Read more on unwanted SOMALIS>> >HERE.
Brian Chesky, CEO of Airbnb, has criticized President Trump’s “crackdown on immigration” and has offered free housing to refugees and “anyone impacted” (by) the supposed crackdown. Similarly, the very left-wing executives at Starbuck’s have announced plans to hire 10,000 (!) refugees in their overpriced establishments.
By the way: Chesky — like the owners of Starbuck’s — fit the typical pattern: immigrant stock, or is that (((immigrant stock)))? And millennial too, in the case of Chesky.
In the social media, one Tumblr blogger who dared to criticize Chesky’s action was promptly called (by a fellow Tumblr blogger) an ‘ignorant racist’ and told that as Tumblr was a ‘pro-immigration site’, people who dissent from that stance must ‘get off’ Tumblr, followed by other profane and insulting remarks.
The conservative blogger who criticized Chesky said simply that while our own veterans are often without housing, people like Chesky ignore them and prefer to morally preen and strut by showing their ‘compassion’ towards unknown third-worlders. As the offending ‘conservative’ lady said, we ought to care for our own first, a viewpoint which was the consensus view up until recent times.
The rhetoric is getting uglier and uglier on internet spots like Tumblr, which is dominated by maleducated, brainwashed millennials, and only one viewpoint is acceptable there. That group of people are the least tolerant, the most totalitarian, of any age group alive today, probably than any group of people in history.
The Jacobins in 18th-century France were probably paragons of tolerance compared to the millennials of Western countries. I see some very worrying trends; it seems that the younger leftists (that’s redundant, by the way; they are almost all SJWs, and the fact that there are exceptions does not negate the rule) are allying more and more blatantly with Moslems. I’ve noticed that they are showing signs of not just ‘supporting’ moslems, but actually have an attitude of adulation and admiration towards them.
There is a meme going around with an image of our old friend, that lady of easy virtue, Lady Liberty, with her arm around the shoulder of a burka-clad female Moslem, saying “All Are Welcome.” Yes, it’s come to that. I wonder how Jewish Emma Lazarus, who composed that mawkish ‘verse’ at the foot of the Liberty statue about the wretched refuse, etc., would react to this trend? Actually she would probably approve. The enemy of my enemy, etc., and all too often the perceived arch-enemy, as far as Jews are concerned, is the Anglo-American. Anything that damages us and diminishes our power is ‘good for the Jews’, so they believe. >>con’t reading to FULL ARTICLE.
Documentary of MS-13 GANG Activity
By Kelly SinoskiVancouver Sun
A Salvadoranmember of the notorious Mara Salvatrucha-13 gangis living in British Columbia despite fears by immigration officials that the gang has a “single brutal purpose” of carrying out criminal activity by any means.
Roberto Ernesto Contreras Mendoza (33 yrs) listed his address as a suite in a downtown Vancouver hotel while he applied for refugee status in a string of applications, appeals and, most recently, a judicial review. Mendoza’s body is covered in vivid tattoos marking him as a walking billboard for the Mara Salvatrucha-13 gang.
He was ORDERED DEPORTED in February after being deemed INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE OF HIS GANG AFFILIATIONS and is awaiting results of a pre-removal risk assessment.
Mendoza, who is out on bail, is also scheduled to appear in Surrey Provincial Court next month on charges of assault and uttering threats
View original post 882 more words
On 7th of June, 2010 the invasion of Leonora(Western Australia) began with the arrival of two planes containing 86 so-called asylum seekers who were the first to land on Australian soil before being cleared since offshore processing began under the Howard government.
This is the first of at least two hundred (300? 500?) illegals who will be heading to the town over the coming weeks. It proves that no matter where you live, the results of the open border policies of the Fabian Marxist Chairman Rudd (Former Australian Prime Minister) will find you. There is no longer any place where you can hide from the multiracial hell-hole that is engulfing Australia.
Do you think that the locals will feel “enriched” as they see millions of…
View original post 243 more words
The following comments are referring to Canada’s ludicrous refugee policies that cater to unknown, un-vetted, undeserving foreigners who self-proclaim to be “refugees” after landing on our soil. White-guilt takes precedence over common sense whenever this subject matter is broached. Critical analysis is clouded over with maudlin sentiments by hypocritical Canadians who would deny a bed in their own home to a destitute Canadian, but willingly lay the red carpet down for unknown foreigners from half-way around the world but only IF the government (read: taxpayers) pays for their exorbitant welfare costs.
“France” says: There is a big difference between genuine refugees and bogus ones. According to international law, asylum seekers are to go to the nearest “safe” country. Many are not doing that. Two cases in point: the “Ocean Lady” and the “Sun Sea” both ships carried Tamils directly to Canadian shores. Refugee claimants from Mexico, Hungary, Colombia, the U.S. and Jamaica – all countries that do not have records of persecution or human rights abuses received millions of dollars in health care services here in Canada for free.
From Mexico, 8,819 – $7 Million; 6,749 Hungarians – $4.4 Million; 4,583 Colombians – $2.6 Million; and 3,790 Americans – over $1.4 Million. (Source: CICS News, August, 2012) All refugee claims whether accepted, failed and abandoned costs $29,000 each, and are paid for by you and all other taxpayers. American “refugees”? Really? This is what WE are paying for. There are 37 designated safe countries. From these countries 87% claims dropped in one year thanks to reforms our government made.
In 2013, 97% of refugee claims from Hungary dropped. (CTV News – January 23, 2014). Do you think it is fair to genuine refugees that their claims be held up because of foreign opportunists who are simply taking advantage of a lax system? Do you think it is fair to the hard-working taxpayer to have to foot the bill for these opportunists? Do you also think it is fair for Canadians, who pay for it – not to receive certain health care services – while refugees do receive it? There must be a balance, here, “Big Bob”, and this is what our government is trying to achieve.
Joe says: We need changes. Not sure if this is the way. I see abuse all the time in the region of Peel. (near Pearson Airport) New Canadians come here. Use the health care and social assistants system then go back home for months at a time. Then come back for a awhile when they need health care or funds then go back to their home country again for months. This is so easy to expose I wonder why the major news networks have not ran a story on it. If Canadians knew the true extent of abuse they would cry foul no mater the humanitarian aspect. Is in not logical for one to pay into a system and country to help contribute to it before taking from it over and over again? I have a pretty big heart but I’m getting sick of people who have invested nothing to this great country yet reap benefits from it.
[Another “timeless” article on this important topic]
WHAT must you not speak? Any expressions of opposition to immigration policies, of course. And that proscription applies to any citizen living in the Western world. The influential Sierra Club used to talk about it a lot, but no more. Not too long ago, this organization sensibly warned about the inevitable negative consequences that would come from “rapid national population growth.” But, these days, the group toes the politically correct line on the subject, and keeps silent about the almost 80 million people who have been added to the United States population in the last 30 years.
Club members no longer express concern over the effects of population “sprawl,” whereby more and more rural land in the U.S. is being converted to suburban and urban use. On the contrary, many Sierra Club members spend time worrying over the plight of land in other countries. A Club director recently expressed his sorrow over the fact that civil wars in Indonesia have caused over 100,000 people to flee into the jungles (”rain forests”), where they have promptly destroyed the natural environment. He lamented that those 100,000 were not relocated to the United States, which would have prevented the spoilage of all that Indonesian land.
One is tempted to ask, Why stop at Indonesia? Whenever we learn of strife and warfare on other continents, why not offer to open up our borders to half of Africa and India too? And isn’t everyone expecting a mess to break loose in China? Look at all the “rain forests” we could protect around the globe, if the U.S. would unselfishly remove any and all few remaining restrictions on immigration.
On that same note, the President of Bangladesh has the right idea. By the year 2050, Bangladesh is expected to have a population of 240 million, which is double today’s population. Recently, when President Sheika Hasina was asked how Bangladesh plans to “feed, educate, employ and house” all these people, she laughingly responded, “We’ll send them to America.” She went on to claim that “Globalization will take the problem away,” since there’s “free movement, country to country.” She talked of a world “without boundaries,” where countries with big populations could send its people to countries with small populations. She never did indicate just what positive steps Bangladesh, as a nation, would take to improve the lot of its people, besides shipping them off to all those countries “without boundaries.”
The most potent weapon used against those who advocate reform of immigration laws is the old, reliable “racist” tag, with “xenophobe” often thrown in for good measure. In order to keep up the fiction that only disgruntled whites are against current policies, almost no public attention is given to those American blacks who are part of the movement to limit legal and illegal immigration. Yet organizations such as the National Society of Black Engineers, the Northern California Council of Black Professional Engineers, the National Action Council of Minorities in Engineering, the Human Resources Network of Black Professionals, and others, have vociferously challenged the H-1B visa programs and current immigration policies in general.
What happens when you don’t stay shushed and insist on speaking out against the obvious suicidal tendencies of the Western world? You get kicked, good and solid. England’s Conservative party member, John Townend, can tell you about it. So can France’s retired actress Brigitte Bardot, as well as many others who try, in various ways, to awaken their countries’ citizens to the coming calamity called open borders.
When John Townend made his first open attack on multiculturalism, his party’s leader, William Hague, scolded him for impertinence and insisted that Townend’s comments were “totally unacceptable.” Using unimpeachable statistics on crime, Townend openly blamed immigrants for the rising levels of crime in England and for “seriously undermining” Britain’s homogeneous Anglo-Saxon society. He soon learned that concern for ethnic unity and solidarity is the preserve only of the colored races. Whites are punished for any expressed desire to cleave unto their own, and Townend discovered that he had broken a steadfast taboo.
The Conservative party’s opposition had a field day, as one politician after another grabbed the spotlight to grandstand and rail on about the glorious benefits of a multi-cult society. Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of support for immigration as the “morally right” position to take. A couple of weeks prior, Blair and all the main party leaders had signed a compact promising not to allow any of their candidates to issue campaign material “likely to generate hostility or division between people of different racial, national or religious groups.” In other words, a public policy issue as important as immigration was not to be discussed at all.
When John Townend broke the silence (he was not a current candidate for office), a Cabinet minister expressed the fear that Townend’s remarks could give the green light to others “to make speeches of this nature.” So, Townend’s party colleagues, in an attempt to get tougher with him, threatened to expel him from the Conservative party. A party official is quoted in London’s Daily Telegraph as saying, “He was told in the simplest terms: be quiet or else.”
On another front, Swaminathan Aiyar, after dismissing the notion of an Indian takeover of the sub-continent, candidly writes, in the Times of India: “Forget about an aggressive takeover of the sub-continent, we should aim for a friendly takeover of the whole world, starting with the USA. Actually, takeover is the wrong word. More correctly, we must aim at a global inter-mingling where our sheer numbers matter. The world has six billion people, of whom one billion are Indians. Since population growth has slowed or halted in China and large parts of the West, by the year 2050, one in five human beings will be an Indian. So, if globalisation facilitates the free movement of people, Indians should in due course account for a substantial chunk of the population in all countries that are desirable destinations for migrants.”
Even the boldest proclamations issuing from those who celebrate the inevitable transformations yet to come of this country’s social and political institutions do nothing to bestir a sleeping citizenry that is bent on “making nice” and staying out of politically incorrect trouble. But a day of reckoning will bring with it an understanding of the profound changes to the way of life that we now take for granted, when the race/culture shift is complete.
Columnist Sam Francis sums it up best: “There was an ethnic and cultural homogeneity to the American people that made their nation cohere and their creed and their peculiar form of government work at all. The Founders had no problem whatsoever in understanding and recognizing that America does indeed have a specific ethnic and cultural foundation and that when that foundation vanishes, the American republic disappears with it. . . . It’s hardly an accident that as ethnic and racial diversity has flourished, the limited republican government the Founders created from their own British heritage has begun to wither.” Full Article HERE