Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Junior
floridianprincess
Mensajes: 468
Registrado: ‎11-05-2006

El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

La unica reforma migratoria realmente bipartidista fue hecha por los senadores John McCain y Ted Kennedy.  A esa, no solo no le hicieron caso en aquel tiempo sino que Obama, Hillary Clinton y sus complices se encargaron de hacer campana en contra de esta reforma y la mataron en sus etapas tempranas. Ademas, acuerdense de que Obama es negro y que para el los negros valen mas que los hispanos y los blancos y realmente no quiere la igualdad para los hispanos.

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

EN EL 2007 BUSH, CON EL APOYO DE McCAIN Y kENNEDY, HIZO TODO LO POSIBLE POR PASAR UNA JUSTA LEY DE REFORMA INMIGRATORIA QUE LE HABRIA LA PUERTAS PARA LA LEGALIZACION DE LOS QUE VIVEN ILEGALMENTE EN U.S.; PERO LOS DEMOCRATAS, EN CONTROL DE AMBAS CAMARAS BLOQUEARON LA REFORMA Y LA AMNISTIA, SIENDO EL VOTO DE OBAMA EN EL SENADO EL QUE DECIDIO QUE FRACASARA EL INTENTO DE BUSH DE DARLE SOLUCION AL PROBLEMA DE LA INMIGRACION ILEGAL.

      AL TRIUNFO DE OBAMA, Y CON EL CONTROL ABSOLUTO DE LA MAYORIA EN AMBAS CAMARAS, PUDO HABER PASADO LA REFORMA IMMIGRATORIA EN LOS PRIMEROS 90 DIAS DE SU REGIMEN SIN NECESIDAD DE UN SOLO VOTO REPUBLICANO TAL COMO HIZO CON LA MOSTRUOSA Y DESTRUCTIVA LEY DEL OBAMACARE... DE NUEVO, OBAMA SE BURLO DE LOS HISPANOS QUE VOTARON LLEVANDOLE A LA CASA BLANCO ENGAÑADOS POR SUS FALSAS PROMESAS

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

BORDER DISORDER - OBAMA, CONTROL OUR BORDERS!!! IT IS YOUR DUTY, NOT ARIZONA'S!!!

 

  

By RALPH PETERS

 

 April 29, 2010

        South of the border, down Mexico way, a new and savage revolution rages just beyond our inspection lanes. After less than five years of fighting, estimates of the dead have reached 22,000.

          The rate of killing accelerates each month. And Washington covers its eyes like a kid at a scary movie. Well, the Mexican narco-insurgency, in which well-armed guerrilla forces confront the authority and presence of the state, is our No. 1 security challenge.

     The chaos in northern Mexico has far deeper implications for our country than Islamist terror or even an Iranian nuclear capability (as grim as those threats are).

        The rule of law has collapsed from Tijuana on the Pacific's edge to Matamoros and the Gulf of Mexico. Major cities are now "ungoverned spaces," as our diplomats refer tidily to distant trouble spots.

         More people now die violently on our southern border than in Somalia, Yemen or even Afghanistan. But Washington doesn't know what to do about Mexico. So Washington does nothing much.

      Our ruling class simply doesn't feel the pain. So the DC elite demonizes Arizona's desperate effort to shove the narco-revolution's disorder back across the border. Murdered ranchers, overwhelmed emergency rooms and soaring crime rates in our border states mean less to the White House than a terrorist detainee's claims of abuse.

            Our governing elite pretends that illegal immigration, torrential crime where illegals cluster, overcrowded prisons, Mexico's narco-insurgency, legal cross-border commerce and the drug trade are separate issues, to be addressed discreetly.

             But these issues are all interwoven with the Mexican government's existential crisis. Drug wealth fuels criminal empires. Those narco-empires are now so powerful that they've risen against the state. Human trafficking is a useful sideline for drug lords. And illegal immigration drives crime rates in bankruptcy-threatened US cities and states.

        Cross-border trade's the next target. Narco-insurgents now feel sufficiently confident to attack Mexican army installations and US consulates. The maquiladoras, those thousands of assembly plants along the border, won't escape the mayhem. Given their enormous contribution to Mexico's fiscal stability and employment rates, those plants are obvious targets as the narco-challenge to the state intensifies.

        Mexican journalists, too, have been killed by the hundreds. Their torture and execution doesn't generate much excitement north of the border, though. It's their bad luck to be butchered by Mexican narcos. Had they been killed accidentally by US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be famous martyrs.

       And Arizona's "discriminatory" new state law empowering police to pursue criminal aliens? Should Phoenix let the rule of law collapse because Washington prefers political correctness to public safety? In DC, it's about politics. In Arizona, it's about survival.

          It bewilders me that my fellow citizens don't take the disintegration of government authority in northern Mexico seriously. As I've written repeatedly, no country is more important to us socially, economically and security-wise than Mexico. Afghanistan's fluff by comparison.

        Precisely 100 years ago, in 1910, the Mexican Revolution erupted in northern Mexico -- already the most prosperous and industrially developed portion of the country. That revolution lasted a bloody, destructive decade.

            It wasn't the bandido affair beloved of Hollywood knuckleheads, but a complex contest for power with large armies, strategic campaigns, major battles, trench warfare, barbed wire and machine guns. In 1915, the military vision of the self-taught Gen. Alvaro Obregon -- destined to become Mexico's president -- was more sophisticated than that of the US Army. Mexico pioneered the 20th century's revolutions.

           Since then, northern Mexico -- from the border cities southward through the industrial powerhouse of Monterrey -- has continued to be the country's primary agent of change. Influenced by its proximity to America, the north long has been a different country from the impoverished states south of the capital.

          Now a new Mexican revolution is underway in the vital north. In 1910, idealists struggled to change an autocratic regime. In 2010, criminal syndicates fight to wrest power from a democratic government and to grab market share from each other.

 

         (In an eerie parallel, a bloody strike in the northern mining center of Cananea helped ignite the 1910 revolution; today, a three-year-long strike in Cananea by mining and metal workers signals a new generation's impatience with the status quo -- and we're just not paying attention.)

 

      During that earlier revolution, the citizens of El Paso, Texas, and Douglas, Arizona, gathered to watch the battles just across the border as Pancho Villa's troops drove out the Federals, then as the Constitutionalists defeated Villa. Those spectators were confident in their immunity as American citizens.

 

        We're no longer immune.

 

 

 Ralph Peters' latest book is "Endless War."

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

OBAMUNISMO: Obama-SStyle Socialism

Posted By David Horowitz On May 3, 2010  In FrontPage

 

 

Visit NewsRealBlog [1]

Jonah Goldberg [2] has written an important article [3] in Commentary on what he calls the “neo-socialism” [4] of the Obama administration [4]. I like this label. It is both accurate and more palatable than the term “neo-communism” [5] which I have applied to the hard left. But given the twenty-year political partnership between a neo-Communist [6] like Billy Ayers [6] and Obama, and Obama’s coterie of Communist Party mentors [7] and allies, it is at bottom a distinction without a difference.

Neo-socialists are fellow travelers of neo-Communists and  vice-versa. The real division in the modern world is between totalitarians and libertarians [8], and pivot of this division is the inherent conflict between liberty and equality. Since people are born unequal (in talent, capability, brain power and physical beauty and prowess) and since they develop unequally through circumstance, the only way to make them equal is to take away everyone’s liberty [9]. And of course this will not make them equal because those who get to decide who is made equal and at what pace constitute a new and oppressing ruling class.

This truth is the focus of Federalist Paper #10 and is enshrined in the Constitution [10] which is why every leftist is at war with it and is dedicated to rewriting it. So-called progressives are the 21st Century’s true reactionaries who have failed to learn the lessons of the most horrific social experiment ever inflicted on the human race which murdered 100 million people and destroyed the lives of billions. The term “neo-socialism” attaches them to that awful legacy and serves as a warning to present and future generations of the price that will be paid to achieve “social justice” [11] and also of the fact that the pursuit “social justice” is an evil fantasy which can never be realized.

I have two quibbles with Jonah’s excellent piece. First, it was Rousseau (in The Social Contract)  not Babeuf who identified private property as the root of all evil. Second, “social justice” is not a milder socialist impulse — it is in fact a code for communism in the hardest sense. Hayek wrote a brilliant book called The Mirage of Social Justice [12] which argued that 1) there is no such entity as “society” which distributes wealth. Hence the call for social justice is simply a mask — a fake rationale — for distributing wealth politically and thus arrogating to one political faction totalitarian control of everyone else.

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

OBAMALAISE

 

By: Gary Jason

 

When it comes to presidential liars, Obama makes Clinton and Bush look like novices.

 

Gary Jason is a contributing editor of Liberty.

 

An ocean of ink has been devoted to the surprising election results in Virginia, New Jersey, and especially Massachusetts. There is so much angst in the country that even the exceptionally obtuse Obama has become aware of it. To use a term rendered infamous by the feckless Jimmy Carter, we are experiencing a national malaise. But what Obama fails to comprehend is that at the root of the current national malaise is Obama himself.

 

In this, as in many other ways, Obama uncannily resembles Carter, who projected his own defects of thought and action onto the nation, generating the anxiety and distrust he was purporting to heal. We can rightly call the national mood “Obamalaise,” because it arises not just from Obama’s agenda but from his character.

 

A major factor in Obamalaise is, of course, the lingering economic recession. The unemployment rate seems stuck at 10%. But it’s really worse than that. The December 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report put nonfarm job losses at 85,000 in November but showed that unemployment stayed at 10% — because so many people (over 660,000) had given up looking for work. The BLS household survey — a more accurate indicator of the unemployment picture, because it measures underemployed along with unemployed — put the November loss at nearly 590,000 jobs.

 

More recent data are not encouraging. The January 2010 report put the nonfarm job losses at only 20,000, but it showed that the December report underreported the number of unemployed. The unemployment rate dropped to 9.7%, but again this was because of the large number of people who were no longer searching for work. The Bureau of Labor Statistics job report for Feb. 5 showed that roughly 15 million Americans remained out of work.

 

Even if the economy continues to expand, job growth will probably continue to lag, for reasons I explore below. And we can’t be sure it will continue to expand. Nouriel Roubini — to cite only one economist who holds this view — predicts that the economy will grow at only 3% in the first half of the year, then drop to 1% or 1.5% in the second half, with unemployment possibly hitting 11%.

 

Which of Obama’s actions have led to this malaise? Quite a few, but let me just review six major fields in which the president’s work has been counterproductive, to say the least.

 

First, he has focused almost exclusively on forcing some kind of massive new healthcare entitlement on the country. This has had three perverse effects, all of which have deterred hiring. As Kathryn Nix emphasized in a report for the Heritage Institute (Jan. 12), no matter which version of the bill would have been passed, it would have imposed massive new labor expenses on small businesses, which create the bulk of new jobs.

 

Moreover, as the different versions of healthcare were negotiated, the uncertainty as to what new regulatory burdens the insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical industries would be saddled with made them unwilling to undertake expansion. Finally, in crusading into an area where nobody really saw a crisis, Obama overlooked the economic crisis that everybody recognizes as real. Scott Brown’s election has, perhaps, slain Obamacare, but Obama has made it clear he will keep on the issue.

 

Second, there is Obama’s reflexive tendency to bash business, obviously an outward manifestation of an inner — what? lack of enthusiasm for? or is it loathing of? — free enterprise. He has vociferously attacked doctors, insurance companies, banks — everyone but lawyers. As Amity Shlaes has noted, in this Obama resembles one of his heroes, FDR, whose demonizing of business was a major factor in prolonging the Great Depression. “Roosevelt’s tender mercies toward businesses,” she says, “so terrified companies that they postponed both hiring and investment.”

 

In February Obama’s Two-Minutes Hate against banks dropped the Dow by 5% in three days. Is it any wonder that in a recent poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers 77% said that Obama is antibusiness?

 

Third, Obama’s conspicuous stiffing of secured lenders has — naturally — discouraged lending. His thoroughly immoral bankruptcy deal with GM and Chrysler cheated the secured creditors in favor of the United Auto Workers Union. Who is eager to lend money to businesses, now that the secured lender’s claim on assets (set by a century of bankruptcy law) can be negated by one call from a union boss to the White House?

 

Meanwhile, Obama’s mortgage modification program (aptly nicknamed the “mortgage cram down plan”) forces mortgage holders to renegotiate legal contracts to the holder’s detriment — another discouragement to lending. There has to be a kind of blindness in an administration that would lead it to institute a program that screws lenders for past loans, then bashes them for not issuing enough new ones.

 

Fourth, Obama has pushed an extreme environmentalist agenda that is a major drag on employment. According to the estimate from last year by the Charles River Associates, his cap-and-trade bill, which passed the House and awaits approval in the Senate, will cost 3.2 million jobs over 15 years, should it be enacted. And a study this year from the Heritage Foundation estimates the cost of cap-and-trade, if enacted, at $9.9 trillion by 2035.

 

Then there is the whole wacky “green jobs” plan to replace jobs in fossil fuel industries with jobs in the wind and solar power industries. As George Will warned last year (Washington Post, June 25), the Spanish experience demonstrates that such a plan creates far fewer jobs than it costs. The reason is bloody obvious to all but the economically clueless: replacing one source of power with another source, which happens to cost hundreds of times more to produce, destroys jobs elsewhere.

 

But this hasn’t stopped Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar from directing his agency to ratchet up regulations on oil and natural gas companies seeking to drill on federal lands. Obama clearly intends to break his campaign promise to expand domestic drilling.

 

Fifth, Obama is the most protectionist president since Hoover. He has refused to enact the free trade agreements (FTAs) that were on his desk the day he walked into the Oval Office (including agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea), much less negotiate any new ones. Meanwhile, our trading competitors are increasing the pace of signing new FTAs, especially in Asia.

 

Worse, Obama’s actions have caused mini-trade wars with our partners. There is the breaking of our NAFTA agreement that allows a small number of Mexican trucks to operate in the United States, an event that has led Mexico to impose tariffs on our goods. The “Buy American” provisions in Obama’s stimulus bill have led to retaliation by Canada. And his tariffs on tires and other products have led the Chinese to slap major tariffs of their own on our products, and to file suit against us at the WTO, and most recently dump $35 billion of our bonds in one month.

 

Sixth, Obama’s spending is grotesque and destructive. Over 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the passage of his deceptively named stimulus bill (priced at $787 billion). He will add more to the deficit in the first 20 months of his presidency than his predecessor did in eight years — and George W. Bush was certainly no slouch in the deficit department. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit for 2010 will hit $1.6 trillion, higher than the record $1.5 trillion deficit of 2009. And it estimates a deficit of nearly $1 trillion in 2011.

 

The metastasizing deficit causes profound unease, because people know what it entails: massive new taxes, or massive inflation, or both. Already the end of the Bush tax cuts draws nigh: next year, the top income tax rate will go from 35% back up to 39.6%, the capital gains tax from 15% back up to 20%, and the dividend tax from 15% back way up to 39.6%. The estate tax will rise from zero this year back to 55%. With trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, the Obama administration will gladly let tax cuts expire.

 

Indeed, Obama has stoked fears of massive new taxes with his recent pronouncement that he is open to raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000 a year, despite his repeated promises during the campaign that he wouldn’t raise taxes on such families “by one dime.”

 

To summarize: Obama’s policies in office look like a bizarre mishmash of the worst policies of Hoover and FDR at the onset of the Great Depression. Take Hoover’s foolish idea to raise taxes in a severe recession and his acceptance of Smoot-Hawley protectionism, add FDR’s endless jeremiads against big business, his soak-the-rich taxes, and his Keynesian spending schemes, and — behold! — you have Obamaism.

 

But Obamalaise is not the product simply of Obama’s anti-business, pro-big-government policies. It is tied to his character, a character with deceitfulness at its core. He has lied on more matters more often than any other president I can recall. People have fun writing columns enumerating his lies. I wrote one last year listing six howlers (Orange County Register, Oct. 9). A recent article by John Ellis (FrontPageMagazine.com, Jan. 21) lists 30 major lies, and he admits that it is not exhaustive. Here is just a partial list of Obama’s major deceptions (equivocations, lies, broken promises, and flip-flopped policies). Consider their size and number.

 

  • After bashing Bush for a $498 billion deficit, Obama ran a $1.5 trillion deficit, to be followed by a $1.6 trillion deficit, and then trillion-dollar deficits going forward.
  • Obama campaigned promising to protect Medicare from cuts, but then proposed half a trillion bucks worth of them in his healthcare “reform.”
  • Obama pretended that he understood why whites resented never-ending racial quotas aimed at them, but appointed the most unapologetic quota queen he could to the Supreme Court.
  • Obama bashed Bush for not spending enough for manned space exploration, but he cut it altogether in his new budget.
  • Obama promised that his stimulus bill would stop unemployment from going above 8%, and that most of the jobs created would be in the private sector, but the rate went above 10% and most of the jobs created are in government.
  • Obama pretended to agree with McCain about the evils of pork-barrel spending, and promised to veto every pork-barrel bill, before signing a bill containing 9,000 pork-barrel projects.
  • Obama repeatedly promised that all negotiations on healthcare would be completely transparent, indeed, would be broadcast on C-SPAN, but had nothing but closed door hearings with only Democrats present in the crafting of the legislation.
  • On other areas as well, Obama promised greater transparency, but rammed through controversial bills with little discussion.
  • During his campaign, Obama asserted that he opposed a single-payer system, but he had in fact repeatedly called for it in prior years; then he pushed for a public option that would crowd out private carriers, resulting in a de facto single-payer system.
  • Obama promised not to hire lobbyists, but wound up employing massive numbers of them.
  • Obama promised to abide by the campaign finance reform law funding limits that he himself had supported, but broke his pledge (and outspent McCain, $600 million to $300 million).
  • Obama constantly said that if people liked their healthcare provider, they could keep it, but his bill would have limited that privilege to people currently insured, ending it if they changed providers; it also had built-in incentives that would have led employers to drop private coverage and use the public option.
  • Obama promised to stop the practice of introducing bills so long that people couldn’t read or discuss them, but he has introduced bills of record length (witness the health bill at 2,000 pages).
  • Obama promised a new era of bipartisanship, but he froze the Republicans in Congress out of negotiations on important bills and bashed his Republican predecessor every chance he could find.
  • After bashing McCain, both in debates and in tens of millions of dollars worth of ads, for his willingness to tax health-care benefits provided by employers, Obama proposed a health bill constructed on the basis of that tax proposal.
  • Obama promised to close Gitmo. It remains open.
  • After promising in his campaign against McCain that he would open up domestic drilling, he did the reverse, bringing new regulations to block exploration on public lands.
  • After heatedly denying that his healthcare proposals would fund premiums for illegal aliens, he persistently blocked attempts to spell that out clearly in the bill he pushed.
  • After promising when pitching his healthcare bill that it wouldn’t raise premiums, he insisted that the bill require insurance carriers to cover people with preexisting conditions, which could do nothing but raise premiums.

 

This pattern of lies did not result from accident or coincidence.

 

Ellis rightly notes that most other politicians known for their lies have been trying to protect themselves from scandal (Clinton’s adultery, Nixon’s abuse of power), or just “to make themselves look good”; but Obama lies about everything. He employs deceit as a standard tool. This bespeaks a man false to his core — a man lost in a state of metaphysical mendacity in which one can say anything one likes to manipulate others.

 

Given the prevalence of news media that, as Ellis observes, are unwilling to hold this president to account for his array of untruths — as they held Nixon to account for his lies, Bush the elder to account for breaking his tax pledge, and Bush the younger to account for the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction — it is no surprise that Obama has lied so blatantly. But this has not escaped the notice of the public, and it frightens them, for it tells them they have no idea what he really wants or intends.

 

In short, there is a growing awareness among Americans that their president is economically ignorant, politically radical, deeply duplicitous, and totally untrustworthy. This is the cause of Obamalaise.

 

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

Arizona to D.C.: "We're Dying Out Here."


        The left excoriates the "fascism" of the Arizona law (SB 1070) requiring immigrants to carry proof of legal status or risk being turned over by state law officers to federal authorities.  Arizona residents of every ethnic background want other Americans to know how violent and out of control life in Arizona has become because the federal government will not enforce its own immigration law.

 

            Federal law makes it a crime for a non-citizen to be in the U.S. without government documentation. Legal-resident aliens have been required to carry and show those documents to federal law-enforcement officers since 1940. 

 

 

          Being a "legal" resident is not difficult. Visas are liberally granted by the feds--over 16,000 to Pakistanis last year alone.  The "path to citizenship" in current federal law is the most inclusive in the world.

There are actually many paths to legal residency and citizenship--refugees, family re-unification, lottery visas, H-1B, etc. 

 

      Despite the most liberal legal-immigration system in the world (over 150,000 legal immigrants from Mexico alone last year), illegal immigration, while slowed by the recession, is a human tidal wave washing over American communities from San Diego to Portland, Maine.

 

         The left calls it "racism" to criticize illegal immigration, ignoring the fact that illegals caught in this country this year represent nationals from over 80 countries, including illegals from the State Department's list of terror-exporting countries.

 

 

           Obama's proposed federal budget responds to this invasion by cutting the number of Border Patrol officers and redirecting them to interior cities, by cutting the funds for a border fence mandated by Congress, and by extending the amnesty to illegals from Nicaragua and Honduras.

 

 

       It is in Arizona that the negative impacts of this illegal invasion have hit hardest.

 

       The day before widespread demonstrations by open-border advocates, a Pinal County, Ariz., deputy sheriff was wounded in a gun battle with an AK-47 wielding illegal drug smuggler during a traffic stop.

The feds demonstrated that border security is possible when they closed the Southwestern Arizona border with Mexico where a "live-fire" military training range is located. The drug and people smugglers shifted their routes to concentrate on the sparsely populated and unprotected Southeastern border area.

 

           There, rancher Bob Krentz was killed by an illegal on his ranch which has been in the family since 1907.  This murder was covered in the media, but, according to other ranchers in the area, the full story has been covered up.

 

           Two weeks before Krentz's murder, a rancher near Naco, Ariz., found and reported a huge shipment of drugs on his property. A gang of illegals broke into that rancher's house, beat the rancher and his wife and threatened to come back and kill them if they touched any more drug shipments going through their ranch.

 

 

           One week before his murder, Krentz had found a similar drug shipment in trucks on his ranch. He reported this and had the drugs hauled off.  Other ranchers in this remote area figure that the drug cartels were sending a message by assassinating Bob Krentz.

 

           Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen participated in a state senate hearing on border violence.  She writes that one rancher near the border testified that 300 to 1200 illegals a day cross his ranch, cutting fence, starting fires, and leaving trash.  In the last two years, the rancher testified, he has found 17 dead bodies and two Korans.

 

          Another rancher testified that drugs are brought across his ranch daily in a military-sstyle operation.  A point man with a machine gun goes in front, followed a half mile behind by armed guards, followed another half mile behind by the drug shipment, followed by more armed guards.

  

       The drug smugglers kill anyone who gets in their way and often kill their own drug "mules" who fail to keep up in what the witnesses called human "drug trains".

 

            Allen says the Border Patrol have pulled back 60 miles from the border and now man ineffective "check points" which are easily evaded by the smugglers.

 

       Phoenix has become the kidnap capital of the U.S. as drug cartels battle for turf. Violence is not "threatening to spill over the border"--it already has and Arizonans have had enough.

 

 

          The left calls for a boycott of all things Arizona--even Arizona Ice Tea (made in New York!).  I say "Buycott" Arizona. Buy all things Arizona. Vacation there. Show your support.

 

           And if the Republican Party wants to win this year it will side with the majority of Americans who want a ssecure border and a stop to illegal immigration by immediately awarding the 2012 Republican National Convention to Phoenix, Ariz.


Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

Illegal aliens murder 12 Americans daily
Death toll in 2006 far overshadows total U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan.

 

 

SE DEBE CERRAR LAS FRONTERAS Y LEGALIZAR CON UNA VISA PAROLE TEMPORAL A AQUELLOS QUE HAYAN ENTRADO ILEGALMENTE CON AL MENOS 3 AÑOS DE VIVIR EN ESTADOS UNIDOS Y HAYAN MANTENIDO UNA CONDUCTA INTACHABLE.  AQUELLOS CON CRIMENES DE SANGRE O QUE HAYAN COOPERADO CON EL TERRORISMO, O PARTICIPADO EN MANIFESTACIONES VIOLENTAS, ADEMAS DE LA PENALIDAD QUE MEREZCA EL CRIMEN, SE LE DEBE RETIRAR LA CIUDADANIA A AQUELLOS QUE SIENDO CIUDADANOS TRAICIONAN A LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS.

 

November 28, 2006

 

By Joseph Farah

 


WorldNetDaily.com

 

        WASHINGTON – While the military “quagmire” in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

        Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

      Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That’s 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

     Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

(Story continues below)

           But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

         While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That’s 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

           While no one – in or out of government – tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year’s 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.

        A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

         Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

         King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.

        Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta SX offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.

          As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.

      According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.

          While the federal government doesn’t track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.

        In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

          The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests – some eight arrests per illegal alien;
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses – some 13 offenses per illegal alien;
36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.

       “While the vast majority of illegal aliens are decent people who work hard and are only trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, (something you or I would probably do if we were in their place), it is also a fact that a disproportionately high percentage of illegal aliens are criminals and sexual predators,” states Peter Wagner, author of a new report called “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration.” “That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the ‘good’ in we get the ‘bad’ along with them. The question is, how much ‘bad’ is acceptable and at what price?”

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: El propio Obama mato la unica Reforma Migratoria bipartidista y nadie se acuerda.

A PESAR DE CONTROLAR AMBAS CAMARAS, OBAMA NO SOLO SE NIEGA A DARLES LA PROMETIDA AMNISTIA SINO QUE HA ROTO TODOS LOS RECORDS DE DEPORTACION DE ILEGALES!!!!

ASI PAGA EL DIABLO A QUIEN BIEN LE SIRVE!!!

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

The Post-American Presidency: OBAMA’S WAR IN AMERICA

The Post-American Presidency: OBAMA’S WAR IN AMERICA

Jamie Glazov 7/30/2010 In FrontPage

 

 

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. She has won acclaim for her interviews with internationally renowned figures, including John Bolton, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Natan Sharansky, and many others, and has broken numerous important stories — notably the questionable sources of some of the financing of the Obama campaign. The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America [1] (forward by Ambassador John Bolton) — just released on July 27.

    FP: Pamela Geller, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Tell us about your new book and what you have discovered about Obama’s war on America.
    Geller: Thanks Jamie.

The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America is the product of three years of research I’ve done on Barack Obama: his socialist internationalism, his ties to America-haters and anti-Semites, his race-baiting, and more. As president, Obama is presiding over America’s decline, and is in many important ways the apostle of that decline. He is betraying Israel; warring against free speech; refusing to take real steps to stop Iran’s nuclear program, despite the many genocidal statements Ahmadinejad has made against Israel, and the open contempt the mullahs have shown for his efforts to reach out to them.

    Obama is turning allies into enemies and enemies into allies; submitting the U.S. to international law; bankrupting us with socialist schemes both domestically and internationally; bypassing the democratic process and the system of checks and balances by governing through a proliferation of “czars”; and using global warming as a pretext to redistribute wealth from the First World to the Third World.

    He has appointed numerous proponents of the primacy of international law over U.S. law, including Harold Koh, legal adviser for the State Department; Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and now Elena Kagan; John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) – that is, the science czar; Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change – that is, the global-warming czar; and Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, or Regulatory Czar.

    Obama has never demonstrated any respect for the freedom of speech, the fundamental protection the Bill of Rights gives us against tyranny. He has appointed a proliferation of officials who have in various ways advocated restrictions on the freedom of speech: Kagan, Sunstein, Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; and Attorney General Eric Holder.

    Obama comes from a Muslim background, as detailed in the book, and has numerous friends and associates who are inveterate foes of Israel. Not just Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, but also Samantha Power, the National Security Council’s Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights; Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski, two key foreign policy advisers; Rosa Brooks, advisor to the undersecretary of Defense for policy; and Chuck Hagel, co-chair of the Intelligence Advisory Board.

   The book details all this and much more, including Obama’s betrayal of the freedom movement in Iran and of the democratic forces in Honduras, and his attempts to use climate change to destroy American sovereignty. Everything flows from his core beliefs, which were shaped by some of his earliest experiences and confirmed by his later associations.

   The book also makes some shocking new revelations, including details of how Obama took campaign money from Gaza, in violation of federal law; how ACORN, with which Barack Obama has been deeply involved for years, destroyed Republican voter registrations; the full truth about how making America safe for Sharia is not incidental, but is a cornerstone of Obama’s presidential program; and about how Obama is consistently, not just occasionally, anti-democratic and favors authoritarian regimes and measures.

     FP: How come Obama’s Muslim background [2] is never discussed in our media? And Obama camouflages it as well, even though it is a fact. Explain to us why this matters.

   Geller: Jamie, the media doesn’t discuss it simply because it would reflect poorly on Obama. Yet it matters because Islam has since its inception had a political and expansionist character, and that that would mean that ties to Islam had a greater significance than simple allegiance to this or that religious group.

     And Obama himself, with his Muslim father and stepfather and Muslim upbringing in Indonesia, knows the stakes involved. It is impossible in our post-9/11 world to be a leader and not know what Islam means, or at the very least know the hell being wreaked upon the free and not-so-free world by the warriors of Islamic jihad. And Obama has already told us which side he will be on when the lines are fully drawn: “In the wake of 9/11,” he wrote in The Audacity of Hope, “my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” [1] In the first year of his presidency, he showed in numerous ways that he would indeed stand with them.

     FP: Tell us a bit about how anti-Semitism plays into all of this. We know Islam’s disposition to Jews and so, perhaps, Obama’s bullying of Israel [3] is no coincidence at all?

     Geller: Indeed Jamie, Islamic anti-Semitism is part of the Koranic imperative and the pervasive influence of Islamic Jew-hatred cannot be ignored when assessing the impact of Barack Obama’s early life experiences upon the later trajectory of his career. If a devout Muslim prays the obligatory five daily prayers, he will repeat the Shehadah, the first chapter of the Koran, seventeen times; that chapter concludes with prayers that Muslims generally understand as asking Allah not to make the believer like the Jews (“those who have earned Allah’s anger”) or the Christians (“those who have gone astray”). The prayers generally conclude with the dua qunoot, a prayer that Allah’s wrath would overtake infidels. Imagine the influence that all this – inculcating contempt for Jews and Christians seventeen times a day – might have on a young mind and a future president. Troubling psychological wiring might have been set in place for a lifetime.

    Muslims who have left Islam are generally vocal about why they left: Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, and others have spoken out fearlessly on these issues. Obama may not wish to engage in critiques of Islam, but if he left Islam, he must have very definite thoughts about it. And even if this is simply not an important issue to him, then he can still appreciate how important it is – knowing what he knows about Islam and apostasy.

Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam. Yet there have been no calls for Obama’s death from the Islamic world. Why is this? Islam gives no free passes.

    Obama’s posture on this is hard to define or understand – all the more so because this is a critical issue. Transformational issues facing this nation and the world at large – the world at war, creeping Sharia, the perversion of the rights of free men – hang in the balance during the Obama administration as never before. The stakes could not be higher. On foreign policy, Europe has lain down. The political elites have capitulated to Islamists and to multiculturalists. Europe is committing slow cultural and demographic suicide. It seems unclear that they could hold up their end even if America did the heavy lifting. As far as Israel is concerned, Obama has already made it clear that while he is in the White House, Israel is on its own.

    As Obama continues to pursue his pro-Islamic and anti-Israel policies, this will only get worse. And so his deception about his Islamic ties must be explored. The potential damage to this country is incalculable.

   These are dangerous times. Those consequences are, in this post-American presidency, already becoming apparent.

FP: How does Obama see the world and America? What is his vision and ultimate goal? Was there ever such a radical person to have occupied the White House?

    Geller: Obama sees America as just another country. His vision is to make America part of a socialist internationalist supranational construct, destroying American sovereignty. Obama makes Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton look like conservatives.

     He said it himself during a visit to London for a summit of the Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (G-20. A reporter asked Obama: “[C]ould I ask you whether you subscribe, as many of your predecessors have, to the school of ‘American exceptionalism’ that sees America as uniquely qualified to lead the world, or do you have a slightly different philosophy?”

     It was a question Ronald Reagan once answered without ever having been asked it. He said: “With all its flaws, America remains a unique achievement for human dignity on a scale unequaled anywhere in the world.” But Obama offered no similar avowal of American uniqueness. Instead, he equated American exceptionalism with the national pride that a citizen of any nation could feel: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

   Embarrassed? Who would even think such a thing? Except someone who is embarrassed by America.

    FP: What does this crystallize about Obama?

Geller: It basically can really only mean one thing: that for him, America is nothing special. Even when Obama does refer to America’s essential goodness, as he did in his 2010 State of the Union address, it is only to advance his commitment to socialist internationalism and redistribution of American wealth: he wields Americans’ empathy and compassion like a club to manipulate us into funding bad foreign policy and despotic regimes.

    Obama went to work from his first day in office to make America’s decline become a reality. As the most powerful man in the world, he would level the playing field, even if it meant cutting America off at the knees. Good and evil would be made equivalent, with evil sanctioned by the world’s only remaining superpower: democracy and tyranny, dictator and elected leader would be given the same moral sanction. He traveled around the world and denigrated American achievements and American uniqueness. He reached out in friendship to our enemies and the enemies of freedom and individual rights, including Hugo Chávez and even Fidel Castro, and offered Russia a significant boost on its way to returning to superpower status tried by selling out Eastern Europe.

   He catered to – and fawned shamelessly over – Islam and Muslim countries, making preposterous statements about how much the United States owes Islam, and even about how America was a Muslim country. [2]  Obama clearly believed that doing all this would bolster his image in other countries. But he was taking a calculated risk: that his apparent lack of concern for American national security, and for America’s historical achievements and place in the world, would backfire and anger Americans.

    Nonetheless, he took the risk. He must have believed that he was powerful enough and popular enough to neutralize any domestic political backlash that may result – and he certainly had the mainstream media on his side, as he did during his presidential campaign, to cover for him, make excuses for him when he failed, and obscure the full scope of what he was doing.

     Barack Hussein Obama has chosen the path of the post-American presidency. He seems to envision himself as more than just the president of the United States, but as a shaper of the new world order, an internationalist energetically laying the groundwork for global government: the president of the world.

     FP: What is the worst damage Obama can perpetrate?

Geller: He could severely damage American sovereignty by making us subject to treaties that bind us to obey international law. He has been trying to do this over the climate change issue, among others. He is also well on his way to destroying the American economy by nationalizing huge sectors of American industry: the banks, the automobile industry, and now the healthcare industry.

    FP: How do we take our country back? Can we reverse the damage that Obama has done? Is there a chance that Americans might actually re-elect Obama?

    Geller: A great deal hinges on November 2010. But with the Republicans generally clueless or afraid to challenge Obama as he should be challenged, or unaware of the implications of what he is doing, and the media in his pocket, he could easily be reelected.

    FP: What are some thoughts you have, or things you know, after writing the book that are different before you started writing it? Has anything surprised you?

   Geller: I have been investigating Obama in depth since 2007. Nothing he has done as President has surprised me. I saw it all coming and sounded the warning at my website AtlasShrugs.com. I was derided and vilified for doing so, but what I wrote then has been proven right.

   FP: How does Obama view his role as President of the United States?

   Geller: He sees his job as one of subjecting America to international laws. The problem for Americans is that in his quest for internationalism and global socialism, Obama is leaving the United States twisting in the wind. He is treating America as a stepping stone to help get him where he wanted to go, and he seems willing to do anything to destroy America’s prestige in the world. The consequences could be disastrous, and the presidency and the nation damaged irreparably.

     FP: Final thoughts?

Geller: After just one year of the post-American presidency, on January 29, 2010, Solidarity hero and former Polish President Lech Walesa spoke of the new post-American world:

“The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it — militarily. They also lead economically, but they’re getting weak. They don’t lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope.” [3]

      Our enemies could never have defeated us; we can only defeat ourselves. Whether Barack Hussein Obama succeeds in destroying America or not, those words could be the epitaph of his post-American presidency.

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: The Post-American Presidency: OBAMA’S WAR IN AMERICA

CUANDO JORGE IMPRECÓ AL SHERIFF ARPAIO SOBRE LOS PRESOS EN TIENDAS DE CAMPAÑA, ESTE LE RESPONDIÓ QUE NUESTROS SOLDADOS DUERMEN EN TIENDAS DE CAMPAÑA BAJO UN CALOR MUCHO MÁS INTENSO QUE EL DE ARIZONA Y LOS PRESOS AQUI RECIBEN MUCHO MEJOR TRATO Y ALIMENTACION QUE LOS PRESOS EN LAS CARCELES DE MEXICO.  ¿DEBEN DISFRUTAR LOS QUE VIOLAN NUESTRA SOBERANIA Y LEYES MEJOR ACOMODACIONES QUE LOS SOLDADOS QUE ARRIESGAN SUS VIDAS EN SERVICIO A LA PATRIA?  ¿PUEDE USTED COMPARAR EL TRATO QUE EL SHERIFF ARPAIO DA A LOS ILEGALES CON EL TRATO QUE RECIBEN EN MEXICO LOS CENTROAMERICANOS QUE TRATAN DE CRUZAR SU PAIS PARA ENTRAR EN U.S. EN BUSCA DEL SUEÑO AMERICANO, QUE LOS PROPIOS ILEGALES HAN CONVERTIDO EN UNA PESADILLA CON LA INSOLENCIA CON QUE RECLAMAN DERECHOS QUE NO LE PERTENECN  Y QUE NO TIENEN EL CORAGE DE RECLAMAR EN SU PAIS?

 

President Obama, Shamelessly and Hypocritically Lying. Again.

 
 

 by Lori Ziganto (Profile)

Sunday, August 1st 2010

 

President Obama gave an interview to CBS on Sunday, wherein he attempted to explain his stance against Arizona’s SB 1070 Immigration bill. Still no word on whether or not he’s actually read the bill yet, but based on his inane murmurings, I’d have to go with No. But, to be fair, during the interview he did display a few things that he does quite well: shameless lying and aabsolute hypocrisy. You see, President Obama had the utter gall to say that we shouldn’t demagogue nor politicize a national problem like immigration reform. No, really. My jaw dropped too and I thought to myself “could he possibly be that shameless?” Apparently, yes:

     In a CBS interview broadcast Sunday, President Obama slammed approaches to immigration reform he said “demagogue” a “national problem.”

   He also defended progress in the administration’s suit against Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law — an action that states that the controversial measure flouts the federal government’s imperative under the ’supremacy’ clause of the constitution.

      Does the Smartest Man Alive ™ not know the meaning of the word demagogue? He is the Demagoguer In Chief, for goodness sake. And the entire Democrat party falls in demagogue-y lockstep right behind him. Incessant race card playing? Fear mongering? Sound familiar, President? That comes from you and your fellow Democrats who brand anyone who merely disagrees with you on policy - ever- as racist. You also use demagoguing in tandem with fear to politicize every issue and further your own agendas. Remember what you said about the law when first passed, Mr. President?  You tried to tell people that they’d be scooped up and whisked away, for no reason whatsoever, when out getting ice cream with their children.

        You allowed a foreign leader to demagogue, denigrate and demonize Arizona from our house floor. Democrats not only allowed it, they applauded it and gave Calderon sycophantic, grand-standing ovations. Once again proving they stand up for anything but America. And it was/is Democrats who are actually wearing demagogue jewelry in the form of Arizona bashing bracelets.

       It is Democrats, including you, Mr. President, who have made fear mongering hyperbole almost an art form. You demagogue to the point of Godwinning yourselves constantly. Plus, you know, the outright lying as contained in this statement made during your interview today:

     “What we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m going to be anti-immigrant, and I’m going to try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.’”

    No one is anti-immigrant. That is an outright lie. There is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. You sniff haughtily, in your usual holier than thou manner, about icky people “politicizing” issues. Meanwhile, you actually lie in order to politicize. For a Harvard graduate, you don’t have a great grasp of words nor their meaning.

        This epitomizes why there truly is no having a dialogue with the left. Intellectual honesty isn’t their strong suit. Of course, this wouldn’t even be an issue if the federal government was doing its job — its primary job, in my opinion — and protecting our borders, not leaving states to resort to trying to do it themselves with far more limited resources. And then suing said States, all while gleefully demonizing them - for passing a law necessitated by the fact that the federal government themselves refused to act - and then feigning righteous indignation over “politicizing” and “demagoguery”.

     Before preaching to everyone else, I suggest you learn the meaning of the words and the accusations that you toss about willy nilly. I also suggest Hypocrite, Heal Thyself.

 

BUSH Y McCAIN TRATARON DE DARLES LA AMNISTIA EN EL 2007 Y OBAMA Y LOS DEMOCRATAS LO IMPIDIERON YA QUE CONTROLABAN AMBAS CAMARAS.  SIN EMBARGO LOS HISPANOS VOTARON POR SU PERO ENEMIGO... CRIA CUERVOS, QUE TE SACARAN LOS OJOS. 

 

OBAMA LES PROMETIÓ DARLES LA AMNISTIA TAN PRONTO GANARA, CON ENORME MAYORIA EN AMBAS CAMARAS PUDO HABERSELAS DADO EN LOS PRIMEROS 100 DIAS DE SU REINO, SIN EMBARGO LOS TRAICIONÓ...  ASI PAGA EL DIABLO A QUIEN BIEN LE SIRVE.