Replies to post #112371 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[tinner]

You know how I have made the case that to be a Republican.......you have to have that genetic defect of having no memory.........well Blunt in running for senate now runs a commercial about the borders and you guessed it..........



Blunt: No recollection of immigrant working as housekeeper



BY JAKE WAGMAN • [e-mail] > 314-340-8268 www.STLtoday.com | Loading… | Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 1:58 pm


Sarah Conard Saturday, July 30, 2010--Roy Blunt, candidate for US Senator, addresses his volunteers at his campaign headquarters in Sunset Hills. Sarah Conard | freelance .

..ST. LOUIS -- Republican Senate hopeful Roy Blunt said today he does not recall a woman he helped with an immigration matter two decades ago ever working for him.

On Tuesday, Democrats unveiled a letter Blunt sent in 1990 -- when he was Missouri Secretary of State -- to the Immigration and Naturalization Services on behalf of Dora Narvaez, a woman who, Blunt wrote at the time, had "done some work" for Blunt's then-wife, Roseann.

The Kansas City Star reports that a woman who identified herself as Narvaez told the paper she was a housekeeper for the Blunts around 1990. An attempt by the Post-Dispatch Wednesday to reach Narvaez was unsuccessful.

Speaking to the Post-Dispatch editorial board today, Blunt said his family never had a "housekeeper," though they did occasionally have someone, Blunt said, clean their home.

But Blunt said neither he, Roseann or their three children remember Narvaez filling that role.

"We often had somebody who would come in maybe twice a month," Blunt said. "None of us remember her ever doing that."

Blunt added: "I don't know if I ever met the woman."

Blunt spoke to the editorial board by phone. He was scheduled to appear in person, but changed plans after a small group of protesters -- maybe half a dozen -- gathered outside the Post-Dispatch building downtown, holding signs accusing Blunt of hypocrisy on immigration.

Blunt's spokesman, Rich Chrismer, said in a statement Tuesday that Narvaez "never worked for the Blunts. She simply helped out at a couple of church events."

"This is desperate, dirty politics from Robin Carnahan's failing campaign," Chrismer said.

A spokesman for Democrat Robin Carnahan, Blunt's November opponent, declined comment on the situation.

Blunt's letter -- written on Secretary of State letterhead -- was to INS head Gene McNary, a fellow Missouri Republican who had previously served as St. Louis County executive.

"I decided that if the guy you know best at Immigration and Naturalization happens to be the person in charge, it's all right to direct your correspondence to him," Blunt wrote in August 1990.

Narvaez, who is from Nicaragua, was seeking assistance applying for political asylum -- specifically, she wrote to Roseann Blunt in a separate letter, she needed help with a particular form.

She was also attempting to transfer her immigration file from Los Angeles, where she had been previously, to the Kansas City office.

McNary wrote back that he would "assure" Narvaez's case was transferred to Kansas City. He also included a form for Narvaez to become employment eligible, which she was not at the time, according to documents furnished by Democrats this week.

However, in a news conference on Tuesday, the state Democratic Party said Blunt's attempt to help Narvaez runs counter to a new ad in which Bunt espouses support for a border fence and Arizona's controversial immigration law.

But the ad also has Blunt saying "Legal immigration made America great."

The Democrats do not contend that Narvaez was in the country illegally; they have accused Blunt of using his "Washington connections to grant her expedited citizenship."

In McNary's response to Blunt, the INS director wrote that his agency has nearly 90,000 applications for asylum, which are "processed in chronological order of receipt to assure fairness to all applicants."

"You can be assured that her case will be processed as quickly as possible," McNary said of Narvaez's application.

More telling of the relationship between Blunt and McNary may be the handwritten post script McNary included in his reply letter.

"Hope all is going well -- good luck!" McNary wrote.

[fuagf]

Lol, every nation presents impossible tasks to their leaders, and YUP, so does "The Nation" .. of
course, you are right, as you are one of the viewers mentioned here .. (this also from the article) .. "..."

"The perceptive viewer understands that the government and the settlers are staging the events, using the media to broadcast them to the world. The images of lawless fundamentalists fighting the military convey a clear message to the audience at home: if Netanyahu dares to dismantle the outposts, the settlers will not only topple his government, but there will be blood. More specifically, the not-so-latent inference is that if Netanyahu goes ahead with Washington's directive, he will be responsible for a civil war.

While all of the major news networks provided a similar narrative, Channel Two, the most popular news provider, dedicated fourteen minutes of prime time to the issue. In the segment, a reporter is shown interviewing a Jewish settler named Araleh from Karnei Shomron in the West Bank about the dismantling of Jewish outposts. The two men are standing on a mountain ridge overlooking Palestinian fields that had been set on fire. The settler asserts that, "This is the price tag... People need to know that if they dismantle anything in Judea and Samaria, there is a price." He then looks at the horizon and asks, "Do you see all these mountains?" and immediately responds, "they are all ours." When the reporter inquires what the settlers will do if a nearby outpost is dismantled, Araleh exclaims that they (the government) will not destroy it, and then adds "they might destroy a little shack in the outpost to send pictures to the nigger in the United States."" .. link is back a couple .. chuckle ..

Illegal colonists, racist to the core .. course .. they are 'the chosen ones' .. problem 'kids' for sure .. thought springs how far do the fundamentalist Zionists want to expand? You mght have a better idea, but i .. where is Nineveh? .. forget .. anyway .. Egypt springs to mind .. lemme see .. ok, this the first looked at ..

Understanding Jewish Influence II: Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism

Kevin MacDonald

The history of Zionism illustrates a dynamic within the Jewish community in which the most radical elements end up pulling the entire community in their direction. Zionism began among the most ethnocentric Eastern European Jews and had explicitly racialist and nationalist overtones. However, Zionism was viewed as dangerous among the wider Jewish community, especially the partially assimilated Jews in Western countries, because it opened Jews up to charges of disloyalty and because the Zionists’ open racialism and ethnocentric nationalism conflicted with the assimilationist strategy then dominant among Western Jews. Zionist activists eventually succeeded in making Zionism a mainstream Jewish movement, due in large part to the sheer force of numbers of the Eastern European vanguard. Over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.

In the first part of this series I discussed Jewish ethnocentrism as a central trait influencing the success of Jewish activism. In the contemporary world, the most important example of Jewish ethnocentrism and extremism is Zionism. In fact, Zionism is incredibly important. As of this writing, the United States has recently accomplished the destruction of the Iraqi regime, and it is common among influential Jews to advocate war between the United States and the entire Muslim world. In a recent issue of Commentary (an influential journal published by the American Jewish Committee), editor Norman Podhoretz states, “The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [i.e., Iraq, Iran, and North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as ’friends’ of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen.” More than anything else, this is a list of countries that Israel doesn’t like, and, as I discuss in the third part of this series, intensely committed Zionists with close links to Israel occupy prominent positions in the Bush administration, especially in the Department of Defense and on the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney. The long-term consequence of Zionism is that the U.S. is on the verge of attempting to completely transform the Arab/Muslim world to produce governments that accept Israel and whatever fate it decides for the Palestinians, and, quite possibly, to set the stage for further Israeli expansionism.

Zionism is an example of an important principle in Jewish history: At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day. As recounted in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews who returned to Israel after the Babylonian captivity energetically rid the community of those who had intermarried with the racially impure remnant left behind. Later, during the period of Greek dominance, there was a struggle between the pro-Greek assimilationists and the more committed Jews, who came to be known as Maccabeans.

At that time there appeared in Israel a group of renegade Jews, who incited the people. “Let us enter into a covenant with the Gentiles round about,” they said, “because disaster upon disaster has overtaken us since we segregated ourselves from them.” The people thought this a good argument, and some of them in their enthusiasm went to the king and received authority to introduce non-Jewish laws and customs. They built a sports stadium in the gentile style in Jerusalem. They removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant. They intermarried with Gentiles, and abandoned themselves to evil ways.

The victory of the Maccabeans reestablished Jewish law and put an end to assimilation. The Book of Jubilees, written during this period, represents the epitome of ancient Jewish nationalism, in which God represents the national interests of the Jewish people in dominating all other peoples of the world:

I am the God who created heaven and earth. I shall increase you, and multiply you exceedingly; and kings shall come from you and shall rule wherever the foot of the sons of man has trodden. I shall give to your seed all the earth which is under heaven, and they shall rule over all the nations according to their desire; and afterwards they shall draw the whole earth to themselves and shall inherit it forever.

A corollary of this is that throughout history in times of trouble there has been an upsurge in religious fundamentalism, mysticism, and messianism. For example, during the 1930s in Germany liberal Reform Jews became more conscious of their Jewish identity, increased their attendance at synagogue, and returned to more traditional observance (including a reintroduction of Hebrew). Many of them became Zionists. As I will discuss in the following, every crisis in Israel has resulted in an increase in Jewish identity and intense mobilization of support for Israel.

Today the people who are being rooted out of the Jewish community are Jews living in the Diaspora who do not support the aims of the Likud Party in Israel. The overall argument here is that Zionism is an example of the trajectory of Jewish radicalism. The radical movement begins among the more committed segments of the Jewish community, then spreads and eventually becomes mainstream within the Jewish community; then the most extreme continue to push the envelope (e.g., the settlement movement on the West Bank), and other Jews eventually follow because the more extreme positions come to define the essence of Jewish identity. An important part of the dynamic is that Jewish radicalism tends to result in conflicts with non-Jews, with the result that Jews feel threatened, become more group-oriented, and close ranks against the enemy—an enemy seen as irrationally and incomprehensibly anti-Jewish. Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-2.htm

nothing new for most of you, i know .. anyway .. more inside ..