As far as borders and sovereignty go, Texas Governor Rick Perry is all hat and no cattle. In fact, it would be more accurate to say he is all sombrero and no cattle. His campaign style is attractive to those who admire a certain swagger, but his beliefs run counter to what most American citizens want — that immigration be legal, controlled and reduced.
Even though Ann Coulter says in her book Demonic that conservatives don’t get emotional crushes on political figures the way that the liberal mob does, there does seem to be a mini-swoon forming over the flashy gov who prays in public and talks tough — except when it comes to immigration enforcement.
The border defender and former Congressman Tom Tancredo connects the relevant dots:
On Saturday Texas Gov. Rick Perry is expected to announce whether or not he will run for president. Many now believe he will.
Perry is eager to separate himself from his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush — who is unpopular with both tea party Republicans and the American electorate as a whole. But one area where Perry’s positions are virtually identical to Bush is immigration.
When I ran for president in 2008, I tried to pressure the Republican candidates to take a hard line against illegal immigration. For this, Perry called me a racist.
When he first took office as governor in 2001, Perry went to Mexico and bragged about his law that granted “the children of undocumented workers” special in-state tuition at Texas colleges, the first state in the nation to do so.
“The message is simple,” Perry concluded, “educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.” Education is the future, and (echoing Cesar Chavez’s slogan) yes we can.]
Just a few weeks ago, Perry defended his decision to give in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. He said “to punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about.”
Perry opposed Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070. “I have concerns,” he explained, “with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.”
He spoke out last year against using E-Verify to prevent illegal immigrants from getting jobs as state employees, who get their paychecks from the taxpayers. He insisted it “would not make a hill of beans’ difference.”
Numbers USA, a group that supports immigration control, gives Perry a “D-” for his positions supporting amnesty, open borders, and opposing border security.
Perry, in a speech in Mexico in 2007, said he supports completely open borders, calling for the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.”
In the same speech he came out against building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.Perry also came out in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006, albeit without citizenship, supporting “a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contribution.
“ Despite all his talk about sovereignty and states’ rights, Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor. This toll road would go through Mexico, but be run together with the Mexican government in the middle of Texas.
While I was in Congress, I co-sponsored the H.C. Res. 487 to block the creation of this highway. Fortunately our efforts in Congress, along with the work of conservatives in the Texas legislature, derailed Perry’s sovereignty sacrificing scheme.
Perry’s views here are at odds with the vast majority of Americans — and virtually all Republican voters. While he opposes E-Verify for even state employees, 82 percent of all voters, and 91 percent of Republicans, support E-Verify for all employees.
While Perry opposes the border fence, 68 percent of all voters, and 86 percent of Republicans, support the fence. While Perry opposes the Arizona law, SB 1070, voters want 1070 in their state by a 2-1 margin — including 86 percent of all Republicans.
Perry’s only true conservative positions on borders involve calling for an end to sanctuary cities and signing a voter ID law. While I support these measures, they don’t make up for the rest of his positions on immigration. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Tom Tancredo served as a Republican congressman from Colorado 1999-2009, and was chairman of the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus. He now serves as chairman of Team America PAC and the Rocky Mountain Foundation.
The Obama administration has a way of playing fast and loose with national security — like maintaining open borders in a dangerous world.
Another example has been the operation that killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani suburb. Way too much has already been revealed to the public concerning tactics, weapons and military units. Joe Biden blabbed that Navy SEALs performed the mission after even his boss said merely that “a small team of Americans” did the deed.
Washington remains worse than useless on immigration enforcement, but fortunately the states have moved to pick up the slack, as indicated by a report showing that the number of state bills is increasing, and some are even signed into law.
Given federal fecklessness and state leadership, Rep. Lamar Smith’s proposal for national e-verify that would eliminate the ability of states to enforce immigration law — the pricetag of the business community for its support of the Smith bill — would be a disastrous choice. The Smith bill would be another stealth amnesty like the 1986 law that promised enforcement which never happened in exchange for rewarding millions of lawbreakers with US citizenship. All carrot, no stick. It appears that bad history may be repeated once again.
LOS ANGELES — State lawmakers considered a record number of immigration-related bills this year, highlighting their continued frustration with federal government inaction on immigration laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
A total of 1,592 bills were introduced in all 50 states and Puerto Rico in the 2011 legislative session that ended June 30, a report by the bipartisan research organization found.
State legislators in 40 states enacted 151 of the bills, which mainly addressed law enforcement, identification and employment issues, said Ann Morse, program director of the conference’s immigrant policy project. An additional five laws were vetoed by governors.
Five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – created laws similar to a controversial Arizona immigration law, known as SB 1070, which requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and whom they suspect to be in the country illegally.
All five of those laws been challenged in federal court, with opponents citing federal pre-emption and violation of the Fourth and 14th amendments.
“The level of interest in the states is still very high,” Morse said. “What we’re seeing is a frustration with the federal government that it won’t take up these issues.”
An uptick in states’ legislation began in 2005, when 300 bills were introduced and 38 laws were enacted, Morse said.
At that time, states focused primarily on social services and naturalization issues, areas lawmakers believed the federal government was failing to address. But as frustrations with the federal government began to rise, so did the amount of legislation that was introduced, Morse said. Continue reading this article
Coulter notes that the full flowering of the mob came during the French Revolution, in which the mob’s Reign of Terror caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, from the King and Queen of France to the revolution’s own leaders like Robespierre. By comparison, the American Revolution was remarkably principled and orderly as armed uprisings go.
“This is the uprising of the working class. We’re redistributing the wealth,” said Bryn Phillips, a 28-year-old self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.
In the video below, a looter in Clapham Junction claims the theft is a kind of tax refund. Brilliant. It’s a Marxist version of H&R Block in which imagined victimhood justifies crime and violence.
It’s too bad the British people have been disarmed by the government and have no guns to defend themselves and their property.
On Saturday I watched the Fox News Special, “A Question of Honor,” and while it added interesting details about a case I’ve followed since the beginning, the news doc was unsatisfying. The film recounted the 2009 Arizona murder of a young woman, Noor Almaleki (shown), by her Iraqi immigrant father because she wanted to live as a free individual in America rather than a submissive Muslim female.
The theme throughout was that of “honor” as the title indicates. But there was no deeper explanation that the honor referred to is not what we Westerners mean when we use the word. Faleh Almaleki killed his daughter because he has the typical Islamic male view belief that women are worth less than men as he learned from the Koran and other Islo-texts, and when females disobey the laws of Mohammed, then they must be murdered to restore “honor” to the family. The idea that “honor killings” are accepted in Islamic societies as a normal behavior is correctly considered barbaric in the West, where women are full citizens with civil rights.
Interestingly, Judge Roland Steinle took a common-sense approach in the sentencing and did not care much about the Islo-honor aspect. He figured that a man who murdered his daughter, even in a lesser second-degree crime, deserved a long sentence in the slammer whatever the motivation, and sent Almaleki to state prison for 34 years.
The film could have shown that honor killings are common in the Middle East and Islamic countries like Pakistan, but it did not. The program could have gently suggested to viewers that Muslim immigration has imported a vile crime, earlier unknown in this country, as part of the absurd pursuit of diversity as the highest good, but it did not.
Not only does Muslim immigration endanger our national security, it has opened up our society to deeply alien cultures with social norms that are repulsive to our values.
An audio tape obtained by Fox News sheds new light into the 2009 murder of an Iraqi-born woman who was killed in Arizona after her father drove over her in what police believe was an honor killing.
According to the tape, as Noor Al-Maleki, 20, clung to life in intensive care, Peoria police believed that her father, Faleh Al-Maleki, had targeted her for an honor killing – and that other members of her family might try to kill her in her hospital bed.
The audio tape records a telephone conversation between Seham Al-Maleki – Noor’s mother – and Peoria police detective Bill Laing. In it Laing informs Seham that her husband had run down Noor and her friend Amal Khalaf with his Jeep Cherokee, as the two women were leaving an Arizona welfare office. The incident occurred on October 20, 2009 in a parking lot in Peoria, a suburb of Phoenix.
The tape was obtained by Fox News as part of an 8-month-long investigation into Al-Maleki’s killing, which will be the focus of a one-hour program, Fox News Reporting: A Question of Honor, is hosted by Bill Hemmer that premieres on Saturday at 10 p.m. ET.
“I want to see my daughter!” Seham Al-Maleki screams on the tape.
“Until he [Noor's father] is located, we are not mentioning where she is at,” responds Laing, who told the mother that witnesses in the parking lot identified her husband as the driver.
“This woman, she is lying, because she is dirty,” Seham says, referring to Noor’s friend Khalaf, who survived being hit by Al-Maleki’s jeep.
The Los Angeles Times loves to pretend that the massive demographic change caused by the Mexicanization of the American southwest is of no consequence. Sometimes the paper rewrites history entirely or ignore the cultural effects of Mexifornication, such as failing schools, increased gang crime and balkanization.
This tendency showed up in a recent news article, where a big lowrider show in Kern County was reported by the paper as if it were some sort of traditional American event, rather an expression of la Raza. There was no mention of lowriders’ hispanic origins. The piece didn’t even celebrate diversity, but wrote as if lowriders had been a part of California ever since cars began.
Instead of learning about the Mexican fondness for decorating automobiles (and turning them into large bouncing toys), one reads that the Lowrider Nationals is a fun event for car enthusiasts and the whole family.
Please. Lowriders reflect Mexican gangster culture transplanted to America.
Think of the words “Southern California” and several iconic images come to mind: palm trees in the breeze, well-toned men and women on the beach, the Hollywood sign, and lowriders moving slowly down the boulevard.
Modified to ride only inches from the ground, top chopped and refitted, custom paint job burnished to a proud shine, the lowrider since the 1940s has appropriated L.A.’s ubiquitous car culture — the famously gridlocked traffic, the pollution, the inability to walk the neighborhoods — and re-imagined the automobile as the ultimate urban art form.
On Sunday, the 14th annual Lowrider Nationals event brings together hundreds of these cars for an entertaining and family-oriented day of auto shows, concerts, dance clubs, and food trucks at Kern County Fairgrounds in Bakersfield.
Rick Muñoz, the event’s producer, sums up the dynamic between the city driver and his vehicle: “The lifestyle of the urban person is very flashy and very loud — the cars certainly match that lifestyle.” Continue reading this article
As we have seen, some states, like Arizona and Alabama, are willing to do the work the feds just won’t do, that of policing the borders and workplaces. Under President Obama, immigration enforcement exists only in terms of appearance. Millions of jobs are still occupied by unlawful foreigners, despite years of terrible joblessness among citizens of this country, when workplace enforcement could liberate those positions for Americans who need them. Plus, Obama’s administrative amnesty ensures that Washington deports only the very worst criminals.
It is highly unlikely that even a well crafted national e-verify would be actively enforced by this pro-amnesty administration, so why cripple the states when they are working to protect American citizens from criminals and job thieves?
One of the most tired clichés of the immigration debate is that “immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do.” With 16 million Americans out of work, this justification for not enforcing our immigration laws rings hollower than ever.
There are an estimated 7-8 million illegal aliens in the workforce. Virtually all of them are in unskilled sectors such as agriculture, food service and preparation, and construction; which also have extremely high levels of native born unemployment.
Freeing up those jobs for Americans should be common sense during a recession.
Hiring illegal aliens is already a crime under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, but neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama enforced this law. Part of the problem is that it is easy for “undocumented” immigrants to get fake documents. Under the current system, an honest employer may be duped into hiring or an illegal, while unscrupulous businesses can intentionally look the other way and plead ignorance if they get caught.
In 1996, Congress created the E-Verify program to help close this loophole. E-Verify is an electronic system that allows an employer to enter the social security or alien registration number of a potential employee. This gets checked against a government database to confirm whether an employee is here legally within minutes. When I served in Congress I cosponsored a number of pieces of legislation to mandate E-Verify nationwide.
These bills never made it through Congress, so states and localities began to do the job the federal government wouldn’t do. In 2006, Hazleton, PA, under the leadership of their mayor Lou Barletta, passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The next year, Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Worker Act (LAWA.) Following Arizona’s lead, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, and many other states passed their own E-Verify laws.
Predictably, the ACLU sued Hazleton and the Chamber of Commerce sued Arizona on the grounds that states were preempted from enforcing immigration law.
In May, the Supreme Court ruled that LAWA was constitutional in Chamber of Commerce vs. Whiting. The next week, they upheld the Hazleton law. This opens the door for even more states to pass E-Verify laws when they go back in session.
In the wake of all this momentum in favor of state laws and E-Verify, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced the H.R. 2164, The Legal Workforce Act in June. On the surface, the Legal Workforce Act is a great bill. It requires E-Verify for all new hires and improves the system to prevent identity theft. Unfortunately, the bill includes a preemption provision that will prevent States and localities from enforcing employer sanctions on illegal immigration unless the federal government acts first. This, in effect, will completely wipe out our victory in the Supreme Court.
By including the preemption section, Rep. Smith has won the support of the Chamber of Commerce and other business groups who lobbied against every previous piece of immigration control legislation because it restricts their supply of cheap labor.
However, he has lost the support of some conservatives. Lou Barletta, who is now a freshman Congressman (R-PA), opposes the bill. He claims, “If this bill becomes law, states and municipalities will be powerless without the federal government acting first. Waiting for the federal government to enforce its own immigration laws is how we got into this mess in the first place.” Continue reading this article
According to the elite liberal media, if everyone would just stop saying critical things about Islam, then hostile Muslims would chill and worldwide kumbaya would prevail. But if 1400 years of war, invasion and (now) immigration by Islam against the West is any indication, a pacifist response to historic Islamic bellicosity is not recommended.
The shooter, Anders Breivik, listed all kinds of influences in his 1500-page manifesto, from Adam Smith and Shakespeare to Homer and John Stuart Mill. But the New York Times, as the influential top dog of the media mob, decided to call out non-liberal bloggers as blame objects.
One of the major targets, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.org, appeared on CBN recently to answer his critics:
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Not long after the terrible massacre in Norway, the media started searching for scapegoats, and they began to pin the blame on an influential American blogger.
Some news articles about the killings have suggested that accused mass murderer Anders Breivik was inspired by a handful of bloggers who write about the dangers of Islam on the Internet.
Breivik sought to kill members and supporters of Norway’s ruling Labor Party, which he believes has allowed Norway to be Islamisized.
The press zeroed in on one respected Islamic expert in particular, Robert Spencer, who blogs on the website, Jihadwatch.org.
“Tonight, officials are pouring over this 1,500-page manifesto that Breivik wrote, he quoted heavily, not only from the Unabomber, but from American blogger Robert Spencer, who shares his suspicion of Islam,” ABC’s World News Tonight reported in the days that followed the massacre.
But Spencer has never called for violence against Muslims. He is the author of 10 books, including the New York Times bestsellers, “The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.” He also leads seminars on Islam and jihad for the U.S. military, the FBI, and the intelligence community.
Critics of Islam have long been accused of hate speech, and some believe the Norway massacre is now being used as an excuse to further stifle criticism of Islam.
When a big-time polling company (Gallup) partners up with an Islamic nation (Dubai) to show Muslim success in the United States, the investigation may not be very challenging.
The just-released 132-page report (half in Arabic) is titled “MUSLIM AMERICANS: Faith, Freedom, and the Future; Examining U.S. Muslims’ Political, Social, and Spiritual Engagement 10 Years After September 11.” (Download here.) The presentation is cheerful and seems preoccupied with whether Muslims residing in this country are “thriving” and how much discrimination they have suffered at the hands of cruel Islamophobe Americans.
Gallup apparently did not ask whether those surveyed approved of the more than 17,500 jihadist attacks since 9/11, as tracked by the “Religion of Peace” website, which is currently scoring Ramadan 2011.
If I were designing a poll, there would be more probing questions for Muslim residers in the United States, such as the following:
● Is sharia law superior to the Constitution?
● Would America be a better place if ruled by sharia?
● Does your local mosque preach the eventuality of a worldwide caliphate?
● Were Jews behind the attacks on the World Trade Center?
Despite Gallup’s lack of curiosity, the company did turn up at least one noteworthy statistic, one that indicated how little Muslims are integrated in this country, as measured by their lack of identification with America compared to all other religious groups.
The overwhelming majority of American Muslims say they are not sympathetic with terror groups like al Qaeda, but they identify less strongly with the United States than other religious groups in the country, according to a new poll on Tuesday.
While 69 percent of American Muslims identify either very strongly or extremely strongly with the U.S., that compares with about 90 percent of Christians and Jews in the U.S. who hold those views, the Gallup survey found.
A full 91 percent of Protestants, 89 percent of Catholics, 86 percent of Jews and 92 percent of Mormons say that they identify either very strongly or extremely strongly with the U.S.
American Muslims and Mormons tend to identify with their faith and the U.S. equally, but Catholics, Protestants and Jews all said that they identified more with their country than with their religion, Gallup said. Continue reading this article
In the latest example of the cruelty of demographic change, Marvel Comics has killed off its Spiderman-Peter Parker character and replaced him with a diverse persona who is half black, half hispanic and maybe even gay in a three-fer opportunity for comic sales.
Can readers also hope to see a left-handed superhero to portray the struggles of southpaws for respect in a ruthlessly right-handed world?
As a mere civilian in the comix universe (whose favorite was always the mysterious Dr. Strange), I find it odd to axe one character to be replaced by a more demographically advantageous one, when the captains of publishing could just create a new book. Marvel might cobble together a Divers-o-man concoction to promote the flawed ideology that diversity is the highest good.
Comics are increasingly used to bend kids’ minds with propaganda of various agendas. Consider “The 99,” a copious gaggle of Muslim superheroes to instill Islamic values.
Since comics are fantastic fiction, however, reality has a level of squish built in, where normal rules don’t apply. Miles Morales, the new diverse Spiderman, exists in the Ultimate imprint of the Marvel company, while the Peter Parker superhero is alive and well in the regular universe. If only real life were so flexible.
We have an African-American president, so why not an African-American Spider-Man, too?
Revealed in Marvel Comics’ Ultimate Fallout Issue 4, out Wednesday, the new Spider-Man in the Ultimate universe is a half-black, half-Hispanic teen named Miles Morales. He takes over the gig held by Peter Parker, who was killed in Ultimate Spider-Man Issue 160 in June.
In his first appearance, he simply breaks up a fight. But readers will learn the true origin of Morales and how he became the new Spider-Man when Ultimate Spider-Man relaunches in September with a new No. 1 issue.
“The theme is the same: With great power comes great responsibility,” says writer Brian Michael Bendis. “He’s going to learn that. Then he has to figure out what that means.”
The new Ultimate Spider-Man series, as well as Wednesday’s Ultimate Fallout issue, will be available digitally the same day as in stores.
In the regular Marvel Universe, Peter Parker will still be the same web-swinging Spidey as he has been since his first appearance in 1962. But in the Ultimate line, launched in 2000 to tell contemporary stories, he received a new origin and a reimagined supporting cast that paralleled the Spidey in regular Marvel continuity.
Morales’ journey will be a similar vehicle for today’s fans, says Marvel’s editor in chief, Axel Alonso.
“What you have is a Spider-Man for the 21st century who’s reflective of our culture and diversity. We think that readers will fall in love with Miles Morales the same way they fell in love with Peter Parker.” Continue reading this article
German elites slammed Sarrazin for his 2010 book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany does away with itself) which analyzed the negative effects of Muslim immigration, but the book became a best seller for discussing what many Germans were already thinking.
Well known Aussie pundit Andrew Bolt interviewed Sarrazin last week.
Economist Oliver Marc Hartwich reflected on the reason for Sarrazin’s success — honesty in a politically correct society — but that has resulted in resistance from entrenched interests against criticism of the ruling order.
FORMER career civil servants and central bankers seldom have star potential. Their work rarely excites the public and their pictures do not usually appear on front pages. This would have been Thilo Sarrazin’s fate as well. A former state treasurer in the city of Berlin and director of the German Bundesbank, Sarrazin was mainly known to political insiders.
All of this changed last August when he published the book Germany abolishes itself (Deutschland schafft sich ab). Within months the provocatively titled tome of 464 pages, laden with statistics and footnotes, became the best selling non-fiction book in German post-war history. More than 1.5 million copies have been printed to date. Its author developed into an unlikely media star whose name recognition in Germany now surpasses the Pope and the chancellor.
Sarrazin’s media success may be unlikely but it can be explained. In a media society governed by political correctness, he did not play by the rules. Perhaps because Sarrazin was used to speaking his mind behind closed doors he believed he could also get away with it in public. As it turned out, that was too optimistic an assumption.
The main points Sarrazin made in his book were neither particularly new nor were they factually incorrect. Like many authors before him, he pointed out that German society is ageing and shrinking because of low birthrates. He also offered a blistering critique of the welfare state, which he claimed had created a persistent, uneducated underclass.
Sarrazin then dared to suggest that due to the availability of welfare entitlements for the poor and career incentives for the rich the great majority of children are now born to parents from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
Finally, he explained how Germany’s haphazard immigration system had failed to attract high potentials and instead became exploited by poorly educated migrants. The additional point that Muslim migrants are segregating from mainstream society, again backed up by unambiguous statistical data, was the icing on the cake of Sarrazin’s assault on everything that the guardians of political correctness regard as sacred. Continue reading this article
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.