70% OF THE AMERICAN SAY THE COUNTRY IS HEADED IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. THE DEMOCRAT PARTY DOES NOT GIVE A FUK!
The Democrat party: who are they?
Other oppressed are the millions of illegal aliens they’re importing. Non-D/s/c Americans have so disappointed them. They intend to abolish them and import their replacements. That many of them are criminals, terrorists, pedophiles, slavers and masses who can’t speak the language and have no skills with which to support themselves is a feature rather than a bug. They’re worried about the illegal avalanche, but not because of the damage it’s doing to America. They’re afraid of losing power, afraid, despite their best Trump Derangement Syndrome efforts, their election fraud protocols might not prevail. MIKE McDaniel
BIDEN HAS WORKED FOR OPEN BORDERS AS LONG AS HE HAS WORKED FOR BOTTOMLESS BANKSTER BAILOUTS. IT'S NOT BECAUSE HE CARES ABOUT MEXICO'S EXPORTED POVERTY, IT'S ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED.
THERE IS A REASON WHY 99% OF THE 1% WANT JOE REELECTED.
The appropriate way to reclassify illegal aliens is by going through this thing called Congress and change the laws, but the DNC does not want to do that because they know they would fail. The DNC’s fallacious arguments attempt to make an end run around U.S. citizens. Since most Americans view a weak border as a major problem for the country, the defenders of weak immigration enforcement in both parties have contempt for American democracy.
The DNC’s Standard Illegal Immigration Sophistries
“Illegal Alien” Is One of Many Correct Legal Terms for “Illegal Immigrant”
--Alex Nowrasteh, Cato Institute, Oct. 14, 2019
Since the Democrat News Media Colluders (or DNC) believe that most illegal immigrants will eventually be made citizens and vote Democrat, they fabricate fallacious arguments in favor of illegal immigration.
One of the most common of these, as Rep. Primila Jayapal (D-WA) put in 2019, is that:
No human being is illegal. I urged my colleagues to stop dehumanizing immigrant communities and instead use the term “undocumented.”
Similarly, The Guardian reports that Hillary Clinton, challenged by an “immigration activist,” admitted that “illegal alien” is a “poor choice of words” and committed to abandon it.
The same article reports that the Associated Press struck the expression from its style guide and that the Los Angeles Times, USAToday, the Huffington Post and ABC soon followed suit.
In 2013 the New York Times public editor Margret Sullivan wrote that since “many people find it offensive to describe a person with an adjective like ‘illegal’ I now favor the use of ‘undocumented’ or ‘unauthorized’” instead. Since the CATO article notes that “most people assume that “illegal alien” is the correct legal term,” Sullivan must mean that many people on the DNC find the term offensive. The same argument has also been adopted by migrant rights organizations and combined with other fallacious arguments to normalize illegal immigration.
We reject the word ‘illegal’ to describe undocumented migrants. … This word is factually incorrect: an action can be illegal, not a person.
This “migrant rights” organization, on this basis, goes on to argue that the use of the word “illegal” to describe illegal aliens is
… dehumanizing, immoral, inaccurate and contributes to the demonization of migrant communities. … [It] is dehumanising and reductive, an insult to the struggle and arduous experiences migrants may have been through. Even when an action is defined as illegal, legal status is arbitrary and often does not coincide with morality. The word also contributes to increased hostility towards migrant communities and insinuates they are undeserving of rights.
Since these claims are premised on the view that the expressions “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” imply that the person themselves is illegal consider that claim first.
When little 11-year-old Johnny decides to take the family car on a 70-mph spin in a 15-mph school zone and is called, by the judge an “illegal driver”, the judge is not saying that little Johnny is an illegal person. He/she is saying only that his action of underage driving without a license is illegal. Using the Latin legal expression “qua,” the judge is not saying little Johnny is illegal qua person but only qua driver.
Since the DNC’s foundational claim is transparently false, all of the sub-arguments that presuppose it are so as well. The claims that the expressions “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” are “dehumanizing” or “immoral” are false because the use of that term to describe someone does not address their humanity per se but only their status as an immigration lawbreaker, nothing more. The claim that the use of these expressions contributes to the demonization of migrant communities is clearly false, first because that term is not used to describe migrants per se but only illegal migrants. The use of those expressions is not “reductive,” that is, it does not reduce illegal immigrants to their status as breakers of immigration law any more than the judge’s calling little Johnny an “illegal driver” deprives Johnny of his other rights under the Constitution. The claim that the use of these terms is “an insult of the struggle and arduous experiences” they may have been through is no more compelling than the claim that calling little Johnny an “illegal driver” is an insult to the fact that he bloodied his head when he crashed the car.
The argument that the use of these terms “contributes to increased hostility towards migrant communities and insinuates they are undeserving of rights” are also false for several reasons. First, it makes the DNC’s standard deliberate confusion between illegal migrant communities and legal migrant communities. Second, calling an illegal alien an “illegal alien” no more increases hostility towards them than calling little Johnny an “illegal driver” increases hostility towards him. If there is hostility towards little Johnny it is because he broke the law and exactly the same is true of illegal aliens. Finally, the claim that describing illegal aliens as “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” somehow “insinuates that they are undeserving of rights” is no more accurate than that the fact that the judge calls little Johnny an “illegal driver” somehow “insinuates” that his constitutional rights are suspended.
The DNC needs to learn to make basic distinctions and face the real issues for a change.
These DNC’s arguments also make ample use of the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy that fallaciously appeals to emotion rather than reason to win an argument. In the present case the DNC tries to create the impression of an evil boogey man, a heartless Republican or conservative, who, like racists and slavers, wants to deny certain categories of people their legal and moral rights as human beings.
In fact, the opposite is true. The whole point of calling someone an “illegal alien” is that since they broke the law it is they who are disrespecting both the citizens of the country and the legal immigrants who followed the process and that, therefore, have the right to see their laws respected.
The reason the DNC prefers to use such transparent fallacies is because they do not want to face an argument that they know they cannot win on the merits. They do not want to face the fact that illegal aliens broke the law by getting into line ahead of other immigrants that go through the legal process. They do not want to face the argument that every country has the legal and moral right, even obligation, to defend their own citizens from possible foreign threats. They do not want to face the argument that one party, the Democrats (aligned with weak or corrupt Republicans), are using illegal immigration to increase their own political power, a clear attack on American democracy,
Illegal immigrants aren’t allowed to directly vote for the commander-in-chief yet, but in vast numbers they can dramatically alter the Electoral College to favor Democrats for at least a decade because a state’s electoral votes are based on the number of people residing within that state, not the number of citizens [in that state].
Despite the DNC’s constant refrain that they are defending our democracy, there is nothing more anti-democratic than importing new people into the country because one cannot convince the citizens to support one’s absurd policies.
The appropriate way to reclassify illegal aliens is by going through this thing called Congress and change the laws, but the DNC does not want to do that because they know they would fail. The DNC’s fallacious arguments attempt to make an end run around U.S. citizens. Since most Americans view a weak border as a major problem for the country, the defenders of weak immigration enforcement in both parties have contempt for American democracy.
Image: Illegal immigration by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Pix4free
Red state dilemma: stand up to incoming progressive residents or flee?
No one can dispute how politically different Red states are from Blue states in our super-polarized country. When a large group of ideologically motivated people (usually leftists) move into a state, county, or neighborhood, things invariably change. The question for conservatives, who are usually the ones whose nice communities are changed for the worse, is whether they should flee or fight.
The once-conservative People’s Republic of Colorado perfectly proves how an influx of leftists changes an area. Most recently, Colorado decided to remove Donald Trump from the ballot.
Last week, the Supreme Court carefully considered the pros and cons of removing Trump from the ballot. It’s likely they’ll side with Trump. But this all could have been avoided had Colorado’s population centers not been populated by political fanatics who feel that common sense and fairness should be replaced with pure partisanship. (In Colorado, as in many newly Blue states, rural areas remain conservative while the cities have shifted their political positions.)
Staying with Colorado for a moment, the voters in two principal zip codes decide life for everyone else in the state: Denver, with 198,928 registered Democrats, 45,493 Republicans, and 191,316 unaffiliated (but leaning Democrat) voters, and Boulder, with 93,721 Democrats, 26,789 Republicans, and 97,014 unaffiliated (but leaning Democrat) voters. It’s no wonder that city councils and county governments can and are dictating what is or isn’t acceptable behavior at the ballot boxes and in the courts.
Image: A progressive’s home by Dan Keck. Public domain.
