Published on May 25, 2019
Take the tragic tale of Oscar Ramirez and his young daughter Valeria, the father and daughter captured in death in that heartbreaking photograph. Ramirez’s widow explained to the Washington Post why her husband wanted to move to America: He wanted “a better future for their girl.” This is an admirable goal, but it is classic economic immigration, and it would appear, based on what we know, that it has absolutely nothing to do with asylum. Here again is the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services definition: “Refugee status or asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”
But somehow the courts have decided that you qualify for asylum if there is simply widespread crime or violence where you live, and Ramirez was also going to use that argument as well. A government need not persecute you; you just have to experience an unsafe environment that your government is failing to suppress. This so expands the idea of asylum, in my view, as to render it meaningless.
Courts have also expanded asylum to include domestic violence, determining that women in abusive relationships are a “particular social group” and thereby qualify. In other words, every woman on the planet who has experienced domestic abuse can now come to America and claim asylum. Also everyone on the planet who doesn’t live in a stable, orderly, low-crime society. Literally billions of human beings now have the right to asylum in America. As climate change worsens, more will rush to claim it. All they have to do is show up.
Last month alone, 144,000 people were detained at the border making an asylum claim. This year, about a million Central Americans will have relocated to the U.S. on those grounds. To add to this, a big majority of the candidates in the Democratic debates also want to remove the grounds for detention at all, by repealing the 1929 law that made illegal entry a criminal offense and turning it into a civil one. And almost all of them said that if illegal immigrants do not commit a crime once they’re in the U.S., they
The “debate” last night (June 27, 2019) among Democratic Party candidates for president of the United States revealed that all of them are for a wide open border(s) which they view as an open door to anyone and everyone from anywhere in the world to come in and colonize our nation. While Social Security which Americans paid into is frozen at low end single digit increases and pension funds are either frozen or marked for decreases in a time of high inflation — Democrats are eager to hand over all kinds of financial incentives to illegal entrants along with free health care and taxpayer funded accommodations. All this is happening while ISIS and other terrorists are threatening to attack American targets on the 4th of July.
Writing “your” congressman has no effect, since they are all signed on to The Great Replacement. It’s frightening to see these Democrats pandering to illegal aliens while figuratively spitting in the faces of American citizens who oppose their demographic replacement strategies.
What are Americans to do when their own government and media are hell bent on flooding our nation with Third World invaders? The ballot box is no longer a viable option to save our nation from these insane politicians, especially since activist judges have ruled that it is unconstitutional to prevent foreigners from ignoring our immigration laws while our “lawmakers” are proposing decriminalizing illegal entrance into the United States. The pattern has been set for hundreds of millions of foreigners to walk right across our borders and demographically replace us while we are taxed to finance the Pentagon and the impotent Department Homeland Security — the Maginot Lines of our time.
With President Donald Trump’s hands tied on illegal immigration by activist judges, or worse, his willing betrayal of his voter base per the promised wall along the Mexican border and deportation of illegal aliens who ignored orders to self-deport, all lawful options to stop our demographic replacement have been prevented by the elected officials who are supposed to represent the American people — not Mexicans, Central Americans, Hatians, Congolese, or other nationalities.
Is it any wonder that various agents in Washington and Silicon Valley are doing a full court press to silence conservative voices and financially destroy persons who voice strong opposition to the Great Replacement? What started out as the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “Hate Map” has been weaponized recently to criminalize alleged “hate groups.” We are living in frightening times.
S. Byron Gassaway
By Geoffrey A. Fowler | The Washington Post Columnist
You open your browser to look at the web. Do you know who is looking back at you?
Over a recent week of web surfing, I peered under the hood of Google Chrome and found it brought along a few thousand friends. Shopping, news and even government sites quietly tagged my browser to let ad and data companies ride shotgun while I clicked around the web.
This was made possible by the web’s biggest snoop of all: Google. Seen from the inside, its Chrome browser looks a lot like surveillance software.
The Weathermen – In Pursuit of Truth Presents
A fascinating look at the prominent figures in the Weather Underground from the 1960’s to the present.
