REUTERS
8/27/10
PHOENIX - A shake-up in immigration policy may lead to deportation proceedings being dropped for thousands of aliens who entered the United States illegally but are applying to stay in the country, officials said on Friday.
They said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) seeks to end deportation proceedings against detained illegal immigrants who have applications pending to become legal U.S. residents, if agents determine they have no criminal history and do not present a security threat.
The policy shift emerged from an internal memorandum ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton sent last week to the agency's principal legal adviser and a director of enforcement and removal operations.
The memo was published by the New York Times on Friday and confirmed to Reuters by officials.
Morton said the policy aimed to reduce the backlog in immigration courts, where authorities identified some 17,000 cases last year that could be eliminated if ICE dropped removal proceedings against illegal immigrants who had applied for legal status and were very likely to get it.
The issue of what to do with nearly 11 million illegal immigrants living and working in the shadows in the United States has become an increasingly hot topic in the run up to the midterm elections in November, where Democratic control of Congress is on the line.
President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats back a comprehensive reform of immigration policy to tighten border security, while allowing illegal immigrants in good standing the chance to learn English, pay a fine and get on a path to citizenship.
Republicans say that policy is effectively "amnesty" and likely to encourage more illegal entrants.
The Obama administration has made a priority of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, more than 167,00 of whom have been removed so far this year.
ICE spokesman Richard Rocha said the policy shift outlined in the memorandum sought to enable the agency to prioritize "the arrest and removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security."
"ICE is not engaged in a 'backdoor' amnesty and has placed more people in immigration proceedings this year than ever before," he added.
Americans are most concerned about a stuttering economy and high unemployment in the run up to the November 2 midterm elections, when voters will elect 435 members of the House of Representatives and fill 37 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
But illegal immigration has also been a contentious issue.
The Obama administration last month successfully sued to block key parts of a tough state law in Arizona requiring state and local police during the course of an arrest to investigate the immigration status of people they suspected were in the state illegally.
The measure, which sought to curb illegal immigration and smuggling-related crime in the state bordering Mexico, was backed by a solid majority of voters both in Arizona and across the United States.
But it came under heavy fire from civil rights and Latino groups concerned that in practice it would lead to profiling, and in court the administration said it intruded on what should be a matter of federal policy.
Comment:
NO WAY! SEND THEM BACK NOW! If they do get to stay, at least require them to learn English as one of the conditions. But I still say they're criminals in just being here.
America is broke. We can no longer afford to support the influx of mass immigrants from Turd World Countries. It's like the Salvation Army at Christmas. Even though they are totally legitimate and do a lot of good, if you honestly don't have any money, you can't donate to them. Same with the Turd Worlders. We don't have the funds or jobs to take care of them.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Obama Wants Change to Allow Thousands of Illegals to Stay in US
REUTERS
8/27/10
PHOENIX - A shake-up in immigration policy may lead to deportation proceedings being dropped for thousands of aliens who entered the United States illegally but are applying to stay in the country, officials said on Friday.
They said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) seeks to end deportation proceedings against detained illegal immigrants who have applications pending to become legal U.S. residents, if agents determine they have no criminal history and do not present a security threat.
The policy shift emerged from an internal memorandum ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton sent last week to the agency's principal legal adviser and a director of enforcement and removal operations.
The memo was published by the New York Times on Friday and confirmed to Reuters by officials.
Morton said the policy aimed to reduce the backlog in immigration courts, where authorities identified some 17,000 cases last year that could be eliminated if ICE dropped removal proceedings against illegal immigrants who had applied for legal status and were very likely to get it.
The issue of what to do with nearly 11 million illegal immigrants living and working in the shadows in the United States has become an increasingly hot topic in the run up to the midterm elections in November, where Democratic control of Congress is on the line.
President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats back a comprehensive reform of immigration policy to tighten border security, while allowing illegal immigrants in good standing the chance to learn English, pay a fine and get on a path to citizenship.
Republicans say that policy is effectively "amnesty" and likely to encourage more illegal entrants.
The Obama administration has made a priority of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, more than 167,00 of whom have been removed so far this year.
ICE spokesman Richard Rocha said the policy shift outlined in the memorandum sought to enable the agency to prioritize "the arrest and removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security."
"ICE is not engaged in a 'backdoor' amnesty and has placed more people in immigration proceedings this year than ever before," he added.
Americans are most concerned about a stuttering economy and high unemployment in the run up to the November 2 midterm elections, when voters will elect 435 members of the House of Representatives and fill 37 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
But illegal immigration has also been a contentious issue.
The Obama administration last month successfully sued to block key parts of a tough state law in Arizona requiring state and local police during the course of an arrest to investigate the immigration status of people they suspected were in the state illegally.
The measure, which sought to curb illegal immigration and smuggling-related crime in the state bordering Mexico, was backed by a solid majority of voters both in Arizona and across the United States.
But it came under heavy fire from civil rights and Latino groups concerned that in practice it would lead to profiling, and in court the administration said it intruded on what should be a matter of federal policy.
Comment:
NO WAY! SEND THEM BACK NOW! If they do get to stay, at least require them to learn English as one of the conditions. But I still say they're criminals in just being here.
America is broke. We can no longer afford to support the influx of mass immigrants from Turd World Countries. It's like the Salvation Army at Christmas. Even though they are totally legitimate and do a lot of good, if you honestly don't have any money, you can't donate to them. Same with the Turd Worlders. We don't have the funds or jobs to take care of them.
8/27/10
PHOENIX - A shake-up in immigration policy may lead to deportation proceedings being dropped for thousands of aliens who entered the United States illegally but are applying to stay in the country, officials said on Friday.
They said the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) seeks to end deportation proceedings against detained illegal immigrants who have applications pending to become legal U.S. residents, if agents determine they have no criminal history and do not present a security threat.
The policy shift emerged from an internal memorandum ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton sent last week to the agency's principal legal adviser and a director of enforcement and removal operations.
The memo was published by the New York Times on Friday and confirmed to Reuters by officials.
Morton said the policy aimed to reduce the backlog in immigration courts, where authorities identified some 17,000 cases last year that could be eliminated if ICE dropped removal proceedings against illegal immigrants who had applied for legal status and were very likely to get it.
The issue of what to do with nearly 11 million illegal immigrants living and working in the shadows in the United States has become an increasingly hot topic in the run up to the midterm elections in November, where Democratic control of Congress is on the line.
President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats back a comprehensive reform of immigration policy to tighten border security, while allowing illegal immigrants in good standing the chance to learn English, pay a fine and get on a path to citizenship.
Republicans say that policy is effectively "amnesty" and likely to encourage more illegal entrants.
The Obama administration has made a priority of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, more than 167,00 of whom have been removed so far this year.
ICE spokesman Richard Rocha said the policy shift outlined in the memorandum sought to enable the agency to prioritize "the arrest and removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security."
"ICE is not engaged in a 'backdoor' amnesty and has placed more people in immigration proceedings this year than ever before," he added.
Americans are most concerned about a stuttering economy and high unemployment in the run up to the November 2 midterm elections, when voters will elect 435 members of the House of Representatives and fill 37 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
But illegal immigration has also been a contentious issue.
The Obama administration last month successfully sued to block key parts of a tough state law in Arizona requiring state and local police during the course of an arrest to investigate the immigration status of people they suspected were in the state illegally.
The measure, which sought to curb illegal immigration and smuggling-related crime in the state bordering Mexico, was backed by a solid majority of voters both in Arizona and across the United States.
But it came under heavy fire from civil rights and Latino groups concerned that in practice it would lead to profiling, and in court the administration said it intruded on what should be a matter of federal policy.
Comment:
NO WAY! SEND THEM BACK NOW! If they do get to stay, at least require them to learn English as one of the conditions. But I still say they're criminals in just being here.
America is broke. We can no longer afford to support the influx of mass immigrants from Turd World Countries. It's like the Salvation Army at Christmas. Even though they are totally legitimate and do a lot of good, if you honestly don't have any money, you can't donate to them. Same with the Turd Worlders. We don't have the funds or jobs to take care of them.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Nickelodean Admits Indroctrinating Children To Multiculturalism
AP
8/27/10
NEW YORK - Don't underestimate her just because she's a little girl. "Dora The Explorer" is a multibillion-dollar franchise that may be creating a more enlightened generation, more open to different people and cultures not their own.
Ten years have passed since the Latina Dora became the first bilingual heroine of children's TV and conquered the hearts of kids around the world. Nickelodeon has celebrated the anniversary with a one-hour special that features the voices of Rosie Perez, John Leguizamo and Hector Elizondo, and a documentary with comments from Dora herself, the series' creators, experts from the industry, real-life kids and celebrities such as Salma Hayek and Shakira.
"I think that the fact that kids are identifying with a kid with darker color skin that speaks another language (shows they are more open)," said Chris Gifford, one of the show's creators and executive producers. "Kids want their parents to read them the books and watch Dora with them. ... That's what it's about."
"Dora The Explorer" is seen today in 151 markets and is translated to 30 languages. In English-speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland, Dora teaches Spanish; in other markets - including the Hispanic U.S. markets - the adventurous little girl teaches English.
According to Nickelodeon, "Dora" has generated over $11 billion in worldwide sales since 2002, having sold 65 million units of Fisher Price Dora the Explorer toys, 50 million books and over 20 million DVDs worldwide. In France, publishing house Albin Michel has sold more than 12 million educational Dora books since its launch - or one Dora book for every child in France, the network points out.
Yet, the original idea for the show had nothing to do with a bilingual girl.
"She didn't start as a Latina or a heroine - she was a forest animal," said co-creator and executive producer Valerie Walsh Valdes. "Nickelodeon actually asked us to consider making her a Latina because a recent study said that there were no positive bilingual characters on children's television."
So producers turned to such experts as historian Carlos E. Cortes, author of "The Children Are Watching" and "The Making - and Remaking - of a Multiculturalist."
"He was absolutely instrumental in helping us find the best way to put Dora forward in terms of culture," said Gifford. Cortes advised that Dora should always be inclusive, so producers decided not to give her a particular country of origin.
"I am delighted with the way 'Dora' has come out, particularly the impact it seems to be having in young people," said Cortes, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Riverside. "The Latino kids take pride having Dora as a lead character and non-Latino kids can embrace someone different."
"I think that Dora has a very specific special relationship with kids at home, not necessarily for being bilingual but as a powerful character who invites kids on adventures," says Brown Johnson, president, Animation, Nickelodeon and MTVN Kids and Family Group. "Here, Spanish words open doors."
In "Dora The Explorer," the Latin flavor is present not only in the language and Dora's features but also in characters such as Isa the Iguana and Tico the Squirrel, scenes, themes and family values. The little star invites her young, preschool viewers to come with her on an adventure, where she usually faces a problem that she cannot resolve by herself.
Dora asks her audience to answer questions in an interactive show that includes silences that are long enough for viewers to suggest an answer.
"The kids are feeling good about putting together the puzzle bridge (that will solve the problem). ... Dora needs THEIR help!" says Walsh Valdes.
Each episode relies on the advice of educators and cultural experts, and can take more than a year to produce, in part because not one gets into the air without first being screened in front of the most honest and feared jury: at least 75 children. "Just the heartbreak to see those kids disappointed! We really take it personally. ... These 3 year olds," Gifford said. They really listen to the children, said Walsh Valdes.
Dora's voice has been portrayed the last three years by Caitlin Sanchez. The 14-year-old succeeded the original voice of Dora, Kathleen Herles, when she left to go to college.
"It's really an honor to play an icon," said Sanchez, who enjoys making the voice of the Latina idol in front of her little fans, who immediately recognize it: "It's Dora!" "She's got Dora inside her mouth!"
"Dora is like the most helping person in the world," the young actress said. "I have learned a lot from her, too. ... She's a great role model."
Stars such as Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek have spoken about the relationship of Dora with their families.
"There's a 'Dora The Explorer' (episode) where Dora's mom has twins - a boy and a girl," Jolie told People magazine in 2008, noting how her older children got ready for the arrival of her own twins. "They watched that a lot."
"I love Dora! She's been such a part of my relationship with my child," said Hayek at the show's 10th anniversary press conference in March. "I love that it's bilingual and that she's a heroine who has Latin roots."
Meanwhile, a Dora balloon made its debut in Macy's 2005 Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York, the first time for a Latino character.
"It's flattering, but it also speaks about how Dora has transcended from just being a preschool show. There's something really amazing in her ability to cross over," said Walsh Valdes.
"Dora" has aired against the backdrop of the immigration debate. When the new Arizona law was announced, a photo of Dora behind bars as a suspected illegal immigrant made the rounds on the Internet.
Such is the influence of Dora, Cortes said, that future fans could affect the political future of America. A 5-year-old viewer in 2000 is now 15.
"It will be another three years until they go to college and be able to vote, and I think we may see a difference. You can't be certain, but our hope is that young people of all backgrounds will be more open," he said. "If Dora can do that, her impact is unimaginable."
Comment:
Dora behind bars?! NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
Unfortunately, Cortes is quite right. They have done an excellent job of brainwashing the children, and when they become voters, we will all be paying the price - unless we stop them in the near future. Time is running out folks. It's now or never!
8/27/10
NEW YORK - Don't underestimate her just because she's a little girl. "Dora The Explorer" is a multibillion-dollar franchise that may be creating a more enlightened generation, more open to different people and cultures not their own.
Ten years have passed since the Latina Dora became the first bilingual heroine of children's TV and conquered the hearts of kids around the world. Nickelodeon has celebrated the anniversary with a one-hour special that features the voices of Rosie Perez, John Leguizamo and Hector Elizondo, and a documentary with comments from Dora herself, the series' creators, experts from the industry, real-life kids and celebrities such as Salma Hayek and Shakira.
"I think that the fact that kids are identifying with a kid with darker color skin that speaks another language (shows they are more open)," said Chris Gifford, one of the show's creators and executive producers. "Kids want their parents to read them the books and watch Dora with them. ... That's what it's about."
"Dora The Explorer" is seen today in 151 markets and is translated to 30 languages. In English-speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland, Dora teaches Spanish; in other markets - including the Hispanic U.S. markets - the adventurous little girl teaches English.
According to Nickelodeon, "Dora" has generated over $11 billion in worldwide sales since 2002, having sold 65 million units of Fisher Price Dora the Explorer toys, 50 million books and over 20 million DVDs worldwide. In France, publishing house Albin Michel has sold more than 12 million educational Dora books since its launch - or one Dora book for every child in France, the network points out.
Yet, the original idea for the show had nothing to do with a bilingual girl.
"She didn't start as a Latina or a heroine - she was a forest animal," said co-creator and executive producer Valerie Walsh Valdes. "Nickelodeon actually asked us to consider making her a Latina because a recent study said that there were no positive bilingual characters on children's television."
So producers turned to such experts as historian Carlos E. Cortes, author of "The Children Are Watching" and "The Making - and Remaking - of a Multiculturalist."
"He was absolutely instrumental in helping us find the best way to put Dora forward in terms of culture," said Gifford. Cortes advised that Dora should always be inclusive, so producers decided not to give her a particular country of origin.
"I am delighted with the way 'Dora' has come out, particularly the impact it seems to be having in young people," said Cortes, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Riverside. "The Latino kids take pride having Dora as a lead character and non-Latino kids can embrace someone different."
"I think that Dora has a very specific special relationship with kids at home, not necessarily for being bilingual but as a powerful character who invites kids on adventures," says Brown Johnson, president, Animation, Nickelodeon and MTVN Kids and Family Group. "Here, Spanish words open doors."
In "Dora The Explorer," the Latin flavor is present not only in the language and Dora's features but also in characters such as Isa the Iguana and Tico the Squirrel, scenes, themes and family values. The little star invites her young, preschool viewers to come with her on an adventure, where she usually faces a problem that she cannot resolve by herself.
Dora asks her audience to answer questions in an interactive show that includes silences that are long enough for viewers to suggest an answer.
"The kids are feeling good about putting together the puzzle bridge (that will solve the problem). ... Dora needs THEIR help!" says Walsh Valdes.
Each episode relies on the advice of educators and cultural experts, and can take more than a year to produce, in part because not one gets into the air without first being screened in front of the most honest and feared jury: at least 75 children. "Just the heartbreak to see those kids disappointed! We really take it personally. ... These 3 year olds," Gifford said. They really listen to the children, said Walsh Valdes.
Dora's voice has been portrayed the last three years by Caitlin Sanchez. The 14-year-old succeeded the original voice of Dora, Kathleen Herles, when she left to go to college.
"It's really an honor to play an icon," said Sanchez, who enjoys making the voice of the Latina idol in front of her little fans, who immediately recognize it: "It's Dora!" "She's got Dora inside her mouth!"
"Dora is like the most helping person in the world," the young actress said. "I have learned a lot from her, too. ... She's a great role model."
Stars such as Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek have spoken about the relationship of Dora with their families.
"There's a 'Dora The Explorer' (episode) where Dora's mom has twins - a boy and a girl," Jolie told People magazine in 2008, noting how her older children got ready for the arrival of her own twins. "They watched that a lot."
"I love Dora! She's been such a part of my relationship with my child," said Hayek at the show's 10th anniversary press conference in March. "I love that it's bilingual and that she's a heroine who has Latin roots."
Meanwhile, a Dora balloon made its debut in Macy's 2005 Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York, the first time for a Latino character.
"It's flattering, but it also speaks about how Dora has transcended from just being a preschool show. There's something really amazing in her ability to cross over," said Walsh Valdes.
"Dora" has aired against the backdrop of the immigration debate. When the new Arizona law was announced, a photo of Dora behind bars as a suspected illegal immigrant made the rounds on the Internet.
Such is the influence of Dora, Cortes said, that future fans could affect the political future of America. A 5-year-old viewer in 2000 is now 15.
"It will be another three years until they go to college and be able to vote, and I think we may see a difference. You can't be certain, but our hope is that young people of all backgrounds will be more open," he said. "If Dora can do that, her impact is unimaginable."
Comment:
Dora behind bars?! NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
Unfortunately, Cortes is quite right. They have done an excellent job of brainwashing the children, and when they become voters, we will all be paying the price - unless we stop them in the near future. Time is running out folks. It's now or never!
Nickelodean Admits Indroctrinating Children To Multiculturalism
AP
8/27/10
NEW YORK - Don't underestimate her just because she's a little girl. "Dora The Explorer" is a multibillion-dollar franchise that may be creating a more enlightened generation, more open to different people and cultures not their own.
Ten years have passed since the Latina Dora became the first bilingual heroine of children's TV and conquered the hearts of kids around the world. Nickelodeon has celebrated the anniversary with a one-hour special that features the voices of Rosie Perez, John Leguizamo and Hector Elizondo, and a documentary with comments from Dora herself, the series' creators, experts from the industry, real-life kids and celebrities such as Salma Hayek and Shakira.
"I think that the fact that kids are identifying with a kid with darker color skin that speaks another language (shows they are more open)," said Chris Gifford, one of the show's creators and executive producers. "Kids want their parents to read them the books and watch Dora with them. ... That's what it's about."
"Dora The Explorer" is seen today in 151 markets and is translated to 30 languages. In English-speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland, Dora teaches Spanish; in other markets - including the Hispanic U.S. markets - the adventurous little girl teaches English.
According to Nickelodeon, "Dora" has generated over $11 billion in worldwide sales since 2002, having sold 65 million units of Fisher Price Dora the Explorer toys, 50 million books and over 20 million DVDs worldwide. In France, publishing house Albin Michel has sold more than 12 million educational Dora books since its launch - or one Dora book for every child in France, the network points out.
Yet, the original idea for the show had nothing to do with a bilingual girl.
"She didn't start as a Latina or a heroine - she was a forest animal," said co-creator and executive producer Valerie Walsh Valdes. "Nickelodeon actually asked us to consider making her a Latina because a recent study said that there were no positive bilingual characters on children's television."
So producers turned to such experts as historian Carlos E. Cortes, author of "The Children Are Watching" and "The Making - and Remaking - of a Multiculturalist."
"He was absolutely instrumental in helping us find the best way to put Dora forward in terms of culture," said Gifford. Cortes advised that Dora should always be inclusive, so producers decided not to give her a particular country of origin.
"I am delighted with the way 'Dora' has come out, particularly the impact it seems to be having in young people," said Cortes, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Riverside. "The Latino kids take pride having Dora as a lead character and non-Latino kids can embrace someone different."
"I think that Dora has a very specific special relationship with kids at home, not necessarily for being bilingual but as a powerful character who invites kids on adventures," says Brown Johnson, president, Animation, Nickelodeon and MTVN Kids and Family Group. "Here, Spanish words open doors."
In "Dora The Explorer," the Latin flavor is present not only in the language and Dora's features but also in characters such as Isa the Iguana and Tico the Squirrel, scenes, themes and family values. The little star invites her young, preschool viewers to come with her on an adventure, where she usually faces a problem that she cannot resolve by herself.
Dora asks her audience to answer questions in an interactive show that includes silences that are long enough for viewers to suggest an answer.
"The kids are feeling good about putting together the puzzle bridge (that will solve the problem). ... Dora needs THEIR help!" says Walsh Valdes.
Each episode relies on the advice of educators and cultural experts, and can take more than a year to produce, in part because not one gets into the air without first being screened in front of the most honest and feared jury: at least 75 children. "Just the heartbreak to see those kids disappointed! We really take it personally. ... These 3 year olds," Gifford said. They really listen to the children, said Walsh Valdes.
Dora's voice has been portrayed the last three years by Caitlin Sanchez. The 14-year-old succeeded the original voice of Dora, Kathleen Herles, when she left to go to college.
"It's really an honor to play an icon," said Sanchez, who enjoys making the voice of the Latina idol in front of her little fans, who immediately recognize it: "It's Dora!" "She's got Dora inside her mouth!"
"Dora is like the most helping person in the world," the young actress said. "I have learned a lot from her, too. ... She's a great role model."
Stars such as Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek have spoken about the relationship of Dora with their families.
"There's a 'Dora The Explorer' (episode) where Dora's mom has twins - a boy and a girl," Jolie told People magazine in 2008, noting how her older children got ready for the arrival of her own twins. "They watched that a lot."
"I love Dora! She's been such a part of my relationship with my child," said Hayek at the show's 10th anniversary press conference in March. "I love that it's bilingual and that she's a heroine who has Latin roots."
Meanwhile, a Dora balloon made its debut in Macy's 2005 Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York, the first time for a Latino character.
"It's flattering, but it also speaks about how Dora has transcended from just being a preschool show. There's something really amazing in her ability to cross over," said Walsh Valdes.
"Dora" has aired against the backdrop of the immigration debate. When the new Arizona law was announced, a photo of Dora behind bars as a suspected illegal immigrant made the rounds on the Internet.
Such is the influence of Dora, Cortes said, that future fans could affect the political future of America. A 5-year-old viewer in 2000 is now 15.
"It will be another three years until they go to college and be able to vote, and I think we may see a difference. You can't be certain, but our hope is that young people of all backgrounds will be more open," he said. "If Dora can do that, her impact is unimaginable."
Comment:
Dora behind bars?! NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
Unfortunately, Cortes is quite right. They have done an excellent job of brainwashing the children, and when they become voters, we will all be paying the price - unless we stop them in the near future. Time is running out folks. It's now or never!
8/27/10
NEW YORK - Don't underestimate her just because she's a little girl. "Dora The Explorer" is a multibillion-dollar franchise that may be creating a more enlightened generation, more open to different people and cultures not their own.
Ten years have passed since the Latina Dora became the first bilingual heroine of children's TV and conquered the hearts of kids around the world. Nickelodeon has celebrated the anniversary with a one-hour special that features the voices of Rosie Perez, John Leguizamo and Hector Elizondo, and a documentary with comments from Dora herself, the series' creators, experts from the industry, real-life kids and celebrities such as Salma Hayek and Shakira.
"I think that the fact that kids are identifying with a kid with darker color skin that speaks another language (shows they are more open)," said Chris Gifford, one of the show's creators and executive producers. "Kids want their parents to read them the books and watch Dora with them. ... That's what it's about."
"Dora The Explorer" is seen today in 151 markets and is translated to 30 languages. In English-speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland, Dora teaches Spanish; in other markets - including the Hispanic U.S. markets - the adventurous little girl teaches English.
According to Nickelodeon, "Dora" has generated over $11 billion in worldwide sales since 2002, having sold 65 million units of Fisher Price Dora the Explorer toys, 50 million books and over 20 million DVDs worldwide. In France, publishing house Albin Michel has sold more than 12 million educational Dora books since its launch - or one Dora book for every child in France, the network points out.
Yet, the original idea for the show had nothing to do with a bilingual girl.
"She didn't start as a Latina or a heroine - she was a forest animal," said co-creator and executive producer Valerie Walsh Valdes. "Nickelodeon actually asked us to consider making her a Latina because a recent study said that there were no positive bilingual characters on children's television."
So producers turned to such experts as historian Carlos E. Cortes, author of "The Children Are Watching" and "The Making - and Remaking - of a Multiculturalist."
"He was absolutely instrumental in helping us find the best way to put Dora forward in terms of culture," said Gifford. Cortes advised that Dora should always be inclusive, so producers decided not to give her a particular country of origin.
"I am delighted with the way 'Dora' has come out, particularly the impact it seems to be having in young people," said Cortes, professor emeritus of history at the University of California, Riverside. "The Latino kids take pride having Dora as a lead character and non-Latino kids can embrace someone different."
"I think that Dora has a very specific special relationship with kids at home, not necessarily for being bilingual but as a powerful character who invites kids on adventures," says Brown Johnson, president, Animation, Nickelodeon and MTVN Kids and Family Group. "Here, Spanish words open doors."
In "Dora The Explorer," the Latin flavor is present not only in the language and Dora's features but also in characters such as Isa the Iguana and Tico the Squirrel, scenes, themes and family values. The little star invites her young, preschool viewers to come with her on an adventure, where she usually faces a problem that she cannot resolve by herself.
Dora asks her audience to answer questions in an interactive show that includes silences that are long enough for viewers to suggest an answer.
"The kids are feeling good about putting together the puzzle bridge (that will solve the problem). ... Dora needs THEIR help!" says Walsh Valdes.
