DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => : Christians4LessGvt August 08, 2010, 01:47:41 PM
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Dallas_Morning_News_logo.png)
Across Texas, 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright
08:59 AM CDT on Sunday, August 8, 2010
By SHERRY JACOBSON / The Dallas Morning News
As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, preventing automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, opponents insist the debate is not really about babies.
The debate could resonate in Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.
Parkland Memorial Hospital delivers more of those babies than any other hospital in the state. Last year at Parkland, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of total deliveries. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.
State Rep. Rafael Ancha, D-Dallas, accused Republicans of using the births to generate an explosive election issue.
"They're pulling the pin on the immigration grenade," he said. "It's all about the November elections and continuing to use the immigration issue as a wedge to win votes this fall."
But to Republicans, the emerging national debate is long overdue, considering that millions of immigrants have been living illegally in this country for years.
"They're violating our law, and we're giving their children the benefit of U.S. citizenship," said state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, whose 2009 bill in the Legislature would have challenged the birthright of immigrant children.
That bill died in committee, although Berman has vowed to file another version next year that would prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates to the children of "illegal aliens."
"I've checked the Congressional Record for when the 14th Amendment was written, and the author was quoted as saying that it did not apply to foreigners," he said. "There's no question in my mind about it."
Amendment's history
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 as a way to block state laws that prevented former slaves from becoming citizens. It also effectively overruled the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that slaves were mere property and could not become citizens.
The amendment offered a broad definition of citizenship in one simple sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Donald Kerwin, a vice president of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., said he feared that altering the current interpretation of that law "would essentially restore the Dred Scott reasoning and create a hereditary underclass in the United States.
"These children, who didn't break any laws, would have no rights and nowhere to go," he said. "It's a very extreme position."
The effort to reinterpret the 14th Amendment has been talked about for years and been targeted by numerous congressional measures that went nowhere. Last year's unsuccessful Birthright Citizenship Act, which had about 100 co-sponsors in Congress, would have required at least one parent to be a U.S. citizen for a baby to become an American citizen at birth.
The difference in this year's effort to change the 14th Amendment is that prominent Republicans are offering their support and making public statements demanding a national debate of the issue.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called Wednesday for a review of "birthright citizenship," after concluding that illegal immigrants had taken advantage of the post-Civil War constitutional provision.
"We need to have hearings," he said. "We need to consult constitutional scholars and study what the implications are."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he might introduce a constitutional amendment that would repeal the citizenship provision of the amendment.
And both Arizona Republican senators, John McCain and John Kyl, announced that the time was ripe for such a change.
"If both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?" Kyl said recently on a Sunday morning talk show.
Changing the Constitution, however, is not as simple as getting a bill through Congress by majority vote.
Amendments have to be approved by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. It has happened only 27 times in U.S. history, most recently in 1992 in reference to congressional pay increases.
This latest effort would fall far short of tackling the entire Latino population now living illegally in the U.S. ? the 11 million to 12 million people, according to estimates by the Pew Hispanic Center ? because it would target only the children.
That distinction has drawn an outcry from some, who believe the U.S. should be embracing its growing diversity rather than trying to disenfranchise the youngest elements of it.
"Babies are born without awareness, while other individuals chose to migrate because they want something," said Dr. Jacobo Kupersztoch, an associate professor at Richland College. "If we want to grow and we want to continue to be on the top of the world, we have to continue to integrate these people into our system."
In Texas alone, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state's hospitals, according to a tally released by the state's Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide.
Between 2001 and 2009, births to illegal immigrant women totaled 542,152 in Texas alone.
"The next 10 years will be an even more transformative decade demographically for Texas," said Dr. Roberto Calderon, an associate history professor at the University of North Texas and a Latin American expert following the debate.
He speculated that the Republicans probably were aware of this ongoing demographic shift and how it might threaten their party since Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats.
"Manipulating the status ... the rights and the opportunities for Latinos is the only avenue many on the conservative right see as a solution to remaining viable electorally," he said. "They're expecting what used to be safe Republican seats on the state and federal level will no longer be so safe."
However, Dr. Steve Murdock, a past director of the U.S. Census Bureau, said it would be difficult ? even impossible ? to turn this demographic tide by targeting the legal status of future births.
"It might slow it down some," he said. "But the idea that the majority of Texas Hispanics are illegal is ludicrous. The vast majority are citizens."
Murdock, previously the state's chief demographer and now a professor at Rice University, said the growth of Hispanics as a group in Texas has more to do with their relatively younger ages than the Anglo majority and their higher birthrates.
