January 22, 2019

Bill Whittle: Clock Boy Returns

Share

Exposing Hunting Hatred

*Editor’s Note* – Some may think the opinion piece linked to below is about Question One on the Maine ballot – a referendum about “clean” elections and transparency. But it really is not. It’s about furthering one’s specific agenda of hating on anything to do with hunting and trapping.

If Question One is worth anything, it can stand on its own as having a real need for campaign and election transparency. Yet, in the middle of the opinion piece, the author inserts the below paragraph, seemingly as an example of why changes need to be made in how money is raised to support campaigns.

I suppose when a person or group of persons hate anything and anyone enough, any excuse is a good reason to promote their cause regardless of relevance. This sort of trash needs to be exposed for what it is.

During the campaign for the bear referendum of 2014, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) located in Washington, D.C., was labeled as an out-of-state special interest group that manipulated a large number of unsuspecting Mainers into voting for the referendum. While it was reported in the news media that the spending for the campaign on both sides of the referendum was approximately equal; not much mention was made of the national and local hunting and sporting groups that campaigned against the referendum. It’s time to set the record straight.

Source: Who’s Paying for What or Whose Government Is It Anyway? | The View from Here

Share

Can’t Touch That

Share

Obama’s Immigration Policies are Biased Against Immigrants from Africa

A Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Obama’s Immigration Policies, if Adopted, Would Prejudice U.S. Immigration Policy Against Immigrants from Africa

Obama’s Threatened Executive Actions Would Legalize Millions from Central America and Mexico While His Legislative Agenda Would Cut African Immigration by a Quarter

Washington, DC – Expected executive action by President Barack Obama to block illegal aliens from deportation would create a de facto preference in immigration law favoring immigrants from the Americas and create a relative prejudice within U.S. immigration policy against would-be immigrants from elsewhere, including Africa, say members of the Project 21 black leadership network.

The tens of thousands of Africans who are granted legal immigration status in the U.S. every year are but a tiny percentage of the millions of Latin Americans who would be granted legal status by President Obama if his rumored executive amnesty takes place.

The disparity between permitted African and Hispanic immigrants threatens to grow even wider if S. 744, the Senate immigration bill President Obama vigorously supports, is enacted, as its passage could cut already-meager legal immigration from African nations by one-quarter even as millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants are legalized.

The Senate immigration bill eliminates the diversity visa program, which provides immigration opportunities for people from nations with low immigration rates. Enacted in 1990, it historically has benefited would-be immigrants from Africa. In 2012, 50 percent of the people offered visas through this program were from African nations compared to 2 percent from South and Central America and the Caribbean. In 2010, 24 percent of all immigrants from Africa granted permanent residence in the U.S. achieved that status through the diversity visa program the Obama-supported immigration bill would eradicate.

Legal immigration numbers vary among countries and continents and are regulated by the U.S. government. The rumored executive action by the President would dramatically alter the distribution to favor immigrants from the Americas and disadvantage people from Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania, Project 21 members say.

Project 21 members also note that African immigrants have a record of seeking to become U.S. residents and/or citizens in a lawful manner and do not deserve to have their legal quotas sharply cut both in numerical and relative terms while Central American and Mexican illegal immigrants are rewarded.

Facts and Figures

• Approximately 41 million Americans are immigrants. Immigrants from Africa make up nearly 4 percent while about 36 percent are from Mexico and Central America (8 percent from Central America and 28 percent from Mexico). 15 percent of the world population lives in Africa while 3.6 percent lives in Mexico and Central America combined (2 percent in Central America and 1.6 percent in Mexico). So America has 9 times as many immigrants from Central America and Mexico compared to all of Africa, even though more than four times as many people live in Africa as in Central America and Mexico combined.

• Based on 2008 turnout data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanic naturalized citizens turn out to vote at a higher rate than U.S.-born Hispanic citizens. In 2008, naturalized Hispanic citizens were more likely to vote than U.S.-born Hispanics by 6 percentage points (54 percent to 48 percent). This differs from the pattern seen among non-Hispanic naturalized citizens, who typically are less likely to turn out to vote than U.S.-born citizens. Hispanics generally have a low voting turnout rate (in 2012, it was 48 percent, compared to 66.2 percent for blacks and 64.1 percent for whites ), prompting candidates who expect to win the Hispanic vote to devote considerable resources to encouraging Hispanic turnout.

• The number of Hispanic voters has grown considerably in both numbers and influence, and Hispanic voters tend to favor Democrats. 1.4 million more Hispanics voted in the 2012 presidential election than in 2008, and 3 million more Hispanic voters voted in 2008 compared to 2004. In 2012, Hispanics voted 71 percent for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate and 27 percent for the Republican Party’s. In 2008, Democrats won this vote 67-31 percent. Should President Obama “legalize” millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants by executive action, the Democratic Party is expected to benefit considerably when many of these newly-legal residents inevitably become naturalized. Under current law, prospective citizens may qualify for naturalization if they are at least 18 years old and have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years (or 3 years if married to a U.S. citizen) and meet all other eligibility requirements.

• African immigrants tend to vote Democrat, but their vote as a group is less valuable to the Democratic Party than that of Latin American immigrants. This is a) because the number of African immigrants is dramatically smaller and b) because African immigrants have tended not to settle in swing states. The Washington Post reported in 2008 that about 40 percent live in the New York City area and 10 percent in the District of Columbia. About half of all the relatively few African immigrants in the United States live in California, New York, Texas, Maryland, DC or Virginia, of which only the last is presently regarded as a swing state.

• An annual global limit of 675,000 exists on the number of visas issued by the U.S. Department of State, with some exceptions allowed for immediate family members. Specifically, there are 480,000 visas available for family and 140,000 for employment. In keeping with the Immigration and Nationality Act, the State Department’s visa office manages visa allotments per-country on a monthly basis and has strict cut-offs, based on dates in which applications are filed, that determine who may be initially eligible to apply.

• In 2012, according to the U.S. Department of State, 42,167 immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa were granted immigration visas and, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 74,775 immigrants from all African countries became naturalized citizens. Throughout the Obama Administration, the number of visas granted to people from sub-Saharan African nations has ranged between 38,000 and just over 47,000 annually, while annual naturalizations ranged from around 64,000 to 75,000.

• According to the Migration Policy Institute, adult immigrants born in Africa were more likely than native-born Americans to have bachelor’s degrees or higher. The Immigration Policy Center reports that “two-fifths of African immigrants have at least a bachelor’s degree, and more than one-third work in professional jobs.”

• African immigrants are more likely to participate in the civilian labor force than other immigrants of the same gender and also are more likely to participate in the civilian labor force than are native-born Americans. Specifically, African-born immigrant males over 16 had an 83.7 percent labor force participation rate compared to 80.0 percent for all foreign-born men and 69.1 percent for native-born men. African-born women had a higher labor force participation rate, 67.2 percent, than all foreign-born women at 57.4 percent and native-born women at 60.2 percent.

• Only 29.1 percent of immigrants from Africa had limited English proficiency, compared to 52 percent of immigrants overall.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics estimated there were 11.4 million illegal immigrants in the United States as of January 2012. Exact numbers of arriving illegal immigrants per year is impossible to determine, but 409,849 people were deported in fiscal year 2012 and 368,644 in fiscal year 2013.

• To obtain a legal visa for work or residency, an applicant must be sponsored by family, a lawful resident or employer and pay an application processing fee. They must also undergo a rigorous screening process that includes proving their financial stability, good health, good moral character and lack of a criminal record that would cause concern and submit to an interview with U.S. officials and a fingerprint scan. An attorney is not required, but some applicants do seek legal assistance and that practice is not discouraged by the State Department.

• There is a high demand for work visas. The H1-B visa program that allows for temporary work permits allowing businesses “to employ workers in occupations that require highly specialized knowledge in fields such as science, engineering and computer programming” reached its 85,000-applicant limit for fiscal year 2015 in April 2014.

• Some who obtained temporary visas later added to the illegal immigration problem. An estimated 40 percent of all illegal immigrants are people who illegally overstayed otherwise legal visas, according to Sara Murray of the Wall Street Journal, who also reported last year, “Of the people who gained legal status in 2003 and also spent time in the U.S. illegally, 13% overstayed tourist visas by more than six years.” Murray also reported, “…over the past decade the number of new arrivals overstaying their visas has fallen sharply, likely due in large part to stringent security measures put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

What Project 21 Members Say About Potential Amnesty and its Effect on Legal Immigration

“As a former staffer for a member of Congress who worked with constituents to resolve their immigration problems, I can say with first-hand experience that those following our immigration laws are experiencing longer wait times as a result of all the attention and resources devoted to helping those who purposely circumvented our laws. Legal immigrants are forced to wait while those entering illegally are, for instance, enrolling in our public schools. It appears our immigration policy now is ‘break the law and we will break our backs to help you. Do it the right way and we punish you for it.'” — Project 21 member Shelby Emmett, Esq., a former congressional staff member and radio talk show host

“If the Obama Administration grants any type of amnesty that allows the illegal immigrants invading our country to stay, the President will basically be spitting in the face of every foreign-born naturalized American citizen who went through the proper legal path to citizenship. One such foreign-born naturalized citizen is my wife, who came from Africa. Like millions of other law-abiding foreign nationals, she waited in line and played by the rules when applying for her green card and ultimately becoming naturalized. How utterly disrespectful it would be to her and others — especially those from far-away lands — if President Obama simply gives the millions of illegals currently in our country a pass because they were able to slip across our border.” — Project 21 member and social commentator Darryn “Dutch” Martin

“It’s a travesty that there are Africans, Asians and others who would like to come to our nation and are willing to follow the rules who may lose out on their dream because someone else did not play fair, yet is essentially being rewarded by Obama for breaking the law. What this president can do to help the black community, and Americans of all colors, is get out of the way and stop this executive amnesty talk. Stop the job-killing policies he has set up through the EPA and ObamaCare to destroy workers, the middle class, and small business. Cut the social engineering of allowing this influx of illegals to flood the country in order to force amnesty. These would be good first steps.” — Project 21 member Wayne Dupree, talk show host on WAAR and Internet radio pioneer

What Others are Saying About Illegal Immigration’s Impact on Legal Immigration

• In 2012, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service shifted attention from regular visa processing to deal with illegal immigrants due to President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) executive memorandum that halted deportation enforcement for certain young illegals. It reportedly delayed 500,000 legal applications in the process. Mark Kirkorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote: “That’s half a million husbands, wives, and children of U.S. citizens — people whose expeditious immigration even I support, wholeheartedly — [who] have seen their wait times triple because the administration dumped an illegal amnesty program in the lap of an overwhelmed bureaucracy at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, with no additional resources to handle the workload. That means USCIS had to pull people off the processing of legal immigration applications to handle the amnesty applications of illegal aliens, leading to the increased wait times… [H]alf a million illegal aliens have received amnesty, forcing half a million husbands, wives and minor children of American citizens to go to the back of the line.”

• In an analysis of “administrative amnesty,” such as Obama’s 2012 DACA memorandum, Heritage Foundation Vice President Derrick Morgan and Homeland Security Research Associate David Inserra wrote: “Such presidential nullification of established immigration law is unjust to those who decided not to come to the United States because they would be doing so without authorization. Millions of people would fit into this category in Mexico alone. Granting amnesty for another class of people who violated our laws treats those who respect our laws with contempt. It is also unjust to the millions of Americans and resident legal immigrants who followed the rules. Many had to follow our sometimes lengthy process as relatives or spouses of those here legally. Others simply wanted to come to study or work in the United States and followed the rules to do so legally. Granting blanket amnesty to those who neglected to follow our law is a slap in the face to those who are following the rules.”

• Criticizing pending legislation in 2012 that would grant amnesty to illegal aliens, U.S. Representative Lamar Smith said: “President Obama’s amnesty blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy and violates his oath to uphold the laws of the land. Congress has the constitutional authority to determine our nation’s immigration laws… Executive branch discretionary authority is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis, not to entire categories of illegal immigrants.”

• “There is nothing ‘anti-Hispanic’ about wanting to treat fairly the millions of Hispanics and other foreigners who have immigrated to this great country legally or are waiting in line to come here legally. On the contrary, those who equate lawlessness with being somehow pro-Hispanic or those who would punish law-abiding Hispanics waiting in line for the American Dream are far closer to being the racists.” — Charles Hurt, Washington Times columnist

* * *

So far this year, members of the Project 21 black leadership network have been interviewed or cited over 100 times by the media on the issue of immigration. Project 21 members were also interviewed or cited by the media over 1,000 other times this year, including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as WBZ-Boston, WJR-Detroit and KDKA-Pittsburgh, on issues including civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Thesaurus Defines “Obstructionist” As Conservative, Right-Winger

Share

Conservatives Ask NY Times, Gannett CEOs About Bias Issues

Warning New York Times Shareholders: Management Puts Liberalism Over Shareholder Value

At Gannett, CEO Addresses Lingering Questions from Local Paper’s Decision to Print an Interactive Map of Home Addresses of Registered Gun Owners in New York State

National Center Asks New York Times to Add “Genuinely Conservative” Writers to Opinion Page

Tells Gannett CEO that Local Paper’s Decision to Publish Gun Map “No Doubt” Was Political, Describes Recent Tweet of Local Publisher Denigrating NRA Head Wayne LaPierre as Evidence

New York, NY/McLean, VA – National Center personnel went one-on-one with the CEOs of two major media companies this week, asking them pointed questions about specific elements of liberal bias in their organizations.

On Wednesday, April 30, in Manhattan, Senior Fellow Jeff Stier asked New York Times Chairman and Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. about statements by the paper’s own public editors that the Times has a liberal bias and also asked why the Times does not add several genuinely conservative editorial writers to its opinion page. Stier noted that this move could improve profits and enhance shareholder value by making the paper more attractive to the 40% of the public that, according to Gallup, is conservative.

On Thursday, May 1, in McLean, Virginia, Chairman Amy Ridenour asked Gannett Corporation President and CEO Gracia Matore about last year’s controversy in which a Gannett newspaper in New York published the names and addresses of all registered handgun owners in two well-populated New York counties in an interactive map, upsetting the community and exposing Gannett personnel to threats. She also said the decision to run the interactive map almost certainly was political, given that the president and publisher of the local paper just this week tweeted to her Twitter followers a picture of the head of the National Rifle Association with the words “STARK RAVING MAD” across the top.

Stier asked Mr. Sulzberger, in part:

Gallup polls for the last 22 years show that nearly twice as many Americans — on average, 40 percent to 20 percent — identify as conservative than identify as liberal. So about 40 percent of our potential customer base looks at us as out-of-touch with the values that are important to them.

It seems that liberal ideology is being placed ahead of shareholder value.

My question is this: why does the New York Times continue to intentionally alienate so many potential readers? Can you explain the business rationale for rejecting 40 percent of potential subscribers? What, if anything, has been done to address the bias concerns from your own public editors? And why do we not add several truly conservative writers to our opinion pages to enhance our appeal to 40 percent of the market?

Stier received what he called “a cordial non-answer answer.”

“I felt his answer was a little bit of a shell game,” Stier said. “He kind of acknowledged they are perceived as liberal, but said the news is completely separate from the opinion section, and in the news, he said, we do the best we can. He agreed that the paper’s editorial perspective is liberal, but our criticism – and that of the papers own ombudsmen — was about liberal bias in the news division. Our criticism was more substantive than his answer; his answer was more spin than substance. And when it came to the point of why the paper does not put more conservatives on the op-ed pages in order to appeal to a larger customer base, he avoided giving me a direct answer. My impression is that they see themselves as liberals and are comfortable with that; that they aren’t really concerned with making more money at the expense of offering opinions the majority owners disagree with.”

The full text of Stier’s question to Mr. Sulzberger of the New York Times, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Ridenour asked Gannett’s Ms. Matore about a Gannett newspaper, the Journal News, publishing the names and addresses of legally-registered handgun owners in two New York counties a year ago. The action frightened many people, who feared criminals could target them as a result. Some angry people threatened the local newspaper staff and Gannett management, including Ms. Matore herself.

Ridenour asked, in part, and as prepared for delivery:

That the [decision to publish the map] was political there can be no doubt. I note that the paper’s president and publisher just six days ago tweeted out a picture of the head of the National Rifle Association under the words “stark raving mad.” This was on an account identifying her as president and publisher of a Gannett newspaper, and not noting in any way that her tweets were personal opinion only.

If reporting is correct, no one in upper management here at Gannett was consulted before the Journal News outed legally-registered handgun owners. If there was no policy at that time that management should be consulted before such a controversial, and even dangerous action — for Gannett employees as well as law-abiding members of the general public — is there one in place now? Or are publishers of local Gannett papers empowered to publish anything they see fit, even if controversial, potentially-dangerous and on topics on which they have intense personal views?

“I received a decent, if careful, answer from Ms. Matore,” said Ridenour. “Bottom line: the local papers are encouraged – this was said twice – to check with the appropriate executive at Gannett when making future decisions about such things as publishing interactive gun registry maps. I note this falls short of a pledge not to print any more such maps, or to place a mandate on local publishers that executives be contacted, but we can’t expect Gannett to be micromanaging the day-to-day publishing decisions of all of its publications. It needs to be able to trust its local publishers to make the correct decisions and to know when an issue is of such a magnitude as to make it wise to consult upper management. It appears the Journal News publisher wasn’t as wise as she might have been when she decided to publishing the interactive map.”

“Ms. Matore did not comment on my description of the Journal News publisher, using a Twitter account identifying her position with the Journal News, tweeting a picture of the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre with the words ‘stark raving mad’ over it, but she was attentive,” added Ridenour. “In her place I would not comment publicly on a personnel matter either, but in private I’d ask for a resignation. Here’s why: After it published the interactive gun registry map, the Journal News repeatedly claimed its motive was journalistic, yet with one little tweet, the publisher has revealed strong personal feelings against the NRA. It’s clear she was not objective in the matter of the maps. Given her strong personal views, she should have recused herself and consulted upper management. I doubt they would have been published if she had; at least, not in that controversial way. Instead, she scared a lot of people and cost her employer ad and subscriber revenue. Then, having done that, she failed to support the premise that her goal all along was journalistic by revealing her animus in public. Instead, she revealed to anyone who cared to see that her decisionmaking on behalf of the Journal News on the matter of the maps was a low-minded attack on the Second Amendment rather than a high-minded exercise of the First.”

“Although I believe the local publisher should resign, on the whole I was encouraged by what I heard at Gannett,” Ridenour concluded. “The reaction I received was very positive. To my great surprise, individual Gannett executives came up to me afterwards, on their own initiative, to praise my question and thank me for asking it. 100 percent of the feedback I received was positive, when I expected the reverse. Strongly positive, even.”

The full text of Ridenour’s question to Ms. Matore of Gannett, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Amy Ridenour is a shareholder of both Gannett and the New York Times.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist program. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing conservative and free-market principles in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. The National Center has participated in 20 shareholder meetings so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Drudge Headline Page Reads Like We Live In Gestapoland

Just now I went to Drudge to catch the latest headlines. Upon scanning most of them on the home page, I wondered in what country I was actually living in and under whose regime I am a subject of.

WTH? Is this a true reflection of life in America now? Or, is Drudge embellishing stories with trumped up and misleading headlines to sell copy and/or to perpetuate the chaos and hatred among the masses?

I was especially drawn to the main headline that, “Nations Turn to UN.”

Leave thoughts below in comment section if you wish to reply.

DRUDGE REPORT 2014® 2013-10-25 11-27-40

Share

Media Hypocrisy or Planned Events?

We know that the U.S. Constitution only matters in this country when things written in it happen to support a specific narrative conjured by some special interest. The comparison below, which always pits republicans against democrats, i.e. right/left, liberal/conservative, etc., shows that fake laws, created by fake government can easily be rendered useless simply by voting to not fund the administration of that law.

The Media, controlled and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, then goes to work to influence public opinion, while carrying out their bigger agenda of people control and destruction of individualism and independence – all things that threaten the ruling establishment.

hypocrisy

Share

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: The Lynching

Share

Random Thoughts and Comments

When is Murdering a Baby Not Murder?

Authorities in Cleveland say that Ariel Castro may face the death penalty because he starved one of the women he kidnapped and beat her stomach to force an aborted fetus…..at least five times. My question is, if Castro had allowed each of the babies to be born and then stuck a pair of scissors into the skulls of the babies or snipped the baby’s spinal chords at the base of their necks, would he then be only facing assault and battery charges or something similar?

Only One of the Problems With Corrupt and Stupid Media

Joe Scarborough, of miscarriage media, MSNBC, said that the Obama Administration would be in a bigger mess if the “far right” (whatever in his mind that means) “hadn’t overplayed their hand.” For some of you, you may struggle with this, but take a minute to think about how ridiculously ignorant that statement is and how it shows Joe Scarborough to be a non journalist goon, moron and an obvious shill for whoever is paying his wages…..or maybe he’s of the same average intelligence as all other television personalities posing as journalists.

If there were to exist today any such thing as a “journalist”, and Scarborough is barely above a 2nd grade level of brain function, they would ask themselves a simple question about the events in Benghazi. Do all the excuses add up? There is either a problem or there isn’t a problem. To choose to not cover the Benghazi afterbirth, one has to believe that Joe Scarborough, if he were legitimate, didn’t think there was anything to the story that there was a coverup or even a lack of proper response to the attack by terrorists who murdered four Americans.

Now, he comes riding in on his green energy electric horse claiming to be some elitist, all-knowing, all-seeing, right hand of the Obama/Hillary god, attempting to demonize the “far right” (whatever in his mind that means) and makes a complete idiot of himself. I love it.

The problem is, most people are programmed to think differently than I do and I understand that. They will either hate Scarborough because he said something bad against their side, or they will love him because he said something good about their side. For those that need an interpretation, Joe Scarborough was just admitting there is a serious problem here but he chose (and the rest of the mainstream media) not to cover the story because the “far right” was.

BRILLIANT! JUST BRILLIANT! Damn we are so blessed.

Share