0 comment Wednesday, July 2, 2014 | admin
As Rick Darby put it the other day, on his Reflecting Light blog,
New Haven secedes from the Union
New Haven, Connecticut might in fact be said to have seceded, like all other such cities who decide to officially flout our existing laws on immigration. In the article linked and excerpted below, the arrogance and defiance of the Mayor, John DeStefano, Jr., and a number of other 'diverse' scofflaw residents, is on parade for all America to see:
Immigrants, Supporters Pour in For ID
...Visitors signing up for the city�s new Elm City Residency Card passed through a gauntlet of protesters on the way into City Hall. The line included undocumented Mexican immigrants, like Jaime Rojas and (pictured with Ruby Diaz), who saw the card as an "opportunity" for a safer life.
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
[...]The city created the program because U.S. legislators "don�t have the will to pass a coherent border strategy," the mayor said Tuesday. Instead legislators have allowed immigrants to move here, but forced them to be "invisible," said the mayor.
The card, which offers a range of services to people of all ages, was conceived as a symbolic gesture of recognition and a way give immigrants acceptable ID to open bank accounts, so that they won�t be easy prey for robbers. DeStefano urged those who live in the city to support one another by getting the card.
[...]West River Alderman Yusuf Shah heralded the program: "We believe that services should be given to everyone equally, to everyone." Two days after aldermen approved the ID plan with an overwhelming 25 to 1 vote, federal immigration agents swept the city, arresting 32 people whom they charged were illegal immigrants. In the terror that followed, parents were afraid to leave their homes to pick up their kids from school. Some said that sense of fear would scare immigrants away from signing up for an ID.
Pasqual Rojas (pictured at left), who came here illegally from Mexico 14 years ago, said he wasn�t afraid. "I want to be part of New Haven," he said in Spanish. The card would be signify "they respect us as citizens of New Haven."
[...]Kimber said he was supporting the ID because "it is every religious leader�s moral obligation to stand up for the disenfranchised� I do not want people to suffer as African-Americans did when they came to this country."
"If you look on the coin, it says 'E Pluribus Unum� � so they�re right on the money!" said Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh (pictured at left) before snapping a photo for his city ID. ''
So, in the above article, those heard from include Mayor DeStefano, Alderman Yusuf Shah, Pasqual Rojas (who, after 14 years in New Haven, still no habla Ingles), Harold Koh, and an African-American, Mr. Kimber, who sympathizes with illegals.
What's wrong with this picture? It seems the 'diversity' is being heard from: apparently all hyphenated 'Americans', one of whom can't or possibly won't speak the language of the realm, but where are the old-stock Americans? Do they not have a right to be heard?
Here is one of the most outrageous parts of the article, for my money:
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
Apparently, the Mayor prefers his fellow scofflaws, the illegal immigrants, to the real Americans who exercised their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, and express their disagreement with his actions. And notice the protesters are referred to as 'suburban hecklers.' What kind of snide putdown is that?
So it takes 'courage' to be a sneak thief and a criminal? Or does it take 'courage' to step up and get your freebies from a scofflaw, aiding-and-abetting city government? Courage is not the word that comes to my mind; brazenness comes to mind, as do phrases like unmitigated gall, shamelessness, arrogance, and nerve. But those don't mean the same as 'courage.' Courage implies a nobility of spirit, and a willingness to act heroically despite great danger, none of which are evident in any of this 'diverse' collection of individuals from victim groups.
The use of the word 'courage' implies that the illegals are somehow beset by various dangers. Dangers from whom? From mostly emasculated law enforcement officials, who have been hamstrung by PC judges and federal officials who don't want them to do their jobs? Danger from whom? Torch-carrying, pitchfork-wielding redneck citizens? Name me any attack on illegals by 'nativist' Americans. It hasn't happened. They are in danger from no one, and they know it; their brazen, in-our-face, behavior proves that. If they were afraid, and if they were in danger, illegals would not be stampeding across our borders by the thousands every day, and they would not be pelting our Border Patrol agents with stones or otherwise taunting and baiting them.
This nonsense about the poor beleaguered immigrants 'living in the shadows' is ridiculous, and whoever invented that silly cliche is as dishonest as whoever invented the laughably inaccurate phrase 'Religion of Peace.'
Mayor DeStefano is of course a Democrat, but to be fair, there are many Republicans who support open borders and illegals.
The most common factor in these attitudes seems not to be political party, but ethnicity and recent immigrant roots. And true to form, we read here:
An hour�s drive from Danbury, in New Haven, where almost a quarter of citizens are Latino, the contrast in attitudes toward the undocumented population couldn�t be more stark.
It starts at the top with Mayor John DeStefano Jr., a second generation American.
"I am all for extending the same benefits and opportunities to these folks that were extended to my grandparents," he said.
As for deputizing police to act as immigration agents, DeStefano said no such request will ever come out of New Haven.
"In the process you will collapse our economy and paint with a broad brush immigrants to this country under the guise of people�s fears about terrorism," he said.
In fact, the police are weighing a policy that would specifically prevent their involvement in immigration matters.
DeStefano�s response to these issues is visceral. Fears about anarchists at the beginning of the 20th century fed the execution of Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, he pointed out. "I don�t think it is a part of American history that we should be proud of or should repeat," he said.''
So here we have the Immigrant Grandfather/Ellis Island Syndrome. Sure, there is the occasional exception but far too often there is a correlation. And notice that DeStefano associates immigration restrictionism with the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which many Italian-Americans see as 'persecution' of Italian immigrants. Whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty is inconsequential to their apologists: they were poor immigrants and that makes them martyrs. The popular liberal wisdom is that they were victims of the 'Red Scare' and xenophobia.
So as the quote from Mayor DeStefano indicates, he has a 'visceral' response on the issue of immigrants. This, in my mind, disqualifies him from being a public official, because it's tantamount to saying that he has a deep-rooted bias based on his own ancestry and family history, a bias in favor of immigrants. This to me is reminiscent of the Illinois school board official who ruled in favor of admitting illegal immigrants to the school system; in an angry outburst he declared that his parents were immigrants and that he would not brook any anti-immigrant sentiment. How is this kind of naked bias allowable in a public official, who is supposed to be capable of objectivity, and to be 'disinterested' in the true dictionary definition of the word?
It appears as though objectivity and disinterestedness are simply quaint cultural artifacts of Anglo culture; it seems only those of Anglo or other European descent even acknowledge the desirability of those qualities. Everybody else seems to operate on the basis of ethnic bias or plain old resentment of traditional majority America.
And of course ethnic solidarity is intrinsic to all of us, even those of us who have learned to subordinate it to some kind of greater good. But maybe we who have tried to be objective and fair to all are being taken advantage of and suckered by all the 'new Americans' who laugh at our gullibility while they unashamedly act on behalf of their own ethnic interests.
As America becomes ever more a house divided, we will see more polarizing, and people of non-Anglo ancestry, whether they be Italian-Americans or other Ellis Island descendants, or Americans of Hispanic descent, will have to declare which side they are on. It won't be possible to stay neutral as the sides line up.
We saw that in the events in Morristown, N.J. yesterday, too.
New Haven secedes from the Union
New Haven, Connecticut might in fact be said to have seceded, like all other such cities who decide to officially flout our existing laws on immigration. In the article linked and excerpted below, the arrogance and defiance of the Mayor, John DeStefano, Jr., and a number of other 'diverse' scofflaw residents, is on parade for all America to see:
Immigrants, Supporters Pour in For ID
...Visitors signing up for the city�s new Elm City Residency Card passed through a gauntlet of protesters on the way into City Hall. The line included undocumented Mexican immigrants, like Jaime Rojas and (pictured with Ruby Diaz), who saw the card as an "opportunity" for a safer life.
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
[...]The city created the program because U.S. legislators "don�t have the will to pass a coherent border strategy," the mayor said Tuesday. Instead legislators have allowed immigrants to move here, but forced them to be "invisible," said the mayor.
The card, which offers a range of services to people of all ages, was conceived as a symbolic gesture of recognition and a way give immigrants acceptable ID to open bank accounts, so that they won�t be easy prey for robbers. DeStefano urged those who live in the city to support one another by getting the card.
[...]West River Alderman Yusuf Shah heralded the program: "We believe that services should be given to everyone equally, to everyone." Two days after aldermen approved the ID plan with an overwhelming 25 to 1 vote, federal immigration agents swept the city, arresting 32 people whom they charged were illegal immigrants. In the terror that followed, parents were afraid to leave their homes to pick up their kids from school. Some said that sense of fear would scare immigrants away from signing up for an ID.
Pasqual Rojas (pictured at left), who came here illegally from Mexico 14 years ago, said he wasn�t afraid. "I want to be part of New Haven," he said in Spanish. The card would be signify "they respect us as citizens of New Haven."
[...]Kimber said he was supporting the ID because "it is every religious leader�s moral obligation to stand up for the disenfranchised� I do not want people to suffer as African-Americans did when they came to this country."
"If you look on the coin, it says 'E Pluribus Unum� � so they�re right on the money!" said Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh (pictured at left) before snapping a photo for his city ID. ''
So, in the above article, those heard from include Mayor DeStefano, Alderman Yusuf Shah, Pasqual Rojas (who, after 14 years in New Haven, still no habla Ingles), Harold Koh, and an African-American, Mr. Kimber, who sympathizes with illegals.
What's wrong with this picture? It seems the 'diversity' is being heard from: apparently all hyphenated 'Americans', one of whom can't or possibly won't speak the language of the realm, but where are the old-stock Americans? Do they not have a right to be heard?
Here is one of the most outrageous parts of the article, for my money:
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. commended undocumented immigrants for their "courage" in enduring the suburban hecklers on their way in. "Tell me who represents the best of America � who�s outside or who�s inside," he said.
Apparently, the Mayor prefers his fellow scofflaws, the illegal immigrants, to the real Americans who exercised their Constitutional right to peaceably assemble, and express their disagreement with his actions. And notice the protesters are referred to as 'suburban hecklers.' What kind of snide putdown is that?
So it takes 'courage' to be a sneak thief and a criminal? Or does it take 'courage' to step up and get your freebies from a scofflaw, aiding-and-abetting city government? Courage is not the word that comes to my mind; brazenness comes to mind, as do phrases like unmitigated gall, shamelessness, arrogance, and nerve. But those don't mean the same as 'courage.' Courage implies a nobility of spirit, and a willingness to act heroically despite great danger, none of which are evident in any of this 'diverse' collection of individuals from victim groups.
The use of the word 'courage' implies that the illegals are somehow beset by various dangers. Dangers from whom? From mostly emasculated law enforcement officials, who have been hamstrung by PC judges and federal officials who don't want them to do their jobs? Danger from whom? Torch-carrying, pitchfork-wielding redneck citizens? Name me any attack on illegals by 'nativist' Americans. It hasn't happened. They are in danger from no one, and they know it; their brazen, in-our-face, behavior proves that. If they were afraid, and if they were in danger, illegals would not be stampeding across our borders by the thousands every day, and they would not be pelting our Border Patrol agents with stones or otherwise taunting and baiting them.
This nonsense about the poor beleaguered immigrants 'living in the shadows' is ridiculous, and whoever invented that silly cliche is as dishonest as whoever invented the laughably inaccurate phrase 'Religion of Peace.'
Mayor DeStefano is of course a Democrat, but to be fair, there are many Republicans who support open borders and illegals.
The most common factor in these attitudes seems not to be political party, but ethnicity and recent immigrant roots. And true to form, we read here:
An hour�s drive from Danbury, in New Haven, where almost a quarter of citizens are Latino, the contrast in attitudes toward the undocumented population couldn�t be more stark.
It starts at the top with Mayor John DeStefano Jr., a second generation American.
"I am all for extending the same benefits and opportunities to these folks that were extended to my grandparents," he said.
As for deputizing police to act as immigration agents, DeStefano said no such request will ever come out of New Haven.
"In the process you will collapse our economy and paint with a broad brush immigrants to this country under the guise of people�s fears about terrorism," he said.
In fact, the police are weighing a policy that would specifically prevent their involvement in immigration matters.
DeStefano�s response to these issues is visceral. Fears about anarchists at the beginning of the 20th century fed the execution of Italian immigrants Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, he pointed out. "I don�t think it is a part of American history that we should be proud of or should repeat," he said.''
So here we have the Immigrant Grandfather/Ellis Island Syndrome. Sure, there is the occasional exception but far too often there is a correlation. And notice that DeStefano associates immigration restrictionism with the Sacco-Vanzetti case, which many Italian-Americans see as 'persecution' of Italian immigrants. Whether Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty is inconsequential to their apologists: they were poor immigrants and that makes them martyrs. The popular liberal wisdom is that they were victims of the 'Red Scare' and xenophobia.
So as the quote from Mayor DeStefano indicates, he has a 'visceral' response on the issue of immigrants. This, in my mind, disqualifies him from being a public official, because it's tantamount to saying that he has a deep-rooted bias based on his own ancestry and family history, a bias in favor of immigrants. This to me is reminiscent of the Illinois school board official who ruled in favor of admitting illegal immigrants to the school system; in an angry outburst he declared that his parents were immigrants and that he would not brook any anti-immigrant sentiment. How is this kind of naked bias allowable in a public official, who is supposed to be capable of objectivity, and to be 'disinterested' in the true dictionary definition of the word?
It appears as though objectivity and disinterestedness are simply quaint cultural artifacts of Anglo culture; it seems only those of Anglo or other European descent even acknowledge the desirability of those qualities. Everybody else seems to operate on the basis of ethnic bias or plain old resentment of traditional majority America.
And of course ethnic solidarity is intrinsic to all of us, even those of us who have learned to subordinate it to some kind of greater good. But maybe we who have tried to be objective and fair to all are being taken advantage of and suckered by all the 'new Americans' who laugh at our gullibility while they unashamedly act on behalf of their own ethnic interests.
As America becomes ever more a house divided, we will see more polarizing, and people of non-Anglo ancestry, whether they be Italian-Americans or other Ellis Island descendants, or Americans of Hispanic descent, will have to declare which side they are on. It won't be possible to stay neutral as the sides line up.
We saw that in the events in Morristown, N.J. yesterday, too.
Labels: Ellis Island Syndrome, Illegal Immigration, Mass Immigration, Rule Of Law, Sanctuary Cities
0 comment Saturday, June 14, 2014 | admin
I've only touched on this subject a time or two, in passing. But as someone who is intrigued by unanswered questions and deliberate obfuscation, I am curious as to what the real story is. And, as always, I am interested in what others are saying in online discussions of this.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.
Labels: Constitution, Controlled Media, Identity Politics, Rule Of Law