Posted on 05/30/2006 5:12:23 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
On May 24, 2006, against the will of the vast majority of American citizens, in defiance of prudence, fairness, logic, and common sense, and with total disregard of American national interest (see footnote 1), the majority of the U.S. Senate (all but four Democrats and almost half Republicans) passed the so-called "Comprehensive Immigration Reform” Act (CIRA) of 2006.
The Act, also known as S. 2611 bill, would (if enacted into the law) Mark Andrew Dwyer One would hope that this despicable act of betrayal of American voters by their elected "representatives" in the Senate, in which the consenting senators promptly gave away, to the invading hordes, what was not theirs (roughly a quarter of our country, with its infrastructure, living space, and resources, that is), is a one time anomaly that can be corrected within the system of governance by political or administrative means, but that, unfortunately, is not the case. In this article, I argue that U.S. Senate's cowardly capitulation to blatant demands by millions of illegal aliens and their American collaborators who were parading, like a victorious army, on the streets of several American cities earlier this Spring (read my commentary [1] for an account of these events), is a result and a necessary consequence of a half-century old, well concerted effort to disable healthy mechanisms of American national self-preservation and survival.
Although one might trace the roots of current decay of the Republic back into 19th century and to its famous philanthropists (I highly recommend an eye-opening paper [2] to those interested in this subject), gradual destruction of national identity and means to preserve it begun shortly after WWII, partly as a reaction to atrocities committed by Hitler and his followers, as well as rising racial tensions in the South. As a result, sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws have been passed during the disastrous Lyndon B. Johnson presidency, and that included the infamous Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that opened flood gates for uncontrolled and largely illegal immigration from countries whose populations were only marginally, if at all, present in ethnic mix of the U.S. at that time.
The main objective of the Civil Rights Act, follow-up laws and Supreme Court decisions was, we were told, to end anti-black racism and make “the playing field level" so blacks can compete in par with whites in pursuit of their American dreams, despite being handicapped by past slavery (some 150 years ago) and discrimination (still present in parts of the country at that time).
This led to institutionalizing of affirmative action and other forms of racial preferences (that were intended to benefit blacks, and - one can argue - justly so) that is sometimes referred to, particularly in British literature, as the "reverse discrimination".
The main flaw of these legal acts was, rather than clearly state who was the intended beneficiary of these acts (the descendents of American black slaves), they introduced confusing, if not misleading, and never properly defined terms, like "underrepresented minority", "disparate impact", "equal outcome", and "diversity", instead. That turned out to be the first nail in America's coffin, which the U.S. Senate is trying to drive the last one into these days.
Making "the playing field even" for blacks (the reverse discrimination, if you will) provided golden opportunity for more assertive and highly prolific "Hispanics" and other "minorities" to use the imperfect system, full of loopholes and lacking any means to maintain American national identity, to their advantage and to advantage of various races and ethnicities covered by that loosely defined misnomer, despite the fact that they did not suffer from past slavery or discrimination in the U.S., or if they did, their “misery” was self-inflicted as they, unlike the slaves, voluntarily arrived at America’s shores, often in violation of American borders and the law of the land.
As it became clear that the outcomes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were not going to be fully satisfactory, the push begun to implement harsher and harsher, if not draconian, laws that would punish presumably "racist" whites for resisting the changes it imposed on the nation, and to ostracize all those who spoke up against it or against the way it was being implemented. As a result, vast majority of decent, hard working Americans stopped expressing their disapproval of "affirmative action" and other measures that gradually eliminated or relaxed fair political process and meaningful qualification criteria in order to avoid "disparate impact" on "underrepresented minorities" and to secure "equal outcome" of their efforts, out of a sense of "white guilt" and fear of being labeled "racist". That played really well into the hands of “Hispanic” ethnic hustlers that quickly learned how to hijack the American black civil rights movement and make it their own cause, which slick maneuver automatically put them into privileged position, shielded from growing disapproval of average Janes and Joes by the thought police of "political correctness" and by a threat of use of the weapon-word "racist".
As of today, tens of millions of self-imported "minorities" (most of them from Mexico) and their offspring (who, incidentally, benefit from a loophole in another act of the U.S. Congress, the "birth citizenship" clause of 14th Amendment that aimed at granting U.S. citizenship to freed black slaves and their children -- not to illegal migrants' kids) took advantage of unfairly skewed political process (gerrymandered voting districts are an exhibition of such) and a lack of meaningful qualification criteria.
Affirmative action together with engineered "diversity" injected hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of "minority" students and workers, who would otherwise not qualify, to American academia, mass media, and corporations' management. Many of those "minority" individuals that undeservedly benefited from affirmative action. Rather than being grateful and appreciative of this rather unusual chance for upward mobility in the American society, assumed roles of little spies on behalf of their nations of origin and/or racial and ethnic groups, which fact brought this country to a point where the white majority could not express freely their opinions anymore; nor did it feel at liberty to resist a well concerted assault on their majority role in the U.S., out of fear of being denounced as "racist" by these little spies and their influential ethnic mentors.
But the most devastating effects of the loopholes in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, follow-up laws and Supreme Court decisions took place exactly where it all began: in the U.S. legislature.
Like hungry sharks in a tank with fat fish, "Hispanic" politicians skillfully playing the “minority” card pre-empted, one by one, several seats in the U.S. House of Representatives that were meant for blacks, and emerged, eventually, as a deciding (pivotal, if you will) faction in the U.S. Congress, for votes of which other politicians and lobbyists to compete. Obviously, the rapidly growing population of “Hispanics”, which growth almost totally may be attributed to post-1965 immigration (legal and otherwise) and “Hispanic” immigrants’ exorbitant fertility rates, further facilitated this gradual takeover of power by what later became the largest “minority” in the U.S., but there was a strong feedback between these two processes as well: any increase of “Hispanics” in the U.S. Congress contributed directly to growing dysfunction of the I.N.S. (whose enforcement functions are currently carried out by the I.C.E.) that was already ill prepared to stop, or even slow down significantly, the flow of surplus of people from economically insolvent, but overpopulated, Mexico into the U.S.
This, in turn, accelerated growth of “Hispanic” population in the U.S., and vice versa, the rapid growth of “Hispanic” population in this country that was fueled by rising tide of “migration” from Mexico and other Latin American countries mounted a strong pressure towards electing more and more “Hispanic” congressmen – a task relatively easy to accomplish under the circumstances of recently created system of preferences for blacks, with virtually no meaningful means of voter eligibility verification, that “Hispanic” candidates, claiming the privileged status of “underrepresented minority” and the mandate to represent the so-called “immigrant communities” (many of which are suspected of wide-spread voter fraud), quickly learned to use to their own advantage.
The state of California is well ahead of the U.S. Congress in this respect. As of today, state Senators and Assemblymen of Mexican descent are in firm control of most legislative trends, and many of them don't even hide which side of the American-Mexican border their loyalties lie - note the royal reception that they extended to El Presidente Vicente "Fox" Quesada during his present visit to the U.S.
It is worth remembering that some 30 years ago, California was 86% white, and "Hispanics" in state legislature were about as rare as Moon eclipses. Today, white population is less than 50% and over 50% of newborn in the state are “Hispanics”, which – if the current trends continue and CIRA bill is enacted into the law - will inevitably turn California into “Hispanic” majority state with stronger ties to Mexico than to the U.S.
As one can expect, California legislature torpedoes any attempts to stem the mass inflow of Mexican “migrants” into the Golden State and, despite the multi-billion dollar budget annual deficit and federal law that prohibits aiding or abetting of illegal aliens, generously subsidizes the “migrants” and their children, compliments of the Americans who pay their share of taxes, so that the “migrants” can root themselves and survive in this most desired part of the U.S. that is characterized by relatively high cost of living and skyrocketing home prices.
Today, the "Hispanic" lawmakers in federal and state legislatures are in vanguard (or the “fifth column”) of the "Hispanic" invasion of the U.S., making sure that the invaders (mostly, Mexican "migrants") are not inconvenienced by no sticking borders or the immigration laws. It is enough to say that the driving force behind the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Act of 2006 (an amended “compromise” proposal, originally co-authored by the notorious Kennedy – McCain duo) was Sen. Mel Martinez, R-FL, of Cuban ancestry (see [3] for details) who would never get elected to the U.S. Senate if it weren't for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the follow-up legislation that it spurred. And you can bet a horse and carriage on it some of the senators, who weren't quite comfortable with the CIRA bill, did not speak up or vote against it out of fear of being called "racists" by their "Hispanic" (or Liberal) colleagues. Remember Senate Majority Leader Sen. Reid’s remark that designating English as the official language of the U.S. was "racist"? Well, that's the way they still muzzle each other over there.
To make things worse, the above does not exhaust the maladies the American political system and its fruit, the U.S. Senate (not that other elected officials and bodies are much better) suffer from. Not surprisingly, many of these maladies have their origins in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
The Democrat Party, after successfully hijacking the civil rights cause as its exclusive property, has gained popularity among the voters since -- and draws profits from that hijacking until this day.
It would be naive to assume that the treasonous "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Act of 2006 was purely Democratic idea. After all, 23 out of 55 Republicans voted for it, but one needs to realize that mass importation of disgruntled masses from impoverished countries is championed chiefly by the Liberals and not by honest (those who don't live in corporate donors' pockets, that is) Conservatives.
The political process has been trivialized to a point where the voters have to choose between the bad and the hopeless (and sometimes there is not even that much difference between the candidates), or there is no choice at all because the voting districts have been meticulously gerrymandered in order to secure the "correct" outcome of “free” election. (This can only be compared to pre-arranging a deck of cards before playing a blackjack or any other game of "fair chance".)
The weak government doctrine (equally strong Democrats fighting Republicans, and vice versa, and voters who seem to do their best to maintain that equilibrium) as a necessary condition for freedom and liberty made the government weak to the point where it can no longer resist invasion, and is easily manipulated by "Hispanic” swing voters and such banana republic as Mexico and its corrupt government.
The voters get dumber and dumber as the "education" establishment replaces education with indoctrination and outright propaganda. Many of them don't know history of the U.S.; nor can they see the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in promises and programs of those they vote for -- never mind disastrous consequences of mass "migration" of Mexicans and the explosive population growth that it spurs.
Such secondary issues as gay marriages, women's right to choose, and endangered species legislations, just to name a few, became -- for way too many voters -- decisive factors of whom to vote for.
As a result, the majority of U.S. senators and other elected officials are clearly committed to one or other side of these secondary issues, and are viciously fighting for them when it comes to passing “feel good” legislation of one sort or another, but have rather haphazard, if not casual, stances on such issues of utmost importance for the entire country as the sovereignty of the U.S., border enforcement, national identity, and protection of America's wealth (both material and intellectual). Their patriotism and courage is quite random (since it wasn't even a factor during the elections), never mind their notorious inability to foresee the devastating consequences of the half-baked measures they keep pushing down our throats (see [4] for a typical example). So, it must surprise no one many of them have had no problems with betraying We the People on behalf of the illegal but numerous "migrants". As a result, they (the senators) are cowardly yielding to sheer power of the invaders and agree with the logic of mob, while the President Jorge "Bush" Arbusto is dancing to El Presidente Vicente "Fox" Quesada's mariachi music.
False "truths", like one should always help the weak and never fight back against them, no matter how aggressive and venomous these "weak" might be, that international "minorities" are all equally entitled as we are to the fruits of our work because of past slavery in America, and the U.S. is a "proposition nation" that will function the same no matter what is the prevailing ethnicity, national identity, and cultural background of its population -- even though these are mostly Americans of European ancestry that adhere to all the principles the U.S. has been built upon -- further paralyze any attempts to resist blatant invasion of our country by "migrating" hordes of hostile and unassimilable, mostly Mexican, aliens.
Those senators, who willingly sold us out to the invaders, their leaders, and collaborators, used the above and alike as handy excuses for not acting for America's benefit and in her defense.
The so-called "mainstream" media, controlled by a coherent group of individuals (the Hollywood propaganda machine belongs to this category, too) and saturated with "minority" spies and open-border utopists to the point that they (the media), by and large, cannot afford to declare themselves on the side of the majority of Americans anymore, seek the so-called “middle ground” between the lawful residents of this country and the lawbreaking invaders. This confuses many voters who often perceive staunch defenders of this nation against the invasion and uncompromising opponents to America's sellout as extremists and, as a result, vote for the treacherous "moderates". (An example illustrating absurdity of the “middle-ground compromise” is very much in order here. Suppose, one group says "2 + 2 = 4", a true statement, and another group says that "2 + 2 = 3", a false statement. Now, the "middle-ground" statement would be "2 + 2 = 3.5", which is as false as “2 + 2 = 3” was.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of ethnic and racial groups, both in America and elsewhere, are exercising their racial/ethnic solidarity, many of them with obvious hostility and militancy, the main objective of which is to expel the whites from their own countries (in the U.S. and Europe) or, at least, to submit them to minorities’ control, while the whites remain the only racial group that, by and large, practice suicidal altruism and do not allow themselves to face or to not welcome their slow but steady extinction and open threats thereof by rapidly growing echelons of ethnic revisionists, never mind readying to defend themselves against the final attack that must inevitably follow these threats. Demands of "Whites go back to Europe" and "This is our continent” that "Hispanic" demonstrators unashamedly threw around for quite some time, became a commonplace during the recent "immigration" protests but were largely ignored by Washington establishment and the "American" press.
A while ago, I was contemplating photographs of the ruins of Forum Romanum - the remains of a magnificent civilization that was conquered and destroyed by hordes of primitive but fierce barbarian warriors that Rome's ruling elites were unwilling to fight.
Will our children look at the ruins of the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill and think of "migrating" hordes that came from civilizations thousands of years behind that of the Roman Empire and destroyed the U.S. despite all the “feel good” legislation that the Senate had passed, I asked myself? It appears that the answer to my question is being decided now.
As to the treasonous senators, whom H. Millard referred to as "political prostitutes" (see [5]), I can't help quoting The Declaration of Independence here: "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... ."
We have already reached that point. I estimate that about 25% of my local and state taxes goes to illegal alien support and I live in conservative relatively affluent Orange County.
ping
The meaning of the word "conservative" is same old, same old.. i.e. more of the same..
Without some RADICAL changes more of same the WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN..
Thats why the MAJOR effort to discredit the word "extremeist".. when extreme change is what is needed.. WHO is it, that have curried the apolexy on the word "EXTREMIST"?..
Democrats!!.. Should SHOW ANY with an honest interest IN U.S. POLITICS something that democrats HATE the word extremist.. unless its an extreme change toward a version of Marxism..
.. Are you a radical(extremist) or a conservative?..
Not all conservatives are conservatives.. America you see is ALREADY socialist country.. NOT WILL BE a socialist country.. ONLY an extreme change can change that FACT..
We have well passed the point of no return, and nothing is going to happen about it. Best adjust and adapt, the USofA as your grand parents knew it is long gone, never to be seen again.
We have well passed the point of no return, and nothing is going to happen about it. Best adjust and adapt, the USofA as your grand parents knew it is long gone, never to be seen again.
I agree that radical change is needed. But it ain't gonna come at once and it's also not gonna come at the hands of a nation whereby a majority of people are largely ignorant of the pertinent issues.
I agree which means recovery may and very probably will NEVER HAPPEN..
That's my ultimate conclusion.
Perhaps we should grab our pitchforks and our sporting arms and have a real march on Washington.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.