America is going Berserk!

America is going Berserk!

antique-blank-camera-269810I always thought, even during my smallest of my early age that I would never be an adult who quipped as my father did, “This country is going to hell in a handbasket!” Even then I remember how incensed I would become and say right back to him, “Okay then – why?”

Naturally, I was trying to manipulate my father into some kind of reasoning with me, which always seemed to warrant, “Oh you’re just too young, you just don’t know what I’m talking about,” Okay, so tell me then. And for the most part, he was correct, insofar as I did not understand him.              whatecer

I tried to explain to him, “Can you come down to my level? I can hear your words just as you can by saying them; however, either speak to me at my age level so I can understand.” My father was truly one of the kindest and compassionate men I have ever known. He tried to explain to me that it was a “political thing” and he would go on (God bless him!) until I was completely lost.

Supreme-Court-building-2-SCWell just as soon as one believes someone else’s opinion then it starts! This entire United States Supreme Court vetting time has fully convinced me that because of the humankind made rules of the Senate, each person has in their own right some other rule or procedure that will continue to stave off Justice Kavanaugh.

I am not sure that Dr. Christine Ford knew what she was getting into. Oh, that’s alright

senator gilldebrand

Senator Gillibrand

Honey, just say that 36-years ago this man hit on you in high school and leave the rest of the sexual assault stuff to us. Well, after sitting in the Special Prosecutor’s office and learning everything I believe Dr. Ford wants out completely! The Democrats have officially pushed his voting procedure about one month so they can coach Dr. Ford some more. Now apparently something has gone array because now she’s asking for a Secret Service team to protect her!

Allow me to introduce Senator Gillibrand D-NY, who just believes and openly states that Dr. Ford should ask the FBI to investigate her. Well, things are getting a bit clearer for me.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York on Thursday expressed no doubt in the truth of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school.

Speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Gillibrand cited Ford’s request that her claim is investigated by the FBI as evidence of her truthfulness.

“I believe Dr. Blasey Ford because she’s telling the truth. You know it through her story. You know it by the fact that she told her therapist five years ago. She told her husband. This is a trauma she’s been dealing with her whole life. She doesn’t want to be in a bedroom that doesn’t have two doors. People knew that about her a long time ago,” Gillibrand said. “These are the hallmarks of truth, these are the hallmarks of someone who wants to be believed. I believe her because she’s telling the truth. She’s asking the FBI to investigate her claims,” the senator added. “She’s asking for that kind of review, that investigative work, that oversight, that accountability. Someone who is lying doesn’t ask the FBI to investigate their claims.” 

Especially these days! Let’s see, Director James B. Comey was fired. Openly admitted to leaking top-secret information to a former college professor. Hum. Then came the downfall of FBI officers. We now find out that the top four have been involved with Russians. So what else is happening? California’s going strawless; Three separate instances of firearm abuse in three separate states! It’s time for work on our WALL!


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

The World is Getting Crazier

When you knowingly cross the border into another country — any country — without permission, that’s a crime, right? Yes, in every country in the world

Some aspiring Democratic candidates in Texas want to change that. They think we should decriminalize unlawful border crossings.                                       ICE1282014_0

Others on the left want to go even further. They would essentially gut the power of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE).

Three candidates running for office in Texas have floated a scheme to remove the power of ICE without actually getting rid of the agency, which has been what protesters and even members of Congress have been advocating over the past several months. This includes Representative Beto O’Rourke (D., Texas), who is running for the U.S. Senate; Lupe Valdez, who is running for governor; and Democratic congressional candidate Veronica Escobar.

Seriously, just one question for all of them, and whomever outside of Texas who is trying to allow this absurd action taking place.

Picture1What the devil (who is in these details!) are you trying to do but to make the US a completely different nation? Please think of sovereignty. For those who don’t already know – to be unencumbered, making one’s own rule of law, while having a healthy regard for the US Constitution, and I believe our leadership needs to read this, not having the need for accountability to anyone outside of this nation. That accountability only applies to those who are here legally.

Most people would say that this scheme is reckless and irresponsible — one that, if enacted, would endanger public safety. And the latest report from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) shows why. Perhaps these candidates should read that report. Certainly, the residents of the Lone Star State should, as they are the ones who have been the victims of crimes by illegal aliens — crimes such as murder, rape, assault, robbery, and the like.

