|November 23, 2011||Adios, Newt: There's nothing "humanitarian" about Gingrich amnesty proposal||19 comments|
|November 21, 2011||Fundamental change? American students freedom of speech lawsuit dismissed in California||4 comments|
|November 17, 2011||Attention KSU security: Jerry Gonzalez of GALEO to speak at KSU||1 comments|
|November 17, 2011||Happy Birthday, Marines!||no comments|
|November 17, 2011||Mexico City is not a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegals – but Washington D.C. is||no comments|
|November 17, 2011||A Letter I’d Like to Read About Immigration Reform and Agriculture||1 comments|
|November 17, 2011||More on Rick Perry and immigration||no comments|
For Newt Gingrich, it seems that amnesty is an every-25 year “humanitarian” project.
Many thanks to the former House Speaker for explaining his core values and oh-so-morally-superior “compassion” on America’s illegal immigration crisis, another amnesty and the rule of law in the GOP presidential primary debate this week.
This long-time American was ever so close to making the blunder of supporting him for president.
With a blend of talking points taken from the anti-enforcement Chamber of Commerce, Barack Obama, the National Council of La Raza, the open borders Big Religion Inc. and Jerry Gonzalez of GALEO, the former speaker ended any confusion about his aversion to enforcement of the laws on immigration he voted for as a congressman.
“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them. I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families” said candidate Gingrich.
Heads up for Newt from recent Rasmussen poll headlines:
“59% say U.S. government encourages illegal immigration
63% favor immigration checks on all routine traffic stops
Most voters oppose public schooling, tuition breaks, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants
64% say U.S. society fair and decent”
Gingrich also degraded and insulted the entire concept of legal immigration and U.S. citizenship by referring to not-yet-captured illegal aliens as “law-abiding citizens.”
He added, “I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you.” So it is a matter of time? Golly, thanks Newt. Apparently there is a statute of limitations on immigration violations for the would-be president of the republic.
It’s ironic that Gingrich would pick a figure of “a quarter century” as a time period for which an illegal can avoid deportation and then gain legal status in the USA.
Twenty-five years ago, then Congressman Newt Gingrich voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation that legalized illegal aliens and offered the promise of future employer sanctions and secure American borders.
It was to have ended illegal immigration in the U.S forever.
The 1986 “one-time” amnesty legislation eventually made about three million illegal alien fugitives legal. The borders were not secured. Despite tireless work on the part of the Obama administration and the media to convince America otherwise, they still aren’t secure. Employers continue to hire and employ the less costly black-market labor who made it past Border Patrol Agents.
Despite the fraud involved in the same scheme in 1986, for Gingrich, it seems that amnesty is an every-25-year “humanitarian” project.
Gingrich also said with a straight face at the debate he wanted to create “a guest worker program” to help solve illegal immigration.
This dishonest concept and talking point taken straight from George W. Bush, John McCain and Ted Kennedy is offered up knowing that most Americans are unaware that we already have multiple guest worker programs in place. Including for agriculture. And that we already take in more than a million guest workers each year. Along with another million or so legal immigrants annually. While unemployment runs around 10 percent. And wages are stagnant. And many local governments all over the nation are going broke.
Gingrich knows no debate moderator is ever going to ask him or any other candidate for a reasonable explanation of this lunacy.
As I type, I can hear the usual voices on talk radio who have made up their minds to back Gingrich — no matter what — yelp that we can’t “round up and deport millions of illegal aliens” … yada yada.
Sure we could. Obama is claiming to have deported about 400,000 illegals last year and the year before. That claim is deceptive at best, but certainly those numbers are easily reached. Deporting say, half-a-million illegals every year until they are gone is quite possible and most American would support the endeavor. This one included.
But the real answer is attrition through enforcement — making the illegals leave on their own because of a lack of jobs, benefits and services and fear of strict, enthusiastic enforcement of the federal immigration laws for which the 1986 Congressman Newt Gingrich voted.
He has made it crystal clear that they now mean very little to him.
Adios, Newt — we know you too well.
As a sign of the times, a way of measuring the results of the ongoing scourge of multiculturalism at any cost, the effects of massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration and the direction of Obama’s “fundamental change” on America, consider story of American kids sent home from their classes at an American high school in northern California in May of 2010.
Their infraction? They had the temerity to wear t-shirts displaying the image of Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes – the American flag. On May 5 th – “Cinco de Mayo” in Espanol.
Live Oak High School Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez ordered the proud American kids to remove or turn inside out the offending T-shirts. The students refused, and several were sent home.
The reason given by the principal? Displaying the American flag image on that particular day was deemed “provocative” and “disruptive.”
Fast forward to last week when a Federal judge in California dismissed a suit filed by the students and their parents last year alleging freedom of speech violations. Thejudge ruled that officials had a legal right to send home students wearing shirts with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo because of a "reasonable fear" the images could spark violence in the 1,300-student American school. Why? Because 20% of the students take English as a second language classes and 18% of the students are “poor.”
The American flag is an insult to poor people? To students who are being taught English in America at taxpayer expense? Or simply an oppressive insult?
In defending the actions of the principal and the federal judge, anti-enforcement, liberal columnist Rueben Naverrette writes on the CNN website that “the previous year, in 2009, a group of Mexican students marked the holiday by walking around campus holding a Mexican flag. A group of white students responded by hanging a makeshift American flag from a tree and chanting "USA." According to the Chronicle, tensions flared and the two groups faced off with profanity and threats. In the USA.
A note here: Naverrette knows very well that “white” is not the opposite of “Mexican” and that one does not exclude the other. “Mexican” describes a nationality. The terms Latino and Hispanic denote ethnicity, not race. Just ask one some of the proud Hispanic-American members on the board of the Dustin Inman Society.
One can be of any race – or nationality - and be Hispanic or Latino. But Naverrette’s and many other members of the liberal media’s intentional and constant usage of the divisive comparison helps to fan the flames of alleged “racism” on the part of Americans who demand that our immigration laws be enforced and that all immigrants – even from Mexico - assimilate into the famous American culture, common language and proud patriotism that has but one flag and loyalty to one nation – the USA.
The dismissal of the California lawsuit is heralded as an important victory on numerous far-left websites. With a straight forward view into the goal and agenda of the open borders loons, a writer on the left-wing Huffington Post blog suggests that “perhaps the students at Live Oak would be right to carry both American and Mexican flags on Cinco de Mayo.”
Author Victor Davis Hanson credibly labeled what is now occupied California as “Mexifornia” in his widely-read 2004 book of that name. Three years later, he wrote “the flood of illegal immigrants into California has made things worse than I foresaw.” I am sure these Live Oak High School students and parents would agree.
Suggestion to parents and students in the Cobb County and Georgia: Get your American flag t-shirts ready for school on May 5 th , 2012.
Let’s see how far down the road to becoming ‘Georgiafornia’ we have traveled.
Readers who have never seen or heard Jerry Gonzalez, Executive Director of former Georgia state Senator Sam Zamarripa’s anti-immigration-enforcement Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials Inc. (GALEO) will apparently have that always eye-opening opportunity this evening at KSU.
I am told the lecture – and I do mean lecture – is sponsored by the Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority Inc.
According to a post on the GALEO Facebook page (a valuable source of insight on how the far left-wing thinks) Gonzalez is speaking today – for three hours – on the what he sees as the difficulties with American immigration laws, the horrors of Georgia’s recently enacted HB 87 and the concept of federal “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” – what most people refer to as amnesty-again.
This long-time American strongly recommends attending if you can spare the time.
According to GALEO the no-cost entertainment begins at 6:30 inKennesawState University’s Clendenin Building, room 1008.
Attendees should be ready for the very possible exposure to one of Gonzalez’s well-known, but seldom reported hissy-fits if things don’t go the way he demands at theKSUevent.
A recent Rome News-Tribunenews report (“Immigration discussion gets heated during panel” – November 9) recounts Gonzalez’s antics at a similar event in that lovely Georgia city. Apparently, Gonzalez was “uninvited” as a panel member on a scheduled meeting there focused on needed adjustments by business and Human Resource managers in Georgia due to the E-Verify requirement in Georgia’s new law.
According to the Rome news report, Gonzalez showed up anyway, angrily shouted at Rome’s diminutive and well-liked state Repesentitive, Katie Dempsey, from the audience during and after the event and ended up being escorted out of the event, the building and off the property by local police. Dempsey was a cosigner on HB 87.
Word around Rome is that the meeting organizers learned ofGALEO’s involvement in a pending lawsuit against the governor and the state to stop enforcement/HB 87 and concluded that Gonzalez wasn’t the best choice for a rational, unbiased discussion. (Duh).
One poster on the Rome newspaper’s comments section offers more on the possibilities for Gonzalez being removed from the panel there: “Jerry is a threatening, angry wanna-be "tough guy" who says English as the official language of the USA "would be an insult" to his culture. Maybe they learned that Gonzalez had the Socialist Workers Party come to his 2003 group to help with trying to get Ga drivers licenses for illegals. He has hysterically screamed at women legislators before, most recently before this, in the last legislative session, in the Capitol, at a state Senator from Gwinnett County who made the remark that Georgians should not have to pay for illegals on the floor of the Senate.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I can personally confirm that last observation. I was in the Georgia Capitol last session when Capitol Police warned Gonzalez that he would be removed if he continued his screaming at state Senator Renee Unterman after her complaint to them.
Anyway, if you have time tonight to see the illegal alien lobby and listen to the amazing arguments used against enforcement of American immigration laws, today is your chance.
Take a camera and an American flag. They love that.
Originally published November 16, 2011.
Originally published November 10th, 2011.
Yes, Perry, the would-be guardian of American security and sovereignty has proclaimed his support for open borders more than once since becoming governor of Texas.
If you are wondering why this easily illustrated fact has not been the focus of endless media reports and a hot topic for conservative national talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or even the “High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth” Neal Boortz…me too.
Do not look for this info in the Atlanta newspapers or the national press or “news” networks. It is apparently a secret.
To ensure confidence in the facts presented in the column, I have created a “Rick Perry Watch” page on the Dustin Inman Society Website for which there is a link directly from the Home page.
For the conservative voters who have picked Perry as “their guy” and want desperately to cast doubt on the accuracy or context of any of the statements about Perry’s record, the page contains hyperlinks to the sources and past news stories from which Perry’s quotes and positions were taken.
Including this 2001 Perry quote referring to former Mexican president Vicente Fox’s endless demand for an open border between Mexico and the United States: “President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity” said Perry.
The source? The Website for the Office of Governor of Texas and Perry’s archived official speeches.
The Rick Perry Watch page and numerous other links to Perry’s troubling statements is HERE.
The column also mentions demands set forth by the “Occupy Wall St.” mob. Including open borders. You can read that for yourself HERE.
Another question: Why have Perry’s competitors for the GOP nomination for presidential candidate ignored these facts?
Originally published October 11, 2011.