Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Inside the minds of Chris Matthews and Marco Rubio

As if to prove that even a jackass can change his stripes, MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews spoke out about Obama recently, and set a tone that should be studied by every conservative looking to make further inroads into Democrat power. Click the link and watch the video.

“As a campaigner, he {Obama} did nothing but talk about what a great country this is, what an exceptional country this is, because a guy like me made it here, and only in a country like this could I have made it. He was very patriotic, very inclusive, and he was very interactive in an interesting way. Ever since he’s been President, he’s been elitist, and he’s come with his teleprompter, and he’s given his speech. He hasn’t listened, he’s talked at us rather than with us…I think he hasn’t explained himself. Lincoln had to explain the civil war, ‘darn it’, Roosevelt had to explain everything to us…”

To put this into perspective, remember that this is the same Chris Matthews who got “a tingle up my leg” every time Obama spoke during his campaign.

As a friend of mine responded, Matthews “is still a jackass”. Sure, he was born a jackass and will die one as well, I’m sure. But this moment of clarity reveals that even a lifelong, card-carrying jackass can still love his country and appreciate a leader who expresses his belief in American Exceptionalism. And this is a fundamental and vital realization; if Chris Matthews, who is indubitably a spokesman for the rabid left, can recognize that there is such a thing as “American Exceptionalism”, and hearing his leaders speak of it causes a “tingle”, then there is common ground from which to work with these guys.

The trick is to plant a “worm of doubt” in the minds of these liberals that will eat away at some of their core beliefs.

The fundamental problem with Liberals is not that they don’t love America, but that they don’t necessarily love America for what it is; instead they love an idea of what American could become, if only they were able to “fundamentally transform” her—as candidate Obama promised to do.

Liberals believe that they have been enlightened by their education (and their astute powers of reasoning and heightened tolerance) to recognize the gross historical errors in America’s past. They see first, and foremost, the wrongs committed during the formative American years: slavery and the mistreatment of African Americans (among others), the genocidal wars against the American Indians, the internment of the Japanese, as proof positive of an ugly side of America. And more importantly, they see themselves as the moral champions of the underprivileged.

They therefore want to believe that, had they been alive “back then”, they would have been abolitionists. They would have spoken out to defend the Native Americans. They would have marched in Selma, held hands with the civil rights leaders, and opposed the internment of the Japanese. Never mind that the Republican party was the party that liberated the slaves, and it’s convenient to their belief system to forget how many Democrats opposed the civil rights movement; it is better to believe that the Democrat party is what Jack Kennedy and LBJ made of it, and the rest can be ignored through the willful myopia of Liberal idealism.

The "worm of doubt" that I mentioned can only be planted by subtle means. Conservatives want to crow loudly that America is the best country in the world, a notion that immediately smacks up against the Liberal “insight” into America’s many flaws. From that moment on, they reach for their blinders and ear plugs and will not hear another word, no matter how true.

What must be accomplished is to communicate to these individuals the notion that America is not great in spite of its many flaws, but precisely because America has proven itself capable of overcoming its flaws, of performing a national soul-searching, and not because a few “enlightened” geniuses like Chris Matthews brow beat the American people. Martin Luther King did not fundamentally transform race relations in the country by deriding America, or insulting the American people; he led by example, peacefully marching and letting the most radical, hateful section of the country heap abuse upon his people. It was the dignified and stalwart example he and his followers set that implanted a “worm of doubt” in the minds of white America and that, in turn, caused them to doubt the moral justification for their behavior. The change this caused was profound and permanent. This was Liberalism at its best, and it was tested when, after the 9/11 attacks, Americans went about trying to defend their homeland from Muslim extremists without re-implementing the internment camps that would have been created just 60 years before.

I believe we have witnessed another voice call out from the wilderness who may very well represent the next stage in the national evolution. Senator-elect Marco Rubio’s victory speech contained profound wisdom that should be studied next to Chris Matthew’s fleeting admission.

“Now let me tell you that there are those out there who doubt about the greatness of America. Sometimes when I say it, I hear the snickers from some in different parts, they think it’s simplistic. But you see, I know America’s great, not because I read about it in books, but because I’ve seen it with my eyes. I’ve been raised in a community of exiles, of people who lost their country, of people who know what it’s like to live somewhere else…a community of men and women that were once my age, and when they were they had dreams like we have now, and yet they lost all those things through an accident of history. And so they came here, to try to rebuild their lives. And some did. But many others could not. And instead it became the purpose of their lives to leave their children with the opportunities that they themselves did not have. This is the story of the Cuban exile community. And it defines what so many of us who are a product of it are. And I know this: no matter where I go, or what title I achieve, I will always be the son of exiles.”

Rubio’s eloquent soliloquy is brilliant. He has, in one succinct paragraph, addressed the “snickers” of the Liberals who receive the notion of American Exceptionalism and greatness as “simplistic”, while immediately reminding us all that America is not great because of a mythical promise of success to all, because not all will enjoy immediate success. It is great because it offers a possibility of success and renewal, it is a place where communities of exiles can reestablish themselves, lay down new roots, and achieve great accomplishments and success if they accept the challenge and struggle for the opportunity.

He acknowledged that his success came at the sacrifice of those before him, a sacrifice that bore with it great sadness and suffering, yet it was sacrifice gladly given by a noble people who understood that their sacrifice should not be judged by what they received from it, but rather by what they gave to their children, and to future generations.

This was the same sacrifice that Martin Luther King and the real civil rights leaders clung to; knowing that although they themselves might not reach the Promised Land, they would willingly give a pound of flesh so that their progeny might someday reap the rewards.

As Matthews stated, Obama himself acknowledged during his campaign that he could not have accomplished great things in other countries. There has never been a black prime minister of England, nor a black president of France, nor of Germany. But there is now a black president of the United States of America. There have been multiple Cuban senators. And someday, there very well may be a Cuban president.

And this is what is great about America: not that it is, but that it is possible here.

In America, we are all "sons of exile".

Monday, October 11, 2010

Obama, Cain, and Jesus: A parable of confused morals.

I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, so I rarely delve into any type of religious topic. If you had read my previous article about the attacks on Christianity, you might have come to the conclusion that I’m religious. I’m not.

As an agnostic, I’m really not even a person who calls himself a Christian—although I was raised by a Christian mother—nor a “person of faith”—a failing my wife often criticizes and suggests that I work on getting a little more faith.

But I don’t disrespect anyone for their religious beliefs. As an agnostic, who can’t lean on a “faith” to get me through troubling times, I rather envy anyone with faith. And, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.”

Which brings me back to Obama. Yes, you knew I’d get there eventually, right?

While I agree with Jefferson’s statement that “{Religion is} a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle”, I can’t help but contemplate our current president’s odd expressions of “faith”. I rather preferred Obama’s previous lack of religious expression to his recent proclamation of faith in Christianity.

Apparently responding to polls suggesting that over 20% of Americans think Obama is a Muslim pretending to be a Christian, Obama publicly stated that he “came to Christianity as an adult”, and was attracted to certain aspects of the religion, although admittedly not all. Now, myself being an agnostic who can’t blindly believe that Jesus was “the Son of God”, I understand his sentiment; I nevertheless don’t judge Obama for not being able to believe the Christian dogma part and parcel. But unlike Obama, I won’t call myself a Christian just because I like “certain parts” of the religion. There is at least one core part of the religion you have to believe or you simply are not Christian: that Jesus was God on earth and he died for our sins to give us eternal life. It’s great if you agree that we should love our neighbor, but if you don’t believe that Jesus is God, you really have no business claiming to be “a Christian”…especially if you only do it in election years!

Many conservatives have already spoken or written at length about that topic, so I won’t delve into it deeply. But there was a statement Obama made that really caught my attention. Remember when he said that he liked that part in Christianity about “being your brother’s keeper”? That was a statement he quoted often during the healthcare debate. When asked about his Christian faith, Obama told the LA Times:

“The precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brother's and sister's keeper, treating others as they would treat me.”

I haven’t read the Bible lately, but of course all those years of having my mother drag me to church had some benefit, because I realized that the quote Obama spewed out wasn’t a quote from Jesus…it was actually Cain who said it after he’d murdered his brother. Genesis 4:9.

Cain and Abel, sons of the original Adam, were promised to marry twin sisters. Abel was to wed the more attractive of the two, and Cain was envious. He argued with his father and brother and in order to settle the quarrel, Adam arranged for Cain to make a sacrifice to God, to see what God’s response was. God rejected the sacrifice, which was an indication that he disagreed with Cain’s argument. So angered by these events, Cain murdered his brother. In some versions, he did it with the jawbone of an ass. (Is it wrong to note that the ass is the emblem of Obama’s Democrat party?)

Returning to Obama’s statement, the last part of it does, in fact, sound like something Jesus is quoted as saying. “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 5:43. But even then, Jesus was repeating a quotation of the Hebrew Torah, from Leviticus.

Still, there something profoundly ironic about Obama misquoting Cain’s smart-Alec response to God’s query “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain responds: “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”. A holistic examination of Obama’s statement of faith reveals that he has conflated Cain’s disrespectful response to God with the advice given by Jesus! He has somehow joined the concept of “treating others as you would have them treat you”, and the story about the first fratricide in recorded history, and concluded that they contain the same moral.

What does that say about his adherence to Christianity? Did he learn this from Reverend Wright?

A short period after Obama misquoted the Bible, he stood before an audience, attempting to persuade voters in the upcoming November elections to support his party, when his Presidential Seal fell off the podium.

If I were superstitious (I’m not, but it’s amusing to think about this from the perspective of how the ancients might have read the signs), I might consider that an ill omen portending tragedy for Obama…the equivalent of God rejecting Cain’s sacrifice, as it were.

Think of it this way: Cain slew Abel out of envy. God did not consent to grant Cain’s greedy demand to be given the more attractive wife, so Cain murdered his brother in a jealous rage.

What’s ironic is that Obama, with his class warfare rhetoric, sows the seeds of envy among millions every time he promotes his notion of social justice and redistributive policies, and then ends up trying to prove his adherence to Christianity, but in so doing, quotes Cain instead of Jesus. It’s bizarre but fitting.

So do I think that, when the Presidential Seal fell from the Podium, it was God's way of telling us that He had rejected Obama’s Presidency?

I guess I’ll have to consider that as a “matter of faith.”

Friday, October 8, 2010

A Christian strikes back: Kathleen Folden was right

On Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010, Kathleen Folden entered the Loveland Museum/Gallery with a crowbar hidden on her person and destroyed part of Enrique Chagoya’s lithograph “The Misadventures of the Romantic Cannibals.” Witnesses claimed that, as she destroyed the piece, she asked, “how can you desecrate my Lord?” Afterward she was arrested, and as she was led away she reportedly stated to reporters: “Remember; God is real.”

On Friday, Oct. 8, the Denver Post compared Folden’s attack on the lithograph to the Taliban’s destruction of monumental statues of Buddha. Readers left similar comments on the Post website.

One attempted to claim that Christians have somehow decided to embrace the fanaticism of Muslims who defend their religion with violence: “I think all the funny business over that fat pastor threatening to burn the Koran, and the ensuing sanctimony of Muslims, has influenced Christians, this lady specifically, to embrace Islam.”
Another directly accused Folden of terrorism: “The woman is a terrorist, plain and simple. She executed pre-meditated terrorism and carried out the plot. The Taliban has come to America disguised as Christianity.”

The Post interviewed Adam Lerner, director of the Denver Museum of Contemporary Art, who said, “I really hope this doesn’t create any kind of precedent.”

It is very easy to understand how this event could shock liberals who cannot comprehend how a sane person could possibly be motivated enough to drive from her Montana home to Loveland, Colorado, in order to destroy a piece of art. To these people, the fact that the so-called “art” depicted Jesus Christ’s head on a woman’s body with another man apparently performing oral sex on Christ should not be good enough reason for such a horrendous response.

The anger and apparent offense they express give me the impression that they feel victimized by a particularly brutal form of secular blasphemy.

This is easily understood, as the very first amendment to our beloved constitution defends the individual’s right to freedom of expression, and we all would agree that even obscene and offensive forms of expression are to be tolerated.

Interestingly, however, we must for a moment remember that not all expression is protected. Just as one cannot call out “FIRE” in a crowded theater, because it creates a safety risk, Liberals have also passed a number of laws denoting “protected status” on certain groups within our society, and identifying certain types of speech that are felonious “hate crimes”.

From this reasoning, it is understood that a black man who punches a white racist who called him “N-----” has committed a lesser offense than the man who was “expressing himself” with that hateful term. A homosexual who defends himself after being called a “queer” or “fag” would be defended as being “in the right”.

And as Mr. Lerner indicated, an isolated event is not as worrisome as a “precedent” indicating the start of a trend. If only one white person were to have ever called a black person the “N” word, then it would not be such an offensive situation, would it? But when we consider the greater history around that word, and the litany of offenses and crimes associated with the kind of hate the word represents, then we understand that the black man struck the offending racist not because of one word, but because it was the tipping point in a series of offenses that pushed him over the edge.

Perhaps it’s time to examine the long list of offenses perpetrated by the “art world” and defended by the liberal mindset that has finally driven Christians to the point of violent reaction. I don’t even have to search very far. Anti-Christian sentiment is inspiring violent vandalism against Christian buildings and symbols. Virgin Mary statues were destroyed in Boston, Mass. and in Leadville Colorado. One man, Jay Scott Balinger, admitted to between 30 and 50 Church arsons across various states. You might think this sort of serial-arsonist would be accused of hate crimes, and that his crimes would have garnered national attention. But he wasn’t, and they didn’t.

The disrespectful representation of Christ in the Chagoya painting was not an isolated incident. This was just one more in a series of highly offensive and religiously blasphemous artistic expressions designed specifically to insult Christians. Here’s a short list: The “Piss Christ” sculpture by Andre Serrano. “Corpus Christi”, by Adam Cullen. “The Ninth Hour”, by Maurizio Cattelan. “Bearded Orientals: Making of the Empire Cross”, by Priscilla Bracks.

The fashion to insult Christians goes beyond the plastic arts. Plays that portray the Christian Prophet as a homosexual have been staged for the sole purpose of inciting the Christians for their opposition to gay marriage and other aspects of “the homosexual agenda”. At Mount Hope Church in Lansing, Michigan, gay activists interrupted a church service by yelling “Bash back!” outside the church and screaming “Jesus was a homo” through a megaphone.

So yes, there has been a precedent set, but it is not the one that Mr. Lerner feared. To the contrary, the precedent has been that, while Liberals clamor to show respect to Islam and all Muslims, they participate in a hateful orgy of insulting, degrading, attacking and offending Christians. Perhaps this is why so many of their attacks are tinged with vulgar sexual and scatological references.

One Denver Post reader stated the obvious: “To the extent that the Loveland art was an attack on Christians, it provoked an in-kind response. Some jurisdictions recognize the concept of 'fighting words' in inciting violence. The Loveland art was the lithographic equivalent of 'fighting words'. If this were a black man smashing art that contained race controversy, DP bloggers would be expressing a very different viewpoint.”

Many Christians will publicly state that they wish she had not resorted to vandalism. But we must face the fact that the onslaught against Christians has been going on for decades in this country and has pushed them to a tipping point. With both cheeks already battered and torn, who can reasonably expect them to accept one offense after another without striking back?

Kathleen Folden, unlike the Taliban and other Muslim extremists, did not bomb a building, or torch a church, or stab an artist to death. Like Jesus overthrowing the carts of the money changers in the temple, she has simply destroyed one lithograph that was, without any doubt, a hateful expression against her religion. She will bear the burden of fines and a criminal record. But she will also be able to proudly declare that she fought back against hateful indecency.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Immigrant riots and the Rodriguez film, "Machete"

In a previous article, I discussed the new Robert Rodriguez movie, “Machete”, that was released in theaters this month, and the concerns many people (including myself) had based upon the information we had obtained about the film. Claiming to have received a script from the movie, Infowars’ Alex Jones and Aaron Dykes warned the public that Rodriguez had created a script that was contaminated with an anti-white, racist theme and encouraged Hispanics—especially illegal immigrants—to rise up against their perceived oppressors (white Americans) and fight them to the death.

