| Radical and Right |
|
Home Archive 2 July 2010
Contact Us Links Book Reviews Racism Cuts Both Ways Those Danish Cartoons Heroes and Villains Why this site? |
"Radical: Naturally inherent, essential, fundamental; going to the root" "Right: Correct, true, proper; just and fair" If you are a new visitor, you may like to read our rationale here: Why this site? |
|
Amnesty - Legalizing the Illegals will be Obama's Next Priority
2 July 2010 Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh gave a lot of time to Obama's speech at Washington University. Whatever one thinks of Limbaugh giving $1m to homosexual Reggie Dwight (aka Elton John) he does lead the way on many issues and America would be the poorer without his daily radio program. Rush correctly pointed out that Obama's speech was intended to open the next Leftist offensive against the American people and was an attempt to set the parameters of the debate. Obama and his Leftist comrades have two motives here. One is to get 12 million illegal aliens registered to vote before next November if possible and certainly before the 2012 Presidential election. This will ensure a (permanent) Democrat majority of massive proportions and open the way to the criminalization of conservatism, traditional Christianity and Nationalism. The second and international Leftist motive is the swamping of the Caucasian people with Third World people. The first motive is largely one of self interest and the second is a deeper ideological one, though of course the two can and do run together. Obama floated several generalized arguments that the Media will be able to run with and which sound good in sound-bites, at least for the dumbed-down morons that have been created by the Media. These morons are the many Americans who are addicted to TV sport, TV Late Night News and Chat Shows, Hollywood Movies (for history education and role models), and who turn to the Sports pages of their local propaganda sheet before scanning the headlines for News. The most plausible Obama line was that it is impossible to send 12m people back home. As Rush pointed out, these people got here without help so they should be able to return home the same way. There is no doubt that if the desirable entitlements that 'illegals' are now enjoying were removed, very many would depart, as life would simply become too difficult. We are talking here about food stamps, drivers' licenses, children's education, free medical treatment, jobs and housing. No-one knows how many would leave the USA but certainly many Latinos would head south and most would take their children, even if those children had acquired US citizenship through birth. Obama also gave much attention to these US-born children for he knows that most Americans are unwilling to adopt harsh measures that affect children and especially children who are legally - if not socially - US citizens. The law that has conferred citizenship on any child born in the US is a good example of the law of unintended consequences. If the idea of expelling millions of hard working and mostly moral Latinos was not sufficiently abhorrent to many Christians, then expelling their children (or severing them from their parents) certainly is! We can expect both Catholic and Protestant Church leaders to mobilize for amnesty as soon as Obama begins his campaign in Congress. Obama has nothing but contempt, perhaps even hatred, for Christians, but he will be happy to recruit them as 'useful idiots' just as Leftists have done for 100 years or more. For what it is worth, I have much sympathy for the illegal Latinos here in the US, though not for the increasing number of violent and ruthless Latino criminals that their communities harbor. Most Latinos work extremely hard, remain cheerful under hardship, are surprisingly honest, love kids more than pedicures and golf and are extremely adaptable in the workplace. Latinos are prepared to do manual work, something that many immigrants from the Middle East and some parts of Asia consider undignified. I also think that Latinos, and especially Mexicans, are entitled to special consideration, since not so long ago large parts of the South West were inhabited solely by their forefathers. They are surely more entitled to Rights than immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia. We on the Right cannot let Obama win his assault on citizenship for his motive is not to solve a genuine problem. His motive is to further weaken and then destroy the USA as we know it. He intends to use the illegal immigrants, and especially the Mexicans, to do this with their potential voting power. He has a strong hand to play and the Media Class will provide all his aces. He will get support from the useful idiots of Christianity. With the appointment of Kagan to the Supreme Court and then one more Leftist in the near future, he will have a Supreme Court that will oversee the destruction of the Constitution in order to pave the way for millions of new grateful voters. It seems to me that the Right should come forward with a plan that would legalize the presence of Latinos without conferring citizenship and voting Rights. Latinos illegally in the US who can provide evidence of citizenship of Mexico or a Central American country should be given a special status not available to other 'illegals'. The special status could be denied to criminals. These Latinos and their children would retain their legal citizenship of their native countries. If welfare payments were denied but employee health insurance, drivers' licenses and public education were available, this would surely meet humanitarian requirements whilst safeguarding the integrity of US citizenship and voting privileges. These compromises would only apply to Latinos already here and be accompanied by wholly effective Federal measures to prevent further illegal immigration. Without such a plan I cannot see Obama being baulked. David Horowitz, one of the most patriotic Jews in America, a genuine conservative and a former Trotskyite who understands our Leftist enemies, is always worth reading and hearing. His latest article, which can be accessed on Free Republic, is titled "The Leftwing Millionaires Club". Horowitz lists a number of very wealthy people who finance the Left. He points out what we have regularly pointed out on this website, which is that although the Left is presented as the movement for the poor, the workers and the underprivileged, it is in fact mostly funded by the super rich and dances to their tune. Some on Horowitz's list are Leftist politicians who have become rich as a result of their misuse of political power. Fidel Castro is there, for example. Unfortunately Horowitz misses the wood for the trees. It is Media people who dominate his list and most are not millionaires but billionaires. It is no accident that the Media Class dominates and his list could be hugely lengthened by the addition of all those Media people who both donate to Leftist causes and weave Leftist propaganda into their 'work'. Horowitz also misses the super rich homosexual activists who play a major part in financing Leftist politicians and causes. I do not see Tim Gill and Reggie Dwight (aka Elton John) on his list, for example. The Media people are super rich because the Media Class has evolved (thanks to the accident of technology) into the richest Class (and the most perverted) in Western society and thus the most powerful. Politicians and Parties dance to their tune or are destroyed. |
|
|
Radical and Right presage the news
Postscript to article 28 June 2010 You might be forgiven for thinking that Radical and Right have inside information. However, the explanation is simple - we see through the Media and their allies and know what they are up to! So it was that within 48 hours of Mr Right's reference to UK justice, the UK Media lead with the news of "radical reform" of the prison system. Early morning on 30th June, the BBC announced that the UK Justice Secretary plans "radical" prison policy change. R&R BBC News Archive - Justice Secretary plans 'radical' prison policy change . "Vast sums are being spent "warehousing" people in outdated prisons without any proof it protects the public, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke is to say. In a speech later, he will say he is amazed at the growth in the prison population and he will demand a radical new approach to cut re-offending." Right on form, this government minister claims to be protecting the law-abiding: "My first priority is the safety of the British public." But immediately goes on to reveal his true position: "But just banging up more and more people for longer without actively seeking to change them is what you would expect of Victorian England." The realities seem to escape this minister, of course. First, "Victorian England" came to an end over 100 years ago. What we have been living through for the last fifty or so years is the exact opposite i.e. "Liberal Times" and today's prison population is a product of these times - it has no relation to the policies of the Nineteenth Century! Second, the general public really are protected from criminals whilst those individuals are in prison as very few are able to commit crimes against the general public from "inside". (Though I can think of a couple of high profile exceptions, crimes arranged through unrestricted access to mobile phones and internet chat-rooms, thanks to the rise of prisoners' "rights" in the UK.) "Actively seeking to change" the mind of a criminal sounds like a commendable strategy. However, what the minister is advocating is not "a radical new approach" but a continuation of the policies that have been steadily advanced since the 1950's - especially where juveniles are concerned. Ironically, on the same page the BBC provides a related link to a recent government report that actually disproves the minister's case: R&R BBC News Archive - Nearly 50% of released prisoners re-offend "Statistics show . . . Of all those in jail, prisoners serving less than a year have the highest reoffending rates and the most convictions . . ." There is something else about today's BBC article (billed as the top UK news story that morning) that readers should note: the speech that Mr Clarke intends to give later that day is quoted precisely. The article tells us what the minister is going to say, ahead of him saying it. Presumably the minister sanctioned, even encouraged, the release of his speech in advance - and far enough in advance to allow the reaction of other specialists to be included in the article. But question, whose interest is really being served by a "leak" of this nature; does it not reduce the authority of the person making the later announcement? Let the minister puff out the details in his speech later, the news has already been cast. It is always educational to compare the earlier versions of the news pages with the final editions. Hence the links above are to our archives. The latest BBC version may be found here: BBC News - Justice Secretary plans 'radical' prison policy change iustitia fundamentum regni |
|
|
Top
Return to Archive Copyright Mr Radical and Mr Right Radical and Right ©2010
|
|