal immigration to be greatly higher than the above conservative numbers. A recent study of Census Data estimated that illegal immigrants cost tax payers $7.4 billion dollars a year just in increased education costs. Yet another study finds the cost of educating illegal alien children to be between $29 billion and $36 billion dollars.
A recent study on the impact of illegal immigration to the State of California revealed that illegal immigrants in CA pay about $1.6 billion in taxes, and cost $10.5 billion in tax dollars, creating an annual $9 billion drain. And that's just one state!
The term "illegal alien" refers to someone who's very presence in this country is a violation of our laws. Tax paying legal residents receive worse health care, pay more taxes, get less education for their kids and have more crowded freeways because our government allows these criminals to exist in our country. We should be deporting people and closing our borders, not providing them public services at the cost of reducing services to law abiding residents.
Illegal Immigration Increases Crime
People who come here in violation of our nation's laws are criminals as the very act of coming here illegally is a crime. Often, in order to enter this country, illegal immigrants damage private and public property. Fences are cut at borders. Piles of litter and human excrement are found at commonly used rest stops near busy illegal border crossings. Dogs are poisoned at homes near the border to prevent them from calling attention to illegal immigrants traveling over their owners' property.
To make matters worse, some of the illegal immigrants crossing our borders have a history of far more serious crimes, including things such as theft, drug dealing, rape and murder. 95% of all outstanding murder warrants and 65% of all fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens! (That's about 11,000 of the total 17,000 outstanding warrants). As of 2004 over 17% of our Federal Prison population consists of illegal aliens. Our border patrol and immigration workers constantly encounter dangerous criminals that have long rap sheets and are wanted by both foreign and US authorities.
That is not to say that all illegal aliens are drug dealing rapists and murders, but rather that we as a nation have a right to control who we let in and that we should be stopping such people from entering our country. By allowing illegal immigration to take place, we are shirking our responsibility to keep our nation safe and are not even trying keep such dangerous people from entering our country.
For those of you not inclined to believe my facts and assertions, go to a search engine, such as Google, and enter the following search terms or simply click on the links:
cost of illegal immigration Annual cost of illegal immigration
Another great source of information is Time Magazine's Sept 20, 2004 special investigation piece on America's Border
http://www.lestdarknessfall.com/Pages/IllegalImmigration.htm
Stop Illegal Immigration!
Illegal Immigration Hurts Our Country
Illegal immigration is causing gross harm to our nation and it's time we do whatever it takes to put a stop to it. It is estimated that there are over 10 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States. That is more than the combined 2003 resident population of the following 11 US States: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Here's a sampling of how illegal immigration hurts all residents of this country:
Suppresses wages and standards of living
Weakens our economy
Overwhelms social, educational, and medical services
Increases crime and weakens the rule of law
Let's cover these items in more detail.
Illegal Immigration Suppresses Wages and Lowers Our Standard of Living
In a capitalist economy, under true free market conditions, the cost of labor is simply a matter of supply and demand. This is theoretically how the United States' economy was designed to work. If there are more workers than jobs, all jobs pay less. If an employer cannot easily find employees with the skills they need, they offer more money to attract them. In a closed system, this works fairly well as population and economic growth are usually in equilibrium
Unfortunately, this is not how it works in this country. With the amount of illegal immigration that is allowed to occur, there are more low skilled workers than there are jobs. Thus, as illegal immigration increases, wages for those jobs decrease. If an unethical employer doesn't want to pay minimum wage, the employer can easily find an illegal immigrant willing to work for less because illegal immigrants are abundant and often desperate for even the smallest of incomes. By employing the illegal immigrant, the employer gains a number of advantages:
Lower cost of labor
No benefit costs
Unlimited hours, meager working conditions, etc.
In cases where employees are paid in cash and without records, the employer pays no money for Social Security, IRS, state disability insurance, etc.
Employers can get away with these practices, because their illegal employees stand to lose more if discovered. The employee won't dare complain for fear of being deported, and nothing will happen to the employer if they are caught. Criminal prosecutions of employers who use illegal immigrants are virtually non-existent and usually involve minimal punishment. As a result, employers who need unskilled laborers are encouraged to break the law and use illegal immigrants.
