The Term “Illegal Immigrant” Offensive To Some Journalists

The Term “Illegal Immigrant” Offensive To Some Journalists
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet


The US used to be described as a “melting pot.” Today, that melting pot has transformed into a “Boiling Pot” heated by the rage of LEGAL American citizens born and raised in this country and by naturalized American citizens who went to the trouble to enter this country – LEGALLY-- out of respect for the laws of their newly adopted country.

Millions of so-called “immigrants” have chosen to break and enter the United States by crossing our clearly marked borders illegally. Those who do so are called “illegal aliens,” “illegal immigrants,” and a number of other terms less printable than these two.

The reason we call them ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS is because they are in this country illegally.

So – they find it “offensive?” Say WHAT? It reminds me of an old joke from the 1940’s and 1950’s with the punch line: “Don’t you call me what I is!” But, of course, that old joke IS offensive today… as is so much of our language and, well, darn near everything that gave us color and spice, and yes, even spirit as Americans. We have gelded ourselves as a robust, boisterous, flamboyant people. We have become lifeless, pale, bland, and dull. Political Correctness did it all.

Now comes more politically correct pabulum from a journalist’s organization. It seems they find the term “Illegal Immigrant” offensive and even unconstitutional!

In an article By Eric Scheiner entitled: “Society Of Professional Journalists Says 'Illegal Immigrant' Is An 'Offensive' Term” CNSNews reports the following:

"The Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) is undertaking an educational campaign against the term “illegal immigrant” seeking to inform reporters that the term “illegal immigrant” is “offensive” to Latinos.

In the latest issue of SPJ’s magazine ‘Quill’, SPJ’s Diversity Committee member Leo Laurence writes about the campaign referencing the National Association of Hispanic Journalists’ recommendation to use “undocumented immigrant” or “undocumented worker” and to “Avoid using ‘illegal(s)’ as a noun.”

"SPJ’s Diversity Committee met during the 2010 convention in Las Vegas and decided to engage in a yearlong educational campaign designed to inform and sensitize journalists as to the best language to use when writing and reporting on undocumented immigrants," wrote Laurence.

In his article, Laurence also made a constitutional argument against the term 'illegal immigrant', “One of the most basic of our constitutional rights is that everyone (including non-citizens) is innocent of any crime until proven guilty in a court of law," wrote Laurence. "That’s guaranteed under the Fifth, Sixth and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.”

“Simply put, only a judge, not a journalist, can say that someone is an illegal,” Laurence adds." (SOURCE)

Am I mistaken in my belief that the US Constitution is for “AMERICANS?”I mean -- legal citizens of the United States? I know our government seems bent on extended rights intended for American citizens to terrorists and to Illegal Aliens, but wait a cussed minute! Doesn’t it cheapen those rights? Doesn’t that make a joke of all the efforts our forefathers made to protect and defend those rights?

Look: Attempting to change the way we refer to illegal aliens is not entirely politically correct. It is propagandizing of the highest order.

It seems to me, as a former member of the press, that the job of a reporter, a member of the press, and/or a journalist, is to report the news. They have no business trying to influence the way you and I think about the news. But that appears to be exactly what this campaign is all about.

I find the very fact that illegal aliens are in this country illegally – “OFFENSIVE!” I find the fact that my government will not do its duty – and STOP IT! – OFFENSIVE as all get-out! The moment they set foot on US soil, without the proper, documentation, they have broken US laws and the laws of many of our states.

Here is the bottom line, as I see it: This campaign is all about One-World Governance, a One World Government, or Global Government. A globe with no borders and a single government – likely, the United Nations or some equally pathetic bunch of yahoos we never met -- let alone elected.

To those in the Mainstream Media: This is why your newspapers are failing. This is why your magazines are failing. This is why your broadcast “talk shows” fail. This is why your news networks run second, at best, to Fox News. The American people know YOU CANNOT BE TRUSTED, anymore!

Don’t talk to me about “Undocumented Workers.” Don’t talk to me about “Undocumented Immigrants.” They are, in fact, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigrants, or even “Undocumented Democrats,” or in most cases, “Undocumented Mexicans.”

Of course, all this effort is intended to assist the democrats in gaining AMNESTY for those millions of Illegal Aliens already in this country sucking the life out of the economy of a number of our states. But HEY, if given citizenship, they’re going to vote democratic! See where all this is going?

Yes, the melting pot is boiling over -- and with good reason. We are suffering the greatest land invasion in history while our government looks the other way and tries, desperately, to distract its citizens from observing the madness, the mischief, the malign intent of a shadow government controlled by a cabal of uber-wealthy miscreants with Napoleonic complexes and a lust to rule the world!

J. D. Longstreet

Renewed Effort Toward Global Governance At The UN?

Renewed Effort Toward Global Governance At The UN?
One-World Government Aborning?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

“Outlining priorities for the 65th session at a news conference last week, Mr. Deiss (Thomas Deiss, the UN General Assembly President) called for efforts to “reinstate” the UN and its 192-member General Assembly to the centre of global governance.” (SOURCE)

The paragraph above is from an article titled: “Countries welcome new Assembly President’s focus on global governance,” which can be found HERE. The article is dated the 21^st of September 2010. It also states: “Several countries have expressed support for the initiative of the General Assembly President to make global governance a central theme of the current session of the United Nations body.

Prime Minister Klaus Tschütscher of Liechtenstein, as well as Sheikh Khalid ibn Ahmad Al Khalifa, the Foreign Minister of Bahrain; Xavier Espot Miró, the Foreign Minister of Andorra; and Amr Moussa, the Secretary-General of the Arab League concurred with Joseph Deiss on prioritizing such an important topic.”

The article quotes Mr. Deiss as having said: “The challenges which we face today have acquired a global dimension and require global solutions. Our actions must have broad legitimacy and be the result of inclusive processes. We have to improve the mechanisms for information, consultation and cooperation between the United Nations and other actors and tools of global governance ... ."

It surely appears that warnings concerning the determination of the UN to formulate a one-world government were prescient, indeed.

It is fairly easy to understand why an organization, any organization, would want to rule the world … RAW, UNADULTERATED, POWER … but, it absolutely escapes me as to how they plan to actually GOVERN all the peoples of the earth for a single instant, let alone forever.

The expression “herding cats” comes immediately to mind when I think of the impossibility of a single ruling body governing the “earth people.”

But first we must ask ourselves how, exactly, will global governance be established? It will surely be through one of two avenues. Think about it. A one-world government must be achieved either by consent -- or by conquest.

It is inconceivable that the people of the United States would willingly give up their freedom and liberty, forsake their constitution and their bill of rights, and swear fealty to the United Nations, or any other would-be global ruling body … at least for a few more generations, anyway.

Americans, of a necessity, will have to be conditioned to accept less and less freedom, as the years go by, before there can be any thing approaching a reasonable expectation that they will accept what can only be described as “global slavery” overseen by a single globe encompassing authority.

Look, a one-world government would immediately bring us global poverty, and global war(s). That is the bottom line. Earth would overnight become a single battleground as the forces of that ruling authority attempt to impose its will on every single person on the planet. All wars would be “world wars” as they would affect every person on the globe.

Only one form of global governance has any chance of success – at all. That is totalitarianism -- a one-world dictatorship – period. As we said above global governance is all about power – absolute power.

The current American government is trying, as best it can, to condition Americans and drive them toward acceptance of global governance at some level, to some degree, with the goal of having America willingly submit itself to a single global authority. Unfortunately, the current American presidential administration is, for all intents and purposes, just a puppet government whose strings are being pulled by international financiers and moneymen.

Nobody has been able to convince me, yet, that the 2008 financial crash was not orchestrated to elect the Obama Administration in order to pave the way for the totalitarian one-world government those powerful world financiers covet.

Sounds like another conspiracy theory, doesn’t it? Well, as the television program says: “Not all conspiracies are theories.”

I am convinced the idea was to bring America to her knees to make her malleable to their wishes. For a global government to have any chance, at all, the puppeteers need America in the vanguard of the creators of that government. But most of all they need the American people to willingly submit to it.

But, they ran into a problem, a big problem. The problem they mistakenly thought they could avoid turned out to be -- the American people themselves!

Almost immediately, Americans began fighting back. Can you say: “TEA PARTY?”

The weak-spined American government will be shown the back of the American people’s hands in about four weeks at the polls.

Much of the world does not understand that here, in America, the government serves at the pleasure of the people. The power of the American government is granted by the “consent of the governed.” We, the governed, are about to rescind the privilege to wield that power for a great number of those in our government in about a month. Its what we do to a rogue government.

While the Obama Regime is busy back-slapping each other, and applauding each other, and reveling in the deepest depths of denial we have seen since “Baghdad Bob,” their world is about to crumble about them. And the global governance crowd? Well, their plans will be set back, at least for a while. But they will be back. Count on it. And we will confuse their plans again. “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”

J. D. Longstreet

Obama: Citizen of the World!

(First published in July 2008)

Obama: Citizen of the World!
A Commentary by J.D. Longstreet

*************************

I have a lot of difficulty relating to anyone who claims citizenship in the world. Frankly, that person is frightening. Saying one is a citizen of the world negates one’s actual citizenship as… well, a native of the country within which he/she was born and, to which, he/she owes allegiance. Saying you are a citizen of the world is too…well… vague. But then… that is exactly what Mr. Barack H. Obama is… vague.

I’m one of those old geezers, still alive today, who actually heard some of President Franklin Roosevelt’s speeches. While listening to Obama in Berlin, my mind began shifting gears, feeling its way around his words and phrases, because I was sure I had heard them before. It continued to nag at me until a picture of FDR solidified in my mind’s eye. It was then that I realized this was the effect his speech was supposed to have on me! It was beautifully delivered. It was oratorical music. It was a symphony of simplistic sermonizing declaring… not much, really. As an American of part German ancestry, I understand the magnetism of compelling oratory. It stirs my soul. And for a brief moment, or two, I WAS stirred.

But, that’s about as far as it went. Once I focused on his words, I was dismayed to hear his proud profession of faith in, (gasp!) Globalism!

Look, I am unashamedly a nationalist. I am an American, first, last, and always. I am proud of my country and have been all my life. Some of my country’s leaders have certainly not lived up to the greatness America offered them, and THEY have shamed me, but, never my country.

It is apparent that Mr. Obama IS a globalist. One who believes in liberating the globe of national borders and having one single worldwide government…a one-world government.

Globalism is another of those ethereal dreams our liberal brethren have latched onto. It dates back to, at least, the Hippies. You know: tie-dyes, long hair, sandals, free love, free dope, etc, etc. Oh, I had a momentary lapse of memory! Many of our Congressional delegates ARE old hippies! How, could I forget that, even for a moment? Not Obama, of course. From my perspective, he’s just a “wannabe hippie”.

There was something very unsettling about hearing a terrific orator drawing throngs of cheering Germans into a public square in Berlin. I had flashbacks of another great orator doing the same thing back in the 1930’s and early 1940’s. We still bear the scars from the fall-out of the explosion HE caused. Listening to Obama play the crowd, as a master violinist would play the violin, was unnerving.

I have mentioned before how watching the faces in the crowds at Obama events remind me so much of the faces in the crowds at Hitler’s speeches. As could Hitler, Obama can lift a crowd’s emotions to a near orgasmic response. An emotion charged crowd is only a click or two away from transformation into a mob.

To say Obama’s event in Berlin was troubling to me would be an understatement. One, blessed with both charisma and special oratorical skills, has a responsibility, it seems to me, to never allow his words to stoke a crowd’s emotional furnace too much. It is entirely possible to strike the trip wires that loose the hearer’s motivation to take action based on faulty judgment made at the height of passion. That has happened before, and in Berlin.

OK, so I am an old fogy, long past my prime, and prone to judge current events by events I have witnessed in the past. That used to be looked upon as a sort of “wisdom of the aged”. I realize that is not so in this modern era. But, I must tell you, I feel a certain responsibility to hold up the “caution signs” when I see things, hear things, and experience things that indicate to me there could be trouble ahead.

Historians tell us that as the great Roman generals would ride in their chariots in the triumphal parades through the flower strewn streets of Rome, soaking up the cheers and accolades of the crowds of admiring fellow Romans along the way, there was a fellow Roman, sometimes even a slave, whose job it was to stand in the chariot with the hero, slightly behind him, and whisper, continuously, in his ear: ”Remember, thou art but a man… thou art but a man.” Seems to me, Obama needs someone to whisper those words in his ear, and often.

J. D. Longstreet