I am shocked, shocked, that illegal aliens is going on here:
Illegal-alien free zones is a consummation devoutly to be wished. The wish can never be fulfilled with people like this:
Kirsten Gillibrand did a flip-flop on immigration. She was tough on illegals before she was selected to fill out Clinton’s term. She played kissy-kissy with illegals in order to get a full term in 2010. Illegals even had a lobby as the article details. It is rolling over for the Latino community that I am trying to understand.
The exact number of illegal aliens in this country is elusive. Twelve million seems to be the popular consensus. Trying to determine how they are spread around in fifty states is a puzzle that would intrigue Sherlock Holmes.
It is pretty much assumed that the majority of Latinos, legal and illegal, live in California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. For the sake of convenience lets say that one million illegals live in each of those states, and the remaining six million are spread across the other 44 states. Working with twelve million as a base, putting more than one million illegals in any state naturally reduces the number elsewhere.
Illegals cannot, or are not supposed to, vote; so they can be dismissed. Conventional wisdom says that Latinos eligible to vote will vote against any candidate who is tough on illegals. I do not believe that is true. Legal residents surely know that illegals are placing a strain on the entire system; everything from healthcare to education to housing. I cannot understand why anyone would put illegals ahead of themselves and their children. And remember that Americans who want to stop illegal immigrants from coming, and then getting citizenship, does not mean discriminating against all Latinos.
Another assumption is that every eligible Latino votes. I do not believe that either. More to the point, the entire state votes in US Senate elections. That surely dilutes the clout of a single voting bloc. I know of no state where Latinos outnumber everyone else.
I can easily see a minority voting bloc in specific districts determining elections for the House of Representatives, but not for the US Senate. Kirsten Gillibrand has probably been told that the Beltway establishment is for open-borders. The message is: Get onboard or get out of town. Her cover story for flip-flopping is the old Latino vote come election time.
Even if there is some truth in the power of the Latino vote over every other voting bloc in the six states I listed, that is only 12 senators. That still leaves 88 senators from the other 44 states where Latinos do not influence senate elections. The MSM, and politicians, want Americans to believe that Latinos influence elections in every state. That is just not true.
So why are the borders still open? Why were they opened in the first place?
Americans will never get illegal-alien free zones so long as the Democrat Party has so much legislative power in its hands.
United Nations free zones is another matter. More importantly, U.N.-free zones is the only justification needed to protect, defend, and enforce the Second Amendment’s intent:
Frustrations with government bubble up in rural Oregon
Jun 3, 2002
By JOHN ENDERS
https://journaltimes.com/news/natio...cle_18a9a2dc-1c83-5421-b16d-267e174f835f.html
This aspect of the fight for sovereignty in Oregon had the residents posting:
There is one thing in John Enders piece that drew my attention:
I listed a few of the reasons that I believe will show the above statement by Mr. Luers to be misleading:
1. Elected international Socialists who never campaign for office based on their support of the U.N. have given the U.N. ever-increasing political authority beyond belief.
2. The U.N. is well-funded which means it has extraordinary resources. Former President Clinton wanted to insure that those resources would continue to flow to the U.N. when he threatened to propose legislation that would require the American taxpayer to pay its annual U.N. dues. U.N. dues is not a fixed dollar amount. America’s annual dues is 23 percent of whatever the U.N. decides to spend.
3. The U.N. has an exceptionally well-funded judicial system which is even now trying defendants in The Hague. Many foreign governments are conspiring in the U.N. to legitimize the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the sole purpose of diminishing American sovereignty.
4. The U.N. controls an armed force of military personnel that is called a “peacekeeping force.” The U.N. defines the word “peace.” For instance: If the U.N. decides the residents of Grant County, Oregon are not peaceful in defense of their property, or even their country, the U.N. could send its peacekeeping troops into Oregon. Any troops deployed in the U.S. would consist of troops from countries that hate the U.S. to begin with.
5. U.N. advocates would not dream of sending peacekeepers into Communist China, but should a president holding the same international beliefs that are held by the Clintons and other leading Democrats be commander in chief at the time, he or she would order the U.S. military to stand down and allow U.N. troops to complete their mission.
6. The U.N., through the Ministry of Propaganda (FCC), would instruct the electronic media to tell the rest of the country that the residents of Grant County are armed extremists trying to overthrow the government. Using U.N. peacekeepers on American soil would be justified by explaining they are best suited to handle the “rebellion” because U.N.-controlled land is involved in the conflict.
