Printable View
Something is eerie about this election cycle. I rec'd an email request for financial support for this from moveon. No way! They got a scalding scolding! Just a few minutes ago I get included in a conference call with 3000 republicans. I hung up after listening to the 'bulk' before they got to the money plea. Never have I ever been solicited by both sides. Now if an independent will call, we will get going.
They emailed me as well and has been going on for a few weeks now they got my email from someplace.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinssdad
I received a mailer promoting Soros CREDO cell Service. Yes we are in the twilight zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinssdad
Soros-linked cell company launches war on Tea Party lawmakers. Progressive phone service aims to purge House of populist movement. « Klein Online
Still, how did I get hooked up in a 3000 republican participant conference call? Of course, the way that party gerrymanders this state...mmmmm well, anything goes. I do NOT believe in radicalism for either side. That will take us to an undesired result for the nation. That is why I tend to subscribe to voting against incumbents. Hard to take over a nation in 2 to eight years. It is also why the House was to belong to the "commoners" and not be a house of career professionals. Do they teach civics or American history anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by kathyet
MoveOn’s Quest to Outlaw the Term “Illegal Immigrant”
Posted by Joseph Klein
May 3rd, 2012
Just when you would think that the far Left Obama booster organization MoveOn.org could not get any more ridiculous, it sinks to ever lower levels of absurdity. The latest example involves MoveOn’s push to render the phrase “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” hate speech. A video posted last week at MoveOn.org’s website charges that calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word “illegal” to be abolished when describing individuals entering the United States illegally. They would prefer using adjectives such as “undocumented” immigrants or “unauthorized” immigrants. That is sort of like calling a bank robber an unauthorized withdrawer. How about working to eliminate incentives for the illegal behavior itself rather than focus on banning its correct characterization?
“No human being is illegal,” intones MoveOn.org. True, but human beings can and do perform illegal acts.
Words “sometimes kill,” MoveOn.org preaches. Not really. Human beings kill, including illegal immigrants. Thousands of Americans have been killed by illegal immigrants since 9/11.
“While crime is crime and the victims suffer equally whether the perpetrator is a citizen or illegal alien, what makes illegal alien crime so different is that the crime would have never happened if our government was doing its constitutionally mandated duty and enforcing immigration laws,” the group 9/11 Families for a Secure America correctly said in a press release.
However, facts mean nothing to left-wing ideologues. Indeed, MoveOn.org labels anyone who uses the phrase “illegal immigrant” to describe immigrants who are in this country illegally as a “racist.” Apparently that would include Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice to sit on the Supreme Court, who used the phrases “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” several times during last week’s oral argument concerning Arizona’s immigration law.
Another far Left website, ColorLines, has joined MoveOn.org in the race baiting that substitutes for rational discussion:To the contrary, labeling someone who enters the country illegally as an illegal immigrant is both legally accurate and fundamentally fair to those immigrants who have followed the law and are in this country legally. Simple logic dictates that if a non-citizen entering the country is an immigrant, a non-citizen entering the country illegally is by definition an illegal immigrant. There are no shades of gray here. And it is also fundamentally unfair to Hispanic and other immigrants who have come to this country legally, and have followed the law since arriving here, to airbrush and reward illegal behavior.
Linking immigrants to language like “illegals” (the i-word) is dehumanizing, racist, confuses the immigration debate and it’s just not legally accurate. This anti-immigrant strategy has been moved into the media by a web of people and organizations committed to halting and derailing reasoned, informed debate and policy on immigration.
Leftists may believe that ending this country’s national sovereignty over its own borders and substituting an open borders policy is a “reasoned” approach to immigration in today’s interconnected world.
In their twisted worldview, the United States has no right to close its borders to people who have no right to be here. However, most Americans do not accept abandoning the rule of law or abandoning our right to protect the sovereignty of the United States. As Justice Scalia asked rhetorically during the oral argument on Arizona’s immigration law, “what does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?”
Based on the questions at the oral argument, common sense may prevail with a Supreme Court decision this June upholding the core provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. Chief Justice Roberts hit the nail on the head when he remarked to the Solicitor General who was challenging the constitutionality of the state law, in particular the provision requiring a state inquiry to the federal government about the status of an individual whom an officer has “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in this country illegally after the officer had probable cause to detain that individual first for some other unrelated infraction:
MoveOn’s Quest to Outlaw the Term “Illegal Immigrant” | FrontPage Magazine