Jb's Blog

views on current events

Archive for the ‘Political Correctness’ Category

Immigration Policy

with 6 comments

I am NOT racist. I am NOT violent. I am in favor of legal immigration policy which has been a major contributing factor in making the United States what it is. But…


Folks, we’ve simply GOT to get our national head around the immigration situation in this country. The demands being placed on our society are simply inconceivable (see photo). These demands would be ridiculous even if they were made by legitimate citizens, much more so when they come from those who have invaded our boarders illegally. Granted, these demands are not made by all who advocate for unrestricted immigration or for amnesty, yet they are the logical conclusion to those policies, and they are actually being made, and expected, by many.

Here are a few facts which should be setting off alarm bells:

Based on 2007 Census data, the Center for Immigration Studies reported:

  • The nation’s immigrant population (both legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
  • Immigrants account for 1 in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in eighty years. In 1970 it was 1 in 21, in 1980 it was 1 in 16, and in 1990 it was 1 in 13.
  • Overall, nearly 1 in 3 immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
  • 31 percent of adult immigrants have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent. This means that our growing immigrant population is comprised primarily of unskilled labor, contrasting with earlier immigrant waves in which immigrants were skilled in ways which enabled them to contribute significantly to the benefit of society as a whole.
  • The proportion of immigrant-headed households which draw on at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households. In 2004, immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes they paid. — http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/upload/sr_14.pdf
  • The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children under 18 is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
  • 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989. With government run/subsidized healthcare on the way, the implications of this fact are staggering considering the public (taxpayers) will be on the hook for these related healthcare costs.
  • Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.

    The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that

  • 9 percent of the population of Mexico was living in the United States in 2004.
  • 57 percent of all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are Mexican. Another 24 percent are from other Latin American countries.
  • 55 percent of all Mexicans in the U.S. are here illegally.
  • By 2050, Hispanics will be between 29 percent and 32 percent of the nation’s population.

    In 2008, a study from Manhattan Institute reported that the current level of assimilation of all recent immigrant groups is lower than at any time during the great migration in the early twentieth century. Some ethnic groups assimilated better than others, but Mexicans were the least assimilated overall, and assimilate at the slowest rate.

    The Mexican government promotes the idea of extraterritorial nationalism among its citizens – the concept that Mexican citizens have an indigenous claim to large sections of the southwestern United States. Mexican president Zedillo said (July 23, 1997)

    I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of it. — http://zedillo.presidencia.gob.mx/pages/disc/jul97/23jul97-2.html

    This attitude is shared by Mexican citizens at large. Zogby International reported that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.” — Results of poll of U.S., Mexican citizens, United Press International, June 12, 2002 —

    National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) is a popular organization which works tirelessly against the assimilation of Hispanic aliens into American society and for the continuation of illegal Hispanic migration into our country. Here are a few facts about La Raza and its stance on the issues:

  • La Raza views the United States as an irredeemably racist nation.
  • favors racial and ethnic preferences for minorities in the workplace and in higher education.
  • supports open borders and amnesty for ALL illegal aliens.
  • supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents.
  • advocates “reform” that would give illegal aliens full access to taxpayer-funded health care services.
  • characterizes any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers as “a disgrace to American values.”
  • supports access to driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.
  • supports voting rights for illegal aliens. ??????
  • opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
  • opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which would empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
  • opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine.

    Leaders (and supporters) of La Raza have worked their way into the highest levels of our society and our government.

  • Raul Yzaguirre was president and CEO of La Raza for thirty years. Hillary Clinton appointed Yzaguirre as co-chair of her presidential campaign and assigned him to lead her outreach to Hispanics.
  • John McCain was honored by La Raza in 1999. McCain appointed Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director. In a Nightline interview on ABC News (June 7, 2001), Hernandez, who holds dual citizenship, said,

    I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ — Nightline Interview, ABC News, June 7, 2001 —

  • President Obama appointed Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of La Raza, as director of his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
  • Given La Raza’s agenda, how can it be in our country’s best interest to be placing their leaders in positions of authority and influence in our society and our government? What does it say about those who make these appointments?

    Unabated immigration from Mexico takes huge amounts of money out of the U.S. economy. In 2006, over 27 percent of Mexico’s labor force was working in the U.S., sending “home” $20 billion in remittances. That equals one-third of the total wage earnings in the formal sector of the Mexican economy and 10 percent of Mexico’s exports.

    How can our country, our society, survive such a continuing stream of aliens who won’t submit to our law (on the proper way to immigrate) who are encouraged above all to avoid assimilation, who make ridiculous demands on the society they are invading (again, refer to the above photo)?

    What do we do about our federal government’s refusal to enforce immigration law, while they continue to push in every way possible to throw our borders wide open and look for new ways to grant amnesty to millions of people who are here illegally?

    We’ve simply GOT to get a handle on this. We’ve got to. To not reign this in is societal suicide.

    Much of the information which inspired me to write this piece came from reading the chapter ‘On Immigration’ from Mark R. Levin’s book Liberty And Tyranny, from observing contemporary news sources, and from simply THINKING.

    Think, people. Think!!!


    The Green Machine

    with one comment

    The Green Machine. I’ll be upfront and honest by stating that I’ve always been skeptical about the whole push to move us into Green mode. And I’m finally posting a look at just how this Green Machine works. Since Cap and Trade would be such a huge change in the way we use and pay for energy in all segments of our economy, and because it appears to be (like it or not) on our horizon, let’s take a look at just one real-world example of the way this Green Agenda plays out, shall we?

    Ok, I’m all in favor of conserving our natural resources whenever possible and not doing unnecessary harm to our planet, but tell me if this seems just a wee bit wacky to you.

    The good people who host my domain just sent notice that they’ve gone totally green! And they tell me that because of that my hosted site qualifies to display certification as an eco-friendly site. Woo-hoo!! They explain:

    We are green, so you are green. Our offices and our data centers are all powered by 100% wind energy. You can be proud that the machines hosting your website and email are eco-friendly, which makes you eligible for our Green Certificate.

    BUT… here’s where it starts to get wacky… in the ‘fine print,’ they further state:

    Since generating wind energy on site isn’t feasible, we’re offsetting all of our electricity use with wind-generated Renewable Energy Certificates, which prevent the release of 2,660 metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.

    Here’s my certificate. Pretty cool, eh?

    So let me get this straight: They’re claiming that they are totally green, “all powered by 100% wind energy,” and even providing certification to that fact, yet they aren’t actually USING wind energy because it would be unfeasible for them to generate it? They simply pay good money to purchase a piece of paper that SAYS they’re using wind energy, when they really aren’t? The energy they actually use in powering their offices and the servers that host my domain still comes from the same old “traditional” sources, meaning that it’s probably generated by burning coal. If it comes from a coal burning plant, then 2,660 metric tons of carbon dioxide are STILL being produced to meet their energy requirements. Yet they can now claim that they are “powered by 100% wind energy.” And they can feel really good while bragging about it. Wow. That’s messed up!

    In all fairness, there really are people generating clean wind energy. But what happens to that energy once it is created? And how does it get used (consumed)? Here’s an oversimplified look in layman’s terms. A large wind farm will SELL the energy it produces to a power company. The power company buys the energy and routes it into their power grid, which is like a pool of energy that has been produced by a number of different possible methods. This pool can be made up of energy which was produced by coal burning energy plants, by nuclear energy plants, from solar production, from wind farms, and perhaps other means as well. The power company then delivers energy from this pool to all their customers, down the power lines that come into your house or business. So customers who choose NOT to buy Renewable Energy Certificates are actually consuming just as much wind-generated energy as a customer like my webhost who HAVE thrown good money into purchasing Renewable Energy Certificates. Remember that the wind farm was paid for their product – “green power” – by the power company which purchased it from them. So who gets the money from the sale of these Renewable Energy Certificates? Someone does. But it’s not necessarily the people who produce the green energy. It’s a shell game.

    And that, my friends, gives us a glimpse into how I think this whole green thing is going to operate in our future. It’s nothing more than a feel-good with no real substance, except that the real substance of it is that someone stands to make tremendous profit while we continue business as usual. It’s smoke and mirrors. It means paying a whole lot more for something new and (supposedly) ‘better,’ while we still get the same old product. The urgent need to get us away from burning coal is somehow met if we simply purchase “certificates” which state that we’re using new renewable energy, even as the old coal burning power plant continues to produce and deliver the same juice we’ve always used.

    Once we’re all required by future legislation to be using green power (see that coming?) and we’re paying exorbitant rates for it (but hey, isn’t the wind free?), how can we know we aren’t being subjected to the same kind of bait and switch scheme my webhost has fallen prey to? With electricity, how can you tell where it came from? It would be one thing if clean wind generated power LOOKED different in some way from dirty old coal generated power. If that were the case, we could LOOK at our power and confirm that we’re actually being delivered green energy for the significantly higher rates we’ll all be paying for it. But with electricity you can’t tell that way. We’ll have to trust someone… blindly.

    SOMEone is going to make an insanely huge amount of money off of all this. And we’re supposed to feel really good about having to pay it, because we’ll be saving the planet, after all. But I’ll bet we’ll still be getting the same old product. Just like my webhost… “totally certifiably green,” while at the same time they admit oh by the way, we’re still actually using the same old completely un-green energy we always did. But we’re paying so much more for it!! Isn’t that great??!

    Cap and Trade works in much the same way, as far as I can tell. Industries and individual customers are assigned a base level of ‘allowances’ to emit a determined amount of greenhouse gasses. If, in the course of doing business, they need to generate more greenhouse gasses than they are allowed under the guidelines, they simply purchase Carbon Credits from another customer who isn’t using all of their allocation. But the bottom line is that the same amount of greenhouse gasses will be produced, either way. The only difference is that under the Green scenario, massive amounts of money have exchanged hands, and consequently we’ll ALL be paying far more not only for our own electricity use, but also for each and every item we buy which uses energy in its production or delivery (and what doesn’t fall into that category?). Does this make sense? Does this sound like the direction we need to be headed in?

    Former Vice President Al Gore has a major financial stake in foisting the Green Agenda on us. His investment firm, Generation Investment Management, owns shares in Camco International Ltd, a carbon asset developer. Camco is a company which deals in the sale of carbon credits. This obviously means that Gore stands to make substantial income from the trading of carbon credits. This may provide a look into one of the main reasons Gore is so much in favor of seeing that Congress passes Cap and Trade legislation. It’s obvious that without regulation and legislation, the Green Agenda would be totally unsustainable in a free market economy (since all customers of the power company get the same juice delivered to them, whether they’ve bought Renewable Energy Certificates or not). So just how noble is the Nobel laureate in all of this? Does the term ‘appearance of impropriety’ come to mind? If he truly were interested in protecting the environment, and he really does believe that man’s production of greenhouse gasses is the number one contributor to the evil of global warming, then why is he making certain that he’s positioned to make obscene profits from enacting the Green Agenda? Wouldn’t the noble thing for him to do be to ‘do it for free?’ For the people. For the planet. For our survival. Not for his own financial gain. It certainly should call into question the real reasons behind his ardent fervor in promoting the Green Agenda.

    This whole Green thing, if Cap and Trade becomes law, would be ripe for abuse and manipulation and fraud. It’s hard to imagine that there could ever be a bigger opportunity for bribery and massive corruption, when you consider that in order to implement this, a huge new federal bureaucracy will have to be created to police enforcement and structure guidelines, and to monitor the purchase and distribution of these goofy carbon credits. Talk about the king of all cesspools for corporate lobbying and corruption – this is it.

    Forget about the fact that the whole Green agenda is based on what is increasingly being shown to be ‘junk science’ and fraud and intimidation. It is certainly not based in ‘settled science’ as we continue to hear. Just consider the way it plays out in the example of my webhosting company. It’s completely preposterous. But there are those who stand to make huge profits from it, just to continue to do things the way they’ve always been done. Smoke and mirrors. Shell game. A government-run Bernie Madoff scam on steroids which will financially effect every single element of our economy and society. Is that what we need?

    Remember what the frog said:

    It’s not easy, being green.

    We’re all going to find out very soon just how right he was.

    Written by jb

    March 19, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    Thousands protest Global Warming

    with one comment

    This photo says it all…

    hat tip – Eric P. / Rand C.

    Written by jb

    January 17, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    Global Warming – Bahh!

    with one comment

    In my inbox this morning, there were two separate messages which clearly demonstrate the terrible effects of Global Warming which we’ve heard so much about recently. The undeniable evidence supporting this “settled science” makes it obvious that we really must do something to reverse the trends which we’ve caused! Take a look:

    A massive storm dumps up to 44 inches of snow on Michigan’s UP

    More evidence from Michigan’s UP – Thanks to Rand Chesshir for the photos

    And from all the way on the other side of the world, a record snow fall (for the day) in Seoul, Korea, on January 5, 2010. Thanks to Eric Parsley (via Rand Chesshir) for the photo.

    Written by jb

    January 7, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    Call It What It Is – Part 1

    with one comment

    The first post in what I plan to be an ongoing series.

    I’ve never been one to bend to the ridiculous demands of Political Correctness. What a crock! If we refuse to acknowledge what comprises the issues facing and challenging us, how in the world will we ever arrive at solutions to those issues, and grow beyond them? Sticking our collective heads in the sand won’t get us anywhere. “Call it what it is,” so we can take it out and examine it, and actually see things for what they are. And then decide how best to deal with them.

    It appears that the creeping sharia movement we’re seeing all the way up to the highest levels of our American government and society (as evidenced by our President who continues to demand “caution” before recognizing a domestic Islamic terrorist to be a domestic Islamic terrorist) are not at all limited to our American experience. All across Europe, governments are bowing to “sensitivities” of Muslim influences among their bloated immigrant populations. Bending over backwards to avoid accurately addressing the pressing issues facing our world.

    Case in point – consider this, from England:

    Don’t call extremists ‘extremists’

    Deputy Political Editor
    Published: 05 Dec 2009

    MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist – in case they offend Muslims.

    An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.

    They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.
    [Edit: But IS there such a thing as “Muslim extremism?” If there is (insert rhetorical satire here), then why can’t it be mentioned any longer? Does the recommended usage of “terrorism” or “violent extremism” encompass the banned phrase “Muslim extremism?” Of course not. Only the phrase “Muslim extremism” encompasses “Muslim extremism.” So you’re asking us to pretend it no longer exists, then? Yea, that’ll really help in facing it.]

    Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an “explicit link” between Muslims and terror.
    [Edit: No they don’t. At least “fundamentalist” doesn’t. Excuse me, call me naive, but it seems to me that Muslims can not have an exclusive lock on the word “fundamentalist.” There are fundamentalists in almost every different group of people, but if we’re banned from using that word… what, just rip it out of the dictionary and pretend it never existed? And “Jihadi??” Banned because it makes “an ‘explicit link’ between Muslims and terror?” But then doesn’t the concept of “Jihad” have its origins in Islam to start with? Oh wait.. I see.. I guess that’s the point of all this, isn’t it? Personally, I’d be more than happy to forget the word “jihadi” and never use it again, if only the jihadis would abandon the principles of jihad.]

    Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it “splits the community”.
    [Edit: Re: “radicalisation,” ditto, the above comment on “fundamentalist.” Why is the Muslim community the only one these sanctimonious watchdogs are concerned about “splitting?”]

    Islamophobia is also out as it is received as “a slur that singles out Muslims”.
    [Edit: Well, duhh!! Of course it singles out Muslims, or followers of Islam. To take issue with THIS fact is like saying not to use the word “red” because it singles out anything that is RED. Remember this brilliant quote from a few years back – “That depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” How dumb do the PC Police think we are, anyway?! As with the usage of any word ending in “phobia,” “Islamophobia” says more about the person who has the phobia than it does about the “thing” that they are terrified of. Do you think spiders feel any less like spiders when someone is described as being arachnophobic? Or homosexuals, when they themselves are so very quick to sling the homophobic slur at anyone who disagrees with anything they choose to believe?]

    The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to “avoid implying that specific communities are to blame” for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots.

    The guidance was branded “daft” last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: “Unless you can describe what you’re up against, you’re never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can’t do that if they have one hand tied behind their back.”

    The Home Office said: “This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else.”

    Call it what it is, folks. Don’t give in to the PC Police. There ARE facts, and there IS a thing known as TRUTH, contrary to what many would have you think. The TRUTH is always the truth, whether you, or I, or any immigrant group likes it or not.