Recently in Illegal Aliens

Category

Reading results this morning from a simple NEWS search in Google for terms, "illegal immigration," I found this delirious doozy of false representation:

"God for Illegal Immigration"

Intrigued, to put it mildly, I accessed the link and found a May 02, 2008 column from one of my favorite opinionators, Father Jonathan Morris.

The actual headlne, as Father Jonathan has written it, and as FOX News has published it, reads:

"IS GOD FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?"

In that article, Father Jonathan writes:

...Just as every immigrant has a right to be treated with dignity, every government has the right and obligation to regulate immigration to sustainable levels, for the good of its own citizens and its immigrants. Religious leaders should be saying this too, don't you think? Why aren't they? Some are.

...God is on the side of human rights and also on the side of legality and security. It is our problem if we choose one over the other and pretend that we are righteous.

Father Jonathan clearly emphasizes the importance of "the moral voice" and does not reject the importance of law enforcement, national security, nor lend any human -- or suggest any divine -- rationalization for individuals to plummet and exploit the legal requirements and boundaries of other nations, nor does he attempt to dismiss the culpability of those who exploit human beings as "cheap labor" and thus provide incentive to illegal aliens to exploit those requirements and boundaries.

However, to peruse Google's News search results, to scroll down through the headlines, the impression is decidedly edited to force a false 'divine' support for illegal immigration, and in reference to an article by a Catholic Priest, at that.

How many other headlines has Google opted to "edit" to tweak them into representing the opposite of what's stated?

View full-size, full-screen capture file HERE.

Hillary Clinton interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, PART ONE from April 30, 2008 and PART TWO from today, May 01, 2008.

On it's own merits, the interview was engaging. O'Reilly was a bit too talkative but so was HIllary but despite them both being too eager to talk and overtalk one another, I valued the interview and thought Hillary Clinton was not only smart to appear with O'Reilly but also considerate to do so: it allowed the more Moderate and Conservative voters to hear what she has to say and how she handles herself when asked extemporaneous (so I assume) questions that are not from among the Liberal school yard or sandbox.

I also thought Clinton was more "meaningful" in this context with O'Reilly than I've considered her in nearly all previous media appearances. Her stage speeches at campaign stops captures her being theatrical and stiff, like she's "enacting" some personna that's expected of her. On these televised interviews before O'Reilly, who rarely lets a guest relax and I appreciate him for that (the exception was certainly his patient, quiet questioning of President Bush a while ago, but that was understandable as it also was respectful), on these two parts of this interview, Clinton appeared far more reasonable than she has before in media.

However, every reasonable thing she said is reduced to meaningless when you take into consideration that among her key campaigners is and has been affiliated with Hispanic/Latino ethnic-supremacy organization, La Raza, and that Hillary declares decidedly before O'Reilly that she will not end sanctuary cities in the U.S. (she says it's due to wanting illegal aliens to report crimes to U.S. law enforcement, which I think pales in consideration of their illegal context and the damages done to our nation by sanctuary cities overall).

As long as Hillary Clinton -- and any political campaign -- is associated with that or any other ethnic-supremacy organization and individual, and puts illegal aliens and increased Socialism ahead of national security, they won't get my support.

Today, May 01, is deemed to be LOYALTY DAY in the United States of America. President George W. Bush issued a Presidential Proclamation in 2003 -- amended into law by Congress (Public Law 85-529) -- that May 01 from that date forward be honored as LOYALTY DAY (the full Proclamation should be read in full but it's revealing as to Bush's sad indulgence of illegal aliens, blurring of the definitions as to who and what a U.S. citizen is and poor-to-no immigration enforcement, as such existed when this Proclamation was issued if not continues through this day):

...This Loyalty Day, as we express allegiance to our Nation and its founding ideals, we resolve to ensure that the blessings of liberty endure and extend for generations to come.

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day," and I ask all Americans to join me in this day of celebration and in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2003, as Loyalty Day. I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance. I also call upon government officials to display the flag of the United States on all government buildings on Loyalty Day.

Wing-tip to ILLEGAL PROTEST blog.

MEANWHILE, in the United States of America, illegal aliens and other Socialists were busy going about raging for Communism and "Communist Workers' Day" "rights."

Covering today's degeneracy are these blogs:

Michelle Malkin
MAY DAY, MAY DAY...

Freedom Folks
WHEN SOCIALISTS ATTACK! and
CHICAGO MAY DAY MARCH: A PICTORIAL

lonewacko
BARACK OBAMA STATEMENT SUPPORTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MARCHES

MORE LINKS are to be found on all those sites as to associated news, but, the "Illegal Aliens Demands Day" seems to have effectively insulted so many U.S. citizens by this hour (last year's and this year's), that so much as blogging about the ideas that define these Demands Days is not an inviting use of time and resources.

One thing, however, is that the Los Angeles Times reports that "businesses" in the L.A. area "supported" today's Illegal Aliens Demands Day raging there. I'd like to see a comprehensive list of the names of those "businesses" so that their services can be refused and their products avoided.

Moreover, since illegal aliens and their "associates" in the U.S. run contrary to the spirit and honorariums involved in LOYALTY DAY, the following ought to be kept in mind pending this May 05:

...some startling facts and figures from the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets should cause any sane person to question the president's judgment when it comes to criminals from Mexico.

For example:

* 40% of workers in Los Angeles County work for cash and pay no taxes, because they are predominantly illegal aliens without green cards.

* 95% of murder warrants issued in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

* 75% of those on the "most wanted" list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

* Over 67% of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal aliens.
(Mexican births paid for by U.S. taxpayers.)

* Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally.

* Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

* 50% of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border, according to FBI reports.

* 60% of all occupants in HUD properties are illegal aliens.

* 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish-language.

* In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English, while
3.9 million speak Spanish.

* Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.

* In 1997, the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers was $70 billion. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services received) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative number.

* 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Isn't it time for our "conservative" president and sensible lawmakers to forsake their patriarchal concern for illegal aliens and focus instead on protecting the interests of the American people as required by the U.S. Constitution?

In honor of Cinco de Mayo Day, I propose that the president should deliver the following national salute to illegal aliens during his May 5 Saturday radio address:

Attention All Illegal Aliens: Happy Cinco de Mayo. Now Get the Hell Out!

From BLOGS4BORDERS, this weeks show:

Us? Socialists? :)

100% Preventable! Americans continue to pay the bloody price for open borders. When will the madness end?

And kidnapping: a defeated crime in America revived by our cheerful invaders.

VIEW.

This week's sponsor is olbroad ("An Ol' Broad's Ramblings").

From me: other, related commentary to follow, next few posts here.

Yes, it's a cult. A cult of personality. The appeal to join is the opportunity to place our democracy at risk. And the incentive to put our democracy at risk is motivated by the belief that America is "bad" or ruined, so elect Obama and make a new nation ("change"). You'll have a nation afterward but it may not be our nation as a democracy, as it's defined and known, it just may be something else altogether by the same brand name, rebranded by changing the contents but leaving the title, a sort of "cuckoo" nesting re-do.

All the fine-tooning in the last two weeks, Obama's excessive oratory, is a politician being political. I expect we'll be hearing about Obama's pet puppy soon and Michelle Obama's cute kittens. And pretty bows all tied up in black. The box those bows are dressing can be opened for a price and the price is your vote. What happens after you open the box is, you get to tie yourself up in those pretty black bows and maybe someone will find you in a few years. Or, maybe not.

But what was in the box...

Reference:

Breitbart tv: Obama Tries to Explain 'Typical White Person' Comment About Grandmother
...why doesn't the man say what he means at the outset and avoid all these explanations the day after and the day after and the day after and...you'd think that Obama actually wants to draw-out and expand a "racial divide" context for the Presidency, you'd think he would, you'd think and you'd be right;

When it comes to race, Obama admits he's benefitted from being "Black" -- on his own Senate website; I saved a cached copy, in case there's another website scrubbed -- but Obama's statement on his Senate site proves that Geraldine Ferraro's remarks about Obama's circumstances are correct ("he's where he is because he's Black"), despite being publicly repudiated by Obama afterward, Ferraro's remarks are proven to be so, as also stated by Obama about himself on his Senate website, revealing his duplicity,

"Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race. If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all...";

Barack Hussein Obama's Presidential campaign website contained, up until a scrubbing less than two days ago, a dedicated association with the Black Panther Party, representative of "Black Liberation Politics" (which Politics continue, despite Obama's revised website) (Read THE REAL AGENDA OF BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY from American Thinker website);

Obama: "Fire Imus"
Fire (and repudiate) a man for "hate speech" (the "White man" said "ho" and "hos" on one occasion) but embrace ("he's like family") Rev. Jeremiah Wright regardless of his sewage speech and perverse body language in "church"; and,

Newt Gingrich confronts Obama's Duplicity. Someone has to. McCain sure isn't (McCain campaign hires a guy to ruin Romney, the guy makes a video denigrating Obama, McCain cans him).