The Australian government has just released a report about the event and Prime Minister Tony Abbott admitted that the authorities had failed in dealing with Monis, who had a long rap sheet of violence. Monis had a list of crimes including dozens of sexual assaults on women through his spiritual activities as a self-appointed sheikh and arranging the murder of his ex-wife. Yet he was freed on bail instead of being treated like a dangerous man.
PM Abbott remarked, “This monster should not have been in our community. He shouldn’t have been allowed into the country. He shouldn’t have been out on bail.”
Below, jihadist Man Haron Monis was known by Australian police to be a dangerous character, yet was allowed to walk the streets freely.
(Reuters) – Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott foreshadowed tighter immigration controls on Sunday when he released the first report into a siege last December in Sydney’s Lindt cafe, in which two hostages and the gunman were killed.
The legal system “had let the country down,” Abbott said, almost ten weeks after Iranian refugee Man Haron Monis walked into the cafe to hold 18 hostages at gunpoint during a 17-hour siege and bring Australia’s largest city to a standstill.
The joint federal and state government report found that all decisions authorities made in relation to Monis were reasonable under current laws, though it recommended changes to conditions for immigration, citizenship and bail.”Plainly, this monster should not have been in our community,” Abbott said in Sydney.
“He shouldn’t have been allowed into the country. He shouldn’t have been out on bail. He shouldn’t have been with a gun and he shouldn’t have become radicalized.”
Monis, who sought asylum in Australia within a month of arriving on a business visa in 1996, later received citizenship.
At the time of the siege, the self-styled sheikh, who tried to align himself with the Islamic State group, was on bail on a charge over the murder of his ex-wife. He was killed by heavily armed police who stormed the cafe after he killed a hostage. Continue reading this article
Isn’t worldwide communication through the internet amazing? It enables jihad barbarians in Africa to threaten Americans in Minnesota. Shabaab is a Somali terror gang and it has a direct connection to Somalis residing in Minnesota since US-residing Somalis began leaving in 2007 to pursue jihad in the land of their parents. In fact, Shirwa Ahmed, a Minneapolis high school graduate who shot hoops and attended the prom, was an early suicide bomber from the US when he blew up 30 in Mogadishu in 2008.
The threat was discussed on Sunday’s Fox morning show with the former Assistant Director of the New York FBI office, Jim Kallstrom:
KALLSTROM: You look at the Mall of America, you look at all the malls and then you start to backtrack and say it would be nice if we knew who comes and goes into the country. We don’t have a clue, we basically don’t have a clue. . .
[The mall is] going to move the perimeter out into the parking area, videos going to be everywhere and of course the people are going to be a lot more alert. I mean, it puts a chill on what our country’s about. . .
[The FBI has] a huge job in front of them because it’s very difficult to control. Now why people are coming, going — why people are going to these training camps and coming back and going into the population is bewildering to me. Why they’re not arrested at the border, why they even get on the airplanes is bewildering to me.
TUCKER CARLSON: And how they got to America in the first place.
A new video from Al Shabaab purportedly shows the terror group calling for an attack on Mall of America, in Bloomington, Minn.
According to Fox 9, the mall is one of three similar targets the terror group specifically names, including West Edmonton Mall in Canada and the Oxford Street shopping area in London.
The video purportedly shows 6 minutes of graphic images and the terrorists celebrating the 2013 Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya, that killed more than 60 people.
An image of the Mall of America is shown in the video, alongside its GPS coordinates. The mall says it is ramping up its security in response.
“We will continue to monitor events with the help of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies,” Mall of America said in a statement. “As always, we take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately. Mall of America has implemented extra security precautions, some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be. We will continue to follow the situation, along with law enforcement, and will remain vigilant as we always do in similar situations.” Continue reading this article
For Saturday’s front page sob story about “migrants,” America’s open-borders propaganda sheet interviewed aliens by name and one was identifiably pictured, so they are hardly hiding from authorities. The government routinely releases violent criminals rather than deport them, so it’s highly doubtful that mere unlawful workers will be given free trips home on the taxpayer’s tab.