These big city zealots have consistently forced business owners to subordinate their religious beliefs if they are to stay in business. Home-grown Coloradans like cake-makers and website designers were persecuted by Colorado’s courts for daring to defend their beliefs and for standing up to the new wave of Progressives who now represent that state’s political majority.
As the recent effort to remove Trump from the Colorado ballot shows, though, this tyranny of the majority doesn’t stop with persecuting Colorado’s own citizens. Had they been successful, they would have erased any possibility that disaffected Democrats and independents might turn away from Biden and, instead, joined with conservatives to cast their vote for Trump.
Colorado is emblematic of the new Left’s strategy to win nationally by winning locally, by any means possible. The state is also working hard to change the culture by remaking it as a Leftist utopia (some would say dystopia) where only one opinion is acceptable. It is on a crusade to create a uni-culture based on wokeness and political correctness, and woe betide anyone who gets in the way of that crusade.
Colorado is not alone. If you’re a conservative or Republican and want to make your voice heard, you’re finding your choices about where to live are shrinking with each passing year. We all know the big states to avoid, like California, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Hawaii, but progressives aren’t stopping there. Instead, they’re fleeing the Blue states they’ve made uninhabitable with drugs, crime, and high taxes, and are now seeking to do to existing Red states what they successfully did to Colorado.
Once Democrats make these moves, they instantly burrow into the infrastructure to up-end the beneficial status quo that has provided their new destination with the safety, sound administration, and fairness that attracted them in the first place!
American conservatives are systematically being squeezed out of good neighborhoods by expat Democrats who are Hell-bent on remaking their new homes into carbon copies of the ones they fled, complete with all the DEI, CRT, wokeness, and political correctness they left behind! It sounds crazy that some people would willfully befoul their own nest, despite the obvious danger to their well-being, but there it is.
What is worse is that they are forcing conservatives to choose between staying put and fighting or packing up and leaving for new zip codes where they will not be subject to the incremental drip, drip, drip of cultural and social decay—all the while knowing that the progressives will soon follow them to their new homes.
While we Americans have always been on the move, our movements in the past were largely economically motivated. In contrast, today, a fair number of those moves are being made to preserve and safeguard our core values. What should worry all of us is that despite the immense size of our country, conservatives are running out of space to practice what they preach.
Stephan Helgesen is a retired career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in 30 countries for 25 years during the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush Administrations. He is the author of fourteen books, six of which are on American politics and has written over 1,300 articles on politics, economics and social trends. He operates a political news story aggregator website: www.projectpushback.com. He can be reached at: stephan@stephanhelgesen.com
Denver Has Now Collapsed
Report: 26 Illegal Alien Killers, Pedophiles Arrested in Sanctuary State California
More than two dozen illegal aliens convicted and charged with murder and child sex crimes have been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the sanctuary state of California.
Last month, ICE agents said they arrested 26 illegal aliens convicted or charged with murder, homicide, and child sex crimes, including assault against children, during a sting operation in the San Francisco Bay Area from Jan. 16 through Jan. 28.
“The neighborhoods where we live are now safer with the arrest of these egregious criminals,” ICE official Moises Becerra said in a statement. “The success of this operation is only possible through the continued professionalism, integrity, and diligence of our officers and their commitment to safeguard the homeland.”
Those illegal aliens arrested by ICE agents include:
- A 29-year-old Honduran illegal alien convicted of felony lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 years old.
- A 32-year-old Mexican illegal alien convicted of felony lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 years old.
- A 26-year-old Mexican illegal alien who is wanted in Mexico on murder and attempted murder charges.
California has the strictest sanctuary state policy in the United States.
The policy bans local law enforcement agencies and state officials from cooperating with ICE agents to help find, detain, and ultimately deport illegal aliens convicted and charged of the most egregious crimes against American citizens.
Today, nearly five million illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children, commonly referred to as “anchor babies,” reside in California — the largest of any state in the nation.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter
At what point do we say we’ve lost our country?
Imagine for a moment what the past few years would have been like if the nation’s socialist “Democratic” party and its media propaganda arm had absolutely no limitations on their power. What would it be like if we just had one-party rule and the GOP was only an afterthought?
The problem is that you won’t have to imagine anything if President Trump and the pro-freedom right don’t prevail in November, and even then, it might just be a short respite from the Democrat party’s deliberate destruction of the country as founded.
As much as most people would like to deny this reality, we are rapidly reaching a point where things could be very bad.
So we have a situation where a state governor defies the federal government in its efforts to bring in millions of potential illegal Democrat voters, and he’s backed up by several other states...resulting in a civil war. That was the plot of a movie — a dark comedy — from 1997 entitled The Second Civil War, and it should seem eerily similar to current events. Sometimes you feel like the female news anchor in the movie, who berated her male counterpart in reporting other events after the shooting broke out in that “there is no other news” (language warning). If the situation deteriorates even more, it won’t matter what else is happening, because we will inevitably have just two very bad choices.
But first let’s consider two stark realities of what the authoritarian left has done to the country.
Do we still have a country when it effectively has no borders?
Let’s be blunt about it: the authoritarian far left has effectively erased our southern border. John Lovell of the Warrior Poet Society broached the subject a few days ago of whether we are a nation any longer without any borders. Illegal invaders are being moved around to impact every corner of the country, not just the border states.
But it’s worse than that. The “Democrat” party is doing everything it can to encourage the illegal invasion with incentives paid for by our tax dollars. Democrats are providing free health care, prepaid credit cards, and presumably free college to the invader Democrats.
So hasn’t the far left effectively erased the country by erasing the border? Leftists have lied for years about the border, so should we listen to them ever again?
Do we still have a country when it’s being divided by the fascist far left?
This is a far more subtle but just as dangerous aspect of what the far left is doing these days. Everywhere you look, they are working to divide the country, from assaulting every amendment of the Bill of Rights to using lawfare in elections instead of trying to win in the marketplace of ideas — not to mention a two-tiered justice system that persecutes political opponents and rewards criminals.
They are dividing the people to make us easier to control, but it’s essentially ripping the country apart, toward an unintended consequence on their part.
Therefore, the case can be made that it’s the nation’s socialist Democrat party and its media propaganda arm that have brought us to this point, no matter how much they lie and point fingers.
So what are the long-term implications of what they have done, and what are our choices in the matter?
The horrifying reality of what is happening was aptly laid out in a piece in The Federalist: “Without Mass Deportations, America’s Demographics Shift Will Result In Radical Politics.”
Going forward, even if we somehow prevent 100 percent of future illegal immigration, it only buys us time — and not much. Democrats know this, of course. It’s the reason they continue to accept short-term backlash from our open border in exchange for a long-term payoff. By pointing out that illegal aliens cannot vote, the left claims that this whole thing is a “racist conspiracy theory.”
This disingenuous tactic ignores three things: 1) Democrats have routinely tried to pass some type of amnesty that would eventually allow illegal aliens to vote, 2) Children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. can legally vote when they turn 18, and 3) In 2020, Joe Biden carried Georgia, Wisconsin, and Arizona by a total of about 45,000 votes, meaning a presidential election could be decided by only 0.15 percent of the illegal alien population voting in the right states.
The author makes the point that the last item in that list of three is a mathematical certainty, so even if the “Democrats” don’t pass amnesty or have the illegal invaders vote, they just need to wait to gain perpetual power and one-party rule.
Just imagine the authoritarian leftists unencumbered by the need to win elections. We’ve often stated that socialism is defined as “buying votes with other people’s money, taken at gunpoint,” and they are already putting the first part into practice.
What’s to stop them from doing more of that?
The people getting the freebies will greatly outnumber those who have to foot the bill — in the middle class. What’s to stop them from wanting to bring in more illegal “Democrats”? The blunt truth is that they are doing this only to ensure perpetual power for themselves — until they run out of other people’s money. Then the fun really begins.
So the only choice will have to be, as Sky News host James Morrow has proposed, “DEI: Deport Every Illegal.”
Barring that, we’ve passed all the easy exits, and we’re down to what happens every time collectivism is tried — communism, fascism, Leninism, Maoism, socialism, statism, or whatever you want to call your particular form of societal poison.
That would be the unimaginably horrible option, and by now you should be able to guess what it is.
D Parker is an engineer, inventor, wordsmith, and student of history, the director of communications for a civil rights organization, and a long-time contributor to conservative websites. Find him on Substack.
Image: Don Hankins via Flickr, CC BY 2.0 (cropped).
Denver Has Now Collapsed
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. - The Todd Ault Podcast - Full Interview
America’s Lawyer: RFK Jr. Is A Real Threat To The Status Quo
RFK Jr.: I’m Creating A New Political Party
 |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment