[Daily Caller] Whites in Zimbabwe can own businesses and urban apartments but not land, according to the country's president, Robert Mugabe, who called for the removal of white farmers in a fiery speech to a group of supporters on Wednesday.
"We say no to whites owning our land and they should go," the 90 year-old Mugabe told the crowd, gathered in Mhangura, a farming village, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
"They can own companies and apartments�...but not the soil. It is ours and that message should ring loud and clear in Britain and the United States."
"Don't be too kind to white farmers. Land is yours, not theirs," Mugabe added, according to the BBC. You must live locally, in the urban ghettos, where you and your businesses can be more easily targeted.
#5
Mugabe is blatantly crude. The Champ, FLOTUS, and the majority of their regime subscribe to an identical doctrine, but they're much more subtle. Subtlety really is the key.
[BREITBART] President Barack Obama We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us... will attend three fundraisers in Texas next week but will not travel to the border to see the crisis that many say he has exacerbated by not enforcing the country's immigration laws and vowing to enact unilaterally more executive actions to ease deportations.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at Thursday's White House press briefing that Obama is scheduled to attend a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Dallas on Wednesday and two events for the Democratic National Committee in Austin on Wednesday and Thursday.
When pressed about Obama's decision not to go to the border and the military bases and detention centers where undocumented Democrat children are being warehoused, Earnest said Obama has all the information that he needs from his senior advisors.
"I defend that by describing to you that there are a whole range of bigwigs in this administration over the course of the last three or four weeks who have spent a lot of time in the southwest border," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/05/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We have top men looking at the problem. Top men.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/05/2014 0:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Looks like he's given up protecting whatever good image his followers had of him.
#3
Uh-huh, and Bush flew over the Katrina zone instead of getting down and dirty. In some cases I suppose it is a situational awareness security issue of keeping The Man out of the hands of energized, desperate people prepared to riot. In others, the one is advised not to bring increased awareness of the border issues to the fall campaign.
When I remember the Mayor of New York standing in the street surrounded by ash covered responders I am reminded how shallow this one is.
#8
So Breitbart is reporting this story? Will it be in the NYT, WAPO, ABCCBSNBC? No? Didn't think so. They're all talking about the hurricane.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/05/2014 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
That oh so convenient hurricane.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
07/05/2014 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#10
re Katrina: Mr. Bush knew that his on-site presence would divert resources from the recovery efforts. Obama, of course, would have treated it as a photo-op enroute to his next fundraiser.
Obama's handlers will not let him near the border FUBAR until it is politically advantageous to do so.
#12
Remember, prior to Katrina, the President had to wait for the state governor to request federal aid. They then trashed Bush for 'slow response'* when the gov (D) was slow in requesting. The Donks-with-bylines of course 'Blame Bush'(tm). After Katrina, buried in the backpages of the various outlets of the Ministry of Truth(c.1984), they changed the law so that the President no longer has to await the call of the governor to act, which of course, creates another danger.
#14
I wonder how many of the politicians who are pushing amnesty and encouraging these children to be sent up here to cross our border would be willing to adopt 30-40 of these children to live in their homes? Better yet, how would it be if they were forced to take in 30-40 of these kids to live with them (That would still not make a dent in the hordes coming across). I didn't think so. It would not be long before, your family would go under with the added burden of supporting a bunch of these kids. Would Canada allow such craziness, i.e. what would they do if 50,000 people showed up at their border and insisted on being taken in? I don't think they would. The same is true for a country as it is for a household. At some point, the unregulated flow of illegal immigration destroys a country. No country is rich enough to take in anyone who wants to come here. There are millions of people around the world who would come here if they could. There are children everywhere who lack something or are in dire circumstances. If these people who want to come here are defined as refugees or asylum seekers as Obama probably will, then just about anyone from another country could be defined in this way, they children are living in squalor, the country has a high crime rate, is unstable or the people are living in poverty. It would cheaper to give aid to them in their own countries if people are so inclined. There are plenty of private organizations that do this already. There needs to be some sanity instilled into the immigration process; otherwise the choice is chaos (as it is now) and national suicide. The first step is to seal the border. After that, the debate can occur as to what do with those who are here illegally. The people who are here illegally have to right to be here.
#19
The Hispanic community in Texas has expanded considerably in Texas. But with the huge Tejano Texas within the Hispanic community, no noticeable support for Democrats ever occurred with that expansion. In fact Congressman Cruz is a electorial product of fiercely independent Texas Tejano spirit.
#20
I don't know JohnQC - If rumors from reliable sources are true Harry Reid would probably like having 30-50 underage children being totally dependent on him for their very lives.
The only reason Liberals would take on 3-50 so-called children would be if they can 'work them' in the fields or in the home (for free of course). And if the taxpayers pay for their shelter, health, food, clothing, etc...
Doesn't Queen Nancy have vineyard which are always looking for strong backs?
I am old enough to remember when the politicians said, "Let's stop sending people to jail for taking drugs; instead, let's go after the pushers."
With the penalties removed, the market for drugs exploded. With a large market for drugs, the gangs took over large areas of Latin America.
As people start pushing for more legalized drugs, the market will grow. As the market grows, the gangs' power will grow, and they will continue to butcher civilians and anybody else in order to control their share of the market.
As the drug cartels expand, other jobs for people go away. Who wants to run a business in a city controlled by killers? (This is why businesses left the Chicago ghettos after the blockbusting realtors destroyed the neighborhood and the suburbs shot rifle bullets through the windows of Black families who tried to follow jobs to the suburbs. Then Great Society kicked Dad out of the house. He's an able bodied man; he can find a job. His job moved to Melrose Park, there's no public transportation, and somebody will shoot into your kids' bedroom window if you try to get an apartment there? What is that to the Great Society? If Dad's in the house, you have a provider and you can't get any relief. Oh, there aren't any jobs, the schools are falling apart because Chicago Board of Ed and the Teachers' Union don't give a damn for black kids? And gangs took over your neighborhood now? That's too bad. Go away now; you're keeping me from my golf appointment with my precinct captain.")
Anyway...
Without jobs, you can't eat and keep a roof over your head. So you want to go somewhere else. Somewhere safer, like the US. To file for a visa costs six or seven hundred dollars, which at Latin American income levels is half a year's salary, if you have a job. That's for one person, not your family. Then, because Immigration bureaucrats are, well, Immigration bureaucrats (you can't sink much lower), you get notices like, "Dear Senora M.. Your visa application was correct as of the time you filed it; but we changed the rules in the nine or ten months before we got around to looking at it, so now you have to refile. The fee will cost you another half year's salary."
This is why people jump the fence. And when they get here, there are politicians who depend on having a ghettoized constituency to maintain their power. Just as the bosses in Czech and Polish wards did and still do in Chicago; the immigrant neighborhoods have the same problem. Immigration only let you bring one of your five kids into the US? OK, Buddy; I'll see what I can do so you can get one of your other kids here, and I'll find a way for you to be eligible to vote so you can remember me in your next election."
Then there is the little challenge of finding adult ESL instruction. Some of the students I work with have been on waiting lists for over a year to get into my class and others like it. The demand for ESL instruction is far, far above the supply. Schools provide it for kids; but the parents have to juggle work, child care, and transportation so they can get to a class that meets one or two days a week. Some of the students who want to get into classes are working three jobs. One of my students works three jobs and gets four hours of sleep a night. Somehow he make it to one class a week.
So if you really want to solve the present immigration mess:
1. Clean up the Dept of Immigration. Dump the payrollers and crooks. Set a system that handles applications in a timely fashion and does not cost obscene amounts of money for people to apply.
2. Seal the border so that the border states do not have stampedes of people straining their resources; and so that the criminals can't get in either.
3. This is probably even harder than making ICE a functional department, but we have to try: Get across to all the potheads and aging hippies that every gram of weed and coke is watered by the blood of Latin Americans killed by the Narcos.
4. Want people to learn English? Volunteer to help teach it.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[BREITBART] President 
