Archive | March, 2011
31 Mar

What’s going on in Minnesota? It seems to be on its way to be America’s first Somali-Muslim state.

First we’ve been watching the drama at Minneapolis Airport where Somali-Muslim cabdrivers are demanding the right to refuse service to passengers who violate Islamic law — Sharia law. These would be people carrying bottles of alcohol or who have a dog traveling along, such as a blind person with his or her seeing-eye dog.

Then we have the situation with Target where Muslim cashiers refused to handle a package of bacon at the checkout stand. Target has now reassigned those people so they don’t have to handle pork, which means that Target has agreed to go along with Sharia law.

Then news today that in a suburb of Woodbury a man and a woman were found with a thousand pounds of khat.

What is khat you might ask? It is a mildly hallucinogenic drug which is a favorite of Somalis. When I was in Somali the biggest crowds at the outdoor markets were always around the khat stall, where a new load of the leafy drug had arrived from the bush country or from neighboring Kenya.

All these indicators say one thing very dramatically: Somalis coming to Minnesota are not assimilating. They are bringing the Muslim culture of that desert country to Minnesota’s snowy woods. They may have to wear warmer clothing, but the Somalis want Islamic law just like back home. And they want the same illegal drug they had back home, too.

Minnesota is famously liberal and now all eyes are on the state to see how voters there react to this onslaught against their culture and law. Are Minnesotans going to be so open-minded they say, sure you can have a different kind of law here, just for you and your people. We don’t mind. We’ll pretend we don’t notice.

There is such a thing as carrying politeness too far.

What Minnesotans must say is this is America. We already have law here, and if the Somalis wanted to live under Koran law, Sharia, they could have stayed in Somalia.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on “The Big Story”

Minnesota Under Attack From Sharia Law

Advertisements
31 Mar
Pawlenty is yet another phony Conservative

Pawlenty’s solution to eligibility question: Trust CNN

I saw a newscast where they reported’ seeing Obama’s birth certificate

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is positioning himself as a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012, says he has no interest in pursuing questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility, because CNN reported that its staff members saw the president’s birth certificate.

In an interview on MSNBC, Pawlenty said, “I for one do not believe that we should be raising that issue in the sense that I think President Obama was born in the United States. CNN reported that they saw the birth certificate. At one point, I saw a newscast where they reported that.”

CNN itself noted in its own report on Pawlenty’s statement, “It should be noted that CNN and other news organizations have thoroughly debunked the rumors about the president’s birthplace. Hawaii has released a copy of the president’s birth certificate – officially called a ‘certificate of live birth’ – and the hospital where he was born took out ads in two Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 announcing the birth.”

However, the document image released by the Obama campaign in 2008 was a “certification of live birth.”

“A ‘birth certificate’ and a ‘certificate of live birth’ are in no way the same thing, even though in some cases they use some of the same words,” Trump staffer Thuy Colayco told ABC in a note accompanying the copy of the long-form certificate.

“One officially confirms and records a newborn child’s identity and details of his or her birth, while the other only confirms that someone reported the birth of a child. Also, a ‘certificate of live birth’ is very easy to get because the standards are much lower, while a ‘birth certificate’ is only gotten through a long and detailed process wherein identity must be proved beyond any doubt,” the note said. “If you had only acertificate of live birth, you would not be able to get a proper passport from the Post Office or a driver’s license from the Department of Motor Vehicles. Therefore, there is very significant difference between a ‘certificate of live birth’ and a ‘birth certificate’ and one should never be confused with the other.”

In Obama’s case, Hawaii’s loose laws would have enabled a family whose child was born outside to make a false declaration and obtain a “certification of live birth” indicating a Hawaii birth.

Left-leaning media outlets immediately criticized Trump when he released his short-form certificate, saying it didn’t prove anything, and he responded with the fuller document.

However, many of those same media outlets repeatedly have cited Obama’s short-form document as his “birth certificate” or “certificate of birth.”

Readers on a USA Today forum page were less than impressed with Pawlenty:

“Scratch this Kool-Aid Kid off the list of candidates for president. Bad enough we got an Empty-Suit now, we don’t need a gullible fool as the next one,” wrote one.

The readers also leap-frogged over Pawlenty’s comments to the core issue: “Obama spends almost $2,000,000 to hide every aspect of his past including his birth records, his college records, his Illinois senate records, everything. … In that regard, The ‘One’ doth protest too much.”

A scientific poll only 10 days ago reported that not even one person in 10 in the U.S. now believes that Obama has shown that he is eligible to occupy to Oval Office. Another 32 percent avoid the issue entirely by responding that the questions are not valid, despite the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born Citizen.”

The movement of the issue into the center of the 2012 presidential campaign, at least partly because of Trump, was confirmed by another USA Today reader: “If 12 presidential candidates post their long forms of birth certificates online and 1 does not, how would you feel about the one candidate that does not?”

Pawlenty’s comments came only a day after Trump pushed the dispute to an even higher level, explaining his concern that Obama’s presidency could be “illegal” if legitimate proof is not provided demonstrating the commander in chief is a natural-born citizen of the U.S.

Trumps remarks came in a phone interview with Greta Van Susteren of the Fox News Channel.

“To be honest with you, I want him to have a birth certificate,” Trump said, “because [otherwise] that would mean that his presidency was, I guess you’d have to say, illegal. You have to be born in the United States. I hope that he was born in the United States. I hope – but I want to get rid of the word hope, I want to know for sure – I hope that he was born in the United States and I hope this doesn’t become a big issue.”

30 Mar

Soros fingerprints on Libya bombing-Libya bombing an attempt to create ‘New World Order’?

The author of a military doctrine used by the Obama administration to justify the recent airstrikes targeting the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya recently advocated for a “global rebalancing” and “international redistribution” to create a “New World Order.”

The author, Ramesh Thakur, is a fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, which is in partnership with an economic institute founded by philanthropist billionaire George Soros. Thakur is also closely tied with other Soros-funded initiatives.

WND was first to report last week that Soros is also a primary funder and key proponent of the global organization that promotes the military doctrine “Responsibility to Protect,” cited by the White House as allowing the use of force to attack Gadhafi’s forces.

The joint U.S. and international air strikes targeting Libya are widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect – a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

The term “war crimes” has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

Now WND has learned that Thakur, one of the principal authors of and original commissioners of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine,” argued recently for a global realignment.

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, “Toward a new world order,” Thakur wrote, “Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution.”

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, “Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions.”

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

“The West’s bullying approach to developing nations won’t work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia,” he wrote.

“A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train,” he added.

Thakur continued: “Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behaviour for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations.”

Thakur contended “the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of ‘superior’ western power.”

Soros fingerprints on Libya bombing

Thakur’s International Governance Innovation Centre is in partnership with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or INET, for which Soros is a founding sponsor.

The philanthropist agreed to provides $25 million over five years to support INET activities.

Just last week, INET was in the news for its announcement of its annual four-day economic symposium to be held next month in the mountains of Bretton Woods, N.H.

The gathering of economic giants will take place at Mount Washington Hotel, famous for hosting the original Bretton Woods economic agreements drafted in 1944. That conference’s goal was to rebuild a post-World War II international monetary system. The April gathering has a similar goal in mind – a global economic restructuring.

Reporting on last year’s event, the Business Insider related, “George Soros has brought together a crack team of the world’s top economists and financial thinkers.”

“Its aim,” continued the business newspaper, “to remake the world’s economy as they see fit.”

Thakur, meanwhile, serves on the advisory board of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the world’s leading champion of the militarydoctrine.

Activist Gareth Evans, who sits on the global group’s advisory board, is widely regarded as the other founder of the Responsibility to Protect principle along with Thakur.

Soros’ Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, “State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are … instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa.”

During his tenure as Australia’s foreign minister, Evans served as co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which invented the term “responsibility to protect.”

In his capacity as co-chair, Evans also played a pivotal role in initiating the fundamental shift from sovereignty as a right to “sovereignty as responsibility.”

Evans presented Responsibility to Protect at the July 23, 2009, United Nations General Assembly, which was convened to consider the principle.

Soros: Right to ‘penetrate nation-states’ borders’
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled “The People’s Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World’s Most Vulnerable Populations.”

In the article, Soros said “true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments.”

“If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified,” Soros wrote. “By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.

“In particular, the principle of the people’s sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict.”

Evans sits on multiple boards with Soros, including the Clinton Global Initiative.

Soros is on the executive board of the International Crisis Group, a “crisis management organization” for which Evans serves as president-emeritus.

WND previously reported how the group has been petitioning for the U.S. to normalize ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition in Egypt, where longtime U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was recently toppled.

Aside from Evans and Soros, the group includes on its board Egyptian opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei, as well as other personalities who champion dialogue with Hamas, a violent offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

WND also reported the crisis group has also petitioned for the Algerian government to cease “excessive” military activities against al-Qaida-linked groups and to allow organizations seeking to create an Islamic state to participate in the Algerian government.

Soros’ own Open Society Institute has funded opposition groups across the Middle East and North Africa, including organizations involved in the current chaos.

Power pushes doctrine

Doctrine founder Evans, meanwhile, is closely tied to Obama aide Samantha Power, who reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya. Power is the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

Evans and Power have been joint keynote speakers at events in which they have championed the Responsibility to Protect principle together, such as the 2008 Global Philanthropy Forum, also attended by Tutu.

In November, at the International Symposium on Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities, Power, attending as a representative of the White House, argued for the use of Responsibility to Protect alongside Evans.

written by By Aaron Klein WND

PATRIOTS-Those of you who are concerned where our country is heading, after reading this article one could say the whole ROAD MAP on how Obama the George Sorros Puppet is laid out in front of us. This article and the investigative journalism that was involved show exactly what the International Communist/Socialist plan is.  DESTROY AMERICA take it riches it’s land it’s people’s freedoms and rebuld it as a Communist country, ran by the likes of Sorros and other international Communist under a NEW WORLD ORDER…..

29 Mar
KGB Exonerates Senator Joseph McCarthy

COMMUNIST SPIES HAD SATURATED U.S. GOVERNMENT

IS GLENN BECK THE MODERN DAY JOSEPH McCarthy?

The opening of the KGB archives and the release of the VENONA intercepts (decoded Soviet KGB and GRU traffic) proved that in the 1950’s Senator Joseph McCarthy was absolutely right about the extensive Soviet penetration of the U.S. government in all the most sensitive sections and its danger to America.


According to the KGB archives, the NKVD had 221 agents in the Roosevelt administration in April 1941 and the Soviet military GRU probably had a like number. He was proved right that the Communist Party, U.S.A., was an arm of the Soviet intelligence apparatus and the Soviet Union considered the U.S. as their “main enemy”.


His liberal critics in academe and the mainstream media, who denied there was Communist subversion and made excuses for it, were proved absolutely wrong! This should have discredited the liberal ideology and those who mouthed it. Because the left had no answer or effective reply to the challenge McCarthy posed, they engaged in personal destruction — they smeared and demonized McCarthy because he was truth.


Nearly 40 years after the death of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, twice-elected United States Senator from Wisconsin, the term “McCarthyism” is still widely used as a convenient epithet BY THE SOCIALIST LEFT TO TAG ANY CONSERVATIVE/AMERICAN THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DEMOCRAT/SOCIALIST/MARXIST/COMMUNIST AGENDA, the left looked at McCarthy as evil and corrupt for shining the light of truth on the Democrats/Hollywood they coined the word McCarthyism as a way to in their demented Communist minds to make the truth about Communism LOOK/SOUND evil and despicable in the world of politics.


However, it is quite clear that not one critic of McCarthy in a hundred has the slightest idea of what he said and did during that controversial period from 1950 to 1954. We need to be vitally concerned about the issues he raised because virtually nothing has been done to deal effectively with those issues since the mid-1950s.


Although his judgeship exempted him from military service, McCarthy enlisted in the Marines and was sworn in as a first lieutenant in August 1942. He served as an intelligence officer for a bomber squadron stationed in the Solomon Islands, and also risked his life by volunteering to fly in the tail-gunner’s seat on many combat missions. 

An ABC television movie about McCarthy in the late 1970s was entitled “Tail Gunner Joe” to belittle his military accomplishments, but the official record gives the true picture. 

Not only were McCarthy’s achievements during 30 months of active duty unanimously praised by his commanding officers, but Admiral Chester Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, issued a glowing citation to then Captain McCarthy.

In 1946, Joe McCarthy upset incumbent U.S. Senator Robert La Follette in the Republican primary and went on to beat Democrat Howard McMurray in the general election. When McCarthy scored his surprising victory over La Follette, the communists did not file the petitions for their candidate, but rallied instead behind McMurray. Thus, Joe McCarthy defeated a Democratic-Communist Party coalition in 1946.



In the fall of 1949, three men brought to McCarthy’s office a 100-page FBI report alleging extensive communist penetration of the State Department. The trio had asked three other senators to awaken the American people to this dangerous situation, but only McCarthy was willing to take on this volatile project.


Communist infiltration of the State Department began in the 1930s. On September 2, 1939, former communist Whittaker Chambers provided Assistant Secretary of State Adolph Berle with the names and communist connections of two dozen spies in the government, including Alger Hiss. Berle took the information to President Roosevelt, but FDR laughed it off and said that some of his friends were communists.

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY  SUPPORTED -ELECTED COMMUNIST 
NOT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-THE DEMOCRAT PARTY-AND TO THIS DAY THE STILL ELECT-SUPPORT COMMUNIST



PATRIOTS-TODAY THIS VERY DAY WE HAVE A MODERN DAY McCarthy a man who is shining the light of truth on the SOCIALIST/MARXIST/COMMUNIST in our government in our country. 

This man, has taken a lot of hits but he continues to research and inform we Americans who pay attention to what is going on in our country our government. 

This man as Joseph McCarthy is ridiculed, threatened but he continues to do his patriotic work INFORMING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE


WHO IS THIS MAN WHO IS THIS MODERN DAY JOSEPH McCARTHY YOU ASK
PATRIOT MR GLENN BECK

28 Mar
THE THREAT TO FREEDOM-THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Anyone disagreeing with actions of the American government is a potential terrorist and must be, at least, watched and monitored by federal, state, and local authorities.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has direct ties to the Department of Homeland Security, helping to write official DHS policy that may affect my life, my freedom, my ability to travel and my ability to speak out.

Consider the following facts:

Item: In 2009, The DHS issued a report entitled “Right- wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”

That official document of an agency of the United States government said “Right-wing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movement, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti- government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Item: Two weeks later, the DHS released a second report entitled:“Domestic Extremism Lexicon,”designed to provide specific definitions of just who may be Right wing extremists.

That report labeled the following to be extremists, bordering on terrorism: Those concerned over the economy; loss of jobs; foreclosures; antagonism toward the Obama Administration; Criticism of free trade programs; anti-abortion; oppose same sex marriage; believe in the “end times;” stock pile food; oppose illegal immigration; oppose a New World Order; oppose the UN; oppose global governance; fear of Communist regimes; oppose loss of US manufacturing to overseas nations; oppose loss of US prestige; and use of the internet (or alternative media) to express any of these ideas.

Right after both of these reports were issued, there was the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. Next to their news reports on the incident, many newspapers carried side bar articles citing the DHS reports, basically confirming that such violence is perpetrated by right wing nuts and justifying the concerns of the DHS – just like clockwork.

Yet there was absolutely no connection found between that shooter and the right wing. But the damage was done.

And there’s more.

The Department of Homeland Security has established Fusion Centers in each state. These are designed to combine federal, state and local law enforcement. Their stated purpose is to assure immediate and efficient response to a terrorist attack or a Katrina-like disaster without bureaucratic red tape.

Item: In 2009, the Missouri Fusion Center set off a fire storm over a report it issued entitled “The Modern Militia Movement.” Reported Fox News, the report, “identifies the warning signs of potential terrorists for law enforcement communities.”

In other words, this report was issued to law enforcement agencies across the state as official documentation warning who the cops should look out for as potential violent terrorists.

The list of potential terrorists included Americans who voted for presidential candidate Ron Paul; Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin; and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. It also cited those of us who opposed the creation of a North American Union with Canada and Mexico.

Item: Just last month, immediately following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona Fusion Center issued a report saying that the shooter was influenced by a right wing group called American Renaissance.

Immediately the mainstream media picked up the report and flooded the airways with the story that the radical and violent right wing was responsible for the shootings.

The information was completely wrong. There is no evidence that there was ever any connection between the shooter and American Renaissance. Moreover, American Renaissance has never advocated violence or extremism.

The only connection between American Renaissance and extremism is that the Southern Poverty Law Center listed them as a hate group. A detail that interestingly found its way into the Arizona Fusion Center report as fact.

Item: in the Spring of 2010, the Department of Homeland Security organized a “Countering Violent Extremism Working Group.” This is an advisory council given the task of creating a plan to reach out to local law enforcement and community activists for training to respond to potential violence and terrorist threat.

Leafing through the report one gets the distinct impression that the plan is basically a “turn in your neighbor,” neighborhood- watch approach. It talks extensively of “sharing” information, along with “training, training, training.”

Training for what? To identify potential terrorists, of course. And who are those potential terrorist? A look at the members of the working group offers a clue.

While the group includes several public officials and law enforcement officials from around the nation, and it also includes Mohamed Magid, president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and unindicted co-conspirator in a case concerning the funding of Muslim terrorist organizations.

And the working group member list also includes Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In addition, as one of the “Subject Matter Experts,” it lists Laurie Wood, an analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center and an instructor for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

That training center is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center and is one of the most visible direct links between

DHS, the Fusion Centers and SPLC. Law enforcement agencies actually send their personnel to these training classes to gain Federal Law Enforcement Training Center certification.

That means that policy for this DHS working group is being created by the very organization that has labeled those who advocate Constitutional law to be potential terrorists.

In addition, the“training”called for in the report will most likely be conducted, at least in part, by the SPLC’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

The pattern is clear, one of the nation’s leading hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which opposes even the right of free speech by people it labels potential terrorists, is helping the largest federal enforcement agency in the nation to create its policy.

That policy clearly states, according to DHS reports, that anyone disagreeing with actions of the American government is a potential terrorist and must be, at least, watched and monitored by federal, state, and local authorities.

The result of such surveillance could possibly lead to loss of freedom, loss of jobs, loss of the ability to travel, and loss of the ability to speak publicly for anyone who opposes the private agenda of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It is an effort to silence their opponents. Honest political debate is now being interpreted as dangerous extremism.

Why is DHS dealing with such people? Are the policies of SPLC the same policies of the United States? If so, then freedom in America is in grave danger, indeed.

I believe there needs to be an immediate Congressional investigation into the ties between the Department of Homeland Security and the Southern Poverty Law Center and any other radical groups.

Particular attention should be paid to SPLC’s tax exempt status and the amount of money it receives from DHS or any other agency. And there should be an immediate stop to American law enforcement being trained by SPLC’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

The specific purpose of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect the “STATE” against all enemies. That has come to include anyone who uses their first amendment right to speak out against specific policies.

Apparently, that has been interpreted by DHS to mean a threat to the STATE.

May I remind you that the tanks that ran over the student protesters in Tiananmen Square in Communist China were also protecting the STATE against its enemies.

I fear that if private groups with their own political agendas, like the SPLC are allowed to continue feeding their own brand of hatred into the policies of DHS then such a comparison with China is not too far off. I don’t think that is the America each of you pledged to serve.

(part of a brief Briefing to the Tea Party Caucus of the US House of Representatives)
written by:Tom DeWeese:

PATRIOTS: Could Homeland Security be the National Civilian Police Force, Brack Hussein Obama said he wanted to form, a National Civilian Police Force with the same powers,budget and manpower as our military. 

Homeland Security ran by left wing Socialist/Marxist  funding left wing hate groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, that train and do the bidding of the Marxist Brack Hussein Obama under the guidance of Homeland Security is this the tool or the organization that Obama will use to further his Marxist agenda to destroy America?

 



VISIT THE GETTIN AFTER LEFTY WWW BROADCAST PAGE-JUST CLICK ON THE GOLD BUTTTON
Photobucket

28 Mar

Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County
This is the cost incurred by American Tax payers in JUST ONE “”COUNTY”” in the United Sates

Welfare benefits for the children of illegal immigrants cost America’s largest county more than $600 million last year, according to a local official keeping tabs on the cost.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich released new statistics showing social spending for those families in his county rose to $53 million in November, putting the county government on track to spend more than $600 million on related costs for the year — up from $570 million in 2009.

Antonovich arrived at the estimate by factoring in the cost of food stamps and welfare-style benefits through a state program known as CalWORKS. Combined with public safety costs and health care costs, the official claimed the “total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers” was more than $1.6 billion in 2010.

“Not including the hundreds of millions of dollars for education,” he said in a statement.

Antonovich’s figures, though, center on costs generated by American-born children of illegal immigrants. Isabel Alegria, communications director at the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it’s “unfair” to roll together costs associated with both illegal immigrants and U.S.-born citizens.

((ANCHOR BABIES))**
“Those children are U.S. citizens, children eligible for those programs,” Alegria said.

She also questioned the authenticity of Antonovich’s numbers regarding health care and public safety — though for the welfare program statistics, Antonovich cited numbers from the county’s Department of Public Social Services.

Antonovich acknowledges that the children whose benefits he’s focusing on are U.S.-born. But he argues that the money is collected by the illegal immigrant parents, putting a painful burden on taxpayers, including those who are legal immigrants.

“The problem is illegal immigration. … Their parents evidently immigrated here in order to get on social services,” Antonovich spokesman Tony Bell said. “We can no longer afford to be HMO to the world.”

He said the state should cut back on these social benefits. According to the November statistics, that cost accounted for 22 percent of all food stamp and CalWORKS spending in the county.

Over the summer, the Federation for American Immigration Reform also looked at these kinds of costs nationwide to get an idea of the burden to local governments at a time when many are grappling with budget deficits.

The organization reported that the cost of illegal immigration stands at about $113 billion a year. Nearly half of that amount went toward education costs, according to the study. Costs were naturally higher in states with large illegal immigrant populations — in California, the total annual cost was pegged at $21.8 billion

** The term “anchor baby” is unfamiliar to most Americans, but it nicely describes one of the more troubling aspects of American immigration policy.

Put simply, an anchor baby is the offspring of an illegal immigrant who, under current legal interpretation, becomes a U.S. citizen at birth and, in turn, is the means by which parents and relatives can also obtain citizenship for themselves by using the family reunification features of immigration law.

It’s estimated there may be as many as 200,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S. No single agency keeps track, but there is abundant, if fragmented, evidence that births are not limited to areas near the Mexican border.

VISIT GETTIN AFTER LEFTY DOT COM JUST CLICK ON THE GOLD BUTTON

Photobucket
28 Mar
A Plan to Destroy America

I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, lets destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” here is my plan:

   1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon —- all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.

   2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

   3. We can make the United States a “hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently:

          … the apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.

          I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than Americans, emphasizing their similarities.

   4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated – I would add a second underclass, un-assimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% drop out rate from school.

   5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority – I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

   6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “Celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other-that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse,” peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia. Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf ‘s world history tells us:

          The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the olympic games in honor of Zeus and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors . . . (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions . . .)

          If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

   7. Then I would place all these subjects off limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” that halts argument and conversation.

Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “Victimology”, I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra – “that because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

written by:Unknown
  

      “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the Spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that Spectrum.”  

Noam Chomsky, American linguist and US Media and Foreign Policy critic.