U.S. Hate Groups

Yup, and flawed big time if those views come from the leftist perspective.

 

No one is saying that political opinion reflects racial hatred although many "Repubican" political positions are based upon prejudice. Prejudice and Hatred are two different things but propagating invidious hatred can and does result in invidious prejudice.

Let me provide an example.

Republicans are not a "hate group" but they oppose open immigration policies and want restrictions that basically only restrict Hispanic immigration from Mexico and Latin America. We can understand the "liberal labor unions" opposing immigration based upon "protectionism" but why would Republicans that claim to be "capitalists" oppose immigration to meet the demand for labor in the United States?

I just read a news story that the new housing market is "booming" but it is being restricted predominately because of a lack of Hispanic labor. The Hispanic construction labor shortage provided by immigrants from Mexico and Latin America under our immigration laws is resulting in contractors refusing 9% of the contracts to build new homes and is also resulting in long delays in starting and completing new home construction. The "demand" for labor exists but it can't be met because of our anti-Hispanic immigration policies. Virtually all prior recessions were based upon a recovery in the housing market but the current recovery from the 2008 "Great Recession" is currently restricted because of a lack of Hispanic immigration. Republicans are complaining about the slow recovery from the recession under President Obama but the restrictive immigration policies that deny Hispanic immigration are a primary cause of the slow recovery.

The "anti-Hispanic" immigration restrictions are slowing the recovery from the recession so why do Republicans oppose open immigration by Hispanic that would help fuel the recovery from the recession related to new home construction? We also know that 25% of the agricultural crops haven't been harvested in the United States over the last five years because of the limitations on Hispanic immigrans so why do Republican support limitations on Hispanic immigration? A larger harvest would result in lower food prices so why are Republicans, through their anti-Hispanic immigration policies, supporting higher food prices?

These are not jobs that "Americans" will do. Many "Americans" previously involved in new home construction moved on during the recession taking up new professions and they're no longer available as a labor source for new home construction but millions of Hispanic immigrants are willing to do that work but they are prohibited from legal immigration. "Americans" won't harvest the crops that are literally dying in the orchards and fields in America and these corps have traditionally been harvested by Hispanic immigrants for decades but they're denied legal immigration.

Obviously the limitations on Hispanic immigration aren't based upon "capitalism" because the restrictions are hurting capitalism and the recovery from the recession in the United States.

As noted the "Republican" immigration restrictions really only relate to Hispanics from Mexico and Latin America so how can anyone come to any conclusion other than the Republican objections to immigration by Hispanics is based upon anything other than ethnic/racial prejudice against Hispanics?

Every "objection" they've presented violates their other political positions. They oppose minimum wage laws and cannot rationalize denial of "welfare" to mitigate the effects of poverty inherent in very low-paying jobs filled by Hispanic immigrants. They advocate capitalism based upon supply and demand but oppose allowing Hispanic immigrant labor to provide the supply for the demand of labor in the United States. They oppose the liberal labor unions but join the unions in opposing Hispanic immigration.

If the Republican policies against allowing open immigration of Hispanics isn't based upon ethnic/racial prejudice then what is it based upon?

 

First....don't start with the assumption that it's racism. Republicans are not against immigration. Republicans are against ILLEGAL immigration. There are inherent problems with people coming into our country illegally.....including the fact that most don't pay taxes, it over-burdens our social program systems including our public schools; we don't know where they are; who they are; or even if they are drug czars or criminals. There's a reason we have a process for coming here legally. I have no problem at all when they come legally. So please don't imply that I am racist. My Dad was a carpeneter and worked alongside Mexicans here in Texas his entire working life. He learned to speak Spanish that way. They are very talented people....in both building things and in landscaping, ironworks, and many other areas. I'm sure I know a lot more about Mexicans.... than someone from other far away states in the country. We want them here; we just want them to come legally--as they did in the past--and as is required for every other groups that comes.

In case you are unaware, we could have had a Guest Worker Program and an Immigration plan back in 2006.....but it was blocked. It's pretty much the exact same thing Obama says he wants now...but did NOT want as a Senator because he didn't want to do the right thing under Bush. Dems should have been on-board then and helped Bush get it passed. So, don't blame us if this isn't already in place.....

Oh, stop with the "Republican anti-Hispanics immigration policies." I guess using YOUR logic we can all assume that former Senator Obama and other Democrats are anti-Hispanic since they were NOT on-board when Bush tried to fix the problem.

Wow; what a leap in reasoning. But I guess when one is trying to make others seem racist....that's the way it goes.

"They, they, they, they, and more they...." Perhaps you should assume the same about the Democrats who were NOT on-board Bush's immigration attempts back when he was president are racist. But we know that's not going to happen.

 

Your assertion that the majority of these so-called 'hate groups' are comprised of those with "social-conservative" ideologies is ludicrous. So as to make this a debate worth indulging, I'm going to stretch the boundaries a wee bit so as to include 'you' in creating this even playing field if you will by making a couple of generalized assumptions.

You've already set up parameters as to what and or who is considered to be a member of a 'hate group', i.e. social conservatives which would include myself. Keeping within your particular 'social justice'--'equal rights' liberally based amendment of our Constitution, I am thus deeming 'you' and thousands if not millions more elitist white male liberals like yourself to be esteemed members of your very own 'hate group' who have set their sights and vocal chords on hating any and all social conservatives who themselves just happen to hate your liberal advocacy for even larger government and amnesty for all illegal aliens etc.

So I hope it doesn't offend you that I took what little available liberty I have left with my 1st Amendment rights to assign you elite membership status in an all liberally populated 'hate group'.

But I digress: How do you know that I as a WHITE man and as a Conservative have this hatred for African Americans, for Hispanics, or for Muslims...etc?

This big 'hate group' of Conservatives does not oppose the rights of anyone. One has to be careful when defining 'rights' by examining the validity behind the source which granted these so-called 'rights', and as to whether those so-called 'rights' didn't infringe on others' so-called 'rights'. For instance, a liberal's perspective may believe that a low IQ black person has the 'right' to be accepted into Harvard Law School--perhaps over that of a more qualified WHITE person, despite the fact that he may not even be skilled enough to perform the janitorial chores there. Moreover, liberals' and other minority suck-ups believe the black should have his so-called 'right' enforced via quotas or affirmative action policies.

Conservatives see 'Social Justice' as being a guise for progressives to rear their ugly heads in interfering with our individualism and with our privacy in almost every phase of our social construct. Social Justice gets its fuel from Marxist leaders, i.e. obummer via government social engineering and community organizing skills which just makes people more and more dependent on the government teat, and gives the marxist movement all that much more power over the people.

You cannot say with any amount of truth that people in those so-called 'Conservative 'hate groups'...hate anyone. What we 'HATE' is what you and your ilk stand for, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Obama's skin color. Remember now, there is a difference between the hatred of an individual as to the hatred of one's character, or of their ideological persuasion, or of their criminal actions and intent. BTW, are you calling the Tea Party a 'hate group'?

If you're going to continue to believe that Conservatives hate those various peoples you mentioned, then you wouldn't be upset with me telling you that I believe you and your leftist 'hate group(s)' are the greater haters of people who just happen to have opposing views.

Glad you recognized the reasons behind the increase in the number of 'hate groups' and militias since 2010. So would that mean that you've come around to fully scrutinizing Obama for what he is and how he has become the catalyst in the eroding away of our freedoms and liberties; and that he has become a bigger threat to America and its sovereignty than any of those Islamic radicals? Will you now become one of the good guys? I promise you, if you do decide to become one of the good ole guys--that you'll never ever possess an ounce of hate for anyone, for you won't have those race baiters doing the job of hating for you any longer.

 

How do we know if a person is the things you mentioned, they open their big mouth or type away on their keyboard and PROVE it. Real simple, and we have plenty on this board since they are tolerated by the site owner(s) and mods here.

 

Absolutely, I am. I'm not calling groups racists.

No, that's not true. Ted Kennedy and Republicans had the legislation ready for a vote and it was going to pass. So, it was a Bi-Partisan bill. They had cautioned for Senators to NOT do any "poison pill" amendments that would kill it. Late in the process, Senator Barack Obama came to Kennedy and asked if he could be included on the Committee making these decisons....and Kennedy told him 'yes, as long as you can find a Republican to come in with you because we have to have an even number.' So, he did. Obama was about to start his run for the presidency. At the eleventh hour, Obama joined in as a Sponsor with Democrat Senator Dorgan to present an Amendment that would sunset the temporary program, the guest-worker program. That Amendment passed by one vote....and that Amendment killed the Immigration Reform Legislation. They were told it would kill the whole thing; but they did it anyway....and it did kill the entire thing.

Even Dem Senator Chuck Shumer said it was what killed the immigration legislation:

"Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday blamed the guest-worker amendment, sponsored by then-Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), for killing the 2007 bill.“In 2007, future flow scuttled the bill. Byron Dorgan did an amendment and it scuttled the bill,” said Schumer.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...last-senate-push-on-immigration#ixzz2VUiAA0QF
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

I have no doubt that if Sen Obama had not gotten involved..... and thought more about his poltical career and his need to do something for the Unions....and have the Unions support him in his run for president....that we would have had Immigration reform in 2007.

 

Capitalism is based upon the law of supply and demand. When there is a demand a supply to meet that demand will be created either legally or through the black market.

When we block the legal immigration of labor while there is a demand for immigrant labor then people will immigrate illegally to the United States to meet that demand. The labor will be supplied through the black market because it cannot be met through the "legal" market. That is a simple fact. If we don't want "illegal" immigration to fill the demand for immigrant labor then we cannot restrict that immigration so that the labor force will be provided legally under the law. So long as we restrict immigration where there is a demand for immigrant labor then the supply will be met by the black market in labor. That is "capitalism" based upon the law of supply and demand.

The same is true related to the illegal drug trade where smuggling is occuring across the Mexican border. There is a demand for these illegal drugs and so the black market furnishes them. If we want to end illegal drug smuggling across the Mexican border the only way to accomplish that is to make the drugs legal and regulated. The demand for illegal drugs is always going to be met with a supply through the black market. That is "capitalism" based upon the law of supply and demand.

So we have two federal policies (and laws supporting them) that fly in the face of "capitalism" that creates the problem of illegal immigration and smuggling of drugs across our borders. We are creating the problem by ignoring the fact that the "demand" exists and that the "supply" will met the demand either legally, if allowed, or illegally by the black market if it's not allowed.

One point of the argument about immigration fails though. We can't "blame" the Democrats for the restrictions on immigration for the same reason we can "blame" Republicans because their motives are clearly different. Democrats tend to support "protectionism" based upon the labor unions. Protectionism is an economic motive that also violates capitalism but generally Republicans oppose "protectionism" and support free markets but only related to commodities and not for labor specifically when it comes to Hispanic immigrant labor.

Of course Democrats also have a serious problem with racial prejudice with over 32% of Democrats expressing explicit racial perjudice so we don't know how much of a factor that plays in our immigration policies.

We can also note that the Republican arguments related to welfare services and taxation are fundamentally false. Yes, there are some illegal immigrants that are exploited by US employers that pay them below the minimum wage (and Republicans generally oppose minimum wage laws) and "under the table" where no federal taxes are paid. The problem is that these are "illegal" immigrants that can't do anything about it because they can't report the employers without being deported. The problem is the "American employer" that exploits the fact that the workers are "illegal" and can't report violations. This also ignores that most taxes are state and local taxes that the illegal immigrant does pay. In fact the greatest disparity in taxation occurs at the state level where low income workers carry a much higher tax burden relative to income than high income individuals. In WA where I live a low income worker has 16-times the tax burden relative to income when compared with a high income individual.

When it comes to "welfare" the "Republicans" generally oppose liveable wages so millions of workers require assistance to survive. Almost all "welfare" recepients are "working" Americans (or Retirees that don't receive enough money from Social Security) to live on. Republicans support these "low paying jobs" that don't pay a liveable wage (and want to lower Social Security benefits) and then whine because the people are so poor that they require assistance. At the sametime Republicans support tax policies that impose a far greater tax burden (combined federal and state) relative to income on low income workers than on wealthy high income individuals. If we had "fair taxation" for all Americans where everyone had the same tax burden relative to income then perhaps we wouldn't be taxing low income people into poverty.

But "welfare" is a straw horse related to immigration. It exists to mitigate the effects of poverty that is created in numerous ways. Racial/ethnic discrimination in employment results in minorities having a significantly higher per capita poverty rate. Republicans blame the minorities as opposed to blaming the cause which is the discrimination. Address the Problem!!

Republicans complain about the "illegal" immigration that they create by prohibiting legal immigration for millions of Hispanics that our economy demands as a labor force. Is the problem the immigrant or the idiot politicans (Democrat or Republican) that prohibits them from coming here legally? When the American employer pays the illegal immigrant under the table and below minimum wage BECAUSE THEY CAN is the problem the illegal immigrant or the laws that prohibit the immigrant from coming here legally where they could report these violations? When the immigrant doesn't earn a liveable wage and requires welfare assistance just like underpaid Americans then why are we only blaming the "immigrant" that's working but can't make enough to live on or should we be blaming enterprises that don't pay liveable wages to both Americans and immigrants?

The Democrats unquestionably share the blame for the illegal immigration problem but, as noted, their primary motive is economic protectionism and not discriminatory in nature. For Republicans the opposite is true because prohibiting legal immigration goes against their "free market" economic principles and appears to be fundamentally based upon racial/ethnic prejudice.

 

As I've stated elsewhere, we've had plenty of opportunities to fix the illegal Immigration problem. 2007 was the closest we've come in a Bi-partisan bill that was done by Ted Kennedy and Republicans. It was all ready to go, had the votes, and they were warning Senators not to do any "poison pill" amendements to blow it up. But that is exactly what Sen Dorgan and Sen Obama did. Since that Amendment passed by one vote.....Obama's vote......the entire legislation which would have included a guest worker program blew up and did not get passed. Obama was about to run for president and was doing the work of the Unions that he needed to have in his back pocket for both financial backing and votes. What he wants passed today, is not unlike that same bill in 2007. So----let's put the blame where it belongs. Even Dem Senator Chuck Shumer was quoted as saying it was their Amendment that blew up the legislation that was about to be passed.

 

in reviewing the actual bill it was "bad legislation" to begin with so it's no wonder it failed to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans. Of course the current immigration reform legislation is facing the identical problem that the Reagan era immigration reform perpetuated. All the Congress is going to do is "reset" the illegal immigation problem because as long as there is a demand for immigrant labor people will immigrate here either legally, if allowed, or illegally if prohibited. Congress can pass the immigration reform bill but as long as it doesn't allow open immigration to meet the demands for immigrant labor in another 20 years we'll have just as many illegal immigrants as we have today.

Congress continues to fail to address the problem which are the laws restricting immigration that creates the illegal immigration problem. If we wouldn't have had the quota system that limited Hispanic immigration under Reagan then we wouldn't have roughly 11 million illegal predominately Hispanic aliens in the US today.

 

The only way to fix the illegal immigration problem related to labor is to make immigration legal so that all of those coming to the United States to work can be legally registered. Want to stop illegal border crossing for those coming here to work (the vast majority) then give them a worker visa in Mexico so that they can "drive" across the border. Only idiots believe these people risk their lives to cross illegally through the SW deserts because they prefer to. They cross illegally because they can't enter the US legally.

Want to end the drug smuggling across the Mexican border? Decriminalize and regulate drugs to eliminate the black market for them.

These two measures are the only way to "secure" our borders which, today, are the most secure they've ever been but are still porous because of the black market demand for labor and illegal drugs.

 

We don't need to reform our free flow immigration as much as we need to put the brakes on it until we figure out what to do with the 10s of millions of illegals already residing inside our borders. So to me its just like obamacare--nothing is to be accomplished by reforming either one; we need to repeal them both lock stock and barrel, catch our breath and concentrate on making a Republican majority out of the Congress and Senate come 2014 so that we can start initiating policies that make sense and are backed up by our Constitution.

 

That's the word YOU choose to use. I don't use YOUR choices. I use mine. "Prosecutional" - my word. I just invented it.

 

Oh the American Civil Laughingstock Union ? Whose entire credibility went down the drain, when they hilariously/hypocritically issued a GAG ORDER against their own members (from speaking up against ACLU leadership).

 

FALSE! The Koran tells Muslim husbands to beat their wives. One translation I read even tells them to scourge (beat with a whip) their wives. These are serious violent crimes in the USA. Here is the actual wording of sura 4:34 of the Koran.

"Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." (Koran 4:34, "Women," Dawood, p. 83)

Of course I want more. The are hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslim Brotherhoods front groups (ALL hate groups), so you've got plenty more to be listed. Does the SPLC list these ? If not, why not ?

Very, very seriously I already explained how they support racial discrimination. Have you been reading this thread ? See # 3 within Post # 100 to see the 50 years of personal contact research" I've done.

 

1,007 active hate groups in the United States in 2012, and the hate group which has done the MOST HARM to the MOST NUMBER OF AMERICANS is not listed >> the NAACP. Nor are the most dangerous, seditionist groups. The hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Some list.

 

1. What you et al call "extensive scientific evidence" is nothing more than a diatribe of contrive numbers designed to promote a particular agenda.

2. Yes, "discrimination based upon the color of a person's skin, their gender, .. is extensive in the United States", and that is discrimination against white people and males. This is now, and has been, by far, the malicious discrimination that has harmed the greatest number of people in America, for half a century. All other discrimination is meager, by comparison, except perhaps that against older people (over 65).

 

Actually it says: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.

The translation you used is criticized by everyone who isn't an Islamaphobe: http://www.newstatesman.com/node/148628

Send your evidence to them. You said there were none, I showed you there were but more? Sure: http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...ms-arrested-in-rash-of-alleged-u#.Ub3m_efVCSo

Your failures aren't research....sorry.

 

I both agree and disagree. Generally, in matters of race and ethnicity (affirmative action, Immigration, Islamization) the left is badly flawed, as they seek to acquire votes by sucking up to various groups (minorities, immigrants, Muslims, etc). The right is badly flawed on economics as they continue to push the screwball ideas of Ronald Reagan (small, weak govt, low taxes on the rich, less spending), while abandoning the TRUE CONSERVATIVE policies of Dwight D. Eisenhower (big, strong govt, strong natl defense, high taxes on the rich, high spending). Republicans today, dumbly support these Reaganist policies (only adopted for Reagan's own benefit- and his rich movie star pals), even while a litany of polls show Americans overwhelmingly support the Eisenhower scenario, not the Reagan one.

Incidentally, after Eisenhower chased millions of illegal aliens back to Mexico in Operation Wetback, Reagan came along and gave them amnesty. And when Eisenhower (as Supreme Commander of Allied forces in Europe) was grinding his way across Germany, in World War II, on his way to Berlin, and victory, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it. Not hard to see who the REAL CONSERVATIVE was, or what real Conservatism is. Too bad Republicans can't figure that out. Like at their 2012 convention, when they brought one business owner after another on stage to speak, and not a single employee, working person.

 

The notion that there is a labor shortage (in ANY occupation) is preposterous, and this has been evident for years. I remember as far back as 2006, when the director of the National Association of Black Engineers called this phony idea "hogwash" when he correctly noted that when you have a real labor shortage, wages go up dramatically. But now, not only are wages not up, they are DOWN dramatically. Well sure. That's because the employers are looking to hire CHEAP, foreign labor, and set their wages down, accordingly. Americans are unemployed in large numbers, and to say that they won't take construction jobs is idiotic. Americans will take ANY job, but does anyone in this forum want to take a job at what the ludicrous US minimum wage now is (I think it's $7.41/hour) or less than that (off the books) ? Same thing applies to crop harvesting. These are not hard jobs compared to many jobs Americans do all the time, which are much dirtier, tougher, and more dangerous such as firefighters, coal miners, and the troops in Afghanistan.

As for the question >> " how can anyone come to any conclusion other than the Republican objections to immigration by Hispanics is based upon anything other than ethnic/racial prejudice against Hispanics?"

HERE'S HOW >>> Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($40 Billion year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, fresh water, electricity, food, jobs, etc)

 

NONSENSE! Racial/ethnic minorities have the advantage over whites by having affirmative action granted to them, moving whites unfairly to the back of the line, which often results in unemployment for the whites. To say that minorities are suffering racial discrimination against them is absurd. They are the beneficiaries of affirmative action. It is whites who are the victims. And it shows up on the streets too.

REALITY CHECK >>> Over the past decade, there has been a lot of construction at bridges here in the Tampa Bay area. Formerly being a shore fisherman (and bridges being a hot spot for fish), I found myself often at bridges where construction was going on. And who was doing that construction ? Hispanic illegal aliens, most of them from Mexico, that's who. Being Hispanic myself, and fluent in Spanish, I had to speak Spanish to these workers, to communicate with them. Almost all speak no English, almost all are here illegally (which they actually boasted about), and all had no trouble getting their jobs. I saw and spoke to hundreds of construction workers over a 10 year period. I can't remember seeing a single white worker, and rarely an English-speaker.

 

You don't have be sorry, because you haven't said anything correct, and have accomplished nothing here except making your self look foolish. ACTUALLY, the quote is exactly what I said it was, and it is not only the Dawood translation (which is not criticized as you say, unless by Islamists), but the same quote word for word is quoted in many other translations as well. You've picked the wrong person to try to snow, my friend. I've been reading the Koran since 1959, and I've read 19 translations of it, most recently Dawood, Arberry, Ali, Shakir, and Pickthall. All have the same quote, except that the Pickthall translation has it as "scourge them" (that is to beat with a whip, which is even worse). So you want to try to invalidate Pickthall too ? HA HA HA. Pickthall is about as UNinvalidatable as anyone could ever be. He is an Englishman, Christian by birth, who converted to Islam, a strong advocate of it, and there is no way that he is translating the Koran incorrectly.

Invalidation is hard-wired into Islamapologists.

Also, in her book They Must Be Stopped, Lebanese-American author Brigitte Gabriel, who has read the Koran in Arabic (her native language) says a transliteration of the words is "Tad-ru-bu-hu-nna". This means "beat them". There is no other translation. I've never even heard of that absolutely FALSE thing you posted here, and even the sanitized-for-Western-readers Ali version (which says "beat them lightly") is openly accepted by CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), one of the foremost Muslim Brotherhood front groups in America.

In short, your Post # 196 is a laughingstock.

I said there were none ? Are you losing it ? I said there are hundreds of hate groups in the Muslim Brotherhood et al radical Muslim category in America. And NO, I would not send anything to the Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center because, as I noted earlier, they have no credibility, and are a joke. They only are money grabbers, pretending to be a research organization against hate groups. whereby they then pocket large amounts of money by scaring paranoid liberals out of their wits.

They aren't my failures. They are the victimizations of millions of Americans by racist supporters like you, of the NAACP and their racist affirmative action programs. And the actual experiences of all these discriminations of millions of Americans, for 50 years, is a far better, more conclusive, and accurately, valid research than any stupid, biased, agenda-driven piece of BS you can come up with.