In their September 5th article, “’Machete’ producers lied about racist bloodbath”, Jones and Dykes explain that, after having viewed the film, they concluded that their analysis was correct. When Rodriguez had been confronted about the reports of a racist and violent “call to arms” against whites, he admitted in an interview with Ain’t it Cool News that he had “had too much tequila” and that the script would be changed. However, after viewing the screen, Jones and Dykes claim that everything they had warned about from the pre-release script was still within the film “in one form or another”. In conclusion, Jones and Dykes stated that the most offensive and dangerous aspect of the film “was the one-sided approval of Hispanic revenge killings while uniformly demonizing the actions of the white groups involved.”

As Jones warned, Rodriquez’s irresponsible screenplay risked flaming tensions and inspiring waves of violence in the country as it spread the false impression that all whites—and especially the authorities—are racist murderers who gleefully kill Hispanics out of hate. Liberals, and especially Rodriguez, deny this and either can’t imagine how their propaganda films will have any impact on society, or (and more cynically) they do in fact know how their films may inspire a violent reaction, and actually hope it does.

As if to prove their point, riots have broken out in Los Angeles this week after LAPD officers fatally shot a drunk “immigrant” with a knife who allegedly attacked officers. Without getting too deeply into the details, reports on the incident indicate that officers on bicycles responded to a citizen report that “a man was threatening people with a knife.” Three officers responded and, as they approached the subject with the knife, he refused to put down orders issued in Spanish and English to drop the knife. Instead, the officers report that the suspect raised the knife over his head and lunged at an officer. The officer fired his weapon and killed the Guatemalan “day-laborer”.

In response to the shooting, the mostly Hispanic neighborhood has erupted in violence. Local Hispanics interviewed by the AP were quoted as saying “Killing a drunk isn’t right”, claiming that the man was “a drunk” but was “not violent”. Others are infuriated and demand that “the officer who did this should be subject to discipline”.

At least four individuals have now been arrested for the misdemeanor crime of “inciting a riot”. Hundreds of others have engaged in protests, at times turning violent. Police have arrested a total of 22 people, as of Tuesday night.

It would be a reach to presume that “Machete” had any influence in these events, but it is worth investigating. After all, the drunk Hispanic immigrant engaged in his threatening behavior on the same weekend “Machete” was released, as did the subsequent violence. Were any of these “immigrants” influenced by the message in “Machete”?

Whether or not “Machete” had any influence on these events is questionable. But one must ask the reasonable question: if a Guatemalan illegally entered Mexico and, in a drunken rage, threatened the lives of Mexican police, would locals riot and demand that the officers be punished for defending their own lives while restoring order?

The answer seems obvious, doesn’t it?

Thursday, July 15, 2010

The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 1)

Barack Obama’s charismatic performance during the 2008 electoral campaign was, to many, electrifying and highly exciting. His ability at eloquent oration, contrasted to former President Bush’s down-home style punctuated by frequent errors, was especially impressive, and led many people to suspend rational thought and analysis and come to the absurd conclusion held by historian Michael Beschloss, that Obama’s IQ was “off the charts”. Beschloss even went so far in his schoolgirl-giddiness to assert that Obama was “probably the smartest guy ever to become President.” Never mind that it was inevitably revealed that the teleprompter was to Obama what wax wings were for the mythological Daedalus. Remove the teleprompter…and Obama’s wings melt. It’s great entertainment to watch him crash to earth.

A year and a half into the presidency, Americans have caught on, and are increasingly disturbed by the absurd positions the administration has adopted. No longer appearing to be the great intellect many once believed him to be, Obama now appears incurably befuddled.

There is no issue that better highlights the administration’s contradictory and nonsensical folly, than the quandary in which it finds itself regarding the Arizona immigration bill, SB1070.

We all would do well to recall that Arizona passed SB1070 in response to unacceptable crime rates within the state connected to illegal immigration, and about which the Federal Government was simply not responding. The Government has, for several decades now, failed to fulfill its responsibility to secure the borders and to process the millions of immigrants who flaunt federal immigration laws. So the Arizona legislature carefully authored SB1070, with the specific intent of allowing local law enforcement to help enforce federal law. The law was in no way written to change, alter, or counteract federal law.

What’s more, out of concern that local law enforcement, while attempting to enforce the law, might violate the civil rights of citizens, the authors carefully stated in multiple locations that racial profiling was prohibited, and that officers could only request proof of citizenship when 1) the persons questioned had already been detained for other legal police matters, and 2) there were grounds for suspicion that the persons questioned were not US citizens.

The law was very carefully designed to support the federal laws, and to help federal agents to enforce the law, and not to undermine it.

High ranking members of the Obama administration could not even wait until they had actually read the bill before maligning it publicly. Department of Justice Attorney General Eric Holder was caught out while giving testimony before congress and had to admit that he had not read the law he was criticizing. The same embarrassment befell Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, and Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who went so far as to compare the Arizona law to Chinese human rights offenses.

It was no surprise when Attorney General Holder announced that he was filing suit to block the Arizona law. What was surprising was that the reason given had little to do with the concern about civil rights violations: the Obama administration’s position was that the Arizona law “interfered with” the Federal Government’s authority to regulate immigration.

There can be no doubt that the conflict between Arizona and the Obama administration will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, where Obama is going to have great difficulty convincing the Supreme Court that a state law that strengthens and supports federal law, somehow preempts the federal law. Consider marijuana laws as an analogy. There are federal laws that make growing, selling or distributing marijuana a crime. If a state passes laws that prohibit the growing, selling or distributing of marijuana and allows local police to enforce the law, they have not preempted the federal law, but have simply supported it. The Arizona immigration law does exactly that.

Click HERE to Read Part II

The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Part 2)

Evidence for the befuddled, confused and contradictory opinions on immigration within the Obama administration can be found by a cursory examination of their actions taken since the issue arose.

In the midst of Obama Administration vs Arizona immigration law battle, Obama appointed Harold Hurtt to head up the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of State and Local Coordination. Hurtt is a former police Chief in Houston and Phoenix, and is a supporter of “sanctuary city” policies.

Sanctuary cities are those municipalities that “that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.”

That is to say, that the governments of cities have made the decision unilaterally to ignore federal law and to prohibit their officials from enforcing them. These laws were a response by liberals within local governments to reject the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, under which a number of crimes became grounds for deportation.

As an example, The 1979 Los Angeles policy stated: “Officers shall not arrest, nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code”

To put it quite simply, being in the country illegally was already grounds for deportation, but the 1996 law specified that illegal immigrants who committed additional crimes locally should be arrested, held in custody, and then reported to ICE for deportation. The sanctuary city proponents like Mr. Hurtt, realizing that they could gain political power by courting the Hispanic vote, rebelled against the federal law and declared that they would not assist the Federal Government. What’s more, they actively prohibited police from asking questions about residency status and reporting them to ICE.

Many illegal immigrant criminals have been released because of these policies, and US citizens have become victims of their crimes as a result.

At about the same time Obama was appointing a “sanctuary city” proponent to head up ICE, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with Obama in the White House, and they shared their opinions about the law. Brewer got Obama to agree to send National Guard troops to the border—but only 1,200 of them—and said his administration would contact her in two weeks to inform her of his decision whether or not so sue Arizona. Weeks passed, and still no one from the White House had contacted the Governor’s office.

To the contrary, word of the suit was leaked to the press by Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Ecuador, infuriating Governor Brewer due to the lack of protocol and disrespect. “"If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is {to} inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation," she said.

Insult was added to injury when Arizona Senator Kyl demanded an audience with Obama. In a meeting with his constituents after that one-on-one discussion, Kyl revealed that Obama had explained his unwillingness to help Arizona: “The problem is, if we secure the border, then you all {the Republicans} won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform…In other words, they're holding it hostage."

He later responded to Obama’s speech calling for immigration reform by declaring: “All Americans would be better served if this Administration focused on implementing proven border security solutions rather than engaging in demagoguery and criticizing states that have been left to enforce immigration law because of the federal government’s unwillingness to do so.”

Taken together, we now see that while Obama publicly declares that he takes national security seriously, and agrees that the problem of illegal immigration should be solved, his actions reveal that he is more focused on winning votes from the Hispanic constituency instead of protecting the rest of the citizens. While he threatens to sue Arizona for passing a law that supports Federal Law, he then appoints a man who supports laws that undermine federal immigration laws to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. And when confronted in the Oval Office by Senator Kyl, Obama reveals that he recognizes the scope and severity of the crisis in Arizona, but will not act to protect US citizens because to do so would be to give up political leverage that would win him electoral support from the Hispanic voters.

Obama’s focus is not on fulfilling his duties to protect the American citizenry, but rather, to protect and defend his own political career.

Click HERE to read the Conclusion

The Astigmatic Ideology of the Obama Presidency (Conclusion)

The reality of the Presidency seems to be a major inconvenience to Obama, and complaints about the problems he “inherited” have become a rather tedious mantra emanated from the White House. Economic crises, two wars, terrorism, difficult healthcare policies, financial reform, a pestilent immigration issue boiling up at the wrong moment—and then the BP oil spill. Anyone with eyes not clouded by cult-like adoration for Obama could see that he failed to show leadership during more than two months as the spill worsened.

As the BP oil disaster unfolded, Obama found himself desperate to regain the appearance of being “in charge” after weeks of incompetence. He proudly declared that he was sending 17,000 troops to the Gulf of Mexico to help with the cleanup.

This pronouncement appeared to have perplexed a number of officials, such as Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. His spokesman, Dan Turner, said “We just don’t have a need for them right now.” Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, director of the public affairs with the Florida National Guard, seemed to have no idea what their mission was, and struggled to speak supportively: “While there is a challenge to determine which mission we may be called for, we continue to plan for potential missions.” In other words: we have no idea what we’re going to be doing, but we’ll try to be ready.

Only weeks before, Arizona Governor Brewer had reacted to an issue of National Security, decrying the drug-related violence occurring across the border was spilling over to Arizona, and that an uncontrolled flow of illegal immigrants was wreaking havoc in her state, and she had contacted the White House to request that National Guard troops be sent to secure our borders and protect our citizen.

The President’s response: a law suit against the laws she had passed to try to protect her citizens, and a hollow promise to send a measly 1,200 troops.

But when Obama needed to appear decisive after his clumsy handling of the Gulf disaster, he ordered 17,000 troops to go there, without a clear mission. Yet again, political expediency trumps National Security.

With uncanny timing, a new report surfaced that tied the international terrorist organization, Hezbollah, to the Mexican drug cartels and illegal immigration. This national security threat is not new. The government has known for years that Mexican coyotes have helped members of violent gangs, such as MS13, and leftist organizations, such as the FMLN, enter the country. MS13 gang members were once caught helping to smuggle an al Qa’eda agent into the country. But the latest information did connect Hezbollah to the Mexican drug cartels and the expanding violence in Mexico that is spilling over the border, and should have been a clarion call to the White House to take the issue more seriously. It should have reiterated to the White House that Governor Brewer’s impassioned cries for help were warranted, and a real response required.

Instead, the White House proceeded with their lawsuit, and continued to ignore the Governor.

Realizing that the Federal Government was determined to undermine SB1070 on the grounds that it “interfered” with (or “preempted") Federal authority to make and enforce immigration law, Governor Brewer brilliantly countered by challenging the government to sue all sanctuary cities.

The administration’s response was stunning: the Federal Government sees no need to sue sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, while it considers SB1070 to be unconstitutional because it “actively interferes” with enforcement.

Tracy Schmaler, the spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law."

The statement is absurd. As previously discussed, sanctuary cities did not “passively” ignore the federal laws; they actively order their law enforcement to disregard it. In many cities, the District Attorneys actively lowered charges to lesser ones that would not require deportation—but did so only for illegal immigrants, and not for US citizens facing identical charges. How can it possibly be constitutional for cities to enact policies that give greater rights and protections to non-citizens than it gives to citizens?

Far from being “passive”, the sanctuary city laws directly undermined the intent of the Federal Immigration law, as was pointed out by the author of the 1996 law, Rep. Lamar Smith.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd... Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000?"
Take Rep. Smith’s analogy further: suppose Jackson Mississippi decided that it would passively ignore federal discrimination and desegregation laws. Would the Federal Government allow that to happen?

In California, there is a proposition up for a vote that would make the possession and sale of marijuana legal, in direct conflict with Federal laws. Will the Federal Government ignore this?

The attentive observer, carefully examining the details of the Obama administration’s policies, cannot help but notice the self-evident contradictions. A state law passed to mirror federal law and help in enforcement is criticized for “interfering” with enforcement, while policies enacted to ignore federal law and undermine the intent of the law is overlooked. A national security crisis on our border that calls for federal assistance is mocked, ignored, and then given short shrift, while a political crisis in the Gulf is given the troops needed at the border, even though the Gulf state authorities said they didn’t need the troops, and there was no clear sense of mission for them.

President Obama, once believed to possess astonishing clarity, instead suffers from an ideological astigmatism that prevents him from focusing on the country’s real needs, or the requirements of his office. Protecting the nation, securing its integrity, is the President’s primary responsibility, and not an annoying chore that the president can simply choose to ignore for political expediency.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Newsflash: Arizona NOT a border state

OK, well this may explain why Democrats don't understand why Arizona passed SB 1070. A Wisconsin county supervisor states that Arizona is not a border state...according to her, it's "removed from the border". She deserves to be removed from her office for her ignorance.

Meanwhile, we are finding out that there is a nexus between Hezbollah and the Mexican drug gangs...

You'd think this intel would inspire the Federal Govt--that would be Obama--to take our border issues seriously, as a matter of national defense.

But no. This week Obama met with Arizona Senator Kyle, who reports in this video that Obama refuses to seal the border until the Republicans agree to work with him for "immigration reform"...also known as "AMNESTY".

And finally, Dear Leader Obama decided to appoint a Sanctuary City kook to head ICE.

"The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration
enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between
federal and local officials on the issue.

Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. a police chief, Hurtt was a supporter of "sanctuary city" policies, by which illegal immigrants who don't commit crimes can live without fear of exposure or detainment because police don't check for immigration papers. "

What other evidence do you need to prove that the Democrats are out of touch...and are just plain stupid?

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Corruption investigation brewing: Obama in trouble?

As Obama’s presidency falters, with his popularity ratings crashing (latest polls have him between 42% and 48% as of May 26th, 2010), it is becoming increasingly clear that the regime must take steps to forestall a slaughter at the polls in the upcoming November elections that could see the Democrats lose control of one or both houses of Congress.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, and there is a growing pattern that suggests that someone within the Obama administration has been trying to tinker with local elections by offering jobs to entice Democrat candidates to withdraw from primaries in order to shore up the candidates the Whitehouse prefers. This is a crime under federal law, and could explode into a major issue for Obama. More seriously, if Obama knew of the effort, it would be an impeachable offense—and you can bet your boots and saddle that if the Republicans managed to take control of the House or Senate, there will be hearings to investigate the charges.

Even the major national media—generally left leaning and eager to ignore any blemishes on their beloved president—is beginning to notice. The most widely reported scandal involves Joe Sestak, who has publicly and repeatedly claimed that he was offered a job by the Whitehouse if he would withdraw from the race against Arlen Specter (the former Republican who realized he could not beat the Republican challenger in a runoff so he agreed to switch parties and vote for Obama’s Healthcare plan, in exchange for Obama’s support in the upcoming election). Sestak rejected the job offer, ran against Specter, and beat him. But now his public comments about the job offer are creating a maelstrom.

The dodgy offer was not a single event, however. The Colorado gubernatorial race also saw some of the attention, when Democratic candidate Andrew Romanoff received a call from Obama’s deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, who allegedly offered a job at USAID. Unlike Sestak, Romanoff mentioned names and the offered job, lending even more credibility to the allegation.

Remember that Obama also tried to push New York Democratic Governor Patterson to step out of the race, a third indication that, in these desperate times, the Whitehouse is eager to meddle in local elections in order to shore up its support.

Those are just three examples, each supporting the notion that the Obama Whitehouse may be violating federal law in order to maintain its power. Democrats in Congress are rejecting requests (by Republicans Issa & Steele, as well as Democrat Dick Durban) to answer questions or open a probe.

But this is precisely the kind of issue that can work against Obama in the mid-term elections, and should Republicans take power of Congress, Obama almost certainly will find himself being investigated and probed by Republicans at the same time he will have to prepare for the 2012 election.

Even MSNBC's Joe Scarborough is wading in now, accusing the media of "media malpractice" for not taking this issue more seriously. Uh-Oh-bama! If you are even losing your traditional lapdog media you know you are in real trouble!!!
Good work, Joe!

Friday, May 21, 2010

Obama's profound contempt for America

During the Mexican presidential election of 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was alleged to have attempted to change the election results through various means, in the hope of helping his political ally, Lopez Obrador, win the presidency. Obrador lost the election, however, in part because Chavez’s underhanded shenanigans were discovered and revealed to the very nationalistic and proud Mexican public that vehemently rejects any kind of foreign interference in its internal affairs.

Within days of Obrador’s loss, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez publicly stated that the election had been “stolen”. The Mexican president at the time, Vicente Fox, immediately acted in accordance to expectations of any standing president. Representing his nation, he publicly denounced Chavez’s criticism of his country, its laws and electoral results, as unacceptable interference:

Mexico has decided who will be its next President…Mexico strengthens its
institutions, and for this reason we reject these criticisms, especially since
they come from a Head of State of an ally. It is very clear that Mexico
has its own laws, its own Constitution, and its own institutions…that are strong
and capable.

The candidate who won that election, and who was defended by President Fox, was none other than Felipe Calderón, the Mexican president who we just saw at the White House this past week, making declarations against American immigration policy and denouncing the sovereign decisions of the State of Arizona, with the shameful complicity of Barack Obama.

To get a full grasp of the importance of this event, I must explain a few things about Latin America’s perspectives.

A president is seen as the “Head of State”—that does not mean that he is just the leader of the government, it means that he is the symbolic representative of the people of his nation. It is expected that a Head of State behave at all times in a manner that exudes dignity, respect, and shines a favorable light upon the nation’s patriotic heritage. It is understood that a Head of State should treat both his allies and his opponents (both domestic and international) with respect. And it is understood that a Head of State may respectfully critique his own country, its laws, but it is expected that a Head of State, when dealing with other nations, proudly display his nation in its best light, and never undermine his own nation’s dignity.

The notion of sovereignty to Latin American presidents is of utmost importance. Just like the United States of America, Mexico and the other Latin American nations started as colonies of powerful European empires. Their people, like ours, were subjected to injustices that eventually became unbearable. Like America, they waged bloody revolutions to gain their freedom, and like America, they take great pride in the blood spilt for their freedom.

Latin American nations are therefore fiercely defensive of any perceived slight from foreign nations who dare to criticize their internal affairs and suggest how to do things differently.

President Fox’s respectful but firm response to the arrogant and undermining commentary by Chavez was to be expected. The Mexican people would have been sorely disappointed had their Head of State not responded firmly. Decorum allows for foreign presidents to comment on international issues, to criticize international policies or economic agreements, but any foreign leader who dares to criticize the internal affairs of a sovereign nation like Mexico is rejected, in the same way any person would reject unwanted criticism of his family’s private affairs by a stranger on the street.

More importantly, any visiting Head of State is like a guest in someone else's home. He is treated with utmost respect, but to one to whom much is given, much is expected. Imagine the scandal if a dinner guest were to lecture his hosts for their children’s behavior, or to disparage the home’s décor, or to question the honor of the host’s wife.

I cannot imagine that Mexico would ever tolerate the presence of a visiting Head of State who, when invited to the National Palace, took that opportunity to criticize Mexico’s sovereign internal affairs.

Any American President that stood before the cameras and called Mexican laws “discriminatory”, as Calderón did on his visit to the White House, would be savaged by the Mexican press and protested by the Mexican populace. An apology would be expected, and if not received, diplomatic relations would be severely strained.

It is a sad testament that the man who calls himself President of the United States of America, the increasingly dubious Mr. Obama, actually invited a foreign Head of State to the White House lawn with the explicit intent of having that foreign leader criticize the internal and sovereign affairs of the United States of America, and of Arizona in particular. Mr. Obama failed in his role as Head of State to present his own nation in its best light, as he has sadly done repeatedly around the world. It is a betrayal of the reasonable expectations of the noble American people, a treacherous insult to the dignity of this great nation.

Mr. Obama then rubbed salt in the wound when he invited President Calderón to speak before Congress and repeat his insolent criticism of Arizona and Federal immigration laws. A disgusting portion of the American Congress failed in its duty to represent the American people when they rose to give a standing ovation in response to President Calderón’s criticism of a law that is supported by as much as 73% of American citizens!

Our President is not acting as a Head of State. Mr. Obama has clearly failed to grasp that he is expected to nobly represent the entire nation, not just a tiny minority. Mr. Obama’s behavior once again illustrates his profound contempt for the nation he was elected to lead.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

What good is a law degree if you refuse to read the law?

I believe it is fair to say that most Americans were outraged to learn that most of our elected representatives voted for the Obama "Health Care Reform" bill last year without having actually read and studied the bill. Instead, most of them simply relied on input the received from advisers, staff, and their peers. After all, the bill was over 2,000 pages long, who actually had time to read such a huge piece of legislation?

The irony was not lost on the American public. We elected hundreds of well-educated individuals, most of whom have fancy law degrees, so that they will go to Washington DC, represent our interests, and write laws that benefit us. And yet those legislators apparently did not see the value in actually reading the bill and just "trusted" that it would all work out. Even Speaker Pelosi went on the record making the asinine statement that she was in a hurry to pass the bill so everyone could "find out what's in it." Dammit, Nancy, this is a law, not a friggin' birthday present! When it comes to government, we don't want no stinkin' surprises!

Considering the incompetence and unprofessionalism of those representatives, no one is shocked to learn that there are, indeed, very unpleasant surprises as we find out "what was in that bill." We now are hearing that the government underestimated its costs, that health care costs will indeed increase as some critics had warned, and there are other unsavory results, such as a doctor shortage and a very probable need to ration care. All of which, we were assured, would never happen.

But let's take a moment to refocus attention on the Arizona immigration law, and the frenzy of attacks emanating from President Obama and his cadre of nincompoop cohorts. Obama appeared to be over eager to lead the charge against the law, stating on camera that Arizonans who took their children out for ice cream would be arrested and deported for looking like foreigners--an accusation that was patently false, because specific provisions in the law prohibited that kind of interaction with law enforcement. We soon learned that Obama had not yet read the law.

Then we heard the opinion of Attorney General Eric Holder, who proclaimed that he was extremely concerned about the possible unconstitutionality of the law and how it might very well lead to discrimination. Holder's credibility was cut to pieces in a painfully embarrassing exchange that occurred--sadly for him--on camera, in which he was forced to admit that he, too, had failed to read the law he was criticizing.

Next, we have buffoons from the State Department, such as Asst. Secretary of State PJ Crowley, who stumbled all over themselves to open negotiations with China over human rights violations by pointing out the Arizona law as an example of America's own human rights problems--only to discover that they had not read the law, either!

But wait, there's more. Secretary of Homeland Security, "Sherlock" Napolitano, recently made on-camera comments attacking the law, but slipped on a political banana peel when asked if she had read the law. Senator McCain asked her point blank if she had read the law, to which she responded that NO, she had not, but had been advised about it.

Doggon it, why should someone of her stature be expected to actually READ a law before criticizing it?

McCain pressed her, saying "Then you are not prepared to comment on it?"

Napolitano should have demurred, but that is just not the way of the Arrogant Elite. Instead, she said that it was "not the kind of law I would have signed. I believe it's a bad law enforcement law. I believe it mandates and requires local enforcement and puts them in a position many do not want to be placed in."

I'm sure many law enforcement officers don't really want to have to arrest people for minor drug infractions but they do anyway. Since when do we pass laws according to what the police would find enjoyable to enforce?

And besides, Sherlock, exactly how would you know that for sure, if you have not read the law?

This all points to an extremely disturbing trend we are seeing in Washington. Our elected representatives and the appointed officials who work for them must have somehow developed a gift of clairvoyance, since they repeatedly claim to know what is contained in laws they have not bothered to read.

Yet we, the lowly common people formerly known as citizens--but more recently relegated to the level of "subjects"--actually have to take the extraordinarily mundane steps of reading the laws manually! As a result, we discover facts that the omniscient ones somehow missed--or pretended did not exist.

And this last issue implies to me that our elected representatives can no longer be trusted with the business of running our government. They clearly hold the people in such disregard that they callously lie in public, and in so doing trample upon the trust that we people bestow upon them in the course of their duty.

Be ye warned: trust once betrayed is nearly impossible to recover. And when an entire nation arrives at the inevitable conclusion that their government cannot be trusted, or worse, the government is contemptuous of the people, then there are few peaceful options that remain to set it all right.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

What is wrong with this country (and California in particular)?

According to the Los Angeles Times—hardly a conservative rag—support for the Arizona immigration law appears to be growing across the country. This is encouraging news and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

The LA Times points out that while Obama is vociferously opposed to the new Arizona law, 73% of Americans now think that it is reasonable for police who are already engaged with individuals for some violation of the law to request identification and—if they are immigrants—to check their immigration status. Among Democrats—usually the last to recognize good ideas and common sense when they see it—has risen and they are now evenly split, 45% for and 46% against. This, despite all of the president’s false, inflammatory, and (some might even say) slanderous statements against the law. It appears the Democrats are no longer getting a shiver up their legs every time Obama says anything.

Republicans support the law by 85%, while 64% of independents support. Kind of looks gloomy for the illegals in Arizona, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, the protests and riots by the illegal immigrants and their supporters appear to have fizzled out.

My attention on the issue was sparked again due to the absurd events in the Santa Rita School District. A 13-year old girl, Tracy Hathaway, was working on an art project in her school in which she drew an American flag with the words “God Bless America” on it. Her teacher, seeing the flag, told her: “You can’t draw that—that’s offensive.” Interestingly, the same idiot teacher noticed that another child, who had drawn President Obama in red, white and blue colors, praised that drawing. When confronted by the parents, the teacher clammed up and wouldn’t comment.

Santa Rita superintendent, Mike Brusa, issued a statement on the district website that “I asked the administration to contact parents again to see if there is {sic} any expectations from prior contact that have not been met. The Principal did so, and indicated the parents were satisfied that the situation had been handled.” Grammatical errors aside, the superintendent appears to be downplaying the serious nature of the discriminatory actions of one of his teachers.

This latest event echoes the infuriating treatment given to the five boys at Live Oaks High school a week or so ago, when they were suspended for wearing American flag T-shirts on May 5th…just because that might offend Mexican Americans celebrating Cinco de Mayo. At least there the principal, Nicholas Boden, took the time to issue a formal apology for the incident. I can understand his stated concern that the flag T-shirts might have been considered “incendiary” and could have resulted in a violent confrontation between students, but I still find it offensive that, rather than issue a statement to all students that everyone should respect each other’s patriotism and no confrontations over flags would be tolerated, he instead chose to punish American citizens for wearing flags because that day happened to correspond to a Mexican day of commemoration (not a holiday, as I think I’ve mentioned before).

It seems like a the whole situation was just a little crazy…but maybe I should not be surprised, since the “mascot” of Live Oaks is the Acorn, and the slogan on their home page is “Go Nuts!”

Forgive me for thinking that the entire state of California has gone just a little “nuts”. Maybe it’s the influence of the nutters in “Holly-weird” on the rest of the state.
  • “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane likened the law to Nazi Germany, saying “Nobody but the Nazis ever asked anyone for their papers.” Such a childishly stupid statement does not merit a response.
  • George Lopez joked that “Arizona, George Lopez is coming…Ooops…I just got pulled over…Apparently I fit the profile.. Gacho!!” Another idiotic comment that reveals the very limited ability of Hollywood stars to comprehend complex issues and comment intelligently.
  • The “brilliant” singer Ricky Martin stated that “Racial profiling should never be tolerated…” You’re right, Ricky, which is why the Arizona law explicitly forbade it.
  • Eva Longorea Parker whined that “The recent legislation in Arizona threatens to undermine basic notions of fairness.” Apparently, Eva does not think on her own, and simply parrots the falsehoods coming from Dear Leader Obama.
  • At least Jon Stewart’s idiotic take on the law is mildly amusing, saying that Arizona is “the meth lab of democracy”. Ha ha, Jon, that was almost funny. Maybe your writers should write jokes for President Obama!? Oh…yeah…they already did!

All this begs the question: what is the world is going on in this country? How have we gotten to the point that wearing an American flag is somehow "disrespectful"? How can a child's drawing of an American flag and the motto "God Bless America" be "offensive"? Since when can enforcing federal law be likened to "Nazi" policies? How can Hollywood even think about producing a film like Robert Rodriquez's "Machete" that glorifies a Mexican national attempting to assassinate US representatives?


Just when I thought I could go on to look at other topics, I see two more infuriating articles.

A high school girls' basketball team that won the opportunity to play at a tournament in Arizona has been told by their school district that they cannot go to Arizona because (as Assistant Superintendent Suzan Hebson told the Chicago Times) the trip “would not be aligned” with the school's “beliefs and values”.

And so-called experts in human rights from the United Nations have now issued a statement condemning the law--not for what it does--but what THEY think MIGHT happen as a result. According to the statement, "the law may lead to detaining and subjecting to interrogation persons primarily on the basis of their perceived ethnic characteristics." Apparently the "experts" didn't read the law, or they would know the law takes steps to prevent that happening. So it makes just as much sense to say that the law is excellent because it MAY result in terrorists being captured after crossing the border illegally.

But most important is this quote: the experts are concered about the "vague standards and sweeping language" of Arizona's law, saying it raised "serious doubts about the law's compatibility with relevant international human rights treaties to which the United States is a party."

This reveals the most insidious aspect of the United Nations: it pretends to usurp the sovereignty of United States Federal and State Laws. Since the state law simply echoes the already existing federal laws, and the UN had no problem apparently with those laws, there is no way the state law somehow violates UN agreements. But this is how the UN attempts to control the citizens of sovereign nations and force them to submit to the rules of world government.

No, thank you. We'll make our own decisions, thank you.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Does the Robert Rodriguez film "Machete" incite rebellion and race wars?

Yesterday, while researching the Mexican-American response to the recently passed law in Arizona that allows State Law Enforcement to help enforce Federal Immigration laws, I became aware of a new film by Robert Rodriguez, called "Machete".

The trailer for the film can be seen here.

Before I comment, here are a couple of caveats: Although I watched the trailer several times, I am cognizant of the fact that a short trailer might not be a fair and complete representation of the true message contained within the film. So I reserve the right to change my opinion as facts emerge.

But I would like to comment on what I saw, in context to the current political situation.

First, it is important to note that the trailer starts with an explicit warning to the state of Arizona--as if everything else in the film should be considered a WARNING or threat.

The plot appears to be that a wealthy US businessman makes the case that illegal immigration is good for businesses. This is a fact, it is part of the problem that we are having, echoes back to Cesar Chavez's opposition to illegal immigration (that I.I. is used by businesses to undermine labor laws and depress wages and conditions for US citizens).

However, I don't see any indication that this reality is fleshed out to promote the legitimate gripes of labor leaders like Chavez, since that would inevitably lead the viewer to the conclusion that I.I. needs to be stopped.

That US businessman is who hired the attempted hit man: note that it is this same person who then double-crosses Machete and tries to kill him. Why? What is the sub-plot? Was this a set up by the Senator to create a race war? Or was it to further another political agenda? The answers to these questions will obviously impact the story greatly, I'd like to know more about what the underlying political message is there. I somehow suspect that Rodriguez will try to establish a plot line that this is part of an evil conspiracy by the senator who opposes illegal immigration, but there is insufficient info in the trailer so we'll have to wait and see.

{UPDATED: Confirmed by CNN review The new trailer for the film, which features Jessica Alba, Robert DeNiro, Lindsay Lohan and Michelle Rodriguez, lays out the basic plot points: Danny Trejo’s Machete is paid to assassinate a corrupt senator with an anti-immigration platform, but it’s actually a set-up to reinforce the senator’s call for harsh anti-immigration laws.}

Meanwhile, the "hero" in the story is a former "Federale" (an incorrect Anglicization of the word "Federales", the singular should be "Federal", but I'll overlook that idiocy). Federales is a slang Spanish term for Mexican Federal Police, specifically the Federal Investigations Agency or by its Mexican acronym AFI (formerly the Federal Judicial Police PJF) nowadays extended to the new Federal Police (which was known from 1998 to 2006 as the Policia Federal Preventiva PFP and was roughly and equivalent of the United States Marshals Service.

So, the plot line appears to make a hero out of a former "Mexican Federal Marshall" who agrees to assassinate US Senators. Why? Because as the businessman points out, ignoring those immigration laws is beneficial to both US businesses AND the Mexican people. Suddenly assassination is made legitimate.

I don't see anything in the trailer that ever appears to contradict that premise. So the notion that Mexican officials waging war against Arizona and killing elected US officials appears to be promoted and romanticized here.

There are other very clear messages sent. One woman actress (I think her name is Rodriguez also) questions a Mexican-American Border Patrol officer (that's what I infer) and asks her why she persecutes "her own people". "It's the law" is the response, to which she essentially says that just because it's the law doesn't make it right. This same woman later tries to rally additional fighters with the claim that "We didn't cross the border: the border crossed us!"

This is a common propagandist rallying cry used by Mexican activists that tries to rewrite history and perpetuates the claim that the United States stole the territory we now consider the American Southwest, thus legitimating the Mexican claim to all of this territory, and the notion that they have a "right" to retake (reconquista) any land they want in this area.

Here is another attempt to undermine US laws designed to defend the rights, liberties and safety of US citizens.

We see a priest who is asked to help murder people and he (Cheech Marin) takes up arms. So here we see a suggestion that the Church should aid and abet seditious actions against the government--scenes that remind me of the revolutionary actions of Latino priests in Latin America, such as Archbishop Romero in El Salvador, who aided and abetted the FMLN guerrillas in their war against the government.

Nowhere in the film is there ANY consideration for the legitimate complaints of US citizens that innocent Americans are being killed, kidnapped, robbed and otherwise injured by this uncontrolled flood of illegal immigrants.

Nowhere do I see any acceptance that Mexicans and Chicanos who live here are actually injured by this situation. Nor do I see any indication that there is any reasonable analysis as to the role the Mexican government is playing in this crisis.

In short, the trailer leads me to believe that the message in the film is that Mexicans living in the United States a) have a historical claim to all of this land, b) it is a "noble" pursuit to take up arms against American businesses and the government, c) shedding blood is warranted. It serves to reaffirm the fears and suspicions held by many Americans, that the Mexicans do NOT want to "assimilate", or even accept US laws, nor do they want to participate in our society as citizens. To the contrary, there are elements here that promote the concept that Mexicans should engage in acts of war against the nation!

I cannot help but believe that a film like this, released during these times of intense tensions, will fan the flames of resentment on both sides and possibly lead to increased violence. Worse case scenario, it may even lead to a blood bath, as it appears to incite a race war in the South West.

What's more, the fact that the trailer, released on Cinco de Mayo, and starting with a WARNING to the state of Arizona, closely resembles the al Qa'eda terrorist films declaring their belligerent stance against the United States, their perceived wrongs, and rationalizations for upcoming acts of terror against the citizens of the United States.

Which leads me to my ultimate questions: has Hollywood now officially declared itself in belligerent opposition to the US government? Have they become the mouthpieces for domestic terrorist groups?

What is the response of the Obama administration to this? How would they react if a conservative militia created a film that portrayed the assassinations of Liberal representatives and open warfare against the government?

A "holy CRAP" update... You need to read this article and listen to the videos posted by Info Wars author David Weigel and Alex Jones. Now, there is a lot on InfoWars that makes me roll my eyes...conspiracy theories about the Iluminati for example is something I just don't buy into. But these two blokes got their hands on the script for "Machete" and their report both confirms my fears and expands them. According to their review of the script, the movie actuallly DOES encourage a race war. But you shouldn't just take it from me; listen to what these guys say after having read the full script and having spoken to Hispanics who worked on the film and allegedly fear about the consequences!

Friday, April 30, 2010

A Letter for Family and Friends of the Soldiers Returning from Iraq

Note: This is a real letter written by Sgt Aaron A. Goddard while he was deployed in Balad Airfield, Iraq. He sent it to the friends and family of this raise spirits and share what they go through. It's a brilliant way of portraying hardship without being whiney, and is a testament to their true grit.

This is a letter for the friends and family members of personnel who have recently been deployed to Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The hardships of this deployment has taken a great toll on these soldiers and we simply want to warn you of some of the things that you may experience with your returning soldier.

Upon return from deployment ensure that there is no ice anywhere to be found within your home. Shut down all refrigerators for about three hours then allow them to run for approximately 20-30 minutes at a time. This will allow the soldier to become acclimatized with his “new” surroundings. If the soldier runs into cold, or heaven forbid ice water, he/she may go into shock. If this happens proceed to the kitchen and boil some water to approximately 100 degrees Fahrenheit, slowly allow your soldier to ingest the warm water to allow them to return to a balanced state. Over a period of three to four weeks slowly start decreasing the temperature of the water to allow their body to adjust to the colder beverages. Within a month your soldier will be able to handle iced beverages with no problems. Also be certain that during the acclimatizing phase of this procedure stock no more than two or three bottles of water at a time. The mere sight of an abundance of water may cause your loved one to hoard every bottle in a hiding spot unknown to you or anyone else. Over time he/she will realize that they no longer need to hide their water. This realization may happen over a period of time, or it may occur to them that people will not trade cigarettes for water and it may dawn on them that it is no longer necessary to hoard water for those “just in case” periods.

When your soldier returns home ensure that there is a small amount of dust over everything that you and your soldier possess. For you this may be the most difficult thing to deal with (outside of your soldiers bathroom habits which we will discuss later in this letter) due to the uncleanliness of your home. This will take less time to overcome on both party’s part. Your loved one will clean and gripe about how much dust there is and how it gets into everything. This is normal, do not be alarmed at your soldiers’ sudden desire to clean, in fact encourage it and slowly they will realize that they no longer need to clean everything two or three times a day. However be aware that if the winds suddenly pick-up wherever you may live, your soldier will immediately proceed to close every door, every window, and might even attempt to seal up any doors or windows that they feel might let dust in. This is caused by the dust storms that they experienced out in Iraq. This is also normal, and it may last a little longer than their cleaning phase. Remember also that if your loved one starts to yell at you for not helping to “secure” your home, humor them and help them to secure your doors and windows.

Prior to your soldier coming home, ensure that you turn up the thermostat to an unbearable 100 degrees plus. This will allow them to be more at home. This will also not last as long as the water phase, but it will be difficult for you to endure the temperature as well as they do. The extreme heat that your soldier has faced has attuned his/her body to a certain temperature and it will take them a little while to get used to colder environments. WARNING: DO NOT ALLOW YOUR SOLDIER TO BE AROUND ANY AIR CONDITIONING. This may cause their body to go into shock, or it may cause them to go on a rampage about officers and how they screw over the little people time and again. Allowing them to vent their frustrations about their chain of command and/or returning them to their inhospitably warm home can only remedy this. If your soldier goes into shock, place as many blankets on their person until their body stabilizes to an above average temperature. By gradually decreasing the temperature of your home, you can overcome this phase over a period of time.

Your soldier’s bathroom habits may shock, scare or more than likely disgust you. Do not be concerned if your soldier flushes the toilet for twenty minutes or more, marveling at the sight of running water. Your soldier has not had the benefit of running water for over nine months and they will not be accustomed to the principles of how a toilet functions. Keep a fire extinguisher handy in the bathroom! For the entire duration of the deployment your soldier has been burning their own and other soldiers’ feces as opposed to flushing toilets. If you see your soldier carrying a can of diesel fuel into the bathroom, immediately remind them that it is no longer necessary for them to burn feces. As I mentioned this is probably the most disgusting part of the entire adjustment phase. It is not for those with weak stomachs and if you require assistance in this phase feel free to ask for help from another family member or neighbor. If without you knowing, your soldier somehow manages to sneak a can of diesel fuel into your bathroom and proceeds to light it on fire, instruct your soldier that you have been placed on BBQ detail, and that you will take care of it. Your soldier will not argue with you and after he/she leaves extinguish the flames and flush the toilet. As a further precaution, ensure that there are no flammable or combustible materials within a two-foot diameter of the toilet.

Your soldier’s personal hygiene may become a problem once they return. This is caused by the lack of showers available to your soldier during his deployment. Your soldier may go three days or more before taking a couple of bottles of water (ensure that it is warm water) and going outside and drenching themselves with their water. If your neighbors have a problem with seeing your loved ones naked in the front or back yard cleaning themselves, inform your neighbors that it should last only a couple of weeks and ask them not to call the local authorities as this is normal for your soldier. You can help your soldier by subtly reminding your loved one that it is no longer necessary to shower outside. Laundry was a big issue for soldiers out in Iraq. They might take it upon themselves to retrieve a bucket and proceed to clean their clothes by hand and placing it on a makeshift clothesline. This can be easily handled by ensuring that all your soldiers’ clothes are clean and kept folded in their proper places.

IMPORTANT: At no time mention the word “lightning” around your soldier. Even if there is a lightning storm approaching make no mention of the word lightning. If by some chance they hear the word lightning your soldier will immediately drop anything that they are holding and attempt to place their chemical protective gear on. Once they change into their protective suits they will run to a bunker or up against a sturdy wall. They will then start asking for accountability of all members of your family and will instruct you to get into your gear and get to safety. If this happens all you simply have to do is say the words “all clear.” Once you say this, your soldier will proceed to take off his protective suit and go back about his/her business as though nothing happened. This may last a lot longer than all of the other phases, as it was the most uncertain time of their deployment due to the helplessness of the situation. Studies are currently underway as to how long your loved one will carry around his/her protective gear until they realize that it is no longer necessary. To help your loved one sleep better at night, use a tape recording of explosions and slightly rock the bed a couple of times, this will help them sleep as they are accustomed to hearing the sounds of mortars exploding as a lullaby. If you are driving in a vehicle and your loved one may wear his/her Kevlar helmet and/or flak vest. He/she may also start to throw food out the window to children on the street. Inform the neighbor kids that he means no harm and that he is only trying to help feed an impoverished nation.

Please ask your mailman to hold all mail for approximately five to six weeks before giving them to you. The mail system was extremely slow and they will probably not be accustomed to receiving mail in a regular time frame. Your solider may also not know how to use the phone. Keep a “phone roster” handy by the phone, allow them to sign in for the phone and instruct them that it will probably be a one to two hour wait and that they may only use the phone for ten minutes. Once they pick up the phone do not be alarmed if they suddenly holler for joy when they get through on their first attempt. Slowly decrease the time increments you inform them of for a wait and allow them to talk on the phone for longer than ten minutes. This will adjust them to their return to civilization.

Ensure that all food tastes bland. Make your loved one stand in a line for approximately one hour outside your home and allow them to enter. Ensure that your cooking has no taste to it and ensure that there are only plastic utensils and plates as your loved one will attempt to throw away their plate when they are finished. Add spices over a period of time to allow your loved one’s palate to adjust to the sensation of flavor. If you feel that your loved one is ready give them a crappy flavored non-alcoholic beer and allow them to enjoy. Your loved one has been in detox for their entire duration of the deployment and any attempt by them to ingest alcohol can have an undesirable effect on your soldier. If you see your loved one sneak a drink from the liquor cabinet and lock themselves in the room, do not be alarmed if they refuse to answer the door, or even acknowledge that they are in the room. They may be attempting to hide the fact that they are drinking and it may take a little getting used to by your loved one to drink in public again.

Once again I remind you that your loved one has gone through many changes and it is difficult to say whether or not that any or all of these symptoms may be apparent in your soldier. Exercise caution and patience when dealing with your returning loved one and please remember that they love you and that they missed you all throughout the entire deployment. Over time your loved one will return to normal and you will be reunited with the loved one who was deployed to an uncivilized land.

Yours sincerely,
Sgt Aaron A. Goddard
Balad Airfield, Iraq

Monday, April 26, 2010

Anti-Semitism in the Obama administration

Obama’s National Security Advisor, General James Jones (Ret), has just been captured on video telling a joke that portrays Jews as greedy merchants.

“This happened recently in Southern Afghanistan. A member of the Taliban was separated from his fighting party and wandered around in the desert lost, out of food and water, and looked out on the horizon and saw a little shack…he got closer and found that it was a store of a Jewish merchant. The Taliban warrior went up to him and said, I need water, give me some water. The merchant said we don’t have any water but we have some ties, we have a nice sale on ties today. Whereupon the Taliban erupted into a scream of language I can’t repeat…and passively the merchant sat there until the Taliban was through with his diatribe and said I’m sorry I don’t have water for you, and I forgive you for all your insults…but I’ll help you out. If you go over that hill about two miles there is a restaurant there and they have all the water you need. The Taliban said thanks and still muttering under his breath disappears over the hill only to come back an hour later and walking up to the merchant says ‘your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

The language of this joke is disturbing. How is it possible that a high level government official actually thinks that telling “Jew jokes” at an official speech is appropriate?

It is very interesting that while the General refers once the merchant as a “Jewish merchant” and from that point on only uses the term “merchant” for the Jew, in a manner that seems to reduce the Jewish aspect of the joke but, having set the premise, then uses a code word for the Jew from that point on. Meanwhile, the Taliban is never a “terrorist” or an “insurgent”: he is a “warrior”.

While contemplating this speech, I found that Rush Limbaugh is under attack for a comment he made in which he attempted to point out the use of code words used by the Obama regime that appear to subtly refer to Jews.

LIMBAUGH: To some people, “banker” is code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s — if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there?

The assault on Rush seems to be based upon the premise that he is anti-Semitic for pointing out that Obama is engaging in a constant attack on “Bankers”, which is, in fact, undeniable, and by pointing out that the term “bankers” appears to be a code-word for “Jews”. Take it in light of how General Jones used “merchant” as a code word for “Jew”. However, it should be noted that Limbaugh was discussing Norman Podhoretz's book, Why Are Jews Liberals?

This same topic has been discussed ad nauseum by none other than Jewish conservative talk-show host (and Rabbi), Dennis Prager.

In fact, Mr. Prager writes:

"The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal?..." He then goes on to write about the six main reasons why Jews tend to be Liberal, and points out that "just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism). If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews."

I guess, despite the fact that Limbaugh is a conservative and a staunch supporter of Jews and Israel, because he is a Gentile, he's not allowed to talk about the same topic that Prager and Podhoretz are discussing. Therefore, he is attacked. Mark Silk writes in Spiritual Politics:

“As MediaMatters pointed out, that last bit is patently untrue--unless Limbaugh wants to include himself among the Jew-haters. He begins with what "some people think" and then associates himself with the view. His speculation is that Jews--three-quarters of whom voted for Obama--may be having buyer's remorse because Obama has started attacking their co-religionists on Wall Street. Only someone a lot more familiar with traditional Gentile attitudes about Jews than with the American Jewish community could entertain the idea that the latter would have second thoughts about supporting a candidate who attacks Wall Street bankers.”

So, somehow, the Liberal left wants us to believe that it is “patently untrue” that the word “banker” is used as a form of code-word against Jews. But this is not the case. The use of the concept has been used since before the Nazis took control of Germany, and was in fact commonly used by American progressives such as FDR and his acolytes. Read a little about the Catholic Priest Charles Coughlin as just one example. Coughlin, an avid supporter of FDR blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution. He later said that "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing." Mind you, this Priest was the one who founded the National Union of Social Justice. (If the term “social justice” doesn’t jump out at you, you obviously have not been listening to the attacks on Glen Beck for his suspicions about the renewed infatuation by the Obama administration with “social justice”).

As Andrew McCarthy points out on his blog, Obama’s constant discussion about Economic justice “is simply the finance angle of ‘social justice,’ the idée fixe of Obama and his coven of Change-agents — like Michael Klonsky, the communist educator who ran a “social justice” blog on Obama’s official campaign website.”

There are many, more recent examples of “progressives” trashing Jews such as the Rev. Al Sharpton and Former President Jimmy Carter, to name just two.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly true that Obama’s attacks on bankers have been on-going and quite vitriolic.

Example ONE:
Speaking from the White House, Mr. Obama said, "I want to send a strong warning to this country's bankers," before turning to his economic team and saying, "I don't mean you guys."
After the President excused them from listening to the rest of his address, approximately one hundred former bankers filed out the door, leaving the room virtually empty.
Once the room had cleared, Mr. Obama resumed his attack on bankers, using his strongest rhetoric to date: "If you do not clean up your act, I am prepared to give you heck."
Example TWO:
Obama: "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street.”

Example THREE:
President Obama attacks banking 'masters of the universe'

Democrats want to convince everyone that it’s the Conservatives who are the bigots, but even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to distance himself Wednesday from the views of his brother-in-law, who called President Obama "anti-Semitic" over the airwaves this morning.

Perhaps Limbaugh’s belief that there are many Jews who see through the lightly veiled code words is accurate after all. And having his National Security Advisor stand up and tell “Jew Jokes” certainly does not help matters.