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.
***UPDATE***
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!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
***UPDATE***
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?
***UPDATE***
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!
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?
***UPDATE***
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
