In Brazil last month, rabid soccer fans went positively medieval. Two men were killed, one of whom ended up dismembered with his head on a stick. A referee, 20-year-old Octavio da Silva Catanhede Jordan (pictured) fatally stabbed a player during an argument over a call, after which the fans rushed the field and sliced him up. Apparently the fans didn’t think of performing a citizens’ arrest until police arrived.
A soccer referee in Brazil was gruesomely quartered and beheaded after he fatally stabbed a player on the field during a match.
The match took place June 30 at Pius XII stadium in Maranhao, northeastern Brazil.
According to Correio24horas, 30-year-old player Josenir dos Santos Abreu approached the 20-year-old referee, Octavio da Silva Catanhede Jordan, to argue a call.The two couldn’t come to terms so Catanhede Jordan told the player to leave the field.
Santos Abreu refused and the argument turned heated when the referee allegedly pulled out a pocket knife and stabbed Santos Abreu multiple times.
The player died en route to the hospital. Fans outraged by the stabbing – believed to be the player’s friends and family – stormed the pitch and cornered Catanhede Jordan.
Part of the piece checked out the Dorchester Youth Collaborative, a jobs program for minority kids who need the basics of behavior training and how to look for work and make a good impression. But the numbers don’t work — there are too many unemployed people of all ages searching for jobs, and inexperienced young folks are the least desirable for employers. What good is it to learn proper work skills if there are no jobs in which to use them?
Nobody mentioned that if the Senate has its way with immigration, there will be even fewer jobs for American teenagers. The recently passed bill allows 30 million people to legal status in the next decade. The CBO says the bill would reduce average wages in America for 12 years, increase unemployment for 7 years and reduce per capita GNP growth over 25 years. That’s not much of a future for our young people, thanks to the ruling elites.
PBS economist Paul Solman interviewed Andrew Sum, a university labor researcher who has followed youth unemployment for years.
Paul Solman: Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum is featured in our youth joblessness story on the NewsHour Friday. His full picture of the crisis is essential reading, however, and so we share more of my interview with him here. For example, if you are a poor African-American high school teenage dropout, your likelihood of having a job is — 5 percent.
Paul Solman: You have used the term “age twist” to describe today’s job market? What do you mean?
Andrew Sum: What has happened is not a flat trend where every age group is moving up and down together as jobs grow and shrink. The younger you are, the more likely it is that you’ve been thrown out of the labor market. So for 16, 17, 18-year-olds, their employment rates have dropped to about half what they were a decade ago. Meanwhile, people 57 and over are more likely to be working today than they were in 2000. But the younger you are, the more likely it is you’ve been thrown out of the market.
Paul Solman: How does that compare to the historical relationship between age and joblessness?
Andrew Sum: Up until 1995, older workers were retiring more from the labor market so their employment rate was actually declining — from the 1960s — and then, starting in the 1990s, it began to change. The baby boomers were getting older. They had different work behavior and were more likely to stay in the labor market than their predecessors.
Paul Solman: That’s people like us?
Andrew Sum: That’s absolutely right. But among the young, we began to observe the problem after 2001. When the boom ended in 2000, the labor market, like it always does, generated lots of job losses for young people. What was different this time was that when the economy recovered, it generated no net new jobs for teenagers. Then along comes the 2007-2009 Great Recession, and the labor market for young people is destroyed.
The sad thing is that since the nation began to add jobs in 2009, we’ve created about 5.2 million additional jobs for America’s workers. Teenagers in the aggregate received none of them. Not one.
Paul Solman: So, there are no more jobs for teenagers today than there were when the recovery started in 2009?
Plus, the political transformation has been cataclysmic. Once a red state, California now is completely Democrat run, with a super-majority of Dems in the legislature and no Republicans in other offices.
Perhaps today or certainly sometime very soon, another baby will be born or a new immigrant will arrive and the number of Latinos in California will equal the state’s non-Hispanic white population, according to official state population projections.
The change, to be marked today by a noon event at the state Capitol, has long been predicted by state demographers. It won’t instantly make Latinos an equally powerful political force in California, or bring their incomes into parity with non-Hispanic whites, or close the school achievement gap.
But it is an important milestone – and a reminder that these other goals will become easier to achieve as the number of Latinos continues to grow, several leaders and activists said.
“We are clinging to our culture, our heritage and our language as we assimilate into the American society,” said Orlando Fuentes, president of the Latino Democratic Club, an organizer of today’s event. “We are here because we want the same dream. We want to have part of the pie.”
The term Latino is an ethnic rather than racial designation, according to the Census Bureau. Most Latinos are white, but the bureau draws a distinction between Latinos and non-Hispanic whites.
Fifteen years ago, non-Hispanic whites outnumbered Latinos in California by roughly 5 million, census figures show.
But the Latino population has grown quickly through immigration and comparatively high birth rates. At the same time, the number of whites has fallen as birth rates in that population dropped and more of them left the state than came here.
“We’re adding a substantial number of Latinos through immigration,” said Hans Johnson, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. “Many of them are young adults ready to start families.”
There’s a new Pope in the Vatican, and he is still making a first impression. So far, we have seen TLC, hugs and a simpler lifestyle. He recently announced his first foreign foray, and he chose Lampedusa as the place to display his special papal compassion regarding the deaths of several Africans on their way to the island, then on to Europe presumably. The choice may not have been the wisest, given recent history.
Below, Africans created a tent city of trash on Lampedusa in 2011.
Lampedusa is a small island which is the southernmost point of Italy, located only 70 miles from Tunisia. As a result, many thousands of young Muslim men have tried to reach it as a gateway to the welfare offices of Europe. Apparently numerous able young fellows have not been interested in fighting for the glorious Arab Spring. (Photos of the Africans in Lampedusa show 20-something men almost entirely.)
Tens of thousands of demanding “refugees” have deposited themselves on the island over the last two years and have rioted when told they would be repatriated. The mayor of the town picked up a baseball bat to defend himself from the refugees rioting in the streets.
Pope Francis has chosen the southern Italian island of Lampedusa for his first trip outside Rome, to show solidarity with tens of thousands of refugees who each year brave a perilous journey there in flimsy boats, the Vatican said on Monday.
The small island, Italy’s southernmost point, is the conduit for mostly African immigrants fleeing conflict or economic hardship in order to enter the European Union.
The Vatican said Francis was “profoundly touched” by the flood of immigration, and will throw a wreath of flowers into the sea in memory of the many who have drowned in waters off the island during the visit on July 8.
The pontiff will also meet groups of immigrants who have made the crossing and will celebrate a mass in a sports center on the island.
A holding center on the island built to hold 380 has long been overwhelmed, and the island’s predicament has become a symbol in Europe and Italy for those who see immigration as out of control.
Lampedusa’s regular population of about 6,000 has often been outnumbered by migrants sleeping in improvised tent encampments dotted around the island, which in normal times lives from fishing and tourism.
Over 50,000 people arrived there in a surge caused by unrest in North Africa in 2011, and recent good weather has caused another increase in the hundreds arriving each week as it allows a less risky crossing.
Why can’t Republicans learn? Citizenship is not the magnet that draws millions of moochers from around the world; it is legalization, specifically legal access to all jobs in the United States.
Legalization IS amnesty.
Only the political sluts, like La Raza and the Democrat party, care about turning grateful (mostly) hispanic amnesty recipients into voters. Naturally, they will vote in overwhelming numbers for the Handout D-party, because a pile of benefits is culturally what they expect from government.
As long as foreigners see that they can enter illegally, work with illegal documents and eventually become legalized, they will continue to come and steal American jobs. Washington is training them to behave in this way because the government has consistently rewarded illegal behavior for decades.
If we want to end illegal immigration, the lawbreakers must be punished, not rewarded.
The Republican Chair of the House Judiciary Committee should know what draws illegals to break a pile of laws, so it’s disappointing to see him speak so ignorantly about offering a “path to legalization.”
On Sunday’s State of the Union (CNN), Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) blamed Republicans in the House for not simply agreeing to the Senate immigration reform bill passed with a 68-32 vote last week. He said that House Republicans were worried about a “Republican solution” rather than a bipartisan one. “What the House Republicans are doing is giving a Republican solution. And a Republican solution isn’t what we saw was successful in the Senate,” he said.
“The speaker of the House now has to decide whether or not he is going to allow the American people to speak. There are a majority of Democrats and Republicans whoa re ready to solve this problem.” It is certainly untrue that a majority of Republicans voted for the Senate bill.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) responded by saying that the Democrats have not proposed anything approaching bipartisanship in the House. “Until Democrats in the House are willing to work with Republicans to get a solution in the House that a majority of House Republicans will support it,” said Goodlatte, nothing would happen. Goodlatte said that House Republicans could back a bill for a “pathway to legalization” rather than a “pathway to citizenship.”
This week is the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, a singularly important engagement in a war that had many memorable clashes. It’s worth reflecting on the history of that time, the dedication to preserving the American nation and ridding it of slavery, a cause for which many gave their lives.
These days, elites in business, media and academia are globalists who believe the nation-state is a washed-up concept. Of course, it’s easier for the top dogs to keep their exalted positions with reduced accountability to the citizenry, as has been developed in the EU bureaucratic superstate. It remains to the little citizens to support the traditional nation, with its attendant borders and culture.
Below, a video clip of that 1938 anniversary, when approximately 2500 Civil War veterans gathered to remember the battle.
Last week, Maine’s independent Senator Angus King gave a speech on the Senate floor about the battle and fellow Mainer Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a hero of Little Round Top. [Watch.] From his remarks, one might take the Senator for a friend of the American union. Yet he voted for the nation-wrecking amnesty bill. It’s easy to wave the flag, but harder to defend it when campaign contributors are on the phone.
The speed by which an invasion of hostile immigrants can destable a weakened nation is sobering. A few decades ago, in 1940 Britain heroically stood alone in Europe against the Nazi fascists running roughshod over the continent. Now the same nation cowers pathetically in the face of its local Muslim unfriendlies, hoping that a moderate amount of surrender of Western values to Islam will suffice.
Hint: surrender never works. As Winston Churchill presciently observed, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The appeaser does get gobbled up at some point, because the Islamic crocodile is an eating machine.
These days, Muslims work to conquer one neighborhood at a time, using their increasing numbers as a weapon of intimidation. Areas of London are no-go zones for English people, where jihadist gangs patrol to enforce sharia compliance against unveiled women, recognizable gays and any sign of alcohol consumption. London is no longer majority white because so many English people have fled the city in the face of such extreme immigration.
The negative milestones keep accumulating in Britain, which should indicate to any intelligent observer that Muslim immigration is the worst public policy ever. Continuing weakness on the part of official Britain only feeds and encourages the beast.
Rush Limbaugh read parts of Byron York’s article (below) on Friday about the Gang of Eight amnesty strategy of Senator Marco Rubio (pictured) being the front man to explain away fears among conservative media. Limbaugh ostentatiously cleared his throat when reading how conservatives were “disappointed” with Rubio. Ahem! [Listen.]
In fact, Rush Limbaugh has had a long infatuation with the photogenic Florida Senator, and held out hope for Rubio’s good faith long after his perfidy had become obvious to most. The dream of a genuinely conservative Rubio Presidency was too alluring for him to give up. See my June 12 blog, Bewildered Limbaugh Is Still Defending Rubio.
The bad-faith trend has been constant and predictable, but spine-challenged Senate Republicans would rather coddle hispanics for illusory political gain than defend the borders guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the end, immigration reform really was a done deal in the Senate. Debates come down to numbers on Capitol Hill, and the Gang of Eight reform team had the numbers. Needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, they started with the Senate’s 54 Democrats and then added the four Republican Gang members. With 58 votes in the bag, it wasn’t hard to get to 60. So most of the 14 Republicans who ultimately voted to get the Gang bill past a filibuster were extras, not needed for passage but helpful to allow the reformers to claim a broad mandate.
From the beginning, many Senate Republicans were terrified of immigration reform. They knew a large part of their base opposed any measure that smelled of “amnesty.” But they were also deeply shaken by last November’s election results, in which Mitt Romney won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. Some GOP strategists, and some Senate colleagues, told them the Republican Party would be finished unless it supported reform.
What to do? First, they tried not to stick their necks out. For several months, if you asked a Republican senator a substantive question about immigration, the answer was, “Let’s see what Marco comes up with.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been more than the GOP point man on immigration. From January, when the Gang of Eight announced its intentions, until April, when it unveiled its bill, Rubio was the man Republicans hid behind. “We’re waiting for Marco” became the Senate Republican caucus’ unofficial position on immigration.
After the Gang unveiled its bill, one might have expected GOP lawmakers to take a stand. Instead, many still deferred to Rubio, saying they were waiting to see what kind of improvements he might deliver.
Republicans were able to keep their heads down in part because there wasn’t a lot of pressure coming from the anti-reform conservative base. And that owed a great deal to the Gang’s decision to dispatch Rubio, elected as a Tea Party favorite in 2010 and viewed as a future leader of the Republican Party, on a mission to allay conservative suspicions about the bill.
“Menendez told me that Rubio’s role was to ‘work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,’ in order to ‘neutralize them’ and, in some cases, ‘proselytize them,'” the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza reported recently, referring to Democratic Gang member Robert Menendez. The leader of the Gang, Democrat Charles Schumer, “was delighted to have a Tea Party conservative who could sell an immigration bill to the right,” Lizza wrote. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions is certainly a warrior for sovereignty. He argued against the evil Obama-Rubio amnesty often and convincingly until the final disappointing vote.
Below is a clip of his patiently explaining once again to his corrupt and/or stupid colleagues that welcoming millions of foreign lawbreakers to take American jobs is a fool’s errand, and is moved forward by powerful special interests with their own agenda. The motley puppetmasters guiding the Gang of Eight Senators are named, just so there is no question, from La Raza to the President.
Here’s the text, from Sessions’ press release file:
WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor today regarding the Gang of Eight immigration plan ahead of its final vote. Sessions’ remarks, as prepared, follow:
“The bill before us rides here on a high ideal, but is nowhere close to what it promises. It is fatally flawed. If passed, it will not work.
This flawed bill did not come about because of inadvertence, chance, error, ignorance, or mistake. It came about as a direct result of the fact that the forces that shaped it all had goals that were important to them, but these goals are not coterminous with the interests of the nation as a whole. The real politique Gang seemed fine with that. They openly reported for weeks that these interests were working through the legislation and their differences, and soon the Gang would have a bill that, having been blessed by the powerful interests they had invited to the meetings, would be delivered to the Senate for adoption.
They were so proud of this process that they, the magnificent Eight, would stick together, all for one, one for all, and defeat any amendment that dared to alter this ‘delicate agreement.’ They would consider amendments, of course, but nothing serious. Continue reading this article
During Ann Coulter’s visit to the Hannity zone on Monday, he seemed curious about why she has declared herself to be a single-issue person, namely pro-immigration enforcement and against the hideous amnesty.
Coulter explained, “It will change the America we live in. It will harm low-wage workers the most, the people on the bottom rungs, I think Republicans are the only ones who have ever cared about this. Liberals tell us Republicans don’t care about poor and black people and I never never believed it until I saw Marco Rubio’s amnesty bill. It is the low-wage workers who are suffering horrible unemployment who will suffer the most it will change the country in ways that are damaging. It will change the culture. And why do the Democrats want it, they want it for one reason, because it will be 30 million new voters, 80 percent of whom, as all polls show, are going to vote for the Democrats. . .
“In all of these Pew polls, hispanics are the one group, more than any other, that opposes capitalism.”
“The Gang of Eight and their allies revealed their true tactics tonight. They shut down debate and blocked amendments to a 1,200-page immigration bill that no one has read… This legislation is a crushing blow to the working people of this country, a surrender to illegality, and a capitulation to special interests over the interests of the citizens we pledged to represent.” [. . .]
What we know for absolute certain is that this bill guarantees three things: instantaneous amnesty, permanent lawlessness, and a massive expansion in legal immigration that will reduce wages for working Americans. This legislation is a crushing blow to the working people of this country, a surrender to illegality, and a capitulation to special interests over the interests of the citizens we pledged to represent.”
BACKGROUND ON CORKER-HOEVEN SUBSTITUTE AMNESTY-FIRST IMMIGRATION BILL:
● Immediate amnesty before enforcement
● Guts legal requirement for biometric exit-entry system
● Millions of green cards (permanent residency) before enforcement—debunking another false claim from sponsors
● No border surge. Agents aren’t required until 2021. It will never happen
● No fence requirement. DHS retains discretion in the bill that preempts the call for a fence in ten years. Litigation also provides an escape hatch to never build the fence. The fence won’t happen
● Legalization for gang members and convicted criminals
● Amnesty for future visa overstays (in other words, a prospective amnesty for future illegal immigrants)
● Guaranteed welfare access for illegal immigrants
● Undermines interior enforcement, prompting ICE officers to warn: “There is no doubt that, if passed, public safety will be endangered and massive amounts of future illegal immigration—especially visa overstays—is ensured.”
● Expands non-merit chain migration—less than 10 percent of future flow is merit-based
● Doubles the number of guest workers and triples the number of immigrants granted lawful permanent residency—reducing wages for U.S. workers and driving up unemployment
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.