Search This Blog

Monday, January 2, 2017

Its time to bring back ideological exclusion

Back from vacation for the holidays and New Years, I've been watching some videos by Pastor Mark Dice from California, he has been doing fake petitions in universities and in Oceanside Beach which is located north of San Diego. These petitions include banning guns and having registered gun owners put in prisons or concentration camps. Also there are petitions making post birth abortions legal, making incest legal, making Karl Marx a candidate for the Democratic party or mandatory euthanasia for the elderly.

The majority of of the signers are young naive liberals and marxists of course and your typical California urban scumbags, the ones who would be happier if California were part of China or Mexico, but what I find very, very disturbing is that the majority of these signers are immigrants, mostly Chinese and hispanic but mainly Chinese.

This brings me to another point of order, Chinese immigration and student visas. Ever noticed how many Chinese are immigrating here mostly to study in universities? Were not talking about exiles and dissidents like most of my associates from China are but were talking about people who are more loyal to the communist party of China and its party talking points.

I've had quite a few encounters with these miscreants on youtube and on my blog, these people sound just like the young teenage marxists who often pelt my email with spam and hate mail and make posts on my blog with abusive language.

The Red Chinese are all worshipers of the government, they are always taking the government's side, they always support the government, they always take the side of the government, they say that the government can't be wrong and they don't even understand why an official would abuse their power. REALLY!? ANYONE WITH A MODICUM OF UNDERSTANDING CAN KNOW THAT POWER IS CORRUPTING AND DANGEROUS THE GREATER IT IS IN THE HAND OF A GOVERNMENT!

Its not that they don't understand, they understand fully well, its just that they either don't want a bullet in the back of their head or that they are sycophants and criminals who condone and support such abuse and get by licking their masters hands and wagging their tail to better themselves at anothers expense.

More recently you may remember an article I did awhile ago about Dr Guohoa XI of California who used his psychiatry practice Brianefit deprived an innocent patient of his of his rights and his dignity. There are many doctors just like this from China who are criminals and who are undermining our freedom and liberty. They come here, set up practices and practice psychiatry almost exactly if not exactly like in China and Russia. They always brand anyone holding any non-liberal, non-socialist thought as mentally ill or disturbed.

In addition you have other doctors like this ruining the lives of innocent people. They all have something in common. They are marxist, they back the government everytime and support abuse by the government, they support seizing assets and oppose private property. Police brutality, asset forifiture, sexual abuse are always acceptable to them.

Another example of foreign communist radicals in the medical practice that we touched on is Doctor Gabor Keitner, a radical communist who works at his practice in Providence Rhode Island and who teaches at Brown University. Keitner was responsible for aiding in the abuse of Roger Bauer and depriving him of his right to travel and seek employment and live a normal life. In addition he helped sterilize patient named Regina Immersio using the drug Klonopin and sterilized another patient using Zyprexa and Risperdal.

We allow these communists to come to our country and they don't check in their freedom hating ideology in the door, they keep it and practice it against innocent citizens.

Not only is it communists from China and the former USSR, its also Islamists. James R Edwards of the Hudson institute and co-author of The Congressional politics of Immigration Reform made some observations in an article he wrote down defending ideological exclusion and its constitutionality.

America has often faced the threat of foreigners promoting radical ideologies, including Jacobinism, anarchism, communism, fascism, and now Islamism. It is an unavoidable consequence of mass immigration. The higher the level of immigration, the more likely it is that individuals espousing hatred and violence toward America will gain entry. But whatever the level of immigration, excluding or removing noncitizens from the United States based on their promotion of such beliefs ("ideological exclusion") can help to protect the country.

only active terrorists on watch lists could be barred, while those promoting the ideologies of such terrorists would have to be admitted. To end this vulnerability, ideological exclusion should be restored, allowing aliens to be excluded or deported not only for overt acts but also for radical affiliations or advocacy.

He also makes these observations

Maintaining control over aliens who wish to enter the United States and over those who already have crossed America's borders has been a guiding principle of American immigration policy since colonial days. Many of the Founding Fathers, notably many of those who served in the earliest Congresses, sought to ensure that only foreigners who embraced American ideals and republican principles would gain admittance -- and it was expected that any who displayed disloyal views after arrival would be deported.

As for those liberals and multi-cultis who poo poo this notion he says...

...exclusion rightly gives a certain amount of pause because of its nexus between our "nation of immigrants" folklore and "freedom of speech" ideals. While much public invocation of the term "nation of immigrants" to describe America's immigrant experience is vastly overblown, immigration has indeed played a role in American history that is unique among nations. Though the notion that anybody can become an American oversimplifies the case... The Constitution protects these specific rights of Americans for Americans and for America's benefit. Therefore, to consider where these rights' appropriate limits lie (because, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, they are not absolute rights) can be uncomfortable.

 He further correctly points out that The First Amendment and the Bill of Rights protects Americans not foreigners. Furthermore pointing out that even our founders sought to keep extremists who's views were antithetical to the bill of rights and our values excluded such foreign filth from our shores.

Furthermore as he correctly points out, the first amendment does not protect  the right to promulgate such evil ideologies such as socialism because of its advocacy and condoning of genocide on innocent people for the crime of owning property or speaking out against government abuses. Just as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes pointed out, the first amendment does not protect shouting fire in a crowded theater and so should not allow socialist thought to promulgate.

The first amendment applies to citizens not to foreign nationals so our government (for once)is in the right to keep out these scum who wish to corrupt our nation more than our liberal media has.

The greatest promoters of eliminating ideological exclusion and thought has always been the ACLU. The ACLU for decades has lead the charge to ban ideological exclusion which has kept far left activists out of America but was overturned in 1990 at the end of the cold war. So far, only those on terror watch lists can be excluded and the ACLU has done all it can to prevent that.

Here is what the ACLU has to say in defense of allowing Muslim fundamentalists, terrorists, marxists, communists and other undesirables in to preach hatred and make the case for murdering the hardworking and succesful.


When the government seeks to use immigration laws against foreign speakers to control Americans’ access to ideas and speech, those laws can easily become tools of government censorship.
“Ideological exclusion” is the name of a government policy that keeps Americans from meeting with foreign speakers whose opinions the government dislikes. It has long been discredited, but still occasionally persists. It was used as a political tool during the Cold War, when the U.S. State Department sought to deny visas to some of the worlds leading writers and artists who, the government thought, might be sympathetic to communism or other subversive” viewpoints. The list of those excluded during the Cold War includes Nobel laureates such as Gabriel García Márquez and Pablo Neruda. 

The ACLU neglets to mention that Pablo Neruda was a communist party sympathizer and fellow traveller who supported marxist dictator Salvador Allende and the communist butcher Fidel Castro. Gabriel Garcia or Gabo as he was known to his commrades was a commited marxist and leftist. He also was an unconditional supporter Fidel Castro and supported his brutal regime which murdered innocent people including anyone suspected of dissension. In addition Gabo supported Allende and supported Angola's communist regime.

Certainly these scum don't belong here in America preaching their marxist filth to corrupt the morals of our youth. The left in America has certainly done a lot of this.

The ACLU is another such communist supporter:

Our work protects Americans’ rights to receive ideas and meet with people from around the world, even—and especially—when those people disagree with the U.S. government’s favored viewpoints.

HOGWASH! The first amendment does not protect Communists, Islamists or National Socialists! These filth should be kept out! Citizens living here who adapt to such ideologies like David Duke, Ibrahim Hooper and Bill Ayers should be thankful we don't give them the Pinochet Treatment!

The ACLU by the way are hypocrites. As The Trumpet pointed out awhile ago, the ACLU will only protect any speech it agrees with and even sided with the 9th circuit court of appeals to allow the criminalization of any speech against homosexuals...

[THE ACLU] is incrementally abandoning its support of all free speech in favor of a liberal agenda. Author and lawyer Wendy Kaminer denounced the change in the Wall Street Journal on May 23, saying “the aclu is being transformed into just another liberal human-rights group that reliably defends the rights of liberal speakers.” 

The cases the aclu ignores provide the clearest evidence of the ideological change. The organization has ignored Harper v. Poway, a case hinging on whether a student can wear a T-shirt denouncing homosexuality. This is telling because the aclu has staunchly supported the right of students to wear T-shirts that promote homosexuality, as well as those that bash President Bush; one student even received a Youth Activist Scholarship for her support of a shirt stating: “Gay, fine by me.” But when the free speech opposes homosexuality, the aclu goes mute. Even when the ever-reliable Ninth Circuit opposed Harper’s free speech, the aclu stayed out of it, ignoring the creation of a precedent rejecting the First Amendment based on “the imagined feelings of gay students.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court vacated the decision—but the fact remains that the aclu was willing to let a precedent stand that squashes free speech. 

In the article it goes on to note one of  the ACLU's more notorious incidents of defending the freedom of evil and rejecting the freedom of  good. It defended the right of the American Nazi party to hold a racist march in Skokie Illinois in 1977, a neighborhood with a high population of holocaust survivors. THE ACLU DEFENDED THE RIGHT OF THE NATIONAL SOCIALISTS TO TERRORIZE THE PEOPLE OF SKOKIE.

The ACLU even went as far as saying that the swastika was a symbolic form of free speech entitled to protections...

The swastika... According to the ACLU Is a symbolic form of free speech.

Roger Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU and a communist would've been among the first to go to Dachau... They first came after the communists.

But the ACLU not only supports communists it supports National Socialism, the ideology of Hitler and Mussolini.

To quote our own Kyle Weissman, a survivor of abuse raised by a communist mother and by paternal relatives who were national socialists and war criminals, when they're both nazis and communists, its like being between the devil and the deep blue sea.

These people are Super evil and that the ACLU would defend swastika waving nazis to terrorize survivors of the holocaust and demand that we allow communists to poison our youth with their ideology. Meanwhile, American Christian speech can be excluded.

And where was the ACLU when Britain and France banned the Savage Nation and Rush Limbaugh from being broadcast? Why do we have to be forced to listen to marxists and Muslim terrorist garbage while Europeans are not allowed to hear men like Mike Savage, Joe Farah or Rush Limbaugh?

We must exclude foreigners of the socialist and Muslim persuasions from living in America and visiting America for they not only taint America  with an ideology of murder and poverty, they would wage war on our own values and exclude them.

No comments: