Visas, Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Population Control, Wars, Religions, and Discrimination

Visas, Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Population Control, Wars, Religions, and Discrimination

As faimagesCAJK81ZEr as we see it – “it” being the operative word for the conditions currently going on in the United States – and seriously asking ourselves, “How good for us is all the squabbling.”  I’m not the first person to wonder about the rubbish we, as a nation, have gotten ourselves into; however, I would like to be ahead in the line of who it is that is trying with due-diligence to stop and get out of” it.”

And I will openly admit that I feel that the mainstream media has a firm foothold on how public policy and how American awareness feels about it. Therefore please, allow me to ask you a question and just hopefully we’ll get some responses to this question: “America is in trouble, what we can do to help our current government end this trouble?”

Just some fundamentals for us. Should the government (for whatever reason) continue to have a free give away Diversity Lottery on visas for 80,000 or more people per year?

In this article, it should be made known that at least 50% of all legal immigrants coming to America are awarded entitlements as at their arrival? What does good moral character mean? Do you feel as though so kind of legislation should be made prohibiting these individuals from gaining access to the USA?

And this entire notion of while a person is here in the USA while visiting from Russia, Iran, or Mexico, or anywhere for that matter, who goes into labor gives birth and WHAM! They have got a US citizen in their hands, which in turn makes every member of that child’s family or extended family worthy of receiving entitlements? Is that fair?

Now as for Senator’s: Schumer, Rubio, Graham, McCain, Flake, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennett commonly referred to as The Gang of Eight collectively these 8 senators wrote the first draft of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, commonly known as “the immigration bill.” As we already know, the House didn’t even look at the Bill so it was basically debunked on release. Did the USA need another Sub-Committee?

scalesDo we need to reevaluate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to regain control of our country? Currently, that act is viewed by most not as lifting the limits of immigrants from certain countries as much as with the Kennedy backing it is viewed now to be an act of civil rights legislation and those rights for potential immigrants. From the act itself”

  • It created a seven-category preference system, which gave priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills.
  • Immediate relatives and “special immigrants” were not subject to numerical restrictions. Some of the “special immigrants” include ministers, former employees of the U.S. government, foreign medical graduates, among others.
  • It added a labor certification requirement, which dictated that the Secretary of Labor needed to certify labor shortages.
  • Refugees were given the seventh and last category preference with the possibility of adjusting their status. However, refugees could enter the United States through other means as well like those seeking temporary asylum. How much has this notion changed?

Even if America is the land of opportunity why do politicians feel it’s necessary to spread that opportunity immediately?

CLOUD finger-illusionsDid you understand what the leader of Iraq meant when he stated, “Death to America and Israel”? Why is it so important to give visas to people who disagree with our way of life? This is confusing to me. “Let their blood run down the streets” is something we hear, beheading innocent individuals is just another thing we see. How long will it be until America shows the fortitude it once had?

Arden V

Freedom of speech demands Political Correctness..?


Freedom of speech demands Political Correctness..?

Mayor Peter Swiderski addressed a letter to the entire village of Hastings on Hudson, New York, making clear his conviction that facts which offend the sensibilities of the left must be condemned as “deplorable, hateful and morally repugnant” as they do not “reflect the ideals of [the] community or…of [the] nation.”

That would be good and well enough said when addressing an entire national audience. But no, this typical politician continued to talk and therefore left it without addressing the issues.

At issue to the mayor is an ad placed on a series of billboards in Westchester County, Metro-North stations by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The ad states that there have been “19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01 and counting,” and continues on with the fact that, “It’s not Islamophobia, it’s Islamorealism.”

Oddly enough, Mayor Swiderski does not question the truth of the group’s claim. Rather, like so many dhimmis, which translated means “the people of the dhimma or people of the contract”) is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with Sharia law, across the country, he simply finds it disgraceful to “tar a faith and its followers because of the actions of a few.” (A-hem.) Remarkable how viciously active those “few” are, given 19,250 attacks took place even though the Mayor’s contends that “…the vast majority of believers in [Islam] (and all other) major religions, embrace peace and do not endorse the violence wrought by [those] fanatic few.”

We’d like to remind the ostensibly clueless mayor that his example of a few (19,000 plus) is an oxymoron. Furthermore, although his heart may be in the right spot, he his further hurting his and Islamic causes by coming out with disinformation.

The executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative is Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs fame. It was a series of anti-Israel billboards and kiosks that inspired Geller to begin the “Islamorealism” campaign in the Westchester Metro stations. Sponsored by Henry Clifford, co-chairman of the Committee for Peace in Israel and Palestine, the ads “… featured maps of Israel from 1946 through 2010 focusing on the expansion of Israel at the expense of Palestinians.”

Neither Mayor Swiderski nor members of the Hastings on Hudson, Board of Trustees took offense at the anti-Israel postings. Apparently none of these pillars of the Westchester community consider attacks on the Jewish state to be either “deplorable” or offensive to “the ideals of the community!” And this notion we feel is very, very poor indeed.

Geller responded to claims about the inappropriate nature of her group’s advertisements by stating, “Jihadists worldwide make recruits among peaceful Muslims by portraying themselves as the exponents of true Islam. Rather than being offended by my ads, Muslims who genuinely oppose jihad should be joining me to fight against it and challenge the jihadist interpretation of Islam.” Not surprisingly, she was ignored by the left as its members pressed their attack. We hate to admit it…but this is the way of those renegade factions with a mobocracy mind-set.

“Apparently, after legal review, this ad did not qualify as hate speech and falls under First Amendment protection,” moaned Mayor Swiderski as he provided Westchester residents with the name and address of the Metro-North chairman. Beseeching his offended townspeople to complain to the chairman about Geller’s unacceptable use of her 1st Amendment rights, Swiderski made it clear his interpretation of free speech rights mirrors that of every other liberal. That is, say something with which I agree and I’ll not consult with attorneys about your despicable example of hate speech!

And rightfully so…we fail to see where information rendered on facts amounts to anything but the truth – and therefore is not hate speech. Furthermore, we firmly engage in the notion that pursuant to the 14th amendment there have been far too many issues that involve misplaced hate and protected classes of people. Even as we write this article we are listening to how Janet Napolitano is now giving “protected status” to Syrians.

All in all, just another example of the true American spirit brought to us by the dimmest of New England!

Let’s just look around and get acquainted…NOW!

We’re sure those that having a read at our site has certainly noticed our individual page marker on the menu up-top under the heading of “Political Correctness.” And hopefully you are aware that several of us here have studied language – some different dialects while others have studied linguistics – or where words come from and how societies throughout history have gone extinct or otherwise in lieu of language manipulation and change.

The following article’s key points are from David Kupelian, who is an award-winning journalist, who has earned our respect. Furthermore, if anyone were to spend time looking at our political correctness page or search the archives for other articles that have been written that espouse the same issues and key points.

A major engine for the left’s insatiable quest for power goes under the strange name of “political correctness” – an insidious frontal attack on common sense and conscience through language manipulation.

Many people mistakenly regard political correctness as just a nutty liberal fetish for not hurting people’s feelings. Words and phrases are continually decreed to be “insensitive” to various “minorities” and therefore replaced with euphemisms so as to avoid real or perceived offense.

People who are mentally retarded used to be called “idiots,” “imbeciles” and “morons” – psychological terms that correspond to different IQ ranges (0-25 for idiots, 26-50 for imbeciles, 51-70 for morons). But as those words gradually came to be considered offensive, the euphemism “retarded” came into vogue. When “retarded” came to be regarded as insensitive, new-and-nicer euphemisms like “intellectual disability” and being “intellectually challenged” emerged, culminating with “special.” It’s hard to be offended over being “special.”

In like manner, the deaf became “hearing impaired,” the blind “vision impaired” and the crippled “mobility impaired,” inspiring a new breed of cocktail-party jokes wherein the bald are “folically challenged” and so on.

More subversively, however, people’s ignoble or criminal qualities became disguised and excused with euphemisms: “Illegal aliens” became “illegal immigrants” and then “undocumented immigrants” and presto-chango, something bad was magically transformed into something good.

Homosexuals became “gay,” abortion advocates became “pro-choice” and atheists became “brights,” each euphemism converting a negative association into a positive one. Today, increasing numbers of people refer to pedophilia as “intergenerational sex” and child molesters as “minor-attracted persons” or MAPs. (In Islam, the popular euphemism for pedophilia is “child marriage,” just as adultery is called “temporary marriage.” Really, now.)

Of course, Islam has become a major beneficiary of political correctness, reminiscent of what George Orwell called “Newspeak” in his novel “1984.” After 19 Muslim terrorists, acting in the name of Islam, murdered almost 3,000 Americans in a wanton act of war on Sept. 11, 2001, the government and media, to avoid offending Muslims, declared Islam to be a “religion of peace.”

The Islamic jihad declared on America was mysteriously referred to by our leaders as a “war on terror” involving some unnamed enemy. But even that awkward and evasive expression was deemed too insensitive toward Islam, so under Obama the euphemizing turned surreal when “war on terror” morphed into “overseas contingency operations.” Likewise, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came up with a friendly new phrase for mass-murder terror attacks. Announcing that she was deliberately avoiding the term “terrorism” in speeches because “we want to move away from the politics of fear,” she adopted the term “man-caused disasters.” We will continue with this article tomorrow, thank you.