Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Freedom, History, Latin America, Law, National Security, The Constitution | Tags: Manipulating Public Opinion, Open Borders v. Rule of Law, Propaganda and Immigration
Accuracy in Media points out the subtle changes impressed on public perception. A natural human survival strategy mistrusts the unfamiliar. The public must be educated to accept new ideas or now policies, but education can take too much time. Hence, propaganda.
Our society depends on the rule of law for survival, security, stability and prosperity. Giving special privileges to lawbreakers is instinctively rejected. Granting special privileges to criminals subverts the rule of law. If the rule of law becomes meaningless, it is replaced by a society based on political power alone. Propaganda manipulates public perceptions. A starting point can be changing definitions — changing the language in order to change perceptions.
First you have “Immigrants:” Any foreign-born individual, including naturalized U.S. citizens, documented immigrants, and undocumented immigrants. What we used to call Illegal aliens, are now “undocumented immigrants.” Illegal immigrants march in the streets with signs saying that no human being is “illegal.” You have become a bigot, racist, classist if you use the term that simply meant someone who broke the law.
“Foreign born scholars, scientists and engineers make this country more prosperous and more secure.” Well, sure. But how many scholars, scientists and engineers are paying coyotes to take them across the border to rely on forged documents?
The word “Hispanic” does not define a racial, ethnic, linguistic or cultural group. It is a meaningless term to provide political power within a Spanish-speaking minority. The term is defined by the OMB as “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.” I had a neighbor who was born in Mexico, the daughter of parents who were born in Germany, who married an American, whose children were born in America. She spoke German with parents and grandparents, Spanish with siblings, English with husband and children, and dreamed, she said in all three. And what do you do with Brazilians who speak Portuguese? Or Antonio Banderas who is European? You are only Hispanic or Latino if you are the right kind.
Then there is intimidation. Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund founder Mario Obledo said “California is going to be a Hispanic state, and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave. They should go back to Europe.”
Former La Raza president Raul Yzaguirre called California’s proposition 187 which would have denied budget-busting social services to illegals, “racists:” and “xenophobes” The proposition won, but was blocked by a judge, and California is now bankrupt.
We can get back to a political position where we welcome legal immigrants, help them to become prosperous American citizens, and still recognize the borders of our country, if we have the will. The “Gang of Eight’s” quickly dredged up policy is not an answer. There are more issues in immigration policy than open borders vs. amnesty for anyone who has managed to cross the border. We have always been a nation of laws, we should not allow a lawless administration to change that.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Latin America, Law, National Security, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: "Amnesty" Brings a Flood, Lies About Immigration, Promises Ignored
The Senate Judiciary Committee has just completed a hearing on the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform legislation. The hearing, according to Paul Mirengoff, “lasted for about two hours and was limited to one round of questions for two witnesses — economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin (who supports the bill) and Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (who opposes it).”
Kirsanow testified they had received the nearly 900-page bill only about two days ago, and lacked enough time to review and analyze it sufficiently. In other words, Mirengoff adds —”the hearing was a farce.”
I am getting more than fed up with Congress churning out bills in a great hurry that no one has had a chance to read. That, of course, is the idea. You do it slowly, time to get public input, discuss the provisions, why it might end up being something the people don’t want at all. It might turn out to be something poorly thought out and damaging to the country and the economy. Here is the situation as I understand it:
We have ten million working age Americans who cannot find work. So there is a big rush to ‘regularize some guesstimated eleven million illegals” because “we can’t deport eleven million people.” Besides, some of them have been living here for years, have homes, and have children who were born here, or children who were brought here as little children who know no other home. The call for compassion.
We are a nation of laws. Crossing the border illegally is against the law. The Department of Homeland Security is in charge of the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Enforcement. Secretary Napolitano insists that the Border is well controlled, and illegals crossing the border are not a problem. People on the border and states on the border say illegal immigration has increased substantially since “amnesty” was first mentioned. The illegals even say “Obama will let me out.” And they are illegal, not “undocumented.”
The situation along the border with the drug cartels and coyotes transporting people is so bad that the Border Patrol doesn’t even patrol the border, but has had to pull back about 25 miles from the border.
Congress passed some kind of law and some kind of appropriations for a fence along the border, but everyone has apparently lost interest after about two miles were built, and while Gang of Eight Members were down on the border to look at the existing fence, some illegals were climbing over the fence right in front of them— which they found amusing.
The President of the United States who is tasked with seeing the laws are enforced, has told the Homeland Security people not to pay any attention to illegals, we presume because he thinks they will be Democrat voters.
There was an enormous scandal about “Fast and Furious.” a gunrunning ploy that was supposed to identify the cartel leaders, but ended up killing Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and a few hundred Mexicans, but it wasn’t anyone’s fault and we are supposed to ignore it. Border Patrol people are armed with bean bags and cannot protect themselves.
We have an E-Verify system in place to prevent illegals from gaining employment with false or forged documents, but it is not enforced, nor required.
It seems to me that before we start rushing through a big bill that is supported by a “bi-partisan” Gang of Eight that attempts to settle the entire immigration problem, a 900 page bill that nobody has read nor considered the consequences of each change. we might separate it into smaller parts. Part One might be enforcing the laws that are presently on the books. If enforcing them is impossible because of Executive Orders issued by the President, then Congress needs to step up and see that the laws are enforced. That is his Constitutionally mandated task. Once the Border Patrol can go back to the border with something besides bean bags, the fence is built, and E-Verify is up and running and being enforced — then we can begin to talk about Part Two: how many people we want to let in, and from where, and how we decide.
I am thoroughly sick of false promises of mandates and fixes and regulations and appropriations that somehow never happen; and a border that is never enforced because Democrats want more welfare dependent Hispanic illegals who will be reliable Democrat voters. Marco Rubio is sure that — this time, they mean the promises. They will write them down in the bill. But somehow it will never get enforced. First you fulfill the promises about enforcement. Then, when that is done, we can talk.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Latin America, Law, Media Bias, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: Euphemisims Mislead, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness
Mr. Virtual President Bill Whittle speaks at a Virtual Town Hall about the problem of immigration, and has some important things to say.
Also in the news, the Associated Press has refined their Stylebook to eliminate the phrase “illegal immigrant”. Also “illegal alien,” “an illegal”, “illegals” or “undocumented”).
Back in October of 2012, AP had reaffirmed use of the term “illegal immigrant.” Why do we not say “undocumented immigrants” or “unauthorized immigrants?”
To us, they said, these terms obscure the essential fact that such people are here in violation of the law. It’s simply a legal reality….What they lack is the fundamental right to be in the United States.
Jay Leno considered the AP change and asked why they just don’t consider them “Undocumented Democrats?”
We are deep into a territory where political correctness is so rampant that the language no longer represents reality. If reality is too uncomfortable to face, we shall just change the language that describes it. Like putting a tire patch on a hot air balloon, and hoping it holds.
Filed under: Africa, Domestic Policy, Heartwarming, Latin America | Tags: Coffea arabica or C.robusta, Native to Tropical East Africa, The Many Ways of Coffee
Few people anywhere begin the day without a hot drink. Coffee, chocolate and tea. Yerba maté, (Argentinian). Creative blends of apple cider vinegar, herbs and honey (really?) But worldwide, coffee dominates. And as with all things popular, they’ve been trying to find something wrong with it for years, with little success. Yes, it can keep you awake at night, so don’t drink it at night.
Here’s a great roundup of how coffee is served around the world from Smithsonian magazine. There are two main species of coffee that are grown in nearly every tropical region. Brazil and Vietnam lead production. And coffee is now the second most in demand commodity after oil. Black, with cream, cream and sugar, iced, flavored, and think of the vast array of coffee makers and coffee pots.
I grew up with a percolator, Folgers, and fresh spring water. My dad liked good coffee, cream and sugar. My mother liked HOT coffee. I swear, the woman had an asbestos tongue. I have a vast collection of demitasse cups, and never use them. Then there’s Starbucks: double shot caramel macchiato with extra foam and sprinkles.
Filed under: Freedom, Heartwarming, History, Latin America, Politics, United Kingdom | Tags: "The Special Relationship", The Falkland Islands, The Falkland War 1982
Reader Subsidy Eye posted this video in the comments, but it’s too good to miss. The great war for the Falkland Islands in 1982. A little long, but worth every minute. British pluck, daring, and wonderful British humor. Enjoy the story of the Tin Triangle.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, Latin America, Politics, The United States, United Kingdom | Tags: Argentina Bullies Islanders, Negotiated Settlement?, The Falkland Islands Vote
The people of the Falkland Islands went to the polls yesterday and voted in an historic referendum to remain a part of the United Kingdom as a British Overseas Territory.
The vote was not exactly close. There was a 92 percent voter turnout, and 99.8 percent voted to stay British. Only three residents voted otherwise.
When the people in Argentina get critical of their government, as happens under authoritarian governments, the Argentine government stirs up trouble over the Falklands, just 300 miles off their coast. Argentine officials describe the Falkland Islanders as a population, not a people. The Foreign Minister Hector Timerman recently said that Falkland Islanders “do not exist” and refused to talk with their government ministers. He told a press conference in London that the 3,000-off residents of the South Atlantic archipelago are simply British citizens who live there.
As a result of Argentina’s recent campaign of bullying and intimidation against the islands’ inhabitants, and in order to send a clear message to the world, the Falkland Islands’ government decided to put the question of its relationship with the UK to a popular vote.
Argentina, of course said that it will not recognize the outcome of the vote. Sadly, instead of backing America’s closest ally, the UK, the Obama administration has sided with Argentina by supporting its calls for a negotiated “settlement” over the islands. Making matters worse, the administration has repeatedly refused to say that it will back the outcome of the recent referendum.
Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated this embarrassing U.S. policy in London a couple of weeks ago, saying “I’m not going to comment, nor is the President, on a referendum that has yet to take place and hasn’t taken place.”
The Falkland Islanders do not need American support for their referendum, nor do the British. The Islanders are asking for recognition of their right to self-determination — a right guaranteed by the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But President Obama has turned out to be not as expert in foreign policy as he claimed, based on living briefly as a small child in Indonesia. And he’s made it clear that he is irritated by foreign policy matters that keep interfering with his domestic agenda. Nevertheless, as a nation that is a champion of free people and free elections, we should be championing the free choice of an island people to continue their alliance with their parent country.
Last year Jaime Daremblum wrote at PJMedia about Argentina’s Slow-Motion Disaster: massive capital flight and high inflation:
Whenever Argentina starts rattling sabers over the British Falkland Islands, it’s a surefire sign that the South American country is experiencing some type of domestic turmoil. So it comes as no surprise that President Cristina Kirchner has responded to high inflation and massive capital flight by picking a diplomatic fight with London over a sparsely inhabited archipelago that has been a U.K. possession since 1833. …
American observers should not be fooled: The ongoing diplomatic row between London and Buenos Aires is nothing more than a political smokescreen designed to benefit Buenos Aires. Kirchner would rather have Argentines railing against British “colonialism” than railing against their own government, which has become an international embarrassment.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Latin America, Law, National Security, The United States | Tags: DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano, ICE Agents File Suit, President Barack Obama
When in the 2010 election, Republicans took over the House of Representatives, President Obama could have worked more closely with Congress to accomplish more bipartisan legislation. Not his thing. Obama blames Congress regularly for not passing the bills that he wants passed, but he has no interest whatsoever in working with Congress to get it done. He does not like disagreement, particularly from Republicans for whom he has no respect. He really doesn’t get the two parties thing. Republicans are the enemy.
So, if he can’t get what he wants through Congress, he uses regulatory fiat as a substitute for enacting laws. That this is in direct conflict with the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution makes no difference. He has no respect for the separation of powers, it is just another annoying impediment to getting his own way. This is where the Imperial Presidency label comes from.
Obama has wanted to pass the “Dream Act” as he is urged to do by the activist Latino organizations. Election, Hispanic votes, no-brainer. It is a more complicated problem than pandering to potential voters. Many illegal immigrants brought their small children with them to this country. The kids have gone to American schools, and grown up in this country. They are illegal, and according to the law, should be sent back to their country of origin. Everybody feels sorry for the kids. “Through no fault of their own” is the standard phrase. But if you keep jiggling the law to allow those who are not here legally to stay, then we have no laws. It becomes an incentive for more to cross the border illegally with their kids, who we then would be expected to appreciates “through no fault of their own” and let them stay too. The obvious remedy is to reform immigration laws. Congress refused to pass the “Dream Act.”
The President tried to go around Congress with a regulation that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials should just not enforce immigration laws against anyone under 30, in a Homeland Security order this month. This mimics the provisions of the Dream Act — the failed bill that Obama favored as a back-door amnesty gambit. That’s why it didn’t pass. Nor did Obama want to do the hard work of coming up with a solution.
Arizona was the first to step forward because they have an enormous problem and want to be accountable.
Ten Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents have filed a lawsuit in federal court, suing for the right to enforce the laws that they have sworn to uphold. ICE agents have a big job. There is a constant flow of border-crossers, drugs, sex-trafficking, terrorists, weapons. It is not an easy job. ICE removed a record 216,000 criminal aliens in fiscal 2011. Politicians unnecessarily make their work much more difficult because of the potential votes of Hispanic citizens and non-citizens.
The suit was filed Thursday in Texas federal court, by ten ICE Agents. It challenges recent directives allowing some illegal immigrants, especially non-felons and those who came as children — to stay, in some cases to get work permits, and unfortunately vote.
We need to reform our immigration laws with an eye to what kind of immigration we want, what kind of immigration will be most valuable to the country. Graduate students from abroad get PhDs from American universities, and we then send them on home. There are programs especially in Asian countries that help wealthy pregnant women to come to America to deliver their babies so they can provide them with American citizenship. We need serious bi-partisan work, hard work, to reform the laws and stop the constant political infighting over potential Democrat Hispanic voters.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Intelligence, Latin America, Law, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Executive Privilege, Illegal Immigration, Mexican Drug Cartels
In a 255-67 vote, the House placed Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena, in the Fast and Furious inquiry.
Seventeen Democrats ignored party lines and voted with Republicans to find the Attorney General in contempt of Congress. 108 Democrats didn’t cast votes to protest the fact that the House GOP was holding the vote.The Department of Justice is not expected to enforce the criminal contempt measure. But less than an hour later, the House passed a separate resolution allowing Issa’s Congressional Oversight Committee to pursue civil court action against Holder.
The Congressional Black Caucus and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) staged a walkout during the vote as Democrats charged the GOP with staging a witch hunt against Holder that demeans the lower chamber.The Congressional Oversight Committee is concerned with uncovering just who is responsible for an operation that unlawfully sent nearly 2000 guns across the border to Mexican drug cartels where they were responsible for killing Border agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata and something over 300 murdered Mexican nationals. That is an awful lot of dead bodies, for which the United States is apparently responsible, and the Democrats want to call attempting to find out who authorized it a “witch hunt?’
If the drug wars just across the border weren’t killing so many people, it might well have been called an “international incident.” It is against the law to invoke “executive privilege” to cover up wrongdoing, but the President has invoked executive privilege which is usually used to protect conversations between a president and advisers.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Election 2012, Latin America, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear | Tags: A President Above the Law, Arizona v. United States, Misguided Compassion
Here we are. The president of the United States has announced that he doesn’t like the Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, because his reelection strategy is to pander to Hispanics with a de facto amnesty on immigration. He is a fierce competitor, and his support from the Hispanic community has fallen off, possibly related to their sky-high unemployment.
His Secretary of Homeland Security ( embarrassingly a former Governor of Arizona) has dutifully announced that unless Arizona police call with an illegal immigrant who committed a major offense, don’t bother to call, because they won’t do anything. This is the president declaring that he will not obey, let alone enforce, the laws of the United States.
As a man of the hard left, Obama has had no consideration for the traditions and customs of the presidency. Many of us thought that he was just unaware of the history of the office. What do you do when you have someone in office who simply will not follow the rules? Who judges himself above the law, and as too important to be restrained by mere tradition.
We are a nation of laws. We have a remarkable Constitution that in 223 years has only been amended 27 times, while other nations rewrite theirs with regularity. But we have it because Americans revere it, and revere the brilliance that hides in the phrase “We the people … do ordain.” But what do you do when the chief executive officer, sworn to’ preserve protect and defend the Constitution’ and to’ faithfully execute the office of the presidency’ decides not to?
Steven Hayward summarized the problem in the forward to William Voegeli’s Never Enough, which I recommend heartily:
Liberalism’s irrepressible drive for an ever larger welfare state without limit arises from at least two premises upon which the left no longer reflects: the elevation of compassion to a political principle (albeit with other people’s money) and the erosion of meaningful constitutional limits on government on account of the idea of Progress.
The president, ‘compassionately’ announces that enforcing the law, or deporting anyone, or not allowing unauthorized workers to take the jobs of Americans, is just not the American way. The Congress makes the immigration laws. The Court made an error of law in essentially saying that because they have ‘compassion,’ you don’t have to pay any attention to the laws made by Congress. And the Supreme Court doesn’t get to do that. And because of the error, the problem will have to go back to Congress for new law to fix things.
As a nation, you have to have some control over your borders. You really can’t just throw the borders open to one and all. Half the world wants to move to America. The “open borders” advocates don’t care about the borders, they care only about power, and they see unlimited immigration as a key to power.
Justice Scalia’s opinion is scathing on the sovereignty of a state:
The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938). Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.
As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: (The entire opinion is here)
There are no easy answers to the immigration problem, nor to the problems that illegal immigration is causing. They are hard questions, and will be difficult to work out. There are only trade-offs. You must draw clean legal lines. This is about the country, not feel-good compassion, and not about buying votes. Illegals are not all innocent children, nor are they all dreamers and strivers, and the laws must deal with terrorists and drug dealers as well. The law is not about compassion, it’s about law or lawlessness.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Intelligence, Latin America, Law, Politics, Terrorism, The Constitution | Tags: Executed Mexican Nationals, Ideology, Mexico's Drug Wars
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tried valiantly to claim that nasty Republicans were only attacking poor Attorney General Eric Holder because he was attempting to righteously prevent nasty Republicans from keeping poor black Minority members from voting by requiring them to prove to polling officials who they are by showing a picture ID. I don’t know where you could sell that whopper, and have it believed. Perhaps in San Francisco.
We also have learned that panicky Democrats have hauled out Watergate, and attempted to claim that was worse. There were NO dead bodies in Watergate, it was an ill-advised break-in to the opposition’s party headquarters. And that was wrong. But the Watergate scandal was about the attempt to cover it up. There were still NO dead bodies. The Court determined that “Executive Privilege” cannot be used if the assertion is shielding wrongdoing. The DoJ must provide a compelling rationale for each assertion.
Fast and Furious, the gunrunning scandal, depended on dead bodies for success. If the scheme was to work, people had to be killed, and that is indefensible.