Starving cattle stumble across the cow-burnt range. Above the cattle the vultures swarm like flies, attracted by the sight and smell of dying meat. (Always more vultures when you cross the border; where life is abundant and inexpensive crowded and cheap, as in Mexico, or Egypt, or India, you find a thriving business among the scavengers of death.) Giant mule-ear jackrabbits leap from the cactus and hurl themselves like kamikaze heroes into the grille or under the wheels of your car. Racing over a Mexican highway, especially at night, the thump and crunch of impacted bodies becomes as familiar as mariachi music on the radio. Those fur-covered roads…
Mariachi—the sound of fever. Every song is based on the same phrase: mi corazon. My heart. Your heart. Lunacy under the Mexican moon. That crazy music of sunlight, and murder, dust and blood and drunkenness, love, anguish, hatred, honor, passion, fear, stupidity, but fueled on by an inexhaustible hunger for life. For more life. Never say damasiado. Never say bustante. There is never enough. There cannot be too much. Not down here where the Spanish melded with the Indians, where every cop has a bandit brother, where the mountains meet the wrinkled blue sea. Where the basic insanity of Mexico, like a river dying on a delta, spends itself on the immensity and emptiness and mystic nothingness of the desert.
Sonora. Northwest Mexico. Land of the open-air beer joint and the shade-tree mechanic. More old cars upside down than right side up. On the outskirts of the town of Sonoita I once saw a solitary pig leaning out of the broken window of an abandoned 1947 Plymouth sedan. The pig watched me, with casual interest, as I drove by in my 1962 Dodge carry-all. Someday that pig, if it survives, will probably be living in this truck.
We drive through villages baking under a sun without mercy. No trees anywhere. The campesinos can’t afford trees. The cut them down long ago. Streets without a single tree, yards and courtyards and fields without a blade of grass. Around every house, every building lies a glittering field of broken glass, painful to the eyes. Though barefoot kids, snot-nosed muscositos, dash across it without a moment’s hesitation. Can an entire nation, even a poor one, take on the appearance of a garbage dump? Yes, easy, every yard, street, and roadside is littered with broken glass, rusted tin cans, shards of plastic, and shreds of rope, rubber, paper. Laundry hangs out everywhere, providing the only shade. Why are poor folks always doing laundry? Pride, I guess, and lots of children. On the west wall of the little iglesia in the hamlet of Colabi, as on the four walls of the cathedral in Hermosillo, you may see these words stenciled on the plaster in whitewash and official lettering.
SE PROHIBE HACER AGUA AQUÍ!
It is forbidden to make water here. Nevertheless, the smell of urine is acute. Pungent. Poignant. The whine of flies, those flies that swarm like microcosmic buzzards above each little pile of Mexican dung down in the alleyways, pervades the air with a vibration constant as the murmur of bees.
This is a country of quick, easy friendships, sworn in cerveza and tequila, sealed with dazzling smiles in faces of color of good saddle leather. Muchachos! Compadres! Companero de mi vida! A friendship, a love, too deep for thought, transformed in an instant, by one careless word, into flashing hatred sharp and violent at the thrust –chingazo—of a knife blade. Romantic Mexico… carefree colorful Sonora…. It looks like his real and final home to the average suicidal gringo..., drinking his way from cantina to cantina along dusty roads toward a colorful carefree death in a ditch behind a sheet-iron whorehouse ten miles south of Tubatama.
The mountain peaks do not rise above ten thousand feet, there are no dramatic peaks, and forests and bench lands are being exploited to the limit and beyond by the beef, mining, and timber industries, and by the urgent need of a human population growing at the rate of 3.5% per year—a rate greater than that of any Asian or African nation, including India and Egypt. Mexico City will soon be the largest city in the world. By the year 2000 the nation’s population will have doubled. Nobody seems concerned. “Welcome to the banquet of life, my children,” Eat hearty if you can fight your way to the table.”
When I find myself in Sonora, waking up off a dirt road deep in the cactus outback—how did I get here?—I veer toward the sea, avoid the cities entirely, and keep bearing westward. For the sea, we drive through passes between desert hills, past one ranchito abandonado after another—crumbling adobe ruins in the scant shade of a dead cottonwood, dry well, broken-down windmill, hollow-log water trough full of sand and tumbleweed—until a change transforms the horizon, until the skyline beyond the bony peaks and ridges becomes a curving plane of blue melting in mist with giant cardon cactus—bigger than saguaros—down to the beach.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Down There in Sonora -- by Edward Abbey
Is this the culture we want to import into the U.S.?
Dee Perez-Scott -- Naivete Epitomized
In her naivete, Dee Perez-Scott believes that "Islam IS [just]a religion. Our country was founded upon Freedom of Religion. Muslims believe in God. They believe that the purpose of life is to worship God. Muslims have every right to live in America and to worship as they please."
Of course, she is right as far as she goes but she totally ignores the facts, as stated by Muslims themselves. Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. Surely Dee is not suggesting that entire system is protected and that Islam is free to do everything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment. If she is, that’s her fundamental mistake.
She goes on,"I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even athesists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a take over of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous."
It wouldn't be hard to reframe this comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had Dee been there then she would have railed against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as Dee chooses to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects -- political and financial--come under careful scrutiny.
The second thing is, people, like Dee, who have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets have no basis for defending it under the protections offered by the first amendment. Dee needs to understand that Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law and she needs to understand what that will mean.
Islam has said this in so many ways that there is no excuse for anyone to be naive about this. Dee needs to understand what the leaders of moderate Muslims really think and what they say.
It is sad that she has shown repeatedly that she is unwilling to confront mainstream Islam and its Sharia agenda.
‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer of that statement was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, "How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah", an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.
This was Qaradawi the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university, like Dee Perez-Scott, somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.”
And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Feisal Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, the promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist.
The excerpt from his books continues: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: Say! Do you know better than Allah? (Qur’an 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shar’ah is downright apostasy. Apostasy is an explosive accusation. On another occasion, Sheikh Qaradawi explained that “Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished.” He further acknowledged that the consensus view of these jurists, including the principal schools of both Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence is “that the apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi’s own view is more nuanced, as he explained to the Egyptian press in 2005. This, I suppose, is where his vaunted reformist streak comes in. For private apostasy, in which a Muslim makes a secret, personal decision to renounce the tenets of Islam and quietly goes his separate way without causing a stir, the sheikh believes ostracism by the Islamic community is a sufficient penalty, with the understanding that Allah will condemn the apostate to eternal damnation at the time of his choosing. For public apostasy, however, Qaradawi stands with the overwhelming weight of Islamic authority: “The punishment …is execution.”
The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position – the mainstream Islamic position – that Sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between Sharia societies and Western societies.
Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?
When we are rational, we have confidence in our own frame of reference. We judge what is moderate based on a detached, commonsense understanding of what “moderate” means. We’re not rigging the outcome; we just want to know where we stand.
If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that Sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates Sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.
Instead, abandoning reason, Dee Perez-Scott and others have deep-sixed their own frame of reference and substituted mainstream Islam’s. If that backward compass is to be our guide, then sure, Qaradawi and Rauf are moderates. But know this: When you capitulate to the authority and influence of Qaradawi and Rauf, you kill meaningful Islamic reform.
There is no moderate Islam in the mainstream of Muslim life, not in the doctrinal sense. There are millions of moderate Muslims who crave reform. Yet the fact that they seek real reform, rather than what Georgetown is content to call reform, means they are trying to invent something that does not currently exist.
Real reform can also be found in some Muslim sects. The Ahmadi, for example, hold some unorthodox views and reject violent jihad. Witness what happens: They are brutally persecuted by Muslims in Pakistan, as well as in Indonesia and other purported hubs of moderation. Meanwhile, individual Muslim reformers are branded as apostates, meaning not only that they are discredited, but that their lives are threatened as well. The signal to other Muslims is clear: Follow the reformers and experience the same fury. As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public interview, public apostates are “the gravest danger” to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms “spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.”
Today, “moderate Islam” is an illusion. There is hardly a spark, much less a wildfire. Making moderation real will take more than wishing upon a star. It calls for a gut check, a willingness to face down not just al-Qaeda but the Qaradawis and their Sharia campaign. It means saying: Not here! Not now! Not ever!
Adapted from Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.” This is a book everyone should read before they take any position on Islam in America.
Posted by ultima at 8:39 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Dee Perez-Scott, Islam, moderates, Obama
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/06/sharia-law-in-the-us-dont-be-surprised-when-it-comes-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/25/sharia-law-and-the-u-s-constitution/
Of course, she is right as far as she goes but she totally ignores the facts, as stated by Muslims themselves. Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalitarian way of life with a religious component. Yet we protect the entire thing under the first amendment. Stop and think about it. Islam is a legal system, a political system, a financial system, a dress code, a moral code, and a social structure, yet we protect it as a First Amendment issue. Surely Dee is not suggesting that entire system is protected and that Islam is free to do everything it wishes in all of those areas including politics and still expect the protection of the first amendment. If she is, that’s her fundamental mistake.
She goes on,"I am a Christian, an American and I believe in religious freedom, whether it be for Catholics, like me, Protestant, Muslim or even athesists. Think of the different life styles of the Amish or the Born Again Christians or the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons. ...gain tolerance and stop preaching Fear. The Muslim people are not planning a take over of America and the Muslim people are NOT terrorists. That is ridiculous."
It wouldn't be hard to reframe this comment to reflect the views of Germans during the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. Had Dee been there then she would have railed against those who tried to sound warning notes about Hitler and his intentions. Hitler had laid out his plan in Mein Kampf. Islam's plan is laid out in Sharia. We can ignore it or defend it, as Dee chooses to do, or we can sound the warning now so that action can be taken in the Congress to limit the application of the first amendment to only the religious aspects of Islam while all other aspects -- political and financial--come under careful scrutiny.
The second thing is, people, like Dee, who have no understanding of Islam’s history or its basic tenets have no basis for defending it under the protections offered by the first amendment. Dee needs to understand that Islam’s objective in America is to replace our Constitution with Sharia law and she needs to understand what that will mean.
Islam has said this in so many ways that there is no excuse for anyone to be naive about this. Dee needs to understand what the leaders of moderate Muslims really think and what they say.
It is sad that she has shown repeatedly that she is unwilling to confront mainstream Islam and its Sharia agenda.
‘Secularism can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society.” The writer of that statement was not one of those sulfurous Islamophobes decried by CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations] and the professional Left. Quite the opposite: It was Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide and a favorite of the Saudi royal family. He made this assertion in his book, "How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Ummah", an excerpt of which was published by the Saudi Gazette just a couple of months ago.
This was Qaradawi the “progressive” Muslim intellectual, much loved by Georgetown University’s burgeoning Islamic-studies programs. Like Harvard, Georgetown has been purchased into submission by tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars. In its resulting ardor to put Americans at ease about Islam, the university, like Dee Perez-Scott, somehow manages to look beyond Qaradawi’s fatwas calling for the killing of American troops in Iraq and for suicide bombings in Israel. Qaradawi, they tell us, is a “moderate.” In fact, as Robert Spencer quips, if you were to say Islam and secularism cannot co-exist, John Esposito, Georgetown’s apologist-in-chief, would call you an Islamophobe; but when Qaradawi says it, no problem — according to Esposito, he’s a “reformist.”
And he’s not just any reformist. Another Qaradawi fan, Feisal Rauf, the similarly “moderate” imam behind the Ground Zero mosque project, tells us Qaradawi is also “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”
Rauf is undoubtedly right about that. So it is worth letting it sink in that this most influential of Islam’s voices, the promoter of the Islamic enclaves the Brotherhood is forging throughout the West, is convinced that Islamic societies can never accept secularism. After all, secularism is nothing less than the framework by which the West defends religious freedom but denies legal and political authority to religious creeds.It is worth understanding why Qaradawi says Islam and secularism cannot co-exist.
The excerpt from his books continues: “As Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (Ibadah) and legislation (Shari’ah), the acceptance of secularism means the abandonment of Shari’ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari’ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: Say! Do you know better than Allah? (Qur’an 2:140) For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shar’ah is downright apostasy. Apostasy is an explosive accusation. On another occasion, Sheikh Qaradawi explained that “Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished.” He further acknowledged that the consensus view of these jurists, including the principal schools of both Sunni and Shiite jurisprudence is “that the apostates must be executed.”
Qaradawi’s own view is more nuanced, as he explained to the Egyptian press in 2005. This, I suppose, is where his vaunted reformist streak comes in. For private apostasy, in which a Muslim makes a secret, personal decision to renounce the tenets of Islam and quietly goes his separate way without causing a stir, the sheikh believes ostracism by the Islamic community is a sufficient penalty, with the understanding that Allah will condemn the apostate to eternal damnation at the time of his choosing. For public apostasy, however, Qaradawi stands with the overwhelming weight of Islamic authority: “The punishment …is execution.”
The sad fact, the fact no one wants to deal with but which the Ground Zero mosque debate has forced to the fore, is that Qaradawi is a moderate. So is Feisal Rauf, who endorses the Qaradawi position – the mainstream Islamic position – that Sharia is a nonnegotiable requirement. Rauf wins the coveted “moderate” designation because he strains, at least when speaking for Western consumption, to paper over the incompatibility between Sharia societies and Western societies.
Qaradawi and Rauf are “moderates” because we’ve abandoned reason. Our opinion elites are happy to paper over the gulf between “reformist” Islam and the “reformist” approval of mass-murder attacks. That’s why it matters not a whit to them that Imam Rauf refuses to renounce Hamas: If you’re going to give a pass to Qaradawi, the guy who actively promotes Hamas terrorists, how can you complain about a guy who merely refuses to condemn the terrorists?
When we are rational, we have confidence in our own frame of reference. We judge what is moderate based on a detached, commonsense understanding of what “moderate” means. We’re not rigging the outcome; we just want to know where we stand.
If we were in that objective frame of mind, we would easily see that a freedom culture requires separation of the spiritual from the secular. We would also see that Sharia — with dictates that contradict liberty and equality while sanctioning cruel punishments and holy war — is not moderate. Consequently, no one who advocates Sharia can be a moderate, no matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how heartfelt may be his conviction that this is God’s will, and no matter how much higher on the food chain he may be than Osama bin Laden.
Instead, abandoning reason, Dee Perez-Scott and others have deep-sixed their own frame of reference and substituted mainstream Islam’s. If that backward compass is to be our guide, then sure, Qaradawi and Rauf are moderates. But know this: When you capitulate to the authority and influence of Qaradawi and Rauf, you kill meaningful Islamic reform.
There is no moderate Islam in the mainstream of Muslim life, not in the doctrinal sense. There are millions of moderate Muslims who crave reform. Yet the fact that they seek real reform, rather than what Georgetown is content to call reform, means they are trying to invent something that does not currently exist.
Real reform can also be found in some Muslim sects. The Ahmadi, for example, hold some unorthodox views and reject violent jihad. Witness what happens: They are brutally persecuted by Muslims in Pakistan, as well as in Indonesia and other purported hubs of moderation. Meanwhile, individual Muslim reformers are branded as apostates, meaning not only that they are discredited, but that their lives are threatened as well. The signal to other Muslims is clear: Follow the reformers and experience the same fury. As Qaradawi put it in the 2005 interview, public interview, public apostates are “the gravest danger” to Islamic society; therefore, Muslims must snuff them out, lest their reforms “spread like wildfire in a field of thorns.”
Today, “moderate Islam” is an illusion. There is hardly a spark, much less a wildfire. Making moderation real will take more than wishing upon a star. It calls for a gut check, a willingness to face down not just al-Qaeda but the Qaradawis and their Sharia campaign. It means saying: Not here! Not now! Not ever!
Adapted from Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.” This is a book everyone should read before they take any position on Islam in America.
Posted by ultima at 8:39 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Dee Perez-Scott, Islam, moderates, Obama
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/
http://lonelyconservative.com/2010/06/sharia-law-in-the-us-dont-be-surprised-when-it-comes-to-a-neighborhood-near-you/
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/25/sharia-law-and-the-u-s-constitution/
Friday, August 20, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Dee Perez-Scott -- Another Irrational Rant
Dee says again in her purple prose and hyperbole, "Republican pundits are a Blight on the very Foundation of America!"
She suggests that we accept Muslims uncritically, at face value, because they say they are opposed to Al Qaida and because a few Muslim Americans actually lost their lives on 9/11. She doesn't like it when the broad brush is used on that group but turns right around and impugns and insults all Republicans using the same broad brush approach. What is that called? -- Oh yes, that's hypocrisy!
Did she really expect Muslim Americans to say -- "We support Al Qaida"? They only say that in private as they laugh at how impotent Americans are to keep them from building a mosque to honor those terrorists who gave their lives on 9/11 to make a point for Islam.
Several Muslim Americans are guilty of being terrorists. That is a fact. Not many have been willing to risk all to do this but you can count on many more doing so in the future as radical imams preach jihad in American mosques. And that is not a bold faced LIE.
And here it comes, the two most-used expressions in Dee's vocabulary: racist and racial profiling -- oops she left out one, "hate". She says the Republican view of all of this is racist and racial profiling. I believe she will find that there are Muslims of many races and ethnicities including Hispanics and Anglos. She believes the claim of the Republican pundits goes against the will of our founding fathers. Those are the same white anglo-saxon protestant founding fathers she often denigrates in another context as though they and their successors had no role in the development, settlement and building of America.
She says,"Our country was based on religious freedom. Muslim Americans have the same “freedom of religion” rights as any other Americans. They have every right to re-build their existing mosque a few blocks away from the Twin Towers location."
And, indeed they do even though it is extremely insensitive on their part to do so. They have learned their lessons very well and know exactly how to take full advantage of America's freedoms to promote their own interests while they laugh with glee at our inability to do anything about it. What Muslim country would allow a church to be built in a similar location? The answer is none and even if one existed somewhere in the country, it would not be unusual or unexpected for it to be bombed, as some were in Iraq.
I note that Senate Majority Leader Reid has also denounced the Muslim decision to locate the mosque near ground zero. Pelosi wants anyone who opposes it to be investigated. She should start with Harry Reid.
We don't know for sure what so-called moderate Muslims in America will do or want once they have the political muscle to assert themselves. I'm sure Sharia Law is somewhere in their game plan since none of them have denounced it. This is a serious matter and Dee's effort to politicize it does not help. She didn't mention Harry Reid so it is plain to see what she is trying to do by politicizing the issue.
Political pundits like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin use their own freedom of speech to speak out about the travesty of the proposed mosque location. That is not WRONG! Even the president was forced to "clarify" his remarks to try to remove the yoke from around his neck of his ringing endorsement of that location. The people of New York will remember that in 2012.
The terrorists and Al Qaida will WIN unless we stay alert to their growing threat right here in America. It is not just the terrorists’ who wish to change America, to change our freedoms and replace them with Sharia Law. This not going to happen over night but it is the stated objective of Islam. That is the blight on the very foundation of America!
"Newt Gingrich compares 'Ground Zero mosque' backers to Nazis." He used with a slightly different Holocaust metaphor when he compared the people behind the proposed mosque, whom he referred to as "radical Islamists" to "Nazis" during an appearance on Fox News. "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington," Gingrich insisted. Gingrich then went on to claim that "we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." About the only thing I can fault Gingrich for is hyperbole -- something Dee knows all about. Whatever he actually said, when you remove the hyperbole, his message is simply that the Muslims have shown remarkable insensitivity in selecting this site, suggesting perhaps that they may have a hidden agenda.
She suggests that we accept Muslims uncritically, at face value, because they say they are opposed to Al Qaida and because a few Muslim Americans actually lost their lives on 9/11. She doesn't like it when the broad brush is used on that group but turns right around and impugns and insults all Republicans using the same broad brush approach. What is that called? -- Oh yes, that's hypocrisy!
Did she really expect Muslim Americans to say -- "We support Al Qaida"? They only say that in private as they laugh at how impotent Americans are to keep them from building a mosque to honor those terrorists who gave their lives on 9/11 to make a point for Islam.
Several Muslim Americans are guilty of being terrorists. That is a fact. Not many have been willing to risk all to do this but you can count on many more doing so in the future as radical imams preach jihad in American mosques. And that is not a bold faced LIE.
And here it comes, the two most-used expressions in Dee's vocabulary: racist and racial profiling -- oops she left out one, "hate". She says the Republican view of all of this is racist and racial profiling. I believe she will find that there are Muslims of many races and ethnicities including Hispanics and Anglos. She believes the claim of the Republican pundits goes against the will of our founding fathers. Those are the same white anglo-saxon protestant founding fathers she often denigrates in another context as though they and their successors had no role in the development, settlement and building of America.
She says,"Our country was based on religious freedom. Muslim Americans have the same “freedom of religion” rights as any other Americans. They have every right to re-build their existing mosque a few blocks away from the Twin Towers location."
And, indeed they do even though it is extremely insensitive on their part to do so. They have learned their lessons very well and know exactly how to take full advantage of America's freedoms to promote their own interests while they laugh with glee at our inability to do anything about it. What Muslim country would allow a church to be built in a similar location? The answer is none and even if one existed somewhere in the country, it would not be unusual or unexpected for it to be bombed, as some were in Iraq.
I note that Senate Majority Leader Reid has also denounced the Muslim decision to locate the mosque near ground zero. Pelosi wants anyone who opposes it to be investigated. She should start with Harry Reid.
We don't know for sure what so-called moderate Muslims in America will do or want once they have the political muscle to assert themselves. I'm sure Sharia Law is somewhere in their game plan since none of them have denounced it. This is a serious matter and Dee's effort to politicize it does not help. She didn't mention Harry Reid so it is plain to see what she is trying to do by politicizing the issue.
Political pundits like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin use their own freedom of speech to speak out about the travesty of the proposed mosque location. That is not WRONG! Even the president was forced to "clarify" his remarks to try to remove the yoke from around his neck of his ringing endorsement of that location. The people of New York will remember that in 2012.
The terrorists and Al Qaida will WIN unless we stay alert to their growing threat right here in America. It is not just the terrorists’ who wish to change America, to change our freedoms and replace them with Sharia Law. This not going to happen over night but it is the stated objective of Islam. That is the blight on the very foundation of America!
"Newt Gingrich compares 'Ground Zero mosque' backers to Nazis." He used with a slightly different Holocaust metaphor when he compared the people behind the proposed mosque, whom he referred to as "radical Islamists" to "Nazis" during an appearance on Fox News. "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington," Gingrich insisted. Gingrich then went on to claim that "we would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor." About the only thing I can fault Gingrich for is hyperbole -- something Dee knows all about. Whatever he actually said, when you remove the hyperbole, his message is simply that the Muslims have shown remarkable insensitivity in selecting this site, suggesting perhaps that they may have a hidden agenda.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Lamentations of Dee Perez-Scott
Dee Perez-Scott Don't let that chubby little smile fool you. Behind it lies a person who gives precedence to illegal aliens over the national interest.
Dee rails against everything on the Right regardless of the truth. An advocate, like Dee, or advocacy organization like La Raza, is not interested in truth -- it is committed in advocating a certain position regardless of the facts. Dee is the grand dame of the left-wing, ethnocentric CIR advocates, mainly because, in large part,CIR is synonymous with amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens and easier chain immigration. She, and her cohort, look at the illegals and say, "What is the problem?"
With enough rhetoric from the left, they are able to watch the naked emperor and exclaim, "How splendid the emperor's new clothes; how well they fit; and what a magnificent train." To avoid appearing stupid or insensitive, they see what is not there. And fail to see what is.
The liberal propagandists in the media are nothing but a feeding trough for the supporters of illegals, brewed in a caldron of bias, stirred by anti-America,left-wing statist politicians and elitist social engineers masquerading as humanitarians.
And sucking up like chubby piglets are thousands of myopic idiots. It is a blatant lie put forth by the media and in the blogosphere that attempts to portray opponents of La Raza-style CIR as fringe elements rather than those in the mainstream of America who want their country back.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Dee Perez-Scott -- Her Continuing Diatribe
Dee Perez-Scott is continuing her misguided diatribe against the Right with falsehoods and hyperbole. She says that they view their Latino opponents as,"ethno-centric Latinos foaming with rage and frenzy demanding open borders." That may not apply to all of the demonstrators in the streets of Phoenix but it certainly applies to Dee Perez-Scott herself. She has been in a rage and frenzy for some time, becoming even more vitriolic and radical since SB1070 was passed by the legislature in Arizona. She has become unhinged and no longer is interested in compromise solutions to the illegal alien problem. She may not be overtly demanding open borders but her oppostion to internal enforcement is tantamount to the same thing. If border jumpers believe they will be home free if they can escape the immediate environs of the border, they will keep coming -- a form of de facto open borders. That is Dee's agenda.
She then accuses the Right of pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing. This is an outrageous lie designed to further foment the hate, rage and frenzy in her followers.
She accuses the Right of lying to
push its agendaat the same time as she blatantly lies to push her own agenda. She writes about ethnic cleansing knowing full well only extreme elements on both the Left and the Right ever mention or advocate anything close to that. She also knows that the probability of sending all White people back to Europe and other citizens back to their homelands is zero and none. It doesn't matter what extreme elements say or write or do, it will never happen. And what is worse, she knows that!
She accuses the Right of having an ANTI-Latino agenda:
. Changing the 14th amendment (birthright citizenship)
Fact: Among all the developed countries, only the U.S. and Canada still allow Jus Soli or birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed not as part of an anti-Latino agenda but because it continues to be abused by the large numbers of illegal aliens and tourists to have their instant citizen babies on U.S. soil. The Constitution has been amended 27 times so changes of this sort are not unusual. Some Constitutional scholars agree that it may not even be necessary to change the Amendment itself but to just bring it up to date with current social conditions by changing the implementing law. "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement [i.e. instant citizenship] to illegal entry.”
. Official English (no more Spanish in govt or voting documents)
Fact: She mentions only the Spanish language here to add fuel to her anti-Latino accusation. Ballots and other government proceedings, documents, and publications are conducted or printed in several languages. More than 100 different languages are spoken in the U.S. and Executive Order 13166 requires that documents and services be made available in all of them, not just in Spanish as Dee insinuates in her diatribe about an anti-Latino agenda. This practice is unheard of in other countries. Those with any sense on this issue are merely saying, "Let's stop all of the unnecessary spending on multi-lingual materials and require true fluency in English for citizenship." That would eliminate the need for multi-lingual ballots and most of the other services and publications. Public Interpreters could be provided for those who cannot afford one or who has no family member who can perform this function. For all others interpreters and translations would be a billable service.
. Reduce Immigration quotas from non-white countries
Fact: Dee again indulges in gross lies about immigration quotas. At one time, the quotas were designed to reflect the existing racial, ethnic, or country of origin mix in the general population. It is not clear what the current policy is. Whatever it is,it is leading to an acceleration of the Latino proportion of the population. Counting legal immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny, Mexico by itself produces as many immigrants as the next ten countries combined. Does that seem fair to all the others who are denied admission.
Some argue that our country is fully settled and developed and therefore we have no need for more immigrants of any kind. Others believe the overall quota should be reduced to no more than 200,000 per year in all categories but focused on those who have the greatest potential for helping us to maintain our competitiveness in the global marketplace. The U.S. produces far to few engineers, physical scientists, and mathematicians than the other countries with whom we must compete. Any quotas for new immigrants should be based on that need.
If a reduction in overall legal immigration quotas falls hardest on Latinos, that is because they are by far the greatest number of involved. Legal immigrant quotas for all countries should be reduced by the best estimate that can be made of the number of illegals that arrive from those countries every year. If the reduced overall quota would admit 100,000 new immigrants from the south but the annual estimate of illegal entries is 500,000, legal immigration from Latin America should be suspended. The same rationale would be applied to all quotas and applicants, regardless of race, color, ethnicity or national origin.
. Mass Deportation of the 12M here plus their children
Fact: There is no mainstream proposal for the mass deportation of illegal aliens even though that is logistically feasible and Dee knows that. This is just another example of Dee's lies and divisive hyperbole.
If there were to be a process for repatriating large numbers but not all illegals it would have to be a slow, systematic process to sort out those who are surplus to our economy and who have displaced American workers. Everyone knows some amount of foreign labor is necessary to support the American economy, especially agricultural labor. At one time in the past, Dee agreed with a proposal that would require employers to re-advertise all of the jobs currently held by illegal aliens, [identifiable through E-Verification], offering a living wage and a hiring preference for citizens. Foreign workers who survive this test would then be offered a green card if they can also pass a background check and a medical exam. This process is a far cry from the mass deportation hysteria Dee promotes at every opportunity in her hate-filled tirades.
Citizen children of illegal aliens cannot be deported. However, what responsible parent under a removal order would abandon their minor children? The most humane policy is for minor children, regardless of citizenship, to accompany their parents under a removal order. These children undoubtedly already speak the mother tongue of their homelands because that was how the parents talk to them. As citizens, when these children reach their majority, they are free to return to the U.S. legally and even sponsor their parents. Abandoning minor children should be considered child abuse.
An Ethnocentric Mexican-American, Dee is unable to view these issues objectively. She shows no appreciation for the fact that reducing legal immigration and the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. is in her, and the Hispanics' enlightened best interests. The more there are of us, the less there will be for each of us including the Hispanics, especially water, arable land, food, timber, and minerals.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Dee Perez-Scott Opposes Real Immigration Reform - Dave Gibson Examiner
Is Mexico annexing the U.S. through their so-called "anchor babies?" The widely known but always down-played Reconquista Movement is alive and well and coming to a town near you. Mexico is taking much of this country through very aggressive illegal immigration, as well as an equally aggressive birth rate. Some point out that babies cannot anchor anyone until they are 21 years old. Under the current unwritten policy of the Obama Administration, anyone with children born in the U.S. will not be deported, a complete reversal of the prior policy which did not allow this as a basis for appeal.
The Pew Hispanic Center just announced the results of a recent study which found that of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S., during 2008, about 340,000 were born to illegal aliens.
The study found that children born to illegal aliens account for 7 percent of the total population of people under the age of 18, or 5.1 million children. 79 percent of those children were born in the United States, automatically making them U.S. citizens.
The goal of the Reconquista Movement was once designed to takeover the southwestern border states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. However, through the exploitation of the 14th Amendment, illegal aliens are now building colonies in every state of the union.
The following statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau are staggering and frightening:
-In 2005, Latinos accounted for half of the U.S. population growth.
-The total U.S. population more than doubled from 131.7 million in 1940 to 290.8 million in 2003, the Latino population increased nearly 30 times in that same period. In 1940, the Latino population within the U.S. was 1.4 million, by 2003 it had swelled to 40 million.
-Between 2000-2003, the Latino population within the U.S. grew at a rate of 13 percent, while the U.S. non-Latino population grew at a rate of only 0.8 percent during the same period.
-Recently, the ethnocentric Latino group known as La Raza proudly reported on their website that 85 percent of the Latino population under 18 were born inside the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 80 percent of our Latino population is age 44 or younger, which means that the vast majority of Latinos in the U.S. are still of child-bearing age.
With the unchecked illegal immigration crisis, this country will become another Latin American nation in our lifetime. What will this mean to you?...The disappearance of the English language, the destruction of our traditional American culture, the over-population of our cities, epidemics of once-thought eradicated diseases, crushing poverty, and soaring crime.
Considering the fact that illegal aliens already account for 29 percent of this nation's prison population, we can expect that prison building will become the new growth industry.
Public schools will only teach English as a second language, and municipal services will be stretched beyond their limits.
But the real problem will be that our politics will be controlled by those whose loyalties actually lie with another nation. Once our political system becomes dominated by illegal aliens and their offspring, our resources will no longer be our own, but will be used only to benefit Mexico.
If an effort is not made to protect our border with Mexico and we do not soon adopt a sensible immigration policy--the United States as we know it will cease to exist in the near future. Birthright citizenship has been the fear of those of us that want a sovereign America. If left unchecked, the ‘anchor baby’ movement will be the death knell of the USA, without a shot fired.
The Pew Hispanic Center just announced the results of a recent study which found that of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S., during 2008, about 340,000 were born to illegal aliens.
The study found that children born to illegal aliens account for 7 percent of the total population of people under the age of 18, or 5.1 million children. 79 percent of those children were born in the United States, automatically making them U.S. citizens.
The goal of the Reconquista Movement was once designed to takeover the southwestern border states of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. However, through the exploitation of the 14th Amendment, illegal aliens are now building colonies in every state of the union.
The following statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau are staggering and frightening:
-In 2005, Latinos accounted for half of the U.S. population growth.
-The total U.S. population more than doubled from 131.7 million in 1940 to 290.8 million in 2003, the Latino population increased nearly 30 times in that same period. In 1940, the Latino population within the U.S. was 1.4 million, by 2003 it had swelled to 40 million.
-Between 2000-2003, the Latino population within the U.S. grew at a rate of 13 percent, while the U.S. non-Latino population grew at a rate of only 0.8 percent during the same period.
-Recently, the ethnocentric Latino group known as La Raza proudly reported on their website that 85 percent of the Latino population under 18 were born inside the United States. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 80 percent of our Latino population is age 44 or younger, which means that the vast majority of Latinos in the U.S. are still of child-bearing age.
With the unchecked illegal immigration crisis, this country will become another Latin American nation in our lifetime. What will this mean to you?...The disappearance of the English language, the destruction of our traditional American culture, the over-population of our cities, epidemics of once-thought eradicated diseases, crushing poverty, and soaring crime.
Considering the fact that illegal aliens already account for 29 percent of this nation's prison population, we can expect that prison building will become the new growth industry.
Public schools will only teach English as a second language, and municipal services will be stretched beyond their limits.
But the real problem will be that our politics will be controlled by those whose loyalties actually lie with another nation. Once our political system becomes dominated by illegal aliens and their offspring, our resources will no longer be our own, but will be used only to benefit Mexico.
If an effort is not made to protect our border with Mexico and we do not soon adopt a sensible immigration policy--the United States as we know it will cease to exist in the near future. Birthright citizenship has been the fear of those of us that want a sovereign America. If left unchecked, the ‘anchor baby’ movement will be the death knell of the USA, without a shot fired.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Dee's Polemic -- Part Trois -- The Big Lie
Dee's message of hate and devisive vitriol continues as follows: "We all know this change[in the 14th Amendment] attacks Latinos only because they don't care about 'illeegals' from Canada or Europe, only children of color."
By definition, any such change would affect all children born of illegal or tourist parents without regard to race, nationality, or ethnicity. If Latinos were affected more than others, that simply means there are more of them who fall in those categories. Illegals from the south have a long history of abusing the 14th Amendment in large numbers.
Population, natural resource, and environmental concerns provide a further and powerful rational for reinterpreting this amendment.
Dee goes on with her vitriolic tirade saying, "While the nation is busy discussing the Comprehensive Immigration Reform debate, Republicans are piling on. Republicans, during this tough election year, have pulled out all the stops with their "Hate" and "Fear" Election Strategy. Their goal is to scare the heck out of white people in America, against our minority president, against minorities in general. Chris Rock was right. After they rid themselves of Latinos, other minorities are next!"
As pointed out previously, by making such devisive statements without foundation it is clear that Dee is promoting her own brand of hate and fear of we vs them. That is her election strategy. What she is counting on is that 'people always have been foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be...' V.I Lenin. Or 'in the primitive simplicity of their minds [the Hispanics], they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie...' -- A. Hitler.
This exactly what Dee is doing. She believes that if you tell a big lie often enough, people will actually begin to believe it although it is utterly false. Her objective is to scare the heck out of Latinos so they will vote. She libels the entire Republican Party while objecting to any broadbrush treatment of illegals when many of them are involved in crimes.
She knows perfectly well that citizens cannot be deported and that it is therefore impossible to 'rid [the country] ... of Latinos' or any other citizens for that matter. This is just one of her scare tactics. She also knows that the minor children of illegal aliens cannot be deported if they are citizens but some irresponsible parents under a removal order simply choose to abandon them in the U.S. How much better would it be if minor children remained with their parents?
Friday, August 13, 2010
Dee's Rant Part Dieux
Dee says, “Republicans HATE Latinos and are raising the level of anger & hate in this immigration debate so they can secure the votes of the right wing extremists.”
This is so far off base that it is hard to know where to begin. Her statements are a good example of HATE designed to raise the level of anger among Latinos to secure their votes. Republicans as a group categorically denounce the nut case accusation that they hate Latinos. The level of anger needs no impetus from Republicans. The gross neglect of the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws is enough to generate plenty of heat without any prompting.
Other evidence of Dee’s brand of hate is her facile use of that term and the word “racist”. The primary motivation of the people she insults is to secure the borders and rid our country of all of the illegals who are surplus to our labor needs. She wants to add that as a new definition for hate and racism. Incredible!
She opines about a move in Arizona to deny children of illegal aliens a birth certificate. This represents an original and creative idea. It demonstrates the depth of Arizonians’ frustration with the fed’s inaction and the ineffectiveness of current policies in solving their huge illegal problem. If the law related to instant citizenship cannot be changed, new innovative ideas will be needed. I suggested once that the Congress enact a law designating the location of the birthing bed of illegal aliens to be the sovereign territory of the mother’s homeland until the baby is delivered, then it reverts back immediately to the U.S. A generic birth certificate would be issued specifying the mother’s homeland as the place of birth.
Dee expresses concern about any successful attempt to change the instant citizenship law. She worries about who would be impacted by the change. She cites the irrelevant statistic that 40% of illegals are visa overstays. She asks, “If a woman who is awaiting the outcome of her request for an extension to her visa, when she delivers, does that mean her baby is illegal?’
The answer is basically yes. No matter what the particular circumstances are the children of noncitizens who are not permanent residents would be given a generic birth certificate citing the mother’s homeland as the source of citizenship of the child. Visa overstays by definition are in this country illegally and should be apprehended and sent home immediately at their own expense. They should have thought about applying for an extension long before the visa expired. But it doesn’t really make any difference if the mother is not a citizen or permanent legal resident. Birthright citizenship would simply not apply to the children of anyone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident. That includes illegal aliens, tourists and others who have not achieved permanent resident status. Some proposals allow citizenship for the child if at least one of the parents is a citizen. Others insist that it is the mother who must be a citizen to avoid any incentive for fraudulent marriages. It is likely that the former view would prevail.
This is so far off base that it is hard to know where to begin. Her statements are a good example of HATE designed to raise the level of anger among Latinos to secure their votes. Republicans as a group categorically denounce the nut case accusation that they hate Latinos. The level of anger needs no impetus from Republicans. The gross neglect of the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws is enough to generate plenty of heat without any prompting.
Other evidence of Dee’s brand of hate is her facile use of that term and the word “racist”. The primary motivation of the people she insults is to secure the borders and rid our country of all of the illegals who are surplus to our labor needs. She wants to add that as a new definition for hate and racism. Incredible!
She opines about a move in Arizona to deny children of illegal aliens a birth certificate. This represents an original and creative idea. It demonstrates the depth of Arizonians’ frustration with the fed’s inaction and the ineffectiveness of current policies in solving their huge illegal problem. If the law related to instant citizenship cannot be changed, new innovative ideas will be needed. I suggested once that the Congress enact a law designating the location of the birthing bed of illegal aliens to be the sovereign territory of the mother’s homeland until the baby is delivered, then it reverts back immediately to the U.S. A generic birth certificate would be issued specifying the mother’s homeland as the place of birth.
Dee expresses concern about any successful attempt to change the instant citizenship law. She worries about who would be impacted by the change. She cites the irrelevant statistic that 40% of illegals are visa overstays. She asks, “If a woman who is awaiting the outcome of her request for an extension to her visa, when she delivers, does that mean her baby is illegal?’
The answer is basically yes. No matter what the particular circumstances are the children of noncitizens who are not permanent residents would be given a generic birth certificate citing the mother’s homeland as the source of citizenship of the child. Visa overstays by definition are in this country illegally and should be apprehended and sent home immediately at their own expense. They should have thought about applying for an extension long before the visa expired. But it doesn’t really make any difference if the mother is not a citizen or permanent legal resident. Birthright citizenship would simply not apply to the children of anyone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident. That includes illegal aliens, tourists and others who have not achieved permanent resident status. Some proposals allow citizenship for the child if at least one of the parents is a citizen. Others insist that it is the mother who must be a citizen to avoid any incentive for fraudulent marriages. It is likely that the former view would prevail.
Dee's Latest Tirade
Dee has launched another jihad against all Republicans, including five distinguished United States Senators who represent millions of people. By transference she heaps her insults on those millions of citizens who don’t agree with her support of illegal aliens. She calls these senators a hydra-headed monster and photoshops a picture of them with tentacles. I have returned that favor on my blog citing her band of disloyalists.
She says, “This is Personal. This is Ethnic! I am mad!” She got that last phrase right but needs to add “as a hatter!”
Another example of her hysteria is her railing against changing the Constitution even though she knows it has already been changed 27 times. Yet, she says, “What change the Constitution?!?” What is she thinking? Is she thinking at all?
Her favorite phrases are “mass deport” or “mass deportation” knowing full well this will never happen. It implies that people interested in securing our borders are like the Nazis and Communists who rounded up political dissidents in large numbers and shipped them off to concentration camps or the gulag. If she stopped to think about it, she might be interested to know that no one in the mainstream has proposed mass deportation. She knows and they know that we need some amount of foreign workers. It’s just a matter of sorting them out to make sure citizens get first dibs on all jobs.
Regarding the minor children of illegal aliens who abused the 14th Amendment to produce anchor babies, the rational position is that these minor children, regardless of their citizenship, must accompany their parents under a removal order. What right-minded parent would abandon their minor children? This is a far cry from the mass deportation of all instant citizen children she accuses the GOP of advocating. This is just one of many examples of Dee's hyperbole based on whatever lies she can concoct. Although left unsaid, what she really wants is all families that have children who were born in the U.S. to be automatically granted resident status. What a great incentive for more to sneak across the border so they can have an instant citizen baby and thereby become entitled to stay under Dee's rule.
She says, “This is Personal. This is Ethnic! I am mad!” She got that last phrase right but needs to add “as a hatter!”
Another example of her hysteria is her railing against changing the Constitution even though she knows it has already been changed 27 times. Yet, she says, “What change the Constitution?!?” What is she thinking? Is she thinking at all?
Her favorite phrases are “mass deport” or “mass deportation” knowing full well this will never happen. It implies that people interested in securing our borders are like the Nazis and Communists who rounded up political dissidents in large numbers and shipped them off to concentration camps or the gulag. If she stopped to think about it, she might be interested to know that no one in the mainstream has proposed mass deportation. She knows and they know that we need some amount of foreign workers. It’s just a matter of sorting them out to make sure citizens get first dibs on all jobs.
Regarding the minor children of illegal aliens who abused the 14th Amendment to produce anchor babies, the rational position is that these minor children, regardless of their citizenship, must accompany their parents under a removal order. What right-minded parent would abandon their minor children? This is a far cry from the mass deportation of all instant citizen children she accuses the GOP of advocating. This is just one of many examples of Dee's hyperbole based on whatever lies she can concoct. Although left unsaid, what she really wants is all families that have children who were born in the U.S. to be automatically granted resident status. What a great incentive for more to sneak across the border so they can have an instant citizen baby and thereby become entitled to stay under Dee's rule.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Other Hydra - Dee's Band of Disloyalists
Dee accuses a distinguished group of senators and all others who disagree with her of hate and racism. That is the limit of her brain power. She cannot see the broader issues. She tacitly approves of Mexico Norte as a goal. Her ethnocentrism blinds her to the relevant facts. Her intemperate blogs is a gross disservice to the senators and to many loyal Americans who see the end of the country we know and love. What she wants is to "leave the borders open to unlimited illegal entry until, and it won't take long, the social, political, economic life of the United State is reduced to the level of life in Juarez, Guadalajara, Mexico City, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. To a common peneplain of overcrowding squalor, misery,torture, crime and rape." Good luck with that vision of America, Dee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)