White couples that adopt non-white kids
If you’re getting mad at someone for adopting a parentless child and bringing that child into a loving home because their skin color doesn’t match then you need to take a good hard look at your prioritys, evaluate your life, and ask yourself how you sunk this fucking low.
Also, would it be just as bad for a black couple to adopt non-black kids?
Or should qualified adoptive parents be allowed to adopt whichever kid they want to?
See, when I talk about adoption as an alternative to abortion, and I say how easy it is for infants to be adopted, I get snarky people saying “unless you’re black or disabled.” And I always thought, “huh?”, because there are a lot of waiting families that either don’t care about the race of their child or specifically want to adopt a minority child. There are also families waiting to adopt special needs kids.
But now I get it. They say that because they don’t WANT minority children to be adopted — unless it’s by someone of their own ethnicity. They would rather that child grow up in the foster system they despise than see a white couple adopt them.
Or, really, they’d rather see that child killed before birth. After all, black children are killed by abortion at 5x the rate white children are. And apparently that’s awesome.
You guys are so tolerant and not racist.
More than half of central American immigrants live off of US government welfare
According to a new report, more than half of all immigrants from Central America to the United States receive welfare from the US taxpayers. Of these immigrants, more than 60% are in this country illegally.
from Center for Immigration Studies:
The figures below are for both legal and illegal immigrants from the public-use files of the 2012 American Community Survey, collected by the Census Bureau:
- Population Totals: In 2012 there were 2.7 million immigrants from El Salvador (1.3 million), Guatemala (880,000), and Honduras (536,000) in the United States. Combined, the immigrant population from these three countries has grown 234 percent since 1990.
- The Top-10 States of Settlement: California Texas, New York, Florida, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Georgia.
- Illegal Immigrants: Department of Homeland Security estimates indicate that about 60 percent of immigrants from these three countries (1.6 million) are in the United States illegally.
- Language: Of immigrants from El Salvador, 70 percent report they speak English less than very well; for immigrants from Guatemala, it is 72 percent; and for immigrants from Honduras, it is 69 percent.
- Home-ownership: Of households headed by Salvadoran immigrants, 41 percent are owner-occupied, as are 28 percent of Guatemalan households, and 29 percent of Honduran immigrant households. The corresponding figure for natives is 66 percent.
The figures below are for both legal and illegal immigrants from the public-use files of the March 2013 Current Population Survey, collected by the Census Bureau:
- Educational Attainment: 54 percent of Guatemalan immigrants (ages 25 to 65) have not graduated high school. The figure for Salvadorans is 53 percent, and for Hondurans, 44 percent. The corresponding figure for native-born Americans is 7 percent.
- Welfare Use: 57 percent of households headed by immigrants from El Salvador use at least one major welfare program, as do 54 percent of Honduran households, and 49 percent of Guatemalan immigrant households. Among native households it is 24 percent.
- Poverty: 32 percent of Honduran immigrants and their young children (under 18) live in poverty; as do 31 percent of Guatemalan immigrants and their children and 28 percent of Salvadoran immigrants and their children. The corresponding figure for natives and their children is 14 percent.
- Health Insurance: 47 percent of Guatemalan immigrants and their young children (under 18) do not have health insurance. The figure for both Salvadoran and Honduran immigrants and their young children is 41 percent. The corresponding figure for natives and their children is 13 percent.
- Share Working: 77 percent of immigrants from El Salvador (ages 25 to 54) have a job, as do 74 percent of Guatemalan immigrants and 73 percent of Honduran immigrants. The corresponding figure for natives is 76 percent.
This is the single largest problem with our broken immigration system, and it’s a very practical reason why an open-borders policy simply will not work. You cannot have a lax immigration policy and also have a massive welfare state. The economy simply cannot sustain such a drain from the taxpayers.
What Democrats know is that welfare-addicted individuals (if allowed to vote) will always vote for the party that gives them the most free stuff. The entire reason for the amnesty push is to grow the voter base. Democrats are willing to do this at any cost, even if it crushes the US immigration system and the economy simultaneously.
Hillary Clinton Still Says A Video Was A Factor In The Benghazi Attacks
Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) “Took Issue With The Notion That The Libya Strike Was Sparked By A U.S.-Made Anti-Islam Video Online.” “The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that key conclusions of a recent New York Times investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack are wrong. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.” (Julian Pecquet, “Feinstein Rejects NYT On Benghazi,” The Hill, 1/14/14)
- Feinstein, On The Idea Benghazi Evolved From A Protest Against The Video: “It Doesn’t Jibe With Me.” “She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack. ‘It doesn’t jibe with me,’ she said.” (Julian Pecquet, “Feinstein Rejects NYT On Benghazi,” The Hill, 1/14/14)
Former Deputy Chief Of Mission Greg Hicks: “I Think Everybody In The Mission Thought It Was A Terrorist Attack From The Beginning.” “‘I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,’ Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to Libya - and three other Americans.” (Lindsey Boerman, “Official: We Knew Benghazi Was Sa Terrorist Attack ‘From The Get-Go,’” CBS News, 5/5/13)
Retired Africom General: I Dismissed The Idea That Benghazi Resulted From A YouTube Video. REP. ISSA: “And in the hours that ensued after the attack on our consulate compound in Benghazi, did you hear YouTube video?” GEN. LOVELL: “Briefly discussed, but not from any serious standpoint.” REP. ISSA: “What time did you first hear that there was a video, roughly?” GEN. LOVELL: “It would — it was early on in the evening of September 11th.” REP. ISSA: “Before 3:15 in the morning.” GEN. LOVELL: “Yeah, absolutely. We were — absolutely; I would have to say probably dismissed that notion by then, by working with other sources.” REP. ISSA: “OK. I just want to follow up with this one last thing. You heard about this early on, and you — as the deputy and the highest-ranking person that moment, working these issues, you dismissed the idea that this attack was, in fact, a demonstration that went awry and was based on a YouTube video out of Los Angeles.” GEN. LOVELL: “Yes, sir; short answer.” (House Oversight And Government Reform Committee Hearing, Benghazi, Instability, And A New Government: Successes And Failures Of U.S. Intervention In Libya, 5/1/14)
Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell: “When [Rice] Talked About The Video, My Reaction Was, That’s Not Something That The Analysts Have Attributed This Attack To.” MORELL: “I did not see her on the Sunday shows. As I said, I was in a deputies’ meeting, and I—” MILLER: “You’ve never seen it since?” MORELL: “—it was probably days later that I read what she said on the shows.” MILLER: “And what was your reaction when you finally did?” MORELL: “My reaction was twofold. One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.” (House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, Hearing, 4/2/14)
Anybody think she’s little more than a liar and crook? If you do, you haven’t been paying attention to this trainwreck.
Experts agree that 15 - 25% of the world’s 1.2B Muslims are “radical” & for the destruction of Western civilization. The peaceful majority is irrelevant. In Germany, Russia, Japan, China MILLIONS were killed by a minority while peaceful majority was irrelevant!
It is the radicals that kill & behead, not the peaceful majority. On 9/11 there were 2.3 M Muslims in the US yet it took only 19 to bring down the world trade centers & attack pentagon & kill approx 3000 Americans.
In a book, written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, polls were taken in several Muslim populations, asking them questions such as “Do you think that Sharia law should be imposed by force?” or “Do you think 9/11 was completely justified?”
6.5% of the 1.2 billion Muslims, (78 million!), think that 9/11 completely justified, while another 23.1%, (277.2 million!) thought it was at least partially justified.
Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1%, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women.
And yet, in the book, Esposito and Mogahed call these “moderates.”
And THIS was a book written by Islamic apologists! But you media PC clowns suggest that Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney are somehow extremists for indirectly comparing these Islamist freaks to Hitler.
No, these radical Islamists aren’t Hitler, yet, but their pernicious ideology is an even greater threat to the world than Nazism, because it IS IN FACT supported by those 300 million Muslims.
Wow, I hope these numbers are wrong.
The Purge reflects “White America”
Kill the “47 Percent”: The New Movie “The Purge” is a Republican Party Fantasy Come True **************************************************by chaunceydevega Jun 10, 2013 10:11am PDT (revised/altered by jasechristymonet) ————————————————
The movie “The Purge” is a representation of White America and the social philosophies of The Tea Party.
The Republican Party advocates how America is a country of “takers” and “makers” where “productive” citizens, the “53 percent”, are being exploited by the “47 percent” of the public who are social and economic parasites.
Liberals, the poor, people of color, “illegal” immigrants, and any arbitrarily decided “Other” are not “real” Americans. As such they should be marginalized in—if not wholly eliminated from—American society.
They cheer death at their national meetings.
The new movie “The Purge” takes this Right-wing fantasy one step further and depicts an America where for one night each year it is legal to kill anyone with impunity.
In all, The Purge is both a nightmare and a dream pulled straight out of the political imagination of the Tea Party GOP and the Right-wing political entertainment complex.
They did not create the evil genius mix of neoliberal/hyper-conservatism mated with Austerity, and a philosophy that privileges profit over people. It was created in think tanks and universities over the course of several decades. However, the Tea Party GOP has made such policies central to its name brand and public policy positions.
The Purge is a crystal clear depiction of the politics of cruelty and Austerity that are the beating heart of Ayn Rand conservatism in the Age of Obama.
As depicted in The Purge, a night of cathartic violence has invigorated and reinvented a failing country. This evening has also somehow magically solved the budget deficit and raised America’s levels of self-esteem and patriotism—the country is even led by a single party called “The New Founders of America.” Ultimately, and through processes mentioned but not fully explained in the movie, The Purge has created a very Ronald Reagan-like “new day in America.”
In this world, the poor and others who cannot afford private security, to live in gated communities, and arm themselves with all variety of weapons are “liquidated” wholesale on that night. The social contract that ought to promise safety and security between citizens and the State is broken with the agreement of the mass public. Consequently, the financial pressures on the social safety net are lessened precisely because “unproductive” citizens can be culled from the herd
The rich are safe—free or not at their own whim—to decide if they will participate in the country’s national bloodletting.
The plot of The Purge revolves around Ethan Hawke’s character named James Sandin, a salesman who leverages the anxiety and fear of his neighbors for his own personal profit and gain. Predictably, his son, played by Max Burkholder, in a moment of mercy and sensitivity for a stranger in peril, disarms the home security system during that year’s night of wanton violence. This act of charity allows a nameless and homeless black man who is fleeing for his life from a white lynch mob to enter their residence.
While The Purge is a high concept movie, that in its later acts devolves into typical action fare, there are powerful moments where its writers took real chances, daring to explore provocative and potent questions of race, class, justice, and community.
For example, the homeless man seeking refuge in Sandin’s home could have easily been played by a white actor. By choosing to make him a Black American, The Purge brings to the forefront how questions of race and belonging intersect with fundamental matters of safety and security for people of color in the United States.
The black and brown poor would likely be killed in overwhelming numbers during the movie’s grizzly macabre evening celebration of national reunion and belonging. Our First Nations brothers and sisters would also be easy targets. The white poor in rural America would be killed too.
To their credit, the creators of The Purge did not shy away from how certain people are marked as being marginal and disposable. This fact is true both in the movie’s imagined reality and our own present.
From the spectacular lynchings of Jim and Jane Crow America to the Current Day America, the black body (while an object of fascination, desire, and simultaneous fear and loathing) is viewed as something foreign, an invader in the White community, assumed to be a risk as well as a threat until proven otherwise—and to the satisfaction of the White Gaze.
Here, the process of “niggerization” works through the creation of a type of contingent citizenship where rights are not protected or absolute for certain types of people. Thus, human rights can be violated at anytime by those identified with White authority and White power.
For more than one hundred years, white lynch mobs burned their black victims alive by the thousands, cut them up into pieces, made their victims eat their own genitals, shot black people dozens or even hundreds of times, posed with and photographed the bodies, and then sent those images around the country as postcards because such acts of racial terrorism helped to cement the bonds of Whiteness across lines of class in the United States.
As has often been seen with genocidal violence, historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen notes how if the primary goal is just to kill a person with maximum efficiency, then no ceremony is necessary to accomplish said goal. By contrast, “overkill” and the spectacle are important—as we see in The Purge—because the ritual has spiritual elements that feed the collective soul of the attackers. Ultimately, the body of the Other represents a pollutant that must be expelled from the body politic.
In The Purge, Sandin’s family is offered a bargain: will they surrender a black body to the white lynch mob where the former will be killed for sport, and as a cathartic sacrifice that heals and brings peace to the (White) American political psyche? Does Sandin’s family’s safety matter more than protecting an innocent black man?
As we think through those questions, one cannot forget how The Purge is a product of the sensibilities of post racial America and the Age of Obama.
Consequently, while American history suggests that Ethan Hawke’s character would readily sacrifice a black homeless man in order to protect his family, in The Purge the main character chooses to take up arms and fight off a lynch mob in defense of a black man. The White Racial Frame, and the companion lie that is “color blind” post civil rights America, imagines itself as benign: in this fantasy, “good white folks”, more often than not, do the right thing when faced with racism and other types of discrimination.
As the movie concludes, The Purge offers up two transparent moments that exemplify its dualism as a stinging critique of Right-wing ideology while also channeling some of the Tea Party GOP’s anxieties and fears in post racial America.
First, the leader of the white lynch mob is a hybrid preppy, yuppie, country club, preacher, Christian Nationalist evangelical who would find his natural home as president of the College Republicans.
His rhetoric, rage, and channeling of American exceptionalism as reimagined through The Purge is a mix of Right-wing talk points and religious zealotry.
Second, the Sandins’ neighbors betray them in the final act of the movie. They are jealous of his financial success: murdering the Sandin family is their act of cathartic violence during the annual Purge event.
Class envy has resulted in violence and chaos. In The Purge (and in contemporary Right-wing American politics more generally) the rich and other elites are “victims” who are to be pitied and empathized with.
While this is of course absurd, it resonates for those addicted to the mix of White identity politics, racial resentment, and identification with the banksters and plutocrats, who form the base of the Tea Party GOP. And of course, guns save us all in The Purge. They empower women, fight off attackers, and help a family return to a normal state of safety and security.
One does not need to have read authors such as Slavoj Zizek, Judith Butler, Stuart Hall, or Naomi Klein to understand and “read” the politics of The Purge. The movie rewards deep viewing and looking beyond the foreground to the subtext, symbolism, story-telling choices made by its creators, as well as the radio and TV broadcasts in the background, that add richness and context to the film’s setting.
The Purge captures “the spirit of the age” quite well.
It is a work that reflects the neoliberal national security state, a politics of meanness and cruelty where budgets are balanced on the backs of the poor, and the ways in which certain segments of the American people are marked as disposable human refuse.
Films talk to us, each other, and as such, reflect a society’s worries, fears, and insecurities. The Purge, while not a perfect film, is wonderfully ambitious in its efforts at being socially relevant and politically provocative.
On those merits, The Purge is a scathing indictment of contemporary American politics, the mass media, and Right-wing politics.
This is literally the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time. I’m sorry, but “The Purge” not only doesn’t represent right-wing politics, it doesn’t make any flippin sense. How is violence tied to unemployment? Where is violence, or unemployment for that matter, tied to race?
The movie makes zero sense and so does chaunceydevega’s interpretation of it.