Colony USA

When a country is colonized, the colonist set up a government for the benefit of themselves and their mother country. Governmental decisions are generally made to keep taxes, goods or whatever other benefits flowing to the colonial power. While the colonized country may get investments, those investments are generally to ensure that the primary reason for colonization is met. So, for example, a country may get an extensive railroad network. But that railroad is funded for the purposes of getting materials from the manufacturing sector to the coast for shipment to the mother country.

Similarly there may be public transport created, but again the purpose is to get needed workers to manufacturing areas. In slave societies of the past, so long as new slaves could be [cheaply] obtained, the development of that country is mainly for the owning class. This is important to understand. A colony works for the benefit of those who colonize it.

Today the US Government is "shut down" because Democrats (and a number of Republicans) are working on behalf of foreign nationals, mostly those who have no legal right to be in the country. What is clear then is that the US Government and the Democratic party at large is a colonial government. America is officially a colony.

I have lived through a number of government "shut downs". Never before has the event been precipitated by supposed representatives of the citizens holding out for the benefit of foreign nationals. In the 1995-1996 conflict between President Clinton and Republicans, the issues were:

The United States federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1995–96 were the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget.

Nothing at all about "immigration" or "dreamers" or any such cover for "on behalf of foreign nationals". Even the last shutdown in 2013 was about policies directed at citizens (the ACA). This is unprecedented (as far as I know) in US history.

This may not be selling secrets to a foreign power but as far as I'm concerned this is treason, full stop. It will be to the shame of the US voting public that these so called representatives of the citizens will find themselves still employed in "government service" after their next bid. Such is how deep the rot is.

And note, I have said nothing about Trump. Trump doesn't matter in this issue. At no time should any so called representative of a sovereign country allow it's government to be shut down or otherwise compromised for the benefit of foreign nationals. Period.

There are outlets and personalities talking about the affects on military and children. Not to be crass, but I don't particularly care. There is a far larger issue at stake here. What good is a paid military, when the government is already in the hands of agents of foreign nationals? And make no mistake about it, these persons who are holding the government hostage are in fact agents of foreign nationals.

The United States is a colony.

Homosexuals vs The US Constitution

Once again, like the Christian baker case, we have a case that should be resolved quite promptly and easily but isn't because an quickly enlarging treason class is unwilling to recognize the US Constitution. This example from the University of Iowa.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The University of Iowa is caught up in a legal fight with a conservative Christian student group that denied a leadership position to a student who is gay.

The case pits a university policy barring discrimination based on sexual orientation against the religious beliefs of a 10-member group called Business Leaders in Christ. The group sued after the state's flagship university in Iowa City revoked its campus registration in November.

The group says its membership is open to everyone, but that its leaders must affirm a statement of faith that rejects homosexuality. The university says it respects the right of students, faculty and staff to practice the religion of their choice but does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.

First thing to note is that the U of Iowa is a public university which means it has an extra burden of protecting the constitutional rights of it's employees and students. Unlike a private university which are largely exempt from such requirements the U of Iowa is required to protect the constitutional right of freedom of exercise of religion. No if, and, buts or maybes.

A student member of Business Leaders in Christ, Marcus Miller, filed a complaint with the university last February after the group denied his request to serve as its vice president. Miller's request was rejected after he disclosed he was gay.

He has no basis for the complaint. The first amendment clearly covers the group and the U of Iowa is bound by law to recognize the group. But this is another example, like the baker case, where a person who knew full well the culture of the organization he was dealing with, decided to make a nuisance of himself and deny the group it's constitutionally protected rights.

Miller did not respond to messages seeking comment about the lawsuit. He has since started his own university-recognized, Jesus-centered student organization, Love Works, to advocate for justice on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual issues.

While I don't agree with this organization I recognize that this is also the right of this student. Just as the Christian group had a right to decide how it would exercise it's religion, Miller and his friends are able to create a group and exercise his religion the way he sees fit without interference from the university or the state.

The Black Fainting Couch

Senator Durbin:

When it came to the issue of, quote, 'chain migration,' I said to the president, do you realize how painful that term is to so many people? African-Americans believe they migrated to America in chains and when you talk about chain migration, it hurts them personally. He said, 'Oh, that’s a good line.'"

Yeah. And you know what, when I went to Miami last year I could barely contain myself when I saw all those ships docked in Port Miami.

Very problematic.

Also trips to Home Depot are very traumatizing. You know they have ropes and chains in that place?

The Left Is Good With African Brain Drain

One of the main points of Garveyism was that Africans with skills should use those skills to develop Africa into a modern society. It was Garvey's belief that it was the responsibility of the Afican to do this development and that doing this development was how the African proved his equality on the world stage. To that end the UNIA used the Black Star Line corp to transport goods to Liberia. W.E.B DuBois along with the NAACP was front and center in the opposition to this plan. DuBois being of the opinion that the mosquitoes and disease (shit hole?) in Africa was not desirable. He preferred the US until very late in life where he had an epiphany and took himself to Ghana.

The point here being that Africa needed it's educated class more than any European country or the US. Yet here we have lefties, including a great number of so called "woke" black people who want to deprive the very black countries who need the expertise, their high IQ members. Why is that?

Back in 2013 I wrote about the then "scandal" in Italy about Cecile Kyenge:

Kyenge, 48, was born in Congo and moved to Italy three decades ago to study medicine. An eye surgeon, she lives in Modena with her Italian husband and two children.

So this woman left the Congo to study medicine and decided to stay put while...

I believe the above to be a bigger problem. Italy is not lacking for doctors of any kind. According to the US Global Health Policy website Italy has 35 Physicians per 10,000 persons. It has a ranking of 25 out of 145* putting it at the 82 percentile. Not bad at all. Where does the Congo place? 127 of 145*. That's the 12 percentile. Now you tell me, Who would be better served by Kyenge's considerable skills? Italy or the Congo?

and Kyenge is not an isolated case. You can go to many hospitals, particularly in large urban areas and see the sheer number of doctors and nurses hailing from "third world" countries where their skills are needed.

On top of that back in 2006 I noted a report on the financial cost of the African brain drain.

Africa spends US$4 billion per year, representing 35% of total official development aid to the continent, to employ some 100,000 Western experts.

These are recruited to perform functions generically described as 'technical assistance', which could have been done by African experts lost to the brain drain of the western world.

So woke Africans should agree with limiting the numbers of Africans allowed into the US. Such a limit would be a financial and technical boon to Africa. However; when one is stuck in "stick it to the white man" mentality, all you can see is "sticking it to the white man".

But this once again shows the clear racism of the left. Blacks cannot be expected to work on their own countries. They need to have white people scoop them up and transplant them to "magic dirt" that is white countries.

Not Helping Your Case

You know that point in an argument when the other party is so lost they start making arguments against their own arguments and they don't realize it. Here's The Independent. Where do we start?

Donald Trump prefers immigrants from Norway but more Americans move to Scandinavia than vice versa

That's the headline. So Americans are going to Norway instead of....Oh. I see.

In 2016, 895 people emigrated from the US to Norway, while only 502 went the other way, according to Statistics Norway.

So more Americans went to an even more white country than America than Norwegians went to a less white country. And this proves that...

An estimated 800,000 Norwegians moved across the Atlantic from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s

Yes and strangely, where they settled tend to vote Republican.

Wealth Inequality Simply Explained

It doesn't get much simpler than this. The problem with the left is that it mistakes "hours worked" for "hard work". It's not the same. You will see them say/write that a company needs to pay a "living wage" because if you work 40 hours a week saying "Hi how may I help you" you should be able to make $40-$50k.

It is similar to an argument I heard about the recent tax bill. Apparently we're supposed to be upset that business owners get tax deductions that employees do not get. Really.

Now I used to think that way until I started a business, in part to get the tax benefits. The one thing that many/most employees do not get about being a business owner is that the business owner gets paid last. The business owner has no guaranteed paycheck at the end of the week. If business sucks this week, the business owner doesn't get paid. But that person he hired to ring up the customers? They get their check, even if the business owner has to go to the bank and put up his last possession as collateral for a loan to make payroll.

Being an employee is low risk. Why shouldn't the person(s) who take the great personal risk not get a benefit for doing so? That said, I am of the strong belief that if one's business profitability is dependent upon the taxes [not] paid, then that business is in serious trouble. The IRS thinks so too because if you're running a loss year after year, they're going to be looking at you.

What Part of Temporary Do You Not Understand?

So one of NY Chanel 7's Sunday political shows discussed the ending of TPS status for El Salvadorians. This is not the link but it is the basis of the Sunday broadcast:

BRENTWOOD, Long Island (WABC) -- The Trump administration's decision to end special protections for about 200,0000 Salvadoran immigrants filled many Salvadoran families with dread Monday, raising the possibility that they will be forced to abandon their roots in the U.S. and return to a violent homeland they have not known for years, even decades.

So we can call Salvadore a hellhole rather than a shit hole? Besides, crime is not a natural disaster. It is a consequence of human activity. But this part about a "homeland they have not known for years" is of interest.

What should be an exciting time of life is now buried in a nightmare. His parents are from El Salvador. They have lived, worked, and paid taxes for the last 20 years with their temporary protected status. TPS protects them from deportation while allowing them to drive, and obtain a temporary social security card.

Why were this fellow's parents, and himself, in the country for 20 years on the basis of a temporary entrance? What part of temporary did they not understand? What part of temporary did the people running this system not understand. It was unfair to these Salvadorians to have been given the impression that this "temporary" status was anything but that. The only reason I can see for a 20 year "temporary status" would be for a nuclear meltdown on the level of Chernobyl. Even then, even though there is no returning to Chernobyl, the rest of the country is habitable. No, this TPS should have been able to be extended exactly 1 (one) time. Thats 4 years to work, save, wire transfer and plan for your return to your country. End of story. There should have been no way to take out loans, purchase property or in any way put down anything resembling roots anywhere.

But on Monday the Trump administration announced the end of TPS for Salvadoran immigrants, which means Rodman's parents could soon be deported and returned to their mother country, which is besieged by violence, high unemployment, and corruption.

Aside from describing some cities in America, how is that the problem of US Citizens? US Citizens had no hand in the violence. Nor did they create and maintain the corruption or lack of employment.

"My mom and dad, they consider themselves to be New Yorkers," said Rodman. "When they came to this country they were pursuing the American dream."

This statement again makes it clear that they were under the impression that they were in the US to stay. Whoever explained the TPS to them clearly gave them the impression that they had reached the "promised land" and that they were home free. What the Trump administration is doing is what should have been done in the beginning: Make it clear that residency is temporary.

To take them away from their homes, their families, their friends, it's immoral," said Rodman.

No, what is immoral is taking advantage of the generosity of US Citizens to provide shelter during a natural disaster and then refusing to leave.

Free Loading

From the http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html:

In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.

55%?

California allows over half of the people who arrived there to collect state assistance? Talk about wealth transfer. Why is this acceptable. And note that if an illegal immigrant comes in and has citizen children, the "children" can receive aid. And you know, if children are receiving aid, then the parents are, so the disbursements to non-citizens in California are even higher than this number.

Why is this acceptable? Why is it OK to import poverty and then spend millions, if not billions on transferring citizen wealth, via taxation to these persons? This doesn't even account for use of medical facilities, schools or strains on public utilities.

Native-Ism

Africa for the African.
Asia for the Asian.
Europe for the European.
and Palestine for the Jew.

-Marcus Garvey

If you are interested in the European then be for the European.
If you are interested in the Asian then be for the Asian.
I am interested in the African so I am for the African.

-Marcus Garvey.

The above is Garveyite Pan-Africanism in very short. This is the meaning behind the Red, Black and Green. If you claim the RBG and do not adhere to the above, then you are not a Garveyite and therefore should not be flying the RGB. This post isn't a discussion of what is or is not Garveyism, but rather what real, actual factual "Black Nationalism" is supposed to be about. When Garvey brought his brand of nationalism to the world stage he was very clear that the aims of that nationalism was to bring the African onto the world stage as an equal to all others. One of his aims was to end the exploitation of one group by another. His idea was that when a man (or group of people) are weak, they are likely to be predated upon. His idea was that the African doesn't become free and equal by guilting people into doing things forthem but by doing for self. This is encapsulated in the statement:

Anything one man has done you can do also.

Part of Garveyite philosophy as shown in the lead quotes is that the natives of a land have the rights to that land. They have the right to say what their culture is. Who gets to come. who should go and to have that society work for the interests of the natives of that land. Over the past decade or so, we have seen that many lefty people have denied one group their native status: The European.

If you are a Pan-Africanist of the Garvey variety, this should bother you. If Africa is for the African because the African is native to Africa, then Europe is for the European because he is native there. However; somehow the European is being dispossessed of claims to his very home:

In Collier’s own book on the subject, “Exodus,” he used the term “indigenous” British which Hasan, whose parents were from India, found deeply offensive...

Why does Hasan's opinion or feelings on the matter even matter. He is in fact NOT indigenous to England. He knows it too.

A less defensive Collier might have suggested that Europeans’ use of tribal nomenclature should be no more offensive than referring to descendents of America’s pre-Columbian inhabitants as indigenous peoples. Although in pushing for such claimed status, without evidence , Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, aka “Pocahontas,” might have unknowingly reinforced Hasan’s concerns that exclusion from “indigenous status” must incur some disadvantage. A cowed Professor Collier hesitatingly agreed that Hasan was indeed an “indigenous” Brit. [my underlines]

When a Brit has to apologize to a non-brit because he called the non-Brit exactly what he is, then you know you have reached a point in which you have lost your country. Many so called conscious black people like to quote Malcolm X in which he says that a kitten born in an oven is still a kitten rather than biscuits. You cannot agree with such a sentiment (that simply being born somewhere somehow magically transforms someone into a native of that place) as it applies to Africans (born in America) but then be offended when the same applies to others.

I have to say that I was pretty shocked to read that someone actually had to apologize to a foreigner for calling him what he was. We know full well that such a thing would not have happened in Japan, China, Africa or to a Native American talking about "pale face".