Stranger In My Country

How people feel outcasts in their own homeland.

Democrats, and progressives and academics of the left, love to trot out the analogous poem on the statue of liberty. In fact, they like to use the statue as an arbiter of the immigration debacle. Of course that fits with their whole imagery campaign, closely aligned with their propaganda about America. It was just a poem, after all, not a law as they suggest. Law is too much for Leftists to grasp. We know not everyone has innocent or righteous motives. People cannot afford to be that naïve. Believing that all people, even immigrants, should follow the parameters of US law is disconcerting to the Left.

The problem I have with it is the disingenuous lie of it all. “Progressives” stand on that premise that this borderless, open-door policy disguised as a statue in the harbor makes America into some ideal, altruistic society. That actually makes me sick. You know, with the rhetoric that securing the border is unAmerican,

I wonder why it is that we as civil law-abiding people, with generally good aspirations and dreams, are turned into second-class citizens in our own country right before our eyes? It does not seem fair or right. Increasingly, it is clear that their great admiration for those ideals interpreted from the Stature of Liberty do not apply to the citizens who are already here residing all across America. That would be crazy if it were not so.

Think of all the ways conservatives or apolitical people are told that their desires or opinions don’t matter. We are the problem not the solution. Our yearnings are dismissed as irrelevant. But if you are one of the swashbuckling invaders of the US, you are suddenly the intended target of the Statue’s message. You are the new chosen, even though you or I have no choice about it.

That is the idea. Progressives are turning these “immigrants,” or whatever term you want to use, into the privileged class. Then, the only question would be is if it is intentional or not? Naturally, I happen to believe it is.

But if regular American citizens want to internalize those ideals, why do those aspirations stop at waters edge – right at border’s edge? Why do noble attributes about downtrodden and huddled masses only apply to incoming, however they get here?

Maybe someone should inform any real immigrants, perhaps sometime during their naturalization studies, that those perks or aspirations end when you become a US citizen — i.e. an American. So that point at immigrating or transition (illegal status) is as good as it gets. After that you become the problem, the toxic US citizenry. Soon we may no longer be the American dream, we might be dreaming of America.,

Right Ring | Bullright

Denial of sanctuary cities

Tim Kaine told CNN’s Chris Cumo on the morning program that:

“When Donald Trump kind of goes after these phantom sanctuary cities and talks about how bad they are, basically what he’s going after is police chiefs,” Kaine said.

“Instead, what you need to do is work with the community to protect and serve them and let (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) do their job.”

“Phantom sanctuary cities,” really? We know they exist and they are proud.

But we know the problem is police, and local government officials, obstruct ICE from doing their jobs. They don’t notify them in a timely way. They don’t work with ICE. They refuse to cooperate and they are proud of defying the Federal government

So his spin is BS on steroids. The local authorities in sanctuary cities do not inform ICE. They do not message them until after the fact when they release someone. So ICE has to go out spending thousands of man hours trying to hunt them down, if they can even find them. What would you expect from Hillary’s campaign but lies?

Excerpts from CNN:

More than 200 state and local jurisdictions have policies that call for not honoring ICE detention requests, the agency’s director, Sarah Saldana, told Congress last year.

These jurisdictions rejected more than 17,000 ICE requests to gain custody of immigrants in the 19 months ending September, 2015.

The sanctuary movement is said to have grown out of efforts by churches in the 1980s to provide sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing violence at home amid reluctance by the federal government to grant them refugee status.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/politics/sanctuary-cities-donald-trump/index.html

So they blame sanctruary cities on churches, did you catch that? Yep, the churches demanded they ignore and defy the law to aid illegal immigrants’ agenda.And they always listen to churches or clergy. See how this works? They cannot even be honest about their own responsibility and actions.

Now Tim Kaine, a devout Jesuit, comes along and calls them “phantom sanctuary cities”. We all know they exist and, more importantly, so do illegal aliens know it. That’s Hillary Clinton’s official campaign calling them “phantom” sanctuary cities. I guess the pains and trouble they cause are just phantom pains too. She should have to explain and defend that. But I forgot we don’t have a free press anymore.

Trump the Metaphor

Donald Trump has become the metaphorical candidate, at least for the right. I would say ultimate, but that’s another story.

I was thinking of the debate and what would happen. I pictured Trump standing up there center stage, like he always does. looking back and forth nodding or gesturing. Actually, like a big metaphor. Face it, most of the attention has been on him like it or not.

So what I mean is he has become a symbol or a metaphor of a candidate. He has given voice to opinions and concerns of people. He has taken on the persona of an outsider, non-politician, not the faux outsiders who ran before. Obama tried to run as an outsider pretender. Even as an incumbent in his reelection, the campaign strategized it as an insurgency campaign — a huge stretch. But this is about Trump and the right.

Trump is a branding genius too. Where others play politics, his expertise is in branding and he knows how to make that work to his favor. So he’s given voice and a shelf life to these positions that politicos don’t want to hear. Concerns people have about the country.

But taking on those positions is one thing, he hasn’t really backed off or changed his mind in the face of critics. Whether right or wrong, he stays with it.

He also hasn’t taken just the easy popular opinion but the difficult non-politically correct ones. And he has appeared to be a flame thrower. He has media and pundits alike at a loss to how to deal with him. Yet at the same time he does plenty of interviews and answers questions, something even career politicians shy off on at times. (like when they go into lock down mode) We haven’t seen Donald in the lock down mode yet. Even Obama and Hillary have had those in their campaigns.

Now you see what I mean, he has become a metaphor even more than an actual candidate. He is a symbol for conservatives and a fly in the ointment all at the same time. He is not dependent on or looking for money because he is self-funding. That irritates insiders and outsiders alike. It’s the worst thing that could happen from the estabos’ point of view and the best for many conservatives because he gives voice to off-the-table issues. One you cannot ignore. We were always told if you do not like something, wait till the election and we’ll have that conversation. This is the metaphor election for all those “next election” lectures. Trump became a metaphor for what is wrong with our country and system.