The administration has prettied up the numbers to make the employment situation look better than it is. December’s jobless rate was officially 5.6 percent. However, a more realistic number that includes persons who have given up job searching and those working part time who want full time would be considerably higher. Earlier this month, economist Peter Morici observed, “A good notion is that 5.6 percent isn’t real and the real number is 10 percent.”
Gallup CEO Jim Clifton recently called the low unemployment numbers a “big lie” and remarked, “At the recession, we lost 13 million jobs, only three million have come back.” The real level of unemployed is more like 11.2 percent.
Nevertheless, the New York Times continues to press on with its stories of illegal aliens with jobs, which is an insult to millions of Americans struggling to find work.
Illegal alien Tomas Pendola has a job teaching high school chemistry in Florida. If he were repatriated, a jobless American teacher could have a position. Teaching used to be a secure middle class profession, but no longer.
Another employed illegal alien was pictured actually lurking in a shadowy spot — NYTimes humor, perhaps.
The front-page headline read “Ruling Sends Migrants Back Into Shadows.” But that’s clearly not true: no illegal alien is quitting his ill-gotten American job as a result of Judge Hanan’s ruling temporarily stopping the work-permit amnesty.
They collect their checks and continue to complain about suffering in mean-spirited America. If life in this country is so miserable, they can return to their actual nations of citizenship where their US educations would be very valuable.
KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. — For Tomás Péndola, an immigrant from Argentina, it was a normal week teaching chemistry in a public high school here, filling a whiteboard with dense equations and coaxing his students to decipher them.
For Yeni Benítez, a Mexican immigrant in Wisconsin, this week was when “everything just fell apart.”
Mr. Péndola, who came here with his family when he was 10 and grew up in Florida without immigration papers, has protection from deportation and a work permit under President Obama’s program for unauthorized immigrants, known as Dreamers, who came to the United States as children. Ms. Benítez had been ready on Wednesday to join an expanded version of the program, which was announced by the president in November.
But officials indefinitely postponed the expansion this week after a federal judge in Texas, ruling in a lawsuit by 26 states, said it would impose major burdens on state budgets. On Friday, the administration said it would seek a stay of the Texas judge’s order.
“I’m back to this sense of insecurity, of being afraid every day, every hour, every minute,” said Ms. Benítez, who has a college degree in engineering but is working in a factory. “It really is taking a toll on me.” Continue reading this article
With mainstream media, you are lucky to get half a loaf, and a recent Washington Post item is a prime example. The piece noted how the increasing use of smart machines performing complex workplace tasks has been negatively affecting employment, and automation should therefore be a matter of public debate in the upcoming Presidential campaign.
That’s the good part. But there’s no mention that the automation revolution means importing millions of immigrants to fill jobs done by retiring boomers is unnecessary because a future labor shortage isn’t happening.
Plus, adding so many immigrants may cause potentially explosive social consequences, assuming the diverse underclass becomes even larger and angrier over the lack of jobs. Does Ferguson ring a bell?
Oxford University researchers estimated in a 2013 report that “about 47 percent of total US employment is at risk” to be replaced by smart machines.
Smart machines are everywhere, doing things you never imagined. Jobs are disappearing in small numbers here and there so we hardly notice.
One example. Remember going to the local pizza joint and watching Tony toss and spin the dough? Forget it — Tony’s job is toast in the brave new automated future. Check out the fresh pizza vending machine in Italy:
Actually, the Post piece did touch upon immigration, mentioning that employers might address “breaking down barriers” and “attracting more high-skilled immigrants.”
Presidential candidates have been arguing for more than two decades now about whether free trade is hurting middle-class workers. In 2016, they may launch a similar debate about robots and computers. As campaign demons go, automation may be the new outsourcing.
Technological advancements are making it easier for companies to buy software or machines to handle tasks once performed by people. That’s true in traditional blue-collar bastions of middle-class work, such as manufacturing, but also increasingly in higher-skill white-collar sectors such as accounting.
Experts divide sharply on whether this is good or bad for the U.S. economy. Techno-optimists predict big breakthroughs that create good jobs that would be as unimaginable today as “auto worker” was in the late 1800s. Pessimists forecast an economy where only a small slice of workers have the skills and education to stay ahead of the automation wave.
Where almost everyone agrees is that the phenomenon is growing, and that helping already strained middle-class workers adjust to it calls for big policy debates over education, entrepreneurship and the social safety net.
Which is to say, robots, as a political issue, could be ripening in time to snag a lead role in the economic debate of this campaign.
A new paper from economists at the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution sums up the tension nicely: “As rapidly advancing computer power and automation technology change the nature of work and the future of the economy,” Melissa Kearney, Brad Hershbein and David Boddy write, “our nation will face new and pressing challenges about how to educate more people for the jobs of the future, how to foster creation of high-paying jobs and how to support those who struggle economically during the transition.” Continue reading this article
JudicialWatch recently published a government memo directing Border Patrol agents to release unlawful foreigners driving drunk, a policy that is a serious threat to the safety of law-abiding Americans. In response, Fox News interviewed Mary Ann Mendoza, the mother of a Mesa Arizona police officer who was killed by a drunk driving illegal alien last May.
Officer Brian Mendoza (pictured) was on his way home from work when his car was hit head-on by a blotto drunk Mexican who had driven 35 miles the wrong way on the highway. The Mexican had been previously arrested for burglary and assaulting a policeman in Colorado, but was not deported.
So Mary Ann Mendoza was angry at the preventable death of her 32-year-old son and wrote a letter to the President:
“I am writing this letter to you regarding illegal immigrants.
“As a tax paying, law abiding citizen of the United States, I WANT my voice heard on this issue. My son, Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, an officer who was with the City of Mesa, Arizona police department, was killed in a tragic head on collision on May 12, 2014 by a wrong way driver on our freeways. This man happened to be an illegal immigrant, was in this country illegally, convicted of previous crimes, no Social Security number, no valid driver’s license BUT he had purchased a vehicle and registered it to drive in Maricopa County Arizona.
“I had my son’s life STOLEN from me by a man who didn’t value his life, was 3X the legal limit drunk, was high on Meth, drove for over 35 miles THE WRONG WAY on 4 different freeways and had NO BUSINESS BEING IN THIS COUNTRY!!! [. . .]
The Obama administration has ordered federal agents responsible for protecting one of the nation’s busiest and most crime-infested regions near Mexico to stop apprehending drunk drivers, according to an internal government memo that also concedes an officer that elects to detain them is “acting within the course and scope of his employment.”
Obtained by Judicial Watch this week, the notice is titled “Enforcement Options With Alcohol-Impaired Drivers” and directs the 4,000-plus U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, Arizona sector to “release” individuals under the influence and “allow them to go on their way.” The document acknowledges that this feels counter-intuitive for Border Patrol agents, but eases concerns by answering a hypothetical question for the officers who have sworn to uphold the law: “If you allow this driver to continue down the road and they kill someone, aren’t you liable?” The answer is no, according to the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo. “There is no legal requirement for a Border Patrol agent to intervene in a state crime, including DUI,” the order says, adding that “therefore there is generally no liability that will attach to the agent or agency for failing to act in this situation.” Continue reading this article
The daily news of worsening barbarity from Allah’s energetic gangsters is apparently having a negative effect on Americans’ opinion of Muslims residing in the United States — mass beheadings and crucifixions will do that.
As a result of blowback from jihad unpleasantries, Muslim parents located here are imparting traditional Islamic supremacism to Mohammed Jr. and little Aisha, teaching them to behave differently because Americans are racist and Islamophobic. Better chill that discussion about headchopping being a proper punishment for non-Allahbots, for example. Muslims are taught that dogs are unclean, but kicking the despised dog of infidel neighbors is also probably a no-no.
Too bad that Americans are so darn awful! Perhaps Allah’s loyal helpers would be happier living in Islamic lands, which are numerous, diverse and welcoming to the ummah.
