Peter is back with his commentary on an alternate way of dealing with illegal immigration, one which we used to employ here in the US.
The Peter Morrison Report:
It’s unfortunate, but writing a conservative political newsletter in today’s environment means that I rarely have good news to share with my readers. I’m usually criticizing a politician who has deeply disappointed us or betrayed us, in one way or another. Make no mistake; I’m always looking for positive developments, and I’ve certainly written about a few of them in this newsletter. Most of the time, though, whether it involves Austin or Washington, what I’m discussing isn’t good news for conservative patriots.
This report is different. This time, I’d like to talk about a courageous and principled leader who actually puts the interests of his nation first when it comes to dealing with illegal immigration. He doesn’t repeat the usual pious PCs platitudes such as talking about the need for “compassion”, or the “responsibilities” or “obligations” that citizens supposedly have toward the invaders, and he doesn’t worry about members of the media calling him names like “racist” or “bigot”, because he understands that a nation’s immigration policies are supposed to be for the benefit of the nation’s citizens, and not for the benefit of foreigners who have no respect for the nation’s people or laws.
These days, to see a politician acting like this and actually putting the interests of his own citizens ahead of the feelings of the invaders is almost astonishing. We’ve gotten so used to politicians, whether liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, pandering to illegal aliens and their defenders, and cowering in fear of being called “racist” by the left-wing media, that we’ve come to expect it. Except for a few brave souls such as former Congressman Tom Tancredo and Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, there are almost no elected officials willing to stand up for Americans when it comes to illegal immigration. That’s why this politician’s behavior is so refreshing. Unfortunately, the political leader I’m referring to isn’t in America. He’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. He is cracking down on the tens of thousands of illegal aliens who have flooded his nation from Africa in the last few years, promising to round them up and deport them. He is also promising to speed up the completion of a 150 mile-long wall near the Egyptian border to keep illegal aliens out of his country, and he’s not mincing his words when he speaks about how important it is. He says plainly that illegal immigration threatens the Jewish character of Israel. Here is what Prime Minister Netanyahu told his cabinet:
“If we don’t stop their entry, the problem that currently stands at 60,000 could grow to 600,000, and that threatens our existence as a Jewish and democratic state. This phenomenon is very grave and threatens the social fabric of society, our national security and our national identity.”
Can you picture any Congressman, Senator or presidential candidate here in America making a similar statement, to explicitly state that America has a right to preserve its existence as a Christian nation? In Israel, though, leaders are apparently cut from different cloth. Benjamin Netanyahu is not being treated as a pariah for saying these things and cracking down on illegal aliens; far from it. In fact, he has lots of company. Eli Yishai, the Interior Minister, said this about the invaders:
“Why should we provide them with jobs? I’m sick of the bleeding hearts, including politicians. Jobs would settle them here, they’ll make babies, and that offer will only result in hundreds of thousands more coming over here.”
This man is exactly right. If Israel allows mass immigration of Arabs, Palestinians and Africans, who have lots of children and then expect the Israelis to help pay for them, Israel will face not only financial bankruptcy but certain death as a first world society, their identity wiped out by the brutal math of demographics. No matter how much the liberals want it to be so, you can’t have a first world country with a Third World population. Since most Americans and Israelis would prefer their country over the rest of the world, it makes sense to be skeptical about large groups of immigrants from those less preferable countries. The quality and type of culture is directly related to the quality and type of people who live in it. For example, if millions of Egyptians were to move to Alaska, Alaska would become distinctly more Egyptian in its culture.
This admirable realism about the fragility of their nation-state is why the government of Israel is taking swift and decisive action to stop and reverse illegal immigration. In addition to speeding up completion of the security wall, the Knesset has recently passed one law allowing them to detain illegals for three years, and another one mandating sentences of five to fifteen years in prison for anyone offering aid or shelter to illegal immigrants. A third bill, which would fine any business that hires illegals up to a half million shekels (approximately $130,000), may also be passed in the next few weeks.
Here in the USA, things are pretty much the exact opposite. The media recently gleefully informed us that whites now make up less than half of the births in America. This is entirely due to immigration, both legal and illegal, and it signifies a radical demographic transformation that is entirely unprecedented in history. Yet if anyone here dares expresses any concerns about what this huge change to America’s population means for the future, or exhibits any wish to maintain the traditional American demographic status quo, he is denounced as a Nazi and driven from public life.
The federal government, under both Republican and Democrat administrations, has refused to take serious action to stem the tide of illegal aliens for decades. In Arizona the situation was so bad that legislators took things into their own hands, passing SB 1070. Now the “conservative” Supreme Court has ruled that three provisions of the law with actual teeth in them are unconstitutional, on the grounds that they usurp federal authority. In other words, only the federal government has the power to write and enforce immigration laws, and if they refuse to do so, that’s tough. Unlike in Israel, Americans will just have to get used to having their cities and town overrun with illegal aliens. In fact, the same day the ruling was announced, the Obama administration immediately announced that they would no longer cooperate with Arizona when it comes to immigration enforcement.
In addition, a few weeks ago Barack Obama announced that he’s effectively granting amnesty to illegal aliens under age 31 who came here before they turned 16. Of course, like the radical left-winger he is, he denied that it was actually amnesty. His DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano, said “It is not amnesty. It is an exercise of discretion so that these young people are not in the removal system.” Well, what else is amnesty but taking illegal aliens out of the “removal system”? This is just radical leftist double talk from an administration that has repeatedly made it clear that is has nothing but contempt for average Americans, and is committed to destroying the way of life we cherish.
Mitt Romney may not have the Marxist background and terrorist associations that Obama has, but when it comes to illegal immigration, he unfortunately shares some of Obama’s values. He is not on the side of the American people, but on the side of the illegal aliens. It’s true that he held a press conference to criticize Obama for his amnesty by executive order, but he was merely quibbling with how Obama went about it. Romney supports doing the exact same thing, but wants it done by a Congressional law. He was asked repeatedly at the press conference if he would repeal Obama’s executive order if he is elected president, and he refused to answer. A few days later he appeared on Face the Nation and was asked the same question, several times, and once again, he refused to answer.
It gets worse. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is being promoted by many establishment RINOs as the ideal running mate for Romney because he’s Hispanic, has long been promoting a bill in the Senate that would do the exact same things as Obama’s executive order. This is the same bill that Romney wants Congress to pass. So it’s clear that Romney will be no better than Obama on immigration, even as America faces yet another year of very high unemployment.
Any truly patriotic leader would be saying that the needs of Americans take precedence over the desires of foreign invaders. He would be saying that it’s insane to allow millions of people to come here when we don’t even have enough jobs for our own citizens. He would be outlining a serious program for stopping illegal immigration, and removing the millions of illegals that are already here. Instead, Romney (and almost all GOP politicians) put pandering to the interests of the invaders ahead of serving the people who elect them, American citizens. If we had real leaders, the kind of leaders Israel has, we’d have the illegal immigration problem under control. Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders are to be commended for their actions on behalf of Israeli citizens. The people of Israel should be proud that their politicians care more about them than about foreign invaders. Now it’s time for us to get busy and elect the same kind of leaders here in America. It won’t be easy, but Israel has shown us that it can be done.
The Peter Morrison Report
Readers of this blog know that I believe Obama is a stealth Muslim. I still believe it to be true, even though some recent events such as the deaths of Osama bin Laden, Alawar al Alaki and many other top level terrorists would seem to contradict such an opinion. Later, I will propose a scenario where both truths could be possible.
There are also a growing number of people coming to at least suspect Obama to be a Manchurian President. Given his handling of Middle East policy of ignoring or actively supporting militant Islamic groups while simultaneously denigrating our Israeli allies, I must agree that the Manchurian President theory is not just possible, it is highly probable and as such, must be considered. My aim here is to take these possibilities to the ugliest possible conclusion, because if even remotely true, it would have catastrophic consequences for freedom loving peoples the world over. It would also be the Mother of All Conspiracies.
It is known that Islam allows and in some cases encourages its followers to lie to unbelievers in order to achieve the goal of world dominance and submission to the faith. This is called “Taqiyya – Saying something that isn’t true,” or another form which is “Kitman – Lying by omission.” ~ This brings up a question in my mind secondary to the theory I am proposing: What kind of god allows and encourages his followers to engage in deceit? A false god, that’s who, one who is completely contrary to the one true God of the Jews and of the Christians, who encourages truth and calls lying a sin, but I digress.
The stated goal of Islam is to convert all non-believers to the faith or enslave them to their theocratic rule through Sharia law and ultimately establish a Caliphate with a Caliph, or single high priest, who will rule over the entire world under the authority of Allah and establish world domination of their religion.
It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.
Obama wants to be the Caliph
Regarding the Middle East and the Arab Uprisings, the Obama administration has done nothing to discourage, and everything to encourage unrest and in many cases helped promote anti-American interests to power in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon. At the same time, Yemin and many other Middle Eastern countries have seen bloody protests funded by and instigated by the Muslim Brotherhood while Obama ignores the uprising in Iran against the Ahmadinejad regime, a sworn enemy of the United States. Why would Obama promote unrest by his indecisive behavior or in some cases, support Muslim Brotherhood activity with US military forces in Libya while ignoring obvious pro-democratic uprisings in Iran? I think the answer is obvious. He wants to promote the Islamic religion and ultimately the worldwide Caliphate theocracy. Think that is an outrageous accusation? Tell it to the Pakistani government minister who called for Obama to claim the title of Caliph.
Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda’s second in command Atiyah Abd Al-Rahman and a host of top terrorists have been killed during Obama’s presidency, which prompted ABC’s Jake Tapper to remark:
Remember when Rudy Giuliani warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. played defense, not offense, against the terrorists?
If this is defense, what does offense look like?
Just last week American born terrorist Alawar al Alaki is taken out by American forces under the command of Barack Hussein Obama. Taken at face value, one could assume that Obama ordered these killings; however, the opposite could be true. As in the case of bin Laden, our military was on target long before Obama was even aware of the fact and actually had no choice but to sign off on the killing lest he be painted as aiding and abetting the enemy. Speculatively, the same scenario could have transpired for Al Rahman, al Alaki and the others. Our forces could have been on target and it would just plain look bad if the president told them to stand down.
If Obama is in fact engaging in Taqiyya or Kitman, then he would betray his Muslim identity by expressing regret or remorse at the deaths of his allies. If we take it one step farther, (here comes the overactive imagination), Obama could, in fact, be engaging in a double-cross against his Muslim brothers; He could claim plausible deniability in these killings while deftly using his position as president to take out any candidates or would-be contenders to himself becoming the Caliph. He is in the perfect place from which to carry this out, probably the only place from which it can be done: The White House.
Going a bit farther still, the idea of using his position to eliminate his rivals may not have occurred to Obama until bin Laden was taken out or even later, but the possibility is still a viable one. Perhaps narcissist Obama is now recognizing other advantages to being leader of the country he despises.
If this theory is correct, I think Obama will eventually remove Ahmadinejad, who I believe sees himself as the rightful Caliph, but the timing is not right, especially since Ahmadinejad presents a threat to the US that he can use in the future to bolster Obama’s image as a decisive leader perhaps a war with Iran or another assassination in the days, weeks or months leading up to the 2012 election?
Obviously, I’m not sure about any of this. Who could be except Obama himself? I’m just trying to make sense of what Obama is doing and increasingly, in my mind, the evidence points to Obama’s malicious destruction of America as a necessary step in a larger plan – and that should trouble us all.
For Liberty ~ ‘bot
UPDATE: Linked by Doug Ross - Thanks!
Thanks to Zilla of the Resistance for her assistance in researching this piece.
References linked in this post: – Updated
The tough choices have to be made. No matter what your political stripe. I don’t know if air strikes are the way to go here, but I’m not the one sitting in the oval orifice.
So O-bomb-a, rather than leading, follows the French and the UN. Tell me again how any of this makes America or O-bomb-a look better in the eyes of the world?
Wait. That was a rhetorical question.
R.S. McCain is also questioning the selective outrage and the outragers.
Meanwhile, The Rhetorican:
Whatâ€™s missing? The ubiquitous sense of outrage in every nook and cranny of Leftie-dom that we couldnâ€™t stop hearing back in 2003, before troops even started packing for Iraq.
True: The outrage is not â€œubiquitous,â€ but what are lefties like Michael Moore going to do? They got nowhere to go. They backed the most left-wing nominee in the Democratic Partyâ€™s history â€” yes, Obama is further left than McGovern or Dukakis â€” and actually managed to getÂ him elected. And the result is . . . ??
Weâ€™re still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guantanamo is still in business. Bradley Manning is stripped naked in solitary confinement. Now, another military adventure. Youâ€™d think that people whoâ€™d been so blatantly screwed over, bamboozled, sold out, ripped offÂ and stabbed in the back would eventually wise up.
But then again: Theyâ€™re liberals.
Personally, I don’t think O-bomb-a would have called for air strikes on Libya unless it served his political purpose. He may just be bowing to international pressure and hoping to use this for capital later on down the road. He certainly didn’t take any great stand on the issue in the previous weeks, aside from the posturing and speeches with his adminstruation speaking from both sides of the issue thus confusing all parties as to what stance America was going to take.
I believe he wants all unrest in the middle east to continue. It serves as distraction to his radical domestic agenda and if you think he’s going to do anything that helps Israel that he isn’t forced to, then you haven’t been reading the tea leaves properly.
I swear I hadn’t read Instapundit’s article before I wrote that headline.
Last Saturday, Iran was allowed to begin inserting fuel rods into their nuclear reactor without so much as a whimper from the international community. World leaders heaved a collective *sigh* and continued their golf games, vacations and parlor parties while the citizens of the world, the sane ones anyway, were forced yet again to wonder on the competence and/or contrivance of said “leaders.”
Ever wonder what would have happened if Kennedy hadn’t called Khrushchev’s bluff? We’re about to find out.
Just one day (1) uno, one singular day after the fueling announcement comes news of a new Iranian ambassador.
Really? What’s his name?
The Ambassador of Death.
Nice. Gotta hand it to those mullahs, they sure know how to name a weapon.
Hey, I’ve got a better idea. How about something more appropriate? (Warning: tell the children to leave the room.)
How about we call it the “Dildo of Doom?” It would go along with the douche-nozzle who’s running the country over there. Sorry to be so graphic. I’ll revise the name to shall we say, “Marital Aid of Mass Destruction?” Nah, just doesn’t have the same ring of truth.
OK, one more: “Suppository of Subjugation.”
Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments.
It is also interesting to note that Wired.com is questioning the Ambassador’s size, wondering aloud if Iran is claiming it’s ambassador to be more “endowed” than it really is.
“Is that a WMD in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
Each day that passes without taking out Iran’s threat of nuclear armaments is another day closer to World War Three. I’m hoping against hope that a special forces or some other clandestine outfit is making plans to sabotage their facilities.
There is a glimmer of hope though. An unattributed editorial in the Washington Times reports that
… There are unconfirmed reports that Reza Baruni, the mastermind of Iran’s drone program, was assassinated earlier this month when his heavily guarded villa in southern Iran was bombed. On the same day, three unarmed drone aircraft reportedly crashed into the containment dome of the Bushehr reactor…
Still, I’d like to see more than unattributed reports claiming unconfirmed actions of unarmed aircraft causing unknown results.
It’s all a bit… unsettling.
Previously: Should Israel Bomb Iran?
Today’s Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense. After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, “the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people.” But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.”
And yesterday, former US Envoy to the UN, John Bolton said Israel has just a few days to act before Iran begins inserting fuel rods into it’s newly built nuke-you-lar reactor.
Israel has only mere days to launch an attack on Iranâ€™s Bushehr nuclear reactor if Russia makes good on its plan to deliver fuel there this weekend, former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton warned Tuesday.
He said that once Russia has loaded the fuel into the reactor — slated for Saturday â€“ Israel would no longer be willing to strike for fear of triggering widespread radiation in an attack.
Iran in effect is hiding behind human shields while it continues to arm itself with nuclear capabilities:
Iran, for its part, dismissed talk of a possible Israel strike.
On Tuesday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast was quoted as saying that “these threats of attacks had become repetitive and lost their meaning.” He also reportedly told correspondents in Tehran, “According to international law, installations which have real fuel cannot be attacked because of the humanitarian consequences.â€
The rhetoric comes as the US increased sanctions on Iran as part of its ongoing efforts to ratchet up pressure on Tehran.
On Tuesday the US Treasury announced dozens of additional names of Iranian banks and individuals that fall under sanctions law.
So, while the Iranians continue to ratchet up their ability to attack our Israeli allies, our President and State department continue to run a racket of sanctions and weak diplomacy designed to look the other way while Israel is forced to defend itself alone.
Should we strike Iranian nuclear facilities before they load fuel into their reactor or complete their ability to enrich weapons grade plutonium?
I believe we should and if we don’t strike first, we should at the very least provide backing forces to Israel when they do so. A nuclear Iran would be more emboldened to act out against our Israeli allies, just as any of the lesser factions surrounding them because of Iran’s implied nuclear umbrella of protection. We cannot allow this scenario to develop.
Will President Obama see the issue this way?
I’d doubt he has a pair. In fact, his previous actions suggest that he’ll use an Israeli strike as a reason to sanction or condemn Israel.
That would be a tragedy of unthinkable proportions.
This news really made my day this afternoon.
I’m happy to report that Yousef has been allowed to stay in the US.
The Save Mosab Yousef Website has links to all the info.
Bob Belvedere has an update on the plight of Mosab Yousef and some disturbing speculation.
As you can tell by the banner prominently displayed on this page, I support this brave young man and pray for his safety.
A top-ranking official in Hamas said Friday that the terror group is holding talks with the Obama Administration. They want to keep the meetings secret for fear it would rouse the Jewish lobby in the United States.
This will not end well.
Hope and change. Hope and change. *blech*
H/T Amusing Bunni on FB.
Via Atlas Shrugs:
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, in which President Obama told him that he was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the stepson of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympathetic towards the Muslim agenda.
I’m shocked SHOCKED I TELL YOU!
Pamela Geller has the rest of the story, and as one might expect, an avalanche of background data.