Immigration’s New Plantation Owners

Cross posted from The Peoples Patriot

Our political leaders seek to create a new slave class in the name of cheap labor.James P. Pinkerton recently had an excellent piece published in Newsday titled An immigration bill for ‘plantation owners’. It’s an excellent read I encourage you to have a look. Here are some excerpts.

“Now, we have neo-plantation owners, inheritors of the “Gone With the Wind” class, seeking to set national policy. Perhaps, in their greed and shortsightedness, those who depend on non-free labor – slaves back then, illegals and “guest workers” today – are so blindly eager for short-term profit they are willing to saddle the rest of the country with long-term problems of multiculturalism and balkanization, made all the worse by welfare-state dependency. Exploitative employers brought the whirlwind to this country once, and now they want to do it again.”

So STRIVE and similar flawed, proposed legislation will create a new “class” in the United States. This new “class” will consist of people exploited for cheap labor that are not citizens and not illegal aliens. Meanwhile also exploiting America’s middle class who is forced to subsidize this class through taxation while being displaced by them in the workforce. At the very least, if not displaced, having the American worker’s wages severely depressed by this new “class”.

Ah but don’t kid yourself, this isn’t good enough for today’s new plantation owners. They have permanency in mind for this sub class. Their plan not only creates this serf like class but also transforms the American middle class into the said serf class.

“But, interestingly, STRIVE is also liked by those who figure it’s a fraud. Pro-multicultural immigration advocates know that all the bill’s complicated provisions can never be enforced, that its measures will be loopholed to shreds by bureaucrats and clever lawyers. And so, they hope, STRIVE will stumble into amnesty.”

Politicians are using the strategy that if they can’t hoodwink the American public into all out amnesty, they will pass unenforceable legislation instead. This gives them cover of appearing to deal with the issue without really doing so. When it’s proven that their flawed ideology in unenforceable they’ll throw up their arms and say “only amnesty will solve our nation’s problem”.

There are disturbing parallels between illegal immigration and the asinine legislation being formulated to deal with it and slavery of yesteryear.

“Yet, in an earlier era, some owners had come up with a “better” idea – they didn’t want free labor; they wanted slave labor. So, in the South, plantation owners brought in Africans “to do jobs that Americans wouldn’t do.” It was a good plan for the slaveocrats, if you didn’t mind a little blood and brutality.

And oh, by the way, slavery brought with it a civil war that nearly destroyed America in the 19th century, as well as leaving a tragically stubborn racial divide that lingers into the 21st century.”

Today’s political and business elite don’t care about the long term issues associated with illegal immigration and their proposed remedies for it. They only care about profits and creating fodder to dress up their next quarterly stock holders report. The politicians meanwhile only care about satisfying their business elite masters to assure their grip on the power to rule, transform and ultimately destroy the United States.

Pinkerton goes on to assess STRIVE as follows:

Yet, if you were to read through its 700 pages, you’d see that it represents one group’s attempt to manipulate the system against another group – and also against the national interest. Do you think the working class in America has it too good? Do you want to make sure that you always have the option of replacing your current workers – the ones who do your meatpacking, or landscaping, or household toiling – with even hungrier workers? And do you not care about crime and social chaos, as long as they happen in someone else’s neighborhood? Or perhaps disuniting the whole United States, after you’re dead? Then STRIVE is for you.”

I couldn’t have said it better.

The open borders crowd will lament they must have cheap labor. It will destroy our economy if we don’t have it. Forcing business to pay Americans a fair wage may negatively impact some business sectors perhaps, but destroy the economy, never. Our economy has never depended on low skilled, barely educated labor for it’s viability. None the less the open borders clowns continue serving up this “kool aid” to American public.

The interest of a few business sectors and politicians greed for power must never undermine or jeopardize the Rule of Law or the United States as a nation. This is exactly what is happening today.

So to the pleas of today’s elite, our modern day plantation owners, I say the following.

Frankly Bush and company, I don’t give a damn.

***Here’s Today’s Roundup of CAII Posts***My Country-My View – Suit targets LAPD over ’sanctuary law’

Bear Creek Ledger – Glenn Beck next??

CommonSenseAmerica – H.R. 1592 – Could Hate Crimes Bill Tie Hands of Border Patrol?

Illegal Aliens Must Go – What If Illegal Aliens Suddenly Vanished?

This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush’s 8

You heard it from me first! I mentioned Clinton’s firing of 93 on the 12th…

From Media Research Center:

The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn’t care in 1993 about the Clinton administration’s decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the “controversy,” fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 — nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would “look at all the angles tonight,” but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: “New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

CBS’s Katie Couric declared that “the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department” and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: “The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?” Brown soon asserted that “it’s a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today” — an explosion fueled by the news media.

This is just one more example of the lame stream media’s liberal bias. President Bush rejected firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys and chose to only fire eight and for this the administration gets attacked, instead of applauded. I would not be so ticked off if the networks had reported and was appalled by Clinton’s wholesale firings of all but ONE U.S. Attorney; Michael Chertoff.

Back in 1993, the networks weren’t so interested in Clinton’s maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC’s MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN’s World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC’s Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 “Final Thoughts” comment: “Every new President likes to say ‘Under me, it’s not going to be politics as usual.’ At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is.”

Nope, no political bias here…