Rotating Header Image



Osama Bin Ladin says:

“Socialists are infidels wherever they are. It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders.”

An American citizen on the internet writes:

“For the first time ever, the Democrats attended a Univision-sponsored debate in a bid to win over Latino votes. Supposedly, they were supposed to talk about Latin American as well as Latino issues, but there’s no hint of that in this WaPo report. Apparently, they just tried to present their Latino credentials, to prove to Latino voters, that they are Latino Enough.

The question we’d like to ask is why they all agreed to appear on UNIVISION of all places, owned by Venezuelan billionaire Gustavo Cisneros. Cisneros, you will recall is the billionaire who famously caved in to Hugo Chavez’s diktats and turned his Venezuelan TV station known as Venevision into a mealy-mouthed, supine, obedient Chavista organ. That’s fine and dandy but that expedient act caused the other media in Venezuela to crumble. One caved in right after Venevision did. Two remained defiant, vowing to report as their consciences dictated. Cisneros’ top competitor, RCTV, eventually was left standing essentially alone and then Hugo Chavez shut it down. That’s what all the protests in Venezuela last June were about, they were about freedom of speech. Chris Dodd would probably know what we are talking about. The rest of them probably would justify themselves by saying they signed Congress’ RCTV petition and condemned Hugo Chavez, but that’s besides the point. Why are they accomodating Chavez’s useful quisling and his US affiliate, Univision?

Blog by the name of BLOGMEISTER provides a recap of the babel, PANDERERS, ONE AND ALL, that occured when these Democrats grouped on one stage before Spanish-speaking Univision representatives and ethnic-surpremacy interests — note how it was that Richardson, when grandstanding in the Spanish language, was abruptly silenced by the Spanish-speaking Univision (their debate terms were “English only” before a Spanish-language audience with questions posed in Spanish and interpreted in English privately to the candidates) but continued on to rant against the common use of the English language (Hispanic/Latino ethnic-supremacy rears it’s ugly head again). Richardson fails to recognize that he’s in the United States and that proficiency in the English language is part and parcel of the right to vote, since voting is an act of citizens — being “Hispanic/Latino” and speaking Spanish (and/or) isn’t qualification to vote, nor for U.S. citizenship. These are disparate issues. Richardson’s perspective is anti-national or just plain old foolish and misleading, perhaps all of that.

And, speaking of Richardson, these remarks of his are the most startling of the evening, followed by the fact that none of these Democrats appears to demonstrate any willingness or capacity to identify illegal aliens from the broader range of “immigration”:

…Dodd, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) were called to account for their votes to build a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border. All three noted their support for broader rights for Latino immigrants, both legal and illegal, but they said tighter border security is important. “That has to be part of comprehensive immigration reform,” Clinton said, adding that in some points she supported “even a physical barrier.”

Richardson called the fence “a horrendous example of misguided Washington policy.”

“If you’re going to build a 12-foot wall, you know what’s going to happen,” he said. “A lot of 13-foot ladders. This is a terrible symbol of America.”

No, Mr. Richardson, it’s a terrible symbol of criminals who violate our United States requirements for legal entry and legal presence in our nation, when they increase their aggression in onslaughts if and as we increase our “No” signage and structures. The “larger ladders” mentality that Richardson describes is one of a seige, not one of immigrants, but one of an opposing, foreign force.

That other nations — in the current situation, mostly Mexico — produce such a vast number of it’s own citizens who have so little respect and regard for the legal boundaries and requirements of our nation is the terrible thing here.

And, that Richardson thinks so little of the vast millions of human beings who share his ethnicity (generally, Hispanic/Latino as to the interests Richardson serves based upon aspects of his own ethnicity) to allege they’re compelled to “build…ladders” and continue to illegally enter our nation even when faced with a border security system, that’s the terrible thing here.

Richardson suggests that Hispanics/Latinos are incapable of behaving legitimately, that they’re compelled to engage in illegal immigration; if that’s not his ongoing perspective, let him explain otherwise why he readily concludes that “Hispanics/Latinos” are going to persist in illegally entering our nation regardless of whatever security measures our nation puts in place, if not already. Is it a cultural imperative to breach security of other nations, when and as one is “Hispanic/Latino”? Does their DNA compel them to behave irresponsibly? Richardson seems to think these areas are amusing and the ladder remark (he’s made this one several times now in various public appearances) is but the tip of his animosities in these regards.

However, what with the “forty-one million HIspanics” — so Richardson also says — who are in our nation today (some as citizens, many of them as illegal aliens), we’re set for many decades. We’re now full as a nation with this one ethnicity and we need to put the breaks — entirely — on the Hispanic ethnic-supremacy immigration madness (both the legal and the illegal kind). Their kind will reproduce (and 41 million doing so produces yet many more millions accordingly, so we’ve got enough of them to last, perhaps, another couple of centuries. Instead, I’m suggesting that the United States should start appealing for immigrants (the legal kind) to places such as Sweden, the United Kingdom. Japan, Iceland, Swahili and Darfur and other nations for other ethnicities, as long as this ethnic methodology continues as exemplified by the Democrats. It’s the Democrats’ methodology — the ethnicity preferences — so if that’s the case, then let’s now begin to balance out the numbers.

I mean, isn’t that what the Democrats mean? Maybe, maybe not, whatever it means, they mean it, except when they don’t. In their current contexts, they mean “Hispanics/Latinos” for reasons many of their people in office could explain if they’d be lucid enough to do so. But their lobbying groups and interests are, in fact, sympathetic to “Hispanic/Latino” culures and countries and the fact is, this makes the Democrats ethnic-supremacists.

As to the Spanish language the Democrats performed their DEBACLE OF BABEL in yesterday, if someone’s eligible to vote in the U.S., they’ve citizens here and have already demonstrated their ability to speak enough English to know what they’re voting for and why, and how to do that.


A requirement for citizenship is an understanding of English; it’s on the application for U.S. citizenship.

United States of America, Citizenship Application

Eligibility Requirements

All naturalization applicants must demonstrate good moral character. Other naturalization requirements may be modified or waived for certain applicants, such as spouses of U.S. Citizens or individuals currently serving in the United States military.

Additional requirements include:

A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States


Good moral character

Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution

Favorable disposition towards the United States

Pass the United States Citizenship Test

Obviously, people who are illiterate in English and are in the U.S. for any length of time beyond that allowed by a tourist visa have issues as to why they’re here. They certainly aren’t here to vote and if and as they try to do that, that’s a concern for the nation (who aren’t among these Democrats).

So just who are the Democrats appealing to in this DEBACLE OF BABEL performance in the Spanish language? Could it be…illegal aliens? Castro’s already endorsed Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Presidency, the Democrats as a group are already using a network under the control of Hugo Chavez for their Spanish-language theatrics, and, Osama bin Laden’s latest video nuttiness nearly repeats word-for-word those by Democrats (watch a video by John Gibson noting the shared use of phrases and statements between bin Laden and Liberal Keith Olbermann from NBC/MSNBC)…the lines, they are clear and they are clearly divided.

C O M M E N T S : now closed