Article thanks to Pie G.
(From Investors Business Daily) “According to a recent Center for Immigration Studies report, America between 2010 and 2013 imported more people from Muslim countries than Central America and Mexico combined. And now, with the president’s executive amnesty, the welcome mat is bigger than ever.
That’s a major shift in immigration flows — and one that poses a major national security threat.
If just a fraction of these nearly 300,000 new Muslim immigrants follow in the footsteps of the Franco-Algerian brothers who just terrorized Paris, we could be facing chronic terror. The main homeland threat from groups like the Islamic State comes through our immigration system. If they also use our loose policies as a vehicle for jihad, we will face the same crisis as France and the rest of Eurabia.
If enough trained jihadist fighters get into the country, they could band together and launch regular car bombings and tactical assaults, effectively orchestrating insurgencies in our cities, including the capital.
It’s not far-fetched. Just 19 foreign Muslims killed some 3,000 Americans and crippled the economy within just two years of entering the U.S.
Fifteen of them were Saudi nationals. Yet Obama welcomed 43,878 more Saudis from 2010 to 2013, mostly young men here on a student visa deal Obama cut with the Saudi king. At least 88,894 Saudis now live here.
If some never show up on college campuses or they overstay their visas, it doesn’t matter. Obama is no longer enforcing deportations.”
Read More At Investor’s Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010815-733901-america-ushers-in-islamic-immigrants-while-france-pulls-up-welcome-mat.htm#ixzz3ORIkDz6I
The Center for Immigration Studies is a hate group founded by a white nationalist, so I’m not sure why any report it conducts would be worth taking seriously.
http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/cis-the-independent-think-tank
(What is it with this blog citing white nationalists so often?)
“Eurabia” is not a thing. This is Breivik-speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eurabia
dougsaunders.tumblr.com/post/7999134091/debunking-the-eurabia-myth
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Debunking-the-myth-of-a-Eurabia-2460503.php
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/
http://nypost.com/2006/11/26/the-eurabia-myth-muslims-take-over-europe-sorry-theres-no-chance/
http://nypost.com/2006/11/26/the-eurabia-myth-muslims-take-over-europe-sorry-theres-no-chance/
http://www.newsweek.com/dispelling-myth-eurabia-81943
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/aug/21/muslims-eurabia-europe
The lunatic is running the asylum.
I’ve been out of touch for several days so until I get caught up here is my off topic contribution.
From Sharyl Attkisson on the Benghazi attack and possible connection to Petraeus.
The U.S. Govt. vs. Gen. David Petraeus
http://sharylattkisson.com/the-u-s-govt-vs-gen-david-petraeus/
“lunatic”
http://www.norcalblogs.com/postscripts/2015/01/04/rules-post-scripts-restatement-rules-2015/
The Center for Immigration Studies has been LABELED a “hate group” because its mission is, “…research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States,” and the Southern Poverty Law Center has said we can’t have that! Chris nods in agreement without a clue as to their agenda.
I am so sick of the “let it all hang out” (And worry about the consequences Later) radical left I could take a page out of Libby’s book and puke.
There is NOTHING wrong with studying the affect immigration has on our economic, social, demographic, and fiscal health as a nation. In fact it is imperative that we do so for our own survival and for the future of our children! This is information that responsible leaders should want to at least examine before making decisions about how many immigrants are brought into the country.
Whether or not it hurts PC sensibilities, Americans have to live with and pay for the often dramatic and costly consequences of thoughtless immigration policy:: Hospitals closing, schools overwhelmed, education for all students undermined, social and safety services overwhelmed, and DEBT racked up that working Americans and future generations will be forced to bear. We cannot save the world through immigration.
The current agenda to fundamentally transform America and open her borders to all comers is a disastrous scheme that will destroy our nation. This is not bigotry talking; it is simple common sense!
One of the articles posted at the Center for Immigration Studies contained the following information:
This is a problem that has been growing over decades. Former administrations and Congresses have failed to adequately address it. This administration and former Congress exacerbated the problems with their policies. Who in America is losing? Blacks, women, college graduates and other native born Americans. Isn’t this something that should be of concern to our leaders in Washington…the President in particular?
Why does the SPLC attempt to discredit this group and their research? Perhaps because they are in agreement with the president’s agenda of fundamental transformation for America. Isn’t it about time we demanded specifics about what that means from this imperial zealot with a pen and a phone?
In response to Chris at #1
NYT:
Those who are willing to imagine the possible affects and attempt to predict long-term consequences are “bigots” who must be discredited, snarled at, laughed at, maligned and dismissed. What is the problem with these types? What is the purpose in trying to limit and control thinking and speech?
A history lesson and food for thought published in 2005 regarding “Eurabia” from Middle East Forum, another group the left seeks to discredit.
Chris regarding Pie at #2, are you sure you got what he wrote? If not I suggest you ask him before playing tattle tale.
An interview with “Bat Ye’or, the world’s foremost authority on dhimmitude” posted at Front Page Magazine in 2004 also informs historically for those interested in being fully informed rather than indoctrinated from the left.
Used to think that folks who claimed Obumble is a muslim were a bit whacko.
However, there was the Apology Tour, his treatment of Israel, his “workplace violence” edict, his banning of words associated with islamic jihadist from the Official Vocabulary, his speech to the UN in 2014, his support of the Muslim Brotherhood and his LACK of support to those Egyptians who booted the brotherhood, his skedaddling out of Iraq and now Afghanistan, his dithering with the Iranian nuclear threat, and his total inability to identify terrorist activities when the killers are shouting “allahu akbar” while killing people.
Could all be considered a “preponderance of evidence” . . .
J. Soden, that’s a very astute observation! yep, pretty much says by his actions where his sympathies are. Thanks
Tina: “The Center for Immigration Studies has been LABELED a “hate group” because its mission is, “…research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States,” and the Southern Poverty Law Center has said we can’t have that!”
Why do you always feel the need to ignore the other side’s actual arguments in favor of making strawmen? Do you not understand that this makes your own arguments appear very weak?
The SPLC is very clear on why they labeled the CIS a hate group. It was founded by a literal white nationalist, a fact you ignored so that you could pretend the SPLC only labeled the CIS this way because they research the impacts of immigration, an absolutely ridiculous claim.
You’ve done this in the past when you falsely claimed that the SPLC only labeled certain anti-gay groups like the Family Research Council as hate groups simply because they “oppose same-sex marriage,” ignoring all of the actual stated reasons for labeling these groups such as their history of spreading lies about gay people and their support of criminalizing homosexuality here and abroad.
It is extremely dishonest of you to continue making these claims about the SPLC while refusing to acknowledge their stated reasons for the hate group label.
“There is NOTHING wrong with studying the affect immigration has on our economic, social, demographic, and fiscal health as a nation.”
No one has said that there is anything wrong with that. Do you believe there is something wrong with subscribing to white nationalism? Given your vigorous defense of linking to white nationalist sources, I’m not quite sure.
“One of the articles posted at the Center for Immigration Studies contained the following information:”
Who cares? Why would you take the word of a racist hate group founded by a white nationalist?
“Why does the SPLC attempt to discredit this group and their research?”
If you meant this question honestly you would have read the link and found out. Instead you are asking a rhetorical question meant to act as if the SPLC’s critique of the CIS is invalid. You won’t even address the content of that critique; instead you made a strawman argument against the SPLC.
“Those who are willing to imagine the possible affects and attempt to predict long-term consequences are “bigots” who must be discredited,”
Again you are making a strawman argument. The CIS was not labeled a hate group because they are “willing to imagine” “possible effects.” These are weasel words you retreat to whenever you or someone on your side is caught making false claims.
Again, the reasons for pointing out CIS’s bigoted history are made perfectly clear by the SPLC. Now, you may disagree with those reasons. But you should explain why you disagree with those reasons instead of making up reasons of your own and then projecting them onto the SPLC.
“Chris regarding Pie at #2, are you sure you got what he wrote? If not I suggest you ask him before playing tattle tale.”
Pie has called me a lunatic and worse many times on this blog, including after you and Jack posted the new rules. Why should I give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t referring to me this time? And why do you constantly attempt to hold me accountable for your failure to enforce this blog’s rules whenever they are violated by people you agree with?
Re #10 & #11:
I continue to take exception to those who assert or suspect that Barack Obama is a Muslim. It seems quite clear to me that no religion is so large as to contain this man. He is his own religion. IMHO Obama has only one religion — himself. He may have posed as a Muslim earlier in his life. He may pose as a Christian now (that truly is a complete farce, the church he attended for 20 or so years can hardly be described as Christian). Is it, and always has been, only a pose to further his political ambitions.
This man will do and say anything to advance his political agenda, period.
That said, this man is also a lunatic. To promote the importation of 100,000 or more Muslims a year after knowing about the tremendous problems with terror, violence, crime, poverty, and social upheaval and community Balkinization in Europe resulting from Islamic migration, you think a POTUS just might form a different policy.
BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO. The lunatic is running the asylum.
J Soden:
“his banning of words associated with islamic jihadist from the Official Vocabulary,”
I assume you didn’t read my response to you when you made this claim before. It was the Bush administration who decided to stop using terms like “jihadist” and “radical Islam” because they believed that they legitimized terror and gave the terrorists what they wanted. The Obama administration merely continued this policy.
By your logic, Bush must be a secret Muslim too.
“However, there was the Apology Tour,”
There was no “apology tour,” as every fact-checking agency in the U.S. has noted.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/31/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-said-barack-obama-began-his-presidency/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/10/22/fact-check-obama-right-about-apology-tour/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/editing-romneys-apology-defense/
“his treatment of Israel,”
We’ll have to agree to disagree about this one.
“his “workplace violence” edict,”
I agree with you that this was the wrong designation for this terrorist act. That does not prove that Obama is a Muslim.
“his speech to the UN in 2014,”
Which one? The one where he called ISIS a “network of death” and vowed to stop terrorists?
“his support of the Muslim Brotherhood and his LACK of support to those Egyptians who booted the brotherhood,”
Obama never took a side in this conflict, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. He never supported the Muslim Brotherhood.
“his skedaddling out of Iraq and now Afghanistan,”
Obama left on Bush’s schedule after being forced out by the Iraqi government. He wanted to stay longer but couldn’t get immunity for soldiers. He then dishonestly took credit for getting us out of Iraq. Give him hell for that and I’ll agree with you, but none of this says “secret Muslim.” The American public as a whole wanted us out of Afghanistan–does that make all of those Americans secret Muslims?
“his dithering with the Iranian nuclear threat,”
This is a complex situation and you may not like Obama’s handling of it, but that does not indicate he is a secret Muslim.
“and his total inability to identify terrorist activities when the killers are shouting “allahu akbar” while killing people.”
He doesn’t have a “total inability” to do that. He has condemned specific terror attacks, using that exact language, many many times. There are certain times he hasn’t used it where you and I might think he should have, but again, that doesn’t indicate that he is a secret Muslim.
Why jump to conspiracy theories over simple policy disagreements? Obama hasn’t behaved like a secret Muslim. He’s behaved like a garden variety liberal.
Well, well, well, the backstabbing Senator Dianne Feinstein has announced that there are terrorist sleeper cells here in the US!
Well duh.
No doubt she expects the CIA to do its job and do everything (legally) possible to find them and destroy them. Of course the dedicated and thoroughly professional men and women of CIA will do just that, even though they have been the recipients of a politically motivated and ugly hack job by Feinstein and here backstabbing peers.
Addition to #10 – and you can add Obumble’s absence with other world leaders honoring the Paris attack victims to the list.
And #11 – Thanx, Jack!
J Soden:
“Addition to #10 – and you can add Obumble’s absence with other world leaders honoring the Paris attack victims to the list.”
At this point I have to assume you’re just making things up. Obama has spoken about the Paris terror attack victims. Why would you say that he hasn’t?
Ok, J, I looked it up and I see what you are talking about. It would have been nice for Obama to attend but he’s a pretty busy guy and I don’t see why his not attending says anything negative about him, especially since he has honored the victims in speeches many times since the attack. It certainly isn’t evidence for any “secret Muslim” conspiracy theories–Muslim leaders were among those in the march, so obviously whether or not one attended has nothing to do with whether or not one is a Muslim.
Memo to Chris: Used to read your posts, but they’ve deteriorated into blather and I have better use of my time.
I don’t think a guy floating the “secret Muslim!” conspiracy theory has any call to accuse someone else of “blather.”
So…no comment on the fact that Pie’s source for this article is a think tank founded by a white nationalist? Everyone here is totally cool with that?
Chris, what is your test to determine these internet sites as white nationalists sites? Is there some authority book that says this or that sight is a discredited white nationalist site? How do you judge this, because you are always saying it…just curious? Next, do you harbor the same degree of concern for the Black caucus, Black Panthers or other minority race-based groups? If not, why not?
J, The President’s “absence with other world leaders” turned out to be another event with “bad optics” for the President. He knows it too. In full damage control mode an acknowledgement was issued from the WH:
But Byron York says it was no accident. He says it’s part of Obama’s, “years-long effort to downgrade the threat of terrorism and move on to other things.”
I have to say he makes a compelling point!
The excuse that he’s a “busy guy” doesn’t really float either since he and the VP had nothing on their schedules for the weekend.
Jack: “Chris, what is your test to determine these internet sites as white nationalists sites?”
The SPLC page I linked to was very clear about why John Tanton is a white nationalist. Here is more about Tanton, the founder of the Center for Immigration Studies:
A retired Michigan ophthalmologist, John Tanton spent decades at the heart of the white nationalist movement. His racist views were first exposed in 1988 when a series of private memos he wrote for principals at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) were leaked to the press. The memos were filled with racist statements and warned about a coming “Latin onslaught.”
At the time, Tanton’s group U.S. English, which opposed bilingualism in public schools and government agencies, disavowed any racial motivation. “Hispanics who learn English will be able to avail themselves of opportunities,” explained its president, former Reagan administration official Linda Chavez. She resigned when Tanton’s memos were leaked. The news that U.S. English had received funds from the distributor of The Camp of the Saints, a racist French novel in which starving Third World refugees overrun Europe, added to Chavez’s sense of betrayal. (She had reviewed the book back in 1975, denouncing its presentation of “racial mistrust and hatred as a natural condition of man.”) Chavez continues to publicly criticize Tanton and his organizations, urging her fellow conservatives in 2007 to be wary of “problematic allies” like FAIR, which she called “the most influential organization in the country on immigration.”
Tanton’s white nationalist views are fully exposed in his private papers at the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan. “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” Tanton wrote in a Dec. 10, 1993, letter to Garrett Hardin, a controversial ecology professor.
The papers in the Bentley Library also show that Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has corresponded with Holocaust deniers, former Klan lawyers and the leading white nationalist thinkers of the era. He introduced key FAIR leaders to the president of the Pioneer Fund, a white supremacist group set up to encourage “race betterment,” at a 1997 meeting at a private club. He wrote a major funder to encourage her to read the work of a radical anti-Semitic professor — to “give you a new understanding of the Jewish outlook on life” — and suggested that the entire FAIR board discuss the professor’s theories on the Jews. He practically worshipped a principal architect of the Immigration Act of 1924 (instituting a national origin quota system and barring Asian immigration), a rabid anti-Semite whose pro-Nazi American Coalition of Patriotic Societies was indicted for sedition in 1942.
Tanton also runs the racist publishing company, The Social Contract Press, which is part of his foundation, U.S. Inc. One special issue of the press’ journal, The Social Contract, was devoted to the theme of “Europhobia: The Hostility Toward European-Descended Americans” and featured a lead article from John Vinson, head of the Tanton-backed hate group, the American Immigration Control Foundation. Vinson argued that multiculturalism was replacing “successful Euro-American culture” with “dysfunctional Third World cultures.” Tanton elaborated in his own remarks, decrying the “unwarranted hatred and fear” of whites that he blamed on “multiculturalists” and immigrants.
In 1994, The Social Contract Press republished an infamous racist novel, The Camp of the Saints, along with his wholehearted endorsement and a special afterword from its author saying “the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, to extinction.” The novel describes “swarthy hordes” of Indian immigrants who take over France, send white women to “a whorehouse for Hindus” and engage in a grotesque orgy of men, women and children. The immigrants are described as “monsters,” “grotesque little beggars from the streets of Calcutta” and worse. Unconcerned, Tanton said he was “honored” to republish what he described as an important and “prescient” text. The novel, like the race war fantasy The Turner Diaries, has become a key screed for American white supremacists.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/john-tanton
“How do you judge this, because you are always saying it…”
I am not always saying it. I say it when you link to white nationalists, which has become unfortunately common.
“Next, do you harbor the same degree of concern for the Black caucus,”
The Black caucus does not preach the supremacy of the Black race, so no.
“Black Panthers”
Certainly. The Black Panthers are a racist and anti-Semitic hate group. I would never cite them as an authority on anything, and I would be extremely suspicious of anyone who would. But I’ve never seen that happen on any left-wing blog I visit.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/new-black-panther-party
That the IBD article cites the CIS does not change the facts or the concerns expressed by the article.
To label the CIS a “white nationalist organization” is probably false. Chris may put his trust in the left-wing extremist SPLC organization, but I do not.
In any case, whether the CIS is a “white nationalist” organization or not does not alter the validity of the report nor the editorial and its real concerns.
The IBD editorial concludes:
“Why are we letting foreign Muslims flood our shores when most of Europe now regrets liberalizing immigration from Muslim countries? We are just setting ourselves up for the same internal security crisis.”
Precisely.
Regarding the supposed “Eurabia Myth”, someone had better tell Marwan Muhammed of the Collective Against Islamophobia in France it is just a myth —
“Who has the right to say that France in 30 or 40 years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/french-islamist-mini-states-grow-into-problem-out-/?page=all
“In any case, whether the CIS is a “white nationalist” organization or not does not alter the validity of the report nor the editorial and its real concerns.”
Of course it alters the validity of the report! Why would anyone believe a report issued by a white nationalist group is valid?
Have you even looked at the methodology of the report, or are you assuming its conclusions are true because you WANT to believe them?
I was completely unaware that the CIS could be considered a “white nationalist hate group”. In fact, before this editorial from IBD I had never even heard of the CIS. After a bit of cursory web research it appears to me that the CIS has a questionable background though I am not sure it is fair or accurate to label the organization the way Chris has. (I have no doubt he does so for his own political purposes.)
They are certainly concerned with immigration issues, but to label them with the inflammatory terms “white nationalist” attached to “hate group” implies there is something wrong and racist about nationalism.
I am a nationalist. I believe in the Constitution and our nation made up of many peoples from across the globe. I admit to having a national identity of which I am proud — I am an American, a native American. I am also white. So, you could say I am a white nationalist and not be inaccurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Nevertheless in my opinion the CIS’ background unfortunately casts a shadow on the whole editorial, which I believe brings to our attention some very real and valid concerns. It is too bad the IBD staff had to name and cite the CIS. The editorial could have been written without the help of the CIS, the citing of which opens the door to the question of racism and attack by rabid demagogues like Chris, who is all too happy to ignore the message and is delighted to pound on the messenger. So it goes.
I am not a fan of any racist organization (and I am not saying the CIS can be actually said to be such). As such I am also not a fan of the Black caucus, Black Panthers, Black Muslims, or the racist hate church Obama participated in for decades in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ.
Racists are about as useful as teats on a bull as far as I am concerned. All they ever do is get in the way and muck things up.
“Regarding the supposed “Eurabia Myth”, someone had better tell Marwan Muhammed of the Collective Against Islamophobia in France it is just a myth”
Yeah, they better had. You have his number?
Re #27 Chris:”Of course it alters the validity of the report! Why would anyone believe a report issued by a white nationalist group is valid?”
No it does not. The validity of the report depends upon the validity of the source material and the data. The validity does not depend on what you think about the character of the organization producing the report. Understand?
Now, if you have some evidence that the report itself is badly flawed, I would like to see it. In other words, put up or shut up.
Re #27 Chris Addendum:
By the way,***hole, you can take that insulting “WANT to believe” nonsense and stick it where the sun does not shine.
In light of the decades old developments and problems in Europe with Islamic immigration I think the IBD editorial raises some very real and valid concerns.
Go **** yourself, vicious stupid one.
Re #29 Chris : You will need a lot more numbers than just Marwan Muhammed’s, oh great stupid one. Do you think he speaks for just himself?
(I am going to pull a Chris here.)
Well, obviously, Chris cannot put up and so has decided to shut up. Works for me.
Pie: “No it does not. The validity of the report depends upon the validity of the source material”
That’s exactly what I’ve said since comment 1. The source material is a hate group founded by a white nationalist. Therefore, the source is invalid.
“Go **** yourself, vicious stupid one.”
http://www.yellowpages.com/chico-ca/free-anger-management-class
How’s that name calling rule working out?
Pie, I have not read the latest CIS report cited by IBD, but the organization–in addition to being a racist hate group–has a history of producing reports with terrible methodology.
This Republican writing for the National Review takes the CIS to task for a flawed report in which they falsely claimed that 81% of new jobs in Texas were taken by immigrants:
“The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) has released a detailed rejoinder to a well-publicized study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that made a remarkable claim: “Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).”
Put simply, CIS used faulty methodology to make its main point. It compared a net increase in jobs in Texas over a four-year period with a gross increase in employed newly arrived immigrants in Texas.
This is truly an apples-to-oranges comparison; it is as if a report claimed that Google is a larger company than Apple because its market capitalization of $162 billion exceeds Apple’s annual revenues of $100 billion.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/279607/cis-and-texas-immigrant-job-myth-chuck-devore
That doesn’t prove their latest report is wrong, but it does give us serious reason to doubt its validity.
It is not just the left wing attacking the CIS in order to discredit them. Jennifer Rubin, a prominent Romney supporter, has also warned other conservatives to distance themselves from the CIS if they want to be taken seriously:
“In short, in the post-shutdown world with GOP leadership and mainstream Republicans perking up, immigration reform might just be possible. Interestingly, while pro-immigration reform advocates are organizing, the Center for immigration Studies (CIS), the leading anti-immigration group (treated respectfully as a legitimate group by members of Congress) is out making anti-immigrant, arguably racist remarks, arguing Hispanics as a group lack family values. CIS’s Stephen Steinlight also hysterically claimed immigration reform would “would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party. The Hispanic vote will make the Democrats the PRI of America.” (Conservatives who oppose immigration reform would do well to distance themselves from such cranks, lest they be accused of sharing such views.)”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/01/08/daylight-on-immigration-reform/
pete: “How’s that name calling rule working out?”
Thanks for asking this pointed question, Pete. It seems to be working exactly as intended: it applies to liberal commenters, but not conservative commenters.
“It is too bad the IBD staff had to name and cite the CIS. The editorial could have been written without the help of the CIS”
I don’t see how. The central claim of the article is that “America between 2010 and 2013 imported more people from Muslim countries than Central America and Mexico combined.” CIS is the only known source of that claim.
Re Pie, I have not read the latest CIS report cited by IBD:
Yep,I figured that. This is standard operating procedure for you.
Re: “It is too bad the IBD staff had to name and cite the CIS. The editorial could have been written without the help of the CIS”
I don’t see how.
Of course you can’t, you are just all not that bright. No doubt the CIS uses government data to make their report. The IBD could have gone to the data sources cited in the report and have built their editorial on that.
Evidently the IBD editorial staff thinks the report is valid and so cited it.
Re Thanks for asking this pointed question, Pete. It seems to be working exactly as intended: it applies to liberal commenters, but not conservative commenters.:
What utter nonsense. Chris is posing as nicey-nicey but has a long history of name calling, particularily when it comes to calling people bigots and racists.
Drop dead Chris, you unabashed hypocrite. (You to Pete.)
By the way, Chris, I am not calling you stupid and vicious, I am just saying your behavior is stupid and vicious. 😀
Pie,
Why are you so angry? What exactly did I do to be called a hypocrite and told to drop dead.
Jack and Tina,
Is Pie’s foul language and name calling the new norm for this site? If so I no longer want to be a part of your blog. I enjoy the heated exchanges of opinion your blog provides, but Pie is completely out of bounds with your stated rules. I trust you will address his behavior.
Respectfully,
Pete
Nice to hear a voice of reason, Pete. I understand if you don’t want to stick around–I’ve thought about dropping out before too, but I don’t want to give bullies the satisfaction.
Chris,
Do not mistake my condemnation of Pie’s behavior as an alliance with you. I agree or disagree with blog postings on this site based on the arguments made and evidence provided.
Pete
Re #40 pete :Pete, first of all, I am not angry, I am joyfully treating Chris just as he has treated others. My route has been to be simply more honest and direct. I do not mince words with ***holes. If you wish to defend Chris and his behavior and condemn mine, fair enough. You are in the right and I am in the wrong.
Yes, Pete, you are absolutely correct to call me out on foul name calling, I am absolutely guilty of being blatantly obvious where the great stupid hypocrite tries to be stealth and pretend plausible deniability.
In any case I think I have made my point by getting in the face of the premier slur mongering left-wing extremist hypocrite who frequents the comments in this blog. No need to continue, offend others, and possibly shy away those who are not familiar with Chris’ long standing behavior in these pages.
Tina and Jack: I officially let it rest with Pete’s admonishment. You may all now breath a sigh of relief. Let the ***hole be the ***hole that he is. I won’t bother with him anymore.
Pete: “Do not mistake my condemnation of Pie’s behavior as an alliance with you. I agree or disagree with blog postings on this site based on the arguments made and evidence provided.”
Noted and respected.
Pete I understand your concerns. I hope you will choose to stick around and continue to express yourself at Post Scripts.
Frankly, I am at a loss. People can, and often do, make complete fools of themselves. It seems to happen a lot when politics and social issues are the main topics of discussion. We value your support and respectful participation and will do our best to encourage compliance with the rules while allowing free and open discussion…I’ll tell ya, it isn’t easy.
A Breitbart article on the Center for Immigration Studies report refutes the claim that the main focus of the report was that “between 2010 and 2013” America “imported more people from Muslim countries than Central America and Mexico combined.”
From the Breitbart article:
Breitbart also notes: “The report, authored by Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler from CIS, relies on U.S. census data to make these observations.
Maybe it’s time to ask who wrote the IBD article and what their purpose was in misstating the content and focus of the report. The title should have provided them their first clue: “U.S. Immigrant Population record 4.3 Million in 2013”
The National Review article makes a good point about one part of the study. That doesn’t mean the CIS is racist or wrong altogether.
I’m curious Chris, is the CIS on the SPLC’s target list?
Pie, regarding #39: “Drop dead Chris, you unabashed hypocrite. (You to Pete.)”.
Please explain what you meant when you wrote “(You to Pete)”.
I’d like to know how Pete became part of this exchange between you and Chris.
Pie at #43. Thank you. I will understand if yu make an occassional slip but I do expect you to keep your word and appreciate your decision. Your point has been made and your comments sans satirical mirror holding are more interesting anyway. You have a unique perspective and I suspect our readers would much more enjoy reading what you think about the subject.
I haven’t been able to find your comment that included something about a pending surgery. I wish you all the best for a speedy recovery and good outcome. I can empathize, believe me.
Tina: “Pie, regarding #39: “Drop dead Chris, you unabashed hypocrite. (You to Pete.)”.
Please explain what you meant when you wrote “(You to Pete)”.
I’d like to know how Pete became part of this exchange between you and Chris.”
Because if he only told me to drop dead and not Pete, that’s totally OK and in compliance with this site’s rules.
“We value your support and respectful participation and will do our best to encourage compliance with the rules while allowing free and open discussion…”
This is a joke; obviously you will do no such thing. Two comments later you complimented Pie for his abusive comments toward me and his complete inability to get through a comment without swearing at me, justifying it as a “satirical mirror.” You nsist on equating my criticism of certain posters with Pie’s actual hate speech, and you clearly have no intention of applying your blog’s rules consistently.
If I start calling you an ***hole and telling you to go **** yourself, can I expect to be banned? I doubt you would expect such speech directed at yourself or other conservative posters.