Each episode relies on the advice of educators and cultural experts, and can take more than a year to produce, in part because not one gets into the air without first being screened in front of the most honest and feared jury: at least 75 children. "Just the heartbreak to see those kids disappointed! We really take it personally. ... These 3 year olds," Gifford said. They really listen to the children, said Walsh Valdes.
Dora's voice has been portrayed the last three years by Caitlin Sanchez. The 14-year-old succeeded the original voice of Dora, Kathleen Herles, when she left to go to college.
"It's really an honor to play an icon," said Sanchez, who enjoys making the voice of the Latina idol in front of her little fans, who immediately recognize it: "It's Dora!" "She's got Dora inside her mouth!"
"Dora is like the most helping person in the world," the young actress said. "I have learned a lot from her, too. ... She's a great role model."
Stars such as Angelina Jolie and Salma Hayek have spoken about the relationship of Dora with their families.
"There's a 'Dora The Explorer' (episode) where Dora's mom has twins - a boy and a girl," Jolie told People magazine in 2008, noting how her older children got ready for the arrival of her own twins. "They watched that a lot."
"I love Dora! She's been such a part of my relationship with my child," said Hayek at the show's 10th anniversary press conference in March. "I love that it's bilingual and that she's a heroine who has Latin roots."
Meanwhile, a Dora balloon made its debut in Macy's 2005 Thanksgiving Day Parade in New York, the first time for a Latino character.
"It's flattering, but it also speaks about how Dora has transcended from just being a preschool show. There's something really amazing in her ability to cross over," said Walsh Valdes.
"Dora" has aired against the backdrop of the immigration debate. When the new Arizona law was announced, a photo of Dora behind bars as a suspected illegal immigrant made the rounds on the Internet.
Such is the influence of Dora, Cortes said, that future fans could affect the political future of America. A 5-year-old viewer in 2000 is now 15.
"It will be another three years until they go to college and be able to vote, and I think we may see a difference. You can't be certain, but our hope is that young people of all backgrounds will be more open," he said. "If Dora can do that, her impact is unimaginable."
Comment:
Dora behind bars?! NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
Unfortunately, Cortes is quite right. They have done an excellent job of brainwashing the children, and when they become voters, we will all be paying the price - unless we stop them in the near future. Time is running out folks. It's now or never!
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Guard troops to deploy to Arizona border on Monday
AP
8/27/10
PHOENIX - The first of 532 National Guard troops are set to begin their mission in the southern Arizona desert on Monday under President Barack Obama's plan to beef up U.S.-Mexico border security, although they won't have any law enforcement authority.
Authorities would not say how many troops would start Monday, but said waves of them will be deploying every Monday until all 532 are on the Arizona border, likely by the end of September. In May, Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the border.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the first of 224 National Guard troops allocated for his state have finished their training and are expected to be deployed to the state's border on Wednesday.
Troops in New Mexico were in different stages of training and don't yet know when they'll be deployed on the border. A Texas National Guard spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.
The troops will be "extra eyes and ears" for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, and though they will have guns for self-defense, they will not have the authority to arrest anyone, said Arizona National Guard spokesman Lt. Valentine Castillo.
He said if troops spot illegal immigrants, they must report them to the Border Patrol, whose agents would make the arrest.
The troops will be stationed in the desert at "strategic locations" along the border, he said, but did not provide specifics.
Mario Escalante, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, said the troops will use binoculars, night-vision equipment, remote cameras and computers to conduct surveillance on the border, and will have radios to communicate with Border Patrol agents.
They'll be set up at high points in various locations in the desert, he said.
"Having those resources and deploying them adequately makes us more effective," he said.
Obama was all but compelled to act on illegal immigration after the passage of a tough new Arizona law thrust the border problem into the public spotlight.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cited government inaction when she signed the law, which reignited that national illegal immigration debate, caused the governor's popularity to soar in the state and turned her into a national figure.
The law went into effect July 29 after a judge ruled to block its most controversial sections, including a part that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Brewer is appealing the decision and says she'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Brewer has been a sharp critic of the National Guard deployment, saying the troops aren't enough and that Obama should have sent 6,000 along the border, half of them to Arizona.
But in March 2009, Brewer wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking for 250 National Guard troops, less than half the amount now being sent.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman did not immediately return a call for comment Friday afternoon.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, whose territory is along the Mexico border and includes Nogales, said any additional manpower on the border is welcome and will help.
"It's definitely a start," he said. "Any more boots on the ground, they'll make things safer and it'll make the border more secure, especially for the Border Patrol-they have a humongous task out there, not only with illegal immigration but drugs."
But he said there'd have to be "thousands and thousands" of troops on the border to come close to having any major impact on illegal immigration.
"The border will never be sealed," he said. "They'll find ways to go under it (through tunnels), go through ports of entry with false documents or false claims; they find ways of going over, and they find ways to go around it."
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
Comment:
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
And a bloody lot of good it did. The problem is worse now than it's ever been. This is indeed a start, but that's all. We need at least five times that amount if we hope to properly seal the borders. And we have more than enough troops available. All we need do is stop those ridiculous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home and deploy them along the border. The problem is that that makes too much sense. You know the government. If it makes sense, they'll never do it. They always seem to have some technical piece of bureaucratic red tape as to why they can't.
You know, I'm really surprised that some left wing groups aren't crying racism over this action. Maybe they have, and I've just not heard about it yet. Well, I'll let you know if I do.
8/27/10
PHOENIX - The first of 532 National Guard troops are set to begin their mission in the southern Arizona desert on Monday under President Barack Obama's plan to beef up U.S.-Mexico border security, although they won't have any law enforcement authority.
Authorities would not say how many troops would start Monday, but said waves of them will be deploying every Monday until all 532 are on the Arizona border, likely by the end of September. In May, Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the border.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the first of 224 National Guard troops allocated for his state have finished their training and are expected to be deployed to the state's border on Wednesday.
Troops in New Mexico were in different stages of training and don't yet know when they'll be deployed on the border. A Texas National Guard spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.
The troops will be "extra eyes and ears" for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, and though they will have guns for self-defense, they will not have the authority to arrest anyone, said Arizona National Guard spokesman Lt. Valentine Castillo.
He said if troops spot illegal immigrants, they must report them to the Border Patrol, whose agents would make the arrest.
The troops will be stationed in the desert at "strategic locations" along the border, he said, but did not provide specifics.
Mario Escalante, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, said the troops will use binoculars, night-vision equipment, remote cameras and computers to conduct surveillance on the border, and will have radios to communicate with Border Patrol agents.
They'll be set up at high points in various locations in the desert, he said.
"Having those resources and deploying them adequately makes us more effective," he said.
Obama was all but compelled to act on illegal immigration after the passage of a tough new Arizona law thrust the border problem into the public spotlight.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cited government inaction when she signed the law, which reignited that national illegal immigration debate, caused the governor's popularity to soar in the state and turned her into a national figure.
The law went into effect July 29 after a judge ruled to block its most controversial sections, including a part that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Brewer is appealing the decision and says she'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Brewer has been a sharp critic of the National Guard deployment, saying the troops aren't enough and that Obama should have sent 6,000 along the border, half of them to Arizona.
But in March 2009, Brewer wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking for 250 National Guard troops, less than half the amount now being sent.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman did not immediately return a call for comment Friday afternoon.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, whose territory is along the Mexico border and includes Nogales, said any additional manpower on the border is welcome and will help.
"It's definitely a start," he said. "Any more boots on the ground, they'll make things safer and it'll make the border more secure, especially for the Border Patrol-they have a humongous task out there, not only with illegal immigration but drugs."
But he said there'd have to be "thousands and thousands" of troops on the border to come close to having any major impact on illegal immigration.
"The border will never be sealed," he said. "They'll find ways to go under it (through tunnels), go through ports of entry with false documents or false claims; they find ways of going over, and they find ways to go around it."
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
Comment:
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
And a bloody lot of good it did. The problem is worse now than it's ever been. This is indeed a start, but that's all. We need at least five times that amount if we hope to properly seal the borders. And we have more than enough troops available. All we need do is stop those ridiculous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home and deploy them along the border. The problem is that that makes too much sense. You know the government. If it makes sense, they'll never do it. They always seem to have some technical piece of bureaucratic red tape as to why they can't.
You know, I'm really surprised that some left wing groups aren't crying racism over this action. Maybe they have, and I've just not heard about it yet. Well, I'll let you know if I do.
Guard troops to deploy to Arizona border on Monday
AP
8/27/10
PHOENIX - The first of 532 National Guard troops are set to begin their mission in the southern Arizona desert on Monday under President Barack Obama's plan to beef up U.S.-Mexico border security, although they won't have any law enforcement authority.
Authorities would not say how many troops would start Monday, but said waves of them will be deploying every Monday until all 532 are on the Arizona border, likely by the end of September. In May, Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the border.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the first of 224 National Guard troops allocated for his state have finished their training and are expected to be deployed to the state's border on Wednesday.
Troops in New Mexico were in different stages of training and don't yet know when they'll be deployed on the border. A Texas National Guard spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.
The troops will be "extra eyes and ears" for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, and though they will have guns for self-defense, they will not have the authority to arrest anyone, said Arizona National Guard spokesman Lt. Valentine Castillo.
He said if troops spot illegal immigrants, they must report them to the Border Patrol, whose agents would make the arrest.
The troops will be stationed in the desert at "strategic locations" along the border, he said, but did not provide specifics.
Mario Escalante, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, said the troops will use binoculars, night-vision equipment, remote cameras and computers to conduct surveillance on the border, and will have radios to communicate with Border Patrol agents.
They'll be set up at high points in various locations in the desert, he said.
"Having those resources and deploying them adequately makes us more effective," he said.
Obama was all but compelled to act on illegal immigration after the passage of a tough new Arizona law thrust the border problem into the public spotlight.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cited government inaction when she signed the law, which reignited that national illegal immigration debate, caused the governor's popularity to soar in the state and turned her into a national figure.
The law went into effect July 29 after a judge ruled to block its most controversial sections, including a part that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Brewer is appealing the decision and says she'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Brewer has been a sharp critic of the National Guard deployment, saying the troops aren't enough and that Obama should have sent 6,000 along the border, half of them to Arizona.
But in March 2009, Brewer wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking for 250 National Guard troops, less than half the amount now being sent.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman did not immediately return a call for comment Friday afternoon.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, whose territory is along the Mexico border and includes Nogales, said any additional manpower on the border is welcome and will help.
"It's definitely a start," he said. "Any more boots on the ground, they'll make things safer and it'll make the border more secure, especially for the Border Patrol-they have a humongous task out there, not only with illegal immigration but drugs."
But he said there'd have to be "thousands and thousands" of troops on the border to come close to having any major impact on illegal immigration.
"The border will never be sealed," he said. "They'll find ways to go under it (through tunnels), go through ports of entry with false documents or false claims; they find ways of going over, and they find ways to go around it."
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
Comment:
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
And a bloody lot of good it did. The problem is worse now than it's ever been. This is indeed a start, but that's all. We need at least five times that amount if we hope to properly seal the borders. And we have more than enough troops available. All we need do is stop those ridiculous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home and deploy them along the border. The problem is that that makes too much sense. You know the government. If it makes sense, they'll never do it. They always seem to have some technical piece of bureaucratic red tape as to why they can't.
You know, I'm really surprised that some left wing groups aren't crying racism over this action. Maybe they have, and I've just not heard about it yet. Well, I'll let you know if I do.
8/27/10
PHOENIX - The first of 532 National Guard troops are set to begin their mission in the southern Arizona desert on Monday under President Barack Obama's plan to beef up U.S.-Mexico border security, although they won't have any law enforcement authority.
Authorities would not say how many troops would start Monday, but said waves of them will be deploying every Monday until all 532 are on the Arizona border, likely by the end of September. In May, Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the border.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the first of 224 National Guard troops allocated for his state have finished their training and are expected to be deployed to the state's border on Wednesday.
Troops in New Mexico were in different stages of training and don't yet know when they'll be deployed on the border. A Texas National Guard spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment.
The troops will be "extra eyes and ears" for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, and though they will have guns for self-defense, they will not have the authority to arrest anyone, said Arizona National Guard spokesman Lt. Valentine Castillo.
He said if troops spot illegal immigrants, they must report them to the Border Patrol, whose agents would make the arrest.
The troops will be stationed in the desert at "strategic locations" along the border, he said, but did not provide specifics.
Mario Escalante, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, said the troops will use binoculars, night-vision equipment, remote cameras and computers to conduct surveillance on the border, and will have radios to communicate with Border Patrol agents.
They'll be set up at high points in various locations in the desert, he said.
"Having those resources and deploying them adequately makes us more effective," he said.
Obama was all but compelled to act on illegal immigration after the passage of a tough new Arizona law thrust the border problem into the public spotlight.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer cited government inaction when she signed the law, which reignited that national illegal immigration debate, caused the governor's popularity to soar in the state and turned her into a national figure.
The law went into effect July 29 after a judge ruled to block its most controversial sections, including a part that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. Brewer is appealing the decision and says she'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Brewer has been a sharp critic of the National Guard deployment, saying the troops aren't enough and that Obama should have sent 6,000 along the border, half of them to Arizona.
But in March 2009, Brewer wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking for 250 National Guard troops, less than half the amount now being sent.
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman did not immediately return a call for comment Friday afternoon.
Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, whose territory is along the Mexico border and includes Nogales, said any additional manpower on the border is welcome and will help.
"It's definitely a start," he said. "Any more boots on the ground, they'll make things safer and it'll make the border more secure, especially for the Border Patrol-they have a humongous task out there, not only with illegal immigration but drugs."
But he said there'd have to be "thousands and thousands" of troops on the border to come close to having any major impact on illegal immigration.
"The border will never be sealed," he said. "They'll find ways to go under it (through tunnels), go through ports of entry with false documents or false claims; they find ways of going over, and they find ways to go around it."
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
Comment:
Former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border in June 2006, and they also had no arrest power. Those troops were pulled out in July 2008.
And a bloody lot of good it did. The problem is worse now than it's ever been. This is indeed a start, but that's all. We need at least five times that amount if we hope to properly seal the borders. And we have more than enough troops available. All we need do is stop those ridiculous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bring our troops home and deploy them along the border. The problem is that that makes too much sense. You know the government. If it makes sense, they'll never do it. They always seem to have some technical piece of bureaucratic red tape as to why they can't.
You know, I'm really surprised that some left wing groups aren't crying racism over this action. Maybe they have, and I've just not heard about it yet. Well, I'll let you know if I do.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Gov. Brewer Condemns Report To UN Mentioning Ariz. Law
Associated Press
8/27/10
PHOENIX - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Comment:
If I were an Arizonan, she'd have my vote! Yeah, yeah Rocky, I know how you feel about voting for either Democrats or Republicans. But I always say that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about things. Despite all our activism, we do do a lot of complaining about things!
Associated Press
8/27/10
PHOENIX - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Comment:
If I were an Arizonan, she'd have my vote! Yeah, yeah Rocky, I know how you feel about voting for either Democrats or Republicans. But I always say that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about things. Despite all our activism, we do do a lot of complaining about things!
Gov. Brewer Condemns Report To UN Mentioning Ariz. Law
Associated Press
8/27/10
PHOENIX - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Comment:
If I were an Arizonan, she'd have my vote! Yeah, yeah Rocky, I know how you feel about voting for either Democrats or Republicans. But I always say that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about things. Despite all our activism, we do do a lot of complaining about things!
Associated Press
8/27/10
PHOENIX - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Arizona's law generally requires police officer enforcing other laws to investigate the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.
Critics say it would lead officers to target Hispanics. Supporters, including Brewer, say the law prohibits racial profiling and other human rights abuses.
The U.S. Justice Department sued to block the measure, arguing federal law trumps the state's authority to enforce immigration laws.
A federal judge in July sided with the Justice Department and blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions a day before it was scheduled to take effect.
In its report, the State Department does not specifically allege that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling.
"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world," the report says. "The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
A State Department spokesman had no immediate comment on Brewer's letter.
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
Comment:
If I were an Arizonan, she'd have my vote! Yeah, yeah Rocky, I know how you feel about voting for either Democrats or Republicans. But I always say that if you don't vote, you have no right to complain about things. Despite all our activism, we do do a lot of complaining about things!
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
California Fears Controversial Texas Curriculum is Contagious
by Alison Leithner June 02, 2010 06:21 AM (PT) Topics: Curricula & Methods, Education Reform, School Boards
Despite reassurances from publishers that market demand, not Texas, controls what gets printed, many states, including California, are still concerned that elements of the Texas curriculum will end up in their textbooks. On May 28th, the California Senate voted in favor of Senate Bill 1451, which requires the California Board of Education to monitor for Texas's adaptations in their textbooks.
The board will review all history and social studies texts that will be used in California classrooms and report any information that conforms to the new Texas standards but not the existing California ones. A special focus will be given to the inclusion and accurate portrayal of minorities in U.S. history.
California's bill passed in a bipartisan vote of 25-5, indicating that Republicans in California, just as in many other states, disapprove of the religious and majority-focused changes made in the Texas curriculum. Now, the bill must go to the Assembly and then on to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk before it can go into effect for the 2010-2011 school year.
Since the controversial social studies curriculum was adopted in Texas two weeks ago, textbook publishers have tried to quell concerns that books in all fifty states will reflect the changes. Publishers and market research companies agree that because of technological advances in recent years, it is far easier (and cheaper) to make different textbooks for different markets.
What this means is that publishers are already planning to create multiple editions of history and social studies textbooks. School districts will have the option of following the new Texas curriculum or of steering clear of it. This is a wise move considering the violent response from many state school boards and districts when word came down that the Texas Board of Education had approved the new curriculum. If a publisher only prints textbooks that conform to these changes, they stand to lose a lot of money from the bluer states and school districts.
www.change.org
Comment:
The California State government seems quite concerned over the possibility that their children might be taught conservative values. That would be terrible, wouldn't it?
Now let's recap California's liberal accomplishments. They bankrupted the state. They want to legalise marijuana. They want to legalise queer marriage. They have more companies that produce pornographic trash than any other state. They have made illegal aliens more welcome than any other state. They have one of the worst school systems in the country due to falling standardized test scores. And all thanks to liberalism.
Despite reassurances from publishers that market demand, not Texas, controls what gets printed, many states, including California, are still concerned that elements of the Texas curriculum will end up in their textbooks. On May 28th, the California Senate voted in favor of Senate Bill 1451, which requires the California Board of Education to monitor for Texas's adaptations in their textbooks.
The board will review all history and social studies texts that will be used in California classrooms and report any information that conforms to the new Texas standards but not the existing California ones. A special focus will be given to the inclusion and accurate portrayal of minorities in U.S. history.
California's bill passed in a bipartisan vote of 25-5, indicating that Republicans in California, just as in many other states, disapprove of the religious and majority-focused changes made in the Texas curriculum. Now, the bill must go to the Assembly and then on to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk before it can go into effect for the 2010-2011 school year.
Since the controversial social studies curriculum was adopted in Texas two weeks ago, textbook publishers have tried to quell concerns that books in all fifty states will reflect the changes. Publishers and market research companies agree that because of technological advances in recent years, it is far easier (and cheaper) to make different textbooks for different markets.
What this means is that publishers are already planning to create multiple editions of history and social studies textbooks. School districts will have the option of following the new Texas curriculum or of steering clear of it. This is a wise move considering the violent response from many state school boards and districts when word came down that the Texas Board of Education had approved the new curriculum. If a publisher only prints textbooks that conform to these changes, they stand to lose a lot of money from the bluer states and school districts.
www.change.org
Comment:
The California State government seems quite concerned over the possibility that their children might be taught conservative values. That would be terrible, wouldn't it?
Now let's recap California's liberal accomplishments. They bankrupted the state. They want to legalise marijuana. They want to legalise queer marriage. They have more companies that produce pornographic trash than any other state. They have made illegal aliens more welcome than any other state. They have one of the worst school systems in the country due to falling standardized test scores. And all thanks to liberalism.
California Fears Controversial Texas Curriculum is Contagious
by Alison Leithner June 02, 2010 06:21 AM (PT) Topics: Curricula & Methods, Education Reform, School Boards
Despite reassurances from publishers that market demand, not Texas, controls what gets printed, many states, including California, are still concerned that elements of the Texas curriculum will end up in their textbooks. On May 28th, the California Senate voted in favor of Senate Bill 1451, which requires the California Board of Education to monitor for Texas's adaptations in their textbooks.
The board will review all history and social studies texts that will be used in California classrooms and report any information that conforms to the new Texas standards but not the existing California ones. A special focus will be given to the inclusion and accurate portrayal of minorities in U.S. history.
California's bill passed in a bipartisan vote of 25-5, indicating that Republicans in California, just as in many other states, disapprove of the religious and majority-focused changes made in the Texas curriculum. Now, the bill must go to the Assembly and then on to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk before it can go into effect for the 2010-2011 school year.
Since the controversial social studies curriculum was adopted in Texas two weeks ago, textbook publishers have tried to quell concerns that books in all fifty states will reflect the changes. Publishers and market research companies agree that because of technological advances in recent years, it is far easier (and cheaper) to make different textbooks for different markets.
What this means is that publishers are already planning to create multiple editions of history and social studies textbooks. School districts will have the option of following the new Texas curriculum or of steering clear of it. This is a wise move considering the violent response from many state school boards and districts when word came down that the Texas Board of Education had approved the new curriculum. If a publisher only prints textbooks that conform to these changes, they stand to lose a lot of money from the bluer states and school districts.
www.change.org
Comment:
The California State government seems quite concerned over the possibility that their children might be taught conservative values. That would be terrible, wouldn't it?
Now let's recap California's liberal accomplishments. They bankrupted the state. They want to legalise marijuana. They want to legalise queer marriage. They have more companies that produce pornographic trash than any other state. They have made illegal aliens more welcome than any other state. They have one of the worst school systems in the country due to falling standardized test scores. And all thanks to liberalism.
Despite reassurances from publishers that market demand, not Texas, controls what gets printed, many states, including California, are still concerned that elements of the Texas curriculum will end up in their textbooks. On May 28th, the California Senate voted in favor of Senate Bill 1451, which requires the California Board of Education to monitor for Texas's adaptations in their textbooks.
The board will review all history and social studies texts that will be used in California classrooms and report any information that conforms to the new Texas standards but not the existing California ones. A special focus will be given to the inclusion and accurate portrayal of minorities in U.S. history.
California's bill passed in a bipartisan vote of 25-5, indicating that Republicans in California, just as in many other states, disapprove of the religious and majority-focused changes made in the Texas curriculum. Now, the bill must go to the Assembly and then on to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk before it can go into effect for the 2010-2011 school year.
Since the controversial social studies curriculum was adopted in Texas two weeks ago, textbook publishers have tried to quell concerns that books in all fifty states will reflect the changes. Publishers and market research companies agree that because of technological advances in recent years, it is far easier (and cheaper) to make different textbooks for different markets.
What this means is that publishers are already planning to create multiple editions of history and social studies textbooks. School districts will have the option of following the new Texas curriculum or of steering clear of it. This is a wise move considering the violent response from many state school boards and districts when word came down that the Texas Board of Education had approved the new curriculum. If a publisher only prints textbooks that conform to these changes, they stand to lose a lot of money from the bluer states and school districts.
www.change.org
Comment:
The California State government seems quite concerned over the possibility that their children might be taught conservative values. That would be terrible, wouldn't it?
Now let's recap California's liberal accomplishments. They bankrupted the state. They want to legalise marijuana. They want to legalise queer marriage. They have more companies that produce pornographic trash than any other state. They have made illegal aliens more welcome than any other state. They have one of the worst school systems in the country due to falling standardized test scores. And all thanks to liberalism.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Texas School Board Passes Controversial Social Studies Curriculum
by Alison Leithner May 24, 2010 03:31 AM (PT) Topics: Curricula & Methods, Education Reform, Religion & Education, School Boards
In a 9-5 vote, the Texas School Board passed controversial changes to the state's social studies curriculum on May 21. The new curriculum, to take effect in August of 2011, has been under the microscope for the past few months due to its strong lean towards ultra-conservative ideas.
Some of the adjustments to the curriculum include focusing on the impact of conservative groups and not discussing the influence of associations labeled as liberal or minority. There will be no requirement to talk about the career of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, though more focus will be given to former president Reagan's legacy. In addition, a positive light will be shone on Senator Joe McCarthy, the power behind the 1950s hunt for Communists on U.S. soil that resulted in the ruined lives of countless Americans.
One of the arguments in support of the changes is that current textbooks are too left centric and liberal in the topics they cover. People argue that history is supposed to equally represent all sides. Few would contest this statement. However, the cries of outrage from Americans across the country at many of the now accepted changes suggest that the new curriculum still gives a biased account of historical events. The indignation doesn't just come from liberals either. Former Education Secretary Rod Paige, a conservative who served under former president George W. Bush, denounced the new curriculum as being a vehicle for political views and not an accurate representation of history.
Don McLeod, the now infamous dentist credited with leading the conservative members of the school board, recently wrote that "the left...focus on differences not unity," which is why the textbooks required adaptations. Considering the motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one), that seems like an appropriate approach to United States history. It took many different people of many different ethnic, religious and ideological backgrounds to establish the America we know today. These people should all be equally represented in our textbooks: the conservative, the liberal, the majority, the minority and everyone in between.
Texas's new curriculum is not a step towards remembering "what it means to be an American" as Mr. McLeod claims. It is a politically motivated piece of work that will end up hurting America's most important asset: her children.
www.change.org
Comment:
Great news from Texas! Someone finally is teaching the children that it's Okay to be conservative, instead of that libertard trash they're taught, especially here in California. Leave it to the Texans to stand up against the Jew run educational systems that have been brainwashing our children into the so-called modern lifestyles, including "alternate lifestyles".
My main concern is that somehow, the libertards will get this issue to the Supreme Court, and we all have a fairly good idea how they'll rule. Of course, they may uphold the new curriculum. Every now and again they surprise us and rule on the side of the conservatives.
In a 9-5 vote, the Texas School Board passed controversial changes to the state's social studies curriculum on May 21. The new curriculum, to take effect in August of 2011, has been under the microscope for the past few months due to its strong lean towards ultra-conservative ideas.
Some of the adjustments to the curriculum include focusing on the impact of conservative groups and not discussing the influence of associations labeled as liberal or minority. There will be no requirement to talk about the career of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, though more focus will be given to former president Reagan's legacy. In addition, a positive light will be shone on Senator Joe McCarthy, the power behind the 1950s hunt for Communists on U.S. soil that resulted in the ruined lives of countless Americans.
One of the arguments in support of the changes is that current textbooks are too left centric and liberal in the topics they cover. People argue that history is supposed to equally represent all sides. Few would contest this statement. However, the cries of outrage from Americans across the country at many of the now accepted changes suggest that the new curriculum still gives a biased account of historical events. The indignation doesn't just come from liberals either. Former Education Secretary Rod Paige, a conservative who served under former president George W. Bush, denounced the new curriculum as being a vehicle for political views and not an accurate representation of history.
Don McLeod, the now infamous dentist credited with leading the conservative members of the school board, recently wrote that "the left...focus on differences not unity," which is why the textbooks required adaptations. Considering the motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one), that seems like an appropriate approach to United States history. It took many different people of many different ethnic, religious and ideological backgrounds to establish the America we know today. These people should all be equally represented in our textbooks: the conservative, the liberal, the majority, the minority and everyone in between.
Texas's new curriculum is not a step towards remembering "what it means to be an American" as Mr. McLeod claims. It is a politically motivated piece of work that will end up hurting America's most important asset: her children.
www.change.org
Comment:
Great news from Texas! Someone finally is teaching the children that it's Okay to be conservative, instead of that libertard trash they're taught, especially here in California. Leave it to the Texans to stand up against the Jew run educational systems that have been brainwashing our children into the so-called modern lifestyles, including "alternate lifestyles".
My main concern is that somehow, the libertards will get this issue to the Supreme Court, and we all have a fairly good idea how they'll rule. Of course, they may uphold the new curriculum. Every now and again they surprise us and rule on the side of the conservatives.
Texas School Board Passes Controversial Social Studies Curriculum
by Alison Leithner May 24, 2010 03:31 AM (PT) Topics: Curricula & Methods, Education Reform, Religion & Education, School Boards
In a 9-5 vote, the Texas School Board passed controversial changes to the state's social studies curriculum on May 21. The new curriculum, to take effect in August of 2011, has been under the microscope for the past few months due to its strong lean towards ultra-conservative ideas.
Some of the adjustments to the curriculum include focusing on the impact of conservative groups and not discussing the influence of associations labeled as liberal or minority. There will be no requirement to talk about the career of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, though more focus will be given to former president Reagan's legacy. In addition, a positive light will be shone on Senator Joe McCarthy, the power behind the 1950s hunt for Communists on U.S. soil that resulted in the ruined lives of countless Americans.
One of the arguments in support of the changes is that current textbooks are too left centric and liberal in the topics they cover. People argue that history is supposed to equally represent all sides. Few would contest this statement. However, the cries of outrage from Americans across the country at many of the now accepted changes suggest that the new curriculum still gives a biased account of historical events. The indignation doesn't just come from liberals either. Former Education Secretary Rod Paige, a conservative who served under former president George W. Bush, denounced the new curriculum as being a vehicle for political views and not an accurate representation of history.
Don McLeod, the now infamous dentist credited with leading the conservative members of the school board, recently wrote that "the left...focus on differences not unity," which is why the textbooks required adaptations. Considering the motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one), that seems like an appropriate approach to United States history. It took many different people of many different ethnic, religious and ideological backgrounds to establish the America we know today. These people should all be equally represented in our textbooks: the conservative, the liberal, the majority, the minority and everyone in between.
Texas's new curriculum is not a step towards remembering "what it means to be an American" as Mr. McLeod claims. It is a politically motivated piece of work that will end up hurting America's most important asset: her children.
www.change.org
Comment:
Great news from Texas! Someone finally is teaching the children that it's Okay to be conservative, instead of that libertard trash they're taught, especially here in California. Leave it to the Texans to stand up against the Jew run educational systems that have been brainwashing our children into the so-called modern lifestyles, including "alternate lifestyles".
My main concern is that somehow, the libertards will get this issue to the Supreme Court, and we all have a fairly good idea how they'll rule. Of course, they may uphold the new curriculum. Every now and again they surprise us and rule on the side of the conservatives.
In a 9-5 vote, the Texas School Board passed controversial changes to the state's social studies curriculum on May 21. The new curriculum, to take effect in August of 2011, has been under the microscope for the past few months due to its strong lean towards ultra-conservative ideas.
Some of the adjustments to the curriculum include focusing on the impact of conservative groups and not discussing the influence of associations labeled as liberal or minority. There will be no requirement to talk about the career of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, though more focus will be given to former president Reagan's legacy. In addition, a positive light will be shone on Senator Joe McCarthy, the power behind the 1950s hunt for Communists on U.S. soil that resulted in the ruined lives of countless Americans.
One of the arguments in support of the changes is that current textbooks are too left centric and liberal in the topics they cover. People argue that history is supposed to equally represent all sides. Few would contest this statement. However, the cries of outrage from Americans across the country at many of the now accepted changes suggest that the new curriculum still gives a biased account of historical events. The indignation doesn't just come from liberals either. Former Education Secretary Rod Paige, a conservative who served under former president George W. Bush, denounced the new curriculum as being a vehicle for political views and not an accurate representation of history.
Don McLeod, the now infamous dentist credited with leading the conservative members of the school board, recently wrote that "the left...focus on differences not unity," which is why the textbooks required adaptations. Considering the motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one), that seems like an appropriate approach to United States history. It took many different people of many different ethnic, religious and ideological backgrounds to establish the America we know today. These people should all be equally represented in our textbooks: the conservative, the liberal, the majority, the minority and everyone in between.
Texas's new curriculum is not a step towards remembering "what it means to be an American" as Mr. McLeod claims. It is a politically motivated piece of work that will end up hurting America's most important asset: her children.
www.change.org
Comment:
Great news from Texas! Someone finally is teaching the children that it's Okay to be conservative, instead of that libertard trash they're taught, especially here in California. Leave it to the Texans to stand up against the Jew run educational systems that have been brainwashing our children into the so-called modern lifestyles, including "alternate lifestyles".
My main concern is that somehow, the libertards will get this issue to the Supreme Court, and we all have a fairly good idea how they'll rule. Of course, they may uphold the new curriculum. Every now and again they surprise us and rule on the side of the conservatives.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Burden Of Illegal Aliens On American Society
WASHINGTON - While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens - men, women and children - were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers - for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one - in or out of government - tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked - and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day - a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests - some eight arrests per illegal alien.
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses - some 13 offenses per illegal alien. 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." states "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
Comment:
And the liberals have the gall to tells us that these parasites are vital to the American economy. Any idiot can see that we're better off without them!
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers - for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one - in or out of government - tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked - and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day - a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests - some eight arrests per illegal alien.
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses - some 13 offenses per illegal alien. 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." states "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
Comment:
And the liberals have the gall to tells us that these parasites are vital to the American economy. Any idiot can see that we're better off without them!
The Burden Of Illegal Aliens On American Society
WASHINGTON - While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens - men, women and children - were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers - for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one - in or out of government - tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked - and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day - a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests - some eight arrests per illegal alien.
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses - some 13 offenses per illegal alien. 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." states "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
Comment:
And the liberals have the gall to tells us that these parasites are vital to the American economy. Any idiot can see that we're better off without them!
Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.
Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.
Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.
But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.
While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers - for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.
While no one - in or out of government - tracks all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.
A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.
Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked - and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.
King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day - a total of 2,920 annually.
Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.
As the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increases, so does the number of American victims.
According to Edwin Rubenstien, president of ESR Research Economic Consultants, in Indianapolis in 1980, federal and state correctional facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. But at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in all U.S. jails and prisons.
While the federal government doesn't track illegal alien murders, illegal alien rapes or illegal alien drunk driving deaths, it has studied illegal aliens incarcerated in U.S. prisons.
In April 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:
The 55,322 illegal aliens studied represented a total of 459,614 arrests - some eight arrests per illegal alien.
Their arrests represented a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses - some 13 offenses per illegal alien. 36 percent had been arrested at least five times before.
Peter Wagner, author of a new report called "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration." states "That is part of the dark side of illegal immigration and when we allow the 'good' in we get the 'bad' along with them. The question is, how much 'bad' is acceptable and at what price?"
Comment:
And the liberals have the gall to tells us that these parasites are vital to the American economy. Any idiot can see that we're better off without them!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Israel To Attack Iran Nuclear Facility Before It Becomes Active & Immune
Neocon Says Israel Is Set To Attack Iran Over Nuclear Program
News that Russia will load nuclear fuel rods into an Iranian reactor has touched off a countdown to a point of no return, a deadline by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran's Bushehr reactor before it becomes effectively "immune" to any assault, says former Bush administration U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.
Once the fuel rods are loaded, Bolton told Fox News on Friday afternoon, "it makes it essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf."
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared in March that Russia would start the Bushehr reactor this summer. But the announcement from a spokesman for Russia's state atomic agency to Reuters Friday sent international diplomats scrambling to head off a crisis.
The story immediately became front-page news in Israel, which has laid precise plans to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities while going along with President Obama's plans to use international sanctions and diplomatic persuasion to convince Iran's clerics not to go nuclear.Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/John...8/13/id/367449
Comment:
"The Eastern World, it is explodin'..."
News that Russia will load nuclear fuel rods into an Iranian reactor has touched off a countdown to a point of no return, a deadline by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran's Bushehr reactor before it becomes effectively "immune" to any assault, says former Bush administration U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.
Once the fuel rods are loaded, Bolton told Fox News on Friday afternoon, "it makes it essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf."
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared in March that Russia would start the Bushehr reactor this summer. But the announcement from a spokesman for Russia's state atomic agency to Reuters Friday sent international diplomats scrambling to head off a crisis.
The story immediately became front-page news in Israel, which has laid precise plans to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities while going along with President Obama's plans to use international sanctions and diplomatic persuasion to convince Iran's clerics not to go nuclear.Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/John...8/13/id/367449
Comment:
"The Eastern World, it is explodin'..."
Israel To Attack Iran Nuclear Facility Before It Becomes Active & Immune
Neocon Says Israel Is Set To Attack Iran Over Nuclear Program
News that Russia will load nuclear fuel rods into an Iranian reactor has touched off a countdown to a point of no return, a deadline by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran's Bushehr reactor before it becomes effectively "immune" to any assault, says former Bush administration U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.
Once the fuel rods are loaded, Bolton told Fox News on Friday afternoon, "it makes it essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf."
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared in March that Russia would start the Bushehr reactor this summer. But the announcement from a spokesman for Russia's state atomic agency to Reuters Friday sent international diplomats scrambling to head off a crisis.
The story immediately became front-page news in Israel, which has laid precise plans to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities while going along with President Obama's plans to use international sanctions and diplomatic persuasion to convince Iran's clerics not to go nuclear.Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/John...8/13/id/367449
Comment:
"The Eastern World, it is explodin'..."
News that Russia will load nuclear fuel rods into an Iranian reactor has touched off a countdown to a point of no return, a deadline by which Israel would have to launch an attack on Iran's Bushehr reactor before it becomes effectively "immune" to any assault, says former Bush administration U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton.
Once the fuel rods are loaded, Bolton told Fox News on Friday afternoon, "it makes it essentially immune from attack by Israel. Because once the rods are in the reactor an attack on the reactor risks spreading radiation in the air, and perhaps into the water of the Persian Gulf."
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin declared in March that Russia would start the Bushehr reactor this summer. But the announcement from a spokesman for Russia's state atomic agency to Reuters Friday sent international diplomats scrambling to head off a crisis.
The story immediately became front-page news in Israel, which has laid precise plans to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities while going along with President Obama's plans to use international sanctions and diplomatic persuasion to convince Iran's clerics not to go nuclear.Bolton made it clear that it is widely assumed that any Israeli attack on the Bushehr reactor must take place before the reactor is loaded with fuel rods.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/John...8/13/id/367449
Comment:
"The Eastern World, it is explodin'..."
Friday, August 20, 2010
ASSOCIATED PRESS COVERS FOR OBONGO, SAY MUSLIM ACCUSATIONS UNFOUNDED, INCORRECT
Associated Press, Aug. 19 2010
NEW YORK - "President Obama is a Muslim." "He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here."
None of this is true. But to surprising levels, it is believed.
Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems - that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.
"Trust and distrust - that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" - factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.
Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.
The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."
Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.
Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments - a white turban and a wraparound white robe - during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."
Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN - despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.
The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers - citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas - reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.
Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.
"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them - blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."
Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.
Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.
Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.
"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."
Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.
Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."
The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.
"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."
And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.
DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."
"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.
"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."
Comment:
I have to admit, that this is a brilliant piece of propaganda for Obongo. A top-notch bit of spin-control, if I do say so myself. Let's examine how this went.
Firstly, they did it 'scientific' style. They broke it down, and addressed things point by point. The public loves scientific stuff. It sounds more credible.
Secondly, that bit with Shrillary was a great touch. She only tried to cast doubt on Obongo to benefit her own presidential campaign, and for no other reason. Her little dig was professional, not personal. If she weren't also vying for the Democratic nomination herself, she most likely would have endorsed Obongo publicly.
Also, they used the old, 'accuse the accusers' trick. When you're being attacked, tear down your accusers, show the people their flaws, thereby destroying their credibility. When you're in office, casting doubt on your attackers is almost as good as totally debunking them. After all, in America you're innocent until proven guilty.
Another smart move is to blame technology. They can't yet totally control the internet, so simply say that these are nothing but rumours spread by the computer age.
I could find only one or two major flaws in this wonderful piece of propaganda. They glossed right over it. That's Obongo's true citizenship. As I've said so many times, if he would show us his real birth certificate, not only would it put that issue to rest once and for all, but he could rub our noses in it (I'd get a lot of satisfaction from that if I were him), yet he still refuses. The only possible conclusion is he is not an American citizen. Also, it was mentioned that the Mexican attacks on Laredo were nothing but rumours spread by right-wingers, without a shred of proof. Yet they do not not offer a shred of proof that they did NOT occur either. They should have said that these "so-called attacks were nothing more than a couple of gang-related shootings. Such shootings occur in major American cities nearly every week." That would be believable, since people are well aware that stories - even true ones can get more exaggerated with each person who tells it. For example, once when I was teaching middle school, our pencil sharpener broke. I sharpened my students pencils with a one inch pen knife. After school, I was called into the principal's office. She told me that it was reported that I was showing my classes my eight inch Bowie knife! When I showed her my little pen knife, we both had a big laugh.
Also, citing examples of paranoia from the Cold War Era was pretty nifty. Most people agree that Senator McCarthy was a paranoid nutjob these days, so using that, or similar things can be pretty persuasive.
All in all, it was a first-class job of pro-Obongo propaganda. I doubt that the author of this story is really a reporter. He, or she, had quite a lot of expertise in slicing baloney.
Here's a related joke: What's the difference between a Propaganda Minister and a Press Secretary? A Propaganda Minister slices the baloney, and the Press Secretary serves it!
NEW YORK - "President Obama is a Muslim." "He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here."
None of this is true. But to surprising levels, it is believed.
Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems - that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.
"Trust and distrust - that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" - factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.
Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.
The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."
Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.
Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments - a white turban and a wraparound white robe - during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."
Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN - despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.
The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers - citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas - reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.
Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.
"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them - blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."
Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.
Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.
Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.
"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."
Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.
Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."
The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.
"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."
And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.
DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."
"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.
"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."
Comment:
I have to admit, that this is a brilliant piece of propaganda for Obongo. A top-notch bit of spin-control, if I do say so myself. Let's examine how this went.
Firstly, they did it 'scientific' style. They broke it down, and addressed things point by point. The public loves scientific stuff. It sounds more credible.
Secondly, that bit with Shrillary was a great touch. She only tried to cast doubt on Obongo to benefit her own presidential campaign, and for no other reason. Her little dig was professional, not personal. If she weren't also vying for the Democratic nomination herself, she most likely would have endorsed Obongo publicly.
Also, they used the old, 'accuse the accusers' trick. When you're being attacked, tear down your accusers, show the people their flaws, thereby destroying their credibility. When you're in office, casting doubt on your attackers is almost as good as totally debunking them. After all, in America you're innocent until proven guilty.
Another smart move is to blame technology. They can't yet totally control the internet, so simply say that these are nothing but rumours spread by the computer age.
I could find only one or two major flaws in this wonderful piece of propaganda. They glossed right over it. That's Obongo's true citizenship. As I've said so many times, if he would show us his real birth certificate, not only would it put that issue to rest once and for all, but he could rub our noses in it (I'd get a lot of satisfaction from that if I were him), yet he still refuses. The only possible conclusion is he is not an American citizen. Also, it was mentioned that the Mexican attacks on Laredo were nothing but rumours spread by right-wingers, without a shred of proof. Yet they do not not offer a shred of proof that they did NOT occur either. They should have said that these "so-called attacks were nothing more than a couple of gang-related shootings. Such shootings occur in major American cities nearly every week." That would be believable, since people are well aware that stories - even true ones can get more exaggerated with each person who tells it. For example, once when I was teaching middle school, our pencil sharpener broke. I sharpened my students pencils with a one inch pen knife. After school, I was called into the principal's office. She told me that it was reported that I was showing my classes my eight inch Bowie knife! When I showed her my little pen knife, we both had a big laugh.
Also, citing examples of paranoia from the Cold War Era was pretty nifty. Most people agree that Senator McCarthy was a paranoid nutjob these days, so using that, or similar things can be pretty persuasive.
All in all, it was a first-class job of pro-Obongo propaganda. I doubt that the author of this story is really a reporter. He, or she, had quite a lot of expertise in slicing baloney.
Here's a related joke: What's the difference between a Propaganda Minister and a Press Secretary? A Propaganda Minister slices the baloney, and the Press Secretary serves it!
ASSOCIATED PRESS COVERS FOR OBONGO, SAY MUSLIM ACCUSATIONS UNFOUNDED, INCORRECT
Associated Press, Aug. 19 2010
NEW YORK - "President Obama is a Muslim." "He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here."
None of this is true. But to surprising levels, it is believed.
Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems - that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.
"Trust and distrust - that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" - factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.
Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.
The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."
Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.
Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments - a white turban and a wraparound white robe - during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."
Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN - despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.
The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers - citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas - reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.
Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.
"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them - blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."
Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.
Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.
Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.
"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."
Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.
Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."
The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.
"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."
And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.
DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."
"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.
"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."
Comment:
I have to admit, that this is a brilliant piece of propaganda for Obongo. A top-notch bit of spin-control, if I do say so myself. Let's examine how this went.
Firstly, they did it 'scientific' style. They broke it down, and addressed things point by point. The public loves scientific stuff. It sounds more credible.
Secondly, that bit with Shrillary was a great touch. She only tried to cast doubt on Obongo to benefit her own presidential campaign, and for no other reason. Her little dig was professional, not personal. If she weren't also vying for the Democratic nomination herself, she most likely would have endorsed Obongo publicly.
Also, they used the old, 'accuse the accusers' trick. When you're being attacked, tear down your accusers, show the people their flaws, thereby destroying their credibility. When you're in office, casting doubt on your attackers is almost as good as totally debunking them. After all, in America you're innocent until proven guilty.
Another smart move is to blame technology. They can't yet totally control the internet, so simply say that these are nothing but rumours spread by the computer age.
I could find only one or two major flaws in this wonderful piece of propaganda. They glossed right over it. That's Obongo's true citizenship. As I've said so many times, if he would show us his real birth certificate, not only would it put that issue to rest once and for all, but he could rub our noses in it (I'd get a lot of satisfaction from that if I were him), yet he still refuses. The only possible conclusion is he is not an American citizen. Also, it was mentioned that the Mexican attacks on Laredo were nothing but rumours spread by right-wingers, without a shred of proof. Yet they do not not offer a shred of proof that they did NOT occur either. They should have said that these "so-called attacks were nothing more than a couple of gang-related shootings. Such shootings occur in major American cities nearly every week." That would be believable, since people are well aware that stories - even true ones can get more exaggerated with each person who tells it. For example, once when I was teaching middle school, our pencil sharpener broke. I sharpened my students pencils with a one inch pen knife. After school, I was called into the principal's office. She told me that it was reported that I was showing my classes my eight inch Bowie knife! When I showed her my little pen knife, we both had a big laugh.
Also, citing examples of paranoia from the Cold War Era was pretty nifty. Most people agree that Senator McCarthy was a paranoid nutjob these days, so using that, or similar things can be pretty persuasive.
All in all, it was a first-class job of pro-Obongo propaganda. I doubt that the author of this story is really a reporter. He, or she, had quite a lot of expertise in slicing baloney.
Here's a related joke: What's the difference between a Propaganda Minister and a Press Secretary? A Propaganda Minister slices the baloney, and the Press Secretary serves it!
NEW YORK - "President Obama is a Muslim." "He's not an American citizen." "He wasn't even born here."
None of this is true. But to surprising levels, it is believed.
Blame it on the media, or on human nature. All presidents deal with image problems - that they're too weak or too belligerent, too far left or far right. But Obama also faces questions over documented facts, in part because some people identify more with the rumormongers than the debunkers.
"Trust and distrust - that explains almost all of it," says Nicholas DiFonzo, professor of psychology at the Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on rumor and gossip research. "We are in such a highly polarized political environment. Our country is sorting itself into more closely knit, opposing factions each year" - factions, DiFonzo suggests, that in turn become "echo chambers" for factoids that aren't fact at all.
Nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they think Obama is Muslim, up from the 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to a poll released Thursday. The proportion who correctly say he is a Christian is just 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.
The White House even felt compelled to respond with a terse knockdown from spokesman Bill Burton: "The president is obviously a Christian. He prays every day."
Obama is the Christian son of a Kenyan Muslim father and a Kansas mother. Born in Hawaii, he lived from ages 6 to 10 in predominantly Muslim Indonesia with his mother and Indonesian stepfather. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, sounds Muslim to many.
Confusion about Obama's religion was common, and sometimes encouraged, during the 2008 campaign. An Associated Press photograph that circulated on the Internet, and was posted on The Drudge Report, showed Obama dressed in traditional local garments - a white turban and a wraparound white robe - during a visit to Kenya in 2006. Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton may have contributed through her response to a question, during a "60 Minutes" interview, about whether he was a Muslim. "There's nothing to base that on," she said. "As far as I know."
Others have helped keep rumors about Obama's religion and birth alive. Conservative commentators including radio talk show host Michael Savage have repeated debunked claims that Obama attended a radical Muslim madrassa in Indonesia. Rush Limbaugh has facetiously referred to "Imam Obama" in recent days, and last year praised a woman who at a Delaware town hall meeting questioned Obama's citizenship. Lou Dobbs gave significant air time to such "birther" claims on CNN - despite his own insistence that he believed Obama was born in the U.S.
The new survey, conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, is based on interviews conducted before the controversy over whether Muslims should be permitted to construct a mosque near the World Trade Center site. Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center there, though he's also said he won't take a position on whether they should actually build it.
We have never been without misperceptions, but they are speeded and multiplied in the Internet age. Last month, right-wing bloggers - citing unnamed sources within the Laredo Police Department in Texas - reported that the Mexican drug cartel Zetas had captured two Laredo ranches. The story was picked up by author-pundit Michelle Malkin and other conservatives.
Inquiries from local media and the liberal Web site Talking Points Memo turned up different news: The raids never happened.
"The Internet has made it worse," says Lori Robertson, managing editor of the website FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan project run under the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Any of these rumors are more rampant, and there's more stuff about them - blogs writing about conspiracy theories. People are exposed to it more."
Robertson says her organization has been asked hundreds of times about Obama's religion, even after FactCheck published an explanatory article in early 2008 called "Sliming Obama." It focused on the chain e-mail that many believe helped spread the lie.
Despite what the e-mail claimed, FactCheck.org has noted that Obama was sworn into office as a U.S. senator using the Bible instead of the Quran; a photograph was posted to prove it. FactCheck also posted videos of Obama reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate, in an attempt to counter claims that he refused.
Still, the questions about Obama's faith didn't stop.
"Did Obama order creation of a postage stamp to honor a Muslim holiday?" FactCheck.org's answer: "The first class stamp honoring Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha was first issued eight years ago. Obama has followed Bush's practice of reaching out to Muslims on Ramadan."
Superstitions and myths are timeless and universal, and so are the people who exploit them, whether Holocaust deniers, race supremacists or conspiracy theorists.
Misinformation in the mass media age was captured by the author-columnist Walter Lippman in his classic "Public Opinion," published in 1922. Finding that world events were driven by a tiny minority manipulating the rest, Lippman noted "the comparatively meager time available in each day for paying attention to public affairs, the distortion arising because events have to be compressed into very short messages, the difficulty of making a small vocabulary express a complicated world."
The problem wasn't only with the media, but with the public.
"People, he wrote, "live in the same world, but think and feel in different ones." Lippman believed many "suffer from anemia, from lack of appetite and curiosity for the human scene."
And so millions have thought that the country was overrun with communists, that John F. Kennedy was taking orders from the pope, that AIDS spreads through casual contact, that Saddam Hussein or even the George W. Bush administration helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks. In the 1990s, when the government was running a surplus under the Clinton administration, a poll showed substantial numbers of people thought it was running a deficit.
DiFonzo was stunned when he heard one of those rumors stated as fact in his upper-level social psychology class last year. A student raised her hand and insisted, "But George Bush was behind the bombings of Sept. 11."
"She was serious," DiFonzo said, adding that he believes she accepted the rumor because other people in her life gave her the impression that it was plausible.
"This isn't a partisan thing," he said. "It's not a characteristic of Democrats or of Republicans. It's a human characteristic. It's a place that we happen to be at in our culture today. What seems outlandish is often based on what we think may be plausible."
Comment:
I have to admit, that this is a brilliant piece of propaganda for Obongo. A top-notch bit of spin-control, if I do say so myself. Let's examine how this went.
Firstly, they did it 'scientific' style. They broke it down, and addressed things point by point. The public loves scientific stuff. It sounds more credible.
Secondly, that bit with Shrillary was a great touch. She only tried to cast doubt on Obongo to benefit her own presidential campaign, and for no other reason. Her little dig was professional, not personal. If she weren't also vying for the Democratic nomination herself, she most likely would have endorsed Obongo publicly.
Also, they used the old, 'accuse the accusers' trick. When you're being attacked, tear down your accusers, show the people their flaws, thereby destroying their credibility. When you're in office, casting doubt on your attackers is almost as good as totally debunking them. After all, in America you're innocent until proven guilty.
Another smart move is to blame technology. They can't yet totally control the internet, so simply say that these are nothing but rumours spread by the computer age.
I could find only one or two major flaws in this wonderful piece of propaganda. They glossed right over it. That's Obongo's true citizenship. As I've said so many times, if he would show us his real birth certificate, not only would it put that issue to rest once and for all, but he could rub our noses in it (I'd get a lot of satisfaction from that if I were him), yet he still refuses. The only possible conclusion is he is not an American citizen. Also, it was mentioned that the Mexican attacks on Laredo were nothing but rumours spread by right-wingers, without a shred of proof. Yet they do not not offer a shred of proof that they did NOT occur either. They should have said that these "so-called attacks were nothing more than a couple of gang-related shootings. Such shootings occur in major American cities nearly every week." That would be believable, since people are well aware that stories - even true ones can get more exaggerated with each person who tells it. For example, once when I was teaching middle school, our pencil sharpener broke. I sharpened my students pencils with a one inch pen knife. After school, I was called into the principal's office. She told me that it was reported that I was showing my classes my eight inch Bowie knife! When I showed her my little pen knife, we both had a big laugh.
Also, citing examples of paranoia from the Cold War Era was pretty nifty. Most people agree that Senator McCarthy was a paranoid nutjob these days, so using that, or similar things can be pretty persuasive.
All in all, it was a first-class job of pro-Obongo propaganda. I doubt that the author of this story is really a reporter. He, or she, had quite a lot of expertise in slicing baloney.
Here's a related joke: What's the difference between a Propaganda Minister and a Press Secretary? A Propaganda Minister slices the baloney, and the Press Secretary serves it!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Obama's Watergate, But On An Epic Scale
Scathing Congress report slams Obama's 'covert, criminal activity'
President charged with illegally using taxpayer money to manipulate public
---------------------------------------
Posted: August 16, 2010
12:01 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a scathing staff report today charging that the White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the president's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."
An advance pre-publication copy of the report, shared by Issa's Washington office with WND, accuses the White House of nothing short of criminal activity. It charges the Obama administration with violating federal laws to advance what the Government Accounting Office has characterized as an unlawful "covert campaign," using federal resources "to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign."
Pulling no punches, the Oversight Republican Report accuses the Obama White House of "violating federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."
"The White house has failed to transition from campaign mode to leadership mode and is now inappropriately leveraging those campaign-trail relationships to unlawfully generate support for the president's agenda," the report concludes. Read in its entirety, the Oversight Republican Report charges the Obama administration with the type of callous, unethical and possibly criminal manipulation of public opinion that is reminiscent of Watergate and the illegal campaign activities engineered by Donald Segretti on behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President during Richard Nixon's presidential election campaign of 1972.
In 1974, Donald Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign materials, for which he served in federal prison four months of a six-month term.
The Obama administration's abuses alleged in the Oversight Republican Report can be summed up under the term "astro-turfing," a fraudulent public relations activity in which "the White House and the agency whose resources it is co-opting attempt to create the impression that grassroots support for a particular policy exists when in fact it has been fabricated using taxpayer dollars."
The report points to several instances of alleged, unlawful abuses:
The National Endowment for the Arts
On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other influencers of the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.
Nell Abernathy, director of outreach for United We Serve and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, identified the goal of the NEA program was to recruit artists to create art to support the president's agenda "with the same enthusiasm and with the same energy that we all saw in each other during the campaign."
The Oversight Republican Report, however, contends the initiative was illegal.
"The use of taxpayer dollars and federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the de facto strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful," the report alleges. "Using a government e-mail account and government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a clear violation of federal law."
The report stresses that it was inappropriate for representatives of the White House and the NEA to formally ask artists and entertainers to use their talents to support the president's agenda "because many of these people rely on NEA grants to subsidize their livelihoods."
The Department of Justice
In October 2008, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs added Tracy Russo, the chief blogger and deputy director for online communications for Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign, to direct the Department's "new media efforts."
The Oversight Republican Report documents that Russo covertly attempted to shape public opinion by posting comments on the Internet anonymously, or through the use of a pseudonym, attacking authors or contents viewed as critical of the president, in an effort to shape debate online.
The report concludes, "The deployment of Justice Department resources to generate clandestine comments on message boards and blogs is a highly improper use of the Department's resources."
The report cites GAO rulings stating that covert propaganda violates Title 5 U.S.C. Section 3107 of federal law, which prohibits the use of publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Office of Education
The Oversight Republican Report details that beginning on the morning of April 24, 2009, U.S. Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs and Outreach Massie Ritsch launched an e-mail campaign in coordination with the White House to promote President Obama's plan to begin a federal takeover of student loans.
The report again charges criminal abuses: "The intent of the e-mail is clearly to create grassroots support for the president's education agenda by inappropriately leveraging Ritsch's position as a Department of Education employee. Because it was drafted or intended to influence members of Congress while they consider the president's federal student loan plan, it is unlawful."
Federal workforce
The Oversight Republican Report charges that in March 2010, White House Office for Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sent "overtly partisan, unsolicited health-reform e-mails to career civil servants in executive branch offices, suggesting to recipients that they were being officially instructed by the White House to support the president's health-care reform proposals."
Again, the report charges the Obama White House with illegal activity: "Criminal statutes prohibit executive branch officials from using appropriated funds to influence the legislative process. Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1913, prohibits federal employees from engaging in the very activities DeParle urges."
Department of Health and Human Resources
The Oversight Republican Report charges that the Department of Health and Human Resources contracted with Jonathan Gruber, a health-care economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to provide "technical assistance" to support President Obama's health care reform proposals.
For this, Gruber was paid $297,600, plus another $95,000 for a second HHS job.
The Obama administration then relied upon and distributed Gruber's commentary and views to publications including Time, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the New Republic without revealing that Gruber was a paid HHS consultant.
"Using HHS appropriations to contract a highly visible health-care expert to advocate on behalf of administration policies under the guise of providing 'technical assistance' is inappropriate," the Oversight Republican Report concludes, while further alleging that the administration's failure to disclose Gruber's status while touting his work violates GAO's policy prohibiting covert propaganda.
Other abuses
Among the additional abuses, the Oversight Republican Report cites a cable television ad featuring 84-year-old Andy Griffith promoting Medicare and the Obama administration's health-care reform bill.
The Department of Health and Human Services paid $700,000 to make the cable television ad buy, and the report alleges the commercial - run in July 2010 - gave the appearance that it was "designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to support one of the Democrat's major legislative initiatives."
The report further charges the White House of posting "fictitious and misleading" information about jobs "saved and created" on the White House-maintained website Recovery.gov.
Also criticized are signs the Federal Highway Administration has encouraged the states to post, announcing that new federal highway projects were being funded by stimulus dollars.
David Axelrod
Axelrod and astro-turfing
The practice of using covert propaganda to push political opinion is familiar to at least one administration official, Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod.
Prior to joining then-Sen. Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Axelrod was a partner in AKP&D Message & Media, a Chicago-based media and public relations firm that listed among its corporate clients Cablevision and AT&T.
According to a Business Week report published in 2008, AKP&D set up front organizations for corporations that wanted to run public issue ads without having the ads identified as having been paid for by the corporations.
Business Week cited as an example a television commercial Axelrod's firm created for Commonwealth Edison, the largest electric utility in Illinois. The ad warned a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts could occur unless a rate hike was approved. The ad was sponsored by CORE, which described itself as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations."
Comment:
Now I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but all he did was the nasty with Monica in the Oval Office and the shit really hit the fan! Obongo is violating the law left, right, and centre and no one seems to give a damn! AMERICA AWAKE - Before it's too late!
President charged with illegally using taxpayer money to manipulate public
---------------------------------------
Posted: August 16, 2010
12:01 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a scathing staff report today charging that the White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the president's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."
An advance pre-publication copy of the report, shared by Issa's Washington office with WND, accuses the White House of nothing short of criminal activity. It charges the Obama administration with violating federal laws to advance what the Government Accounting Office has characterized as an unlawful "covert campaign," using federal resources "to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign."
Pulling no punches, the Oversight Republican Report accuses the Obama White House of "violating federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."
"The White house has failed to transition from campaign mode to leadership mode and is now inappropriately leveraging those campaign-trail relationships to unlawfully generate support for the president's agenda," the report concludes. Read in its entirety, the Oversight Republican Report charges the Obama administration with the type of callous, unethical and possibly criminal manipulation of public opinion that is reminiscent of Watergate and the illegal campaign activities engineered by Donald Segretti on behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President during Richard Nixon's presidential election campaign of 1972.
In 1974, Donald Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign materials, for which he served in federal prison four months of a six-month term.
The Obama administration's abuses alleged in the Oversight Republican Report can be summed up under the term "astro-turfing," a fraudulent public relations activity in which "the White House and the agency whose resources it is co-opting attempt to create the impression that grassroots support for a particular policy exists when in fact it has been fabricated using taxpayer dollars."
The report points to several instances of alleged, unlawful abuses:
The National Endowment for the Arts
On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other influencers of the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.
Nell Abernathy, director of outreach for United We Serve and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, identified the goal of the NEA program was to recruit artists to create art to support the president's agenda "with the same enthusiasm and with the same energy that we all saw in each other during the campaign."
The Oversight Republican Report, however, contends the initiative was illegal.
"The use of taxpayer dollars and federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the de facto strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful," the report alleges. "Using a government e-mail account and government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a clear violation of federal law."
The report stresses that it was inappropriate for representatives of the White House and the NEA to formally ask artists and entertainers to use their talents to support the president's agenda "because many of these people rely on NEA grants to subsidize their livelihoods."
The Department of Justice
In October 2008, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs added Tracy Russo, the chief blogger and deputy director for online communications for Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign, to direct the Department's "new media efforts."
The Oversight Republican Report documents that Russo covertly attempted to shape public opinion by posting comments on the Internet anonymously, or through the use of a pseudonym, attacking authors or contents viewed as critical of the president, in an effort to shape debate online.
The report concludes, "The deployment of Justice Department resources to generate clandestine comments on message boards and blogs is a highly improper use of the Department's resources."
The report cites GAO rulings stating that covert propaganda violates Title 5 U.S.C. Section 3107 of federal law, which prohibits the use of publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Office of Education
The Oversight Republican Report details that beginning on the morning of April 24, 2009, U.S. Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs and Outreach Massie Ritsch launched an e-mail campaign in coordination with the White House to promote President Obama's plan to begin a federal takeover of student loans.
The report again charges criminal abuses: "The intent of the e-mail is clearly to create grassroots support for the president's education agenda by inappropriately leveraging Ritsch's position as a Department of Education employee. Because it was drafted or intended to influence members of Congress while they consider the president's federal student loan plan, it is unlawful."
Federal workforce
The Oversight Republican Report charges that in March 2010, White House Office for Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sent "overtly partisan, unsolicited health-reform e-mails to career civil servants in executive branch offices, suggesting to recipients that they were being officially instructed by the White House to support the president's health-care reform proposals."
Again, the report charges the Obama White House with illegal activity: "Criminal statutes prohibit executive branch officials from using appropriated funds to influence the legislative process. Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1913, prohibits federal employees from engaging in the very activities DeParle urges."
Department of Health and Human Resources
The Oversight Republican Report charges that the Department of Health and Human Resources contracted with Jonathan Gruber, a health-care economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to provide "technical assistance" to support President Obama's health care reform proposals.
For this, Gruber was paid $297,600, plus another $95,000 for a second HHS job.
The Obama administration then relied upon and distributed Gruber's commentary and views to publications including Time, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the New Republic without revealing that Gruber was a paid HHS consultant.
"Using HHS appropriations to contract a highly visible health-care expert to advocate on behalf of administration policies under the guise of providing 'technical assistance' is inappropriate," the Oversight Republican Report concludes, while further alleging that the administration's failure to disclose Gruber's status while touting his work violates GAO's policy prohibiting covert propaganda.
Other abuses
Among the additional abuses, the Oversight Republican Report cites a cable television ad featuring 84-year-old Andy Griffith promoting Medicare and the Obama administration's health-care reform bill.
The Department of Health and Human Services paid $700,000 to make the cable television ad buy, and the report alleges the commercial - run in July 2010 - gave the appearance that it was "designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to support one of the Democrat's major legislative initiatives."
The report further charges the White House of posting "fictitious and misleading" information about jobs "saved and created" on the White House-maintained website Recovery.gov.
Also criticized are signs the Federal Highway Administration has encouraged the states to post, announcing that new federal highway projects were being funded by stimulus dollars.
David Axelrod
Axelrod and astro-turfing
The practice of using covert propaganda to push political opinion is familiar to at least one administration official, Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod.
Prior to joining then-Sen. Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Axelrod was a partner in AKP&D Message & Media, a Chicago-based media and public relations firm that listed among its corporate clients Cablevision and AT&T.
According to a Business Week report published in 2008, AKP&D set up front organizations for corporations that wanted to run public issue ads without having the ads identified as having been paid for by the corporations.
Business Week cited as an example a television commercial Axelrod's firm created for Commonwealth Edison, the largest electric utility in Illinois. The ad warned a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts could occur unless a rate hike was approved. The ad was sponsored by CORE, which described itself as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations."
Comment:
Now I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but all he did was the nasty with Monica in the Oval Office and the shit really hit the fan! Obongo is violating the law left, right, and centre and no one seems to give a damn! AMERICA AWAKE - Before it's too late!
Obama's Watergate, But On An Epic Scale
Scathing Congress report slams Obama's 'covert, criminal activity'
President charged with illegally using taxpayer money to manipulate public
---------------------------------------
Posted: August 16, 2010
12:01 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a scathing staff report today charging that the White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the president's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."
An advance pre-publication copy of the report, shared by Issa's Washington office with WND, accuses the White House of nothing short of criminal activity. It charges the Obama administration with violating federal laws to advance what the Government Accounting Office has characterized as an unlawful "covert campaign," using federal resources "to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign."
Pulling no punches, the Oversight Republican Report accuses the Obama White House of "violating federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."
"The White house has failed to transition from campaign mode to leadership mode and is now inappropriately leveraging those campaign-trail relationships to unlawfully generate support for the president's agenda," the report concludes. Read in its entirety, the Oversight Republican Report charges the Obama administration with the type of callous, unethical and possibly criminal manipulation of public opinion that is reminiscent of Watergate and the illegal campaign activities engineered by Donald Segretti on behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President during Richard Nixon's presidential election campaign of 1972.
In 1974, Donald Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign materials, for which he served in federal prison four months of a six-month term.
The Obama administration's abuses alleged in the Oversight Republican Report can be summed up under the term "astro-turfing," a fraudulent public relations activity in which "the White House and the agency whose resources it is co-opting attempt to create the impression that grassroots support for a particular policy exists when in fact it has been fabricated using taxpayer dollars."
The report points to several instances of alleged, unlawful abuses:
The National Endowment for the Arts
On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other influencers of the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.
Nell Abernathy, director of outreach for United We Serve and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, identified the goal of the NEA program was to recruit artists to create art to support the president's agenda "with the same enthusiasm and with the same energy that we all saw in each other during the campaign."
The Oversight Republican Report, however, contends the initiative was illegal.
"The use of taxpayer dollars and federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the de facto strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful," the report alleges. "Using a government e-mail account and government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a clear violation of federal law."
The report stresses that it was inappropriate for representatives of the White House and the NEA to formally ask artists and entertainers to use their talents to support the president's agenda "because many of these people rely on NEA grants to subsidize their livelihoods."
The Department of Justice
In October 2008, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs added Tracy Russo, the chief blogger and deputy director for online communications for Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign, to direct the Department's "new media efforts."
The Oversight Republican Report documents that Russo covertly attempted to shape public opinion by posting comments on the Internet anonymously, or through the use of a pseudonym, attacking authors or contents viewed as critical of the president, in an effort to shape debate online.
The report concludes, "The deployment of Justice Department resources to generate clandestine comments on message boards and blogs is a highly improper use of the Department's resources."
The report cites GAO rulings stating that covert propaganda violates Title 5 U.S.C. Section 3107 of federal law, which prohibits the use of publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Office of Education
The Oversight Republican Report details that beginning on the morning of April 24, 2009, U.S. Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs and Outreach Massie Ritsch launched an e-mail campaign in coordination with the White House to promote President Obama's plan to begin a federal takeover of student loans.
The report again charges criminal abuses: "The intent of the e-mail is clearly to create grassroots support for the president's education agenda by inappropriately leveraging Ritsch's position as a Department of Education employee. Because it was drafted or intended to influence members of Congress while they consider the president's federal student loan plan, it is unlawful."
Federal workforce
The Oversight Republican Report charges that in March 2010, White House Office for Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sent "overtly partisan, unsolicited health-reform e-mails to career civil servants in executive branch offices, suggesting to recipients that they were being officially instructed by the White House to support the president's health-care reform proposals."
Again, the report charges the Obama White House with illegal activity: "Criminal statutes prohibit executive branch officials from using appropriated funds to influence the legislative process. Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1913, prohibits federal employees from engaging in the very activities DeParle urges."
Department of Health and Human Resources
The Oversight Republican Report charges that the Department of Health and Human Resources contracted with Jonathan Gruber, a health-care economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to provide "technical assistance" to support President Obama's health care reform proposals.
For this, Gruber was paid $297,600, plus another $95,000 for a second HHS job.
The Obama administration then relied upon and distributed Gruber's commentary and views to publications including Time, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the New Republic without revealing that Gruber was a paid HHS consultant.
"Using HHS appropriations to contract a highly visible health-care expert to advocate on behalf of administration policies under the guise of providing 'technical assistance' is inappropriate," the Oversight Republican Report concludes, while further alleging that the administration's failure to disclose Gruber's status while touting his work violates GAO's policy prohibiting covert propaganda.
Other abuses
Among the additional abuses, the Oversight Republican Report cites a cable television ad featuring 84-year-old Andy Griffith promoting Medicare and the Obama administration's health-care reform bill.
The Department of Health and Human Services paid $700,000 to make the cable television ad buy, and the report alleges the commercial - run in July 2010 - gave the appearance that it was "designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to support one of the Democrat's major legislative initiatives."
The report further charges the White House of posting "fictitious and misleading" information about jobs "saved and created" on the White House-maintained website Recovery.gov.
Also criticized are signs the Federal Highway Administration has encouraged the states to post, announcing that new federal highway projects were being funded by stimulus dollars.
David Axelrod
Axelrod and astro-turfing
The practice of using covert propaganda to push political opinion is familiar to at least one administration official, Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod.
Prior to joining then-Sen. Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Axelrod was a partner in AKP&D Message & Media, a Chicago-based media and public relations firm that listed among its corporate clients Cablevision and AT&T.
According to a Business Week report published in 2008, AKP&D set up front organizations for corporations that wanted to run public issue ads without having the ads identified as having been paid for by the corporations.
Business Week cited as an example a television commercial Axelrod's firm created for Commonwealth Edison, the largest electric utility in Illinois. The ad warned a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts could occur unless a rate hike was approved. The ad was sponsored by CORE, which described itself as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations."
Comment:
Now I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but all he did was the nasty with Monica in the Oval Office and the shit really hit the fan! Obongo is violating the law left, right, and centre and no one seems to give a damn! AMERICA AWAKE - Before it's too late!
President charged with illegally using taxpayer money to manipulate public
---------------------------------------
Posted: August 16, 2010
12:01 am Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a scathing staff report today charging that the White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the president's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."
An advance pre-publication copy of the report, shared by Issa's Washington office with WND, accuses the White House of nothing short of criminal activity. It charges the Obama administration with violating federal laws to advance what the Government Accounting Office has characterized as an unlawful "covert campaign," using federal resources "to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign."
Pulling no punches, the Oversight Republican Report accuses the Obama White House of "violating federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."
"The White house has failed to transition from campaign mode to leadership mode and is now inappropriately leveraging those campaign-trail relationships to unlawfully generate support for the president's agenda," the report concludes. Read in its entirety, the Oversight Republican Report charges the Obama administration with the type of callous, unethical and possibly criminal manipulation of public opinion that is reminiscent of Watergate and the illegal campaign activities engineered by Donald Segretti on behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President during Richard Nixon's presidential election campaign of 1972.
In 1974, Donald Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign materials, for which he served in federal prison four months of a six-month term.
The Obama administration's abuses alleged in the Oversight Republican Report can be summed up under the term "astro-turfing," a fraudulent public relations activity in which "the White House and the agency whose resources it is co-opting attempt to create the impression that grassroots support for a particular policy exists when in fact it has been fabricated using taxpayer dollars."
The report points to several instances of alleged, unlawful abuses:
The National Endowment for the Arts
On Aug. 6, 2009, on behalf of the White House Office of Public Engagement, NEA Director Yosi Sergent invited a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, marketers and other influencers of the arts to participate in a conference call designed to encourage involvement in President Obama's United We Serve program.
Nell Abernathy, director of outreach for United We Serve and Buffy Wicks, deputy director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, identified the goal of the NEA program was to recruit artists to create art to support the president's agenda "with the same enthusiasm and with the same energy that we all saw in each other during the campaign."
The Oversight Republican Report, however, contends the initiative was illegal.
"The use of taxpayer dollars and federal employees to create an alliance whereby the NEA becomes the de facto strategic communications arm of the White House is unlawful," the report alleges. "Using a government e-mail account and government personnel and resources to host a call using artists and arts group to support the president's agenda is a clear violation of federal law."
The report stresses that it was inappropriate for representatives of the White House and the NEA to formally ask artists and entertainers to use their talents to support the president's agenda "because many of these people rely on NEA grants to subsidize their livelihoods."
The Department of Justice
In October 2008, the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs added Tracy Russo, the chief blogger and deputy director for online communications for Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign, to direct the Department's "new media efforts."
The Oversight Republican Report documents that Russo covertly attempted to shape public opinion by posting comments on the Internet anonymously, or through the use of a pseudonym, attacking authors or contents viewed as critical of the president, in an effort to shape debate online.
The report concludes, "The deployment of Justice Department resources to generate clandestine comments on message boards and blogs is a highly improper use of the Department's resources."
The report cites GAO rulings stating that covert propaganda violates Title 5 U.S.C. Section 3107 of federal law, which prohibits the use of publicity experts unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.
Office of Education
The Oversight Republican Report details that beginning on the morning of April 24, 2009, U.S. Department of Education Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs and Outreach Massie Ritsch launched an e-mail campaign in coordination with the White House to promote President Obama's plan to begin a federal takeover of student loans.
The report again charges criminal abuses: "The intent of the e-mail is clearly to create grassroots support for the president's education agenda by inappropriately leveraging Ritsch's position as a Department of Education employee. Because it was drafted or intended to influence members of Congress while they consider the president's federal student loan plan, it is unlawful."
Federal workforce
The Oversight Republican Report charges that in March 2010, White House Office for Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sent "overtly partisan, unsolicited health-reform e-mails to career civil servants in executive branch offices, suggesting to recipients that they were being officially instructed by the White House to support the president's health-care reform proposals."
Again, the report charges the Obama White House with illegal activity: "Criminal statutes prohibit executive branch officials from using appropriated funds to influence the legislative process. Title 18 of the United States Code, section 1913, prohibits federal employees from engaging in the very activities DeParle urges."
Department of Health and Human Resources
The Oversight Republican Report charges that the Department of Health and Human Resources contracted with Jonathan Gruber, a health-care economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to provide "technical assistance" to support President Obama's health care reform proposals.
For this, Gruber was paid $297,600, plus another $95,000 for a second HHS job.
The Obama administration then relied upon and distributed Gruber's commentary and views to publications including Time, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the New Republic without revealing that Gruber was a paid HHS consultant.
"Using HHS appropriations to contract a highly visible health-care expert to advocate on behalf of administration policies under the guise of providing 'technical assistance' is inappropriate," the Oversight Republican Report concludes, while further alleging that the administration's failure to disclose Gruber's status while touting his work violates GAO's policy prohibiting covert propaganda.
Other abuses
Among the additional abuses, the Oversight Republican Report cites a cable television ad featuring 84-year-old Andy Griffith promoting Medicare and the Obama administration's health-care reform bill.
The Department of Health and Human Services paid $700,000 to make the cable television ad buy, and the report alleges the commercial - run in July 2010 - gave the appearance that it was "designed to affect general elections by convincing seniors to support one of the Democrat's major legislative initiatives."
The report further charges the White House of posting "fictitious and misleading" information about jobs "saved and created" on the White House-maintained website Recovery.gov.
Also criticized are signs the Federal Highway Administration has encouraged the states to post, announcing that new federal highway projects were being funded by stimulus dollars.
David Axelrod
Axelrod and astro-turfing
The practice of using covert propaganda to push political opinion is familiar to at least one administration official, Obama Senior Advisor David Axelrod.
Prior to joining then-Sen. Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Axelrod was a partner in AKP&D Message & Media, a Chicago-based media and public relations firm that listed among its corporate clients Cablevision and AT&T.
According to a Business Week report published in 2008, AKP&D set up front organizations for corporations that wanted to run public issue ads without having the ads identified as having been paid for by the corporations.
Business Week cited as an example a television commercial Axelrod's firm created for Commonwealth Edison, the largest electric utility in Illinois. The ad warned a ComEd bankruptcy and blackouts could occur unless a rate hike was approved. The ad was sponsored by CORE, which described itself as "a coalition of individuals, businesses and organizations."
Comment:
Now I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but all he did was the nasty with Monica in the Oval Office and the shit really hit the fan! Obongo is violating the law left, right, and centre and no one seems to give a damn! AMERICA AWAKE - Before it's too late!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)