The Texas DPS, which includes among its divisions one of the most storied state law-capture33(3)enforcement agencies in America, the Texas Rangers, collected data on all of the illegal aliens booked into Texas jails between June 1, 2011, and July 31, 2018 — more than 175,000. Excuse me, but every state within this Union should be required to do this – or no money.

Many of these charges are still pending, but these arrests have already resulted in more than 112,000 convictions, including 225 murder convictions, 12,540 assault convictions, 152 kidnapping convictions, 1,567 sexual-assault convictions, and 1,076 sexual-offense convictions.

InmateThe number of crimes committed in Texas by illegal aliens may actually be higher. In total, more than 261,000 aliens were arrested in Texas from 2011 to 2018, of which more than 175,000 were immediately identified as being in the U.S. illegally. However, according to the Texas DPS report, these crime numbers only include aliens who “previously had an encounter” with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “that resulted in their fingerprints being entered into” the department’s “IDENT” database. Aliens who get into the country successfully without being detected by DHS, but who are later arrested by Texas law enforcement for violating a state law, aren’t in the DHS system and “do not appear in these [Texas] counts.” Yikes.


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

Time to visit the past?

Time to visit the past?

supremecourtI originally was entertaining the notion of titling this article, something to have to do with the #MeToo movement along the lines that I believe that women, moreover, their demands on society may come harrowingly close to backfiring the hustling strides they have made since the 1970s.                          judicialwatch-3

But why mess up something that I believe for the most part has earned legitimate gains in pay, healthcare, and across the board within corporate America? Then I got a tip from the nations bulldogs, Judicial Watch and followed up on it. Which coincides deeply with my beliefs regarding our lopsided sexual assault claims that regardless of time, integrity or facts seem to be frustrating our system.

But, I am going to hold off on all of that hashtag rhetoric and would rather bring all of us up to snuff on what is alleged to be a two-party system – once referred to as Democrats and Republicans.

Is it 1992 all over again? The sexual assault allegations that surfaced Wednesday against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — who is accused of attempting to rape a California professor when both were in high school in Maryland — coupled with the so-called “year of the woman” in politics, are creating an eerily similar feel to the state of affairs 27 years ago.

C’mon now! Doesn’t this represent to you just another partisan hold-up or deferment ploy? What does it take anymore? This man, Mr. Brett Kavanaugh has been waiting for well over a year now, and it’s time to sort him out with allegations of yesteryear?

The allegations from Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford come days before the Senate Judiciary Committee was set to vote on whether to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination to the full Senate. Now, they complicate what once looked like a certain path to confirmation, with talks of re-opening the hearings to allow both Ford and Kavanaugh to testify.

If that sounds familiar, it is.                 Hill

Almost the exact same series of events occurred in 1991 when law professor Anita Hill came forward to testify that then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her when she was assisting Thomas at the Department of Education in 1981. The hearings were re-opened to allow Hill to testify, and the optics were striking — an all-male panel of senators questioned her for days about the workplace harassment she said she faced. A massive national dialogue around workplace sexual harassment soon opened.

I did check by the way and the article I am working from was written by a female, Emily C. Singer. It seems whatever I read, write, about or see works using the same sources I invariably come across Natalie Portman’s saying. And yes, try the Categories section, there is the article.

Thomas was ultimately confirmed by a slim margin. But the optics of the hearing and controversy around his confirmation led women to run, and win, in historic numbers a year later, in 1992. That year was dubbed the “year of the woman.” In 1992, the number of women elected to Congress increased dramatically, rising from 34 to 54, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Now, more than 25 years later, it’s possible that women will again witness a private woman testify against a Supreme Court nominee, this time with Ford’s allegations of teenage sexual assault. I am not sure I would dignify such hearings considering the well-crafted rubbish the Democrats have concocted this time.

Democratic strategists say the latest allegations against Kavanaugh will serve as another boost to female turnout, in an election year where Democratic women were already set to boost their ranks.


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

The Integrity of Fact-Checking

The Integrity of Fact-Checking

You know something. . . I am an official believer in Fake News, gossip, rumors, editors for book publishing, or in anything or anyone who would have to correctly source a document. Moreover, in fact, talk radio hosts are adding to the raucous tensions among US citizens.

So why would a published author and publisher of four best-sellers be an official believer in the fake news? Let’s call the egregious acts done by those who are in charge of fact-finding, or source authentication is in the midst of gossip and rumoring. People such as I, academians, those who have either taken or stumbled on English classes and Amanda in Letters to Julietknow the rules of reporting and storytelling.

Let’s take the film, Letters from Juliet, starring Amanda Seyfried in the lead role. Does anyone remember what she did for a living? Hint and Spoiler:

The movie begins with Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) walking through downtown New York while on the phone, trying to track down several individuals to see where they were on the day they found out WWII was over. In her hand, she has a picture of the famous kiss that took place between a sailor and a nurse, and she’s trying to confirm if it was staged or spontaneous. As she’s in Times Square, where the picture was taken, she finds the right person who can verify her question.  

She meets with her boss at the New Yorker who asks her to be very certain that the information is correct, which she is, and he compliments her on her work. She asks him if she can start to submit some stories to him as she really wants to write, but he says famous kiss sceneshe’s such a good fact checker that there is no need to want more. He then asks her about the trip she is going on. Sophie and her fiancé Victor (Gael Garcia Bernal) are leaving on a pre-honeymoon trip to Verona, Italy because he will be opening up a restaurant in a few weeks and there will be no time to go after the wedding.

Therefore, in essence, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) was a fact-checker for the New Yorker Magazine. However, if one reads the information slow and carefully we can all see how hard she worked on a single project (cell phone, other interested parties, Times Square, the actual address where it happened, and we are treated to the conciseness of the photo.

As much as I gripe about much of the Social Media, it nonetheless provides a vehicle for those individuals who would otherwise not say anything. A lot is being confessed lately about Hillary Clinton, the FBI and DOJ, the Democrat Party, and Mr. Robert Woodward.

AmandaIt is so evident that what these organizations and people are alluding too simply cannot be true. Now, as the article comes out for all to see, or if someone reports something that isn’t true, that’s when “it” hit the fan. Huge Supreme Court cases involving the first amendment or the accuracy of the information as told must be true. Perhaps it is time to go back to some of these cases?


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

What’s up with this Special Prosecutor?

Hey! What’s up with this Special Prosecutor?

“We have found nothing to show collusion between President Trump and Russia, absolutely zero, but every day we get more documentation showing collusion between the FBI and DOJ, the Hillary campaign, foreign spies, and Russians, incredible.” …President Donald Trump – Sep. 11, 2018.

And now, every American and those alike who are paying into the US Taxpayer system should shout – Enough! Enough Already! To think that a Special Counsel was appointed to verify, investigate, confirm, or bring charges against the very people doing this has now run its course.

WNW_current.jpgWhen one looks at this shenanigan type “Politics” as governed by the Democratic Party members so as to lead to one common bit of hysteria, called impeachment, these people who are doing this as well as other pranks, trickeries, monkeyshines, tomfooleries, and other planned mischiefs, should be arrested.

Oh sure, we could start with Rep. Maxine Waters who other than threatening people around her, has been concocting this “Let’s Impeach Trump” for years now.

Nowhere, could this Congress be held accountable for not getting something done, New Coverespecially “The Wall.” Make no mistake about it, it is believed that if the government came with cap in hand asking for donations I believe we’d raise enough funding.

However, it has not come to those means just yet. But, if there is not any talk [in Congress] about it prior to the midterm elections, I do think that this nation will be in another hurt – again! Now all things being equal, Hurricane Florence is going to hit three or more major states and cause severe consequences.

redone spear1.2png

Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

Does Diversity Really Unite Us?

  • Does Diversity Really Unite Us?                  typer4
  • Please feel free to read all five (5) annotations given in this series of articles. For the first part, it is advised that any individual take your favorite dictionary and look up the differences between Diversity and the word Integration because I openly feel that when most individuals talk of diversity, they are really aiming at integration. As one scholar puts it, when considering diversity, everyone gets special rights and privileges. When one is addressing integration they should be discussing the historic wrongs done to black-America and Native Americans. When discussing these matters one should know the difference between diversity and integration.
  • Considering the “Zero Tolerance” policy which stipulates that children are separated from their parents at the Border, with a little research and reading, we find that the hysteria brought on to us through completely insincere and fabricated news, through the Democratic party, progressive-liberal media, and Hollywood radicals, as well as the advocacy groups that are really “open borders” advocates that streamlined the streets, clustered-up office buildings and there parking lots, and most of all wished to blame all of this nonsensical behavior on President mass_hysteriaTrump.
  • Imagine hysteria to the point of anarchy being blamed on the current administration when in reality the same policy was used tremendously by President Bush and worse ever by President Obama. In other words, this policy was nothing new.
  • Has anyone you know at least shed a tear for the lack of compassion for the thousands of American children who are separated from their parents every year in this country as a result of arrests and convictions for nonviolent crimes? How about the thousands of children who become wards of the state due to single mothers having to either finish their sentences? No hysteria or effusive compassion is elicited by these separations.
  • President Trump’s preferred solution for ending the influx of illegal immigrants and providing border security is a wall; it is also the preferred solution of the American people. Zero tolerance is an interim policy that—if enforced—will help deter illegal crossers.
  • In the meantime, a Federal District Court judge in Southern California has discovered a substantive due process right guaranteeing the right to “family integrity” lurking in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and has ordered all children reunited with their illegal immigrant parents. This action does have a definition; subsequently, it is what the original Americans fought against the United Kingdom for—we refer to it as usurpation.
  • More than a century ago, the Supreme Court announced what was considered the hands298settled sense of the matter when it remarked: “It is an accepted maxim of international law . . . and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within [a sovereign nation’s] dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions, as it may see fit to prescribe.”
  • This view was reaffirmed in the recent Supreme Court decision, handed down on June 26, that upheld Trump’s travel ban on foreign nationals from eight countries, six of which have majority Muslim populations.
  • In any case, the majority opinion held that “by its plain language” the Immigration and Naturalization Act “grants the President broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States. The President lawfully exercised that discretion based on his findings . . . that entry of the covered aliens would be detrimental to the national interest.”

Historically, constitutional government has been found only in the nation-state, where the people share a common good and are dedicated to the same principles and purposes. The homogeneous world-state—the European Union on a global scale—will not be a constitutional democracy; it will be the administration of “universal personhood” without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed.

Now for all of those people who agree or disagree, please have a look at all of the writings and be challenged to find that Diversity, as it stands today, is not good for a sovereign nation whereby the new people to the system are not trying to earn that “New life.”


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

Does Diversity Unite Us through Citizenship and Immigration


Does Diversity Unite Us through Citizenship and Immigration

e37e7bda2cf6e16e84e818504b028f4dProgressive liberalism no longer views self-preservation as a rational goal of the nation-state. Rather, it insists that self-preservation and national security must be subordinate to openness and diversity. America’s immigration policies, we are told, should demonstrate our commitment to diversity because an important part of the American character is openness, and our commitment to diversity is an affirmation of “who we are as Americans.” If this carries a risk to our security, it is a small price to pay. Indeed, the willing assumption of risk adds authenticity to our commitment.

In support of all this, we are asked to believe something incredible: that the American character is defined only by its unlimited acceptance of diversity.

A defined American character—devotion to republican principles, republican virtue, the habits and manners of free citizens, self-reliance—would, in that case, be impermissibly exclusive, and thus impermissibly American. The homogeneous world-state recognizes only openness, devotion to diversity, and acceptance as virtues. It must, therefore, condemn exclusivity as its greatest vice. It is the nation-state that insists on exclusive citizenship and immigration policies that impose various kinds of restrictions.

Our progressive politicians and opinion leaders proclaim their commitment to diversity almost daily, chanting the same refrain: “Diversity is our strength.” This is the gospel according to political correctness. But how does diversity strengthen us? Is it a force for unity and cohesiveness? Or is it a source of division and contention? Does it promote the common good and the friendship that rests at the heart of citizenship? Or does it promote racial and ethnic division and something resembling the tribalism that prevents most of the world from making constitutional government a success? When is the last time we heard anyone in Washington talk about the common good? We are used to hearing talk about the various stakeholders and group interests, but not much about what the nation has in common.

Continue reading

Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

The US Senate during US Supreme Court Nominations

The US Senate during US Supreme Court Nominations

protestorHave you ever wondered why the US Congress gets so many poor, outright disgraceful “approval” ratings? All anyone need do is look at their performance in today’s briefing Committee hearing which without a doubt, came apart as what has happened so many times.

The first day of confirmation hearings for Brett Kavanaugh – President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court – quickly lurched out of control Tuesday with screaming protesters and senators who refused to stick to the 10-minute timeline for their partisan speeches.

Let’s look at some of the angst, and disruptive issues that literally would have any or all congressional officials wishing for another turn or better management.

  • The first 90 minutes of the hearing were taken up by dozens of protesters interrupting the proceedings by yelling out anti-Kavanaugh slogans. At the same time, Democratic members made a last-ditch effort to postpone the hearing to give them time to review a mountain of documents about Kavanaugh and to demand more.
  • Now come on! Democratic members made a last-ditch effort to postpone the hearing to give them time to review a mountain of documents about Kavanaugh and to demand more; this is absolutely ridiculous. Let’s straighten this brutal mess out. The Democratic members of the Committee were not caught off guard here as much as they would like some people to think. As of last night (Monday, Sep. 3, 2018), they have had months to collect these documents from Judge Kavanaugh through very open channels. They brutally screamed their need and want satisfaction concerning over 100,000 documents but why wait until the last minute to request them.
  • If Judicial Watch, the esteemed barnyard like Freedom of Information Act requesters can get their hands on 30,000 or more of Hillary Clinton’s emails then how easy would it be for the office of a sitting senator to obtain the same documents?
  • This notion goes to show how petty and unprepared the Democrat Party is in by having to derail the process of vetting a respected Supreme Court justice. Everyone who follows politics to a minimal degree knew that the Democratic Party members would stoop this low. (Please read An Open Autopsy on America for other instances this ploy has been used.)
  • John Cornyn of Texas, the second-highest-ranking Republican in the Senate, dubbed the raucous scene “mob rule.”
  • Before leaving the document strategy, this author would like to say one matter. The USA Today Newspaper allows this information for the public to see: Democrats said the hearing should be delayed until they receive all of the documents from Kavanaugh’s three-year tenure as staff secretary for former President George W. Bush.
  • The White House has withheld more than 100,000 pages based on claims of executive privilege. Democrats also complained that Republicans dumped 45,000 documents on the committee the night before the hearing, giving senators little time to review them.
  • Now then from the Chairman, Senator Charles Grassley: “But Grassley said the committee has already received 483,000 pages of records from Kavanaugh’s time working in the White House counsel’s office during the Bush administration. About 300,000 pages were posted on the committee’s website for public review, while the remainder were restricted to senators.

If I may, almost everyone involved in politics knew that this was going to be the Dem’s strategy; therefore, my assertion is that they must be in trouble with routine policy changes, or to try and foul up this Judiciary Committee’s with such a lousy excuse – we believe that this is going to backfire on the forthcoming midterm elections.



Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

“With shame and repentance”

“With shame and repentance”

Pope Francis has acknowledged “with shame and repentance” the Catholic Church’s failure to act over sexual abuse by clerics against minors going back decades, writing “we showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them.”


In an unusually blunt letter released by the Vatican on Monday, the Pope wrote, “I acknowledge once more the suffering endured by many minors due to sexual abuse, the abuse of power and the abuse of conscience perpetrated by a significant number of clerics and consecrated persons.

“Looking back to the past, no effort to beg pardon and to seek to repair the harm done will ever be sufficient. Looking ahead to the future, no effort must be spared to create a culture able to prevent such situations from happening, but also to prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated.”

And finally, after three nonsensical paragraphs, we finally have Pope Francis coping to the facts of known about pedophilia, child abuse, sex abuse, abuse of conscience and abuse of consecrated persons. What’s more, is that the Pope is not just focusing on Catholic priests; to me, it looks as if he’s gone out of his way to include other clerics and layperson’s in systems of power of the Catholic world.

If the reader doesn’t mind, I will stay to these three paragraphs; albeit, there is enough sin and abhorrent acts that he has mentioned. I have always just hated “double-speak” or instances where a person says one thing and then vows the correction.180815121412-02-pope-francis-0815-medium-plus-169

Part One – “Double-Speak” From paragraph one: “with shame and repentance” the Catholic Church’s failure to act over sexual abuse by clerics against minors going back decades, writing “we showed no care for the little ones; we abandoned them.” So where is the “we have decided…”?

The Pope wrote, “I acknowledge once more the suffering endured by many minors due to sexual abuse, the abuse of power and the abuse of conscience perpetrated by a significant number of clerics and consecrated persons. This man eloquently sites three issues, sexual abuse against minors, abuse of power as well as abuse of conscience perpetrated by clerics and consecrated persons.

And if I may, what the phuck is this? “Looking back to the past, looking ahead to the future, no effort must be spared to create a culture able to prevent such situations from happening, but also to prevent the possibility of their being covered up and perpetuated.”

To me this kind of rhetoric is worse than Washington D.C! There is surely an admission of guilt, yet, there is no mention of what is to happen when pressing ahead.

Anyone who is reading this article, here I go. Look in the mirror Catholic church. For centuries these exact wrong-doings have been perpetuating your ranks. What does it take to take a stand and stop it? Your own leader, the Pope, knows of decades of this behavior happening, but his take is at best weak.

All throughout history the Catholic church has paraded itself through the streets, celibacy, collar, and all! Yet, the rubbish still happens!  Any time that humankind gets involved where other’s have obeyed, suffered, and walked the walk we can always count on a Catholic to blow it all up!


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment

Nothing makes me angrier!

Nothing makes me angrier!

We are definitely at a time of cultural change in our nation. Not to many years ago, one did not openly go and support the Socialist Party or anything to do with Neo-Marxism. Yet, the cultural change in our country is going to happen because of border commitment status – losing strength, and what is happening on the Hill regarding the instant status of being a refugee.

money scaleThe Immigration Act of 1965 was a kind of affirmative action plan to provide remedies for those races or ethnic groups that had been discriminated against in the past. Caucasian immigrants from European nations had been given preference in past years; now it was time to diversify the immigrant population by changing the focus to Third World nations, primarily nations in Latin America and Asia. The goal, as some scholars have slowly come to realize, was to diversify the demographic composition of the American population from majority white to a majority of people of color. There was also some anticipation that those coming from these Third World countries were more likely to need the ministrations of the welfare state and therefore more likely to be captured by the Democratic Party, the party promoting the welfare state. It should be noted here that war and other activities seem to directly occur prior to a rush to allow those to immigrate.

White middle-class Americans in the 1960s and 70s were often referred to as selfish because their principal interests were improving their own lives, educating their own children, and contributing to their own communities.

global-food-crisis-1__thumbThey showed no inclination to support diversity and the kind of authentic commitment to the new openness that was being advocated by progressive-liberalism. They stood as a constant roadblock to the administrative state, stubbornly resisting higher taxes, increased immigration, and expansion of the welfare state. This is ridiculous to put it mildly! Just read what was said (written), “Middle-class Americans in the 1960s and 70s were often referred to as selfish because their principal interests were improving their own lives, educating their own children, and contributing to their own communities.”capture33(3)

Furthermore,”they showed no inclination to support diversity and stood as a constant roadblock to the administrative state, stubbornly resisting higher taxes, increased immigration, and expansion of the welfare state.”

Please remember or just take a look at the previous articles mention of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sound legislation, authorized by the Fourteenth Amendment, Affirmative Action Executive Order in 1965, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and finally for this period was this ugly, non-forward thinking The Immigration Act of 1965. Here I have mentioned four acts voted on to become law; however, there is one single matter missing from all four, results and what has happened since.

Is there anyone in the blogosphere that can explain why absolutely zero Congressional activity happened from 1952 and 1965 the total of 13 years? In 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act) consolidates earlier immigration legislation into one law and eliminates race as a basis of exclusion. However, race continues to be a factor because the quota system remains in place, except for immigrants from the western hemisphere. What race?

The Immigration Act of 1965 gets rid of the nationality quotas but limits annual


No excuse for this!

immigration from the eastern hemisphere to 170,000, with a limit of 20,000 immigrants per country, and for the first-time caps annual immigration from the western hemisphere at 120,000, without the country limit. The major reason that these two laws have been cited is that the laws are simply directly the same, however, with different people getting the credit. Whereas it was McCarran-Walter during 1952, although the law did not change names, but the common credit went to Kennedy-McCain during 1965.

There is one feature that remains consistent during these ostensible 25-years, the push on the Welfare state and the overwhelming pressure from the Democratic Party to allow anyone over the borders, as well as their push to increase government spending.


Posted in Political Correctness | Leave a comment