January 18, 2016 The Early AAs Were All Men Luke Ford No sacred cows.

The Early AAs Were All Men

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Dr. Bob’s son “Smitty” says: “The early alcoholics were all low-bottom, they were all men… There was one lady who came along fairly early in the program named Elsie, but they caught Elsie doing a little 13-step work on Dr. Bob’s examining table with one of the early AAs named Mitch. The wives and sweethearts went up in smoke and so the group decided they would contain their efforts to men.”

Posted in Addiction | Comments Off

The Gospel According to Trump

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

The Donald is simply keeping it real. If you are a Seventh-Day Adventist, all other religions seem weird if not evil. If you are Jewish, other religions seem false. If you are Christian, other religions seem false. If you are Catholic, Protestants seem like heretics.

The stronger your in-group identity, the more likely you are to find outsiders strange and threatening.

The United States was created by WASPs and their ethic ruled the country until the 1950s.

From the New York Times:

By MCKAY COPPINS
To him, if you’re not a mainline Protestant, you’re exotic, even sinister.
IT is no secret that Donald J. Trump’s ruinous rise in the Republican presidential primaries has been powered, in large part, by a naked agenda of religious division and fear-mongering — an agenda that will likely inform his speech today at Liberty University, a conservative Christian college in Lynchburg, Va.
But while his anti-Muslim provocations have rightly drawn the largest share of public outrage, Mr. Trump has in fact been using his bully pulpit throughout this election season to attack religious minorities of all stripes. He deploys this tactic on the campaign trail whenever it suits his political purposes, and his religious digs and dog whistles are often so cartoonishly retro that they sound as if they’re being delivered by a billionaire Archie Bunker.
In the Gospel According to Trump, there is only one blessedly normal, all-American faith: mainline Protestant Christianity. The Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Baptists — those believers who once made up this country’s midcentury religious mainstream — are Mr. Trump’s “chosen ones.” He regards their customs and values as essentially as American as apple pie, while all other faith communities, even other forms of Christianity, seem to rest somewhere on a spectrum from exotic to sinister.
Take Mr. Trump’s bizarre speech last month to the Republican Jewish Coalition, where he kept inexplicably returning to the same well-worn tropes that anti-Semites have been using for a century. “I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” he proclaimed to the crowd. Later, he sought to signal defiant distance from the Republican establishment by informing them: “You’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money.”
While speaking to a crowd of Florida supporters in October, Mr. Trump publicly hinted that there might be something nefarious about Ben Carson’s Seventh-day Adventist faith. “I’m Presbyterian,” Mr. Trump said. “Boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.”
More recently, he tried to blunt Ted Cruz’s surge in the Iowa polls by using the senator’s Cuban heritage to exoticize his Christian faith. “I do like Ted Cruz,” Mr. Trump said at a rally in Des Moines, “but not a lot of evangelicals come out of Cuba.”
There is an absurdity in seeing Donald Trump trying to play the role of 2016 religion referee. This is a man whose sincerest praise for the Bible is to deem it even better than his best-selling book “The Art of the Deal,” a man whose most famous religious experience is having reportedly struck up a romance with his second wife among the pews of a Manhattan church (while he was still married to Ivana).
But Mr. Trump’s religious posturing is not about theology, it’s about branding — and if his religious worldview seems impossibly dated, that’s by design. His entire message, right down to his “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan, is rooted in a gnawing nostalgia and economic anxiety that grips much of the country’s white working class. Mr. Trump’s target demographic is not America’s most devout, but its most anxious and aggrieved, and what he’s selling isn’t salvation, but a bygone era of plentiful factory jobs, robust pension funds and safe, monochromatic suburbs dotted with little white churches that everyone in town attended on Sundays.
By focusing his rhetorical firepower largely on minority faiths that have grown in size and influence in the United States over the past 60 years — displacing the old Protestant monopoly — Mr. Trump is stoking a tribal hostility toward those who worship differently, one that hucksters have seized on throughout history to infect and co-opt America’s faith communities. It is the same visceral force that animated the witch trials in Salem and set fire to the crosses in front of black churches.

Posted in America, Christianity, Donald Trump, WASPs | Comments Off

MSM Yearning To Go To War With Russia

Posted on January 18, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ever wonder why Russia under Putin gets such terrible press?

What is called hate in this article was considered common sense around the world prior to the 1980s. Every normal person is creeped out by trannies and homosexual activists propagandizing kids.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Timur Bulatov calls himself a “homophobic wolf,” and last summer he found his prey.
Dr. Dmitry Isaev led a commission of psychiatrists in St. Petersburg that approved hundreds of sex-change operations. To Bulatov, he was “a henchman of LGBT fascism” who corrupted Russian society by encouraging acceptance of gays, lesbians and transgender people.
After Bulatov complained to the State Medical Institute, where the doctor had practiced and taught since 2006, supervisors disbanded the commission and forced Isaev to resign.
On one of Russia’s most popular social media sites, Bulatov has listed 40 teachers and other public servants — most of them in St. Petersburg — who he said have lost their jobs as a result of his efforts over the last two years. Along with their names, ages and former jobs, he adds descriptions such as “a psychotic woman who cut off her breasts,” as he wrote about one transgender man.
The success of his campaign underscores the transformation of St. Petersburg from Russia’s most tolerant city into its epicenter of hostility toward homosexuality and transgenderism.
The nation as a whole has become increasingly hateful on those issues, with politicians seeking to ban gay rallies, blaming gays for low birth rates and advocating that they be banned from government jobs, exiled or forced into psychiatric treatment.
Taking a cue from President Vladimir Putin, who has whipped up anti-Western sentiments to advance a nationalist agenda and boost his domestic approval ratings during an economic crisis, they often frame their stance as defending the country against foreign values.
Bulatov, 40, lumps homosexuality with pedophilia as part of a “disease” deliberately spread to children and teens by Western-funded books, websites and even cartoons.
“They destroy Russia through children,” he said. “It all comes from Europe.”
…In 2012, Milonov was the major force behind the council’s passage of a ban on promoting “nontraditional sexual relations,” including “sodomy, lesbianism, bisexuality and transgenderism,” to people younger than 18. It became a blueprint for the federal law that passed the next year.
The law became a key tool for Bulatov.
He combs social media looking for gays, lesbians and transgender people, or their sympathizers, working in government jobs that involve contact with minors. Parents of public school children often tip him off, he said.
Once he identifies a target, Bulatov prepares a dossier and submits it to the person’s boss. Although the government rarely enforces the law on its own, Bulatov uses it to apply pressure.
…Bulatov, a goldsmith and jeweler whose family has lived in St. Petersburg for generations, said he wants to turn Russia into a “hell for sodomites.” He took up the cause after his only son was born 10 years ago, he said.
Though he is Muslim, Bulatov is part of the People’s Council, a nationalist group that is closely allied with the Russian Orthodox Church, strongly supports Putin and pursues a puritan agenda.
The head of the St. Petersburg branch, a 55-year-old musician and former businessman named Anatoly Artyukh, has lobbied to classify homosexuality and transgenderism as psychological disorders, written a book criticizing gay activists and created a ballet condemning gays, abortion and women without children.
Gay rights groups have accused his supporters of attacking their rallies. Artyukh denied that, but said, “We’ve done everything to make them leave town.”

As I posted last July: Just as you don’t hear dissenting views in the media about Jews, you can be sure this too will be ignored because it goes against the prevailing homosexual narrative.

Jeff* emails:

There are three things that interest me about this story: (1) I got the link from Instapundit which is very widely read and usually sympathetic with gay issues, (2) that Moira says some things about male homosexuality that are anathema to the general narrative; first when she says that young men who are used by older gays see themselves as gay because the activity produces an orgasm, second when she says that homosexuals need to get to young men before they have their first experience with women and three that she believes that homosexuality is “imprinted” by conduct and environment rather than having a genetic cause. (3) that despite her feelings and experiences she still loved her father and her musical work is inspired by her mother.
There are few things that separate her from most of the anti Gay marriage activists: (1) she is not religious. So much of the opposition to same sex marriage comes from religious people, (2) she has first hand knowledge of same sex relationships, (3) she has first hand knowledge of the rationalizations gay people go through and (4) she has first hand knowledge of the consequences inflicted on others by at least those gays who share her parents’ perspectives.
The New Republic has a story (sympathetic to gays) about how gay marriage will change the nuclear family.
Concerning the Gawker story outing Tim Geithner’s brother for trying to set up a tryst with a homosexual porn actor, Nick Denton said that if he hadn’t pulled it he would have lost 7 figures worth of advertising.

Katy writes:

I was born into a family of famous gay pagan authors in the late Sixties. My mother was Marion Zimmer Bradley, and my father was Walter Breen. Between them, they wrote over 100 books: my mother wrote science fiction and fantasy (Mists of Avalon), and my father wrote books on numismatics: he was a coin expert.

What they did to me is a matter of unfortunate public record: suffice to say that both parents wanted me to be gay and were horrifed at my being female. My mother molested me from ages 3-12. The first time I remember my father doing anything especially violent to me I was five. Yes he raped me. I don’t like to think about it. If you want to know about his shenanigans with little girls, and you have a very strong stomach, you can google the Breendoggle, which was the scandal which ALMOST drummed him out of science fiction fandom.

More profoundly, though was his disgust with my gender, despite his many relationships with women Moiraand female victims. He told me unequivocally that no man would ever want me, because all men are secretly gay and have simply not come to terms with their natural homosexuality. So I learned to act mannish and walk with very still hips. You can still see the traces of my conditioning to reject my femininity in my absolute refusal to give in and my outspokenness, and my choice of theatrical director for much of my life. But a good part of my outspokenness is my refusal to accept the notion that “deep down I must be a boy born in a girl’s body.” I am not. I am a girl reviled for being a girl, who tried very hard to be the “boy” they wanted.

Suffice to say I was not their only victim of either gender. I grew up watching my father have “romances” (in his imagination) with boys who were a source of frustration because they always wanted food and money as a result of the sex they were subjected to, and didn’t want HIM. (OF COURSE!) I started trying hard to leave home when I was ten, after the failure of my first suicide attempt, and to intervene when I was 13 by telling my mother and her female companion that my father was sleeping with this boy. Instead of calling the cops, like any sensible human being, they simply moved my father into their apartment, which I called “The Love Nest” and they moved back into our family home.

Naturally that made things much worse. I had already been couch-surfing at the home of my directors from the Renaissance Faire for some time, but nobody could take me all the time. As might be imagined, where my father was, there were teenaged boys, drugs, and not a whole lot of food, though I wasn’t really starved in my teens once my mother’s books began to sell really well. I lived all kinds of places as a teen, though I moved back in with my father when I started college…

…Now it should be noted that boy lovers do not think of what they are doing as “molestation.” To them it is sex, they imagine it is consensual, and any objections will certainly be overridden by the orgasms they are certain they can produce, and it is the shame of these orgasms that silences the boy-victims, and persuades them they “must” be gay. (Regardless of subsequent heterosexual marriages and children.)

…Years ago I read [Jeffrey] Satinover, who believed that gays were largely “pansexual” that is, preferring sex with EVERYONE of EVERY age and EVERY gender rather than wanting to be limited to one person, and he regarded it, credibly, as a moral and ethical problem, rather than a sexual “orientation.” I can’t tell you how many lesbians I know who simply hate men, or who have been raped and can’t face sex with men because of that.

…My observation of my father and mother’s actual belief is this: since everyone is naturally gay, it is the straight establishment that makes everyone hung up and therefore limited. Sex early will make people willing to have sex with everyone, which will bring about the utopia while eliminating homophobia and helping people become “who they really are.” It will also destroy the hated nuclear family with its paternalism, sexism, ageism (yes, for pedophiles, that is a thing) and all other “isms.” If enough children are sexualized young enough, gayness will suddenly be “normal” and accepted by everyone, and the old fashioned notions about fidelity will vanish. As sex is integrated as a natural part of every single relationship, the barriers between people will vanish, and the utopia will appear, as “straight culture” goes the way of the dinosaur. As my mother used to say: “Children are brainwashed into believing they don’t want sex.”

…This March I met Katy Faust online: one of the six children of gays who filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing gay marriage. We corresponded, and I left CA. I am still reeling from the death of my last bits of denial. It IS the homosexuality that is the problem. It IS the belief that all sex all the time will somehow cure problems instead of creating them that is the problem.

So I have begun to speak out against gay marriage, and in doing so, I have alienated most of even my strongest supporters. After all, they need to see my parents as wacky sex criminals, not as homosexuals following their deeply held ethical positions and trying to create a utopia according to a rather silly fantasy. They do not have the willingness to accept the possibility that homosexuality might actually have the result of destroying children and even destroying the adults who insist on remaining in its thrall.

Now for all well-meaning people who believe I am extrapolating from my experience to the wider gay community, I would like to explain why I believe this is so: From my experience in the gay community, the values in that community are very different: the assumption is that EVERYONE is gay and closeted, and early sexual experience will prevent gay children from being closeted, and that will make everyone happy.

If you doubt me, research “age of consent” “Twinks,” “ageism” and the writings of the NUMEROUS authors on the Left who believe that early sexuality is somehow “beneficial” for children.

Due to my long experience with the BSDM community (bondage/discipline, Sado-Masochism) it is my belief that homosexuality is a matter of IMPRINTING, in the same way that BDSM fantasies are. To the BDSM’er, continued practice of the fantasy is sexually exciting. To the gay person, naturally, the same. However, from what I have seen, neither one creates healing. My mother became a lesbian because she was raped by her father. My father was molested by a priest–and regarded it as being the only love he had ever experienced. There are a vanishingly few people who are exclusively gay, but far more who have relationships with people of BOTH genders, as my parents and other relatives did.

What sets gay culture apart from straight culture is the belief that early sex is good and beneficial, and the sure knowledge (don’t think for a second that they DON’T know) that the only way to produce another homosexual is to provide a boy with sexual experiences BEFORE he can be “ruined” by attraction to a girl.

If you’re OK with that, and you might not be, it is worth your consideration. If you think I am wrong, that is your privilege, but watch out for the VAST number of stories of sexual abuse AND transgenderism that will come about from these gay “marriages.” Already the statistics for sexual abuse of children of gays are astronomically high compared to that suffered by the children of straights.

Naturally my perspective is very uncomfortable to the liberal people I was raised with: I am “allowed” to be a victim of molestation by both parents, and “allowed” to be a victim of rather hideous violence. I am, incredibly, NOT ALLOWED to blame their homosexuality for their absolute willingness to accept all sex at all times between all people.

Posted in Homosexuality, Russia | Comments Off

Is It Time To Combat China?

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

China and America are the two most powerful countries in the world. They have clashing interests. The stronger China gets, the weaker America becomes. It is in America’s interest to do everything it can to slow China’s rise.

We could start by deporting the three million Chinese nationals studying in American universities.

From 60 Minutes tonight:

If spying is the world’s second oldest profession, the government of China has given it a new, modern-day twist, enlisting an army of spies not to steal military secrets but the trade secrets and intellectual property of American companies. It’s being called “the great brain robbery of America.”

The Justice Department says that the scale of China’s corporate espionage is so vast it constitutes a national security emergency, with China targeting virtually every sector of the U.S. economy, and costing American companies hundreds of billions of dollars in losses — and more than two million jobs.

John Carlin: They’re targeting our private companies. And it’s not a fair fight. A private company can’t compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world.

John Carlin is the assistant attorney general for National Security with responsibility for counterterrorism, cyberattacks and increasingly economic espionage.

John Carlin: This is a serious threat to our national security. I mean, our economy depends on the ability to innovate. And if there’s a dedicated nation state who’s using its intelligence apparatus to steal day in and day out what we’re trying to develop, that poses a serious threat to our country.

Lesley Stahl: What is their ultimate goal, the Chinese government’s ultimate goal?

John Carlin: They want to develop certain segments of industry and instead of trying to out-innovate, out-research, out-develop, they’re choosing to do it through theft.

All you have to do, he says, is look at the economic plans published periodically by the Chinese Politburo. They are, according to this recent report by the technology research firm INVNT/IP, in effect, blueprints of what industries and what companies will be targeted for theft.

John Carlin: We see them put out the strategic plan, and then we see actions follow that plan. We see intrusion after intrusion on U.S. companies.

Lesley Stahl: Do you have a number of U.S. companies that have been hit?

John Carlin: It’s thousands of actually companies have been hit.

Lesley Stahl: Thousands of U.S. companies?

John Carlin: Of U.S. companies.

Posted in China | Comments Off

Michigan 1960

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

My family six years before I came along!

29 November 1970 leaving for England – my siblings took the train to Sydney International Airport to say goodbyes there. I am not in this pic. My brother and sister are up front.

Posted in Personal | Comments Off

‘New York Values’

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Kevin Williams writes:

Cruz, canny politician that he is, never bothered to go into much detail about what is meant by “New York values.” Sneering at them was enough. But sneering at New York values isn’t very smart for conservatives. Not in the long run.
It has been said that you cannot understand America without understanding New York City, and the first thing to understand about New York is that it isn’t very much like the rest of America. That is true, unquestionably. But New York’s traditional virtues — its brashness, its hustle and enterprise, its anything-is-possible attitude — are the traditional American virtues, just as the city’s vices — its materialism, its self-importance, its fascination with the transitory and the impermanent — are the American vices, too.
Conservatives, of all people, should be more attuned to the virtues of the nation’s commercial center; let the nation’s art-school dropouts sneer at that great collision of money and culture. The city has been the incubator of our best minds — Buckley, Friedman, Podhoretz, Kristol — and is home to great conservative institutions from The New Criterion and the Manhattan Institute to this magazine. Ayn Rand, who didn’t understand people but had a great and admirable capacity to be arrested by the beauty of human achievements, loved New York as only an immigrant can.
To the extent that “New York values” is another way of saying “urban values” — and it is, to a great extent — conservatives would do well to develop a keener appreciation of them. (Never mind, for the moment, the notion that Donald Trump’s values are identical to the values of New York, in which he is a figure of fun rather than a figure of respect.) From a matter of pure self-interest, Republicans would be in much better shape if their presidential candidates did not start in an electoral hole, with California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois wrapped up in a bow for the Democrats. It isn’t California ranchers and Illinois farmers who have handed those states to the Left, but city-dwelling people who believe with some reason — Ted Cruz has just given them another — that Republicans hate them.

John Podhoretz tweets: “Boy is this good.”

Ragged replies: “Were Jews “ill-advised” to sneer at and resist Roman values in the first century?”

John Podhoretz replies: “This is one of the most repellent anti-American comments I’ve ever read. You’re basically a slimy worm.”

Posted in New York | Comments Off

Adios America: The Left’s Plan To Turn America Into A Third-World Hellhole

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Ann Coulter writes in her new book:

THE ISSUE THAT WON’T GO AWAY: SHOULD DEMOCRATS BE GIVEN 30 MILLION NEW VOTERS?

The media convince people to believe lies by the simple process of repetition: Diversity is a strength! We’re a nation of immigrants! It’s a crisis to have people living in the shadows! If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit! It’s like the hypnotic repetitions drilled
into infants’ sleeping brains 150 times a night, three times a week, in Brave New World.

By neurotic perseveration, mass-immigration proponents have completely moved the goalposts. After Reagan’s amnesty, no one talked about allowing new illegal aliens to stay. The only issue was: When are we going to get started on those promised employer
sanctions and securing the southern border? Now we’re told we have to both allow new people in and amnesty the illegal immigrants already here. We’re getting the exact same arguments that were made for the old amnesty, but this time with attitude: Wait a minute — you ’re not seriously telling me that you don ’t want to give amnesty to the people already here? To which Republican politicians whimper: We hope were not inconveniencing you by not moving more quickly to forgive you for the laws you broke, illegal aliens.

I don’t mean to be obtuse, but why is it a crisis that illegal aliens are “living in the shadows”? I forget. We need to bring in more people who will drive down the wages of our fellow Americans because — why again? It is not a crisis for Americans that other
people have come into their country illegally and now find it uncomfortable to be living here breaking the law. It’s supposed to be uncomfortable to break the law. Perhaps illegal aliens should have considered that before coming.

Americans are being asked to respond to the world’s oldest joke: A guy kills his parents, then throws himself on the court’s mercy as an orphan. How did all these illegal aliens get into “the shadows” in the first place? They weren’t kidnapped and dragged across the border. They came here. At most — and this is dubious — it’s a crisis for the illegal immigrants. But “living in the shadows” is evidently better than living in Guadalajara, otherwise, there’s an easy solution. Living in the shadows doesn’t seem to be much of a crisis even for them.

Historically, Democrats have found it fun and profitable to bully Republicans into taking suicidal positions. This latest push for amnesty is approximately the Republicans’ fifth mugging. As with all disastrous legislation, Republicans are being told, “We have
got to do this yesterday!” If we don’t produce a global warming bill, the American people will have our heads! If we don ’t pass campaign finance reform tomorrow, the voters will punish us! You ’re not seriously thinking of blocking a new gun control bill, are you ? It always turns out, no, there’s no backlash. The only politician who was ever punished for his position on global warming was A1 Gore. Debate any urgent liberal demand long enough, and the problem usually just goes away.

It’s entirely possible that the only Hispanics enraged about amnesty are the ones we see on TV. In polls, a majority of Hispanics answer “Don’t know” to the question “Who is the most important Hispanic/Latino leader in the country today?”

Self-appointed Latino spokesmen, claiming to speak for millions, apparently speak for about fifteen people. At least A1 Sharpton has a posse of two hundred losers he can drag around with him. Most Hispanics seem completely unaware that they’re part of some angry
movement led by Jorge Ramos. The notion of Hispanic unity — much less Hispanic-black unity — is pure liberal fantasy. Puerto Ricans and Dominicans hate one another, blacks and Mexicans hate one another, Haitians and African Americans hate one another, and everyone hates the Cubans.

Republican elites apparently don’t talk to their servants: They’re convinced Cuban Marco Rubio will be catnip to Hispanic voters. Yes,
remember how Manhattan women flocked to Sarah Palin just because she was a woman? GOP political consultants will never steer you wrong.

The only place a failure to pass amnesty will produce genuine, heartfelt remorse is in the better sections of town, when wives of Wall Street bankers realize that Manuela the nanny will not be able to get taxpayer-subsidized healthcare.

There is simply no reason for Republicans to legalize 30 million people who will vote 8-2 against them. They don’t have to be embarrassed about opposing immigration because of how the immigrants vote. The reason Democrats support immigration is because of how they vote. A1 Gore didn’t mind challenging military ballots during the Florida 2000 recount. Obama challenged the petition signatures of every single Democrat running for an Illinois senate seat in 1996, disqualifying all of his opponents and “winning” by being the last man standing. Israel won’t allow Palestinians to return
to homes they used to live in because of how they’d vote. Palestinians demand a right to return to their pre-1967 homes, but Israel says, quite correctly, that changing Israel’s ethnicity would change the idea of Israel. 8 Well, changing America’s ethnicity changes the idea of America, too. Show me in a straight line why we can’t do what Israel does. Is Israel special? For some of us, America is special, too.

Democrats aren’t big on amnestying other lawbreakers. They don’t hysterically demand amnesty for accounting cheats or polluters — not even for “the children” of accounting cheats and polluters. Enron executives were hard workers. They loved their families and wanted the best for them, just as I’m sure MS- 13 gang members love their
families. Think of how the executives’ children have suffered — the divorces, the broken families, the prison sentences. Why do we have to punish the children? 9 How many breaks did liberals cut the Amirault family in Massachusetts after they were sent to prison in the child molestation hysteria of the 1980s, even after it was proved they were innocent? Martha Coakley fought like a banshee to keep Gerald Amirault in prison well after the charges were exposed as a fraud. Where was his amnesty? Democrats only care
about the children of lawbreakers when it will get them 30 million new voters. Convicted felons are next.

Republicans have no obligation to make a grand forgiving gesture toward lawbreakers, hoping that Hispanics will applaud their sportsmanship. This doesn’t require bravery. It requires that Republicans not be idiots. Democrats are just going to have to get 30 million new voters some other way.

STEP ONE: SECURE THE BORDER;
STEP TWO: REPEAT STEP ONE

As Reagan’s amnesty proves, it’s pointless to talk about what to do with the illegal aliens already here until we’ve secured the border. When the bathtub is overflowing, the very first thing you do is: TURN OFF THE WATER. You don’t debate whether to use a rag or a mop to clean up the water, whether to get a bucket or put a hose out the
window, whether to use towels or sponges. The No. 1 priority is: Shut off the water.

Obviously, any amnesty functions as a magnet for more illegal aliens. Nothing shows the bad faith of amnesty advocates with more blinding clarity than their steadfast refusal to seal the border. Ordinary people see this and know they’re being lied to.

The “border security” measures of every amnesty bill all employ the same meaningless Washington metric of success. In government, effectiveness is measured not by results, but by how much money is spent. How effective is it? Why, we’ve tripled the budget! That’s what Republican Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee actually said
about Rubio’s “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill, formally titled “The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013” — which was way better than its original title: “We Surrender.”

“The fact is,” Corker exclaimed, “we are investing resources in securing our border that have never been invested before.” 10 Why, he’s so serious about getting in shape, he’s taken out three gym memberships! Increasing the pensions of border agents is not a
measure of border effectiveness. We’re interested in results, not outlays. Even within the meaningless category of “Money Spent,” it can be spent in ways that are counterproductive. If the bill includes one dime for ACLU attorneys to process immigration claims, then part of the money we’re spending to make the border more
secure is going to make it less secure. Rubio’s bill gave $150 million to nonprofits to help illegal aliens apply for amnesty. 1 1

Most Hispanics are smarter than Marco Rubio. In 2011, 73 percent of California Hispanics said they’d support a candidate who wanted to “secure the border first, stop illegal immigration, and then find a way to address the status of people already here illegally.” 12 In a 2014 Univision poll, 58 percent chose “require border security first” over “pass immigration reform.” 13

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GATED COMMUNITIES TELL US FENCES DON’T WORK

Americans ought to be suspicious about being incessantly told fences “don’t work.” It’s like being told wheels don’t work. The media maniacally repeat this nonsense, hoping to lull people into thinking, Maybe it is impossible to control the borders. The
New York Times explains, for example: “Would-be migrants still find ways over, under, through and around them.” 14 Wheels still find ways to bend, break, or spring leaks. China built a thirteen-thousand-mile wall several centuries before Christ, and it’s still working.

The Times gave the game away with this sentimental glop about border fences being “the approach favored by ancient empires: the raising of a wall.” The article continued: “The barrier wasn’t very likely to overturn the law of supply and demand, but it did serve as a useful symbol of the process of alienation, a closing-off of lives and minds, along the line it traces.” 15 Yes, that’s precisely the idea! Aren’t fences peachy? Tellingly, the Times added: “Still, the tattered ideal of a world without borders holds great power.”
For whom is a “world without borders” an ideal? People who don’t much care for America, I gather.

Even Republicans who pretend to want a secure border are always telling us fences won’t work. The NEW WAY of stopping tubs from overflowing is to use mops and blow-dryers. Sure, we can always turn the water off, but that won’t work because it could always spring a leak. Let’s just keep mopping. Responding to an increasingly
annoyed public, Congress has repeatedly voted to build a border fence. But somehow, the fence never gets built — and Congress does nothing. In January 2011, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security announced that it had “ended the Secure Border Initiative Network” on the grounds that “it did not meet cost-effectiveness and viability standards.” 16 And if there is one thing the Obama administration absolutely insists upon, it’s cost-effectiveness and viability!

The steadfast refusal of the amnesty crowd to agree to a fence tells us that Americans should not budge on the point. In addition to being the only sane, logical thing to do, demanding a fence forces amnesty proponents to admit that they have no intention of ever sealing the border. The surge of ninety thousand poor Central
Americans across the border in 2014 proved that. Obama pretended his hands were tied. It’s the law! It wasn’t the law. So either Obama is stupid or he was deliberately lying, and the smart money is on “deliberately lying.” But Democrats — and some Republicans — insisted there was some mysterious “loophole” in the law that prohibited this country from stopping illegal aliens at the border. If politicians really believed that, why didn’t they close the loophole?

Instead, amnesty supporters tried a surprise argument: To stop illegals pouring across the border, Congress had to pass amnesty. They were hoping to stun us into silence with the stupidity of their argument. No one was prepared for it. I’m sorry, Your Honor, we didn’t bring our notes on that. We were ready for “It’s wrong” or “What about the children ?” We weren ’t expecting: To stop the surge at the border, we need to reward the people surging across it.

Everyone knows that one amnesty begets more illegal aliens, which begets another amnesty. It’s called an “incentive.” There’s less of an incentive if the gate is locked. First lock the gate, then figure out what to do with the people already here. Any amnesty is
an inducement to illegal aliens. If you choose to argue it’s not, I refer you to history.

This is not the first time Americans have been promised secure borders in return for amnesty. The 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, also known as “The Charlie Brown and Lucy with Football Act,” was supposed to end illegal immigration forever: Give us amnesty
one time, then: Never again. 17

As with all laws that combine the bitter with the sweet, such as tax hikes and spending cuts, we got one and not the other. The amnesty came, but the border security never did. Illegal immigration sextupled. There have been a half dozen more amnesties since then, legalizing millions more foreigners who broke our laws. 18 Perhaps we could have trusted Washington’s sincerity thirty years ago, but Americans have already been fooled once — then, six more times. They aren’t stupid.

The two parts cannot be done simultaneously. A border fence must be started first — and completed first. Only after all the ACLU lawsuits and INS rulings have run their course, and the border is still secure, do we move to Step Two. I happen to think we
don’t do the amnesty part ever, but it’s tendentious even to discuss what to do with illegal aliens already here until we can prevent more from coming. We’ll talk about legalization as soon as it’s as hard to get into the United States as it used to be to get out
of East Germany.

To review:

Step One: Secure the border.

Step Two: Discuss what to do with illegals already here.

AMNESTY IS GOODBYE, AMERICA

Contrary to everything you’ve heard, the only options are not: Amnesty or deporting 11 million people. There’s also the option of letting them stay in the shadows — or the same thing we’ve been doing for the last thirty years. Americans are under no moral
obligation to grant amnesty to people who have broken our laws. “The moral thing to do” is usually defined as “following the law.” The fact that Democrats want 30 million new voters is not a good enough reason to ignore the law and screw over American workers, as well as legal immigrants already here. How about Republicans try this:
We’re not giving you anything — not even half — because there’s no reason to do so.

The demand for amnesty is not going away. Nothing ever gets struck from the Left’s “To Do” list. Democrats had been angling for national healthcare since the FDR administration. Conservatives thought they killed it with the ignominious defeat of Hillarycare in 1994, but the very next time Democrats controlled both Congress and the presidency — we got Obamacare. To paraphrase what President Bush used to say about terrorists: The anti-amnesty side has to be perfect every time; the pro-amnesty side only has to win once. And then the country is finished. There won’t be any reason to care about politics, anymore. At least I can finally clean out my attic.

Any other bad law can be repealed. Roe v. Wade can be overturned. Obamacare can be repealed. Amnesty is forever.

TEDDY: WHY NOT THE THIRD WORLD?

HOW DID IMMIGRANTS BECOME A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MORE POWERFUL than Americans? I’m not a high-priced political consultant, but shouldn’t politicians be more concerned with what citizens think of them than what foreigners do? It’s a measure of how out of whack public dialogue is on immigration that it comes as a startling concept to even ask if our laws should help our country rather than help other countries solve their problems. Wouldn’t any sane
immigration policy be based on the principle that we want to bring in only immigrants who will benefit the people already here? Why not take immigrants who are better than us, instead of immigrants who are worse than us?

A good-for- America immigration policy would not accept people with no job skills. It would not accept immigrants’ elderly relatives, arriving in wheelchairs. It would not accept people accused of terrorism by their own countries. It would not accept pregnant
women whose premature babies will cost taxpayers $50,000 a pop, 1 before even embarking on a lifetime of government support. It would not accept Somalis who spent their adult lives in a Kenyan refugee camp and then showed up with five children in a Minnesota homeless shelter. 2 An immigration policy that benefits Americans would not
result in news items like this one: “After arriving from Kampala, Uganda, Ayan Ahmed and her nine children, ages four to eighteen, spent six months in Phoenix. There, Catholic Charities had lined up a furnished four-bedroom home for the family and a neurologist for Ahmed’s eldest son, who is blind [emphasis added].” 3

If our government were in the international charity business, they’d be doing a fantastic job. America takes in half the refugees of the entire world.

In fact, however, taking in refugees is not even in the top hundred jobs we want the government doing. At what point will Americans remind their government that it has a responsibility to us, not to every sad person in the world? We can’t solve everyone’s problems — and that’s not what we’re paying taxes for our government to do. Catholic Charities may enjoy taking in immigrant families, so they can feel like the Harriet Tubman of Uganda, but they don’t have a right to do it on the taxpayers’ dime. 4 It’s not “charity” if we have to pay for “their” good works. It’s charity if they pay. But I notice that we always end up paying, while they go to all the awards dinners at the Ugandan-American Society.

Try calling another country’s embassy and asking to immigrate there.

Consulate: What do you do?

You: Well, I can’t read or write, I have no skills, and I’ve got nine kids. Oh and by the way, if I can’t make it in your country, would you mind cutting my family a check once a month?

Consulate: Click.

Other countries must be laughing their heads off at us. Our “family reunification” policies mean that being related to a recent immigrant from Pakistan trumps being a surgeon from Denmark. That’s how we got gems like the “Octomom,” the unemployed single mother on welfare who had fourteen children in the United States via in vitro
fertilization; Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsamaev, who bombed the Boston Marathon, killing three and injuring hundreds, a few years after slitting the throats of three American Jews; and all those “homegrown” terrorists flying from Minnesota to fight with ISIS. Family reunification isn’t about admitting the spouses and minor children of immigrants we’re dying to get. We’re bringing in grandparents, second cousins, and brothers-in-law of Afghan pushcart operators — who then bring in their grandparents, second cousins, and brothers-in-law until we have entire tribes of people, illiterate in their own language, never mind ours, collecting welfare in America. We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, unskilled, and lonesome.

LIVING IN THE SHADOWS— COLLECTING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

We’re told — as if it’s good news — that immigrants use welfare only at 18 percent above the native-born rate. 5 No, the fact that any immigrants are on welfare proves we’re not taking the right immigrants. It’s like saying, Only 18 percent of our cars burst
into flames when you start them. We don’t want any cars bursting into flames. These aren’t native-born citizens who are poor. Aren’t immigrants who immediately go on government assistance, by definition, immigrants we don’t want? We can’t pay for our
own poor people, but now we have to be the welfare ward of the world?

Our government does such a terrific job at choosing who gets to immigrate to America that 52 percent of legal immigrant households with children are on government assistance. In all, nearly 60 percent of immigrants — legal and illegal — are on government assistance, compared with 39 percent of native households. 6 Why would any country voluntarily bring in people who have to be supported by the taxpayer?

Immigrants from nineteen of the top twenty-five source countries are more likely to be in poverty than native white Americans, generally far more likely. 7 Immigrants from Mexico and Honduras, for example, have a poverty rate three times higher than white Americans. 8 The only immigrants less likely to be in poverty than white Americans are those from Canada, Poland, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, and the Philippines. 9 Needless to say, we take fewer immigrants from these countries than from the neediest immigrant countries. Poland and Germany aren’t even in the top ten source countries,
and Canada and the United Kingdom combined send us fewer immigrants than Mexico does.

Business lobbyists have an irritating habit of dismissing the massive welfare use of immigrants by saying, Yes, of course, we have to get rid of welfare. First of all, their cheap labor wouldn’t be so cheap if not for all the goodies provided by the U.S. taxpayer, so this is a ruse. The immigrants get a taxpayer subsidy to work for the rich, and the rich get a break on the maid. This cozy deal is funded by the long-suffering middle class.

Second, it would be easier to repeal the law of gravity than to prevent immigrants from accessing welfare. The Republicans’ 1996 welfare reform bill barred immigrants from receiving direct welfare payments for a mere five years. That turned out to be the single biggest cost savings of the entire welfare reform. Most people said, THAT’S NOT ALREADY THE LAW? But at the New York Times , needy immigrants are the most desirable immigrants. The Times hysterically attacked the immigration provisions as one of the “cruelest aspects” of welfare reform. Congress immediately restored welfare for
immigrants who arrived before the law passed on the grounds that it would be unfair to take welfare away from immigrants who came here expecting to live off the American taxpayer. Subsequent Congresses restored welfare for elderly immigrants, immigrants with children, refugees, and immigrants who are hungry, get pregnant, or brought a
wife-beater with them. 10

America should be choosing immigrants like the New England Patriots choose players. They don’t have a lottery system for their draft picks. No one guilts them into taking a blind kid with one leg over an All American — much less the blind kid’s cousin, to keep him company. But that’s America’s immigration policy. We’re in a seller’s market, but instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit cripples, illiterates, and the desperately poor. A strange idea has taken hold that it’s unfair to get
the best immigrants we can. Why should that top model be allowed to date only rich, good-looking guys? She should be forced to date poor, balding losers. Maybe Kate Upton should have a lottery system to decide whom she goes out with.

Proposing an immigration policy that serves America’s interests should not require an apology.

THIS IS ON THE KENNEDY HIGHLIGHTS REEL, RIGHT AFTER THE PART WHERE HE KILLS THAT GIRL

It’s our current immigration laws that demand an apology. It was Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act that snuffed out the generous quotas for immigrants from the countries that had traditionally populated America — England, Ireland, and Germany 11 — and added “family reunification” policies, allowing recent immigrants to bring in their relatives, and those relatives to bring in their relatives, until entire Somali villages have relocated to Minneapolis and Muslim cabdrivers are refusing to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol. 12 America has to take in all the poor people of the world, so that Ted Kennedy could get his face on commemorative plates. I’m sorry the Kennedy family felt awkward in Brahmin Boston, but that isn’t enough of a reason to wreck our country.

Kennedy’s immigration law was enacted during the magical post- 1964 period, when Congress had free rein to push through the craziest left-wing legislation since the New Deal. It was the most destructive period in American history. Anything the Left had
ever dreamed of became law, in such profusion that it could have been a test to see if members of Congress were actually reading the bills. The premise of the 1965 immigration act sounds like the bizarre belief of a weird hippie cult: The poor of the world have the right to come to America, and we have to take care of them!

Liberals had tried convincing Americans to vote for them, but that kept ending badly. Except for Lyndon Johnson’s aberrational 1964 landslide, Democrats have not been able to get a majority of white people to vote for them in any presidential election since 1948. 13 Their only hope was to bring in new voters. Okay, fine. You won’t vote for us, America? We tried this the easy way, but you give us no choice. We’re going to overwhelm you with new voters from the Third World. As Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote for the Roper Center in 1998: “The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and
pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.” 14

Since then, the Democrats’ insatiable need for more voters has continued unabated. A year before the 1996 presidential election, the Clinton administration undertook a major initiative to make 1 million immigrants citizens in time to vote. The White House
demanded that applications be processed twelve hours a day, seven days a week.

Criminal background checks were jettisoned for hundreds of thousands of applicants, resulting in citizenship being granted to at least seventy thousand immigrants with FBI criminal records and ten thousand with felony records . 15 Murderers, robbers, and rapists
were all made citizens so that the Democrats would have a million foreign voters on the rolls by Election Day . 16 The Washington Post reported — after Clinton was safely reelected — that the citizenship initiative was intended to create “a potent new bloc of Democratic voters.” Even the INS had objected to “running a pro-Democrat voter
mill .” 17 Democrats didn’t care. Clinton’s reelection was more important than the country.

The mass migration of the poorest of the poor to America is bad for the whole country, but it’s fantastic for Democrats. Ask yourself: Which party benefits from illiterate non-English speakers who have absolutely no idea what they’re voting for, but can be instructed to learn certain symbols? The foreign poor are prime Democratic
constituents because they’re easily demagogued into tribal voting. A white person can vote Republican or Democratic without anyone saying to him, “HOW CAN YOU VOTE AGAINST YOUR RACE?” By contrast, every nonwhite person is required to vote Democrat . 18 Republicans’ whispering sweet nothings in Hispanic ears isn’t going to change that. Voting Democratic is part of their cultural identity. Race loyalty trumps the melting pot.

Moreover, poor people are never opposed to big government because they’re exempt from all the annoying things that government does. They’re not worried about taxes: The government is not going to raise any taxes that they pay. They drive unlicensed cars,
have no insurance, flee accidents, and couldn’t pay a court judgment anyway. The government doesn’t want to get in touch with the poor for any reason other than to give them things. So it’s lucky, in a way, that Democrats are the party of government workers. Unending immigration means we need rafts of government workers to educate
non-English speakers, teach cultural sensitivity classes, arrest criminals, man prisons, clean up parks, distribute food stamps, arrange subsidized housing, and work in hospital emergency rooms to deliver all those premature babies.

MSNBC is constantly crowing about Democrats sweeping every ethnic group. Could we see the party preferences of voters whose great-great-grandparents were born in America? Republicans would win that demographic in a landslide. The American electorate isn’t moving to the left — it’s shrinking. Democrats figured out they’d never
win with Americans, so they implemented an evil, genius plan to change this country by restocking it with voters more favorably disposed to left-wing policies than Americans ever would be. Unfortunately, this scheme was implemented long before I was able to
object.

But that’s not how the story of the end of America will be written. Rather, it will be: THEN, FINALLY, PROGRESSIVE POLITICS SWEPT THE NATION! THERE WAS RESISTANCE, BUT, IN THE END, THE LEFT’S ARGUMENTS WON. No minds have been changed. Democrats just brought in a new group of voters whose minds don’t need to be changed. It’s as if the Democrats switched teams at halftime, from the worst team in the NBA to the best. We’ve got five NBA All-Stars guarding LeBron — Woo hoo! We won! Don’t pat yourselves on the back, Democrats. The country
isn’t changing — you changed the voters.

Occasionally, Democrats speak openly about what they’re doing. In 2002, liberal journalist John Judis and political scientist Ruy Teixeira wrote a book boasting that immigrants, combined with the Democrats’ usual disgruntled voters — divorcees and college professors — would give Democrats an insuperable majority within a few decades. Third World immigration, they said, would consummate “George McGovern’s revenge” — which up to that point I thought was a particularly nasty lower intestinal condition. A decade later, when Obama won his 2012 reelection, Teixeira gloated that — as he had predicted — ethnic minorities were voting 8-2 for the Democrats, and had grown to nearly one-third of the electorate. “McGovern’s revenge only seems sweeter,” Teixeira said. 19

McGovern’s revenge also represents the Democrats’ switch from a party of blue-collar workers to a party of urban elites — feminists, vegans, drug legalizers, untaxed hedge fund operators, and transgender-rights activists. Back when Democrats still claimed to represent working Americans, they opposed illegal immigration. Since being taken over by the Far Left, all that matters to them is changing the electorate to one that doesn’t mind liberal insanity.

PROUD TO BE UN-AMERICAN

It’s striking how so many immigration activists don’t seem to particularly like this country. They tell us that America is a teeming mass of racist, sexist, homophobic bigots. But then they insist on bringing the rest of the world to live here. As Jesse Mills, an ethnic studies professor at the University of San Diego, put it: “The legacy of race, gender, and class oppression in the United States has transported many Somali refugees from one epic struggle to another.” 20 Why are liberals so determined to drag innocent Somalis to this hell on earth?

Immigration is how the Left decided to punish America. The anti-American crowd used to dash off to fight with Communist insurgencies in Third World jungles. But the fun of being self-righteous was sometimes cut short when they ended up in prison, like Lori Berenson, who was arrested for her activities with the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement in Peru. Rather than hating America from abroad, today’s radicals can hate it right here at home by bringing the Third World to America! Google immigrant rights group files suit and you’ll get 20 million hits.

Even after the country had twice elected the angel Obama, only 40 percent of liberals told Pew Research they were “proud to be American” — compared with more than 70 percent of conservatives. 21 Our recent immigrants agree with liberals! They may like the money, the jobs, and the government benefits, but — like liberals — most
immigrants have zero emotional attachment to the United States. According to a Washington Post poll, a majority of second-generation immigrants from Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, Vietnam, and the West Indies did not refer to themselves as “Americans” and said America was not the best country in the world. 22 They’re not the hottest immigrants in the world, so maybe a solution presents itself.

Being openly hostile to America has become a part of ethnic pride. U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez calls on his own country (technically, the USA) to “stop the deportation of our people [emphasis added]!” 2 ” Don’t be thinking that just because
he’s a member of Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, that his first loyalty is to the United States. That’s where you always make the same mistake. Gutierrez told Newsweek that he has “only one loyalty, and that’s to the immigrant community.” 24

When demanding special treatment, immigrants are minorities oppressed by America; when they commit crimes or terrorist acts, they’re “local man.”

Sending undesirable immigrants to an enemy nation is a war tactic, such as, in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter idiotically offered to take any Cubans who wanted to come to America and Fidel Castro responded by emptying Cuba’s prisons and mental institutions onto the Mariel boatlift. 2: Today, immigration is again being used as a war technique by America’s enemies: Democrats. Instead of Communist dictators conniving to send their headaches to the United States, American liberals are conniving to bring them here — and then hand them voter registration cards. Third World immigration is a
win-win for the Left. They can instruct immigrants on hating the country and get their housework done at the same time!

It is a striking fact that Communists have managed to infect the working class everywhere in the world — except the United States. Nineteenth-century anarchists hoped to stir up labor unrest with mob violence such as the Haymarket Riot. Stalinists infiltrated labor unions in the 1930s and 1940s. Long-haired student radicals tried to
organize blue-collar workers in the sixties. How did that work out? All their efforts fizzled. By 1970, building trades guys were beating up antiwar hippies on Wall Street and storming City Hall to raise the American flag — then being flown at half-staff by
Mayor John Lindsay to honor students killed at Kent State University. Blue-collar workers voted overwhelmingly for Reagan, who, along with Nixon, was endorsed by the Teamsters Union.

To its dismay, the American Left is utterly bereft of working-class members — the very proletarian masses they hoped to champion! Instead, their meetings are jammed with college professors and feminists. But you know where liberals have finally found a
working class amenable to left-wing politics and violent political demonstrations? Take a look at Latin American politics for your clue.

The immigrants themselves are window dressing for left-wing activists’ campaign to destroy America. Foreign names go on the masthead, but left-wing zealots lead the team. 26 Michele Waslin, for years the spokesman for “La Raza” — meaning “a race other
than hers” — denounced a legislative proposal to encourage immigrants to learn English and American history, saying “patriotism and traditional American values” are “potentially dangerous to our communities.” 27 Leftists have no trouble adopting the persona of an oppressed Third World person. The only identity they have difficulty
assuming is: “American.”

At least liberals have a clear mission and know what they’re fighting for: Their plan is to turn America into another Third World hellhole, where the two parties are the Chuck Schumer Democratic Party and the Nancy Pelosi Democratic Party. Republicans
can’t think past the next election. They need campaign cash, and their big donors want cheap workers now. We’re lucky if we can get Republicans to think past their kids’ summer jobs. Karl Rove praises illegal immigration, saying: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” 28 How about one illegal alien gets to stay if Karl Rove goes?

Posted in America, Ann Coulter, Immigration, Israel | Comments Off

Orania: Nowhere Else

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Are they taking white refugees?

Posted in South Africa | Comments Off

TERROR: Dafna Meir HY’D Murdered In Front Of Her 3 Children Inside Her Otniel Home; Terrorist Flees Scene; Manhunt Launched

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

News: 38-year-old Dafna Meir H”YD was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist inside her home in the Otniel settlement, located just outside of Hebron.

The brutal attack happened on Sunday evening.

According to a statement by the IDF, the terrorist broke into her home and stabbed her to death.

Magen David Adom Paramedics, along with Hatzalah Volunteers rushed to the home, but were unable to do anything other than pronounce her dead.

It appears that Dafna H”YD tried to fight off the terrorist while he stabbed her repeatedly as her three young children watched in horror.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

Bill Clinton On Immigration

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Luke Ford

Link:

2000: Required agencies to communicate in foreign languages

Congress traditionally refused to admit new states if they lacked an English-speaking majority. In recent decades, the incentive to learn English has eroded. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required provision of bilingual voting ballots.
California and some other states also allow voting by mail in state elections using non-English language ballots. But bilingual ballots should not be needed, because immigrants since the Nationality Act of 1906 (later reaffirmed in the Nationality
Act of 1940) have had to demonstrate literacy in English in order to gain US citizenship. Since only citizens can vote, why should anyone need a foreign language ballot?

Furthermore, just before he left office President Clinton signed Executive Order
13166, which required federal agencies to ensure people could receive communications and services from the government in foreign languages. Although well-intentioned, the policy further reduces motivation for immigrants to learn English.

Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.139
, Nov 15, 2010

Assure Mexico: no mass deportations

Immigration was a big issue [in discussions between myself and the president of Mexico]. Many Central Americans and people from the Caribbean nations were working in the US and sending money back home to their families, providing a major source of income
in the smaller nations. The leaders were worried about the anti-immigration stance Republicans had taken and wanted my assurances that their would be no mass deportations. I gave it to them, but also said we had to enforce our immigration laws.

Source: My Life, by Bill Clinton, p.756
, Jun 21, 2004

In 50 years, US will have no majority race, like NYC now

In 1998, Mr. Clinton rhapsodized to a cheering student audience about a day when Americans of European descent will be a minority. “Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or NYC.
Within 5 years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the US.
No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.”

Correction: no nation in history has gone through a demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time, and remained the same nation.
Mr. Clinton assured us that it will be a better America when we are all minorities and realize true “diversity.”

Source: The Death of the West, by Pat Buchanan, p. 3
, Oct 15, 2002

Reduce immigration backlog while maintaining quality

Since 1993, the US has welcomed nearly 4.4 million new American citizens. Faced with this unprecedented number of applications, the Administration undertook an initiative that has significantly reduced the backlog of citizenship applications and is
restoring timely processing while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the process. The INS is on track to meet its goal of reducing this backlog by completing 1.3 million applications this year while maintaining the highest levels of quality.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site
, Jul 2, 2000

Opposed Official English; strengthen bilingual education

Opposed English-Only Legislation. The Clinton-Gore Administration strongly opposed legislation to make English the official language of the US, which would have jeopardized services and programs for non-English speakers and jeopardized
assistance to the tens of thousands of new immigrants and others seeking to learn English as adults.
Strengthening Bilingual and Immigrant Education. The President is committed to ensuring that students with limited English skills get the extra
help they need in order to learn English and meet the same high standards expected for all students.
Providing Quality Bilingual Education. Bilingual education funding also provides teachers with the training they
need to teach students with Limited English Proficiency.
Increased Assistance for Migrant Children and Families.
Opposed Efforts to Keep Immigrant Children Out of Public Schools.

Source: WhiteHouse.gov web site
, Jul 2, 2000

700 new Border Patrol agents; increased penalties on aliens

The Clinton Administration sent a legislative proposal to Congress in 1995 to strengthen the country’s strategy for combating illegal immigration. This proposed legislation provides for:

No fewer than 700 new Border Patrol agents.
An Employment Verification Pilot Program to determine the most effective means of removing a significant incentive to illegal immigration: employment in the US.
Increased penalties for alien smuggling, illegal reentry, failure to depart, employer violations, and immigration document fraud.
Streamlined deportation procedures so that criminal aliens can be more expeditiously removed from the US.

Source: State of the Union, by T.Blood & B.Henderson, p. 44
, Aug 1, 1996

Strict enforcement against illegal immigration

We must not tolerate illegal immigration. Since 1992, we have increased our Border Patrol by over 35%; deployed underground sensors, infrared night scopes and encrypted radios; built miles of new fences; and installed massive amounts of new lighting.
We have moved forcefully to protect American jobs by calling on Congress to enact increased civil and criminal sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers. Since 1993, we have removed 30,000 illegal workers from jobs across the country.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p.134
, Jan 1, 1996

We are richer for the energy & ideas of immigrants

We must realize that all Americans, whatever their racial and ethnic origin, share the same old-fashioned values, work hard, care for their families, pay their taxes, and obey the law.

This same commitment to tolerance and equal opportunity should
govern our approach to immigration. It’s important for us all to remember that we are both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. Legal immigration has made America what it is today-a vibrant and diverse nation, all the richer for the energy,
ideas, and plain hard work immigrants have contributed to our society. Immigrants who enter our country legally and begin the process of attaining citizenship today are little different from the strivers who were our own ancestors.
We need to remember that, and repudiate those who argue against immigration as a thinly veiled pretext for discrimination.

Source: Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p.133-134
, Jan 1, 1996

Posted in Immigration | Comments Off