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?
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
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
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
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.
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.
What other evidence do you need to prove that the Democrats are out of touch...and are just plain stupid?
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.
...as 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?
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.
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!
Friday, September 18, 2009
The Obama plan to buy votes through healthcare
President Obama has just revealed his darkest intentions to the country.
If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.
The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.
Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.
Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.
That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!
Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.
If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.
The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.
Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.
Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.
That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!
Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:
"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.
- Democrats and Obama LIED with straight faces that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, but that this figure did NOT include undocumented (illegal) aliens--because we know that figure DID include them!
- Obama LIED when he told Congress that HB 3200 would NOT allow illegal aliens to receive the new government entitlement, because they KNEW there was no provision in the bill to prevent them from receiving it. (BTW, isn't lying to Congress a Crime?)
- Democrats and Obama were then caught in their lies, publicly shamed, and were forced to change the bill to prevent illegal aliens from receiving the government entitlement.
- So NOW Obama wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens so they can go ahead and receive the entitlement he had wanted them to receive in the first place.
The most outrageous aspect of this is that if they grant citizenship to those 12 million people who entered the country illegally and include with it a promise of a massive government entitlement, they will be radically changing the electoral map, and buying votes at the same time.
And, as my good friend Kent pointed out to me: "Perhaps since ACORN is now out of the picture for “assisting” with next year’s census, this was the only possible way to re-draw congressional districts to ensure Democratic hegemony."
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Immigration Lawyers should not be above the law.
Imagine, for a moment, two scenarios involving lawyers giving legal advice.
In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”
In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”
The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)
The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.
In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.
The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”
In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?
The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."
Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.
In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.
(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?
In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”
In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.
The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”
The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)
The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.
In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.
The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”
In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?
The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."
Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.
In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.
(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
