Sesame Street is a major brainwashing arm to influence the kiddies, pushing hard on issues that can be framed for impressionable young minds against traditional American values. (Not to forget that Dora the Explorer is an illegal alien kid who speaks lots of Spanish.)
While the theme song to the kids show Sesame Street encourages people to ask how to get there, one author just finished an expose exploring what’s really in the popular show: left-wing propaganda.
Sesame Street, with it’s loveable and fuzzy characters, is really a mouthpiece for the left’s agenda. That’s the conclusion of author Ben Shapiro, who after interviewing hundreds of industry insiders found that many of Hollywood’s most popular shows, including the popular kids program, are inundated with secret political messages. And he got top executives to admit it.
Shapiro’s new book, “Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV,” according to its description “is the story—told in their own words—of how television has been used over the past sixty years by Hollywood writers, producers, actors, and executives to promote their liberal ideals, to push the envelope on social and political issues, and to shape America in their own leftist image.”
For example, Shapiro quotes Mike Dann, one of Sesame Street’s founding executives, saying it “was not made for the sophisticated or the middle class.” Using the premise, the team worked in all sorts of messages, including Grover breaking bread with a hippie and Oscar the grouch who was supposed to address “conflicts arising from racial and ethnic diversity.” Dann also admitted he used the program in the wake of 9/11 to highlight peaceful alternatives to war.
“Sesame Street tried to tackle divorce, tackled ‘peaceful conflict resolution’ in the aftermath of 9/11 and had [gay actor] Neil Patrick Harris on the show playing the subtly-named ‘fairy shoeperson’,” writes Shapiro, according to THR.
The news may not be surprising considering the left’s recent use of the show’s cuddly character, Elmo. The furry, red puppet has been used to trumpet free internet, lament job loss, and even plug Michelle Obama’s child nutrition bill.
But the left-wing messages aren’t limited to children’s programs. Adults are inundated, too. The Independent explains:
The TV series Friends undermined family values; Sesame Street taught ethnic minorities about civil disobedience; Happy Days had a subtle anti-Vietnam subtext; and the 1980s cop show MacGyver tried to persuade pistol-packing Americans that guns are bad.
Happy Days? Friends? Believe it. Shapiro even got Friends co-creator Marta Kauffman to own up to intentionally hiring liberals and sending a strong message to conservatives in a popular episode:
Among Shapiro’s most revelatory interviewees is Marta Kauffman, the co-creator of Friends, who recalls how she hired a “bunch of liberals” to run the programme to “put out there what we believe”. In 1999, she admitted casting the actress sister of Newt Gingrich, the prominent Republican, to play a preacher at a lesbian wedding because she wanted to annoy conservatives.
“When we did the lesbian wedding, we knew there was going to be some flack,” said Kauffman. “I have to say, when we cast Candice Gingrich as the minister of that wedding, there was a bit of a ‘fu** you’ in it to the right-wing, directly.”
So how did Shapiro get these executives to say such things on record. According to him, he took advantage of liberal stereotypes.
“There was a certain amount of stereotyping on their part in granting the interview,” he told the Independent. “Many probably assumed that with a name like Shapiro and a Harvard Law credential, there was no need to Google me: I would have to be a leftist. In Hollywood, talking to a Jew with a Harvard Law baseball cap is like talking to someone wearing an Obama pin.”
“I was shocked by the openness of the Hollywood crowd when it came to admitting anti-conservative discrimination inside the industry,” he told the paper. “They weren’t ashamed of it. In fact, some were actually proud of it.”
Of the US-produced firearms reaching Mexican cartels, very few come from the local gun stores we have in this country. Those which can be identified as coming from the USA often have been funneled through third-world armies, then stolen and sold.
Unfortunately for the Second Amendment, the Obama administration has been manipulating the myth to pursue its gun-grabber agenda. (Not to mention the Project Gunrunner scandal, in which the ATF promoted the smuggling of weapons to the cartels in a poorly considered “sting.”)
If you ever watch video or look at pictures of the drug war in Mexico, you’ll notice some pretty heavy weapons. This is a war being waged with rockets and plastic explosives, not pea shooters and Saturday Night Specials. Consider these incidents:
- A M26A2 fragmentation grenade used against a U.S. Consulate in Mexico in 2008
- Explosive projectiles and 21 grenades found during a raid in Guadalupe
- An unexploded grenade and pull ring used to attack a TV station in Monterrey
- Automatic weapons, including U.S.-made M16s, found at a cartel crime scene in May 2009
- U.S. military-issued ammunition found in a cartel raid in Reynosa in November 2008
You can’t buy this stuff at a U.S. gun store. So where do the cartels get it? According to leaked diplomatic cables, there are three sources.
1. U.S. Defense Department shipments to Latin America, known and tracked by the U.S. State Department as “foreign military sales.”
2. Weapons ordered by the Mexican government, tracked by the State Department as “direct commercial sales.”
3. Aging, but plentiful arsenals of military weapon stores in Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua.
Even though these facts were well-known by the Obama administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder, it blamed much of the violence in Mexico on U.S. gun stores.
“More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our border,” President Obama said in February 2009.
That was contested, but few listened to gun store owners and former vets like Lynn Kartchner, owner of Allsafe Security, a gun shop in Douglas, Ariz.
“We in the gun industry knew from Day One the allegations that the preponderance of sales came from gun stores like this one was totally not true,” Kartchner said.
In fact, many of these weapons are getting to Mexico via the U.S. government. Tens of thousands of firearms and explosives are sold legally through the U.S. State Department to the Mexican government. These weapons are then funneled to the traffickers and cartels by corrupt officials within the Mexico Ministry of Defense and local and state police departments.
According to State Department documents, in 2009 Mexico bought nearly $177 million worth of American-made weapons, exceeding sales to Iraq and Afghanistan. That number includes $20 million in semi- and fully automatic weapons.
Udo Ulfkotte (see his homepage) is a German journalist and critic of Islam. He published a new book last year Kein Schwarz. Kein Rot. Kein Gold., which he discussed with the press in the videos below, emphasizing the cost of the “integration-resistant immigrant” to the taxpayer, along with the cultural chasm created by the beliefs of Islam. Like his countryman Thilo Sarrazin, Ulfkotte recognizes that some immigrant groups assimilate smoothly into German society, but Muslims on the whole are a problem, not a benefit.
The English translation of the talk appeared recently.
Being a cop is dangerous enough, but trying to enforce the law in a sanctuary city, where foreign criminals are protected like semiprecious endangered species, can be life-ending. That was the tragic and preventable fate of Kevin Will, who was struck down by a drunk-driving alien as the officer was sorting out a motorcycle accident on a Houston highway. The killer, Mexican Johoan Rodriguez, was apparently so drunk (.238 blood alcohol) that he crashed through the barricades in place for the accident.
Officer Will, 38, was described as a “latecomer” to police work, having tried other lines of employment, but who was apparently happy with his choice. He is survived by his wife, who is six months pregnant, and two children, aged 6 and 10.
Here’s a local news report:
The city of Houston has been strangely stubborn about keeping its illegal-alien-protecting sanctuary policy. Numerous deaths have occurred that could have been prevented by the simple application of law and order against foreign criminals.
Why is coddling foreign lawbreakers more important to city officials than public safety for citizens? Political correctness apparently causes mass insanity as well as preventable deaths. In addition, even if a criminal has not been given a pass by authorities to conform to sanctuary, the existence of the policy must be a magnet for criminal aliens.
HOUSTON – The suspect accused of plowing down and killing a Houston police officer in north Houston Sunday was found to be an illegal immigrant, under the influence and carrying drugs, according to authorities.
Investigators said 26-year-old Johoan Rodriguez had a blood alcohol level of.238, which is three times the legal limit, and had cocaine in his pocket when he struck and killed Officer Kevin Will.
Authorities said Will was interviewing the witness of a motorcycle accident on the 610 North Loop near Yale around 2:15 a.m. when the driver of a Volkswagen Beetle plowed through a police barricade.
Police said Will saw the car heading towards them, yelled at the man he was talking to get out of the way and pushed him to jump over a short wall before the officer was hit. Will died at the scene.
Will, 38, is survived by his wife – who is six months pregnant – and two children, 6 and 10.
“Officer Will was a very, very respected officer, young, energetic, his co-workers cared about him and he got along with everybody,” said HPD Chief Charles McClelland.
Will was sworn in with HPD in September 2009. Saturday was his one-year anniversary with the vehicular crimes division, police said.
Rodriguez was transported to the hospital and treated for minor injuries.
He was charged with intoxication manslaughter of a peace officer, evading in a motor vehicle and possession of a controlled substance.
Mexico’s Presidente Calderon never misses an opportunity to backstab the United States in the ongoing aggression by our non-friend to the south.
The latest effort is Mexico’s new law supposedly to protect OTMs as they pass through to the United States. There has been a lot of bad press over massacres like the Zeta gang mass murder of 72 passers-through last August, so some sort of action, however insincere, was needed.
So the pols have plopped out some new legislation, although it won’t stop gangs doing whatever they please. Plus it’s doubtful that non-Mexicans will suddenly be made welcome, when they haven’t been before. One Central American complained that they were “clubbed like seals in Canada.”
The law seems mostly window-dressing, with generous-sounding items like healthcare and education for illegals in Mexico.
But who goes to Mexico to get the freebie services? There aren’t any for the Mexicans; it’s why they leave. The law a gimmick to snipe at the United States for not having open borders with free everything for Mexes. Don’t miss Calderon’s carping at the end where he sniffs that “the United States does not have a legal framework that permits this natural flow.”
No, the US has only the most generous system of legal immigration on earth, plus an alphabet soup of work visa programs, including H2A for field workers.
But what would the Presidente of a failing state know about law anyway.
The measure decriminalizes entering Mexico without papers and entitles the undocumented to education and health services. It also promises a big overhaul of the scandal-plagued immigration agency.
They looked like spooky, glow-in-the-dark Gumby figures. Hundreds of migrants from eight countries packed cheek to jowl in the back of two cargo trucks, stretching and contorting to find space and air.
Their images were captured by an X-ray scanner inspecting vehicles in southern Mexico. The discovery on May 17 — the largest single interception of smuggled foreign nationals — once again turned up the pressure on Mexico to safeguard migrants who cross the country on their way to the United States, a journey that has become dangerous and costly.
Nearly 500,000 people from Central America and beyond traverse Mexico each year en route to the U.S., according to the Mexican government human rights office. Most now have to pay a smuggler, and increasingly, they are kidnapped, held for ransom and in the most brutal of cases, killed. Their tormentors are criminal gangs often working in cahoots with Mexican immigration and police agents, authorities say.
President Felipe Calderon, his administration chastised by foreign governments for how their citizens are treated, this week signed a new immigration law aimed at reducing the risks. The measure decriminalizes the act of entering the country without papers and entitles the undocumented to education and health services. It also promises a major overhaul of the scandal-plagued federal immigration agency. Continue reading this article
So how’s that immigrant assimilation project moving along?
In some diversity-engulfed areas, like New York City (foreign-born population around 36 percent), progress is moving backwards, as illustrated by Mexican indians who attend classes to learn Spanish. The espanol Mexicans insult the Mixteco speakers etc., so they choose to study Spanish rather than English, which would open many more opportunities for them. It’s not a clever choice considering the Mexicans’ all-important goal of making money.
Clearly the desire to bond more closely with other Mexicans overrides the monetary motive in these cases. One wonders why the indians didn’t learn Spanish when they lived in Mexico.
They probably didn’t bother because indians are so poorly treated there by the majority culture. So they come to America for a better deal and end up assimilating to Mexican values. Ironic, although in a bad way for American society.
Cornelia Aguilar needs help when she goes to the doctor or when her co-workers at a nail salon call her on the phone.
A Mexican who has lived in the U.S. for two years, she only speaks a variant of Mixteco, an indigenous language from the states of Oaxaca, Puebla and Guerrero in southern Mexico.
“It is hard sometimes,” whispers the 28-year-old, who was born in San Miguel Grande.
She is one of a sizable number of Latin American immigrants who have settled in New York in recent years and speak only indigenous languages — ancient tongues that existed long before Spanish conquistadors arrived in the Americas.
Speaking neither the primary language in their adopted homes nor the most common language of their fellow countrymen, many say not knowing Spanish is a barrier akin to not knowing English. Experts say that’s fueling an increase in the number of Spanish classes attended by indigenous Latin American immigrants.
Arnulfo Gonzalez, an older brother of Aguilar’s husband, still remembers the mockery from his Mexican co-workers when he first arrived to the United States in 1993 speaking one of the many kinds of Mixteco. He said he worked at a restaurant and did not know what broccoli was because he had never seen one in his hometown of San Marcos, in Oaxaca.
“I learned Spanish here. It was very hard, because I worked with people who spoke to me in Spanish and they insulted me,” he said.
According to the 2000 Census, the latest data available, more than 400,000 people living in the U.S. are of Hispanic American Indian origins.
In Staten Island, many Mexicans speak Chinanteco. In South Bronx and Astoria, some speak Otomi. Nahuatl can be heard all over the city. A community speaking primarily Trique lives in Albany. In Trenton, N.J., some Guatemalans speak Quiche. Peruvians who speak Quechua live in Queens and Paterson, N.J. Hondurans and Nicaraguans speaking Garifuna live in the Bronx.
Trique is the tribe of the man residing in California who sold his 14-year-old daughter for a swap of cash and beer. When the bridegroom wasn’t forthcoming with the goods, daddy went to the Greenfield police to make a complaint, resulting in his arrest and eventual hand-slap imprisonment. Local raza tribalists argued at the time that daughter-selling was a cultural norm among Trique, which appeared to affect the court.
There about 150,000 members of the Mixteco community in California, according to a study done by Radio Bilingue, a radio company. Latin American immigrants who speak indigenous languages can also be found in North Carolina and Texas, among other areas, experts say.
Between 2005 and 2009, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey pegged the number of Central and South American Indian language-speakers in the U.S. at about 13,500.
But college professors, consulate workers and community activists say the numbers are much, much larger. Many of the newcomers are illegal immigrants who don’t report to the census. Others simply don’t admit they speak indigenous languages. Continue reading this article
There’s no limit to the lengths liberals will go to protect lawbreaking foreigners and betray citizens, particularly in the capital of Mexifornia.
The latest assault on sovereignty and public safety comes from the leftist San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, He recently succeeded in getting a bill passed that would permit state counties to “opt out” of Washington’s Secure Communities program to identify and deport illegal aliens already incarcerated. The San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey declared his intention in early May to release illegal alien offenders with “low level” crimes from his jail starting in June, against the Secure Communities policy.
San Francisco famously boycotted Arizona last year because of its state approach to immigration enforcement. But the leftward city and its Assembly representative think it’s fine to defy the principle of federal control over immigration law when it suits them.
The California Assembly approved a bill Thursday to allow counties to opt out of a federal program to combat illegal immigration that opponents say rips families apart, leads to racial profiling and erodes trust between law enforcement and immigrants.
Under the Secure Communities program, initiated by President Obama, the fingerprints of anyone booked into a county jail are automatically cross-checked against immigration databases. If a person is determined to be undocumented, local authorities hand them over to federal officials for possible deportation.
Several law enforcement authorities and other public officials have criticized the program, saying it jeopardizes relations with immigrant communities and separates people who have not been convicted of crimes from their families. Opponents have cited instances in which illegal immigrants were deported after they were booked on nothing more than traffic violations.
The measure by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, seeks to allow counties to opt out of the program. Two Bay Area counties – San Francisco and Santa Clara – have formally sought permission from the federal government to do so. Several other cities and counties in California have passed resolutions supporting the bill, AB1081, or are considering doing so.
Elsewhere, Illinois has said it will withdraw from the program, and Maryland and Massachusetts are studying whether to do so.
Under Ammiano’s measure, the state would be required to renegotiate its contract with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division so counties could opt out.
It is not clear how federal officials would react. Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told The Chronicle that local communities cannot opt in or out of Secure Communities. Continue reading this article
In Norway, multicultural Muslim immigration has not been working out so well for local women, if public safety is considered an important measure. According to a recent police report, men with “non-western background” (aka Muslim immigrants) are the huge majority of those committing sexual assault in the capital city.
The crime wave is another example of how Muslim immigration is a bad idea, particularly for women’s rights and safety.
“In Oslo all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year has been committed by males of non-western background; this was the conclusion of a police report published today. This means that every single rape assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin.”
It’s great news that that the Supremes have agreed with the idea that a state has the right to enforce federal immigration laws, at least to a degree.
The liberal apologists for lawbreaking always say to go after the employer, but they have never supported E-verify, which is the first step toward getting serious about workplace enforcement. But now the Court has paved the way for wider use of the identification database.
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that requires all businesses to check to make sure their employees are in the country legally — upholding a state’s effort to enhance federal immigration laws.
Though the decision does not address Arizona’s other law, which granted police broader powers to check illegal immigrants’ status, it suggested a majority of the court is willing to give states a little room to experiment on immigration issues.
In the 5-3 ruling the majority said that while federal law says the national government can’t make electronic checks of employees’ work-eligibility mandatory, the law does not bar states from doing so. And since Arizona’s law deals with business licensing — an area states are allowed to control — it does not impinge on the federal government.
“Arizona’s procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed the States to pursue through licensing laws,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in his opinion. “Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the States, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority.”
E-Verify has been a controversial tool since Congress first authorized it in 1996, when it was known as the “Basic Pilot Program.” The voluntary program allowed businesses to register with the government and gain access to a database that instantly checks job applicants’ Social Security numbers to make sure they are eligible to work.
In the beginning, immigrant-rights advocates complained that it rejected too many eligible workers, but U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which runs E-Verify, has made improvements and brought the erroneous non-confirmation rate down significantly. Continue reading this article
For the your-tax-dollars-at-work file: the government is spending $3.5 million to urge legal immigrants to go all the way and become American citizens.
There’s a cheerful video, overflowing with patriotic diversity.
Not to be grinchy about Legal immigrants who came the correct way, but why should Washington be spending any money at all to convince people to become citizens? It would be better to let those chips fall where they may. Most immigrants, even legal ones, come for the money only and not to become Americans. It’s a regrettable devolution, but as a nation, we should just accept that, and not try to convince the unenthusiastic to pretend they feel something they don’t.
Furthermore, one has to wonder whether the Obama administration is hoping to register a few million more Democrats, since they appear to think long term.
The federal government will run a national advertising campaign to encourage more immigrants to become American citizens and become more integrated into society, officials said on Wednesday.
The multilingual effort aims to reach roughly 7.9 million immigrants who are eligible to file applications to naturalize but haven’t done so. Many immigrants work, raise a family and go to school while holding green cards and only think about citizenship when they need to travel or abroad or when elections roll around and they can’t vote, immigration officials said.
The campaign in print, radio and digital media that will run primarily in California, New York, Florida and Texas between May 30 and Labor Day aims to put citizenship in the forefront of people’s minds and give them personal stories of immigrants who have naturalized.
“You’ve got to create that sense of urgency, and until they’ve reached that sense of urgency, they’ll just coast,” said Nathan Stiefel, division chief of policy and programs for the Office of Citizenship at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
It is the first time the immigration agency has launched a paid advertising campaign to promote American citizenship, said Mariana Gitomer, an agency spokeswoman. The effort — which will cost $3.5 million over three years — is part of an $11 million allotment by Congress to encourage greater immigrant integration.
Immigration experts say many immigrants don’t apply for citizenship because they fear they don’t speak English well enough or because they haven’t felt a pressing need to do so.
About 64 percent of immigrants naturalize and it takes them on average nine-and-a-half years to apply to do so, Stiefel said.
The ad campaign includes portraits of immigrants born in China, Vietnam, Mexico, Dominican Republic and the Philippines who indicate they are “proud Americans” and share snippets of their personal stories starting a business, educating their families and even running for office.
Dr. Michael Vickers’ ranch is located 69 miles north of the border, which is apparently not far enough to escape the anarchy of Mexico. Vickers showed a collection of photos indicating the day-to-day horror. One example was the human skull his dog dragged into the yard. They found the rest of the body the next day.
Nothing reveals the bad faith of the open-borders gang more than their refusal to embrace policies that deal with dangerous criminals. Raza fanatics et al often say they are genuinely anti-crime blah blah, but when a program is actually effective in protecting the public from foreign thugs, the illegal-alien cheerleaders do everything they can to destroy it.
MOST ILLEGAL immigrants worry about being deported, so it is not unusual that they fear the police. This fear erupted into protests when Governor Patrick announced in December that Massachusetts would implement Secure Communities, a federal program that helps Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) coordinate efforts with state and local police to find and remove criminal illegal immigrants.
Under this program, the fingerprints of arrested criminal suspects would be checked against federal immigration databases. In Boston, where it was first piloted, in the last two years, ICE put 268 felons on the path to removal to their home countries.
The Patrick administration has held public hearings across the state, ostensibly to explain the program to the immigrant population. But the governor’s delay exacts a real cost to our state.
According to ICE statistics, every day about 60 non-citizens are arrested in the Commonwealth. About half of these are illegal immigrants. Overall, we spend $30 million a year to incarcerate illegal immigrants in Massachusetts, according to state figures.
What rational argument can there be for allowing illegal immigrants who commit crimes to stay here in defiance of immigration laws?
We attended the public hearings in Framingham, Lawrence, Waltham, Chelsea, and Brockton, and watched representatives of ethnic and civil liberties groups, the Socialist Workers Party, and a service workers union speak against Secure Communities. These advocates declared that, far from enhancing safety for all, the information-sharing would undermine it, as immigrants would stop reporting crimes because they fear they would also be deported.
But this fear is unwarranted. It is not based on experience, but on the misleading portrayal of Secure Communities by its organized opponents who seem to believe that Massachusetts should remain a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. What they should be telling immigrants instead is that not a single innocent crime victim, not in Boston nor in the 41 other states where Secure Communities operates, has been deported after reporting a crime. It is longstanding ICE policy that victims and witnesses are not targets of immigration law enforcement.
Secure Communities might have protected Maria Palaguachi-Cela and her young son [pictured] from Luis Guaman, an illegal immigrant accused in February of murdering them and throwing their bodies in a dumpster outside their Brockton apartment. Guaman had prior arrests under different names, first for domestic violence in New York, and then for a stabbing in Brockton.
If this program had been in place earlier, ICE probably would have sent him home a long time ago.
Opponents cite statistics showing that the violent felons make up “only’’ 39 percent of the offenders processed by the Boston ICE office. But whether or not they are all violent is irrelevant. It makes little sense to the average person that petty foreign criminals should be immune from immigration laws. And many escape conviction because local prosecutors drop charges when they realize ICE will seek to remove them. Hundreds of others in this category are serial immigration scofflaws who have been ordered deported before.
By opposing Secure Communities, illegal immigrants adhere to a calculus that an imagined increase in the possibility of deportation if one reports a crime outweighs the danger of tolerating an entrenched criminal population. But, in reality, if Patrick allows Massachusetts to remain a sanctuary state, how many crimes will have to transpire before shattered and enraged citizens demand that he turn that calculation on its head?
Jessica Vaughan is a researcher with the Center for Immigration Studies. Mike Stopa is a nanophysicist at Harvard University who blogs at www.mikestopa.com.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.