7. Environmental groups, advancing U.N. policy, are funded in large part by tax dollars. Those tax dollars are used to further a political agenda as well as control private property and public lands. It is not too far of a stretch to say that the U.N. is taking control of those lands. Any concerned group, or individual, opposing U.N. land-grab efforts must fund their political cause with their own resources.
8. Even when the President and the U.S. Senate renounce a U.N. treaty, Kyoto for example, Socialists in Congress manage to implement provisions of that treaty. I would say that is taking over something. Namely: the mechanics of the federal government.
If the U.N. could make so many inroads in the Unites States, just think of what it is doing in countries where most people have no private property to defend. A substantial portion of the world’s population do not even understand how private property Rights are intertwined with individual liberties. U.N. educational efforts teach uneducated people all about their responsibilities to the environment, but it cannot seem to teach those same people the practical applications and benefits of individual liberty. One of the things U.N. advocates have always done is to use those politically naive people as a threat by turning the Third World against the United States.
Prior to 1945, the American people were respected and much-admired around the world. As the U.N.’s influence grew in world affairs; so did the image of the “ugly American.” Hatred directed toward the United States flourished because many Americans would not be frightened into giving their sovereignty over to Third World controls.
U.N. propaganda in foreign lands depicted Americans as those shallow, greedy, people who were standing in the way of a utopian world simply because they were trying to hang onto private property Rights, individual liberties, and a sovereign nation’s Right to maintain secure borders. American public trough intellectuals further exploited the ugly American characterization for self-serving purposes, knowing full well that that widely-held perception of their fellow countrymen is false. U.S. membership in an organization that is destined to become a supreme world government was the beginning of anti-American sentiments throughout the world.
American Socialists have been very successful in avoiding the just label of “Communists.” The media never identifies Left-Wing Democrats as Socialists, let alone label them as Communists. In the same vain, the U.N. is seldom connected to Socialism in any public discussions; even by those who oppose the U.N. or openly oppose Socialism/Communism. Those two masterpieces of political misdirection are a testament to how effective U.N. advocates have been in every area of propaganda.
Finally, a one government world administered by the United Nations is the sole reason the media defended the United Nations since the early 1950s:
David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg
Quote...Ten Years Later
11-21-1
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."
He went on to explain:
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
http://www.rense.com/general17/quote.htm
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ak-And-A-Scum-Bag-Agree&p=2903288#post2903288
p.s. Oregon had company:
Illegal-alien free zones is a consummation devoutly to be wished. The wish can never be fulfilled with people like this:
That was quick. It took less than a week for rookie New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to jettison her support for immigration law enforcement under pressure from Hispanic politicians. Apparently the rule of law means one thing in upstate New York, which Gillibrand represented in Congress, and another thing in New York City, where she has been hearing from the illegal alien lobby. Last week, that lobby mounted a public relations war declaring that the new Senate appointee would face a very short Senate sojourn if she continued to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and to back a raft of measures acknowledging the difference between legal and illegal immigration.
Gillibrand has emerged from that ordeal a new woman. According to the New York Times, she is now OK with so-called sanctuary cities, jurisdictions that declare themselves immigration-law free zones and prohibit their employees from reporting immigration violations or cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities. As a Congresswoman, she had voted to penalize such cities, New York being one of them. Perhaps before casting her previous vote, she had heard about the grilling New York City officials got in Congress in 2002 after a gang of five Mexicans—four of them illegal—abducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses, but had never notified the INS about their presence in the U.S.
The new Gillibrand is also pledging to help repeal a federal bill that discourages states from allowing illegal aliens to pay low in-state tuition fees.
This is just the start of her transformation. The Latino officials who met with her last week in the offices of El Diario are far from happy; they have a list of other measures from the pre-Enlightenment Gillibrand— such as allowing employers to require English in the workplace and allowing properly trained police officers to enforce immigration laws—that will have to go if she wants to avoid a bruising battle to hold on to her Senate seat in 2010. [She won in 2010 and now wants to be president.]
The Gillibrand rebranding speaks to how well Hispanic politicians and advocates have learned the political ropes. If the public at large, which continues to believe that illegal immigration is against the law, fails to exert comparable pressure on its representatives, it can hardly complain if those representatives listen to the best organized lobbies. But the Gillibrand story provides a window into the future of immigration policy in this country, and possibly of the rule of law. [The rule of law goes out the window whenever Democrat scum need votes.]
Gillibrand has emerged from that ordeal a new woman. According to the New York Times, she is now OK with so-called sanctuary cities, jurisdictions that declare themselves immigration-law free zones and prohibit their employees from reporting immigration violations or cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities. As a Congresswoman, she had voted to penalize such cities, New York being one of them. Perhaps before casting her previous vote, she had heard about the grilling New York City officials got in Congress in 2002 after a gang of five Mexicans—four of them illegal—abducted and brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses, but had never notified the INS about their presence in the U.S.
The new Gillibrand is also pledging to help repeal a federal bill that discourages states from allowing illegal aliens to pay low in-state tuition fees.
This is just the start of her transformation. The Latino officials who met with her last week in the offices of El Diario are far from happy; they have a list of other measures from the pre-Enlightenment Gillibrand— such as allowing employers to require English in the workplace and allowing properly trained police officers to enforce immigration laws—that will have to go if she wants to avoid a bruising battle to hold on to her Senate seat in 2010. [She won in 2010 and now wants to be president.]
The Gillibrand rebranding speaks to how well Hispanic politicians and advocates have learned the political ropes. If the public at large, which continues to believe that illegal immigration is against the law, fails to exert comparable pressure on its representatives, it can hardly complain if those representatives listen to the best organized lobbies. But the Gillibrand story provides a window into the future of immigration policy in this country, and possibly of the rule of law. [The rule of law goes out the window whenever Democrat scum need votes.]
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Gillibrand Rebranding
Heather Mac Donald
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gillibrand-rebranding-heather-mac-donald/
The Gillibrand Rebranding
Heather Mac Donald
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/gillibrand-rebranding-heather-mac-donald/
Kirsten Gillibrand did a flip-flop on immigration. She was tough on illegals before she was selected to fill out Clinton’s term. She played kissy-kissy with illegals in order to get a full term in 2010. Illegals even had a lobby as the article details. It is rolling over for the Latino community that I am trying to understand.
The exact number of illegal aliens in this country is elusive. Twelve million seems to be the popular consensus. Trying to determine how they are spread around in fifty states is a puzzle that would intrigue Sherlock Holmes.
It is pretty much assumed that the majority of Latinos, legal and illegal, live in California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. For the sake of convenience lets say that one million illegals live in each of those states, and the remaining six million are spread across the other 44 states. Working with twelve million as a base, putting more than one million illegals in any state naturally reduces the number elsewhere.
Illegals cannot, or are not supposed to, vote; so they can be dismissed. Conventional wisdom says that Latinos eligible to vote will vote against any candidate who is tough on illegals. I do not believe that is true. Legal residents surely know that illegals are placing a strain on the entire system; everything from healthcare to education to housing. I cannot understand why anyone would put illegals ahead of themselves and their children. And remember that Americans who want to stop illegal immigrants from coming, and then getting citizenship, does not mean discriminating against all Latinos.
Another assumption is that every eligible Latino votes. I do not believe that either. More to the point, the entire state votes in US Senate elections. That surely dilutes the clout of a single voting bloc. I know of no state where Latinos outnumber everyone else.
I can easily see a minority voting bloc in specific districts determining elections for the House of Representatives, but not for the US Senate. Kirsten Gillibrand has probably been told that the Beltway establishment is for open-borders. The message is: Get onboard or get out of town. Her cover story for flip-flopping is the old Latino vote come election time.
Even if there is some truth in the power of the Latino vote over every other voting bloc in the six states I listed, that is only 12 senators. That still leaves 88 senators from the other 44 states where Latinos do not influence senate elections. The MSM, and politicians, want Americans to believe that Latinos influence elections in every state. That is just not true.
So why are the borders still open? Why were they opened in the first place?
Americans will never get illegal-alien free zones so long as the Democrat Party has so much legislative power in its hands.
United Nations free zones is another matter. More importantly, U.N.-free zones is the only justification needed to protect, defend, and enforce the Second Amendment’s intent:
Bud Trowbridge, whose grandfather settled in John Day in 1862, said he's ready to use force to protect his property from the United Nations. "We're trying to avoid a fight. But we still got our guns," he said.
Frustrations with government bubble up in rural Oregon
Jun 3, 2002
By JOHN ENDERS
https://journaltimes.com/news/natio...cle_18a9a2dc-1c83-5421-b16d-267e174f835f.html
This aspect of the fight for sovereignty in Oregon had the residents posting:
There is one thing in John Enders piece that drew my attention:
“William Luers, a former U.S. ambassador and now president of the United Nations Association of the USA, said the anti-U.N. sentiment is absurd.
‘The United Nations absolutely has no capacity, resources or forces to take over anything in the world,’ Luers said.”
‘The United Nations absolutely has no capacity, resources or forces to take over anything in the world,’ Luers said.”
I listed a few of the reasons that I believe will show the above statement by Mr. Luers to be misleading:
1. Elected international Socialists who never campaign for office based on their support of the U.N. have given the U.N. ever-increasing political authority beyond belief.
2. The U.N. is well-funded which means it has extraordinary resources. Former President Clinton wanted to insure that those resources would continue to flow to the U.N. when he threatened to propose legislation that would require the American taxpayer to pay its annual U.N. dues. U.N. dues is not a fixed dollar amount. America’s annual dues is 23 percent of whatever the U.N. decides to spend.
3. The U.N. has an exceptionally well-funded judicial system which is even now trying defendants in The Hague. Many foreign governments are conspiring in the U.N. to legitimize the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the sole purpose of diminishing American sovereignty.
4. The U.N. controls an armed force of military personnel that is called a “peacekeeping force.” The U.N. defines the word “peace.” For instance: If the U.N. decides the residents of Grant County, Oregon are not peaceful in defense of their property, or even their country, the U.N. could send its peacekeeping troops into Oregon. Any troops deployed in the U.S. would consist of troops from countries that hate the U.S. to begin with.
5. U.N. advocates would not dream of sending peacekeepers into Communist China, but should a president holding the same international beliefs that are held by the Clintons and other leading Democrats be commander in chief at the time, he or she would order the U.S. military to stand down and allow U.N. troops to complete their mission.
6. The U.N., through the Ministry of Propaganda (FCC), would instruct the electronic media to tell the rest of the country that the residents of Grant County are armed extremists trying to overthrow the government. Using U.N. peacekeepers on American soil would be justified by explaining they are best suited to handle the “rebellion” because U.N.-controlled land is involved in the conflict.
7. Environmental groups, advancing U.N. policy, are funded in large part by tax dollars. Those tax dollars are used to further a political agenda as well as control private property and public lands. It is not too far of a stretch to say that the U.N. is taking control of those lands. Any concerned group, or individual, opposing U.N. land-grab efforts must fund their political cause with their own resources.
8. Even when the President and the U.S. Senate renounce a U.N. treaty, Kyoto for example, Socialists in Congress manage to implement provisions of that treaty. I would say that is taking over something. Namely: the mechanics of the federal government.
If the U.N. could make so many inroads in the Unites States, just think of what it is doing in countries where most people have no private property to defend. A substantial portion of the world’s population do not even understand how private property Rights are intertwined with individual liberties. U.N. educational efforts teach uneducated people all about their responsibilities to the environment, but it cannot seem to teach those same people the practical applications and benefits of individual liberty. One of the things U.N. advocates have always done is to use those politically naive people as a threat by turning the Third World against the United States.
Prior to 1945, the American people were respected and much-admired around the world. As the U.N.’s influence grew in world affairs; so did the image of the “ugly American.” Hatred directed toward the United States flourished because many Americans would not be frightened into giving their sovereignty over to Third World controls.
U.N. propaganda in foreign lands depicted Americans as those shallow, greedy, people who were standing in the way of a utopian world simply because they were trying to hang onto private property Rights, individual liberties, and a sovereign nation’s Right to maintain secure borders. American public trough intellectuals further exploited the ugly American characterization for self-serving purposes, knowing full well that that widely-held perception of their fellow countrymen is false. U.S. membership in an organization that is destined to become a supreme world government was the beginning of anti-American sentiments throughout the world.
American Socialists have been very successful in avoiding the just label of “Communists.” The media never identifies Left-Wing Democrats as Socialists, let alone label them as Communists. In the same vain, the U.N. is seldom connected to Socialism in any public discussions; even by those who oppose the U.N. or openly oppose Socialism/Communism. Those two masterpieces of political misdirection are a testament to how effective U.N. advocates have been in every area of propaganda.
Finally, a one government world administered by the United Nations is the sole reason the media defended the United Nations since the early 1950s:
David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg
Quote...Ten Years Later
11-21-1
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."
He went on to explain:
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
http://www.rense.com/general17/quote.htm
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ak-And-A-Scum-Bag-Agree&p=2903288#post2903288
p.s. Oregon had company:
