Search Box

Friday, July 3, 2015

"San Francisco pier shooting suspect has been deported 5 times"

An AP article which just came out stated that Francisco Sanchez "had seven felony convictions and had been deported five times, most recently in 2009."

My theory: Sanchez was just trying to resuscitate Donald Trump's Presidential campaign.

Sometimes succor can arrive in an unexpected form.


Anonymous said...

Well, I agree with Trump - there are criminal immigrants who should be deported from our country, but we have a government that refuses to remove these subhumans from our country. The government seems to care more about the illegal immigrants (and as far as I'm concerned most of these immigrants are here illegally, despite what our government say's) than the actual citizens of this country. I read about the young woman online, noting that the killer took off in an expensive car, so there may have been an agenda in this killing.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
Part of Trumps' problem -- beside being a blowhard -- is that he's too honest about certain things to be a politician.

The Obama administration doesn't want to have the illegals removed because it sees them as future Democrat voters.

Anonymous said...

How twisted people have become. Insanity is the rule of the day. I read about how the Democrats want the illegals to remain because they would make useful voters (learning this fact via another website, headed by your friend, J.T.).


High Arka said...

John, I appreciate your sentiment about "future Democrat voters," but I think that's completely missing the mark. America's elites have shown that the act of "voting" is such a charade that there is no need to import voters. The parties control which candidates are offered to the corporate media, the corporate media controls what people think about the offered candidates, the state education system ensures that people are, by and large, unable to critically assess either the candidates themselves, or the sham system itself...and even then, Americans keep electing Democrats through majority votes, even in situations (1988, 2000, and 2004) where a Republican has to be made faux-executive so that the invasion(s) of Iraq can be blamed on one "party" rather than the other.

Even when a Democrat is supposed to lose--some worthless, completely unlikable asshole like Gore or Kerry--Americans keep voting them in, and it takes vote fraud of some kind to make sure a "Republican" is acting as president during formal invasions.

Who the hell needs to import voters into that? Even now, Jeb Bush is criticizing Trump for daring to question immigration.

There are a lot of reasons to besiege America with immigrants. Drugs and murder, wages and economic destruction, and euthanasia for interest groups based on shared genetic values--certainly. But to obtain more pretend "votes" inside this rigged carnival? Doubtful. The Powers That Be will be able to continue appointing faux-executives of their choice, with or without another fifty million Hispanics voting for Democrats.

John Craig said...

High Arka --
Your overall viewpoint about this country is either more paranoid, or more sophisticated than mine -- I haven't decided which yet.

The first time i noticed widespread voter fraud in a Presidential election was in '08, and that was on the Democratic side. But I've long thought that the potential is there, especially with those Soros-produced voting machines which seemed to register the "wrong" vote so frequently in '08. And I've long assumed that most proxy votes for corporate elections are rigged. But '00 and '04, and for the Republicans? That's new to me. I certainly wouldn't deny that the possibility exists.

And I agree with your characterization of Gore and kerry, by the way.

Also, I don't think either party WANTS the drugs and murder and wage destruction. Then again, I'm not sure exactly what propelled the new Asian trade bill, either, and that's going to be very destructive to the middle class.

From what you've said in the past, you seem to think it's Jewish interests at the top of the economic and influence food chain that are dictating these events. I agree that the Jewish/Israeli lobby has far more influence on our Mideast policy than most suspect. And I'm aware that there are a lot of powerful Jews like Sheldon Adelman who help keep things that way. But purposely wanting to import murder and mayhem? I'm not with you there.

You see them as all-controlling Lord Voldemorts. I see them as a particularly powerful interest group.

Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

Good news. Government did its job in kicking him out 5 times.

Bad news. Government didn't prevent him entering 5 times.

John Craig said...

Andrea --

I tried to think of a witty retort that somehow related to your being such a movie buff, but drew a complete blank.

BTW, that list of albums you listened to most in high school really brought back memories.

High Arka said...


After the Cold War, the rather unpleasant CIA Bush was pitted against a completely unlikable, completely non-win-capable Dukakis. Why? Is it because the Democratic Party actually thought Dukakis had any redeeming qualities? No--it was because Iraq had to be invaded to replace Cold Wars with Terror Wars.

Once Iraq had been formally invaded, it was easy to let Americans elect Democrats again. So Bill Clinton runs against Bush--this "young, hip" guy who plays jazz. And at the same time, that weird little gremlin Perot shows up to ensure that Bush has zero chance of winning. In 1996, they choose an impotent, aging senator that no one likes (Dole) to lose to Clinton. Good grief...Dole was a complete unlikable schmuck, just like Kerry. The Republicans weren't even trying, anymore than when they ran McCain against Obama.

What happens for 8 years of "Democratic" rule? America continues fighting Iraq, but in a "soft" way. Weekly bombing, no fly zones, sanctions, inspections, etc. When Saddam threatens to switch away from dollar-based oil, the war suddenly needs to become hot. So, the Democratic Party chooses this completely unlikable loser named Gore, who is widely considered--even by the Democratic base and donors--as a droll, boring failure. And he still wins the election. Read Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Greg has the problem of seeming to think that Gore would've been a good president (he would've been terrible, just like Bush), but over a decade of investigation has now shown that Gore not only won the popular vote, but won Florida. Americans keep electing Democrats no matter what--so it's necessary to massage the vote in order to produce the occasional Republican president, who can start a "hot" war by actually re-invading Iraq.

And then Bush does his thing, yada yada, invades Iraq and Afghanistan, and after that's gone on, we have the big charade where Grandpa McCain pretends to be running against the "hip, young" Obama. Who promptly maintains the many "soft" wars that Bush has already started.

This process doesn't mean they're infallible Voldemorts. It's a minor marketing task, replacing one brand with another. By switching out executives like this, you get dozens of millions of liberals thinking, "Only Republicans start wars," and you get dozens of millions of conservatives thinking, "Only Democrats tax and spend."

It isn't just AIPAC et. al. that does this. As you've shown throughout your analysis of media portrayals of stuff like "gays" and "black violence rates," it's many different organizations that act in (relative) concert to keep this impression alive. Mass media, universities, public education, famous writers, and talking heads.

But it's not magical. It's not "too big of a conspiracy." It's as banal and predictable as a Stalinist purge or a "five year plan." Small-time businessmen in a family-owned company with yearly gross income of half a million can engage in complicated schemes to trick one another, manufacture votes, and come up with bullshit advertising campaigns. Why should it be unbelievable or impossible for different groups of businessmen to achieve similar ends when trillions of dollars are on the line?


John Craig said...

High Arka --
Okay, thank you for all that. It's a lot to process. Let me ponder. (And right now it's past the hour where I can do that.)

Runner Katy said...

Wow. I have thoroughly enjoyed these comments, and thank you, High Arka for twisting my thinking. It's not impossible to ponder that this is true. Also quite depressing to once again think that We the People have no say whatsoever (again).

Anonymous said...

I have heard about the Illuminati, questioning whether "The Powers That Be" makes up this secret society. What is their ultimate goal?

- birdie

Mark Caplan said...

Obama wants to screw over the white majority, which he feels he has many good reasons to hate: slavery, endemic and institutional racism, colonialism, imperialism, microaggressions, good hair. It's the rare black man who doesn't feel the same way.

Obama grew up as a member of the ruling elite in Third World sh*t holes and is trying to replicate the happy world of his father's in present-day America. This is normal, psychologically healthy ethnocentric solidarity. You'd expect a person of color to favor members of his own tribe over alien whites. Thomas Jefferson accurately predicted this long ago when he pondered what would happen if blacks were set free. He believed they would never forgive what whites had done to them.

John Craig said...

Mark --
That's a good analysis. (And, by logical extension, whites are a psychologically very unhealthy race. )