Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Chen who wrote (151033)	12/27/2002 1:27:24 PM
From: re3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

thanks...so anyway, which stocks should we be SHORT going into the new year ? -g- and where is HJ ???

To: John Chen who wrote (151033)	2/20/2003 8:03:16 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

An immigration dictatorship townhall.com Are democracies democratic? Or do elites determine political outcomes regardless of majority opinion? Look at last weekend's massive antiwar rally in London. Random interviews with participants revealed that many were first-time marchers who were protesting not merely war, but Prime Minister Blair's habit of running roughshod over British opinion. Marchers oppose Blair going to war against Iraq without a vote. But they also oppose Blair cramming massive Third World immigration down their throats and signing away British sovereignty to the European Union. No longer perceived as "New Labour," Blair is now perceived as an anti-democrat who is a threat to British identity. In a recent report from the Center for Immigration Studies, Roy Beck and Steven Camarota document an equally large divergence between elite and public opinion in the United States. The gap is enormous on immigration. The latest national poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations found that 60 percent of the American public regard the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States." In contrast, only 14 percent of elites -- members of Congress, the administration, leaders of church groups, business executives, union leaders, journalists, academics and heads of major interest groups -- share the public's concern. The poll indicates that the public and the elites do not have the same appreciation of citizenship and commitment to protecting American identity. Seventy percent of the public believes that reducing illegal immigration should be a very important foreign policy goal of the United States. Only 22 percent of elites believe that the high rate of illegal immigration is a problem. Beck and Camarota report: "It is a well established fact in public opinion polling that most Americans for nearly all of the last quarter century have desired reductions in legal and illegal immigration. However, in general, federal lawmakers have moved in the opposite direction of their constituents' desires, continually raising the numerical level of legal immigration and failing to take steps to reduce illegal migration." Even post-Sept. 11 after illegal immigrants destroyed the World Trade Center towers, a section of the Pentagon and thousands of American lives, the political leadership of both parties continues to advocate and legislate policies that increase the flow of immigration into the United States. Both Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., and President George Bush support amnesties for illegal aliens. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., pushed a bill through the House Judiciary Committee that permits non-citizen criminals to remain in the United States. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, support in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Senate Democrats inserted into the Homeland Security bill provisions that permit immigrants claiming asylum to be paroled into the United States before their claims to asylum are verified. Our elected representatives' actions to increase immigration are a slap in the face to those 82 percent of the electorate who desire the opposite. President Bush continues to favor amnesty for illegals despite the fact that 70 percent of the public gives him low scores on the immigration issue. Mass immigration into Great Britain has unleashed germ warfare on the British people, sharply pushing up HIV, TB and hepatitis B infection rates. According to official government figures, immigration has resulted in more than doubling the number of HIV cases. When Anthony Browne, the Environmental Editor of the London Times, reported these facts recently, British elites denounced him as a racist guilty of purveying "naked hatred." In Britain, it is becoming impossible to report factually on immigration's results. Scotland Yard, the British equivalent to the FBI, now has a Diversity Directorate. The Diversity Directorate's job is to intimidate people from complaining about immigration and newspaper reporters from reporting immigrant crime. In Blair's Britain, a factual statement about immigrants can make a person guilty of "inciting racial hatred," thereby violating the Public Order Act. Will the Diversity Directorate pick up Tony Blair for inciting hatred against Saddam Hussein, hatred that is bound to spill over onto Muslims in general? Isn't inciting war against minorities worse than reporting facts on immigrant crime and infectious disease? In the meantime, ask yourself: What sort of government do we have? Is our government a democratic dictatorship in which we elect our own dictators?