"In the last decade in Texas, over 60 percent of the state population increase was due to Hispanics," he said. "The idea that the growth of Hispanics is sudden or happened only in the past few years or only in Texas is not correct."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080810dnmetbabies.2be9a7e.html (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080810dnmetbabies.2be9a7e.html)
-
60k babies of illegals born every year just in Texas, and growing. 11k in Dallas' Parkland Hospital - where a staggering 74% of births are to non-citizen mothers, most illegal. Even though the Dallas paper tries to make this about race, it is about financial sanity. Illegals cost the U.S. $113 billion annually - that's $200 billion more than the ENTIRE cost of ObamaCare ...over the next decade. No immigration "reform" will stop it. Neither will the figleaf "border security" bill the Senate just passed - with a puny 1,400 unarmed Guard troops and a mere 2 drones to cover 1,951 miles of border. Let your legislator know: there can be no discussion of "reform" without first securing the borders - for real - and second the elimination, by whatever legal means required, of so-called "birthright citizenship":
-
This is an inaccurate statistic, as if the work illegals do had to be done by legal citizens, much more would be paid, and many prices would be much higher. If one has a bogus SS card, deductions are taken out of the illegal's check, but he gets nothing back, ever, and those amounts are not calculated into the social services received.
I really doubt that the XIV Amendment can be changed, and I don't think that citizenship by birth can be revoked without changing the amendment. I don't even think a majority of people will want to change it,and the discussion will cause a nasty hatefest. Of course, in 1866 when this was passed, the idea was that the country could use a lot more people, so long as they were not Chinese. Or so I have read in the history books.
Trying to pass this, however, will lose the GOP lots of votes. Bobby Jindal would not be a citizen if this had not been the law: his parents were both here on student visas when he was born.
-
60,000 newborn babies = 60,000 threats to the nation
What a bunch of paranoid, sissified wimps. Now Americans feel threatened by babies.
Does anyone outside the right-wing fringe really believe that these babies will "threaten" America, or that they will drain the Treasury, when, as XO pointed out, the parents that gave birth to them are busting their ass doing stoop labour for cheapskate American employers who probably would be paying twice their salaries PLUS BENEFITS to Americans who would otherwise be doing their work?
Let's cut the bullshit. This is not about "threats" of any kind to America or even to the American Treasury. It's about racism pure and simple. Everyone understands that the "illegals" giving birth to the 60,000 Texas babies are not illegal Irish, or illegal Serbians or illegal Frenchwomen. There are 60,000 new Mexicans and Central Americans in Texas, 60,000 mestizos in fact, and this is darkening the lily-white skin of America in an unacceptable way. Why not just cut all the bullshit and admit it's all about race?
-
Let's cut the bullshit. This is not about "threats" of any kind to America or even to the American Treasury.
Actually it is a threat to the budget of the city of Dallas.
Perhaps Toronto would like to pay for these births.
-
Racists and fascists see "threats to the budget" of various institutions wherever some kind of benefit is being provided to some kind of non-white recipient. OTOH, they see no "threats to the budget" in various wars waged all over the world at costs of a thousand times the cost of all the newborn wards in Dallas. Funny how that works. "Threat to the budget" my ass.
-
I seriously doubt the City of Dallas has a department of defense line item in their budget.
-
I seriously doubt that the citizens of Dallas who object to their hospitals' increased costs due to babies of illegal immigrants give a shit one way or the other about the increased costs to the U.S. Treasury of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Their concern for "costs" is wholly bogus.
-
We need these babies .
We have lost many more than this to abortion and we are running down our productive age population.
-
It's not just Dallas, this INSANITY is going on across the US!
Martin County Hospital - costs for illegal immigrants (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1dDINSebbw#)
-
Illegal Aliens cost taxpayers $100 billion dollars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BW0jjhGXVg#)
-
I seriously doubt that the citizens of Dallas who object to their hospitals' increased costs due to babies of illegal immigrants give a shit one way or the other about the increased costs to the U.S. Treasury of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. Their concern for "costs" is wholly bogus.
And you know this how?
-
I can't help but be reminded of the End-of-War Vietnam Babylift, in which hundreds of Vietnamese and half-breed babies were given A-1 priority, so as to be saved from evil Communists, because Americans were so commpassionate and caring. But these Mexican babies are simply victims of capitalism, so they don't matter, even though they ould grow up to pay taxs and support CU4 and Kramer by paying their Social Security.
Republican ratbag paranoia, that is what this really is. And it seems to have infected the pudgy head of Mitch McConnell as well, which means i i being broadcast by Rush, who provides opinions for the ratbag right.
-
<<And you know this how?>>
It's real simple. Unlike conservative ideologues, I live in the real world. That means I know people, I have common sense, I can put 2 and 2 together. I'm able to judge character (although I gotta admit, you threw me for a loop when you told me you marched in MLK's funeral procession. That was of course a long, long time ago, and you've obviously lost your way long since.) I know when an all-white group of "irate citizens," ostensibly "concerned" about the "waste" of Federal money but seemingly unconcerned about the cost of two needless and pointless wars of choice, festooned here and there with racist and fascist signs and slogans which a mighty effort is made to suppress once the MSM begins to pick up on them, that things are not as the Tea Party activists would like us to believe.
I am saying, based purely on gut feelings in the light of the above observations, that it's the very rare Tea Party member who is also a member of any anti-war organization. What does your gut feeling say? Agree or disagree?
-
It makes perfect sense that Tea Party members are opposed to IslamoNazis and a mass flood
of poor, uneducated, non-english speaking illegal immigrants because both threaten our way of life.
-
That's ludicrous. They're concerned about the hospital costs of birth, but not about the costs of two massive wars? At least be honest enough to admit that their concern, whatever else it may be based on, is not about "costs." They're bleeding money all over from the two wars and the "Islamo-fascist" threat remains at about the same level or higher nine years later. Nazi Germany AND Japan were totally defeated in far less time. It's a fucking joke. If the "Islamo-fascists" really were such a dire threat as you pretend, the government and particularly the Bush administration, would long ago have instituted a draft, raised an army of millions and sent them overseas to crush this threat once and for all. They would have put the economy on a war footing, as was done in WWII when a real menace existed, not some phony boogeyman constructed by neocon ZioNazi journalists and the arms industry to sucker Americans into doing Israel's defence work and spend themselves into bankruptcy to the enrichment of the arms industry. And FOR SURE, taxes across the board would increase, especially on the rich, to make sure that the funds were there to pay for the war.
This whole story of "Islamo-fascists" and the "threat" they supposedly pose to the Republic is so transparently phony that it is laughable. Just compare the efforts made when the country had to deal with a REAL threat, compare it to the half-assed shit you see today and you should be able to figure out the truth, regardless of the daily flood of drivel that the MSM puts out in support of this BS.
-
This movement to deprive those born here of their citizenship is NOT "the stuff revolutions are made of" Revolutions are not about depriving anyone of a right, nor are they about so trivial a matter.
CU4's hallowed "way of life" probably involves eating foods picked by illegals and benefiting by the cheap labor of illegals in many other ways as well. But he doesn't know about it, so he thinks it is not a part of his "way of life".
-
Michael...again the American People, not just the Tea Party are very concerned
about a flood of poor, uneducated, non-english speaking illegal immigrants. The
American people support the Arizona Law. Most Americans support the Arizona law.
Are the American people who just elected an African American President racist?
If so compared to what? LOL. In how many countries around the world could a minority
as tiny as African Americans (12%) in the United States get elected to the highest office
in the country? The US is less racist than most countries in the world. In most
countries around the world minorities do not have near the opportunities that
minorities have in the United States in 2010. Of course it is logical to support
action to reduce the huge cost illegal immigration is costing the US Taxpayer
while at the same time spend money on military operations fighting enemies
of the United States and the Western World.
-
You're right about the attitude of the American people, CU4, but it's far from unanimous.
A Chicago-area poll, recent
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-poll-immigration-20100809,0,3355133.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-poll-immigration-20100809,0,3355133.story)
The telephone poll of 800 heads of households across the six-county Chicago region July 8-14 found that 57 percent of the respondents did not want police to seek illegal immigrants for deportation.
Almost half of those polled, 48 percent, said they believed that illegal immigrants snatched jobs and resources, taking away from society and the economy.
Nearly all of those who responded, 87 percent, believed that some sort of legal status should be offered to the nearly 11 million people in the country illegally, provided that the immigrants aren't dangerous felons, that they learn English and that they pay fines and back taxes.
May 26, 2010 poll by NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo
In the poll, 61 percent say they favor Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, which would require local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect a person is in the country illegally. The law would also make it a crime to lack the proper registration documents.
April 28, 2010 Angus Reid poll
http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.28_Immigration_USA.pdf (http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2010.04.28_Immigration_USA.pdf)
Seven-in-ten respondents support both requiring state and local police to determine the status of a person if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are illegal immigrants (71%) and arresting people who are unable to provide documentation to prove they are in the U.S. legally (also 71%).
I don't say all the support is pure racist, but racism certainly contributes. The election of Barack Obama proves there has been some change in the country's racial attitudes but it is obviously nowhere close to proving that the U.S. is a non-racist country. Racism wasn't built overnight and it won't disappear overnight. It is deeply ingrained in America;
-
I am saying, based purely on gut feelings in the light of the above observations, that it's the very rare Tea Party member who is also a member of any anti-war organization. What does your gut feeling say? Agree or disagree?
I'd check your gut if i were you. Many Tea Party members have libertarian roots, and as libertarians are not in the slightest interested in foreign adventures.
And i would have another look at the supposed lily white make up of the Tea Party. That claim was debunked (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx#1) almost a year ago.
Your claims of racism might be gaining traction as stories of infiltration (http://www.examiner.com/x-39127-Atlanta-News-You-Can-Use-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Tea-Party-News-Undercover-Progressives-plan-to-infiltrate-the-Tea-Party-demonstrations-on-tax-day) by democrat operatives seems to be increasing daily.
But i am not even sure this is a Tea Party issue to begin with. I think you just saw this as an opportunity to sling another slur.
But these facts might interest you. 50% (240k and i presume this pool contains minorities) of the babies born in Dallas County are paid for with Medicaid. Of that 50%- 25% (60k) of those are born to illegal immigrants. It stands to reason that if you can lower demand by 25% significant savings would be realized.
-
<<I'd check your gut if i were you. Many Tea Party members have libertarian roots, and as libertarians are not in the slightest interested in foreign adventures.>>
Then you'd expect to see anti-war signs at the rallies, wouldn't you? At least as many anti-war signs as there were racist signs, right?
<<And i would have another look at the supposed lily white make up of the Tea Party. That claim was debunked almost a year ago.>>
Bullshit. I know what I saw on TV, the people AND the signs. And then I know how they later tried to clean up their image, clustering the tiny minority of blacks in front of the cameras, stacking the platform with them and removing racist signs. Too late, guys - - the cat was already out of the bag.
-
Then you'd expect to see anti-war signs at the rallies, wouldn't you? At least as many anti-war signs as there were racist signs, right?
Not necessarily. I wouldn't expect to see tennis rackets at a baseball game either. Go figure. And what racist signs?
Bullshit. I know what I saw on TV, the people AND the signs. And then I know how they later tried to clean up their image, clustering the tiny minority of blacks in front of the cameras, stacking the platform with them and removing racist signs. Too late, guys - - the cat was already out of the bag.
You don't know shit.
I linked to the Gallup poll. 6% black 15% other.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx#1 (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx#1)
-
<<Not necessarily. I wouldn't expect to see tennis rackets at a baseball game either. Go figure.>>
No but you'd expect to see racist signs at a non-racist rally? Yeah right.
<< And what racist signs?>>
Racist signs. Obama in whiteface. Obama the Chimp. You know. Racist signs
<<You don't know shit.>>
Yeah? Ya mudda wears army boots!
<<I linked to the Gallup poll. 6% black 15% other.>>
6%, FYI, is about 50% of the proportion in which blacks are represented in the general population. Furthermore, the Gallup poll did not sample people who appear at TP demos, which is what I see on TV - - it sampled people who "consider themselves TP supporters," which could include a lot of stay-at-home sympathizers but none of the hard-core demonstrators. Better read your own sources more carefully in the future, or people will start to think you don't know shit.
-
Furthermore, the Gallup poll did not sample people who appear at TP demos
And you know this how?
Depicting a politican as a chimp is racist? Bush should sue.
-
<<And you know this how?>>
It's in the article you linked to, the poll. The qualifying question was, "Do you consider yourself to be a supporter/opponent of the TP?" The rest of the data about the TP was taken from the sector that "considered itself a TP supporter."
<<Depicting a politican as a chimp is racist? Bush should sue. >>
Bush was depicted as a chimp because of the smirk on his face, which gave him a vaguely simian look. There was no racist connotation. He was never depicted in whiteface or blackface. Depicting Obama, who has no physical resemblance to a chimp, as a chimp is racist, as is portraying him in whiteface.
-
Depicting Obama, who has no physical resemblance to a chimp, as a chimp is racist, as is portraying him in whiteface.
Why?
-
Look, I am convinced that portrayals of Obama in whiteface and as a chimp are racist. You don't seem to agree. Blacks were frequently referred to as apes and monkeys by racists. The chimp portrayal of Obama is a clear continuation of that meme, the black man as a subhuman. If you don't see it, or pretend not to see it, it's a waste of time to argue about it. I won't convince you, you won't convince me.
I Googled "racist Tea Party signs." There are plenty of them, in addition to the whiteface Obama and the chimp Obama. I'm convinced by their signs that these guys are racist. OTOH, I did see one video clip where the photographer was putting words in this guy's mouth, trying to make him say racist stuff, and the guy was getting quite justifiably irritated because he kept saying he WASN'T a racist. So they aren't ALL racists.
However the signs are pretty vile. I don't believe they were made up, but I do believe that there is a concerted effort now underway to suppress all racist signs at TP rallies. They hope to capture votes and support from the moderate centre, which they can't do if the racist nature of many of the people in the movement is recognized by the general public.
-
You can read about the genesis of the white face poster here:
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-obama-posters,0,940643.story (http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-obama-posters,0,940643.story)
And the chimp cartoon here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/ny-post-cartoon-controver_n_167928.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/ny-post-cartoon-controver_n_167928.html)
Neither originated with your tea party target.
-
Who cares where they originated, there were plenty of them at the rallies. If the TP rallies had swastika banners, would you deliver a little lecture on the origin of the swastika? WTF is the difference where an image originated, what it stands for is clear to everyone who saw it, and when it's brought to a rally, it's brought for what it says, not because of where it originated.
-
And what it said was how much of a twisted "joker" our newest CnC was. And newsflash, it had prescious little to do with his race or skin color
-
I want to know why an image of Obama made up in Heath Ledger makeup from the Batman movie is racist?
And adding the political statement that Obama will lead us to socialism is racist and not worthy of free speech protection.
-
<<I want to know why an image of Obama made up in Heath Ledger makeup from the Batman movie is racist?>>
Well, I can only tell you why I think it's racist. It means that under the superficial, painted-on "whiteness" (university education, law degree, apparent reasonableness and moderation,all-American, absence of obvious Louis-Armstrong-type "Negroid" features) what you really have is the primitive savage (African-born, Muslim, witch doctor, voodoo practitioner, etc.) It is an appeal to the crudest and most vile racial stereotypes, and the unmistakable message is, "Look beneath the surface charm! He's still a n****r."
Now that's why I think the poster is racist. You don't see it that way, or pretend not to. That's OK. Enough reasonable, intelligent people see the sign, get the message and understand all too well where those racist Nazi bastards are coming from. Everybody doesn't have to get it. Enough of us realize those guys aren't movie fans and they didn't come together to discuss Batman. But if that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Go for it.
<<And adding the political statement that Obama will lead us to socialism is racist and not worthy of free speech protection. >>
Quit setting up straw-men. Nobody claims that such statements are racist or unworthy of 1st Amendment protection.
-
I agree with Tee that Obama or any Black man in whiteface is racist. It says "look, he only LOOKS White, but we know better: really he is a Negro and an Evil Joker to boot, out to steal our stuff, just like the Joker. Socialists smile as they steal your stuff.
White men in Blackface are a racist institution in the US. The Blackface minstrel makes fun of the Black man to the amusement of the White audience.
The goal of the Blackface minstrel is to make fun of the Black man at the Balck man's offense. Ask any Black person what he thinks of minstrel shows.
The goal of the Whiteface minstrel is to make fun of White man who voted for the phony White Man, and to reinforce the idea that no Black man is fit to do what has been a White Man's job. Mr Bones and Mr Interlocutor are not fit to be president.
-
The Original charge was that the Tea Party Folks created signs depicting Obama in whiteface.
As posted earlier we know that isn't true.
What we had was a kid from the University of Illinois-Chicago (Firas Alkhateeb) playing around with photoshop. He claims he was not making a political statement with his version, and surprisingly he was not asked to defend himself against charges of racism.
Perhaps we see racism where it is convenient to see racism.
-
BINGO.
Notice the common theme of "who" that seems to always bring race into the equation. Notice how it's "obvious to them" & what they "think" vs the majority who do not
Be it to attempt to silence dissent of opposition with the racist deflection effort, getting folks to defend non-existant racist charges, or in some transparent attempt to shield one from criticism, by inferring such rhetoric as merely racist in origin vs the substance by which it is actually derived
-
<<The Original charge was that the Tea Party Folks created signs depicting Obama in whiteface.
<<As posted earlier we know that isn't true. >>
Who is the "we" who "knows that isn't true?" I saw the fucking signs, not only in TP rallies, but in this NG, posted by a TP supporter. Look how fast they run from their own signs now, it's hilarious.
And what about the OTHER signs, the "white slavery" ones, the chimp, the "Lyin' African" sign, etc. You're just focusing this on one obvious racist sign which had popped up all over, and ignoring all the others. What a crock. Go on, Google "racist Tea Party signs," it isn't all that hard to do. There were plenty of them out there - - spin them away like you try to spin away the whiteface signs. Doesn't work, didn't work and will never work. Spin till you're dizzy, the truth remains the truth and those racist peckerwoods will always be racist peckerwoods. You can't fool everyone. Nice try, though.
-
<<The Original charge was that the Tea Party Folks created signs depicting Obama in whiteface.
<<As posted earlier we know that isn't true. >>
Doesn't work, didn't work and will never work. Spin till you're dizzy, the truth remains the truth and those racist peckerwoods will always be racist peckerwoods. You can't fool everyone.
"You don't see what you don't want to see, no matter how many times it's pointed out to you over and over again in this very thread." Nice try, though"
-
Creator of Obama 'Joker' Poster Revealed
KTLA News
(http://media.trb.com/media/photo/2009-08/48713480.jpg)
Firas Alkhateeb (KTLA-TV)
4:33 AM PDT, August 18, 2009
Quantcast
LOS ANGELES -- We now know who created the controversial poster showing President Barack Obama as Heath Ledger's "Joker" character from "The Dark Knight."
Turns out, it was a 20-year-old college student from Chicago who was apparently bored during his winter break.
Firas Alkhateeb, a senior history major at the University of Illinois, crafted the picture of Obama using Adobe's Photoshop software, The Los Angeles Times reported.
Alkhateeb says he used an online tutorial to "jokerize" the October 23 Time Magazine cover of Obama. He then uploaded the image to the photo-sharing site "Flickr," where an anonymous person stumbled upon it, digitally removed the "Time" reference and instead gave it the headline "Socialism."
That poster began popping up on the streets of Los Angeles and other cities about a month ago, creating a stir.
The image went viral online, crashing the website that first posted images of it and rising to the top of Google's "Today's Hot Trends" list.
Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson condemned the poster and called for its creator to take responsibility for the image.
"Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery," says Hutchinson, "it is mean-spirited and dangerous."
"We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama."
Alkhateeb insists he was not making a political statement with his version of the poster.
-
Creator of swastika symbol revealed.
It was Indo-Aryans of thousands of years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika)
So much for the ridiculous idea that the swastika symbolizes Naziism.
-
It was the symbol for Oktoberfest?
-
<<The Original charge was that the Tea Party Folks created signs depicting Obama in whiteface.>>
That is bullshit too, like the rest of your post. Whoever created the whiteface sign is completely irrelevant. It's like the swastika - - the fact that it was originally created in India a few thousand years ago is completely irrelevant today because now the symbol, regardless of who created it, means the Nazi Party to every North American who sees one. (It is true that many people in India will see the symbol primarily as an ancient Hindu symbol.)
<<What we had was a kid from the University of Illinois-Chicago (Firas Alkhateeb) playing around with photoshop. He claims he was not making a political statement with his version, and surprisingly he was not asked to defend himself against charges of racism.>>
What a bunch of irrelevant bullshit. What does it matter why the kid created the image? What does it matter why the ancient Indians created the swastika? Regardless of who created the image, or why, IN CONTEXT (something that conservatives are habitually incapable of recognizing) the swastika means Nazis and the whiteface sign means "Don't be fooled by Obama's surface education and urbanity, he's really a black man like all the other black men, i.e., primitive, untrustworthy, dangerous and out to get you." Of course, you can always pretend that those who brought these signs to Tea Party rallies were just fans of the artist Firas Alkhateeb who found themselves by sheer coincidence in the heart of a Tea Party rally, or movie fans lured to a rally in the mistaken belief that it was a Batman fan club meeting. Most reasonable people can read the meaning in the whiteface signs loud and clear, whether the originator intended them to be there or not, just as we all know what a swastika means, whatever the original Indian creator of the symbol meant it to symbolize at the time.
<<Perhaps we see racism where it is convenient to see racism. >>
Or perhaps we try frantically and unconvincingly to cover up any trace of racism with absolutely ridiculous bullshit, as if we were writing for a bunch of fucking idiots who will believe any crap excuse that racists and fascists can devise on the spur of the moment.
-
<< And what racist signs?>>
Racist signs. Obama in whiteface. Obama the Chimp. You know. Racist signs
Neither one of which are racially charged except in your fevered mind.
Since when is calling someone a socialist a racist slur?
Again only in your fevered mind.
Hell, if that is what he believes in he should embrace the charge. Half the people on the left wish he would.
-
<<Neither one of which are racially charged except in your fevered mind.>>
Bullshit. Everyone knows what Obama in whiteface means. Everyone knows what Obama as a chimp means. You want to pretend otherwise, go right ahead. You're not only making a fool of yourself, but destroying any credibility you have left.
<<Since when is calling someone a socialist a racist slur?>>
It isn't and I never said it was.
<<Again only in your fevered mind.>>
Then you should be able to find an example where I said so. Don't waste your time, there is no such example.
<<Hell, if that is what he believes in he should embrace the charge. Half the people on the left wish he would. >>
Hell, if you wanna debate with yourself over this, go right ahead. Let me know when you want to rejoin the debate with a real opponent instead of an imaginary one.
-
Try to keep it honest Mikey.
The Obama as the Joker sign had the word socialism under it at the Tea Parties. Nothing racist about it.
And who is this everyone you refer to? Are they related to obvious in anyway?
If the Tea Party folks were racist they would have just called him a fucking nigger and been done with it.
They didn't because they aren't. Same way they didn't call John Lewis a nigger. Even with a 100k reward no one has come up with a tape, video or soundbite.
And the chimp thing was a cartoon in the NY Post. Show me where any Tea party group depicted Obama as a chimp, and then show me that the sign holder wasn't a dem plant.
-
Try to keep it honest Mikey. The Obama as the Joker sign had the word socialism under it at the Tea Parties. Nothing racist about it.
And who is this everyone you refer to? Are they related to obvious in anyway?
LOL
-
<<Try to keep it honest Mikey.>>
Honest as in, the joker sign can't be racist because it wasn't designed to be racist? Don't worry about MY honesty, BT, better look to your own.
<<The Obama as the Joker sign had the word socialism under it at the Tea Parties. Nothing racist about it.>>
No, of course not, every socialist is a black man in whiteface. That's the universal symbol for socialism now, a black man with his face painted white. Do you really think you're corresponding with some fucking idiot, or do you get so desperate to justify this ludicrous bullshit that you forget who you're writing back to?
<<And who is this everyone you refer to? Are they related to obvious in anyway?>>
Let me put it this way - - in real life, as opposed to life in 3DHS, I do not know anyone who doesn't think that a depiction of Obama in whiteface is racist.
<<If the Tea Party folks were racist they would have just called him a fucking nigger and been done with it.>>
Some of them did, you just choose to call Rep. Lewis a liar.
<<They didn't because they aren't.>>
On the contrary, they did because they are.
<<Same way they didn't call John Lewis a nigger. Even with a 100k reward no one has come up with a tape, video or soundbite.>>
Same old tired bullshit. There wasn't one word from that crowd that could be distinguished on any existing tape, but somehow you want us to believe that the one word "Nigger" out of all the words in the English language, has unique auditory qualities that permit it, and it alone, to be recognized in crowd recordings. There is therefore, and not surprisingly, no existing tape, video etc. and the offer of the $100K reward is just a cheap stunt proving nothing but the essential dishonesty not only of the Tea Party but of its defenders and PR guys.
<<And the chimp thing was a cartoon in the NY Post. Show me where any Tea party group depicted Obama as a chimp, and then show me that the sign holder wasn't a dem plant. >>
You're talking oranges to my apples - - the chimp signs at the Tea Party rallies weren't the NY Post cartoon. And BTW - - what whitewash bullshit have you come up with for the "Lyin' African" signs or the "White Slavery" signs?
Poor BT - - so many racist signs, so little time.
-
I can't help but be reminded of the End-of-War Vietnam Babylift, in which hundreds of Vietnamese and half-breed babies were given A-1 priority, so as to be saved from evil Communists, because Americans were so commpassionate and caring. But these Mexican babies are simply victims of capitalism, so they don't matter, even though they ould grow up to pay taxs and support CU4 and Kramer by paying their Social Security.
Republican ratbag paranoia, that is what this really is. And it seems to have infected the pudgy head of Mitch McConnell as well, which means i i being broadcast by Rush, who provides opinions for the ratbag right.
Is Mexico just as bad as Vietnam?
-
(http://dreamdogsart.typepad.com/art/images/2008/05/19/obama_hope_poster_fairey.jpg)
The first result of a google search for "Obama poster"
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlVZbzqT6FXIRNxFtxx5i2aAhJTxl1a1UncclYmyPcX2Bnq2M&t=1&usg=__yV2lbGlIgRSOdvQlN0Q5bwyv7mg=)
The first result of a google search for "Obama poster parody"
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6yHnNtwjAwE/SRUEMg7E-aI/AAAAAAAACWE/i8-sHLGUhyo/s400/1994644-2-joke-poster.jpg)
The fifteenth result of a google search for "Obama poster parody"
(http://hoboken411.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-joker-bad-bush-joker-good.jpg)
The Hundreds along result of a google search for "Obama poster parody"
I thought the "joker" image was getting more use than Google indicates .
But that Obama poster in false color was just begging for parody ,the pages of images on Google use that color pattern on thousands of funny faces.
What did it mean in "code " when President Obama and his advertisers approved a poster of his face in false color as a campaign tool?
-
(http://dreamdogsart.typepad.com/art/images/2008/05/19/obama_hope_poster_fairey.jpg)
What did it mean in "code " when President Obama and his advertisers approved a poster of his face in false color as a campaign tool?
D'oh ;)
-
"Obama poster parody"
http://hoboken411.com/archives/24359 (http://hoboken411.com/archives/24359)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1204213/Spoof-poster-Obamas-face-painted-The-Joker-branded-dangerous-mean-spirited.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1204213/Spoof-poster-Obamas-face-painted-The-Joker-branded-dangerous-mean-spirited.html)
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html)
-
<<What did it mean in "code " when President Obama and his advertisers approved a poster of his face in false color as a campaign tool?>>
Nothing. They liked the look of it. If there was a coded meaning, it sure as hell went way over my head. EVERY poster doesn't have to be in code, of course. The Obama-whiteface/joker poster, OTOH, is in a real obvious code and a real easy one to figure out. Everyone gets it. (Except maybe those who pretend not to.)
-
<<Same way they didn't call John Lewis a nigger. Even with a 100k reward no one has come up with a tape, video or soundbite.>>
Same old tired bullshit. There wasn't one word from that crowd that could be distinguished on any existing tape, but somehow you want us to believe that the one word "Nigger" out of all the words in the English language, has unique auditory qualities that permit it, and it alone, to be recognized in crowd recordings. There is therefore, and not surprisingly, no existing tape, video etc. and the offer of the $100K reward is just a cheap stunt proving nothing but the essential dishonesty not only of the Tea Party but of its defenders and PR guys.
Use Logic.
NO words are understandable .
But one?
Recorders running caught many words , just not that one.
There is nothing about this one word that makes it more or less likely to be caught by a mechanical device any mor or less than any other word.
There is something about this word that can make it emerge from "white noise" like pictures arise from the snow of a mistuned TV.
If it really was shouted nothing would have protected the microphones from it , especially if repeated a lot ,this accusation is soundly disproved.
-
<<What did it mean in "code " when President Obama and his advertisers approved a poster of his face in false color as a campaign tool?>>
Nothing. They liked the look of it. If there was a coded meaning, it sure as hell went way over my head. EVERY poster doesn't have to be in code, of course. The Obama-whiteface/joker poster, OTOH, is in a real obvious code and a real easy one to figure out. Everyone gets it. (Except maybe those who pretend not to.)
I am sorry , but you must look for code every where or you are being unfair .
The Obama in whiteface/red face that was produced by the Obama campaign must have been intended to portray him as the post racial president. The leader for the era in which color is no longer a barrier to the deserveing caricter.
Everyone gets this .
-
Obviously
-
<<Use Logic.>>
I just did, but I don't think you got it.
<<NO words are understandable .>>
No words from the crowd are distinguishable, to put it accurately.
<<But one?>>
Exactly. Why would the recording devices, which caught not one single distinguishable word from the crowd, be expected to record a distinguishable cry of "nigger" when unable to distinguish any other word from the BG noise? Answer: they wouldn't.
<<Recorders running caught many words , just not that one.>>
of course they caught many words, that's why none are individually distinguishable. They caught TOO many words for any individual word to stand out and be heard as a single component of the noise.
<<There is nothing about this one word that makes it more or less likely to be caught by a mechanical device any mor or less than any other word.>>
Thank you. My point exactly.
<<There is something about this word that can make it emerge from "white noise" like pictures arise from the snow of a mistuned TV.>>
Bullshit. That's laughable.
<<If it really was shouted nothing would have protected the microphones from it . . . >>
You are making some kind of joke here? Almost everything that mob was saying was shouted. The whole point of the Tea Party is to be loud and disruptive, to get in your face, to make themselves noticed. The original Tea Parties were, if you recall, organized to disrupt "town meetings" about health-care reform, where they shouted down speaker after speaker, essentially sabotaging the entire meeting. The one I recall most vividly, since it was one of the first, was where they chanted in unison, "Hear Our Voice! Hear Our Voice!" to drown out everyone else. (Nobody,BTW, alleges that "Nigger" was chanted in unison, so please don't bother asking how microphones which could pick up "Hear Our Voice" at one rally could not pick up "Nigger" at another.) With ALL that shouting going on, the individual words, unless chanted in unison by the Nazi thugs Tea Partiers, were obviously indistinguishable, which is why nobody who hears the tapes can distinguish individual words in the BG noise.
<<especially if repeated a lot ,this accusation is soundly disproved.>>
Those morons were probably shouting the same slogans over and over again, some of them even more than "Nigger!" yet nothing, repeated a lot or solitary gems standing alone, was heard as a distinct word. Why on earth anyone would think that despite all this, the magic qualities of the word "Nigger!" - - as yet unspecified - - would allow it, and it alone, to stand out from the background noise, is a complete mystery to me. Well, not a complete mystery - - it really indicates that there are people who are willing to defy all fact and logic to maintain the absurd theory, based on pure sophistry, that Congressman Lewis and three or four members of his entourage all lied, simply to malign these good-hearted patriots. Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. Nobody's buying it, even the racist TP is probably laughing up its sleeve to hear these absurd defences advanced in their favour, like a Nazi concentration camp guard secretly laughing as he hears Holocaust deniers speak.