For every illegal immigrant that is employed for meager wages, there is a person who could legally perform that job that is not being employed. No matter how menial or undesirable that job is, there is a citizen or legal immigrant who would be willing to do the job at some price. If no illegal immigrants are available to work for a low rate of compensation, employers will have no choice but to offer more money until they find someone willing to do the work. Thus, the concept of minimum wages would be unnecessary because employers would have to use money and benefits to attract workers. Gardening, house keeping, manual labor and other low skill jobs would suddenly become more desirable to legal workers.
Let's assume that an employer is forced to hire a legal worker as a ditch digger, and in so doing must pay more to get someone to take that job. This raises the bar for people in that line of work and gets them a higher standard of living. Ditch diggers become more capable of buying goods and services, and become less dependent upon various types of government aid. They get medical insurance through their employer instead of the government. They buy their own food instead of getting food stamps. They place less demand on social programs, which should mean that less taxes are needed to support social programs. As less taxes are needed, legal workers are able to keep more of what they earn and use it to better themselves and our economy.
Now that the legally employed ditch digger is making more money, people with more marketable skills and credentials will need to get paid more money. After all, why go to college and pay up to $100,000 for an education if you will not make much more money than the ditch digger? Skilled labor will become a more valuable commodity because the value of labor in general is increased when the least skilled workers are well compensated. Thus, employers will have to offer even higher wages to educated/skilled laborers in order to provide an incentive for people to acquire education and skills necessary to perform those jobs. As a result, everyone makes more money. Since taxes are based on income, the government can maintain the same level of tax revenue while taking a smaller percentage of each worker's income since each individual income will be greater.
It is estimated that 44% of the decline in wages from 1980 to 1994 for unskilled workers and high school dropouts was directly caused by illegal immigrants depressing the cost of labor.
Illegal Immigration Weakens Our Economy and Currency
A huge number of illegal aliens come to this country for the purposes of getting a job that pays better than what is available in their own country. They then take a large portion of their earnings and send it back home to relatives. According to Time Magazine, the third largest source of income in the Mexican economy is money that is sent to Mexico from Mexican immigrants working in the United States. (Mexico is by no means the only country to receive this type of money. Immigrants from all over the world send US dollars back to their home countries).
As a result of this, money that should have been paid to a legal worker in the US and that would have presumably been used by legal workers to build a future for themselves in this country is instead sent out of this country. This means that the money is not being used to sustain and fuel our economy but instead subsidizes the economy of other countries.
Whenever a country loses more hard currency than it takes in, its economy suffers. Issues such as trade deficits are matters of great importance. If, for example, the United States buys a large number of goods from Japan and Japan buys few goods from the United States, Japan prospers and the United States weakens. Japan takes our money and pays it to their workers, who in turn spend it in the Japan and strengthens their economy. When illegal aliens send money to their home countries, they are in effect creating a severe trade deficit.
Illegal Immigration Overwhelms Social Services
The Federal Government requires health care providers to offer care to those who need it, even if they can't pay for it. As a result, health care facilities in areas with high populations of poor people often cannot make a profit because they spend so much of their resources treating people who cannot pay for these services. In general, illegal immigrants tend to be quite poor as they work for very low wages. They tend to not have health insurance and usually can't afford routine preventive medical care. When they do need medical care, it is often when they have become seriously ill or injured so the cost of their treatment is higher than an insured person who receives regular preventative care. Illegal aliens usually take their problems to a trauma center or hospital emergency room, where they are treated for free. Since the treatment facility gets no money for the treatment they render, they cannot afford to hire more workers. As a result, waiting rooms fill up, and some emergency rooms have announced that people should expect a minimum wait of 6 hrs before they can see a doctor, unless they have an urgent life threatening problem. As a result, everyone in that community suffers and gets less medical care as the medical facility loses it's ability to cope with the demand and lack of revenue.
This same problem happens in the public education system. Over the past decade class sizes have increased in American schools. A teacher told me that most districts in my area have more than 30 students per elementary school teacher. Can you imagine how hard it must be to teach 30+ 10 year olds anything, especially if a significant number of them don't even speak English? As a result of this problem, children of tax paying legal residents get less personal attention and a worse education because the public schools are spending their time and resources on people who aren't entitled to be here and who aren't paying into the system. That is grossly unfair.
This same problem affects our transportation system. Tax revenue governs our ability to maintain public roads and highways. Population growth estimates and census information contribute to our ability to predict the demand for transportation corridors. If people are sneaking into this country, avoiding many common forms of taxation and are avoiding being counted by census takers, we end up with too many cars for our transportation networks and not enough money to solve the problem. As a result, people who have played by the rules and live here legally find themselves spending more and more hours of their lives stuck in traffic rather than at home with their families.
The typical illegal alien household costs our nation about $7,000 more in aid than they pay in taxes. Since illegal immigrants are entering our country at an estimated rated of over 4,000 per day (specifically referring to the Arizona/Mexico border and not counting illegal entry in other places), the costs of illegal immigration are likely to keep growing at an incredible rate.
Here's a breakdown of some of the annual costs to the Federal Government (i.e. this doesn't count State and local government costs) of illegal immigration according to the Center for Immigration Studies:
Medicaid paid to illegal immigrants: $2.5 billion
Medical care to uninsured illegal immigrants: $2.2 billion
Food assistance programs for illegal aliens: $1.9 billion
Federal Prison and Court Costs for illegal aliens: $1.6 billion
Federal aid to local schools for illegal immigrants: $1.4 billion
Grand Total: $10.4 billion every year and growing rapidly
Other sources estimates the costs of illegal immigration to be greatly higher than the above conservative numbers. A recent study of Census Data estimated that illegal immigrants cost tax payers $7.4 billion dollars a year just in increased education costs. Yet another study finds the cost of educating illegal alien children to be between $29 billion and $36 billion dollars.
A recent study on the impact of illegal immigration to the State of California revealed that illegal immigrants in CA pay about $1.6 billion in taxes, and cost $10.5 billion in tax dollars, creating an annual $9 billion drain. And that's just one state!
The term "illegal alien" refers to someone who's very presence in this country is a violation of our laws. Tax paying legal residents receive worse health care, pay more taxes, get less education for their kids and have more crowded freeways because our government allows these criminals to exist in our country. We should be deporting people and closing our borders, not providing them public services at the cost of reducing services to law abiding residents.
Illegal Immigration Increases Crime
People who come here in violation of our nation's laws are criminals as the very act of coming here illegally is a crime. Often, in order to enter this country, illegal immigrants damage private and public property. Fences are cut at borders. Piles of litter and human excrement are found at commonly used rest stops near busy illegal border crossings. Dogs are poisoned at homes near the border to prevent them from calling attention to illegal immigrants traveling over their owners' property.
To make matters worse, some of the illegal immigrants crossing our borders have a history of far more serious crimes, including things such as theft, drug dealing, rape and murder. 95% of all outstanding murder warrants and 65% of all fugitive felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens! (That's about 11,000 of the total 17,000 outstanding warrants). As of 2004 over 17% of our Federal Prison population consists of illegal aliens. Our border patrol and immigration workers constantly encounter dangerous criminals that have long rap sheets and are wanted by both foreign and US authorities.
That is not to say that all illegal aliens are drug dealing rapists and murders, but rather that we as a nation have a right to control who we let in and that we should be stopping such people from entering our country. By allowing illegal immigration to take place, we are shirking our responsibility to keep our nation safe and are not even trying keep such dangerous people from entering our country.
For those of you not inclined to believe my facts and assertions, go to a search engine, such as Google, and enter the following search terms or simply click on the links:
cost of illegal immigration Annual cost of illegal immigration
Another great source of information is Time Magazine's Sept 20, 2004 special investigation piece on America's Border
No Wonder We HAve Health Care Problems
This story shines a bright light on one reason healthcare, and other government run social services are hurting. Make no mistake, politicians and legal resident scammers are also part of the problem, but to allow the continued assualt by illegal aliens on these services are the death blows. Here is just one example of an illegal alien who sadly, was hit by a drunken driver. He was allowed 9 years of medical services. He should have been deported as soon as he was well enough to travel. And these types of cases happen every day.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Nine years ago, a drunken driver sent an illegal immigrant to Martin Memorial Medical Center, where he ran up more than $1 million in bills.
Today, Luis Jimenez, a former landscape worker who was left with the IQ of a 10-year-old, lives with his mother in a Guatemalan village. Meanwhile, doctors and lawyers in Florida are preparing for a three-week trial - set to begin Tuesday in Stuart - that will highlight holes in and raise questions about U.S. immigration and health-care policies.
Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, said the hospital was right. "We don't have an uninsured crisis. We have an immigration crisis," said Mr. Krikorian, noting that one-third of the 47 million uninsured in the U.S. are immigrants. "The long-term goal has to be reducing immigration of people who are going to end up in a hospital unable to pay. We need less legal immigration and better enforcement against illegal immigration."
This is why obtaining health care through a private company is the way to go. Or, sadly, if a legal citizen wants to receive health care through Uncle Sam, it should be an optional program, not mandatory. As always, if a legal citizen truly has a physical or mental problem that does not allow them to provide for themselves, they should be helped.
But most politicos in both parties do not want to do what is right and what common sense dictates. Instead, they want to use illegal aliens and the fears of some ignorant Americans for their own political gain. And until we vote these bottom feeders out and replace them with people who want to do what is right, things will not change for the better and we will continue our downwards nose dive into just another second class nation.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Nine years ago, a drunken driver sent an illegal immigrant to Martin Memorial Medical Center, where he ran up more than $1 million in bills.
Today, Luis Jimenez, a former landscape worker who was left with the IQ of a 10-year-old, lives with his mother in a Guatemalan village. Meanwhile, doctors and lawyers in Florida are preparing for a three-week trial - set to begin Tuesday in Stuart - that will highlight holes in and raise questions about U.S. immigration and health-care policies.
Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, said the hospital was right. "We don't have an uninsured crisis. We have an immigration crisis," said Mr. Krikorian, noting that one-third of the 47 million uninsured in the U.S. are immigrants. "The long-term goal has to be reducing immigration of people who are going to end up in a hospital unable to pay. We need less legal immigration and better enforcement against illegal immigration."
This is why obtaining health care through a private company is the way to go. Or, sadly, if a legal citizen wants to receive health care through Uncle Sam, it should be an optional program, not mandatory. As always, if a legal citizen truly has a physical or mental problem that does not allow them to provide for themselves, they should be helped.
But most politicos in both parties do not want to do what is right and what common sense dictates. Instead, they want to use illegal aliens and the fears of some ignorant Americans for their own political gain. And until we vote these bottom feeders out and replace them with people who want to do what is right, things will not change for the better and we will continue our downwards nose dive into just another second class nation.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Day Should Be Called Father Time's Day
I have not had my earthly dad here for Fathers' Day since 1996. One one hand, it seems like a million years since he was here, and yet, it also seems as if it has only been a matter of minutes. I can remember going to Save-More drugs and buying him a box of Dutch Masters cigars, a golf lighter, and fluid at the ripe old age of 12 with the money I had saved from doing chores.....or maybe whining! The old stand buy gift was always the largest jug of English Leather available. I swear they made it in a 50 gallon drum at one time. There was also 12 packs of Bud and fishing gear too.
But the best gift was not the ones I gave him, but the one he gave me, and that was his time. I can always remember him saying how fast time went by, and I never realized it until the second after his last breath. So for those who still have a pop kicking around, just remember, Fathers' Day ain't about the physical gifts, but all about TIME.
e
But the best gift was not the ones I gave him, but the one he gave me, and that was his time. I can always remember him saying how fast time went by, and I never realized it until the second after his last breath. So for those who still have a pop kicking around, just remember, Fathers' Day ain't about the physical gifts, but all about TIME.
e
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Jimmy Carter in Gaza, 2009-06-16
Carter is a disgrace to our nation and should be brought up on charges. Carter also needs to have his visa revoked and secret service security pulled.He is openly anti American, anti Israel. President B. Hussein Obama needs to look in the mirror, because he is the new Jimmy.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
John Ziegler Destroys Contessa Brewer About The Letterman/Palin Controversy
JZ shows what a sham of a network MSNBC. And Miss Brewer is a perfect example how some lib women use women that are conservative!
Good Job IRS
It is very hard to say anything nice about the IRS, I believe the department should not even exsist, but the finally did a very good deed: They informed an employer about fake or invalid social security numbers. Lets hope the feds follow up on these people to see if they need to be deported.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-desktop-raid12-2009jun12,0,783064.story
Overhill Farms, a major food-processing plant in the L.A. area, terminates more than 200 employees after an IRS audit finds that they had provided 'invalid or fraudulent' Social Security numbers.
By Patrick J. McDonnell June 12, 2009
No immigration agents descended on Overhill Farms, a major food-processing plant in Vernon. No one was arrested or deported. There were no frantic scenes of desperate workers fleeing la migra through the gritty streets of the industrial suburb southeast of downtown Los Angeles.For more than 200 Overhill workers, however, the effect was devastating: All lost steady jobs last month and now find themselves in a precarious employment market, without severance pay or medical insurance. It wasn't a hot tip or an undercover informant that helped seal their fates, but a computer check of Social Security numbers.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-desktop-raid12-2009jun12,0,783064.story
Overhill Farms, a major food-processing plant in the L.A. area, terminates more than 200 employees after an IRS audit finds that they had provided 'invalid or fraudulent' Social Security numbers.
By Patrick J. McDonnell June 12, 2009
No immigration agents descended on Overhill Farms, a major food-processing plant in Vernon. No one was arrested or deported. There were no frantic scenes of desperate workers fleeing la migra through the gritty streets of the industrial suburb southeast of downtown Los Angeles.For more than 200 Overhill workers, however, the effect was devastating: All lost steady jobs last month and now find themselves in a precarious employment market, without severance pay or medical insurance. It wasn't a hot tip or an undercover informant that helped seal their fates, but a computer check of Social Security numbers.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Search Continues......
So Tex, aka Truthseekers, is not Mr. O'Brien. But the search will continue to out the attacker of innocent law officers and city officials. I was contacted by a source saying I had the wrong name.....D'OH! So I am sorry Mr. O'Brien.....But this will not stop me from naming Tex...truthseekers. Lunch is on me for anyone giving me Tex's name. He attends Modesto city council meetings often. It is also claimed he has possibly written letters to The Bee and maybe was also a guest editor. So who is he besides a mean, lying, evil man? We will see very soon!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Please Remain Silent Mr. Jihad
In another craptacular move, the Comrade and Chump is making the FBI and CIA read our enemies the Miranda rights. Yup, good ol' Barry treating our Islamo-fanactic opponents as if they were a petty criminal here in the states. This guy is truly a clear and present danger to our troops and our country.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100731
The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to inform terrorists overseas that they "have the right to remain silent" before probing them for information to save American lives.
According to Weekly Standard report by Stephen F. Hayes, a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee has revealed that "the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan."
Hayes noted that former CIA Director George Tenet said Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad refused to cooperate with officials when he was captured March 1, 2003.
"I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," Mohammad demanded.
Mohammad did not enlist the services of a lawyer until months after his capture and interrogation. But, according to the report, Tenet wrote in his memoirs that intelligence extracted from the terrorist saved countless American lives.
"I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote.
Hayes said, "If Tenet is right, it's a good thing (Mohammad) was captured before Barack Obama became president."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100731
The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to inform terrorists overseas that they "have the right to remain silent" before probing them for information to save American lives.
According to Weekly Standard report by Stephen F. Hayes, a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee has revealed that "the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan."
Hayes noted that former CIA Director George Tenet said Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad refused to cooperate with officials when he was captured March 1, 2003.
"I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer," Mohammad demanded.
Mohammad did not enlist the services of a lawyer until months after his capture and interrogation. But, according to the report, Tenet wrote in his memoirs that intelligence extracted from the terrorist saved countless American lives.
"I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up," Tenet wrote.
Hayes said, "If Tenet is right, it's a good thing (Mohammad) was captured before Barack Obama became president."
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Modesto City Council Candidate Says Local Law Enforcement Officers Are Murderers
Beware Modesto. This man and some of his backers are making claims without facts or proof and are painting people and departments with a broad and hate filled brush. Is Robert placing these officers in harms way with their lies and fact less acquisitions? I say yes.
http://thehive.modbee.com/node/14093?page=1
Why don't you provide some quotes regarding holloway....
Submitted by Stanford4Modesto on Tue, 2009-06-09 18:48.
Where is that support?
And yes you are correct - I am calling the deputies murderers for hire.
And I do have facts. I have presented many of them.
Are you one of the deputies that brutalized and murdered Craig Prescott?
Maybe they should vote for you instead, right?
Who do you run with? Rogue cops of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department?
Or the DA's office?
http://thehive.modbee.com/node/14093?page=1
Why don't you provide some quotes regarding holloway....
Submitted by Stanford4Modesto on Tue, 2009-06-09 18:48.
Where is that support?
And yes you are correct - I am calling the deputies murderers for hire.
And I do have facts. I have presented many of them.
Are you one of the deputies that brutalized and murdered Craig Prescott?
Maybe they should vote for you instead, right?
Who do you run with? Rogue cops of the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department?
Or the DA's office?
Thanks You Congressman Forbes
Finally a congressman who is willing to call out Comrade and Chump B. Hussein Obama when he lies and tells half truths.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)