Many critics of the term argue that the demographic divisions (racial groups, whole religions) the term attempts to insulate from group criticism are arbitrarily or ideologically selected. For example, why aren’t lesser political groups (atheist organizations, for example) or smaller religious denominations (scientologists, for example) equally protected by the label and the stigma surrounding it? Thus, instead of protecting the powerless, the term seems to insulate from criticism those populations with sufficient numbers, power and prominence to command protection. After all, any number of randomly selected demographic categories could be deemed above group criticism or political opposition, yet few are. Why do certain groups seem to be so much more worthy of the term’s protections? In sum, the term appears to place arbitrary or ideology-laden restrictions on speech and activism, in defiance of the liberal democratic tradition, which asserts that all ideologies, movements, groups, and religions are fair game for philosophical critique and peaceful opposition.
The attack on free speech in the name of combating violence and “hate speech” continues to escalate: In Germany, MSM are trying to frame alternative media for the murder of CDU politician Walter Lübcke by a deranged far-right crazy.
Kassel regional government president Walter Lübcke, a member of Angela Merkel’s CDU, became a controversial figure in 2015 at the height of Merkel’s refugee influx, when he told a critic at a public debate, “If you don’t like the values of this country, you’re free to leave at any time.” The remark caused an uproar in patriotic German circles, Lübcke received a torrent of threats and online abuse which had since faded, however.
On June 2 of this year, Lübcke was found shot in the head in his yard. On June 15, suspect Stefan E. was arrested, who is active in far-right paramilitary group Combat 18 and was convicted of bombing a refugee home in 1993.
Mainstream media are now blaming alternative media in Germany for this crime. As Soros-funded “Hate Speech monitor” Amadeu Antonio Foundation and blog Volksverpetzer reported, a reader had posted the (publicly available) office address of Dr. Walter Lübcke in the comments section of leading German alternative news site Politically Incorrect in 2015.
In this episode of the Keiser Report, Max and Stacy discuss the ‘rare moon bear’ saved from extinction by the decades-old conflict and tensions between the two Koreas. They use this as an analogy for our privacy which has mostly become extinct, mostly thanks to our collective role in handing over our private data. Only the few who are not on social media may not yet have had their data incorporated into a snooping algorithm. In the second half, Max interviews cryptographer Harry Halpin about a Tor competitor he has designed, called Nym. They discuss ‘the dark web,’ privacy, and the problems with Tor.
RT’s Keiser Report discusses the report, using it as an analogy for our privacy. Stacy Herbert compares it with the human situation in a surveillance state, noting that there are still “some humans that live outside a CCTV camera, humans that don’t have a GPS monitor anywhere near them” because they might live somewhere in the middle of South or North Dakota. Max Keiser recalls his theory of the “economy’s insectualisation” where humans are becoming a colony of insects (bees or ants). That’s all enabled by the 5G surveillance state, he says.
How did a minority in Islam become so forceful and dominant in our politics, legislation and terrorism? So much so that legislation is being brought forward to curtail our criticism of it?
Are you, like me, a conservative but wonder where on earth they are? The book names and shames politicians who trade under the label ‘conservative’.
It lauds those who are fighting against the whole gender and transgender agenda.
It has chapters from a transvestite and a young man who thought he was trans and started the transition process, aided by the irresponsible state, until he realised he was just gay, to a man that became a woman. We hear their stories. None of them have been infected by liberal left wrong think.
The author tears into our education system, the EU, the UN, every politician and body that undermines the family, rule of law, our Western way of life, open borders, mass immigration that no one wanted or indeed, asked for. She condemns the attack on our free speech and imported third world practices and terrorism.
Cultural Marxism has to be stopped and reversed.
Video sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”
YouTube’s Latest PurgeVideo sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”
YouTube has just announced they have changed their “community standards” to combat “extremist content” on their platform. This is just the latest step in the war against free speech online.
This move comes as no surprise – the press have been laying the groundwork for this for weeks, even months.
Three weeks ago Buzzfeed reported that YouTube’s monetised chat was “pushing creators to more extreme content”, and just yesterday it was reported that YouTube’s recommend algorithm was “sexualising children”.
Given that, it comes as no surprise that the mainstream media are celebrating this latest “purge”.The Guardian reported:
YouTube bans videos promoting Nazi ideology
Whilst the Financial Times went with:
YouTube to ban supremacist videos
Both these headlines are wildly inaccurate, deliberately playing the racism/white supremacy angle in the hopes that people will clap along without reading anything else.