Yet all he has to do is stand there, and by doing so he represents all those concerns and issues along with being a representation of many popular sentiments in the nation. Like him or hate him. And Obama is a backdrop reminder of what’s wrong. Trump is a giant symbol, whether you agree with his positions or not. He claimed the turf.

So what has the media done? They have made him the poster child for these so-called radical positions. And then they parlayed that over the entire conservative, right-wing Republican Party.(Bernie Sanders eat your heart out) But that has not hurt Trump, in fact he embraces it. As do his supporters. (as if you can ‘out-brand’ a brand master)

Of course that infuriates the GOP establishment, because they don’t want to be tainted(branded) with all his statements and positions. Tsk, tsk, but that is the establishment Donald s running against and at odds with, the establishment people are so infuriated with. Media sort of does his work for him. You know the drill: one Republican says some inflammatory thing and media goes person by person to ask if you condemn these remarks? If not, then one is condemned for the same statement.It’s the outrage game. He’s branded Republicans against the will of the elites and establishment.

Trump is a metaphor for what is wrong, a metaphor for what people want, a metaphor for how people feel, a metaphor for the voiceless public. He’s a metaphor for our anger about it all. He’s a metaphor for the furor about fixing it. He also branded the establishment.

 

Judge Judy:

“I think that if he wants to be considered as a real candidate, he has to start to temper some of that rhetoric because… while the truthfulness , the candor and the directness of his speeches was appealing for a period of time… in order to be considered, to me — and I’m crazy about Donald – presidential timbre, there has to be a measure in the way you present your argument. They were hungry for plainspeak and Donald is plainspeaking. “

So, give up and tone down on everything that has worked for him, so far.

RightRing | Bullright

When reality catches hell

So we have a man in the Oval Office who believes winning is everything in politics and elections, but sees victory in a war against evil as a meaningless pursuit.

The proverbial question always comes to: is Obama stupid and incompetent, or is he intentionally undermining the country? After much thought I came to the conclusion that yes he’s dumb in many ways, but what he’s doing is very intentional, despite the disastrous results and effects of it all. That could be a good definition of ideologue.

But it is even worse than that. Along with his ideology that permeates everything, which alone would make it hard to defend our country, I believe he is incapable of defending the country. He is not mentally and physically capable, meaning it could come to refusal if someone tried to coerce him into it. So he flat out doesn’t have the will and is incapable, whatever the cost, of doing what is necessary and securing this country. I don’t think we ever saw that with any other President or Commander-in-Chief.

Contrary to Fox’s Bill O’Reilly calling Obama incompetent at every turn, which by now that is almost a laughable insult. The man is incapable of defending this country.

Another thing creeps into the media narrative. The pundits say these policies are political correctness run amok. I almost wish it were that simple. The actions from the justice department — executive amnesty, workplace violence, detainees, enemy swapping, Islam apologetics, anti-police policies, anti-whistle blowers, batched IRS investigations, sanctuary city policy, refugees, lack of accountability, biased civil rights investigations, gun control — are far more sinister than just political correctness run amok. There is a subversive agenda, they only use political correctness as the justification. They’ would like us to think political correctness was the cause of their policies when it is just the means.

Incompetence and political correctness became insults, cheep excuses. I only wish it were.

RightRing | Bullright

The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

Debate with Jeb

We were treated to some answers to questions by whom MSM, Clintonistas and establishment seem to think is our nominee.(we’re only going through the superficial motions) I highlighted two of them, both show his arrogance. Both have that air of inevitability hanging over them.

I guess it would have been appropriate to have some music accompanying his answers and bobble-head gestures.(click for for effects). It must be lost on Jeb that the gangster Godfather comparison does not actually help his dynasty sales pitch.

BAIER: Governor Bush, you have insisted that you’re your own man. You say you have a life experience uniquely your own. Not your father’s, not your brother’s.

But there are several opponents on this stage who get big- applause lines in early voting states with this line: quote, “the last thing the country needs is another Bush in the Oval Office.”

So do you understand the real concern in this country about dynastic politics?

 

BUSH: Absolutely, I do, and I’m gonna run hard, run with heart, and run to win.

I’m gonna have to earn this. Maybe the barrier — the bar’s even higher for me. That’s fine.

I’ve got a record in Florida. I’m proud of my dad, and I’m certainly proud of my brother. In Florida, they called me Jeb, because I earned it.

I cut taxes every year, totaling $19 billion. We were — we had — we balanced every budget. We went from $1 billion of reserves to $9 billion of reserves.

We were one of two states that went to AAA bond rating.

They keep — they called me Veto Corleone. Because I vetoed 2,500 separate line-items in the budget. (APPLAUSE)

(Too bad he can’t veto his dynastic ambitions with such gusto. He understands those concerns? Help me.)

I am my own man. I governed as a conservative, and I govern effectively. And the net effect was, during my eight years, 1.3 million jobs were created. We left the state better off because I applied conservative principles in a purple state the right way, and people rose up.

 

Mod: Governor Bush, you released a new plan this week on illegal immigration focusing on enforcement, which some suggest is your effort to show that you’re not soft on that issue. I want to ask you about a statement that you made last year about illegal immigrants. And here’s what you said. “They broke the law, but it’s not a felony, it’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family.” Do you stand by that statement and do you stand by your support for earned legal status?

BUSH: I do. I believe that the great majority of people coming here illegally have no other option. They want to provide for their family.

(So he stands by his “act of love” statement. They have “no other option” which makes them robots who just have no choice — victims of their circumstance, victims of love… I have to stop before I get sick)

But we need to control our border. It’s not — it’s our responsibility to pick and choose who comes in. So I — I’ve written a book about this and yet this week, I did come up with a comprehensive strategy that — that really mirrored what we said in the book, which is that we need to deal with E-Verify, we need to deal with people that come with a legal visa and overstay. We need to be much more strategic on how we deal with border enforcement, border security. We need to eliminate the sanctuary cities in this country. It is ridiculous and tragic… (APPLAUSE) … that people are dying because of the fact that — that local governments are not following the federal law.

There’s much to do. And I think rather than talking about this as a wedge issue, which Barack Obama has done now for six long years, the next president — and I hope to be that president — will fix this once and for all so that we can turn this into a driver for high sustained economic growth. And there should be a path to earned legal status… (BUZZER NOISE) BUSH: — for those that are here. Not — not amnesty, earned legal status, which means you pay a fine and do many things over an extended period of time.

Okay, Jeb — if that’s what they call you because you “earned it”? — or Veto Corleone —  maybe you should enlighten people on what you mean by “turn this  [illegal immigration] into a driver for high sustained growth.” There must be details we commoners are not aware of that are not visible to this point in our border crisis, amnesty disaster. You’d think all the benefits would have revealed themselves by now. If immigration was such a net gain, then we’d have double digit growth.

“I do” and “I do,”  he must have thought he was taking some wedding vow. We aren’t so impressed. Meanwhile, the Godfather explanation or justification is not working for me. If he thinks calling himself Jeb evades being a Bush, he must be in sad shape. There just is no answer for dynasty except “No!”

Source: debate transcript

Hillary, illegals to Trump to guns roadtour

Here’s Hillary’s comment to Trump

Hillary has just one word for Trump, “Basta…enough!” Coming from Hillary, that’s funny because that is exactly what we have been thinking about the Oval Office Heiress.

When we saw your actions on Benghazi and what you said. Enough comes immediately to mind.

When we saw you used a personal server for State Department business and email, we said enough.

When we saw your staged theatrics as Sec of State with Russia over a “reset button,” we said enough.

When we hear you talk about moving the country forward, we say “enough”

When we hear you say you followed all the rules and law at State, we say enough.

When we hear you testify to congress on Benghazi lecturing us: “what difference at this point does it make” we said that’s definitely enough.

When we look at your perpetual trickle-down scandals, we said that’s quite enough.

When most people in the country don’t trust you, we say enough. “Basta…”

(another clip and @ 23 minutes)

“Failed, top-down policies that wrecked our country before,” Hillary told Arkansans.

“You know, Democrats are in the future business, but from the Republican candidates for president we see the opposite. They may have some fresh faces but they are the Party of the past”.

“We Democrats look at America and see limitless potential. We believe in a basic bargain, if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead and stay ahead. And we believe that the measure of our success should be how much incomes rise for hard working families, not just for CEO’s and money managers.”

Whoo-hoo! “Basta,” for sure. She doesn’t want to go to the past, well neither do we want to go back to the old Clinton years, especially after seeing BO revision 2.0

[At 23 minutes]”Yes, Donald Trump”… “but there is nothing funny about the hate he is spewing at immigrants and their families, and now the insults he’s directed at a genuine war hero, Senator John McCain.”

I seem to remember the queen of attacks going to Senate hearings claiming General Petraeus’s’ — whom Hill’s village comrades called “General Betrayus” — testimony “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

“Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief.”… “I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive …a view of a rather grim reality,” Sen Clinton told Gen. Petraeus in ’07 (5 yr before conducting her own Libyan adventure.)

She never condemned the viscous “General Betrayus” campaign or those mocking a hero. She’s shown contempt for our military, its leaders and efforts. But now she is concerned about comments toward John McCain, and criticism of his Senate record? What a condescending hypocrite. Talk about trying to “present a positive view on grim reality!”

The Basta Grandma in another speech blamed Trump’s remarks for the Charleston Shootings. Then railed about her other favorite theme, guns — or the real problem.

“We have to have a candid national conversation about race, and about discrimination, prejudice, hatred. The people who do this kind of dastardly, horrible act are a very small percentage. But unfortunately public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger people who are less than stable to do something like this.”

Clinton continued, “People need to stand up against it. We should not accept it. I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable. You know you don’t talk like that on talk radio. You don’t talk like that on the kind of political campaigns. I think he is emblematic. So I want people to understand, it’s not just him, it’s about everybody. The second thing is guns. Let’s just cut to the chase – it’s guns.”

“You gotta build it from the bottom up and top down” she claimed. “So maybe on a local and State level we have to keep building towards a more sensible, balanced kind of policy.”

Hillary can’t even pay lip service to the policies enabling a felon deported 5 times and released to murder Kate Steinle. Policies she’d be familiar with as Secretary of State.

Isn’t it disturbing how she talks about guns as another program to hoist on us? Even with her current record of non-stop scandal, she bluntly talks about what she’ll do to the people

Sanctuaries for illegals, bullets and crime for citizens.

Sanctuary cities — my new term is Sanc-cities.

Byron York has an article in the Washington Examiner reporting what Obama, Clinton and Biden said in debating it in 2008.
Clinton said:

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

Read more here

Its the one thing they all had in common, each blame federal government for being derelict in its duties. According to them, this is the reason we have sanctuary cities to begin with.

Now that they are the ones running federal government, the problem is immigration is so broken. But they won’t say what exactly is wrong with the laws, or why they are broken, they just propose “immigration reform”. Why would anyone not be suspicious about what they are doing? They even claim that the sanctuary policies make the cities safer. Creating a huge magnet to attract illegals, and release them to recommit crimes makes cities safer?

Notice how progressives blame federal government, like ICE, but yet they don’t want ICE to be able to do their job. No they don’t want any cooperation between local communities and ICE. Actually, the dems would have all sanctuary cities, towns, communities. But they would still blame the federal government for being derelict in their duties — to enforce the law. It’s equivalent to a dog or cat chasing its tail endlessly. How can they get away with this since the Dems are in control of both the sanctuary cities and the federal government? (via executive branch)

The Constitution never gave cities or towns the ability to write immigration laws…or ignore them completely. They have policies like don’t ask don’t tell on immigration. They don’t want authorities to ask immigration status nor illegals to say they are undocumented.

We have a full-court blame fest going on. Sanc-cities blame feds, feds blame the cities, Obama says we need more funding for the laws they aren’t enforcing. All say that the system is completely broken that we need reform to fix the problems.

In other words, we cannot fix any problems without creating another bureaucratic expansion of federal government– and funding it the same. So they want more laws for Sanc-cites to refuse to enforce. Or until they get ones they like. Border agents blame administration for threatening them not to enforce the law.

All these oath takers cannot keep their oath of office. You might as well call it civil disobedience. But if they were really in civil disobedience, you would think they would just quit the job in protest then if they cannot do it. Instead, they defy their oath of office by not following the law despite what the consequences of that brings.

RightRing | Bullright

Introducing the Graham campaign

It seems Graham has got himself a presidential campaign off the ground. No, not Billy or Franklin. Lindsey, ever heard of him? Not Lindsay Lohan. Sure we have, but for being the notorious sidekick to John Juan McCain. A micro-blip on a radar screen.

So he wastes no time going to the same rhetoric famous by another candidate. He’s been running now for a couple weeks and, almost in search of coverage, makes odd statements. Speaking to Chuck Todd, Graham says. See full video interview here.

At 8 minutes in, he goes deftly hypothetical, as if planned, supposing to write the Constitution today. He just happens to have it all thought out, and Todd has to ply Lindsey very little to develop his SNL caliber sketch. (who cares about Hannity & Maddow?)

Todd asks “why is the country [so] polarized?” (will they ask Hillary that question?)

Graham says, “money, and….okay write the Constitution today. I think it’d be a great SNL sketch. You got Philadelphia Hall, you got satellite trucks parked outside. You know Ben Franklin comes outside… (cluckling) I got Rachael Maddow and Sean Hannity jump all over… “don’t give in, Ben.” Just think how hard it is in today’s 24/7 news cycle, talk radio, cable television, and money. There is a group telling you to say no to about everything …and to get into politics, look how many pledges people ask you to sign…

Todd: will you sign any?
Graham: nope, nah.
Todd: you’ve signed pledges before…
Graham: I have

Todd: do you regret it?
Graham: Not so much I regret it that I just don’t want to do it this time. You know if you’re not financially independent, you have to get somebody to help you financially. I think a combination of constant media, 24 hours news cycle with money has made it pretty hard to find common ground.

Todd: so that means were doomed?
Graham: No, I think…its a good question…are we? I don’t know.
Todd: I don’t know if media is going to reform. I always say its a two-way street. Politicians play to the media polarization.

Graham: You’re trying to beat each other and you report things maybe too quickly. Let’s look at it this way, I think there is a market for a better way. When I talk to that young guy there, I said “You’re going to have to work a little longer pal. If I’m president, I’m going to ask you to work a little longer. What do people do between 65 and 67? They work two years longer….

I’m making a bet here that you can talk about problem solving in the Republican primary and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that you can openly embrace working with Democrats and still get the nomination. I’m making a bet that in a war weary republic you can rally them to keep the fight over there before it comes here. Now, if I lose those bets it doesn’t mean America’s lost, it means that I just fell short. To a young person in politics, listen to what I am doing here, see if it makes sense to you. There is a growing desire by the public at large to stop the BS. I feel it, I sense it and I’m running on the idea if you elect me I’ll do whatever is necessary to defend the nation. I’m running not as a candidate for a single party but for a great nation.

Todd: are you thinking about going third party?
Graham: no, not at all …See at the end of the day, you’re not going to get big thigs done with moderates. There is no hall of fame for moderates. Moderates are nice people but it takes real ideologically purer people, in many ways, to solve hard problems. Did anybody doubt Tip O’Neil’s credentials as a liberal? Did anybody doubt Ronald Reagan’s credentials as a conservative?

Cut/ enough

Bet much? Besides the moderate boilerplate “let’s work together” talk, there was an admission that you cannot get great big things from moderates. You don’t say. So why demonize and attack the same people for holding fast to their principles? I get it, it’s okay when he’s standing up against the Party base. But when they don’t cooperate with him, there’s a problem.

Todd: in 2000 he (John McCain) ran against the Party a little bit harder. [really?]
Graham: Yea but I think, you know, looking back that was sort of an immature campaign. We kind of got off in the ditch a little bit. You know if you want to be the nominee of a party, there’s only so much you can do to run your party down. I love the Republican Party. I believe the conservatism…

Todd: Some conservatives are going to hear what you’re saying and say YOU are trying to run down the Party right now.
Graham: I’m not. I’m actually trying to build it up. Here’s my bet: that Hispanics, if they get over the idea that we don’t like them because we suggest that we don’t, if we could actually get immigration behind us, the Hispanic community is much more aligned with our way of doing business than our Democratic colleagues. I firmly believe that.

Todd: you believe that Hispanics are justified in thinking that the Republican Party doesn’t care about them right now?
Graham: Yes, to some extent I do because just look at the rhetoric. Don’t judge us all by what a few people say. But you have to look at the results…/end

Video

Keep developing those thoughts strategies, Lindsey. You already gave MSM ammo for weeks. None of this is nuclear science but it does show the alignment to McCain, who also is always sucking wind for face time on air. Graham knows you can only beat that party horse so far, you can’t run it into the ground. Are you hiring the same geniuses?

Let’s go back in the time warp machine.

You only have to go back to 2000 in his presidential bid for president when McCain dropped this load of manure on the Republican base calling conservatives agents of intolerance. Now his dear friend Lind-see seems to have the same campaign formula. He makes it sound like he is talking about both sides fairly, but it is directed squarely at conservatives, the intolerant ones. After all, being intolerant on the left is a compliment to them. So the comparison doesn’t work.

February 2000, McCain took to the road and the air under the guise of bashing certain politics.

