[Al Ahram] Former U.S. Congressman Patrick Kennedy supports Iranian group in Stockholm that is demanding support for more than 3,000 Iranian Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) members living in Iraq.
So Patrick's is consorting with a 'guerilla organization' that until recently was considered by our own government as a terrorist group. From the safety of Sweden. Brave, brave Patrick...
Posted by: Fred ||
04/07/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr Kennedy -
Stay there.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/07/2013 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
[EXPRESS.CO.UK] Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU's home affairs commissioner, said she wanted to "eradicate" the term from Brussels documents. Actually, there's no such thing as illegality. It's all a construct imposed on society by society. If nothing was regarded as illegal society would keel over dead.
She has instructed EU Commission staff to refer to foreigners who break border control laws as "irregular migrants" or simply "people" instead. Too generic. How about "colonists?"
But her attempt to dictate how the issue of immigration is discussed was savaged last night. No! Re-e-e-e-e-eally?
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said: "Now the EU is even trying to change the language. Multilingually, assuming that's a word.
"This sounds like something straight out of the pages of George Orwell's Animal Farm. It shows that what we are dealing with here is a totalitarian mindset." I don't think the term "George Orwell's Animal Farm" is used anymore. I think they replaced it with the term "Handbook for Eurocrats."
Mrs Malmstrom spoke out about the phrase "illegal immigrant" on Twitter yesterday. She praised the US news agency News Agency that Dare Not be Named, which dropped the phrase from its handbook on writing style for journalists. "Illegal immigrant? Can't use that. Call it something else!"
"Yes, sir, chief!"
"And don't call me 'chief,' Olsen!"
"No, sir, chief!"
"And maybe we should do away with the word 'round.' After all, some things are ovals. Round implies some sort of symmetry, and people might think that's saying that 'round things' are perfect and 'oval things' aren't."
"Right, chief!"
"And the word 'thumb.' I think that should definitely go. Why distinguish a 'thumb' from any other finger? Even better, let's do away with the word 'toe' and refer to them all as 'digits.'"
"Yes, chief."
"And we should definitely do away with the word 'first.' Too non-inclusive."
In a message, she wrote: "The EU should follow. I've worked to eradicate the term 'illegal immigrant' from all commission docs. No human being is 'illegal', ever." She's pretending the term describes the person exclusively of the act. In my miniature mind, if something is "illegal" it's against the law. An "immigrant," without an adjective, is presumed to be documented. The generic "people" is so generically dribbled that it applies to everyone, everywhere, the limit of inclusion being the anthropoid apes.
Vanilla never used to make me gag.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/07/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Why should anyone obey law? Or only laws that provide an advantage to them? Rhetorical question but goes to the fundamentals of society. The real game is those pushing these lies are unable to 'democratically' alter the situation, so they seek to impose their will by other means.
#3
"I've worked to eradicate the term 'illegal immigrant'"
Good idea. Also eliminate "undocumented immigrant." There's no such thing.
An immigrant is someone who LEGALLY (i.e., following the laws of the country to which they're immigrating) emigrated from the country where that person was born to the country where that person immigrated to. Therefore an "immigrant" cannot be "illegal" or "undocumented."
The accurate term you're looking for* is ILLEGAL ALIEN. And they're breaking the law in whatever language you choose.
*Yeah, yeah, I know - the clueless twit doesn't want to be accurate.
Posted by: Barbara ||
04/07/2013 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Irregular? Yikes that doesnt sound very inclusive either. Hows about Unannounced Guests? That way Madam Commissioner they can sleep on your couch until they find a place of their own.
#7
The people currently invading Australia at the rate of 2000 a month by boat are known to the government here as "Irregular Maritime Arrivals".
The Press Council, an industry body, has banned the use of the term "illegal immigrants" by the media.
So if you think Australia might be a refuge from PC nonsense, think again.
Posted by: Aussie Mike ||
04/07/2013 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
ANNE COULTER was correct when she argued that no Republican + aligned Pol[Conservatives] may be elected POTUS evar! again.
Once the US is effec suborned under OWG + various Global Federal Unions + Interims circa 2015 or ASAP after, 2013 + 11-22.0Milyuhn illegals in Amerika will be seen as the proverbial "good ole days" when the number of illegals was LOW.
Hi, everybody. Our top priority as a nation, and my top priority as President, must be doing everything we can to reignite the engine of America's growth: a rising, thriving middle class. That's our North Star. That must drive every decision we make.
Now, yesterday, we learned that our businesses created 95,000 new jobs last month. That's about 500,000 new jobs this year, and nearly 6.5 million new jobs over the past three years. Eight months remaining in the year, including this month, works out to 62,500 jobs a month to add up to 500,000. 6.5 million jobs over the past three years (36 months) works out to 180,555 and a half jobs per month. The unemployment rate remains 7.8%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives the unemployment rate in January, 2009, when Champ took over, as 7.6%. I'm not a statistician, but if the rate was 7.6% in January, 2009, and the rate to day is 7.8%, that would suggest a .2% net loss of jobs, wouldn't it? From what I can see, the .2% net loss rings a lot truer than 6.5 million new jobs created. Perhaps he means that 6.5 million jobs were churned, with one person leaving and another "job created" be somebody else taking his place.
But we've got more work to do to get the economy growing faster, so that everybody who wants a job can find one. And that means we need fewer self-inflicted wounds from Washington, like the across-the-board spending cuts that are already hurting many communities -- cuts that economists predict will cost our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs this year. How much would be saved by shutting down PBS? Department of Education? EPA? DEA?
If we want to keep rebuilding this economy on a stronger, sturdier foundation for growth -- growth that creates good, middle-class jobs -- we need to make smarter choices.
This week, I'll send a budget to Congress that will help do just that -- a fiscally-responsible blueprint for middle-class jobs and growth.
For years, an argument in Washington has raged between reducing our deficits at all costs, and making the investments we need to grow the economy. There should be a gin chugging game where you have to drink every time a politician says "investment." If I invest my money I expect to make a profit. We've been "investing" in a federal Department Housing and Urban Development for years. Have our cities gotten any better? In those few that have, has it been due to HUD? How has the Department of Homeland Security improved anything? Has education gotten any better since the inception of the Department of Education? Couldn't we at least do away with one of them?
My budget puts that argument to rest. Because we don't have to choose between these goals -- we can do both. "That's right, ladies and gentlemen! We can eat pie and lose weight!"
After all, as we saw in the 1990s, nothing reduces deficits faster than a growing economy.
My budget will reduce our deficits not with aimless, reckless spending cuts that hurt students and seniors and middle-class families -- but through the balanced approach that the American people prefer, and the investments that a growing economy demands.
Now, the truth is, our deficits are already shrinking. That's a fact. I've already signed more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction into law, and my budget will reduce our deficits by nearly $2 trillion more, without harming the recovery. That surpasses the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that many economists believe will stabilize our finances.
We'll make the tough reforms required to strengthen Medicare for the future, without undermining the rock-solid guarantee at its core. And we'll enact commonsense tax reform that includes closing wasteful tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected -- loopholes like the ones that can allow a billionaire to pay a lower tax rate than his or her secretary.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/07/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
His top priority is ruining those parts of the economy that he hasn't ruined yet, and, squeezing as many tax dollars as he can to give to his sychophants to carry on the work.
#6
Now, the truth is, our deficits are already shrinking. That's a fact
No thats not a fact. Its like your wife telling you her butt has gotten smaller because next year shes going on a diet. Outside of Obamaland projected reductions in the rate of growth are not the definition of shrinking. But you knew that.
#9
The premise of his "rising, thriving middle class" idea is that we can pay for a continuing lavish level of government expenditures by taxing the "rich" (whoever they are) and not the middle class. In other news, 2+2=5. There is no way we are getting out of this hole without defaulting on our debt, either formally on by inflation (default on the installment plan), or substantially raising taxes on the middle class. Dave Burge (Iowahawk) amusingly dismantled the tax-the-rich idea here.
Another phrase I found interesting is that we need to expand the economy "so that everybody who wants a job can find one." That makes it sound like feeding your family by hard work is a quaint hobby that conservatives are unaccountably fascinated with, instead of the foundation of the American economy.
But what's the use?
Posted by: Matt ||
04/07/2013 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#10
the only reason the UE rate is even 7.8% is that so many have quit looking for employment
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/07/2013 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Surely the President of the United States of America would never quote data from a biased, partisan, dubious, or unsubstantiated source.
/sarc.
#12
That's about 500,000 new jobs this year, and nearly 6.5 million new jobs over the past three years
Not a word about the jobs that have been lost and most importantly the bifurcation between young and old.
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.
[EXPRESS.CO.UK] Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU's home affairs commissioner, said she wanted to "eradicate" the term from Brussels documents.
[NEWS.INVESTORS] President Obama's weekly remarks
