political correctness

Clues looking for detectives – where are you?

So many questions arise from reports in the media about immigrants charged with offenses, but follow-up information is often lacking. 

In his new blog, Dan Cadman of the Center for Immigration Studies focuses on a particular case and points out avenues for investigation that have been neglected, which, if pursued, could cast an entirely different light illuminating related issues.

Here’s a road map for enterprising journalists!

------------------------

Journalistic Horse Blinders Keep Key Facts from the Public; Isn't finding and reporting facts the reason for the media's existence?  By Dan Cadman on September 9, 2019

On September 6, American Airlines (AA) mechanic Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani was arrested and charged in federal district court in Miami with sabotage of a commercial aircraft. Video footage revealed he was the reason behind a "mechanical" difficulty that forced cancellation of a flight from Miami to the Bahamas back in mid-July. (See here and here.)

He has been charged with, and allegedly confessed to, spraying foam glue into a tube used for navigation instruments. This is no small matter — those instruments are particularly necessary in hazardous or turbulent weather conditions.

Very few of the media articles I've examined spoke to the man's background — a curious, but all too typical horse-blinders approach many journalists take these days whenever a case might depict immigrants in a bad light. (The same thing happened recently in a case involving several illegal alien MS-13 gang members arrested and accused of murder in Baltimore County, Md. There was at first a cone of silence that descended over the arrest of these "Maryland men".)

In this instance, an interesting smattering of facts have come out in the days following Alani's arrest: He originally came to the United States from Iraq as the spouse of a U.S. citizen who petitioned for him; he subsequently naturalized, in 1992; when he was arraigned, his English was so poor that the judge ordered an Arabic interpreter; and at least one news outlet says that he was at one point a mechanic at both American and Alaska Airlines, but Alaska fired him for "mistakes" and irregularities of some kind (not further explained), as well as for submitting fraudulent time sheets. Subsequent to being terminated, he filed a discrimination complaint — one might guess unsuccessfully, given that the firing was not reversed.

There are so many things to chew on in that smorgasbord of factoids.

I can't help but wonder about his marriage. Was it arranged, and/or was there a vast disparity in age? Are they still wed, or was it a marriage of convenience?

What about his naturalization? How is it that he passed the examinations (27 years ago!), which are supposed to require competent English language skills before one can assume the mantle of citizenship? It sure seems like those responsible for immigration and naturalization matters at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have ample reason to go back and do a thorough post-audit of Alani's file. Want to beef up your vetting? Take the time to look at how your mistakes are made, and learn from them.

And if his command of English is so poor that the judge called for an interpreter, how could he possibly be working as a competent mechanic, all of whose manuals, instruction guides, tutorials, and courses would be in English? How could he have interacted with pilots, other mechanics, and the host of others involved in airplane maintenance? What does American Airlines have to say about this? So far, it would appear no one in the media has asked, even though post-arrest, American immediately issued a press release saying in pertinent part:

At American, we have an unwavering commitment to the safety and security of our customers and team members and we are taking this matter very seriously. At the time of the incident, the aircraft was taken out of service, maintenance was performed and after an inspection to ensure it was safe the aircraft was returned to service. American immediately notified federal law enforcement who took over the investigation with our full cooperation.

Then there's that Alaska Airlines firing in 2008: In light of this most recent criminal malfeasance, it sure seems like somebody needs to go back and carefully reexamine those past mechanical mistakes at Alaska, or that an enterprising investigative journalist might want to dig a little further even if officialdom and the corporate world don't.

Also puzzling: American Airlines had to know about Alani being terminated from Alaska Airlines; it became a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) investigation at one point (though why isn't clear). What's more, part of the basis for his firing was that he claimed to be on the clock at both airlines at the same time so that he could double-dip. So why did American Airlines keep him on? The question begs to be asked, especially in light of American's public statement.

In fact, why did the FAA or Transportation Security Administration continue to credential him to work in an environment as sensitive as an airport in this post-9/11 world after his 2008 firing? Were one and all more afraid of a discrimination complaint than they were the safety of passengers?

https://cis.org/Cadman/Journalistic-Horse-Blinders-Keep-Key-Facts-Public

Ann Coulter: How we became the world's suckers on immigration

Looking at our immigration policies compared to the rest of the world, you’d think America lost a bet.

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world (the other is Canada, and even it has some restrictions we don’t have) with full “birthright citizenship,” meaning that any child born when his mother was physically present within the geographical borders of the U.S. automatically gets a U.S. birth certificate and a Social Security card.

That means legal immigrants, pregnant women sneaking in on tourist visas, travelers on a three-week vacation, cheap foreign workers on “temporary” visas and, in some cases, foreign diplomats.

There are laws on the books that say the kids born to diplomats don’t automatically become citizens simply by being born here but — like so many of our immigration laws — these are treated as mere suggestions.

And that’s not all.

We’re the only country but two that confers automatic citizenship on children born to illegal aliens, or “anchor babies.” This is not “birthright citizenship,” which refers to children born to legal immigrants. (There’s nothing vulgar, bigoted, racial or sexual about the term “anchor baby.” It’s a boating metaphor: A geographical U.S. birth “anchors” the child’s entire family in this country by virtue of the baby’s citizenship.)

The other two countries that grant citizenship to anchor babies are Canada and Tanzania. Canada doesn’t have Latin America on its border, of course — and Tanzania is reconsidering the policy.

Here’s a fun fact: Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — the notorious Mexican drug lord, sentenced on July 17 to life plus 30 years for drug trafficking and multiple murder conspiracies — has two children who are American, born in sunny California to his wife, who’s an anchor baby herself.

Why would any country make the calculated decision to reward illegal immigration by granting the full privileges of citizenship to the children of illegals or foreign visitors who arrange to have the births take place on its soil?

As a matter of fact, “we” didn’t make such a decision.

The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan invented the anchor-baby policy out of whole cloth and snuck it into a footnote of an opinion written in 1982. Yes, this ancient bedrock principle, this essence of “Who We Are,” dates all the way back to the Reagan administration.

The Brennan footnote was not part of the decision. It does not have the force of law. Yet, today, we act as if Brennan’s absurd dicta is the law of the land for no reason other than: a) sheer ignorance and b) a fear of being called “racist.”

No U.S. Congress or Supreme Court ever debated and then approved the idea that children born to mothers illegally present in the country should automatically become citizens. Consequently, any president or Congress could simply state that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens. If only we had a president or Congress that would do so.

Which reminds me: No other country fawns over illegal immigrants brought in as minors, day in and day out, calling them “Dreamers.”

The U.S. is one of the rare countries that makes citizens of people who can’t speak the language — along with the masochistic Swedes. (How did they terrorize the world 800 years ago?) The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands all have the crazy idea that citizens should be able to communicate with one another. We have a language requirement on the books but, it turns out, that too is merely a suggestion. 

No other country holds a “lottery” in which the prize is U.S. citizenship. Ireland has a lottery but, for whatever sick and twisted reason, the Irish give the winners money, not citizenship in their country.

We bring in 50,000 lucky lottery winners each year, literally for no reason at all. (Thanks, First President Bush!) To enter, you must be from a specified country, like the Congo, Nepal, Ethiopia or Uzbekistan. You submit your name to the State Department and, if your name is pulled out of a hat, WELCOME TO AMERICA!

This rigorous system for choosing our fellow citizens gave us, for example, Egyptian national Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Airlines ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport in 2002, murdering two people. His wife had won the lottery five years after he came here on a tourist visa.

It got us Sayfullo Saipov, the Uzbeki who plowed a rented truck into a crowd of bicyclists and pedestrians on Halloween 2017 in New York City, killing eight and injuring many more.

It bestowed upon us Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi national who got in as the nephew of a lottery winner. Ullah enriched us by detonating a bomb in New York City’s Port Authority in December 2017.

Speaking of nephews of Bangladeshi lottery winners trying to blow up the Port Authority, no other major country in the world issues a majority of its visas to people based on the fact that they have a relative already living here. 

We’re not talking about the spouses and minor children of immigrants we really want. These are adult siblings, nephews and nieces — who have their own adult children, elderly parents and mothers-in-law. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants to the U.S. come in on these “family reunification” visas. (We wouldn’t want our immigrants to be illiterate, poor and lonesome.)

Even the New York Times — despite its decidedly anti-MAGA bent — has described our “family reunification” system as wildly out of step with the rest of the world. 

We’re in a buyer’s market but, instead of taking the top draft picks, we aggressively recruit the desperately poor, the culturally deprived, the sick and the needy. All because American elites seem to believe that it’s unfair — even snooty — to try to bring in the best immigrants we can.

Ann Coulter is a lawyer, a syndicated columnist and conservative commentator, and the author of 13 New York Times bestsellers. The most recent, “Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” was published in 2018. Follow her on Twitter @AnnCoulter

http://www.oregonir.org/blog/ann-coulter-how-we-became-worlds-suckers-im...

LOCAL MEDIA IGNORE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF CONVICTED KILLER

At least five Oregon media outlets reported on the sentencing hearing on December 12 of a man convicted of stabbing his girlfriend to death. Not one of the articles found on a search mentioned the killer’s status as an illegal alien.

A Jackson County court in Medford, Oregon, found 39-year-old Enrique Solis-Garcia guilty on December 7 after he stabbed his estranged girlfriend 40 times. Solis-Garcia changed his plea from not guilty to no contest during the December hearing. The man stabbed the mother of his two children 40 times after laying in wait for her with a large knife, KOBI NBC5 reported. Solis-Garcia purchased the knife at a local Walmart the night before the murder.

“A man has been sentenced to at least 25 years in prison for stabbing a woman to death,” the Associated Press reported.

The outlets made no mention of the man’s status as an illegal alien from Mexico.

Even a highly detailed article by the Mail Tribune made no mention of the killer’s immigration status.

“A man will spend at least 25 years in prison for the brutal stabbing death of the mother of his children in her east Medford driveway,” the local newspaper reported.

The failure by the media to discuss the immigration status of convicted criminals leads to a failure to inform the public of the true impact of illegal immigration on local crime.

Perhaps one reason for the failure to disclose basic information in a criminal case can be seen in a press release by Jackson County District Attorney Beth Heckert who also failed to mention the immigration status.

Following the murder, Solis-Garcia fled south to where police eventually captured him in Red Bluff, California.

A statement from ICE Public Affairs provided to Breitbart News confirmed that Enrique Solis-Garcia, a Mexican national, was illegally present in the U.S. at the time of the murder of Noemi Ruiz. The statement also confirmed the immigration agency placed a detainer on the convicted killer.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for the Breitbart Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.

U.S. Far-Left Group SPLC To Pay Counter-Extremist Maajid Nawaz $3.3M Settlement Over Anti-Muslim 'Hate List'

OFIR note: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is in big trouble for maligning anti-extremist British Muslim Maajid Nawaz. It appears the the SPLC has overstepped not only the bounds of sensibility, but bounds of legality.

It should be noted that the SPLC has listed Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) on their arbitrary "hate map". As a result, the University of Oregon used this accusation as grounds to try to intimidate OFIR on use of OFIR's logo.

This is a prime example of how the radical left uses bullying tactics against legitimate mainstream organizations.

 

From the article:

The U.S. far-left “anti-hate” Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has agreed to pay anti-extremist British Muslim Maajid Nawaz a 3.3m dollar settlement after the group included him in a list of anti-Muslim extremists.

The settlement amount was announced by Mr Nawaz on Twitter Monday following a lawsuit brought against the group last year for including him on their “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.”

Nawaz included a press release from the anti-extremist Quilliam group which he co-founded that said not only was the SPLC  paying Nawaz and Quilliam $3.375 million U.S. dollars but also formally apologized to Nawaz for including him on their “hate list.”...

 


 

Related

Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong, by Douglas Murray, National Review, June 19, 2018:

Any free society must expect that a certain number of chancers, hucksters, and shake-down artists will prosper among them. But rarely have they come in so grossly endowed and shameless a guise as the “Southern Poverty Law Center.”

The SPLC was founded in the 1970s, and back then it did some respectable campaigning work to target and shut down — through legal means — actually racist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan. All well and good, and the SPLC can still be applauded for this work. And yet students of non-profits and charities worldwide will be familiar with a certain tendency in this field, which is that such organizations rarely shut themselves down. Or, to put it another way, a charity set up to cure a disease may find a cure for that disease and yet strangely also find some reasons to continue. For of course salaries and pensions are at stake. ...

So it is — though in far worse form — with the KKK and the SPLC. Of course as the KKK dwindled to an all but negligible fringe, the SPLC could not afford to bask in its victories. There was still cash to collect. Indeed more cash than ever. And who but a fool, or an honest man, would leave tens of millions of dollars on the table? So it is that in recent years the SPLC reoriented itself. It became an organization that looked into all those things that were not racist but that might be deemed right of center. It decided to look into not terrorism and racism but “extremism.” It decided, in particular, that it should become the self-appointed arbiter of what is acceptable in American life and what is unacceptable....

Yet the SPLC has repeatedly shown itself to be woefully unfit to perform its self-assigned task. For instance in 2015 it “designated” (as though this should have had any standing anywhere other than in the minds of the SPLC’s employees) Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson as an “extremist.” So within the space of only a few decades the SPLC moved from targeting the KKK to targeting a black conservative. ...

Which brings us to today. For as of today it seems possible that the SPLC’s position may finally be taken back down to the position it should have been reduced to years ago. Perhaps after today those donors who still give money to the SPLC will realize that they are backing a disgraced and disgraceful organization, if any were unaware of and unbothered about this before....

 

Also see: The SPLC File - An Exclusive Report on the Southern Poverty Law Center, The Social Contract, Spring 2018.

Open borders Marxists resort to childish name calling

Remember how elementary school kids used name-calling as a bullying tactic? There wasn't much rationale behind it. It was intended to intimidate, ridicule, and diminish the victim. 

Name-calling is pretty serious for kids. It's pretty funny when those who are purportedly adults resort to name-calling as a tactic of attempted intimidation.

There are very good reasons to enforce immigration law, as noted in the article My Secret Plan to Destroy America, by Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado. Another is that mass immigration is driving America's population to double within the lifetimes of children born today.

Those who support immigration reduction and immigration law enforcement are accustomed to being called names such as racist, nativist, and white nationalist.* That's it? That's all that the open borders Marxists can come up with? No arguments of substance, no plethora of factual evidence to substantiate their point?

The joke's on them! Anyone with half a brain can see through the shallow, childish attacks. Especially when babbled repetitiously by the Marxist mouthpieces of mass immigration.

The Big Lie

The Big Lie is a formal debating strategy where a falsehood so colossal is told that no one would dare question it. Incessant repetition gels its undeniable existence. The Big Lie was coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 book, Mein Kampf.

One of the most common Big Lies we hear is that "We're a nation of immigrants." Really? I'm not. Are you?

America is a nation of American citizens. A very small fraction of Americans are legal immigrants, and a larger fraction are illegal aliens who evaded capture at our border. In our past, the vast open spaces of America were settled by American settlers, some of whom were immigrants. In perspective, of course, every nation is ultimately a nation of immigrants - there are no documented cases of people sprouting directly out of the soil.

Another Big Lie is that the Statue of Liberty is a tribute to mass immigration. It's not. See the articles listed below to learn more about the third-rate poem that happened to win a fundraising contest.

The ad hominem attack

An ad hominem attack is a formal debating tactic of attacking your opponent's character as opposed to answering their argument. It is a de facto admission of the inability to win the debate on the merits of one's argument alone. 

Accusation of racism is a form of an ad hominem attack. Name-calling - that is, the ad hominem attack - is a popular tool of cultural Marxists, mainly because that's all they've got.

More attacks

More formal debating strategies - also knows as logical fallacies - are summarized in Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate and Master List of Logical Fallacies.

Other methods of attacking ideas and specific opponents prevail. Most notable are those delineated in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. In particular, Rule 13 has been applied with vigor by the open borders leftists:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions."

For example, open borders Marxists have repeatedly attacked John Tanton, who single-handedly fostered huge advances in the environmental and immigration sanity realms. See A Case Study in Disinformation - Attacking John Tanton. Other examples are noted in these articles: Alinsky Does Amnesty and the Political Persecution of Dinesh D’Souza.

The joke's on them

When you come across a racist attack levied against an immigration patriot - that is, a repetitious rehash of contorted material previously contrived, ask yourself:

What are they trying to prove? Is this the best argument they can come up with? It's gotta be a joke, right? Nobody could deliberately want to look that childish, inept, and stupid.

 


 

Related

Crazy SPLC smears black woman as white nationalist, by Fred Elbel, CAIRCO, November 5, 2015:

"As a black American, I am outraged at the lengths the hate-mongering left goes to smear advocates for sanity and control regarding immigration....

So if you subscribe to the SPLC and IMAGINE 2050 because you think they are fighting for minority Americans, you’ve been scammed, duped and used. They lie about anyone who doesn’t fall in line and with their anti-American ideology. Just as they lied about me, Ms. Espinoza, U.S. Inc. and everyone who attended the educational event in Washington...."

- Inger Eberhart, MBA, MA, Advisory Board member: The Dustin Inman Society, Writer: The Social Contract Press, Californians for Population Stabilization

 

The Practice of Ritual Defamation - How Values, Opinions, and Beliefs Are Controlled in Democratic Societies, by Laird Wilcox, The Social Contract, Spring 2010:

An important rule in ritual defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion of its merits, and consideration of the evidence that may support it, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to avoid. The primary goal of a ritual defamation is censorship and repression....

It is not used to persuade, but to punish. Although it may have cognitive elements, its thrust is primarily emotional. Ritual defamation is used to hurt, to intimidate, to destroy, and to persecute, and to avoid the dialogue, debate, and discussion upon which a free society depends. On those grounds it must be opposed no matter who tries to justify its use.

Learn more about the widely discredited SPLC hate group

 

Time to Remove Socialist “Huddled Masses” Plaque from Statue of Liberty, by Selwyn Duke, Canada Free Press, February 2, 2018

Statue of Liberty - Liberty Enlightening the World

The Statue of Liberty stands firm on liberty, not a poem, enlightening the world

Subscribe to RSS - political correctness