I recognize and celebrate that our country is founded upon Judeo- Christian values, and I have pledged my life to defend America and all her values, the values that have made us the noblest experiment in history. But public — but political intolerance by any political party is neither a Judeo-Christian nor an American value. The political tactics of division and slander are not our values, they are… corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. [CNN transcript]

While he sounded to be swinging at both sides, the main target of opportunity was the conservative right, particularly evangelicals. Everyone knew it then, and now everyone will again with sidekick Graham on the bandstand. They don’t care that in the process they are offending their base, they think that is smart politics. They don’t care about marginalizing voters and any influence that does not align with them.

Though it is very amusing how Lindsey Graham refers to McCain’s campaign as immature and “in the ditch”, doing almost exactly what John was doing. So Lindsey is going to start in the gutter and work out from there. Enter mainstream media.

So now we have to live through a replay of that intolerant, divide and conquer, playing the media fiddle type of campaigning. Right on cue, it’s media chow time which is the point. It’s McCain 2000 3.0. Graham must think we are really dumb to expect us to play along.

Holy Graham crackers, Batman!

RightRing | Bullright

How many ways can you spell Soros?

White House Teams Up With Soros for Disturbing 2016 Plan

Ben Marquis April 24, 2015 | Western Journalism

Last year, as part of his Imperial decree of amnesty for illegal immigrants, President Barack Obama created the White House Task Force on New Americans, whose goal is to vastly increase the numbers and rates at which immigrants were naturalized and granted citizenship.

This Task Force works hand-in-hand with the George Soros-funded, open borders-promoting Migration Policy Institute, as well as the openly racist group La Raza, a Mexican nationalist organization that has called for the mass murder of white Americans and a return of the western states to Mexico.

The Task Force is headed up by one Cecilia Munoz, Obama’s Domestic Policy Advisor, who also used to serve as Vice President of La Raza (which translates to “The Race” in English)–a group that receives millions in taxpayer funding, by the way.

Although the Obama administration has claimed that they don’t have enough money to deport illegal immigrants, they apparently found enough money to fund a marketing campaign targeting specific cities in specific “swing states,” aimed at encouraging swift naturalization and citizenship for immigrants.

One can’t help but notice the timing of this plan of action by the Task Force, right ahead of the 2016 election, as they push to create as many new voters as possible–the majority of whom will undoubtedly be swayed to vote for whoever the Democrat nominee is.

According to The Daily Caller, this is actually nothing new, but rather is remarkably similar to a project launched in 1995 during the Clinton administration called Citizenship USA–which was run by then-White House Director of Special Projects Rahm Emanuel.

The CUSA’s main goal, in Emanuel’s own words, was to “produce 1-million new citizens before Election Day,” by relaxing the rules, regulations, and fees surrounding the naturalization and citizenship process.

Although there was an incredibly damning Inspectors General report after the fact, nothing much was ever done about it; and evidence of voter fraud in the 1996 and 2000 elections was covered up and ignored.

Essentially, the same thing is happening yet again, as the Obama team is seeking to flood the country with new Democrat voters, diluting the voter pool and more or less disenfranchising conservative voters by cancelling their votes with those of illegally naturalized immigrants.

The goal of progressives is to create as many new voters for their party as possible–new voters dependent upon the government who will vote for the Democrat Party which helped them stay in the country and draw benefits when they should have been deported.

These people are criminals and are actively working to weaken and destroy the country, in any possible way that they can.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/alert-white-house-teams-up-with-soros-for-disturbing-2016-plan-spread-this-everywhere/

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you aren’t surprised at all that the Obama administration is trying to create new voters out of illegal immigrants to bolster the Democrat Party with more dependents.

This article first appeared at Conservative Tribune. Like their Facebook page.

See ya in the funnies, Marco

Brietbart:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said he believes that President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty for so-called DREAMers—the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—is “important” and he won’t reverse it himself if elected president. He delivered these remarks in a Spanish-language interview he gave to Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

MORE: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/17/marco-rubio-in-spanish-obamas-first-executive-amnesty-important-people-benefitting-from-it/

Nice speech though Marco, really good. I particularly liked that “yesterday” line. Who knew your candidacy had such a short shelf life?

Usurping along the expressway

And it looks like there is a little rubbernecking going on now.

“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
–John Adams

John Adams said we are to be “A government of laws, and not of men.”

Is Jeh Johnson more of a Che Guevara?

Congress Calls Out Homeland Security for Punishing ICE Workers Who Enforce the Law as Multiple Lawsuits Pileup

Tim Brown — April 6, 2015 | Freedom Outpost

As multiple lawsuits are pending by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents against the Obama administration, Congress has decided to investigate Homeland Security for potential retaliation against immigration agents who enforce the law.

The Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest drafted a letter last week in which they questioned Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson with regard to retaliation against DHS personnel, who are attempting to uphold their oath by enforcing the nation’s immigration laws against the wishes of the usurper-in-chief.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/04/congress-calls-out-homeland-security-for-punishing-ice-workers-who-enforce-the-law-as-multiple-lawsuits-pileup/#vfCJ2cb7EP2JtbxZ.99

More from Adams:

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”

“When annual elections end, there slavery begins.”

So we were warned.

Obama’ amnesty freebies

NY Times — Assoc. Press | FEB. 14, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) – Millions of immigrants benefiting from President Barack Obama’s executive actions could get a windfall from the IRS, a reversal of fortune after years of paying taxes to help fund government programs they were banned from receiving.

Armed with new Social Security numbers, many of these immigrants who were living in the U.S. illegally will now be able to claim up to four years’ worth of tax credits designed to benefit the working poor. For big families, that’s a maximum of nearly $24,000, as long as they can document their earnings during those years. … More>

Moving right along:

Determining Alien Tax Status — (per IRS guidelines)

If you are an alien (not a U.S. citizen), you are considered a nonresident alien unless you meet one of two tests. You are a resident alien of the United States for tax purposes if you meet either the green card test or the substantial presence test for the calendar year (January 1-December 31).

Certain rules exist for determining the Residency Starting and Ending Dates for aliens.

In some cases aliens are allowed to make elections which override the green card test and the substantial presence test, as follows:

Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident
Closer Connection To a Foreign Country
Effect of Tax Treaties

You can be both a nonresident alien and a resident alien during the same tax year. This usually occurs in the year you arrive or depart from the United States. If so, you may elect to be treated as a Dual Status Alien for this taxable year and a Resident Alien for the next taxable year if you meet certain tests. (Refer to section “Dual-Status Aliens” – “First Year Choice” in Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.)

A resident alien who is required to establish his/her U.S. residency for the purpose of claiming a tax treaty benefit with a foreign country should refer to Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes.

Substantial Presence Test

You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least:

31 days during the current year, and

183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting:

• All the days you were present in the current year, and
• 1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and
• 1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year.

Not only can they claim tax benefits for being here, but if they owe tax in certain countries, they can seek an exemption by getting a certification from IRS.

Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes

U.S. citizens and U.S. residents sometimes need certification of U.S. residency to claim a tax treaty benefit or a reduction of VAT tax with a foreign country. Such persons should file Form 8802 with the IRS to obtain such certification of residency.

The IRS provides this residency certification on Form 6166, a letter of U.S. residency certification. Form 6166 is a computer-generated letter printed on stationary bearing the U.S. Department of Treasury letterhead.

So the agency designated as enforcement arm for Obamacare is the same one enforcing Obama’s amnesty program. Note also that alien is a correct term for a non-citizen.

Obama does Ferguson

Something new to be sick of from the cesspool of the Oval Office Occupant.

Now he is going to micromange police departments because they are doing a horrible job. He cannot mange what is in his own cabinet and responsibilities, but he is going to organize and dictate to local police departments? His hypocrisy really knows no boundaries. Except that is not what people elected him for.

Obama Tries To Focus Public On Racist Cops

11:09 PM 11/30/2014 | Daily Caller

Obama outlined his new focus on racist cops Nov. 25.

“In many communities of color [people] have a sense that our laws are not always being enforced uniformly or fairly,” Obama told supporters in Chicago.

“That may not be true everywhere, and it’s certainly not true for the vast majority of law enforcement officials, but that’s an impression that folks have and it’s not just made up,” said the nation’s chief law enforcement official.

“It’s rooted in realities that have existed in this country for a long time,” said Obama, who began his political career as a “community organizer” in Chicago.

In his speech, Obama said he’s asking Holder to manage the new focus.

“I’ve instructed Attorney General Eric Holder not just to investigate what happened in Ferguson, but also identify specific steps we can take together to set up a series of regional meetings focused on building trust in our communities,” he said.

Obama also sketched out possible White House regulations, including a possible new effort to ensure that only a small proportion of white police officials are hired in African-American districts.

“We know that when we have a police force that is representative of the communities it’s serving that makes a difference,” the president stated.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/30/obama-tries-to-focus-public-on-racist-cops/

He’s already told us that he stays out of individual cases. Now he is meddling in states and local law enforcement. So the police acted stupidly in Cambridge, and I guess there is a whole lot of stupid going on across the country. Nothing that playing politics and injecting his demented ideology can’t fix.

Forget everything else he should be doing. Obama is back on the campaign trail to try to cover for his last unilateral action for Hispanics, which was a cover and diversion for their midterm defeat. I notice he didn’t start with the violence and murders in Chicago.

When is the last time anyone saw him do his job? Why don’t he and Holder sign on with MSNBC for a new show and leave the rest of us alone? They can name it “The Sideshow”.

RightRing | Bullright

Immigration canard

Obama quoted from Exodus in his illegal “immigrations” speech. Who knows why he did. Maybe he thought it would convince some people that he was doing the right thing.

What he quoted was Ex 22:21

21 “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
NKJV

But he should have went on to quote: Ex 23:1-3

“You shall not circulate a false report. Do not put your hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness. 2 You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.”
NKJV

Is there any part of the 2nd quote that he did NOT do?

What gets me is he operated outside the law in two ways, at least. (maybe more) He actually wrote law as he is not allowed to do. And he overstepped his authority into an area, immigration, he is not supposed to go. So there are two offenses.

As reported prior to his speech in WH leaked reports:

It expands the deportation reprieve given to some illegal aliens in 2012 to include millions more.

The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay, according to estimates.

Another portion that is sure to cause consternation among anti-“amnesty” lawmakers is a plan to expand deferred action for young people. In June 2012, Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, entered before June 2007 and were under 31 as of June 2012. The change would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.

Let me remind him of a couple things. First was the unpopularity of what he did. Had he read the tea leaves, last year, he would have known it when they were slamming a so-called bipartisan “immigration” bill through the Senate. They did it and people were not happy about it, which is also why it went nowhere in the House. But determined they were and flaunted it as an achievement. At what expense?

Months went by with the same negativity growing toward the Senate, Obama and Democrats. Then, as soon as they got past the 2014 elections, here they are and Obama just has to take unconstitutional, unilateral action on illegal immigration. Working papers, SS numbers, amnesty etc. If it was as popular as they claim, why did he not do it months ago when they schemed it? Dems could have ran their campaigns on it and ran it by the people at the ballot box. No.

Heritage had a paper on so-called immigration reform. They list 10 things any proposal should deal with.

 

“Therefore, any President who truly wants to fix the U.S. immigration and border security problems must first fulfill his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”[1] Fulfilling this responsibility requires 10 areas of action, and without a commitment to every area, U.S. immigration law is not being faithfully executed. These 10 policies are:

1. Overriding and removing existing executive orders, agency memorandums, or other executive policy directives that ignore or contradict existing law;
2. Allowing immigration agencies to enforce and apply the law without workplace interference, political pressure, or procedural obstacles;
3. Providing the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency with a fully operational system of sensor and camera technologies and infrastructure on the southwest border to multiply the efficacy of their efforts;
4. Using the appropriate judicial and administrative tools efficiently to remove and return unlawful immigrants to their home countries;
5. Increasing enforcement against businesses that knowingly employ unlawful labor;
6. Engaging with international partners and remaining committed to citizen security and democratic governance in the Western Hemisphere;
7. Making U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), more efficient and effective;
8. Reporting accurate immigration data to Congress and the American people in a truthful, consistent, and complete manner;
9. Soliciting the assistance and support of the states in enforcing immigration laws and limiting the effectiveness of those governments that attempt to frustrate enforcement with sanctuary policies; and
10. Verifying the success of these actions through honest and accurate Census survey data of the unlawful immigrant population.

See paper at: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/11/ten-step-checklist-for-revitalizing-americas-immigration-system-how-the-administration-can-fulfill-its-responsibilities

It is doubtful that a president choosing to act in an unconstitutional manner would care much about the ethics or appearance of what he is doing. So he made no attempt to create even an illusion of legitimacy. He just wrote law and overstepped his authority boundaries. He has no respect for the law he is attempting to rewrite.

RightRing | Bullright

Buzzwords, adjectives and word salad

One thing notable about the left is their language. They never actually speak directly about something, they call it names.Without saying what their plan is, they declare it “reasonable”. They describe something like playing charades. They want to associate good feelings with whatever their position is. So they use adjectives and describe it in attractive terms. That is usually a dead give away a Democrat is speaking.

And it seems to me the harder they pursue that approach the more Marxist or socialist they are. Their language is also loaded with code words. One cannot miss them, which is the point, they are meant to be obvious.

This is a common tactic on amnesty and illegal immigration, or other issue. You never get the specifics. So you get Nancy telling us we have to pass a bill before you can find out what is in it. Even they will acknowledge they don’t know what is in it before hand. However, they do know all the key terms to describe it. And everyone knows them.

It’s like they are doing an ad for a new Iphone. They cannot tell you exactly what something is but they can tell you how to feel about it. As if as long as you feel the right way about it, the contents don’t matter.

Of course that is just one reason they play that word salad game. There are others like when they attack conservatives or “right-wingers” they want to paint them as bad as they can. So out come the adjectives — from nasty, to bigoted, to hate-filled, to racist.

A friend of mine had several exchanges in the letters to the editor of a newspaper. A Liberal Democrat, who inhabits the pages like his private villa, uses all the typical tactics of the left. The talking points and code words flow like a cheap novel. Almost as if he can’t help himself, he characterizes anyone who disagrees in typical Left-wing vernacular. It definitely is a word salad, you can spot it immediately.

“Welcome to Jonestown — Peoples Temple Agricultural Project ” The Jonestown Institute, http://jonestown.sdsu.edu.

Picture Jonestown and Jim Jones using the term kool-aid for the poison. No wonder the term stuck. A sampling of left-wing dialect might include, but is not limited to, any of the following or combinations.

Fair-minded
Sensible
Level playing field
Reasonable
Fair-share (any hyphenated “fair” word)
Doubling-down
War on women
Fact (used vaguely or as a pejorative)
Sustainable

There’s a larger list of attack words for their opponents. Not to mention their cliches.

Now, on the same language topic, let’s try a little hypothetical. Suppose Congress got Lois Lerner, or other operative, to testify on any scandal. It might look something like this.

Ask any question and they say they don’t know. Let’s begin:
(Q= questioner / A= testifier)

Q: what did you know about …….

A: “I don’t know”

Q: Why don’t you know”

A: I don’t know”

Q: You have to know why you don’t know because…

A: I told you I don’t know.

Q: Look, the rules and law say that in your position you have to know these things, but you say you don’t know?

A: I must not have to know because I don’t.

Q: It’s not possible that you don’t know anything.

A: You are trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Q: I would not do that

A: You just did

Q: All I want to know is what you know about ___.

A: If you want to know what I know, then why do you keep asking me what I don’t know?

Q: But I’m not asking you what you don’t know I’m asking what you do know?

A: I don’t know anything…. and I know what I don’t know.

Q: If you know what you don’t know then you obviously know everything.

A: (blank stare)

Q: You don’t know much do you?

A: Well, I’m sure I don’t know

Q: That just proves it, you do know.

A: I don’t know everything but I know what I don’t know!

Q: See, you do know, and think you know everything. — I yield back…

A: …Do not !!!!!!!!! Stop trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Chair: Shut up ….or you’ll be in contempt !
Now that concludes our job interview, you passed the test.

A: I’d like to exercise my 5th amendment privileges now.

RightRing | Bullright

Churches take their protest message to DC

Church members and clergy made good on their pledge this week by holding civil disobedience protests in DC and at the WH. At least a hundred pro-illegal protestors were arrested on Thursday and Friday.

Over 100 Faith Leaders, Immigrant Activists Arrested At White House For Protesting Deportations

The Huffington Post | By Antonia Blumberg

More than 100 faith leaders and immigration activists participated in a demonstration and were arrested at the White House on Thursday to protest the daily deportations of undocumented immigrations.

The demonstration opened with a prayer service and press conference at 12pm in Lafayette Park followed by a protest along the White House fence to call attention to what a Church World Service (CWS) statement referred to as President Obama’s “inhumane immigration enforcement policies.” After refusing to leave White House sidewalk, the activists were arrested and charged with blocking passage, according to CWS’s statement.

Citing frequently referenced estimates, CWS’s statement said that the U.S. deports 1,100 undocumented immigrants every day when the government should focus on expanding resources for immigrant families — and especially for the tens of thousands of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border every year.

Rabbi Kimelman-Block, who was arrested for civil disobedience at an October rally for immigration reform, led the prayer and invoked the Jewish community’s immigrant past to enforce his message:

We were once demonized. We were called “undesirable.” Laws were passed to keep us and people like us out. Immigration is a fight that our ancestors fought. It is a fight our grandparents and our parents fought. And it is our fight today.

Prominent faith leaders Bishop Minerva Carcaño of the United Methodist Church, Rev. John L. McCullough, CEO and President of Church World Service, Sister Eileen Campbell, Vice President of Sisters of Mercy, Rev. Linda Jaramillo of the United Church of Christ and Rev. Kathleen McTigue, Director of the Unitarian Universalist College of Social Justice, led the action and risked arrest for their civil disobedience.

“We have come to Washington, DC to tell to President Obama and Congress that kicking out suffering immigrant families and unaccompanied children is not the answer. Immediately stopping the deportations and extending due process to children escaping the violence of drug cartels, gangs and poverty is the just way to respond,” Bishop Carcaño said.

More HuffPo

So churches head to Washington to protest the deportation of illegals.

Unclear though is their purpose. Normally a protest is against what is being done. In this case what Obama is doing, has done, or about to do caused this massive inflow of illegals. And his executive order on Dream was key in instigating the crisis.

Now they protest in favor of halting deportations, which Obama is de facto doing. So what are they asking? Simply for Obama to do more executive action, and respond to his self-made crisis by doing even more.

RightRing | Bullright

Clergy and NYT right on cue

U.S. Religious Leaders Embrace Cause of Immigrant Children

By MICHAEL PAULSONJULY 23, 2014 | NYT

After protesters shouting “Go home” turned back busloads of immigrant mothers and children in Murrieta, Calif., a furious Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York, sat down at his notepad and drafted a blog post detailing his shame at the episode, writing, “It was un-American; it was unbiblical; it was inhumane.”

When the governor of Iowa, Terry E. Branstad, said he did not want the migrants in his state, declaring, “We can’t accept every child in the world who has problems,” clergy members in Des Moines held a prayer vigil at a United Methodist Church to demonstrate their desire to make room for the refugees.

The United States’ response to the arrival of tens of thousands of migrant children, many of them fleeing violence and exploitation in Central America, has been symbolized by an angry pushback from citizens and local officials who have channeled their outrage over illegal immigration into opposition to proposed shelter sites. But around the nation, an array of religious leaders are trying to mobilize support for the children, saying the nation can and should welcome them. …Plenty More…

 

As I have been talking about, and with an upcoming civil disobedience rally coming up to top it off. I would have one question for them. If this is their position then will they accept the responsibility for more coming? Wait, I know the answer. But I meant are they going to accept blame for more of them coming because of their actions?

So Obama that would not even visit the border that he is responsible for is now down in favorability partly from this, partly just because of his many scandals. They need to raise support for Obama and his policies which caused the mess. Send out the support wagons and have press push it. He wouldn’t say or do anything to halt the problem, yet expects people go out to push public opinion.

Oh, do you see him or this administration even talking about Christians being persecuted on a massive scale around the world? They can’t advocate on that. Quite the opposite, the silence speaks volumes. Obama won’t even intervene for a US soldier in a Mexican prison. What about all the rest of us who have to endure all the affects of Obama’s border crisis?

So they are getting their “anger” up. The anger should be at Obama for causing this.

Churches: coming attractions

I’ve already mentioned the churches’ activism on other current matters. So what’s next on the social-activism calendar for the churches?

The word call is out in churches for a rally the last day of July to the first day of August, July 31st- August 1st. It’s labeled a civil disobedience rally at the White House, in cooperation with churches, Christian groups, and others. “Civil disobedience” rally — cue the civil rights theme and sloganeering.

Some may question my reason for mentioning it? Well, because it deserves to be, ahead of time. This is not backroom stuff, it is in the public and they are proud of it. If it is one thing they take pride in it is their social “activism”.

What is their purpose? Simply, take a message to Washington, namely to the White House — i.e. President Obama. The message: stop deportation of illegals. The usual participants are involved, asking people to “Join Picketing In D.C. On Immigration“.

Using Congress as the excuse:

“…the lack of action by Congress, President Obama can and should grant administrative relief from deportation and expand deferred action for additional undocumented persons.”

Now there can be no doubt that this one is by members and activists – clergy et al. It’s focused right at the White House, specifically Executive action. It doesn’t seem to matter that lack of action on the border is what has caused this. Now this is the action they are calling for. So there you have it, another issue to organize their activism around.

RightRing | Bullright

Murrieta the example

 

A NY Times article made sure to describe Murrieta as “middle-class conservative”.

“Nowhere have the Central American immigrants been met with such tremendous anger as they have here, in this middle-class conservative community about 90 miles southeast of Los Angeles.”

What difference does it make what type of city or town it is? But it says nothing about what type people the illegals are. Who knows? Isn’t it funny how that works? Suddenly the citizens of the community are scrutinized under a microscope instead of the problem.

And racism? It wouldn’t matter who or what nationality they were. But the fact is they are who they are. They could be Canadians, Costa Ricans, Argentineans or Brazilians.(by nationality not race) The same questions and problems would result. But they aren’t.

Murrieta already has a 25% Latino population. So don’t claim the racist crap. If they bussed in white transients from LA, and dumped them off, it would be the same problem and a similar reaction. Then to have the resources of the community left to deal with it is just crazy.

“We didn’t ask for this problem — it was just dumped at our doorstep,” said Mayor Alan Long, who has lived here most of his life and told residents he planned to send a “fat bill” to President Obama. “This is a nationwide problem, and little Murrieta has taken the lead.”

Why is it when they come here, or Mexicans already here, always refer to “our people”? Yet when anyone generalizes who they are, they complain about stereotyping their people. I see TV commercials by Latino organizations talking about expressing the voice and speaking up for “our people”. Really, what about speaking up for Americans? That seems to be frowned on.

A local resident objected saying:

“We came here because they are attacking our people, people just like us,” said Ana Larios, 42, a Mexican immigrant who moved to Murrieta with her children from Los Angeles nearly a decade ago. “I never knew people felt this way until now. It’s shocking and embarrassing.”

Funny, if she didn’t notice anything, it makes the case for the community. Ten years and she didn’t feel it because it isn’t there. Now she wants to imply some sort of racism after admitting that there is none.

I saw a sign somewhere: ‘justice not deportation’. Since when is deportation injustice?

Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/influx-of-central-american-migrants-roils-murrieta-calif.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

RightRing | Bullright