My ‘Right-Wing Racist Hatred’ Of Illegal Immigrants Continues

Ask a liberal why conservatives don’t like illegal immigration – mind you, they love to take the “illegal” part out and just say, “don’t like immigrants” – and the invariable knee-jerk response is, “because they’re racists.”

Old Faithful has got nothing on the reliability of the left when it comes to their ability to endlessly demonize right on cue.

Well, I’m going to stoke the fire to what Barack Obama labelled my “antipathy to people who aren’t like me” on account of my “anti-immigrant sentiment.”

Here goes:

Los Angeles authorities charge German man over arson attacks
Prosecutors file multiple charges against Harry Burkhart, 24, suspected of setting off over 50 fires causing $3m in damage
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 4 January 2012 18.09 EST

Los Angeles arson, Harry Burkhart

Los Angeles prosecutors filed 28 counts of arson of property and nine counts of arson of an inhabited structure against Harry Burkhart. Photograph: Hoep/AP

A German man whas been charged with arson in connection with a rash of fires in Los Angeles over the New Year’s weekend.

Los Angeles prosecutors filed dozens of counts against 24-year-old Harry Burkhart.

Burkhart is expected to make his initial court appearance later on Wednesday. It wasn’t immediately known if he had retained an attorney.

Burkhart is suspected of setting more than 50 blazes that caused an estimated $3m in damage. He has refused to co-operate with investigators since his arrest on Monday.

Authorities said they believe he was angry over his mother’s legal troubles and went on a night-time rampage of burning parked cars a day after she appeared in court last week.

Burkhart has been put on suicide watch, a law enforcement official said on Wednesday. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of privacy issues.

Burkhart’s mother Dorothee said in court on Tuesday that her son is mentally ill.

Burkhart is also under investigation in his home country of Germany for a house fire north of Frankfurt in October, days before he travelled to the US.

The fire at the house, which belonged to the Burkhart family, has been ruled an arson, Marburg prosecutors’ spokeswoman Annemarie Wied told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Burkhart, whom Wied identified only as “Harry B” in keeping with German privacy laws, has not yet been questioned in the case and no arrest warrant has been issued for him. She said she did not know how long ago he had been identified as a suspect in the arson investigation.

Burkhart was in Los Angeles by 26 October, 12 days after the Marburg area fire, according to US court papers, which say that he went with his mother on that day to the German consulate to renew his passport.

Court documents were unsealed Tuesday that revealed Dorothee has been charged in Germany with 19 counts of fraud.

Frankfurt court spokesman Guenther Meilinger told the AP that Dorothee Burkhart will go on trial for the fraud charges once she is extradited back to Germany.

“We expect and hope that the US authorities will look into the request for extradition … so that the proceedings against her can continue,” he said.

Both mother and son are being held without bail. Her next court hearing was delayed until Friday so she can hire an attorney, and charges could be filed against Harry Burkhart as early as Wednesday.

Burkhart’s non-immigrant visa is set to expire on 18 January, authorities said. His mother last entered the country lawfully in January 2007 and she left four months later, officials said.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorised to discuss the case, said Harry Burkhart was present when his mother was arrested on a provisional arrest warrant, which is normally issued when there are criminal charges pending overseas against someone. Ordinarily, US authorities then obtain an arrest warrant through the State Department and the Justice Department.

Burkhart had been in court at his mother’s hearing when he launched into an obscenity-laden tirade, shouting “Fuck the United States!” said Thom Mrozek, spokesman at the US attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

Mrozek said Burkhart was detained and later escorted out of the courthouse.

He said Burkhart did not make any specific threats against anyone or property at his mother’s court hearing.

A law enforcement official, who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said authorities believe Burkhart went on the arson spree because he was angry over his mother’s legal troubles.

• This article was amended on 5 January 2012. The original headline referred to over 50 fires causing $3bn in damage. This has been corrected.

Here it comes – confession time.

I don’t like this white European Anglo-Saxon illegal immigrant.  I don’t like him at all.  I feel a great deal of antipathy toward him.  And I want his scrawny white ass out of my country.

And Obama is right: like most illegal immigrants, he’s absolutely nothing like me at all.  Because I follow this thing called “the rule of law.”  Because I wouldn’t go to their damn country and act the way they’re coming here and acting.  Yes, I have “antipathy” toward people like that.

Unlike liberals, I have this thing called “consistency.”  I don’t like illegal immigrants.  Period.  I don’t like people to sneak into my country and literally begin their careers as “Americans” by breaking the law.  And I don’t give a flying damn what color the illegal immigrant’s skin color is.

If Hispanics voted Republican, on the other hand, Democrats would be kicking down every door in the country to haul their asses out of Los Estados Unidos.  Because that’s just the kind of people they are. 

And unlike liberals who are defined by racism the way they are defined by hypocrisy (whether you look at a good Democrat during the Civil War years when they were willing to fight to their deaths to protect the institution of slavery or whether you look at a good Democrat now, they have the same exact fixation on seeing absolutely EVERYTHING through the prism of their racism).  Democrats cannot follow the urging of Martin Luther King and not somehow see race the way conservatives have long thought.

Which is just one of the many reasons Martin Luther King, Jr., was a RepublicanJust like his father was before him.

Democrats are bad people who demonize those with whom they disagree in the most intolerant of ways.  It’s never been enough for them to simply say conservatives are well-meaning but wrong; no, we’re hateful and we’re racists.

It’s easy for the left to demonize us because most of the illegal immigrants who flood into this country with the blessing of Democrats hoping to get votes are non-whites. 

But that has nothing to do with why we don’t want illegal immigration.  We don’t want illegal immigration because we support the rule of law and we don’t want a wave of ANYBODY who doesn’t belong here flooding in to this country.

 

Advertisements

Tags: , ,

8 Responses to “My ‘Right-Wing Racist Hatred’ Of Illegal Immigrants Continues”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    I hope you know that ironically, you’re demonizing Democrats the way you’re demonizing them. Don’t you think they “demonize” right wingers for a reason? There’s no way every single Democrat is “vile” and “evil.”

    Also, Democrats and Republicans during the Civil War were pretty much the opposite of today. The Republicans back then were liberals, and the Democrats were conservative. Lincoln was a great president, but he was super liberal, and favored a strong central government.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    I think the sentence “I hope you know that ironically, you’re demonizing Democrats the way you’re demonizing them” is irrational.

    “There’s no way every single Democrat is “vile” and “evil.””???

    54 million murdered innocent babies beg to disagree with you.

    Your statement about Republicans having been liberals and Democrats having been conservatives is just full of crap. It is pure bogus assertion on your part. The same Republican Party that was pro-freedom and pro-life in 1860 is the same party that is pro-freedom and pro-life today. And the same Democrats who said that black people weren’t legitimate human beings in 1860 are the same Democrats who say babies in the womb aren’t human beings today.

    Here is something interesting about the Civil Rights act and which party supported it:

    What is the breakdown by party of who voted for and against the Civil
    Rights act of 1964?

    Here is the answer to your question:

    House of Representatives:
    Democrats for: 152
    Democrats against: 96
    Republicans for: 138
    Republicans against: 34

    Senate:
    Democrats for: 46
    Democrats against: 21
    Republicans for: 27
    Republicans against: 6

    39% of House Democrats were opposed to Civil Rights versus 20% of Republicans. Which is to say that twice as many Democrats in the House opposed Civil Rights as Republicans.

    31% of Senate Democrast were opposed to Civil Rights versus 19 percent of Republicans.

    So put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

    Lincoln took steps to keep the nation from splitting apart. If you have evidence that Lincoln would have suspended Habeus Corpus had we not been fighting to the death with Democrats, I’d love to see your proof.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/democratic.html

    http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/republican.html

    These are the party platforms for the two parties during the Civil War. Notice the Republicans supporting immigration and “vigorous taxation.”

    Then take a look at the Democrats talking about “suppressing the rights of people” because of loss of freedom of speech/press, etc. Also look at them supporting guns for “self-defense.”

    Doesn’t that seem like the exact opposite of the platforms today?

  4. Anonymous Says:

    Interestingly, my evidence to refute yours is not showing up.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Republicans STILL support immigration, you lamebrain.

    It is only ILLEGAL immigration that we don’t support. And it is a biased, dishonest liberal who refuses to understand and acknowledge that fact.

    As for taxation, I noticed that you alter the quote; it says “a vigorous and just system of taxation.”

    I wonder why you ommitted the “and just” part???

    Republicans are also for taxation; WE JUST WANT JUST TAXATION is all. And a system in which half of Americans pay no federal income taxes at all while a tiny minority pays overwhelming burden – and are then still demonized for “not paying their fair share” – is not a “just” system.

    I’m glad you acknowledge that the modern Democrat Party is fundamentally and profoundly in favor of “suppressing the rights of people.” Why is it that you want to suppress the rights of people as a Democrat, anyway?

    But that said, I do not find anything close to either one of your “suppressing the rights of people” or “supporting guns for ‘self-defense’” in the Democrat link. Why don’t you quote honestly?

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    Let’s see, other than openly claim that the modern Democrat Party is all about suppressing people’s rights – which refutes the right of the Democrat Party to exist in America – you didn’t refute anything.

    Meanwhile, I DID prove that the same Democrat Party that was opposed to Civil Rights in 1860 was also STILL more opposed to Civil Rights than Republicans more than a century later when we can start talking about the “modern Democrat Party.” Democrats are STILL determined to own blacks; they just want to own them through making them dependent on Democrats for a welfare state now.

    And for the record, the Democrat Party that in 1860 said “it was people’s right to choose” whether or not to own slaves and deny their humanity is STILL making that VERY SAME ARGUMENT with unborn babies.

    Still as fascist as ever, just in a slightly different way.

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Resolved, That the aim and object of the Democratic party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the States unimpaired, and they hereby declare that they consider that the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous powers not granted by the Constitution — the subversion of the civil by military law in States not in insurrection; the arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force; the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press; the denial of the right of asylum; the open and avowed disregard of State rights; the employment of unusual test-oaths; and the interference with and denial of the right of the people to bear arms in their defense is calculated to prevent a restoration of the Union and the perpetuation of a Government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.

    I am now “quoting honestly” as you said i should. The Democrats are not supporting suppressing rights in this paragraph from their platform, they are adamantly against suppressing any rights. Which sounds very conservative to me.

    I find it interesting that you mock and insult liberals freely, but block anyone who even begins to say something insulting to you.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Anonymous,

    First to your quote.

    Just what on earth do you think it demonstrates? I could cite the football box scores and then claim that it proves the Democrat Party is the party of evil. But there is nothing in those scores that would prove that, just as there is nothing in your [finally] quoting honestly citation of the Democrat Party as “conservative” versus the Repbulican Party as “liberal” in 1860.

    I mean, try reading tea leaves next.

    Meanwhile, I have twice (and I get tired of repeating myself over and over while people like you completely ignore what I’m saying as though I haven’t said it) documented that on the principle issue at hand – slavery, Civil Rights and the connection to abortion – the Democrat Party is the SAME as it ever was.

    I want other readers to notice something: I have interacted with these arguments; when my opponent cited the platforms of the parties, I responded to what he posted and claimed. My opponent has completely ignored my own arguments. I don’t bother continuing arguments in which I might as well be pissing into the wind. There is no point arguing with someone who ignores your arguments and merely continues lecturing.

    You also completely failed to understand my previous argument when you say:

    The Democrats are not supporting suppressing rights in this paragraph from their platform, they are adamantly against suppressing any rights. Which sounds very conservative to me.

    My point is that you are stating that being opposed to “suppressing rights” is inherently/intrinsically conservative, and therefore the Democrat Party of 1860 was “conservative.” That argument would ONLY carry any validity if and only if the MODERN Democrat Party is inherently/intrinsically in favor of suppressing rights. Because otherwise your point is simply gibberish.

    So I was using something called “irony” to mock a liberal who was implicitly stating that ONLY Republicans/conservatives are opposed to ‘suppressing rights” whereas Democrats/liberals are apparently (for your own argument to work) totally in favor of suppressing rights. Do you get it now?

    As for your last statement:

    I find it interesting that you mock and insult liberals freely, but block anyone who even begins to say something insulting to you.

    First of all, it’s my blog. It is the one place where I get to have the last word (can’t even get that verty often in my own household!). Second of all, your argument is quintessentially hypocritical unless it is your contention that liberal bloggers don’t block people they don’t want to deal with. Third, I actually haven’t blocked all that many people in my time blogging, although I have to admit the number is going up as I simply have less time and therefore less patience to deal with trolls. Fourth, I don’t “mock and insult” liberals individually in my articles; I don’t write an article about YOU and personally attack YOU, but rather I attack the ideology of liberalism and the political party of the Democrats. And with that caveat, yes, I mock and block people who read an article that doesn’t in any way mention them, personalize it, believe somehow that I crawled into their minds and pulled their little chain, and then set out to personally attack me in a response.

    Most of the time when I block people it isn’t because they “said something insulting to me,” though. Rather it is the refusal to address my arguments and/or deceit. But I will also block people who turn out to be human firehoses who just keep posting over and over because I simply don’t have time to deal with such annoying people. And did I remember to mention that it’s my blog?

    I’ve already pointed out that you have repeatedly now refused to deal with the facts and arguments that I gave you whereas I interacted with what you provided me. That’s “refusal to address.”

    But you are also very deceitful. I am the only one as the administrator who can see this, but you are writing comments to my blog under at least five different names. You have called yourself “Moderate liberal,” Skeptic, Questioner, Anonymous and now you are calling yourself “Moderate conservative” as well. Same IP address. You are deliberately trying to pass yourself off as different people, and that is dishonest.

    But you have also posted at least twenty comments under those aliases in two days. You are a human firehose. You are a buzzing fly who has decided for whatever reason flies decide to descend on my head to pester me.

    I didn’t get into blogging to endlessly spin my wheels engaging in useless arguments with liberals. Not my thing. I got into blogging to write articles and inform conservatives or conservative-leaning independents. For me to waste my time engaging in idiotic arguments such as your current “The Democrat Party that imposed slavery really was the Republican Party and the Republican Party that ended slavery really was the Democrat Party, such that the Democrat Party doesn’t have to answer for its historic sins but rather the Republican Party has to answer for the Democrat Party’s sins and the praise that should be bestowed to the Republican Party should really be given to the Democrats who were actually the pro-slavery party” is simply asinine. That’s just one of the arguments you want to have with me; you’ve got like ten other ones.

    It is apparently your contention that I don’t have the right to write the articles I want to write and focus on the issues I want to focus on in my own blog. Rather, you view yourself as an “Occupier” who can storm in and take over anywhere you want to go. And somehow the rights of all the rest of society are surrendered to your own “rights.” And I must become a slave to your blowhard agenda.

    So that’s why I block people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: