About these ads
Home

Liberal Icon Cesar Chávez Opposed Illegal Immigration

2 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

I can not wait to hear the spin the left will try to put on this revelation.

I was listening to Mark Levin last night on Sirius/XM when I heard him discussing an article I think came from the American Spectator. It was about Cesar Chávez and illegal immigration. (Listen to Levin at the end of the article.)

“Chávez (1927–1993) was an American farm worker, labor leader and civil rights activist, who, with Dolores Huerta, co-founded the National Farm Workers Association (later the United Farm Workers union, UFW).”

He would be considered a pro-union liberal. Consider the following from “Cesar Chávez: Anti-Immigration to His Union Core”:

A Mexican American, Chávez became the best known Latino American civil rights activist, and was strongly promoted by the American labor movement, which was eager to enroll Hispanic members.

Call it the whitewash of Cesar Chávez. Yes, that Cesar Chávez: the late farm worker unionizer (he died in 1993) honored repeatedly by President Obama. The man the Left loves to name drop for his role in organizing all-those grape and lettuce and melon pickers in the day.

But there is a considerable twist to the story. In fact, Cesar Chávez believed ferociously in the border of the United States — because that border protected his union. So ferociously did he hold this view that the New York Times ran a story detailing an accusation that the union Chavez founded, the United Farm Workers, set up a 100 mile “wet line” to keep “wetbacks” and “illegals” — yes, all of those are Chavez’s words — out of the United States. So let’s go back in the time machine to the period when Chavez was rocketing to fame.

It was just after midnight on June 5, 1968. Forty-six years ago. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the brother and confidante of the martyred JFK, now himself a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, had just won the California primary.

The Democratic National Convention was set for August, and, President Lyndon Johnson having withdrawn from the race, what lay ahead were two and a half months of political combat with Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy and LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey.

But this night in June, RFK had stepped to the podium in front of a cheering crowd in the ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles to claim victory. Long forgotten now is the diminutive woman who was at his side, and the man for whom she worked. Both of whom were acknowledged by Bobby Kennedy before he left the podium, shortly thereafter to be assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan.

Here’s the video of the first part of RFK’s victory speech from that night. At about 5:20, RFK says: “I want to thank Cesar Chávez, who was here a little earlier.”

That would be the Cesar Chávez who was already a Hispanic icon. Founder of the National Farm Workers Association (later renamed as the United Farm Workers or UFW), Chavez was the Martin Luther King of Chicanos who, like King and their mutual hero Gandhi, believed and supposedly practiced non-violence.

Chavez was a member of Kennedy’s victorious California slate of delegates elected in the primary. Chavez wasn’t on the platform because he’d stepped away to look for his wife. But that didn’t stop the crowd from chanting at RFK’s arrival at the podium: “We want Chavez! We want Kennedy! We want Chavez!”

Read more at The American Spectator.

Take a look at this video by Mark Levin:

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/16375/liberal-icon-cesar-chavez-opposed-illegal-immigration/#H3VAG1rzvA7ulQsT.99

About these ads

TEXAS STATE SENATOR: 100,000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS IN STATE

Leave a comment

This is from Brietbarts Big Government.

There is a great chance of being that many terrorist among the illegal’s streaming over the border.

How many of these criminals and terrorist are headed for your city and mine?

 

Hours before Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced he would send National Guard troops to the border, Texas state Senator Dan Patrick said there are at least 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in the state.

On Monday’s The Laura Ingraham Show, Patrick, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said from 2008 to 2012, 143,000 illegal immigrant criminals were arrested and jailed in Texas. He said these were “hardened criminals, gang members, and other criminals that we identified as being in Texas illegally.”

“We charged them with 447,000 crimes, a half-million crimes in four years, just in Texas, including over 5,000 rapes and 2,000 murders,” Patrick said. “We estimate we have 100,000 gang members here illegally.”

Patrick also observed during his trips to the border and detention centers that many of the “young children” are teenagers and with parents and family members. He said there is a concern that some are “gang members” and that potential terrorists can exploit the porous border.

In addition to the public safety threat, Patrick also discussed the strain on local schools and other public resources and accused the Obama administration of luring more illegal immigrants to the country after unilaterally enacting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. He also accused the Obama administration of “sweeping human beings under the rug” by putting illegal immigrants on buses to cities across America and releasing children to adults who may not be their family members. Patrick also said Border Patrol agents have found “hundreds and hundreds of dead bodies on our side of the border” as more migrants try to trek to the United States hoping to get amnesty from Obama.

Noting that 60,000 illegal immigrant children have been apprehended since October of last year, Patrick said that law enforcement officials told him that somewhere between one in five and one in 10 illegal immigrants are actually caught, which means there could be at least five times as many illegal immigrants who have snuck into the state.

“You do the math,” Patrick said.

Media Promotes Bloomberg Propaganda

Leave a comment

This is from Buckeye Firearms Association.

I can remember when the media pretended to be impartial.

Now the propaganda they spread today would make Hitlers Propaganda Joseph Goebbels proud.

 

A free press is a good thing for America to have. A free press that doesn’t parrot and exaggerate anti-gun propaganda would be even better. For example, take Natalie DiBlasio’s article for USA Today on Wednesday [June 25], titled “More kids die in shootings than statistics show.”

For starters, the title doesn’t even accurately reflect the article’s content. The article concerns the claim by Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control group “Everytown” that some firearm accident deaths among children are mistakenly classified as homicides by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Contrary to the article’s title, Everytown doesn’t claim that the CDC undercounts firearm-related deaths among children in general.

The article’s title is wrong for another reason. firearm-related deaths among children, which include ages 0-14, decreased dramatically between 1981 and 2011, the earliest and most recent years of data reported by the CDC.  The corollary to Everytown’s accusation that the CDC misclassifies some firearm accident deaths as homicides and thus undercounts accidents, is that CDC over-counts homicides.

Setting aside Everytown’s accusations,when homicides and fatal accidents among children are combined, the per capita rate decreased 57 percent between 1981 and 2011. Clearly, both homicides and fatal accidents have decreased, the question remaining being “by how much, exactly?” Statistical accuracy is not Everytown’s motivation, however.

The reason that Everytown claims that accidents are more common than previously thought is to promote several initiatives that it claims would reduce firearm accidents.  The real goal of these measures, however, is to reduce firearm ownership by restricting the manufacture of firearms and by frightening people into not wanting to have guns within their homes in the first place.

In Everytown’s vision, the latter goal would be achieved largely by congressional funding of “research” purporting to validate by scientific methods, the benefits of gun control and the dangers of gun ownership. This would be accompanied by a public relations campaign designed to convince people that, all things considered, guns cause more problems than they could ever possibly prevent.

Restricting firearms manufacture: Everytown’s report recommends, “Congress should earmark funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to evaluate and set standards for emerging technologies that promote gun safety. . . .” Whatever may be said for technology, however, there’s nothing “emerging” about what Everytown has in mind with this recommendation.

Gun control supporters have long wanted the Consumer Products Safety Commission empowered to set standards for the manufacturing of firearms. The goal, of course, is to set standards so high that no manufacturer could achieve them, certainly not at a price that many Americans could afford.  Frightening people into not having guns at home: Everytown continues, “States should adopt stronger laws to prevent children from accessing unsecured guns,” even though states generally already have laws against reckless endangerment and negligence.

As NRA-ILA has noted, training — not stronger “access” laws — has contributed to the dramatic reduction in firearm accidents over the last generation. Everytown also claims, “Doctors should be allowed and encouraged to promote gun safety,” knowing that gun control supporters in the public health field encourage doctors to pressure their patients not to keep firearms at home.

Anti-gun research: Everytown says “Congress should increase funding for public health research on children injured and killed in unintentional shootings.” But such research would likely be conducted by the same anti-gun researchers whose gun control-promoting “studies” caused Congress to prohibit the CDC from using taxpayer funds for such purposes in the 1990s. Last year, President Obama urged Congress to provide $10 million for “gun violence” research, and the Institute of Medicine held a conference to identify topics to be studied.

The researchers attending the conference were mostly the same people whose work Congress previously deemed a waste of the public’s money.  Had DiBlasio done her homework, she would have learned that Everytown didn’t even come up with its self-described “analysis” of firearm-related deaths among children.

In September 2013, the New York Times claimed that its “review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities.” DiBlasio also would have discovered that Everytown spokesman John Feinblatt was wrong in claiming, “The NRA has successfully lobbied against any funding for the Centers for Disease Control to decide how they categorize deaths.”

The CDC classifies deaths of any and all sorts according to the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases.  Bloomberg is currently in the process of rebranding his anti-gun operations. “Everytown” now refers to his original anti-gun group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, combined with his more recent group, Moms Demand Action (whichbegan as One Million Moms for Gun Control). But no amount of shape-shifting can change the statistics to show anything other than a dramatic reduction in firearm-related deaths among children over the last 20 years.

© 2014 National Rifle Association of America. Institute for Legislative Action. This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. – See more at: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/media-promotes-bloomberg-propaganda#sthash.Nj6RiXHe.dpuf

Watch Some Marines Confront a Man Impersonating An Army Sergeant Major

Leave a comment

This is from Independent Journal Review.

I would have loved to see this clown get the uniform ripped off of him then see him get his phony ass kicked.

This Son of Obama thinks he is a real big deal.

I knew a Command Sergeant Major he could tell you about every medal and how to properly wear them.

I heard him telling a Second Lieutenant in a very coarse manner about his medals being incorrectly displayed.

 

At a military funeral this weekend in West Palm Beach, Florida, a couple of possibly retired Marines confronted a man dressed in a U.S. Army dress uniform. At first the conversation, posted on the Facebook page  U.S Army W.T.F! moments, is cordial, then the Marines started to get suspicious of the alleged “sergeant major.”

During the conversation, the Marines catch him in one too many lies about everything from violating uniform code to wearing the wrong ribbons and medals. The man also called himself a sergeant major, a military policeman, and a special forces operator.

He also claims to have won a Bronze Star with a “V” for valor for saving one of his men from killing himself. Well, according to Rare, it got a little heated:

“You know that’s called false valor? It is a federal crime for you to be wearing that uniform,” one of the Marines asks the faker, to which he could only respond with a series of expletives.

Such a shame anyone would want to falsely take credit for the heroic sacrifices our soldiers make.

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

Leave a comment

This is from CNBC.

Will we finally see Obamacare die a death of 1000 cuts?

 

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.

The 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia—not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. The ruling relied on a close reading of the Affordable Care Act.

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith.

“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”

In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”

Indeed, the 72-page decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare’s goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.

However, the ruling does, and will not ultimately affect the taxpayer-fund subsidies the federal government issued to 2 million or so people through the 15 exchanges run by individual states and the District of Columbia,

The Obama administration is certain to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel’s decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the ruling—for now—”does not have any practical impact” on premium subsidies issued to HealthCare.gov enrollees now. “

“We are confident” that the ruling will be overturned, Earnest said. “We are confident in the legal position we have . . . the Department of Justice will litigate these claims through the federal court system.”

Earnest said “it was obvious” that Congress intended subsidies, or tax credits, to be issued to Obamacare enrollees regardless of what kind of exchange they used to buy insurance.

Tuesday’s ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges.

HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.

If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for nonsubsidized people who would remain in those plans.

Read MoreCourts could cause big Obamacare $$$ hike 

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov.

The decision by the three-judge panel is the most serious challenge to the underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act since a challenge to that law’s constitutionality was heard by the Supreme Court. The high court in 2012 upheld most of the ACA, including the mandate that most people must get insurance or pay a fine.

If the Obama administration fails to prevail in its expected challenge to Tuesday’s bombshell ruling, it can ask the Supreme Court to reverse it.

A high court review is guaranteed if another federal appeals court circuit rules against plaintiffs in a similar case challenging the subsidies. And the only other circuit currently considering such a case, the Fourth Circuit, is expected by both sides to rule against plaintiffs there in a decision that is believed to be imminent.

Read MoreWhat’s really surprising about Hobby Lobby ruling

Tuesday’s ruling focused on the plaintiffs’ claim that the ACA, in several of its sections, says that subsidies from the federal government in the form of tax credits can be issued through an exchange established by a state.

The law also says that if a state chooses not to set up its own exchange, the federal government can establish its own marketplace to sell insurance in such states.

However, the ACA does not explicitly say, as it does in the case of state-run exchanges, that subsidies can be given to people who buy insurance on a federal exchange.

The plaintiffs’ claim has been met with derision by Obamacare supporters, who argue that it relies on a narrow reading, or even misreading of the law. Those supporters said the claim ignores its overarching intent: to provide affordable insurance to millions of people who were previously uninsured.

Supporters argue that the legality of the subsidies to HealthCare.gov enrollee derives from the fact that the law explicitly anticipated the potential need to create an exchange in the event that a state chose not to.

People wait in line to see an agent from Sunshine Life and Health Advisors as the Affordable Care Act website is reading, 'HealthCare.gov has a lot of visitors right now!' at a store setup in the Mall of Americas on March 31, 2014 in Miami, Florida.

Getty Images
People wait in line to see an agent from Sunshine Life and Health Advisors as the Affordable Care Act website is reading, ‘HealthCare.gov has a lot of visitors right now!’ at a store setup in the Mall of Americas on March 31, 2014 in Miami, Florida.

When the ACA was passed, most supporters believed that the vast majority of states would create their own exchange. But the opposition to Obamacare of many Republican governors and state legislators lead to most states refusing to build their own marketplaces, setting the stage for the challenges to the subsidies issued for HealthCare.gov plans.

Two separate federal district court judges—in D.C. and Virginia—have rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the subsidies. Those denials lead to the appeals in the D.C. federal circuit and in the Fourth Circuit.

Out of the more than 8 million Obamacare enrollees this year, fewer than 2.6 million people signed up in plans sold via an exchange run by a state or the District of Columbia. Of those people, 82 percent, or about 2.1 million, qualified for subsidies.

The subsidies are available to people whose incomes are between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that’s between about $24,000 and $95,400 annually.

In a report issued Thursday, the consultancy Avalere Health said that if those subsidies were removed this year from the 4.7 million people who received them in HealthCare.gov states, their premiums would have been an average of 76 percent higher in price than what they are paying now.

Another report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute estimated that by 2016, about 7.3 million enrollees who would have qualified for financial assistance will be lose access to about $36.1 billion in subsidies if those court challenges succeed.
Before the decision, a leading Obamacare expert who was firmly opposed to the plantiffs’ arguments said a ruling in their favor could have major consequences for the health-care reform law.

“If the courts were to decide that the Halbig plaintiffs were right, it would be a huge threat to the ACA,” said Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Read MoreObamacare’s next BIG threat

“It’s a very big deal,” said Ron Pollack, founder of the health-care consumers advocacy group Families USA, and Enroll America, a major Obamacare advocacy group.

Pollack noted that the more than 5 million people who have received subsidies via HealthCare.gov “would have them taken away.”

“It certainly would cause a lot of people to rejoin the ranks of the uninsured,” Pollack said. “The provision of the tax credit premium subsidy makes a huge difference in terms of whether people considering enrollment or enrolling in coverage will find such coverage affordable.”

Last week, two analyses underscored the potential effects of the subsidies ultimately being deemed illegal.

The consultancy Avalere Health said people who currently receive such subsidies in the affected states would see their premium rates rise an average of 76 percent.

And the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute said that by 2016, about 7.3 million enrollees would lose about $36 billion in subsidies.

On Monday, one of the intellectual godfathers of the argument that is the basis of the Halbig case, as well as three other similar pending court challenges, said that tens of millions of people would be eliminated from Obamacare mandates in the affected states if the challenges prevailed.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said more than 250,000 firms in those states—which have about 57 million workers—would not be subject to the employer mandate being phased in starting next year. That rule, which hinges on the availability of subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, will compel employers with 50 or more full-time workers to offer affordable health insurance or pay a fine.

Read MoreCourts could cause big Obamacare $$$ hike

And if the challenge prevailed, a total of about 8.3 million individuals will be removed from Obamacare’s rule that they have health insurance or pay a fine equal to as much as 1 percent of their taxable income, said Cannon.

Oral arguments heard by a three-judge panel in March gave Halbig supporters renewed hope that their claim would succeed.

 

SHAMEFUL! Islam’s Legacy of Cowardice

Leave a comment

This is from Clash Daily.

I never bought the line of propaganda that Islam is peaceful and it has been hijacked by radicals like Osama bin Laden etc.

I have read some of the Koran it is a collection of orders to murder people who leave or are not members of the cult of death.

Mohammed was a pedophile and pedophilia and rape countinues today in the cult of death. 

 

One thing is for certain: Islam has produced some of history’s most cowardly men. From its founder Mohammed to Osama bin Laden to the dregs that fill the ranks of Hamas, ISIS, Boko Haram and Hezbollah–these craven bastards have used women and children as human shields (not to mention cum containers) absent an ounce of compunction.

Mohammed set the example for the extreme truculence we see today being perpetrated against the innocents of Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Nigeria. The Prophet–during his 72 military incursions–would rape, torture and kill large numbers of women and children in order to inflict maximum pain on the “pigs” and “infidels.”

And–when he wasn’t doing the aforementioned–he would use captured women and children as human shields in order to persuade his enemies to capitulate.

Cowardly punk!

And today the most glaring example of Mohammed’s truculence/cowardice can be seen in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

As Israel rightfully defends itself against the Islamo-terrorist organization–Hamas operatives not only hide themselves behind the civilian population of Gaza–but also purposely target the innocents of Israel.

Whether in it’s schools, daycare centers or playgrounds–Hamas views them all (and their occupants) as legitimate targets.

Former Hamas spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin once stated the following: “There are no civilians in Israel…”

Saudi Arabia’s leading cleric, Shayk Ibn Uthaymins, took it a step further when he declared that “What is apparent is that it is allowed for us to kill their women and children, even if that were to cause us to miss taking them as wealth (slaves), due to its breaking the hearts of the enemy.”

And despite all the senseless and spurious claptrap from Democrats (and Republicans) that Islam has been “hijacked” by a group of “radicals”–bin Laden and the dregs represent the true face of Islam (Suras 2:191, 8:39, 9:5, and 9:29).

(This list is but a partial offering of the over 130 violent passages found in the Koran advocating jihad.)

In the final analysis– when one honestly examines the history of Islam (both past and present)–one can only conclude that its legacy is a legacy of cowardice.

And all the claptrap in the world won’t change that.
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/07/shameful-islams-legacy-cowardice/#iW1pEUsJiHMjTTY3.99

 

 

VIDEO Christian Pastor Attacked by Muslims Warns Israel, USA & Geert Wilders Warning & Warning about Grover Norquist

Leave a comment

Originally posted on Reclaim Our Republic:

Pray For America
21 Jul 2014

Ok, satiated Americans and other global inhabitants, it’s time for the Jihad Challenge of the Day. I’ll give you the ANSWER and you provide the QUESTION.

Ready?

Here is the answer – ISLAM.

Now, what is the question?

Well, if you gave the following question you are correct!

What is the unifying consistent for situations where a Christian Pastor has acid thrown in his face by Muslims in Uganda; Muslim brothers are beheading their Muslim brothers in an internecine war in Syria; Muslim warriors are kidnapping young girls in Africa and selling them as sex slaves; Muslims are trying to blow up more buildings in New York; Muslims are initiating genocide on Christians in Iraq; and Muslims in Gaza are targeting Jewish civilians in their effort to destroy Israel.

In as much as our lefty heroes of academia are now choking on their tofu, not believing that…

View original 395 more words

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 618 other followers

%d bloggers like this: