Tag Archives: harry reid

Blog

Hate Speech Pinheads Really Hate Speech

17 Comments

Here’s a wonderful example of a petty little ethnocentric pro-invasion mind at work. Note that it’s fueled by hypocrisy and denial. Since such minds have no rational arguments their impulses tend toward muffling those who oppose them.

‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech
RAOUL LOWERY CONTRERAS

Today’s North County Times readers can’t find an article that uses the infamous N-word, the Q-word (queer) or words like “homo” for homosexual.

What they find is the use of the words “anchor babies” in letters or Opinion pieces.

“Anchor babies” are words used by extremists to define babies born of illegal alien parents in the United States.

Most of these children are born to Mexican parents illegally in the United States. Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.

Oh my. "Anchor babies" is hate speech? How about your word "extremists" Raoul, you hypocrite? How about the racist, fascist, bigot, xenophobe, and nativist slurs so effortlessly tossed around by your colleagues in the media Raoul? How about the guero, pilgrim, gabacho, and gringo labels your La Raza carnales prefer Raoul? Shame on you and your myopic ethnocentrism. Of course we hate invaders. And you hate us for hating "your people". Pot, meet kettle.

Anchor baby is a perfectly descriptive phrase. It describes exactly what these babies represent. It reflects how their own parents feel about them. Which is of course why Raoul would like to see the phrase banned. That truth is embarassing, thus he wants it obscured. Do us all a favor Raoul – take your censorship, your politically correct N-word games, and shove them up your A-word. Nice try at hooking your victimology wagon to niggers and homos though. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your baggage.

Oh, did I violate your politically correct censorship laws? It’s ok. Take a deep breath and pull the panties out of your crack. They’re called "words". We use them to "communicate". And this endeavor is only infantilized and impeded if we play pig-latin-like games with every word that somebody like you might be offended by. I will not play those games. People like you obviously want to nullify the First Amendment by outlawing anything you don’t want to hear as "hate speech". The constitution describes the legitimate process, but you’ll find it much easier to have your pro-invasion dictators in black robes divine an emanation of a penumbra that enables you to call for state-backed violence against me simply for offending you.

Until then I’ll say anchor baby all I want, thanks. But just for giggles let’s brainstorm a few alternatives, shall we?

jackpot baby – Hmmm. Good second choice. Positive rather than negative connotations. And who can deny the literal windfall the proud alien parents reap? It starts with free health care (including delivery) and extends to free education, WIC, and the occasional free trip to your real homeland! Such a deal!

undocumented American baby – Harry Reid’s personal favorite. They’re just Americans who lost their documents. And we all know how hard-working they are. Harry might even someday call them hard-working undocumented American worker babies with great family values. Note the near perfect reality-inversion. The parents are not Americans, never had any documents, and exhibit a way below average ability to stay employed, in school, and out of jail – so let’s claim exactly the opposite! Brilliant! No other country in the world awards citizenship to a baby just because of where they get dropped. Ssssh! Don’t ever mention that.

illegitimate baby – While technically correct illegitimate already has another meaning. And it sure is useful to be able to distinguish an illegitimate anchor baby (like Elivra’s bastard – oops, have the PC-police banned that perfectly descriptive word?) from a legitimate anchor baby (like Bill "call me Lopez" Richardson).

natural-born United States citizen baby – Raoul’s preference. Of course. Because then we wouldn’t be able to distinguish babies born to parents who are here legally from those born to parents here illegally. At least not without bogging down every conversation about immigration. Mission accomplished, right Raoul? No person is illegal, right Raoul? Words have no meaning, right Raoul?

invader baby – My preference. The 14th Amendment (whose plain language pro-invaders like Raoul love to misread) was not intended and has never been interpreted to grant citizenship to the babies of foreign diplomats or invaders. If you "migrate" here without "documentation" then you are by definition an invader. Raoul denies this reality. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Actually, this is precisely what Raoul and his friends want us not to talk about.

So answering Raoul hasn’t been a complete waste of time. By trying to shut down debate he actually inspired one, and in answering his absurd logic I’ve arrived at a deeper truth. From this point on I for one shall use the term invader baby – which is even more descriptive and correct than anchor baby, and thus is sure to piss off Raoul and his pro-invasion friends even more.

Gracias Raoul! You wouldn’t by any chance be an invader baby would you? Write some more of your thoughts about immigration, please.

Blog

Bread and Circuses

6 Comments

I left a comment on this item at Lonewacko where he notes the New York Times has finally acknowleged attrition as an immigration strategy – if only to deride it as a “flood of misery” and “pest control”.

LW, your point is well taken. But they are only throwing out the attrition bone as a distraction. A false compromise. Much like the “crackdown” headlines today used to cover govt actions that are 50% “streamlining”. And of course the 50% enforcement part is calculated to stir up support for “reform”. A few raids to energize the Ladeeenyos, some fines to energize businesses. The “crackdown” is a farce, as is the NYT nod to attrition.

Faced with the perennial nonsensical arguments in favor of immigration and their imperviousness to any logic, reason, or empirical evidence to the contrary, I for one am now openly and loudly in favor of mass deportations.

Boxcars, detention centers, random stops, neighborhood sweeps, shattered dreams, crying babies. Cry me a river. I’m for stopping immigration cold. ALL immigration. I’m for deporting foreign-born criminals and Muslims – regardless of immigration or naturalization status.

Furthermore I accept the labels “racist”, “xenophobe”, “nativist”, “bigot”, “fascist”, etc. I used to think these words meant something bad. Nowadays I see that they are only used to intimidate good people from doing what is right and just.

The immigration invasion is inflicting far worse consequences on Americans than any “mass deportation” would inflict on aliens. We have every right to expect our laws to be enforced, including mass deportation if that’s what it takes.

We can’t settle for “pest control” because then we’ll only get some lame mix of amnesty and attrition. Fearless active prosecution is the only way to undo the great harm that’s already been done. The big problem: can a government so compromised, so corrupt, so inept, so illegitimate be expected or trusted to actually do this?

Bush, Chertoff, Gonzales, Gutierrez, et al can’t be trusted to do it. The NYT, WSJ, LAT, et al can’t be trusted to report it. Thwarted in their recent naked grab, AKA Comprehensive Immigration Reform, these quislings have just shifted back to incremental steps toward opening while trying to dupe us that it’s the opposite.

I have no intention of being melodramatic, but it seems clear that the only way the immigration invasion is going to be stopped is by changing our leadership and reversing their policies. In other words: revolution.

By the way, the “crackdown” story starts with a paragraph that gives away the scam:

The Bush administration announced plans Friday to enlist state and local law enforcement in cracking down on illegal immigrants, which previously was largely a federal function.

All it takes to see through this phoney baloney is knowledge of a few things that, unfortunately, most citizens don’t know:

A) The ACLU has had great success over the last few years intimidating state and local law enforcement from doing anything about “illegal immigrants” with the argument that any attempt to do so usurps the federal government’s sole responsibility to enforce immigration laws. The Feds are well aware that dictators in black robes have sided with the ACLU, so they know any attempt to enlist state and local governments in immigration will get defanged in court, just as the “enforcement” portion of any Comprehensive Immigration Reform would. Add the federal court system to the revolution’s todo list.

B) “Illegal immigrant” is a sympathetic euphemism for “illegal alien”, which is the proper and legally correct term. This may be the writer’s phrasing rather than the Bush administration, but with Harry Reid calling them undocumented Americans it’s clear that even lawmakers prefer weasel words when talking about immigration.

C) It is a mischaracterization to say “cracking down on illegal immigrants, which previously was largely a federal function” because there has been no crackdown on illegal immigrants since Operation Wetback in the 1950s, and they aren’t even pretending to start anything worthy of being called a “crackdown” now. Some fines, some extra agents. That’s not a crackdown, it’s a pathetic charade. Immigration is a fundamental governmental responsibility which has in the last few decades, especially these past six years of the current administration, been a notorious example of disfunction.

The country is literally being invaded and all these twits can do is shuffle papers and whimper about how they didn’t get their Comprehensive Reform?