A Russian reporter who challenged alleged corruption in local government was close to death on Monday after a savage beating, a close friend said.Putin is an evil man. He's run circles around Bush - and Obama's Clinton people are probably not going to d any better...
Mikhail Beketov, the editor of a newspaper in the Moscow suburb of Khimki, was found unconscious and covered in blood near his home on Nov. 13. He had multiple fractures.
Doctors have amputated one of his legs and have had to delay another operation at Moscow's main emergency hospital, the Sklifosovsky Institute, because his condition is so serious.
"Mikhail is floating between life and death," Lyudmila Fedotova, a friend of Beketov's, told Reuters by telephone.
"He remains in a coma. The doctors say he is the most seriously ill patient in the intensive care unit of the Sklifosovsky Institute."
"This is what happens when you oppose certain people," Fedotova said. "If they finish me off then you can write a story about that too. I am no longer scared."
DEDICATED TO EXPOSING DISINFORMATION AND PROPAGANDA AND TO PROMOTING UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS - WITH SHARP ANALYSIS AND BLUNT COMMENTARY. NO ADS. NO TIP-JAR. JUST THE TRUTH.
Monday, November 17, 2008
PUTIN STRIKES AGAIN: ANOTHER FOE BRUTALLY BEATEN AND NEAR DEATH
JAVNO:
BLACK MARINES MURDERED INTERRACIAL COUPLE AND COMMITTED OWN FORM OF "HONOR KILLING"
In the ENTIRE blogosphere, Reliapundit posted on this first - way back on 11/6.
I'd wanted to write about this earlier, because there's something most chilling about what went on here. Four black marines murdered their white commander, a native of Poland, and his African-American bride in what is clearly an anti-white hate crime and an attack on a black woman for marrying a white man (H/T: LaShawn Barber):
What's really horrifying about the wife's rape and murder at the hands of these savages is that it's vaguely reminiscient of the Muslim mindset: she was murdered for daring to marry a white man.
But it's a foregone conclusion that charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will not say a genuine word about this case, one more reason why violent crimes like these are likely to continue.
I'd wanted to write about this earlier, because there's something most chilling about what went on here. Four black marines murdered their white commander, a native of Poland, and his African-American bride in what is clearly an anti-white hate crime and an attack on a black woman for marrying a white man (H/T: LaShawn Barber):
A stack of wedding thank-you cards were waiting to be mailed when four Marines allegedly burst into the California home of Brooklyn-bred Sgt. Jan Pawel Pietrzak and his new bride, Quiana.I've heard a bit about the Crips, a mob that operates on the west coast.
By the time the bullets hit their brains, the newlyweds had been bound and gagged, forced to endure sadistic torture - and she had been violated repeatedly, court records show.
"Nobody deserves a death like this, least of all good, young people with bright futures," Riverside County prosecutor Daniel Delimon said.
Investigators say the motive for the shocking murders was robbery, but neither Pietrzak's mother in Brooklyn nor his in-laws near San Diego believe that.
"Nobody does something like this to human beings just to rob them," said Henryka Pietrzak-Varga. "They wanted to hurt them."
Quiana Jenkins-Pietrzak's father said he's heard talk that the Marines - all of whom are black - visited pain on his gorgeous 26-year-old daughter because she was black and Pietrzak was white. But he's not ready to accept that horrible possibility.
"I have no thought on any of that until the whole thing comes out, until they finally figure out why that happened," said Roy Jenkins.
Investigators are also checking whether one of the accused Marines, Lance Cpl. Tyrone Miller, had ties to the violent Crips gang.
What's really horrifying about the wife's rape and murder at the hands of these savages is that it's vaguely reminiscient of the Muslim mindset: she was murdered for daring to marry a white man.
None of the suspects has entered a plea. They have already ratted out [Emrys] John as the triggerman who shot the Pietrzaks in the back of their heads, prosecutors said.Since all four of the suspects took part in the rape and murder, all four of them should be given the death sentence for their crime. Period. Chain them and throw them into a deep ravine with jagged rocks, or better yet, throw them into a flaming lava pit.
All the suspects admit that Quiana was sexually assaulted, but with a possible death penalty hanging over their heads, none is admitting to attacking her.
But it's a foregone conclusion that charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will not say a genuine word about this case, one more reason why violent crimes like these are likely to continue.
OLMERT SAYS HE'LL RELEASE TERRORISTS
In the last days of his being a "leader", Ehud Olmert clearly wants revenge for daring to bring him down:
(IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has promised to release yet another 250 terrorists from prison, as a goodwill holiday gesture to PA chief Mahmoud Abbas.Olmert is quite simply disgusting.
Olmert made the promise in a meeting with Abbas in Jerusalem on Monday afternoon.
MK Ruby Rivlin (Likud) said about the news of the planned release, "We are tired of Olmert and his political tricks. He is no longer relevant to the diplomatic process and he may not obligate himself in the name of the State of Israel."
The psychology of politics
I did my first piece of research into the psychology of politics in 1968. It was my Masters dissertation. I have been studying the subject ever since -- now with many academic publications on it behind me. So it seems reasonable that in 2008 -- 40 years later -- I should look back and say as briefly as possible what I have learned in those 40 years.
In good academic style I start with a definition: The first thing to say is that Leftism is emotional. The second is to say that the emotion is negative and the third thing to say is that the negative emotion (anger/hate) is directed at the world about the Leftist, the status quo if you like. The Leftist is nothing if he is not a critic, though usually a very poorly-informed critic. And the criticisms are both pervasive and deeply felt.
What is routinely overlooked in most discussions of ideology is that conservatives don't like the status quo either -- but they don't hate it and they don't get burned up about it. Ask almost any conservative and he will give you a long list of things he would like to see changed in the world about him. It is only a Leftist caricature to say that conservatives support the status quo.
Left and Right do indeed differ in their response to the status quo but not in the simplistic "for and against" way that Leftists claim. The difference is in depth of feeling and in the changes desired. Leftists want change passionately and feel very righteous about the changes they want. Conservatives can see fault and do at times set out at length the reasoning behind the changes they think desirable -- but mostly they just want to get on with their own lives. There are undoubtedly some people who are completely happy with the world as it is but they are not concerned about politics. They probably do, however, vote conservative when called upon to vote. They would not be able to find much in common with the constant complaint that is the mark of the Leftist. The typical conservative does not simmer if his wishes for change are not implemented. The Leftist does.
One marker of the difference just set out will be well known to anyone who reads blogs from both sides of the divide: Profanity is hugely more common on Leftist blogs. A systematic study of the matter found profanity to be TWELVE TIMES more common on Leftist blogs. Profanity is of course an attempt to express one's feelings strongly.
Note that I do NOT use the word "liberal" for the Left side of politics. "Liberal" as a name for any left-leaning political party is just camouflage. Except in sex-related matters, liberty is in general a very low prioritiy for them. Tearing down sexual mores is a form of change that they have had much success at.
So what is conservatism? Basically it is caution based on a perception that the world is an unpredictable, dangerous and often hostile place. So change is not rejected. It is in fact, as just said, sometimes desired. But it is approached in a skeptical, step by step, way to ensure that its effects are beneficial or at least benign. And an important criterion of what consitutes "benign" is how the change affects individual liberty. At a minimum, a conservative wants to ensure that change will not reduce his individual liberty.
Because the Leftist is angry rather than prudent, however, he cares not a bit for the conservative's caution. The most thorough-going Leftist just wants to smash everything that exists around him out of the feeling that it is all so hateful that none of it is worth preserving. And in the French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the Maoist revolution and many more minor revolutions, the Leftists got their way -- with results we all know about. Doing any sort of a good job of putting back together what they have smashed is beyond them. They are destroyers only. Hate is not constructive.
Because we all know of those dismal results, Leftist activists and politicians in entrenched democracies have to be more careful. Expressing the full extent of their feelings and advocating revolution would simply marginalize them and they know that. So they have to find ways of undermining society in more subtle ways. And they are greatly aided in that by the complex nature of modern society. Most people have only the vaguest notion of how society works so the Leftist politician can propose various changes that sound good but which will be disastrous in practice -- with "share and share alike" being the classic example of that. And when the disasters unfold the committed Leftist cannot lose. He will get an internal glow of satisfaction from the suffering and disruption unleashed on all those fools around him that he hates but will be excused from blame because he "meant well".
So what motivates a Leftist to be so full of negative emotions toward the surrounding world? Many things. There is no one cause of Leftism. The Leftist activist or politician is mostly motivated by ego needs. He craves attention and praise. He needs to be perceived as wise and righteous -- and he tries to achieve that by pretending to be all heart and condemning the world for its many faults and imperfections. But it could simply be that the Leftist was born into a subset of society that is in general hostile to the larger society. Miners are a common example of that. Mining towns were once bedrock Left-voting places. Why that was so is beyond the scope of what I want to say at the moment, however.
And, as mentioned, there are of course degrees of Leftism -- degrees to which society is disliked. The out-and-out-Leftist (generally an intellectual of some sort) is just a rage-filled hater who wants to smash everything -- but the average Leftist voter is a gentler soul. They may simply be upset that they personally are not getting a very good deal from society as it exists and be generally critical of society for that reason. But the biggest category of Leftist voters by far would appear to be genuinely well intentioned people who are strongly emotionally affected by suffering in others. They see other people who are not doing well in some way and urgently want that fixed by whatever means it takes. They are angered by what they see as "injustice". And that emotion dominates all else. And it is the strong negative emotions evoked by the surrounding society that unites these people with the vicious and deliberately destructive haters at the top of the Leftist pyramid.
But anger is a very bad frame of mind in which to make decisions and craft policies so these basically good people will often be lured into voting for some unscrupulous Leftist politician who promises to fix it all -- but who must know in his own heart that the cure will be worse than the disease. But if offering false hope gets the activist into power, too bad! And the poor old conservative who knows how things work and says that there is no easy fix will be ignored -- and called "heartless".
And that, I believe is how politics works: It is particularly the people who are especially sensitive to the suffering of others who make us all suffer, paradoxical though that may seem. Without their numerous votes, the Leftist politicians would never gain power. And the converse of that is that a little bit of heartlessness can be desirable. Balance is needed in fellow-feeling, as in many other things.
One test of the above explanation is that Left-voters should be more unhappy than conservatives -- and that has been borne out in almost all the happiness surveys that I have seen. For some discussion of that, see here. Because they are less emotional and not as easily upset, conservatives are happier and more level-headed -- and so are not as easily stampeded into foolish actions by emotional appeals. Most of them don't even believe in global warming!
So, for most Leftists, their Leftism mostly dwells deep within the personality. Which is why from age 2 I could tell that my son would be a conservative. His favourite "joke" at that age (and indeed for some years afterward) was: "The boy fell in the mud". He was able to see the funny side of a minor mishap that would have been seen as a tragedy by an emotional Leftist.
And the soft-hearted Leftists have much to thank conservatives for. The conservative element in the population protects them from the consequences that they wish for. Nowhere is that better seen than when the revolution succeeds. Among the first people to be "liquidated" by the hard men of the revolution are the soft-hearted revolutionaries.
Fortunately, time also plays a part. Many of the well-intentioned Leftists do over time come to see that simplistic solutions to society's ills don't work and end up voting for more complex and balanced solutions. They become conservatives. Even the once very Leftist George McGovern sounds remarkably conservative these days. Many of the most vocal conservatives started out as Leftists and have become quite evangelical as a consequence of learning from experience that Leftist policies are destructive. They have the same benevolent aims as before but have grown wiser about what will best serve those aims. And the older they get, the more chance they have to see the counterproductive nature of simplistic Leftist "solutions".
The most succinct summary of what I have said above is that Leftism is the politics of rage. This contrasts with the usual summary that Leftism is the politics of envy. But Leftists these days seem to be a generally affluent bunch. They are certainly not on average materially disadvantaged. So I cannot see that material envy is any sort of major motive for most of them.
The above is of course only a summary. I go into great detail about what the history of Leftism and conservatism tells us here and here.
Note: The post above is an expanded version of the original -- JR
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
In good academic style I start with a definition: The first thing to say is that Leftism is emotional. The second is to say that the emotion is negative and the third thing to say is that the negative emotion (anger/hate) is directed at the world about the Leftist, the status quo if you like. The Leftist is nothing if he is not a critic, though usually a very poorly-informed critic. And the criticisms are both pervasive and deeply felt.
What is routinely overlooked in most discussions of ideology is that conservatives don't like the status quo either -- but they don't hate it and they don't get burned up about it. Ask almost any conservative and he will give you a long list of things he would like to see changed in the world about him. It is only a Leftist caricature to say that conservatives support the status quo.
Left and Right do indeed differ in their response to the status quo but not in the simplistic "for and against" way that Leftists claim. The difference is in depth of feeling and in the changes desired. Leftists want change passionately and feel very righteous about the changes they want. Conservatives can see fault and do at times set out at length the reasoning behind the changes they think desirable -- but mostly they just want to get on with their own lives. There are undoubtedly some people who are completely happy with the world as it is but they are not concerned about politics. They probably do, however, vote conservative when called upon to vote. They would not be able to find much in common with the constant complaint that is the mark of the Leftist. The typical conservative does not simmer if his wishes for change are not implemented. The Leftist does.
One marker of the difference just set out will be well known to anyone who reads blogs from both sides of the divide: Profanity is hugely more common on Leftist blogs. A systematic study of the matter found profanity to be TWELVE TIMES more common on Leftist blogs. Profanity is of course an attempt to express one's feelings strongly.
Note that I do NOT use the word "liberal" for the Left side of politics. "Liberal" as a name for any left-leaning political party is just camouflage. Except in sex-related matters, liberty is in general a very low prioritiy for them. Tearing down sexual mores is a form of change that they have had much success at.
So what is conservatism? Basically it is caution based on a perception that the world is an unpredictable, dangerous and often hostile place. So change is not rejected. It is in fact, as just said, sometimes desired. But it is approached in a skeptical, step by step, way to ensure that its effects are beneficial or at least benign. And an important criterion of what consitutes "benign" is how the change affects individual liberty. At a minimum, a conservative wants to ensure that change will not reduce his individual liberty.
Because the Leftist is angry rather than prudent, however, he cares not a bit for the conservative's caution. The most thorough-going Leftist just wants to smash everything that exists around him out of the feeling that it is all so hateful that none of it is worth preserving. And in the French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the Maoist revolution and many more minor revolutions, the Leftists got their way -- with results we all know about. Doing any sort of a good job of putting back together what they have smashed is beyond them. They are destroyers only. Hate is not constructive.
Because we all know of those dismal results, Leftist activists and politicians in entrenched democracies have to be more careful. Expressing the full extent of their feelings and advocating revolution would simply marginalize them and they know that. So they have to find ways of undermining society in more subtle ways. And they are greatly aided in that by the complex nature of modern society. Most people have only the vaguest notion of how society works so the Leftist politician can propose various changes that sound good but which will be disastrous in practice -- with "share and share alike" being the classic example of that. And when the disasters unfold the committed Leftist cannot lose. He will get an internal glow of satisfaction from the suffering and disruption unleashed on all those fools around him that he hates but will be excused from blame because he "meant well".
So what motivates a Leftist to be so full of negative emotions toward the surrounding world? Many things. There is no one cause of Leftism. The Leftist activist or politician is mostly motivated by ego needs. He craves attention and praise. He needs to be perceived as wise and righteous -- and he tries to achieve that by pretending to be all heart and condemning the world for its many faults and imperfections. But it could simply be that the Leftist was born into a subset of society that is in general hostile to the larger society. Miners are a common example of that. Mining towns were once bedrock Left-voting places. Why that was so is beyond the scope of what I want to say at the moment, however.
And, as mentioned, there are of course degrees of Leftism -- degrees to which society is disliked. The out-and-out-Leftist (generally an intellectual of some sort) is just a rage-filled hater who wants to smash everything -- but the average Leftist voter is a gentler soul. They may simply be upset that they personally are not getting a very good deal from society as it exists and be generally critical of society for that reason. But the biggest category of Leftist voters by far would appear to be genuinely well intentioned people who are strongly emotionally affected by suffering in others. They see other people who are not doing well in some way and urgently want that fixed by whatever means it takes. They are angered by what they see as "injustice". And that emotion dominates all else. And it is the strong negative emotions evoked by the surrounding society that unites these people with the vicious and deliberately destructive haters at the top of the Leftist pyramid.
But anger is a very bad frame of mind in which to make decisions and craft policies so these basically good people will often be lured into voting for some unscrupulous Leftist politician who promises to fix it all -- but who must know in his own heart that the cure will be worse than the disease. But if offering false hope gets the activist into power, too bad! And the poor old conservative who knows how things work and says that there is no easy fix will be ignored -- and called "heartless".
And that, I believe is how politics works: It is particularly the people who are especially sensitive to the suffering of others who make us all suffer, paradoxical though that may seem. Without their numerous votes, the Leftist politicians would never gain power. And the converse of that is that a little bit of heartlessness can be desirable. Balance is needed in fellow-feeling, as in many other things.
One test of the above explanation is that Left-voters should be more unhappy than conservatives -- and that has been borne out in almost all the happiness surveys that I have seen. For some discussion of that, see here. Because they are less emotional and not as easily upset, conservatives are happier and more level-headed -- and so are not as easily stampeded into foolish actions by emotional appeals. Most of them don't even believe in global warming!
So, for most Leftists, their Leftism mostly dwells deep within the personality. Which is why from age 2 I could tell that my son would be a conservative. His favourite "joke" at that age (and indeed for some years afterward) was: "The boy fell in the mud". He was able to see the funny side of a minor mishap that would have been seen as a tragedy by an emotional Leftist.
And the soft-hearted Leftists have much to thank conservatives for. The conservative element in the population protects them from the consequences that they wish for. Nowhere is that better seen than when the revolution succeeds. Among the first people to be "liquidated" by the hard men of the revolution are the soft-hearted revolutionaries.
Fortunately, time also plays a part. Many of the well-intentioned Leftists do over time come to see that simplistic solutions to society's ills don't work and end up voting for more complex and balanced solutions. They become conservatives. Even the once very Leftist George McGovern sounds remarkably conservative these days. Many of the most vocal conservatives started out as Leftists and have become quite evangelical as a consequence of learning from experience that Leftist policies are destructive. They have the same benevolent aims as before but have grown wiser about what will best serve those aims. And the older they get, the more chance they have to see the counterproductive nature of simplistic Leftist "solutions".
The most succinct summary of what I have said above is that Leftism is the politics of rage. This contrasts with the usual summary that Leftism is the politics of envy. But Leftists these days seem to be a generally affluent bunch. They are certainly not on average materially disadvantaged. So I cannot see that material envy is any sort of major motive for most of them.
The above is of course only a summary. I go into great detail about what the history of Leftism and conservatism tells us here and here.
Note: The post above is an expanded version of the original -- JR
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, DISSECTING LEFTISM, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)
Sunday, November 16, 2008
MORON EXPLAINS WHY HE VOTED OBAMA
THIS GOT A LOT OF PLAY IN SOME CIRCLES - LIKE CHARLES JOHNSON AND THE DAVID BROOKS-RINO-TYPES WHO THINK CONSERVATISM IS BAD.
1- BUSH DIDN'T BAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH - JUST FEDERAL FUNDING FOR IT. ALSO: OTHER STEM CELLS WORK BETTER. SO WHY KILL AN EMBRYO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO? MCCAIN SURE DIDN'T MAKE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS A PART OF HIS CAMPAIGN.
SO CITING THIS IS BULLSHIT.
2 - NO ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY THE GOP TO BAN ABORTION. ONLY THE SCOTUS COULD DO THAT. AND THEN, IT WOULD ONLY REVERT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, MANY IF NOT MOST WOULD RETAIN PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY GOT. PERHAPS A FEW STATES WOULD BAN IT ALTOGETHER.
AGAIN: THIS IS A BOGUS POINT ONLY A DUPE POSING AS A "CENTRIST" WOULD MAKE.
3 - THE ONLY PROACTIVE POSITIONS THIS MORON SPELLS OUT - "limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms..." - WERE ALL EMBRACED BY THE GOP THIS YEAR AND OPPOSED BY OBAMA.
4 - "GAY MARRIAGE" HAS BEEN VOTED DOWN EVERY TIME IT'S EVER COME UP FOR A VOTE BY THE PEOPLE. CHANGES LIKE THIS SHOULDN'T BE MADE BY POLITICIANS IN STATEHOUSES. A NATIONAL PARTY WHICH MADE GAY MARRIAGE A PART OF ITS PLATFORM WOULD BE COMMITTING SUICIDE.
BESIDES: OBAMA WASN'T FOR IT.
SO AGAIN: THIS IS A COMPLETELY BOGUS POINT.
5A - HSIEH WROTE: "The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights..."
THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID THESE RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE AND ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR. AS IN GOD. NOT GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED LIMITED GOVERNMENT: NOT TO INFRINGE ON OR NATURAL GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.
THERE WOULD BE NO USA WITHOUT A BELIEF IN THE CREATOR AND NATURAL RIGHTS.
5B - HSIEH: "... freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion...."
MORE BULLSHIT. THIS IS EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BELIEVE IN ANY RELIGION OR SECT IN THE USA. IN GOD WE TRUST AND OTHER EXPRESSIONS AND TRADITIONS ARE NOT FORCING RELIGION ON ANYONE. THE SCOTUS HAS UPHELD THIS EVERY TIME THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO RILE.
ARGUING THAT PUBLIC LIFE MUST BE ATHEISTIC TO BE NEUTRAL IS ARGUING A POSTMODERN ANTI-RELIGION LEFTIST BULLSHIT POINT.
BOTTOM-LINE: I THINK HSIEH IS FULL OF SHIT - LIKE SO MANY SUPPOSEDLY GOP VOTERS INTERVIEWED BY THE MSM. IF HSIEH IS A REAL GOP VOTER, THEN I'M FIDEL CASTRO JUNIOR. (YEAH, I THINK HE'S LYING ABOUT HOW HE VOTED, AND WHETHER HE'S A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.)
THE GOP CANNOT REGAIN STATUS AS BOTH A PARTY OF THE MAJORITY AND OF CONSERVATISM BY BECOME DEMOCRAT-LITE.
THE GOP NEEDS TO AGGRESSIVELY PUSH ITS PROGRAM IN URBAN COUNTIES.
THESE ARE THE COUNTIES WHICH NEED REFORM, AND THE REFORMS WHICH WILL HELP THE PEOPLE WILL HELP THE PARTY.
THE GOP DOESN'T NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE HSIEH. IT NEEDS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE LIKE HSIEH AND GET MORE URBAN VOTERS TO VOTE GOP.
How the GOP lost my votePURE MORONICALLY MISINFORMED IDIOCY.
Paul Hsieh
After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?"
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.
I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.
But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.
1- BUSH DIDN'T BAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH - JUST FEDERAL FUNDING FOR IT. ALSO: OTHER STEM CELLS WORK BETTER. SO WHY KILL AN EMBRYO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO? MCCAIN SURE DIDN'T MAKE EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS A PART OF HIS CAMPAIGN.
SO CITING THIS IS BULLSHIT.
2 - NO ATTEMPTS WERE MADE BY THE GOP TO BAN ABORTION. ONLY THE SCOTUS COULD DO THAT. AND THEN, IT WOULD ONLY REVERT TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES, MANY IF NOT MOST WOULD RETAIN PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY GOT. PERHAPS A FEW STATES WOULD BAN IT ALTOGETHER.
AGAIN: THIS IS A BOGUS POINT ONLY A DUPE POSING AS A "CENTRIST" WOULD MAKE.
3 - THE ONLY PROACTIVE POSITIONS THIS MORON SPELLS OUT - "limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms..." - WERE ALL EMBRACED BY THE GOP THIS YEAR AND OPPOSED BY OBAMA.
4 - "GAY MARRIAGE" HAS BEEN VOTED DOWN EVERY TIME IT'S EVER COME UP FOR A VOTE BY THE PEOPLE. CHANGES LIKE THIS SHOULDN'T BE MADE BY POLITICIANS IN STATEHOUSES. A NATIONAL PARTY WHICH MADE GAY MARRIAGE A PART OF ITS PLATFORM WOULD BE COMMITTING SUICIDE.
BESIDES: OBAMA WASN'T FOR IT.
SO AGAIN: THIS IS A COMPLETELY BOGUS POINT.
5A - HSIEH WROTE: "The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights..."
THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID THESE RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE AND ENDOWED BY THE CREATOR. AS IN GOD. NOT GOVERNMENT. THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED LIMITED GOVERNMENT: NOT TO INFRINGE ON OR NATURAL GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS.
THERE WOULD BE NO USA WITHOUT A BELIEF IN THE CREATOR AND NATURAL RIGHTS.
5B - HSIEH: "... freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion...."
MORE BULLSHIT. THIS IS EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL. NO ONE IS FORCED TO BELIEVE IN ANY RELIGION OR SECT IN THE USA. IN GOD WE TRUST AND OTHER EXPRESSIONS AND TRADITIONS ARE NOT FORCING RELIGION ON ANYONE. THE SCOTUS HAS UPHELD THIS EVERY TIME THEY'VE BEEN ASKED TO RILE.
ARGUING THAT PUBLIC LIFE MUST BE ATHEISTIC TO BE NEUTRAL IS ARGUING A POSTMODERN ANTI-RELIGION LEFTIST BULLSHIT POINT.
BOTTOM-LINE: I THINK HSIEH IS FULL OF SHIT - LIKE SO MANY SUPPOSEDLY GOP VOTERS INTERVIEWED BY THE MSM. IF HSIEH IS A REAL GOP VOTER, THEN I'M FIDEL CASTRO JUNIOR. (YEAH, I THINK HE'S LYING ABOUT HOW HE VOTED, AND WHETHER HE'S A REGISTERED REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.)
THE GOP CANNOT REGAIN STATUS AS BOTH A PARTY OF THE MAJORITY AND OF CONSERVATISM BY BECOME DEMOCRAT-LITE.
THE GOP NEEDS TO AGGRESSIVELY PUSH ITS PROGRAM IN URBAN COUNTIES.
THESE ARE THE COUNTIES WHICH NEED REFORM, AND THE REFORMS WHICH WILL HELP THE PEOPLE WILL HELP THE PARTY.
THE GOP DOESN'T NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE HSIEH. IT NEEDS TO EDUCATE PEOPLE LIKE HSIEH AND GET MORE URBAN VOTERS TO VOTE GOP.
NYTIMES IN FREUDIAN PINKO SLIP: COMPARES OBAMA TO PUTIN, CASTRO AND MORALES
NYTIMES:
From left: Sergei Zhukov/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images; Associated Press; Oswaldo Rivas, via ReutersFor Obama, an Athletic Scouting Report
President-elect Barack Obama, an avid basketball player, will join the ranks of other athletic leaders, such as Vladimir V. Putin, left, Fidel Castro, and Evo Morales.
THE NYTIMES IS SO FAR LEFT THAT THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT THE "LEADERS" THEY SELECTED HAVE ANYTHING IN COMMON BESIDES THEIR ATHLETICISM.
APPEASEMENT IN AFGHANISTAN: KARZAI OFFERS TALIBAN / MULLAH OMAR A DEAL
CAN PETRAEUS BACK THIS? BBC:
OF COURSE, OBAMA WILL PROBABLY ENDORSE KARZAI'S APPEASMENT.
President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has offered to provide security for the Taleban's reclusive leader, Mullah Omar, if he agrees to peace talks.
Mr Karzai made the offer despite the multi-million dollar bounty offered for the militant leader's capture by the United States.
He said that if the US and other Western countries disagreed, they could either leave the country or remove him.
There was no immediate response to Mr Karzai's offer from the militants.
- KARZAI MUST GO.
- AND WE MUST GET FREAKIN' SERIOUS ABOUT ANNIHILATING THE TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA, WHICH MEANS WE GOTTA STOP FIGHTING THEM WITH HALF-ASSED HALF-MEASURES.
- WE NEED TO ROLL OUT THE BIG GUNS AND START BOMBING THE CRAP OUT OF THE LAWLESS REGIONS. WITH EVERYHTING WE'VE GOT, NOT JUST TARGETED DRONE ATTACKS.
- EITHER PAKISTAN CONTROLS THE REGION OR IT'S DE FACTO NOT PART OF PAKISTAN - AND A FAIR TARGET.
- I'D EVEN TELL PAKISTAN'S CORRUPT PRO-ISLAMIST GOVERNMENT THAT IF THEY DON'T SEND IN ENOUGH FIREPWOER TO TAKE OUT THE BAD GUYS IN 2 MONTHS THAT WE'LL USE SEVERAL SMALL TACTICAL NUKES.
OF COURSE, OBAMA WILL PROBABLY ENDORSE KARZAI'S APPEASMENT.
VOUCHERS NOT BAILOUTS: RELIAPUNDIT AT THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SCOOPS INSTAPUNDIT AND THE WALL STREET JOURNAL BY FIVE DAYS!
INSTAPUNDIT TODAY LINKS TO THE WSJ TODAY: Stimulate Car Buyers, Not Car Makers
WE POSTED THIS WEDNESDAY:
SPREAD THE WORD. BLOGROLL US.
BTW, HEY GLENN:TRY READING TAB EVERYDAY; YOU'LL BE AHEAD OF THE CURVE!
Should Uncle Sam save General Motors, Ford and Chrysler from bankruptcy? In normal times, most mainstream economists (and many mainstream legislators) would probably say no. But with financial markets in turmoil and the economy on the cusp of a nasty recession, these are hardly normal times. In any event, Congress and President-elect Barack Obama are committed to spending billions to keep the Big Three afloat.RTWT.
What's not been decided, however, is how that money should be spent. A radical change in perspective could spare the nation a lot of grief down the road. Rather than subsidizing the auto makers directly (and almost certainly sucking Washington into their management), why not give Americans the financial incentive to accelerate purchases of cars and light trucks? The consumer-subsidy approach would be a less wasteful route to the desired end, as well as one that would leave a less toxic legacy of market intervention once the economy has recovered.
WE POSTED THIS WEDNESDAY:
REGULAR READERS KNOW THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.INSTEAD OF BAILOUTS, WHY NOT GIVE TAXPAYERS VOUCHERS?
INSTEAD OF GIVING BAILOUTS DIRECTLY TO THE CORPORATIONS AND BANKS - (WHOSE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THEIR STOCKHOLDERS AND CREDITORS), WHY NOT GIVE IT TO THE CITIZENS, THE TAXPAYERS AND CONSUMERS AND HAVE THE WEALTH TRICKLE UP!?!?
- GIVE EVERY TAXPAYER A $1000 CAR VOUCHER GOOD TOWARD ANY NEW CHRYSLER, GM OR FORD CAR.
- GIVE EVERY TAXPAYER A $1000 STOCK VOUCHER GOOD TOWARD THE PURCHASE OF ANY BLUE CHIP DJIA STOCK OR DJ FINANCIAL STOCK. (MUST BE HELD FOR FIVE YEARS.)
- GIVE EVERY TAXPAYER A $1000 HEALTH-CARE VOUCHER GOOD FOR THE PURCHASE OF ANY HEALTH-CARE PLAN OR ANY HEALTH PROCEDURE.
THEN, CITIZENS WILL BE PICKING WINNERS IN THE MARKETPLACE AND NOT CROOKED POLITICIANS.
- GIVE EVERY TAX PAYER A $1000 HOME IMPROVEMENT VOUCHER GOOD FOR ANY HOME IMPROVEMENT
SPREAD THE WORD. BLOGROLL US.
BTW, HEY GLENN:TRY READING TAB EVERYDAY; YOU'LL BE AHEAD OF THE CURVE!
GERMANY'S LEFTIST GREEN PARTY CHOOSES MUSLIM/TURK LEADER
MORE CONVERGENCE OF THE ANTI-WEST CROWD.
IT'S A NATURAL ALLIANCE: PEOPLE WHO HATE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION/THE WEST AND INDUSTRIALIZATION/CAPITALISM/FREE MARKETS: POSTMODERN LEFTISTS AND MUSLIMS.
IT'S WHY BILL AYERS GAVE HIS TWO CHILDREN MUSLIM NAMES AND WHY OBAMA CHOSE TO WORSHIP AT A BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY CHURCH.
THEY HATE OUR CIVILIZATION.
IT'S A NATURAL ALLIANCE: PEOPLE WHO HATE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION/THE WEST AND INDUSTRIALIZATION/CAPITALISM/FREE MARKETS: POSTMODERN LEFTISTS AND MUSLIMS.
IT'S WHY BILL AYERS GAVE HIS TWO CHILDREN MUSLIM NAMES AND WHY OBAMA CHOSE TO WORSHIP AT A BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY CHURCH.
THEY HATE OUR CIVILIZATION.
ANOTHER OBAMA LIE EXPOSED: OBAMA SUPPORTS PARTITIONING JERUSALEM
JPOST: 
AT AIPAC, OBAMA SAID THAT JERUSALEM SHOULD NEVER BE DIVIDED.
THE NEXT DAY, HE "CORRECTED" HIMSELF AND SAID IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE PARTIES.
NOW, OBAMA IS COMING OUT SQUARELY ON THE SIDE OF THE ARABS.
NOW, HE'S EXPOSING HIMSELF FOR WHAT HE TRULY IS: A LYING, PRO-ARAB ANTISEMITIC ANTI-ZIONIST.
THE ELECTION OF BIBI MIGHT THWART BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S PLAN, THOUGH:
US President-elect Barack Obama is planning to base his peacemaking efforts in the Middle East on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, The Sunday Times reported on Sunday, quoting sources close to Obama.
The Arab Peace Initiative, based on the Saudi peace plan of February 2002, calls for a full Israeli withdrawal from all territories taken in the Six Day War, including east Jerusalem, in exchange for normalizing ties with the Arab world.
AT AIPAC, OBAMA SAID THAT JERUSALEM SHOULD NEVER BE DIVIDED.THE NEXT DAY, HE "CORRECTED" HIMSELF AND SAID IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE PARTIES.
NOW, OBAMA IS COMING OUT SQUARELY ON THE SIDE OF THE ARABS.
NOW, HE'S EXPOSING HIMSELF FOR WHAT HE TRULY IS: A LYING, PRO-ARAB ANTISEMITIC ANTI-ZIONIST.
THE ELECTION OF BIBI MIGHT THWART BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S PLAN, THOUGH:
Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu pledged on Sunday to continue talks with the Palestinians if elected prime minister, saying he would base such talks on economic development.MORE FROM BIBI:
Speaking at the Jewish Agency's General Assembly, Netanyahu said a government under his leadership would work to boost the Palestinian economy as a springboard for - and alongside - diplomatic talks.
"We need to make peace from the bottom up, rather than the top down, by improving the lives of Palestinians so that they have a stake in peace," he said.
The Likud leader called on the government to lower taxes and invest in transportation infrastructure, such as roads and railroads, to avoid a further economic slide.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, meanwhile, said Netanyahu's approach would destroy peacemaking because the US-sponsored talks that began last year are designed to achieve a treaty on all outstanding issues between Israel and the Palestinians.
"The time to speak about economics and fragmentation is over," Erekat fumed. "It seems to me that if Mr. Netanyahu thinks this is the course, he is closing the door to any chance for peace."
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat on Sunday accused opposition leader and Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu of "closing the door to any chance for peace," by insisting that regional talks focus on economic, rather than territorial issues. Netanyahu says he supports the concept of a separate Palestinian state, but opposes the current U.S.-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. He takes a hard line against ceding war-won territory and opposes partitioning Jerusalem, key Palestinian demands, and thinks talks should focus on economic matters.
- BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL BECOME PRESIDENT OBAMA IN JANUARY.
- BIBI WILL BECOME PM IN APRIL.
- THIS MEANS OBAMA WILL HAVE A FEW MONTHS TO MAKE A DEAL WITH OLMERT/LIVNI.
- IF THAT FAILS, THEN EXPECT OBAMA TO TURN THE HEAT UP ON BIBI AND ISRAEL.
MORE OBAMA HAGIOGRAPHY FROM THE MSM
FROM NEWSWEEK.
INSANE.
BESIDES:
ISN'T PERFORMING FELLATIO IN PUBLIC A CRIME!?!?!?
IT'S OBVIOUS NOW THAT OBAMA LIED ABOUT AYERS
Okay, so now the unrepentant terrorist admits, in writing, that the Ayers and the Obamas were family friends.
Not acquaintances.
Not folks who lived in the same neighborhoods.
Friends.
It's obvious now that Obama simply lied about his close relationship with Ayers.
Repeatedly.
He is a shameless, serial liar.
We'll undoubtedly be seeing more open evidence of his narcissistic psychopathy as events unfold.
Heaven help the United States! This Nation will need it!
Not acquaintances.
Not folks who lived in the same neighborhoods.
Friends.
It's obvious now that Obama simply lied about his close relationship with Ayers.
Repeatedly.
He is a shameless, serial liar.
We'll undoubtedly be seeing more open evidence of his narcissistic psychopathy as events unfold.
Heaven help the United States! This Nation will need it!
FEDS ADMIT FRAUD WITH THE REFUGEE PROGRAM
From this source:
The last sentence from the above excerpt means that over 80% of the cases checked involved fraud. Over 80%!
Thanks to Refugee Resettlement Watch for alerting me to the above story.
A fact sheet released this week from the U.S. State Department reported widespread fraud in the refugee program that has brought tens of thousands of people from Somalia and other African nations to the United States.Read the rest here.
The reported fraud spurred the State Department to suspend a humanitarian program in August which was supposed to reunite African "anchor" refugees already in the states with their family members who are still overseas.
DNA testing conducted earlier this year by the government to verify blood ties between anchor refugees and their supposed family members revealed that fewer than 20 percent of those checked could confirm their biological relationships, the fact sheet stated....
The last sentence from the above excerpt means that over 80% of the cases checked involved fraud. Over 80%!
Thanks to Refugee Resettlement Watch for alerting me to the above story.
Now that they control the White House and Congress, will Democrats usher in a new "progressive" era?
The last "Progressive" era produced the Great Depression so the question is of grave concern. "Progressivism" can be enormously destructive
Not likely. At first glance, the numbers do look encouraging for proponents of a new New Deal era in government: Obama claimed at least 364 electoral votes and more than 52.5 percent of the overall popular vote, while Democrats now control at least 57 seats in the Senate and 255 in the House.
But look more closely, and you see a heavy influx of moderate to conservative members in the incoming freshman Democratic class, particularly in the House. Of the 24 Republican-held districts that Democrats won in 2008, Kerry carried just three in 2004. Democratic victories on Nov. 4 included Alabama's 2nd district (where Kerry took 33 percent of the vote) and Idaho's at-large seat (where Kerry won just 30 percent). In fact, according to tabulations by National Journal's Richard E. Cohen, 81 House Democrats in the 111th Congress will represent districts that Bush carried in 2004.
The fact that roughly a third of the Democratic House majority sits in seats with Republican underpinnings (at least at the presidential level) is almost certain to keep a liberal dream agenda from moving through Congress. The first rule of politics is survival, and if these new arrivals to Washington want to stick around, they are likely to build centrist voting records between now and 2010.
More here
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here
Not likely. At first glance, the numbers do look encouraging for proponents of a new New Deal era in government: Obama claimed at least 364 electoral votes and more than 52.5 percent of the overall popular vote, while Democrats now control at least 57 seats in the Senate and 255 in the House.
But look more closely, and you see a heavy influx of moderate to conservative members in the incoming freshman Democratic class, particularly in the House. Of the 24 Republican-held districts that Democrats won in 2008, Kerry carried just three in 2004. Democratic victories on Nov. 4 included Alabama's 2nd district (where Kerry took 33 percent of the vote) and Idaho's at-large seat (where Kerry won just 30 percent). In fact, according to tabulations by National Journal's Richard E. Cohen, 81 House Democrats in the 111th Congress will represent districts that Bush carried in 2004.
The fact that roughly a third of the Democratic House majority sits in seats with Republican underpinnings (at least at the presidential level) is almost certain to keep a liberal dream agenda from moving through Congress. The first rule of politics is survival, and if these new arrivals to Washington want to stick around, they are likely to build centrist voting records between now and 2010.
More here
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here
500,000 illegal immigrants defying deportation orders
Zeituni Onyango came to the United States seeking asylum from her native Kenya but was turned down and ordered to leave the country in 2004. Four years later, she is still here. And her nephew is about to become president of the United States. Onyango's family connection to Barack Obama has thrown a spotlight on a phenomenon many Americans might find startling: An estimated half-million immigrants are living in the United States in defiance of deportation orders.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stepped up efforts to catch fugitive aliens, as they are known, and now has about 100 "fugitive operations teams" around the country. In the past year, the teams have made 34,000 arrests, more than double the number two years ago. But there are still 560,000 such immigrants in the U.S.
Fugitive aliens include people who, like Obama's aunt, sought asylum in the United States but were rejected and ordered to leave the country. Others were caught entering or living in this country illegally, and failed to show at their deportation hearings. Often, illegal immigrants who have been issued deportation notices are given a certain amount of time to get out of the country on their own. They are not forcibly put aboard a plane; these deportations essentially operate on the honor system. Generally, if these immigrants stay out of trouble - if they don't get pulled over by police or swept up in a workplace raid, for example - they are in little danger of being thrown out of the country.
That galls many immigration reform advocates, who say the practice breeds disrespect for the law and emboldens immigrants to sneak in and stay. "We are strong believers of enforcement of our immigration laws, and this is a priority area for getting the message across to this country, that if they've been convicted of committing crimes or if they have been ordered deported, that they will be apprehended if they try to hide and continue to stay in the country," said Jack Martin of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Government officials say that they do the best they can with the money and manpower available to them, and that they focus on the most serious cases, including those involving illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in this country. "ICE has taken tremendous steps at closing these cases and apprehending fugitives," spokesman Richard Rocha said. "However, we prioritize our efforts on egregious violators and criminal aliens."
Overall, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. In the last year, the government arrested and deported a record number of illegal immigrants, nearly 350,000, according to ICE.
Critics of the agency complain of the government's former "catch and release" policy along the border, in which non-Mexicans caught sneaking across were released into this country with a date to appear for an immigration hearing. Officials ended the practice in 2006. Now, these immigrants are held until their hearings.
After paying smugglers $40,000 to get his family to the United States, Juan, his wife and 3-year-old son were caught the moment they crossed into Arizona from Mexico. A judge ordered them deported, released them on bond and gave them three months to leave. Nine years later, they are still living in the United States. But they avoid going out in public and refuse to drive for fear of getting pulled over by police. "It's really painful to wonder if, tomorrow, somebody will knock on your door and everything will be over," Juan said. But he said that is better than going back to their native Bolivia, where their financial prospects are bleak. "For me, the best chance is to provide education to my children, and that's something that I can do for them here," said Juan, a 38-year-old construction worker in Maryland who supports two older daughters in Bolivia. He asked that only his first name be used to protect his family.
Advocates say many immigrants defy deportation orders because they have lived in the United States for years, married, had children and put down roots in their communities. "Is it worth going around with that feeling that you might be discovered? Or packing up your entire family now and settling all your obligations in the United States, buying airplane tickets for your family, moving back to a country where you haven't lived for many years, where you are worried about you are going to find a job? There's another whole set of uncertainties," said Maureen O'Sullivan, a Boston immigration lawyer.
It is not clear when Onyango, the 56-year-old half-sister of Obama's late father, first came to the United States. But she moved into a state-subsidized public housing project in Boston in 2003. After it was reported days before the election that she was in the country illegally, Onyango left Boston and went to Cleveland, where she hired an immigration attorney to fight her deportation order. She is staying with relatives in Cleveland, said her new attorney, Margaret Wong.The Obama camp has said the candidate did not know about his aunt's status. "If she is violating laws, those laws have to be obeyed," Obama said just before Election Day.
Advocates say the only way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants is to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. "I ask the new president, I implore the new president to provide legislation that would allow us to become legal, to have papers," Juan said. "I don't mind paying fees, but I want to come out of the shadows."
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stepped up efforts to catch fugitive aliens, as they are known, and now has about 100 "fugitive operations teams" around the country. In the past year, the teams have made 34,000 arrests, more than double the number two years ago. But there are still 560,000 such immigrants in the U.S.
Fugitive aliens include people who, like Obama's aunt, sought asylum in the United States but were rejected and ordered to leave the country. Others were caught entering or living in this country illegally, and failed to show at their deportation hearings. Often, illegal immigrants who have been issued deportation notices are given a certain amount of time to get out of the country on their own. They are not forcibly put aboard a plane; these deportations essentially operate on the honor system. Generally, if these immigrants stay out of trouble - if they don't get pulled over by police or swept up in a workplace raid, for example - they are in little danger of being thrown out of the country.
That galls many immigration reform advocates, who say the practice breeds disrespect for the law and emboldens immigrants to sneak in and stay. "We are strong believers of enforcement of our immigration laws, and this is a priority area for getting the message across to this country, that if they've been convicted of committing crimes or if they have been ordered deported, that they will be apprehended if they try to hide and continue to stay in the country," said Jack Martin of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Government officials say that they do the best they can with the money and manpower available to them, and that they focus on the most serious cases, including those involving illegal immigrants who have committed crimes in this country. "ICE has taken tremendous steps at closing these cases and apprehending fugitives," spokesman Richard Rocha said. "However, we prioritize our efforts on egregious violators and criminal aliens."
Overall, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. In the last year, the government arrested and deported a record number of illegal immigrants, nearly 350,000, according to ICE.
Critics of the agency complain of the government's former "catch and release" policy along the border, in which non-Mexicans caught sneaking across were released into this country with a date to appear for an immigration hearing. Officials ended the practice in 2006. Now, these immigrants are held until their hearings.
After paying smugglers $40,000 to get his family to the United States, Juan, his wife and 3-year-old son were caught the moment they crossed into Arizona from Mexico. A judge ordered them deported, released them on bond and gave them three months to leave. Nine years later, they are still living in the United States. But they avoid going out in public and refuse to drive for fear of getting pulled over by police. "It's really painful to wonder if, tomorrow, somebody will knock on your door and everything will be over," Juan said. But he said that is better than going back to their native Bolivia, where their financial prospects are bleak. "For me, the best chance is to provide education to my children, and that's something that I can do for them here," said Juan, a 38-year-old construction worker in Maryland who supports two older daughters in Bolivia. He asked that only his first name be used to protect his family.
Advocates say many immigrants defy deportation orders because they have lived in the United States for years, married, had children and put down roots in their communities. "Is it worth going around with that feeling that you might be discovered? Or packing up your entire family now and settling all your obligations in the United States, buying airplane tickets for your family, moving back to a country where you haven't lived for many years, where you are worried about you are going to find a job? There's another whole set of uncertainties," said Maureen O'Sullivan, a Boston immigration lawyer.
It is not clear when Onyango, the 56-year-old half-sister of Obama's late father, first came to the United States. But she moved into a state-subsidized public housing project in Boston in 2003. After it was reported days before the election that she was in the country illegally, Onyango left Boston and went to Cleveland, where she hired an immigration attorney to fight her deportation order. She is staying with relatives in Cleveland, said her new attorney, Margaret Wong.The Obama camp has said the candidate did not know about his aunt's status. "If she is violating laws, those laws have to be obeyed," Obama said just before Election Day.
Advocates say the only way to reduce the number of illegal immigrants is to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. "I ask the new president, I implore the new president to provide legislation that would allow us to become legal, to have papers," Juan said. "I don't mind paying fees, but I want to come out of the shadows."
Source
Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here
LOWERING EXPECTATIONS
I wonder how all those who voted for "hope and change" feel about this, as stated in U.S. News & World Report:
Obama Spokesman: President-Elect Will Focus on Strengthening the Economy But Can't Work MiraclesObama can't work miracles? That fact may actually come as a surprise to many. Reality check! And already Gibbs is trying to prepare the sheeple for BHO's shortcomings.
CHICAGO—President-elect Barack Obama will focus relentlessly on helping the middle class and strengthening the economy when he takes office January 20, but he doesn't want Americans to think he can work miracles, says chief Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Gibbs told U.S. News in an exclusive interview yesterday that the 100-day framework often used to assess a new president's achievements—which started with Franklin Roosevelt's hyperactive first three months in 1933—may be outmoded because today's problems are so numerous and complex.
Attempting to lower soaring expectations, Gibbs says 100 days is an "arbitrary time period" that probably doesn't apply anymore.
What will happen when The One's followers become disillusioned? After all, they have all that fervor, and fervor needs an outlet. Gibbs knows that and is trying to soften what's coming:
Gibbs's concern about expectations seems well founded. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released yesterday finds that nearly two thirds of Americans say Obama will change the country for the better. Majorities say Obama will improve race relations, lift the economy, stabilize financial markets, make the United States safer from terrorism, lessen dependence on foreign oil, reduce global warming, win the war in Afghanistan, and remove U.S. troops from Iraq without causing a major upheaval in that country, the poll says.All those expectations - a recipe for failure for the Obama administration and Congress.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
OBAMA SENIOR ADVISOR IS A VULCAN BABE!
VULCAN BABE, T'POLWERE JARRETT AND T'POL SEPARATED AT BIRTH!? OR ARE THEY ONE AND THE SAME!?
MAYBE THIS IS WHY TRANSITION CHIEF AND SOROS-HENCHMAN PODESTA BELIEVES IN UFO'S!?!?
IS THIS A PHOTO OF JARRETT AND OBAMA!?INQUIRING MORONS WANT TO KNOW!
The New World Order
From the Peninsula, Qatar's leading English daily, and according to a "scholar," no less:
No wonder the Maxists are in bed with the Moslems. Both groups vie to be the new world order.
Islam will function as a catalyst in shaping up the future world. It is going to be the ultimate answer to Communism and Capitalism, said prominent Indian Islamic Scholar T K Abdullah.Not Islamic nations. Not the Middle East. Not the United Arab Emirates. Islam will be the new world order! The caliphate?
Addressing a public meeting organised by Indian Islamic Association Qatar (IIAQ), Abdullah, a noted orator from the southern Indian State of Kerala said Islam will soon emerge as a major threat to Capitalism.
“Be it against Islam or in favour of it, Islam is the most widely debated issue in the contemporary world; and it is going to be the ultimate answer to the world’s problems. Islam will emerge as new world order blurring the boundaries of East and West”, he said. Quoting prominent Islamic scholars, Abdulla recalled how these visionaries had predicted the collapse of Communism decades before its fall in erstwhile Soviet Russia and East Europe. Now, it is Islam versus Capitalism. The foundation of capitalism has already been shaken. The whole system is struggling for its survival; and in the shaping up of new world order, Islam will certainly play a major role, he said.
No wonder the Maxists are in bed with the Moslems. Both groups vie to be the new world order.
HEIFETZ & GLUCK: ORFEO & EURIDICE
Jascha Heifetz plays Melodie (from Orfeo ed Euridice) by Christoph Willibald von Gluck (Transcribed by Heifetz).
Accompanist: Emanuel Bay
BONUS CLIP: PARIS OPERA DOING ORFEE ET EURYDICE DE GLUCK
Accompanist: Emanuel Bay
BONUS CLIP: PARIS OPERA DOING ORFEE ET EURYDICE DE GLUCK
MEDVEDEV TO OBAMA: "SURRENDER AND WE'LL BE NICE!"
MEDVEDEV HOLDS OUT A CARROT FOR OBAMA.
MY GUESS: OBAMA WILL TAKE IT, AND PROCLAIM PEACE IN OUR TIME.
AND WE WILL ALL BE LESS SAFE.
THE NEXT HUMONGOUS LIBERAL BOONDOGGLE: OBAMA'S "GREEN ENERGY ECONOMY"
OBAMA CAMPAIGNED ON IT: A "GREEN ENERGY ECONOMY".
HE REITERATED IT TODAY:
NOT HIS MONEY - WHICH I COULDN'T CARE LESS HOW HE SPENT.
BUT OURS.
IN A WORLD THAT'S NOT WARMING ANYMORE - (AND WHOSE PREVIOUS DECADE LONG WARMING MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ANTHROPOGENIC AT ALL) - ALL THIS AMOUNTS TOO IS A COLOSSAL WASTE OF MONEY AND RESOURCES.
UPDATE: YOU CAN WATCH OBAMA PROMOTE THIS BOONDOGGLE HERE.
BTW: IS IT ME, OR DOES OBAMA LOOK INCREDIBLY WIMPY AND UNCONVINCING AND UNINSPIRING - AND UN-PRESIDENTIAL - IN THIS VIDEO?!
HE REITERATED IT TODAY:
[OBAMA] pointed to the need for investing 150 billion dollars to build a green energy economy that he said would create five million new jobs.OBAMA WANTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO INVEST 150 BILLION OF OUR DOLLARS.
NOT HIS MONEY - WHICH I COULDN'T CARE LESS HOW HE SPENT.
BUT OURS.
IN A WORLD THAT'S NOT WARMING ANYMORE - (AND WHOSE PREVIOUS DECADE LONG WARMING MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ANTHROPOGENIC AT ALL) - ALL THIS AMOUNTS TOO IS A COLOSSAL WASTE OF MONEY AND RESOURCES.
- IT'S A BOONDOGGLE OBAMA'S CRONIES ON THE LEFT ARE BOUND TO MAKE HUGE PROFITS ON - UNTIL THE LIBERAL "GREEN ENERGY ECONOMY" BUBBLE BURSTS JUST LIKE THE LIBERAL FANNIE MAE BUBBLE BURST.
The term boondoggle, in the sense of a project that wastes time and money, first appeared during the Great Depression in the 1930s, referring to the millions of jobs given to unemployed men and women to try to get the economy moving again, as part of the New Deal. It came into common usage after a 1935 New York Times headline claimed that over $3 million had been spent teaching the jobless how to make boon doggles.[1]
- IF OBAMA SUCCEEDS IN GETTING THIS BOONDOGGLE THROUGH CONGRESS -AND THAT IS HIGHLY LIKELY - IT'S GOING TO ACCOMPLISH ABSO-F*CKING-LUTLEY NOTHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
- BUPKUSS.
- ALL IT WILL DO IS MAKE A FEW PEOPLE RICH - AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.
UPDATE: YOU CAN WATCH OBAMA PROMOTE THIS BOONDOGGLE HERE.
BTW: IS IT ME, OR DOES OBAMA LOOK INCREDIBLY WIMPY AND UNCONVINCING AND UNINSPIRING - AND UN-PRESIDENTIAL - IN THIS VIDEO?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)