Hi list
you can a agree or not agree with me or Bill O'Reilly
but I watch him on fox news often time last 3 week,
on my understanding his Colom's and news he is right round 80 prosent.
I am in TX and I know best how Mexican community is organized and how work
wary well other word they are have country in country.
they have on drools on people who make for them socialcuriti like
temporally even for thousands and thousands illegal people who work and on
the end yare don't do taxes.
I have question for all of you,
if you have women who is illegal emigrants in USA but she born 3 or 4 child
in hospital and normally living in USA, then what is that and how would you
call it?
if is public secret that meksiken have carnival by fiesta few time pro yare
and you have one guy who have on private security and all meksiken know who
is he and if they are need something about emigration they are jus call him
and problem is tun,
don't tell me that police and emigration service don't have information
about that?
I could right on and on who know until when.
I have short conversation with men who work for direct satellite he is
technician for that company
3 week ago, I order direct TV satellite and he com to install in my
apartments,
we was talk about many subject and he told to me that he
few yare was ticher in one private school for networking:
on my question that many meksiken women I mean yang women don't speak
English and they are don't learn was it not good because many people don't
know Spanish and often time you can see women or lady ald about 18 or 30
yare old but don't speak English, and what is more bad they are go and look
for welfare,
and many of them have 4 or over 5 child,
he told me yes it is right but you have black people who is sem way and they
are born here speak English but don't wont to work over 60 prosent of them
is on foodstemps and they are have few child for that and on end of yare
get credit from IRS, I was jus shat up I saw where my conversation could go
and didn't talk any more
This is my point jus to say where we to day and how people thinking about
ich other.
Abdulah hasic.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:40 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] The Summer of Killer Immigrants, Brought to You
by Bill O'Reilly
Taibbi writes: "Solidifying his status as one of the great jackasses of our
time, Bill O'Reilly has taken up a new cause. He's trying to make an
undocumented Mexican murder suspect into this century's Willie Horton."
Bill O'Reilly has been warning Americans about the barely existent threat of
killer Hispanic immigrants. (photo: Desiree Navarro/WireImage/Getty)
The Summer of Killer Immigrants, Brought to You by Bill O'Reilly
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
18 July 15
O'Reilly's idiot campaign against Mexicans brings to mind the 2001 'Summer
of the Shark' media freakout
Solidifying his status as one of the great jackasses of our time, Bill
O'Reilly has taken up a new cause. He's trying to make an undocumented
Mexican murder suspect into this century's Willie Horton, casting the
"ultra-left" city of San Francisco in the role of Mike Dukakis.
O'Reilly's effort to publicize the killing of a 31 year-old white woman
named Kate Steinle, allegedly at the hands of an oft-deported immigrant
named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, is turning into the surprise second act
of Donald Trump's ill-fated "Mexicans are murdering, raping monsters"
campaign.
He's even borrowing Trump's flair for rhetoric. In the past week, he's
denounced a San Francisco councilman as a "pinhead" and compared Salon.com
to the white supremacist site Stormfront. Both had downplayed O'Reilly's
crusade.
"Obviously, that responsibility [for protecting our borders] is not being
met," O'Reilly fumed. "And if you point that out, as Trump did, you are a
racist, a piñata for the open-border crowd to bash!"
"The ultra-left is controlling [San Francisco]," he went on. "There comes a
point where people get the government they deserve."
Even by O'Reilly standards, it's a circus. He's got his audience worked up
into a genuine terror of murderous immigrants. This is despite the fact that
our domestic murder rate has plummeted during the Hispanic immigration wave,
and every available statistic shows that immigrants commit serious crimes at
a much lower rate than American-born citizens.
Factually speaking, in other words, the border-crossing menace story is a
total nothingburger. It's the 2015 version of the Summer of the Shark.
If you remember that story, media dingbats in 2001 turned a few gruesome
shark attack stories into a larger furor about a supposed "epidemic" of
deadly episodes. They kept it up even as scientists told them that it was
actually a down year for killer sharks.
This is the same thing, but with racism. Are these good times or what?
O'Reilly, of course, doesn't care about the numbers. His schtick is about
politics and ratings, and there's no easier way to score frightened suburban
viewers than to tell them that a) Mexicans are trying to kill their
granddaughters, and b) Barack Obama and his liberal cronies in limp-wristed
San Francisco are their accomplices.
It's a backlash against a backlash, a backdoor way of saying that Trump was
right about those rape-happy Hispanic immigrants. Sean Hannity is already
expressing this sentiment out loud, as is Megyn Kelly.
The background is complicated. Earlier this month, the undocumented
Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Steinle, who was on San Francisco's
Pier 14 with her father.
Lopez-Sanchez had already been deported five times. He had also previously
been picked up by ICE, which turned him over to the local sheriff's
department to be processed on an ancient drug charge.
The sheriff then dropped the charge and released Lopez-Sanchez, despite the
fact that ICE wanted him turned back over to the federal government.
This seems at first like a cock-up by the San Francisco Sheriff's
Department, which might at least have contacted ICE to let them know they
were releasing Lopez-Sanchez.
But this incident takes place in the context of an ongoing post-9/11
security overreach by federal authorities that has caused lots of localities
– not just traditional liberal enclaves like San Francisco –to rebel.
At issue here are several controversial federal immigration initiatives,
including a program called Secure Communities.
This program essentially forces local law enforcement officials into the
role of deputized federal immigration agents. Under Secure Communities,
anyone arrested anywhere is supposed to have their fingerprint information
sent to the federal government, which in turn checks it against both the FBI
and Department of Homeland Security databases.
If the Feds find that the suspect is undocumented, they ask the locals to
hold the suspect until he or she can be collected for deportation.
But there are catches. One is cost. The feds "demand" that local cops detain
suspects wanted by ICE, but – surprise, surprise – they don't foot the bill
for those detentions.
The numbers are nothing to sneeze at, either. Los Angeles County alone
claimed a few years ago that Secure Communities cost its taxpayers $26
million a year.
Introduced by the Obama Administration at the outset of his first term (a
fact often left unmentioned by O'Reilly and his ilk), Secure Communities was
originally pitched as an optional program that targeted individuals with
serious criminal histories.
But states quickly learned that the pitch was a fraud. Instead of targeting
serious criminals only, cities and states were finding instead that they'd
been forced into a program to mass deport traffic violators, students
overstaying their visas and other minor violators.
To give an example of how over the top things became, the Obama government
more than quadrupled the number of deportations of people whose most serious
offense was a traffic violation, from 43,000 over five years under Bush to
193,000 in Obama's first five years.
Furthermore, when New York, Illinois and Massachusetts talked about
exercising their right to opt out, the Obama administration in 2010 quietly
issued a memo clarifying the whole "optional" thing. States that wanted to
opt out, the feds wrote, would henceforth find that their choices for
non-participation had been "streamlined." In other words, the program was
optional right up until you opted out, at which point it became mandatory.
Because of all this, and because the program imposed such a serious
financial burden, a number of major cities (including Rahm Emmanuel's
Chicago) passed measures opposing Secure Communities. In practice, they
opted out of the "mandatory" program, setting up a classic states' rights
conflict.
This, largely, is what we're talking about when we talk about "sanctuary
cities."
For cities and states, Secure Communities is a triple whammy. Apart from
asking the states to do ICE's investigative work and pay for the detention
of suspects, there's a serious legal issue.
When ICE asks local jails to hold these suspects, all they do is issue what
they call a "detainer." But a detainer is not a court order. It's not a
warrant. It's simply a request that local cops keep a suspect in jail
willy-nilly until ICE decides to pick him or her up.
There was a time when a local police officer needed at least some legal
excuse for holding a person behind bars, but in the post-9/11 world nobody
blinks at this sort of thing, apparently regardless of party affiliation.
Numerous Democratic politicians, including Hillary Clinton, have joined the
Trumps of the world in the wake of the Steinle killing in saying San
Francisco should have honored the "detainer," despite the fact that
"detainers" are legal absurdities.
Courts in some regions last year ruled that these "detainers" are
unconstitutional detentions, and that local jails that keep people
imprisoned without a warrant can be held liable. Cities like San Francisco,
in other words, can now be sued for obeying these "detainers." The federal
government has conceded these rulings have hurt the program.
So to sum up, all the federal government is asking in Secure Communities is
that already stretched-thin local cops 1) do their work for them, 2) pay for
their jailing costs and 3) serially commit kidnapping.
And these are just the factors localities consider before their attitude
toward immigration enforcement comes into play.
A few years ago I interviewed a Mexican-born woman in Los Angeles named
Natividad Felix whose husband caught a charge after getting in a fight with
local drug dealers. Thanks to policies like Secure Communities, he was
deported. She and her kids haven't seen him since. The family ended up
living in a van. This is, what, smart policy? Good for communities?
Certainly it's not a slam dunk that every law enforcement officer wants a
piece of this kind of work. As one cop in Southern California put it to me,
"If I wanted to take immigrants out of their homes, I'd have gone to work
for ICE. But I didn't. I have a real job."
This is not to excuse what happened in the tragic Steinle case. Clearly,
someone who's been deported five times shouldn't be here.
But cities like San Francisco would likely be more willing to work with the
federal government in cases like the Lopez-Sanchez affair if they hadn't
spent the last six years being bullied into the nonsensical, costly and
probably unconstitutional Secure Communities fiasco.
All the federal government would have to do to make it easier for cities and
states to cooperate is get a warrant the next time they want a suspect like
Lopez-Sanchez held over for deportation. In other words, they just have to
do their jobs.
The irony here is that O'Reilly and his viewers are almost certainly the
same people who flipped out when Janet Reno sent her thug squad through a
door to fetch Elian Gonzalez. Back then the armchair conservative had
nothing but disdain for the fed in jackboots.
Now, though, when the Obama federal government is trying to outsource their
door-kicking work to Andy Griffith, Fox audiences can't get enough of it.
They hate big government, but they hate immigrants more.
It's not easy to follow the testudine plodding of Bill O'Reilly's mind, but
his basic idea seems to be that local police now should be stripped of their
independence, and all cases involving immigrants with criminal records
should trigger mandatory federal prison sentences.
His audiences are eating this up now, but clearly they're not thinking this
one through. How will they like it if the IRS under President Hillary
Clinton decides to force local cops to become tax collectors? Won't be so
funny then, will it?
Man, are we a crazy people sometimes. O'Reilly is right about one thing: We
do get the government we deserve.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Bill O'Reilly has been warning Americans about the barely existent threat of
killer Hispanic immigrants. (photo: Desiree Navarro/WireImage/Getty)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-summer-of-killer-immigrants-br
ought-to-you-by-bill-oreilly-20150717http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne
ws/the-summer-of-killer-immigrants-brought-to-you-by-bill-oreilly-20150717
The Summer of Killer Immigrants, Brought to You by Bill O'Reilly
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
18 July 15
O'Reilly's idiot campaign against Mexicans brings to mind the 2001 'Summer
of the Shark' media freakout
olidifying his status as one of the great jackasses of our time, Bill
O'Reilly has taken up a new cause. He's trying to make an undocumented
Mexican murder suspect into this century's Willie Horton, casting the
"ultra-left" city of San Francisco in the role of Mike Dukakis.
O'Reilly's effort to publicize the killing of a 31 year-old white woman
named Kate Steinle, allegedly at the hands of an oft-deported immigrant
named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, is turning into the surprise second act
of Donald Trump's ill-fated "Mexicans are murdering, raping monsters"
campaign.
He's even borrowing Trump's flair for rhetoric. In the past week, he's
denounced a San Francisco councilman as a "pinhead" and compared Salon.com
to the white supremacist site Stormfront. Both had downplayed O'Reilly's
crusade.
"Obviously, that responsibility [for protecting our borders] is not being
met," O'Reilly fumed. "And if you point that out, as Trump did, you are a
racist, a piñata for the open-border crowd to bash!"
"The ultra-left is controlling [San Francisco]," he went on. "There comes a
point where people get the government they deserve."
Even by O'Reilly standards, it's a circus. He's got his audience worked up
into a genuine terror of murderous immigrants. This is despite the fact that
our domestic murder rate has plummeted during the Hispanic immigration wave,
and every available statistic shows that immigrants commit serious crimes at
a much lower rate than American-born citizens.
Factually speaking, in other words, the border-crossing menace story is a
total nothingburger. It's the 2015 version of the Summer of the Shark.
If you remember that story, media dingbats in 2001 turned a few gruesome
shark attack stories into a larger furor about a supposed "epidemic" of
deadly episodes. They kept it up even as scientists told them that it was
actually a down year for killer sharks.
This is the same thing, but with racism. Are these good times or what?
O'Reilly, of course, doesn't care about the numbers. His schtick is about
politics and ratings, and there's no easier way to score frightened suburban
viewers than to tell them that a) Mexicans are trying to kill their
granddaughters, and b) Barack Obama and his liberal cronies in limp-wristed
San Francisco are their accomplices.
It's a backlash against a backlash, a backdoor way of saying that Trump was
right about those rape-happy Hispanic immigrants. Sean Hannity is already
expressing this sentiment out loud, as is Megyn Kelly.
The background is complicated. Earlier this month, the undocumented
Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Steinle, who was on San Francisco's
Pier 14 with her father.
Lopez-Sanchez had already been deported five times. He had also previously
been picked up by ICE, which turned him over to the local sheriff's
department to be processed on an ancient drug charge.
The sheriff then dropped the charge and released Lopez-Sanchez, despite the
fact that ICE wanted him turned back over to the federal government.
This seems at first like a cock-up by the San Francisco Sheriff's
Department, which might at least have contacted ICE to let them know they
were releasing Lopez-Sanchez.
But this incident takes place in the context of an ongoing post-9/11
security overreach by federal authorities that has caused lots of localities
– not just traditional liberal enclaves like San Francisco –to rebel.
At issue here are several controversial federal immigration initiatives,
including a program called Secure Communities.
This program essentially forces local law enforcement officials into the
role of deputized federal immigration agents. Under Secure Communities,
anyone arrested anywhere is supposed to have their fingerprint information
sent to the federal government, which in turn checks it against both the FBI
and Department of Homeland Security databases.
If the Feds find that the suspect is undocumented, they ask the locals to
hold the suspect until he or she can be collected for deportation.
But there are catches. One is cost. The feds "demand" that local cops detain
suspects wanted by ICE, but – surprise, surprise – they don't foot the bill
for those detentions.
The numbers are nothing to sneeze at, either. Los Angeles County alone
claimed a few years ago that Secure Communities cost its taxpayers $26
million a year.
Introduced by the Obama Administration at the outset of his first term (a
fact often left unmentioned by O'Reilly and his ilk), Secure Communities was
originally pitched as an optional program that targeted individuals with
serious criminal histories.
But states quickly learned that the pitch was a fraud. Instead of targeting
serious criminals only, cities and states were finding instead that they'd
been forced into a program to mass deport traffic violators, students
overstaying their visas and other minor violators.
To give an example of how over the top things became, the Obama government
more than quadrupled the number of deportations of people whose most serious
offense was a traffic violation, from 43,000 over five years under Bush to
193,000 in Obama's first five years.
Furthermore, when New York, Illinois and Massachusetts talked about
exercising their right to opt out, the Obama administration in 2010 quietly
issued a memo clarifying the whole "optional" thing. States that wanted to
opt out, the feds wrote, would henceforth find that their choices for
non-participation had been "streamlined." In other words, the program was
optional right up until you opted out, at which point it became mandatory.
Because of all this, and because the program imposed such a serious
financial burden, a number of major cities (including Rahm Emmanuel's
Chicago) passed measures opposing Secure Communities. In practice, they
opted out of the "mandatory" program, setting up a classic states' rights
conflict.
This, largely, is what we're talking about when we talk about "sanctuary
cities."
For cities and states, Secure Communities is a triple whammy. Apart from
asking the states to do ICE's investigative work and pay for the detention
of suspects, there's a serious legal issue.
When ICE asks local jails to hold these suspects, all they do is issue what
they call a "detainer." But a detainer is not a court order. It's not a
warrant. It's simply a request that local cops keep a suspect in jail
willy-nilly until ICE decides to pick him or her up.
There was a time when a local police officer needed at least some legal
excuse for holding a person behind bars, but in the post-9/11 world nobody
blinks at this sort of thing, apparently regardless of party affiliation.
Numerous Democratic politicians, including Hillary Clinton, have joined the
Trumps of the world in the wake of the Steinle killing in saying San
Francisco should have honored the "detainer," despite the fact that
"detainers" are legal absurdities.
Courts in some regions last year ruled that these "detainers" are
unconstitutional detentions, and that local jails that keep people
imprisoned without a warrant can be held liable. Cities like San Francisco,
in other words, can now be sued for obeying these "detainers." The federal
government has conceded these rulings have hurt the program.
So to sum up, all the federal government is asking in Secure Communities is
that already stretched-thin local cops 1) do their work for them, 2) pay for
their jailing costs and 3) serially commit kidnapping.
And these are just the factors localities consider before their attitude
toward immigration enforcement comes into play.
A few years ago I interviewed a Mexican-born woman in Los Angeles named
Natividad Felix whose husband caught a charge after getting in a fight with
local drug dealers. Thanks to policies like Secure Communities, he was
deported. She and her kids haven't seen him since. The family ended up
living in a van. This is, what, smart policy? Good for communities?
Certainly it's not a slam dunk that every law enforcement officer wants a
piece of this kind of work. As one cop in Southern California put it to me,
"If I wanted to take immigrants out of their homes, I'd have gone to work
for ICE. But I didn't. I have a real job."
This is not to excuse what happened in the tragic Steinle case. Clearly,
someone who's been deported five times shouldn't be here.
But cities like San Francisco would likely be more willing to work with the
federal government in cases like the Lopez-Sanchez affair if they hadn't
spent the last six years being bullied into the nonsensical, costly and
probably unconstitutional Secure Communities fiasco.
All the federal government would have to do to make it easier for cities and
states to cooperate is get a warrant the next time they want a suspect like
Lopez-Sanchez held over for deportation. In other words, they just have to
do their jobs.
The irony here is that O'Reilly and his viewers are almost certainly the
same people who flipped out when Janet Reno sent her thug squad through a
door to fetch Elian Gonzalez. Back then the armchair conservative had
nothing but disdain for the fed in jackboots.
Now, though, when the Obama federal government is trying to outsource their
door-kicking work to Andy Griffith, Fox audiences can't get enough of it.
They hate big government, but they hate immigrants more.
It's not easy to follow the testudine plodding of Bill O'Reilly's mind, but
his basic idea seems to be that local police now should be stripped of their
independence, and all cases involving immigrants with criminal records
should trigger mandatory federal prison sentences.
His audiences are eating this up now, but clearly they're not thinking this
one through. How will they like it if the IRS under President Hillary
Clinton decides to force local cops to become tax collectors? Won't be so
funny then, will it?
Man, are we a crazy people sometimes. O'Reilly is right about one thing: We
do get the government we deserve.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