Immigrants come to America, and immigrants are free to leave. Islam and America are not a good fit. We like freedom and they like sharia oppression. We believe in gender equality and they approve of the enslavement of women, as directed by the Koran.
Muslim immigration is destroying Europe. America should learn from their catastrophe and realize that all diversity is not equal.
When it comes to the tragedy in Chapel Hill, most Americans have probably moved on.
But if you’re a Muslim or part of the Middle Eastern community in America, it’s hard to look away when the victims look like you.
FOX 2: “Was there ever a feeling that those could have been my kids?”
“Of course, instantly,” said Nofila Haider.
Haider is a Muslim and is preparing her daughters Nadeen and Naveen for the likelihood they’ll be viewed with suspicion, treated unfairly or worse because of their religion.
“Unfortunately we have to talk about these things,” she said. “People of different races religions different cultures and I have to tell them some people don’t appreciate people who are different from them.”
The talk is one that Muslims and Middle Eastern parents in America have been having since 9/11 and recently, since Chapel Hill.
“My eldest son in particular, when I told him about it, he was just shaking his head,” Haider said. “And he was like, ‘No one likes us.’” Continue reading this article
The news coverage about Obama’s amnesty being temporarily blocked caused a flood of sob-story crapdoodle about illegal aliens in television reports. So the idea of making journalists live in the same endangered employment world as other American workers is still needed.
Naturally the liberal media didn’t discuss the illegality of Obama’s amnesty, where he unconstitutionally took the legislature’s function for himself, like a king.
Newsbuster collected offensive reports of the issue, where illegal aliens are treated as victims rather than purposeful job stealers who harm Americans.
Just shy of 24 hours after U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, the major broadcast networks displayed their palpable opposition to the ruling during their Tuesday night broadcasts, lamenting that it “dashes American dreams for millions of families under the threat of deportation” after Wednesday was set “to be a historic day for millions of illegal immigrants” when they could apply for legal status.
The three newscasts offered a minuscule 18 seconds highlighting those against Obama’s executive action (not including quotes from Hanen’s ruling) throughout their 5 minutes and 58 seconds of coverage.
On the CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley bemoaned that “tomorrow was supposed to be a historic day for millions of illegal immigrants” as “[t]hey would be able to begin to apply for legal status under immigration reform that President Obama implemented by executive action over the objections of Congress.” Pelley continued by telling viewers how that was not going to happen after “a federal judge’s ruling has now put all of that on hold.” Continue reading this article
It’s easy to regard the big capital city as Crazyville, where Barack Hussein Obama routinely ties himself into knots of untruthiness when he tries to protect his precious Islam with linguistic gyrations.
Still, occasional glimpses of sanity burble out from unexpected sources. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Ranking Member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, observed recently:
“They [ISIS] are a dominant threat to peace in the world today. I really believe this. There’s never been a time when there are more threats to the United States than there is now. So as I said once before, we’re either going to fight them there or fight them here.”
I am very disappointed that the State Department chose not to send a witness here today. The threats we are discussing are serious, and the State Department plays a key role in combating them. I recently sent a letter to the White House expressing my concerns over the Department’s desire to resettle tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in the United States. I am worried ISIS could exploit this effort in order to deploy operatives to America via a federally funded jihadi pipeline.
McCaul spoke plainly in the hearing about the danger:
MCCAUL: I’ve been over there and I’ve seen them. Most are women and children but there are male actors that concern me. I think this would be a huge mistake if we bring in these refugees into the United States that could potentially be radicalized. We’re not only trying to keep foreign fighters out but under this would be a federally sanctioned welcome party, if you will, to potential terrorists in the United States.
The United States has “a long tradition of welcoming refugees,” and it expects to welcome thousands more of them from Syria in 2015 and 2016, despite concerns about foreign fighters, the State Department said.
“The United States has admitted 524 Syrians since 2011. We’re likely to admit 1,000 to 2,000 Syrian refugees for permanent resettlement in Fiscal Year 2015 and a somewhat higher number, though still in the low thousands, in Fiscal Year 2016,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters on Friday.
But at a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee last week, Chairman Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said it would be a “huge mistake” to bring refugees from Syria and Turkey into the United States where they “could potentially be radicalized.” Continue reading this article
Texas judge Andrew S. Hanen put a hold on the Obama amnesty, which will temporarily halt the rollout. The amnesty had been scheduled to begin Wednesday for the unconstitutional handouts of work permits and Social Security numbers to unlawful foreigners without underlying legislation from Congress.
Fox News’ resident judge, Andrew Napolitano, discussed the ruling on Tuesday:
NAPOLITANO: The burden of providing social welfare benefits to those that the President said were illegal but I’ve declared them to be legal essentially falls on the states and that was the states’ argument, that the President was causing them irreparable harm not Congress but the President by forcing them to spend money that they didn’t have. . .
This is a preliminary ruling. When judges make preliminary rulings like this there’s no jury in the case; this is 26 states saying ‘Judge look at what the President did, tell us preliminarily if we are likely to prevail.’ He spends a month examining the law and arguments from both sides and said ‘Yes, I think you will prevail and yes, I think you will suffer irreparable harm if I don’t stop the President, so I’m going to stop the President from doing this and why am I stopping him from doing it’ because according to this judge the President profoundly changed the law without going through the proper procedures for it. . .
This is the first of many judicial interventions in this case, but it is a rare event in our lifetimes in modern American history for a federal judge, a single federal judge to enjoin the President of the United States from doing something on his own. . .
A federal judge late Monday halted President Obama’s deportation amnesty, ruling he overstepped his powers in trying to grant legal status and “benefits and privileges” to millions of illegal immigrants, in a stunning decision that chides the president and throws the White House’s plans into disarray just a day before applications were to be accepted.
The White House said it will appeal Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s decision, but it’s unclear whether the case could reach the circuit court in New Orleans or even the Supreme Court before Wednesday, which is when the Homeland Security Department had planned to begin accepting the first applications under the new amnesty.
“The DHS was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,'” Judge Hanen wrote in issuing an injunction. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”
In the immediate sense, the ruling will become a major part of the debate over homeland security funding that has roiled Capitol Hill, with Republicans insisting Mr. Obama’s actions were unconstitutional and should be halted through Congress’s spending power, and Democrats backing their president by filibustering to block funding for the Homeland Security Department altogether. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions has a fine publishing operation in his office, demonstrated by his occasional fact sheets of well researched points regarding the failure of Washington to stem immigration anarchy.
Now Senator Sessions has presented the mother of all lists, scary in its length, that enumerates the instances of President Obama dismantling America’s immigration enforcement system. It was posted on Breitbart on Feb 16:
Timeline: How the Obama Administration Bypassed Congress to Dismantle Immigration Enforcement
In September 2011, President Obama said, “We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.” Yet, since that time, and indeed before then, he has systematically voided existing laws and unilaterally created new measures that Congress has refused to adopt under either Democratic or Republican control.
Most recently, the President announced he would do what he once said only an “emperor” could do – grant unilateral amnesty, work permits, and access to government benefits to more than five million illegal immigrants. This unprecedented action, combined with new “enforcement priorities” for Department of Homeland Security personnel that exempt the vast majority of illegal immigrants from the threat of removal, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals directive, the “Morton” memos, and numerous other lesser-reported but far-reaching Executive actions, has threatened not only our constitutional system, but our national sovereignty. Indeed, the idea of national, sovereign borders is being daily eviscerated by the President’s determination to write his own immigration rules in defiance of Congress and the American people.
Below is a detailed timeline of how the Obama Administration systematically dismantled immigration enforcement, undermining the very rule of law upon which our nation was founded and upon which its greatness depends.
January 2009: Obama Administration Ends Worksite Enforcement Actions
In early 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executes a raid (initiated and planned under the Bush Administration) on an engine machine shop in Bellingham, Washington, detaining 28 illegal immigrants who were using fake Social Security numbers and identity documents. Shortly thereafter, pro-amnesty groups criticized the Administration for enforcing the law. An unnamed DHS official is quoted in the Washington Times as saying, “the Secretary is not happy about it and this is not her policy.” Instead of enforcing the law, the Secretary investigates the ICE agents for simply doing their duty. Esther Olavarria, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, says on a call with employers and pro-amnesty groups that “we’re not doing raids or audits under this administration.”
January 29, 2009: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano Delays E-Verify Deadline
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano delays the original deadlines for federal contractors to use the E-Verify system, from January 15, 2009, and February 20, 2009, to May 21, 2009. Continue reading this article
Interestingly, the west experienced a series of Medieval mega-droughts from 900 to 1400, which is recent climatically speaking. Still, there weren’t human-created industrial carbons being spewed into the atmosphere at that time, yet the climate was changing.
Usually, scribblers don’t bring up the topic of rapid population growth (much less its cause) but sometimes even the overwhelming growth of demand coupled with diminished supply does not deter the more reckless. For example, last October the LA Times assured us that a seven-decade Mega-drought won’t be that bad. Imagine my relief.
Today’s example of the Brave New Drought comes from the Sacramento Bee, which is semi-upbeat about the potential of water conservation measures to cope with more population growth, even though the numbers don’t work. The upshot is that Californians will be using less water so more immigrants can “move” here and take American jobs, but it still won’t be enough.
Plus, percentages of conservation goals achieved won’t matter when the reservoirs run dry.
California water agencies are on track to satisfy a state mandate to reduce water consumption 20 percent by 2020. But according to their own projections, that savings won’t be enough to keep up with population growth just a decade later.
A 2009 state law requires urban water agencies to reduce per-capita water consumption 20 percent by 2020, compared with use at the start of the century. Most agencies are on track to reach that goal, and have made even more progress thanks to emergency cuts over the past year triggered by the ongoing drought.
However, by 2030, the data show, these savings will be more than erased by anticipated population growth. According to projections by the water agencies themselves, their total water deliveries will increase 16 percent by 2030 compared to their estimates for 2015.
California’s population, already larger than all other Western states combined, is expected to grow 14 percent during that same period, reaching an estimated 44 million people by 2030, according to the state Department of Finance.
If those projections hold, the result would be an additional 1 million acre-feet of water demand statewide – about equal to the capacity of Folsom Reservoir – by 2030. This would occur even as people use less water to meet the 20 percent reduction goal.
“We are having a hard time managing the scarce water we have now,” said Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy at Water in the West, a research group at Stanford University. “The problem is, every time the drought ends we snap out of it, and we don’t actually start planning for the next drought. We need to help people understand what this means for future generations.”
In January 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown signed an emergency drought proclamation calling on all Californians to cut their water use 20 percent compared with 2013 in response to the worsening drought. This temporary measure is different from the 2020 goal, which is meant to be a permanent reduction in water use compared to what Californians were consuming in a base year, which for most water agencies is 1999.
To comply with the 2020 mandate, urban water agencies are required every five years to submit water management plans to the state Department of Water Resources. Among other things, these plans estimate each agency’s future water demand out to 2035. The demand estimates are based on projected population growth, as well as anticipated development patterns and water consumption levels unique to each agency’s local service area. Continue reading this article
One man is dead and three police officers have been wounded in Copenhagen after a coffee house was sprayed with full-auto gunfire during an event titled “‘Art, blasphemy and the freedom of expression” organized by the artist Lars Vilks.
Below, the cafe under attack was hit by an estimated 200 bullets.
The cartoonist was part of the Danish cartoon controversy of Mohammed drawings published in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005. Any graphic expression Mohammed is considered blasphemy by hostile Muslims, and Vilks has been attacked before.
It’s reasonable to assume that Allah’s unfriendly gangsters are pumped up by their success in the mass assassination of the Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris early this year. Vilks is certainly high on their list of targets for practicing free speech according to Western principles.
Robert Spencer observed that the attack occurred on the anniversary of Iran declaring a fatwa on Salman Rushdie in 1989, another assault on free speech.
Any freedom-loving people should end Muslim immigration immediately if they want their societies to survive intact.
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.