|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 14, 2002:
VICENTE FOX: DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS
The lefties love to wax poetic about how the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime. They will throw statistics at you until you relent and reform your thoughts to conform to their pacifistic ideology; just ask anyone who has taken Prof. Currie's class what happens when you argue that the death penalty is a deterrent. I say, who cares about deterrence? It's punishment that fits a particularly heinous crime, such as murdering a police officer in cold blood.
This evening, a cop killer was executed in Texas despite the pleas of el jefe reconquistador Vicente Fox to grant clemency. In protest, Fox cancelled his meeting with Bush. What a fucking crybaby.
Fox issued several appeals for clemency, saying Suarez was denied his right to assistance from the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest. Under the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations, detained foreign nationals must be told of their right to contact their consulates.
But no one knows whether he is a foreign national--he is an ethnic Mexican, and therefore not subject to the laws of the United States in the eyes of the Mexican government. Keep in mind these are the same consulates where the reconquista is in full force and effect in the United States. I say we bug them like the Soviets.
What is most funny is the Mexican press' characterization of the cop-killer:
Photographs of the round-faced, innocuous-looking Suarez were on the front page of some Mexican newspapers Wednesday.
"His straight brow and mouth speak of a person who almost always acted in an upright manner," columnist Sergio Jaubert wrote in the newspaper Milenio.
Didn't Richard Ramirez have a "straight brow and mouth?" However other Mexican journalists were not so forgiving:
Not everyone in Mexico, however, saw Suarez as a victim. The newspaper Reforma ran a cartoon showing him strapped to the execution table with a smoking gun in his hand, and the words "Cold-blooded killer. He confessed and on top of that he is a drug dealer, but he's Mexican ... and so innocent!"
Compared to the American Embassy being surrounded by troops after Mexico's loss to the US in the Copa del Mundo, this event was hardly as contentious:
In stark contrast to past executions of Mexicans in the United States, a mere four people turned up outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City to protest.
Make that five people protesting: four people at the embassy and Vicente Fox at Los Pinos. But Mexico has long disrespected the laws of this country, comrades:
Mexico refuses to extradite people who might face the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole in another country. Mexico opposes both punishments.
You can oppose all you want: the will of the people of the great State of Texas have spoken, Senor Fox.
Texas Governor Rick Perry also made a statement:
Today I denied requests for a 30-day stay of execution to Javier Suarez Medina. I have reviewed all of the information presented to me – including the issue of the international treaty. My staff has met with Mexico government officials to hear their concerns about this case, and I have talked with Mexican President Vicente Fox about the matter. I respect the sovereignty of Mexico and its laws, and I know that President Fox recognizes the sovereignty of U.S. and Texas law.
Uh, you are so wrong Governor Perry. Vicente Fox, avowed Marxist-Castroite Jorge Castaneda, and University Professor and Texas traitor ( recently defrocked by Fox) Juan Hernandez (who I would like to see swinging from a gallows for his treason to the United States: he is a dual-national working for the Mexican government to overthrow the US government, comrades) do not recognize the sovereignty of this country, you moron. I want whatever you are smoking, Guv. It's no wonder your state is going to hell--thank gawd you had the balls not to buckle from the Marxist-cultural-hegemonic-demon to your south. Perhaps, maybe now, the Mexican government will at least acknowledge that if you kill a cop in Texas, you will be sentenced to death. Actions speak louder than rhetoric, comrades. This humble correspondent is pleased to see some forms of social control are effective and working just fine in the great State of Texas.
UPDATE: EDITORIALS CAST TEXAS PRIDE AS RACIST
For those of you who speak English (for that I thank you, on both sides of the border), I have provided a translation of what Mexicanos really think about gringo Tejanos:
Many reasons for pride have the texanos, but they also have a great reason for shame: the frequency whereupon is applied in Texas the capital punishment. A motto of that state contains this threat: "Don't mess with Texas". With Texas I do not put to you. And certainly neither the texanos in charge to apply to the law nor the citizens who integrate the juries vacillate taking that threat until the last consequences. Livingston and Evansville are already sinister names. A strong current of opinion against the capital punishment has arisen in the neighboring country, whose irrevocabilidad makes its application dangerous. That risk is accentuated in relation to the poor men and with the members of the racial minorities. They do not have money to pay expensive, skilful lawyers in negotiating with the public prosecutors or convincing the juries to change a capital punishment by another one of prison. In that case - the one of poverty and discrimination are in Texas the Hispanics, whose rights are violated frequently because of the disdain in which it has certain sector of the white population. The capital punishment is a odiosa form of punishment. He is irreparable, and it is verified that lacks ejemplaridad. Sometimes it will be Vista like barbarism example, just as today we see the mutilation pains, you whip or tortures. All the religions, specially the Christians, along with the defending groupings of the human rights, would have to be against actively to that form of committed homicide to cold blood more of the times after long years of delay, which makes of the life of the condemned a cruel psychological torment that takes to wish it the death as only form of liberation. Today, if a new postponement again does not suspend the application of the sentence, a Mexican will be executed in Texas more, the coahuilense Javier Suárez Medina. I do not put in doubt its culpability, but I indicate the violations to committed agreements of international order in the course of its halting and the process that began in his against. If the sentence is fulfilled and dies Suárez will be glad to the texanos "rednecks", violent racists and, but this death will disgust to those who thinks that the capital punishment is execrable rest of a past that already does not correspond to our time and our world...
Im not sure if Javier was a "Coahuilense" or not: I know he killed a cop in Dallas, Texas. The rest of this drivel speaks for itself, and demonstrates the problematic nature of hostile attitudes towards the United States and its "white" citizens (particularly those of "Tejas" in Aztlan-speak, comrades). Don't mess with Texas, reconquistadors. California is already a lost cause.
REASON #47: WHY I AM ANONYMOUS
Fear of reprisal by the thought/speech reformists at the University is enough to keep me anonymous. This fear becomes justified when someone like poor student journalist Ben Wetmore at American Universityis punished so severely, because the administration did not take a liking to his site that is critical of AU.
When he tried to videotape Tipper Gore at a campus event (which is public), he was handcuffed and his tape was confiscated and never returned to him or used as evidence at his "trial." Then he was found guilty and punished by a kangaroo court, similar to the star chamber on the third floor of Sproul (which is replete with a walk-through metal detector and armed campus police who conduct thorough searches of students at Berkeley prior to entering the star chamber--a very small number of students ever witness this travesty of justice, comrades). This punishment for videotaping a public event was reprisal for political speech:
On his website, Mr. Wetmore reports on what he believes are flawed policies and abuses of power by the AU administration. AU now has punished him, severely, for his legitimate political and journalistic activities. This case involves stark abuses of power by campus police and administrators, theft of a student's property by University officials, clear evidence of targeting a student for his acts of critical political dissent, a denial of elementary due process and fundamental fairness, and a distortion of both the law and the principles of free speech.
If it can happen in our nation's capital, it can happen anywhere--especially in Marxville, California, the home of leftist-totalitarian thought reform.
But what is most troubling is that every University I have seen thus far has used the FERPA to keep its disciplinary proceedings secret, and AU is no exeption:
AU is charging that FIRE made false claims, but that it cannot identify or substantiate those charges due to confidentiality protections. In fact, AU already has spoken to The Washington Post, the Student Press Law Center, and now the AU community about this case. However, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) forbids universities from disclosing any personally identifiable information about a student's disciplinary proceedings. AU cannot have it both ways. AU wishes to disclose selected information in a truncated and misleading way, but then to seek refuge in FERPA when it does not want to admit to something. From our earliest communications with AU, we have asked them to correct any misstatements of the facts. If AU believes that FIRE has any of the facts of the case wrong, we repeat our invitation to them to prove their claims. Indeed, AU's most important first step would be to return the videotape to Ben Wetmore. Then, everyone could see what actually transpired.
UC Berkeley also uses FERPA as a shield from any scrutiny of doing the public's business in secrecy. They teach fundamental rights as core values in the classroom, yet ignore them for their own malicious and despotic political agenda. I would imagine the videotapes shot by UC Police at "protests" also will never be seen by the public, as they would be "protected" under FERPA as well.
Tipper wants nothing to do with alleged theft of intellectual property, and AU has not produced a contract stipulating copyright privileges. It is truly amazing how totalitarian Universities have become:
AU does not bother to explain that the director of judicial affairs and mediation services, Katsura Kurita, whose decision it was to accept the charges, also served as judge during the hearing, and as one third of the jury. Another juror was Kurita's own law clerk. The final juror was Mr. Wetmore's political opponent from student government who, in 2000, petitioned the Student Confederation for Mr. Wetmore's impeachment. Fairness demanded that these three jurors recuse themselves from this case. Instead, they ignored Mr. Wetmore's requests that he have a jury free from personal or professional bias. It is disgraceful that a great university would try a student in what can most charitably be deemed a "kangaroo court," and then hide behind the verdict for its own defense.
Truly disgraceful, comrades. I have seen people convicted in absentia at Sproul. But Wetmore was a marked man, found guilty of "'intentional or reckless' interference with a sponsored event," and "possessing stolen property, threatening the health and safety of the arresting officers, disorderly conduct, failing to immediately comply with a University official, and the University equivalent of trespass." All of this for videotaping Tipper Gore at a campus event.
Critics of college adminstrators have good reason to be worried:
Whenever a critic of an administration is arrested and charged with suspiciously spurious offenses, one has to look very carefully at the true motives behind the charges. The severity of the findings for simply taping an event should be proof enough that AU was targeting Mr. Wetmore for other reasons. Those reasons are quite apparent here. This is further confirmed by an April 26, 2002 letter to Mr. Wetmore's attorney, in which AU's vice president and university counsel, Mary E. Kennard, criticized Wetmore for ignoring the University's "admonitions" not "to post derogatory materials about staff on his website"—as if it were a crime to be publicly critical of the University.
University standards of fairness are also questionable in this case:
The claim that these disciplinary hearings are not formal "trials" but for "educational" purposes is used by many schools to excuse their violation of the most basic standards of fair procedure. It is dishonest to call this process "educational." It is a punitive process designed to punish or expel students who get out of line. Students should be afforded sound and fair procedural protections—not denied them because the experience is supposedly "educational." Further, AU did not provide Mr. Wetmore with anything remotely like an "impartial" jury. AU also cannot claim fairness when a student in Mr. Wetmore's situation has no right to an appeal. The denial of an impartial panel and a right of appeal are the very opposite of principles of fairness and legitimacy.
Fairness and legitimacy are not consistent with the norms of society at UC Berkeley, either. In this case, the thought police won when they were able to re-educate the delinquent-Gore-taper:
In fact, Mr. Wetmore was placed on probation, warned of expulsion for future activities, saddled with forty hours of community service cleaning the auditorium, removed from an elected student position, and patronizingly forced to complete papers on conflict resolution (not to mention that he was deprived of his own property, and that he was abused and humiliated for activity that should be completely protected).
Of course, journalism and freedom of the press are not virtues shared by universities and society:
In failing to "regard this matter as a First Amendment issue," AU ignores the fact that Mr. Wetmore's case touches one of the principles and rights that the First Amendment most explicitly protects: freedom of the press. By attacking a student for engaging in legitimate journalistic activities and targeting him for his public opinions, AU is patently violating the spirit of our First Amendment, free speech and freedom of the press. Knowing Mr. Wetmore's fate, what student journalist would ever willingly accept the role of dissenter at AU?
A familiar ring if you know anything about the moral blackmail being employed by the ASUC against the Daily Californian in its lease negotiations. Fear of retaliation by an administration bent on its own careerist-ideologies keeps me anonymous, comrades.
Friday, August 09, 2002:
BACKDOOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AT CAL:
Seems the "comprehensive review" employed at Cal is secret: the jack-booted goon squad at Sproul would not want to have their motive of racial discrimination revealed to you, the taxpaying citizen.
What's even worse, the unintended consequence of admitting qualified Asians has some people upset:
It’s hard not to be suspicious when you consider a recent remark by former UCLA admissions director Rae Lee Siporin. According to a July 12 article in The Wall Street Journal, Siporin said that merely using poverty as an indicator of disadvantage wouldn’t help middle-class blacks and Hispanics and would “pull in” lots of low-income Asians. Apparently, that’s a problem.
Head Assembly Reconqistador and Racist-Public-Enemy Number One Marco Firebaugh also seems to be a little upset that his game plan is not working because poor white and yellow children are also being admitted:
State Assemblyman Marco Antonio Firebaugh, D-Cudahy, also indicated that the “comprehensive” factors might be designed to favor some ethnic groups over others. “We found that using poverty yields a lot of poor white kids and poor Asian kids,” he said.
Anything that pisses off the most overtly racist-scumbag in the State Assembly makes me happy.
While AP courses are hotly contested as giving "wealthy" and "white" students an edge in the admissions process, seems the effect of racist "outreach" programs has the double effect of: (1) segregating our youth and indoctrinating them with victimology and hatred of whitey; and (2) "outreach" programs also offer bonus points, to the detriment of schools that have no mandated and taxpayer-funded programs of racial segregation. Somebody better file a lawsuit, quick.
There’s also this troubling fact: At some UC campuses, extra “comprehensive” points go to applicants who’ve been involved in UC outreach programs at their high schools. But such programs aren’t available everywhere. In fact, the blueprint says “to the extent possible under the law, [outreach] should emphasize increases in under-represented racial and ethnic minority participation in postsecondary education.”
Someone remind those racist-thugs at Sproul that there is no "minority" in the state of California: we are all "minorities."
Alas, there are bound to be some losers in all of this:
Among the losers are high-achieving Asians from the lower-middle class. For instance, Stanley Park, a Korean high school student from Irvine who can claim both academic strength and personal hardships, was turned down by UCLA and Berkeley, even while Hispanic students with weaker academics were let in. Park scored an impressive 1500 out of 1600 on his SAT college-admissions exam. When not studying, he tutored children to help with the rent after his mother contracted cancer. All this wasn’t enough to pass “comprehensive review” at the systems top two campuses.
1500 on the SAT, and he didnt get in, comrades. Something is wrong here:
“It is simply shameful that it is worth less to be poor and Asian than to be poor and Hispanic,” commented David Benjamin, owner of an Irvine-based SAT-preparation business who knows of several students from the Irvine area, many of them Asians from low- income households, rejected at Berkeley or UCLA despite strong scholastic records.
The policy of eliminating standardized testing and replacing it with a misery index is Marxist: instead of eliminating the law of value to nullify the effects of the commodification of labor, the Marxistas inside Sproul (and beyond) want to eliminate the law of the value of the SAT score. Once there are no market adjuncts to control the price in a Marxist economy, tremendous waste occurs (since all pricing and production goals become arbitrary). The same holds true for the Marxist educational institution: once the value of an SAT score is eliminated, waste occurs because students who can barely read or write will not benefit from a "top-notch" (ahem) university. The admissions system becomes corrupted (just like a Marxist economy) and all admissions become arbitrary. Remember this one at your next GSI-led indoctrination session, comrades.
Numbers back up the suspicions that the system is skewed by race: UCLA admitted 9 percent more Latinos and 19 percent more blacks for this coming fall, while Asian and white admittees declined.
Beyond the possibility of outright bias, comprehensive review also flunks the simple test of fairness. Each University of California campus has its own version, so there’s no standardization of what factors are looked at in reviewing applicants. While some campuses offer details on their Web sites, Berkeley has chosen not to make its process public, and UCLA’s is vague and hard to analyze.
Imagine that, UC Berkeley concealing facts. The numbers do not reflect any change in demographic from last year: they reveal the university's goal of ousting whites and asians. This is commonly known as institutionalized racism, and it rears its ugly head not only at a place of "enlightenment," but in the 21st century, comrades. This type of institutionalized racism flies under the flag of "progressive" politics. Way to go you barbaric, stupid leftists.
Moreover, the “personal statement” part of the admissions papers — where the “sob stories” are written down — isn’t subject to any verification. And how can hundreds of readers apply objective, standardized analysis?
A great public university owes those who fund it a rigorous objectivity and openness in admissions. If UC officials don’t develop more of both — quickly — they could face a revolt from angry taxpayers, parents, and applicants. Meanwhile, if intentional race bias is confirmed, they will surely wind up in court.
"Race bias" is too soft: this is the most sneaky, underhanded, odious and secret racial discrimination ever to swoop upon this bigoted, Stalinist re-education camp, comrades. Let's hope this racist policy does wind up in court.
Sunday, August 04, 2002:
HOW MANY JOB YOU GOT, MON? I GOT TREE JOB, MON!
It's official: I have employment with three different law firms. Hereafter, blogging will be sparse and infrequent--especially when the school year starts. Something has got to go. Too bad I can't toss Oakland or Berkeley into the bay.
Speaking of Oakland, last week there was a protest at City Hall calling to end the violence (murder) in the city by hiring "more cops." In response, Mayor Moonbeam proposed, and the City Council approved, a ballot initiative to stem the violence. This week, there is a protest calling for "less cops." East Bay politics are wacky. In the twisted world that is the East Bay, a very high murder rate does not equal more cops in the face of the perpetual protest. Everything--even the benign presence of police to enforce some sort of social control--is protested. Your kids get murdered, but more cops are not the answer to the terrible loss of human life in your city.
The leftists' plan is simple: lets harbor these kids in segregated "outreach" programs until they become America's Hamas. This is not the correct answer: I want to see Johnny Law outfitted with an AR-15 to keep the shooting down to a minumum. That's why I pay taxes, comrades. Let's bring back the tanks to the streets of the East Bay to impose some sort of law and order around here. Los Angeles did it, and maybe Mayor Moonbeam has the balls to enforce the law against murder. Petty Bourgeois wholeheartedly endorses the Ex-Guv's initiative.
Wednesday, July 31, 2002:
WASTE REDUCTION: A WASTE
Here is a gem from the PoliSci listserv:
Civic Bears is a service-learning DECal course dedicated to the empowerment of UC Berkeley and K-12 students in the East Bay. Civic Bears pairs upper division UC Berkeley students with local elementary, middle, and high school students, and engages them in the study of the history and politics of community service. Together students initiate community service projects aimed at the promotion of civic awareness and political participation. By stepping beyond the classroom, students put lessons learned in school into action in the community. Civic Bears works in conjunction with the Alameda County Office of Education's (ACOE) Service-Learning Waste Reduction Project to implement sustainable waste reduction systems in 20 schools in Alameda County. Students enrolled in Civic Bears will have the opportunity to learn about service-learning and waste reduction, and help school communities through direct service. This may take a variety of forms. Students can work with teachers to integrate waste reduction and civic awareness into their curriculum. Students can work with local K-12 students to develop projects aimed at waste reduction. In addition, a team of students may work at the Alameda County office to assist in the administration of the waste management project. All students will have the opportunity to conduct a waste audit.
Isn't "community service" what the judge gives you when you can't pay a fine or don't want to do time for your crime? This should come in handy in Alameda County, where plenty of kids are sure to wind up before a judge. What does the "history and politics of community service" have to with waste reduction, anyway? About as much as the Poetry of the Palestinian resistance class at Cal has to do with English. If we want to reduce waste, how about eliminating this vaccum of public funds, comrades.
LIBERTINUM INGRATUM LEGES CIVILES IN PRISTINAM SERVITUTEM REDIGUNT; SED LEGES ANGLIÆ SEMEL MANUMISSUM SEMPER LIBERUM JUDICANT
Potato Chucker writes re the ACLU: During the Cold War, we barred communist members. While that may be true, the ACLU's Roger Baldwin held a close alliance with the communist party at its outset, nor did this commie ouster prevent the ACLU from ardently defending communists, particularly in California. A case in point:
In the 1950's, two provisions of the education code were added: Sections 38135 and 38136, which state:
38135. Any use, by any individual, society, group, or organization for the commission of any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the state by force, violence, or other unlawful means shall not be permitted or suffered.
Any individual, society, group, or organization which commits any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the overthrow of the government by force, violence, or other unlawful means while using school property pursuant to the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.
38136. No governing board of a school district shall grant the use of any school property to any person or organization for any use in
violation of Section 38135.
For the purpose of determining whether or not any individual, society, group, or organization applying for the use of the school
property intends to violate Section 38135, the governing board shall require the making and delivery to the governing board, by the
applicant of a written statement of information in the following form:
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION
The undersigned states that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the school property for use of which application is hereby made will
not be used for the commission of any act intended to further any program or movement the purpose of which is to accomplish the
overthrow of the government of the United States by force, violence or other unlawful means;
That ____, the organization on whose behalf he or she is making application for use of school property, does not, to the best of his
or her knowledge, advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States or of the State of California by force, violence, or
other unlawful means, and that, to the best of his or her knowledge, it is not a Communist action organization or Communist front
organization required by law to be registered with the Attorney General of the United States. This statement is made under the penalties of perjury.
This law was intended to protect our country from communist organizations that sought to violently overthrow the US government. Thanks to the ACLU in California (at the height of the Cold War) arguing on behalf of the Communist party, the law was overturned, making the college campus a haven for organizations who seek the violent overthrow of the United States government. Thanks, ACLU. Forty years later, our college campuses are rife with anti-American sentiment (along with your standard anti-White discrimination and anti-Semitism), thanks to the brainwashing that goes on in the classroom.
As far as the assertion that the ACLU is all about individual rights, nothing could be further from the truth. The NoCal ACLU supports hate crime legislation (based upon group identity, where similar crimes yield different prosecutorial schemes), is against racial privacy (also based upon group "rights" towards the government to classify you in a group or suspect typology), is in favor of protecting such groups (usually at the expense of other groups) as " immigrants" and " gays." This is hardly an organization committed to individual "rights," comrades: this is the New Left incarnate, bent on group identification and the "rights" afforded protected classes of people. Nice try, Mike.
Not only that, but the ACLU has defended the hostile takeover of our state by foreign nationals: California is powerless to enact its own legislation scheme to regulate immigration. I bet you lefties are happy to see that we can no longer control our borders. A transnational concept of revolution is an essential element in the communist manifesto, pinko ACLU traitors.
Also, the NoCal ACLU also creates new categories of protected persons under the euphamism of " language rights." I suppose the ACLU will be filing its briefs in Spanish from now on, comrades.
When it comes to free speech, forms of "harrassment" are considered not to be protected: The ACLU-NC submitted an amicus brief supporting the Latino employees' effort to secure a workplace environment free of racial harassment. This position is a far cry from defending cross-burnings or Nazis. Given the previous statement, one could assume that the NoCal ACLU would also support campus speech codes. So much for the First Amendment.
Lastly, any organization that defends racial discrimination is morally and ethically abhorrent, and should be categorized as racist. The ACLU doesn't want police to racially profile; but when it comes to college admissions, it wants racial profiling into group identities by college administrators. When there is the sanction of law, it doesn't want it; But when there are public benefits, it wants it. This is the essence of the twisted logic of the New Left, comrades. Don't believe the "ACLU is centrist" hype. It's all smoke and mirrors, falsely labeled as " fighting discrimination" when it wholeheartedly advocates and litigates on behalf of racial discrimination against whites. Disgusting, isn't it comrades?
These "Liberals" (or similar revisionist misnomers) are not preoccupied or "respective" with civil liberties, especially when it comes to equal protection under the law. The ACLU is only concerned with which group you "represent," based upon your melanin content, what type of genitals you have (if any), and who you sleep with. None of these have anything to do with civil liberties, comrades.
So to clarify, I do think Res is whining regarding the Patriot thefts. It’s deplorable, but insignificant on the grand scale and it has nothing to do with the government. Thus, the ACLU has no grounds to complain; independent individuals cannot obstruct the bill of rights, only governments can.
So now the First Amendment is "insignificant" at UC Berkeley? Spoken like a true leftist. In case you haven't noticed, your college administrators (government) have sworn to uphold the constitution, and so has the ACLU, for that matter. The government (UC) has abridged the right to free speech on campus, period. The public record shows that the ACLU has not written a single amici towards a campus speech issue in NoCal. It is not commited to anything resembling "civil liberties," so I guess it doesn't have to step up to the plate in the face of totalitarianism. Thank gawd we have the Pacific Legal Foundation to take up the First Amendment campus issues in NoCal, since the ACLU is notably silent.
This silence speaks volumes about the organization and its political agenda of attacking the constitution on behalf of "protected" classes of people, and the NoCal region's abandonment of the First Amendment. In the eyes of the ACLU, some people are more equal than others, comrades.
Friday, July 26, 2002:
PROFESSOR CHANG ON THE RECONQUISTA:
Many young Latinos in the second and third generations see themselves as locked in irremediable conflict with white society, and are quick to deride successful Chicano students as "wannabes." For them, to study hard is to "act white" and exhibit group disloyalty.
So true. Anyone who doesn't adopt the militant stance is instantly labeled a vendido (sellout) to his or her raza (race).
That attitude is part of the Chicano culture of resistance — a culture that actively resists assimilation into mainstream America. That culture is created, reinforced, and maintained by radical Chicano intellectuals, politicians, and the many Chicano Studies programs in U.S. colleges and universities.
As examples, according to its editor, Elizabeth Martinez, the purpose of Five Hundred Years of Chicano History, a book used in over 300 schools throughout the West, is to "celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders." The book calls the INS and the Border Patrol "the Gestapo for Mexicans." For Rodolfo Acuna, author of Occupied America: The Chicano's Struggle Toward Liberation, probably the most widely assigned text in U.S. Chicano Studies programs, the Anglo-American invasion of Mexico was "as vicious as that of Hitler's invasion of Poland and other Central European nations...." The book also includes a map showing "the Mexican republic" in 1822 reaching up into Kansas and Oklahoma, and including within it Utah, Nevada, and everything west and south of there. At a MEChA conference in 1996, Acuna referred to Anglos as Nazis: "Right now you are in the Nazi United States of America."
The effect of books such as those is to radicalize young Chicanos. As an example, although Chicano undergraduates at Berkeley lacked any sort of strong ethnic identity before entering college, in Berkeley they became "born again" as Chicanos because of MEChA and Chicano Studies departments.
That's what I have been saying all along, but a Ph.D lends some legitimacy to my argument. Your tax dollars fund racial hatred, and no one says anything about it for fear of being called a racist.
Mario Barrera, a faculty member of U.C. Berkeley's Department of Ethnic Studies, admitted that multiculturalism "would help prepare the ideological climate for an eventual campaign for ethnic regional autonomy." In January 1995, El Plan de Aztlan Conference at UC Riverside resolved that "We shall overcome...by the vote if possible and violence if necessary." The rise of Mexican irredentism as a serious political movement "awaits only the demographic transformation of the Southwest." As an article entitled "The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own" in 1982's Excelsior, Mexico's leading daily newspaper, put it:
"The territory lost in the 19th century by...Mexico...seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours on the old maps. Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.... [The result of this migration is to return the land] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot."
Multiculturalism and United States government's immigration policy have contributed towards the rise of Chicano ethnic separatism within the American Southwest that has all the makings of an incipient Nation of Aztlan.
Wednesday, July 24, 2002:
HOUSE MINORITY LEADER ADDRESSES "THE RACE"
DICK Gephardt traveled to Puebla last November, pandering votos south of the border and promising everything but the kitchen sink. I never would have him pegged as a reconquistador; but my "awareness" of politics makes it impossible to ignore his treason.
Now, he tells the National Council of THE RACE that we are not Americans, we are immigrants. That's right: all the way back to the Mayflower and Columbus, we are all immigrants (except for you Mestizo Nationalists of THE RACE):
"We are all immigrants unless we're Native Americans," the Missouri Democrat said. "There are probably millions of immigrants in this country who have done everything we've asked them to do. They've worked, they've stayed out of trouble, they've obeyed the laws, they've helped their families, and they would like an opportunity.
So the only real Americans are Native Americans? You are a DICK, aren't you, DICK? The Native Americans migrated here from Asia. Your "people" just happened to arrive a little later than the "natives," DICK. You are not an American, DICK. You are a DICK.
No one asked "them" to do anything: they took it for themselves without asking. They left their homes to come to this great country without being invited (until you start passing out invitations: fuck you, DICK). Its called theft: the taking of some thing without privilege or consent. This is the theft of sovereignty, DICK.
Tell me, DICK: how have illegal aliens "obeyed the laws?" If they obeyed the laws, why are they illegal aliens, DICK?
Gephardt's proposal would jump start the movement for legalization, which had lost some momentum after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Munoz said. Since then, immigration policy has focused more on securing the U.S.-Mexico border and restricting immigrant visas.
"It marks the formal resurrection of the issue," Munoz said. "We're coming back up on the radar screen."
You are getting votes across the border, DICK: that is treason. You know what the sentence for treason is? It would be too good for you, DICK.
Tuesday, July 23, 2002:
RECONQUISTA EN ACCION
Mexican Organizations Boycott Remittances
More than 50 organizations of Mexican workers living in the U.S. have started a one-week remittances boycott to pressure Mexican authorities to pass a law allowing Mexicans living abroad to vote in Mexico’s elections. (clipped from El Universal, 7/16/02, page 9).
It's only a matter of time before millions of people will be doubling their voting power at the expense of American sovereignty, comrades.
SIDEBAR:
Here is the best part of this official website, when you click onto the internet linking policy at the bottom, you get nowhere. It has been removed. However, I found a copy of it (as if collusion with a foreign government to overthrow the U.S. were not enough):
Links may be established to any of the entry pages (the "Entry Pages") to any of the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency's program sites. Links may not be established to any pages on the Web Sites other than the Entry Pages without the State's written permission.
I don't need your fucking permission, reconquistador-operative state-agency. Take that, thatand that, you swine.
If you link to a State Web Site, the State grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free license to use official State Internet icon(s), if available, (the "Licensed Marks") solely for the purpose of serving as a link from your web site to the official State Web sites. Except for the limited license to use the Licensed Marks granted in this paragraph, you may not use any of State of California official seals, marks, designations, trademarks or service marks (the "Marks") for any reason without the State's prior written permission. License to use the License Marks or Marks extends only to uses of these marks in a manner and context that is not is not misleading, distasteful or offensive.
Since the domain of this "state website" puts it clearly in Mexico, I say, fuck your linking policy. Here is something offensive for you: your mother wears boxer shorts, treasonous state agency.
UBI CULPA EST, IBI PŒNA SUBESSE DEBET
I hate to continue to flog a dead horse, but Potato Chucker is getting himself all worked up over nothing.
First of all, I was criticizing the organization known as Northern California Region of the American Civil Liberties Union. The Berkeley campus chapter was not even in existence five years ago, and was started by some kid from Irvine recently, Mike. I never said a word about your "club." You chose to align yourself with the broader organization known as the ACLU, and they don't mince words about their policy positions towards the euphemism of "civil liberties."
This is not a organization limited to providing legal services: they make policy. My beef is with the organization., because it is, by and large, the new Left incarnate in the NoCal region. As with all democratic organizations, they are fair game for criticism, especially its leaders. I have been involved with the organization in the past, and their policy position (ideology) precluded them from offering a defense in an issue concerning campus speech. I have dealt with the organization at length in the past.
Again, my original post merely pointed out that the ACLU was silent. That we can agree upon. What is questionable is why if the campus chapter had something to say, why didn't the regional website reflect those concerns? This demonstrates the leadership issue I referred to. It's easy to say "don't insult our leadership" when it is ineffective at influencing public policy towards a particulary egregious violation of civil rights. After all, no one controls the ACLU's website: it can subvert the mainstream media if the media chooses no to print. I think it's pretty sad that if your organization had some concerns, why weren't those concerns made a bit more public? Some call me a whiner: "what do you expect them to do?" I just expected the organization to say something, anything. If something was said, I, as a member of the general public, would have liked to have heard or seen it. Thats it. Letting the Patriot staff carry the torch of free speech on its own is all well and good; but where was the "prestige" of the ACLU? Which do you think is more influential at influencing public opinion, the Patriot or the ACLU?
While I have no doubt the campus chapter was just as pissed as I was towards the theft, I didn't see anything public denouncing the theft by your organization. That does not mean I do not appreciate your efforts Mike, but that lack of denouncement makes your leadership fair game. It is not my purpose nor intent to denigrate my campus chapter, or its leadership, but to expose the region for what it is: it supports racial discrimination. Last time I checked, Jews were considered a part of the "white" category in all of these suspect racial classifications. We can scream and yell back and forth until we are blue in-the-face, but my original position was this:
The ACLU is left-socialist and not entirely committed to the constitution. The ACLU is anti-Fourteenth Amendment, and its policies of racial discrimination can be implicit in some form of anti-Semitism, also given the fact they seek to support the jihad at SFSU, while ignoring the Bay-Area pogrom. When Nadine Strossen and the NoCal region become a bit more civil libertarian instead of supporting racial discrimination through its influential public policy position, I'll join your organization. Until then:
Sapiens Incipit A Fine, Et Quod Primum Est In Inentione, Ultimum Est In Executione
Monday, July 22, 2002:
EMIL GUILLERMO: DESPICABLE POND SCUM
The Chronicle's editorial page has some pretty wacky writers (I think there is one conservative: how is that for "diversity?"). Of them, this author's most-hated columnist is Emil Guillermo, a self-described "Asian-American" Filipino, this guy's work speaks volumes of twisted, irrational nonsense and pure hatred of those of us who are melanin-challenged-Americans.
In this article, Guillermo likens those who disagree with the Ninth Circuit's decision as vigilante "Pledge Nazis:"
Last week's court decision seems to have inspired a new brand of vigilantism just in time for the Fourth of July: Pledge Nazis.
In this article, Guillermo attacks Ward Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative as "essential" for racism. In Guilermo's sick mind, we need racial classification to perpetuate racial discrimination, otherwise known "affirmative action:"
Ah, color blindness. What a wonderful world it would be, filled with ignorance and invisibility, two essential ingredients for racism. That's the ultimate outcome of Connerly's deceptive vision.
Then, in this article, he wants to abandon the notion of the "one drop" rule, another racial classification scheme. Seems he can't make his his mind when it comes to racial classifications:
"One drop" refers to one drop of blood, an informal standard used when people thought races had different characteristics and traits based on having different types of blood...
Shouldn't we just drop any allegiance to such a racist standard?
Let me get this straight, Guillermo: "one drop" is racist and so is doing away with racial classifications through the RPI? You are one fucked-up Harvard graduate, Guillermo, and perhaps the best argument against racial balancing at universities I have ever seen. You clearly got a degree because you your "color" while having the intelligence of a French poodle.
Now this race-baiter is calling Bill Simon "The Frito Bandito." In an article filled with personal attack towards Simon for his "color," Guillermo says such silly things as:
But it now seems the future of Bill Simon depends on his ability to communicate as a latter-day vato homeboy. Though he probably wishes he were more Ricky Martin than a bland version of Ricardo Montalban.
While he's at it, maybe Simon should work on his tan as well.
The Chronicle prints this shit as "editorial," legitimizing the overt racism towards whites in the press. If I were to criticize a person for being too dark or too yellow, I would be called "racist" by the racist-screamers. But when Guillermo does it, it's okay, comrades. The Chronicle prints it, and this view becomes a legitimate and palatable form of racism in of itself.
The idiocy of this Neanderthal continues:
Why is it that when white politicians want to connect with any ethnic constituency, they feel they have to transform themselves by speaking their language?
Because the ethnic constituency being addressed has never bothered to learn English, you fuckwad.
In Spanish, that would be more like having the authenticity of the Frito Bandito.
That's exactly what Simon sounded like the other day when he rolled out his accent.
Simon speaks in Spanish, and now he is attacked for his "accent?" How fucking racist can you be, Guillermo? I wonder what would happen if Guillermo was white and criticizing a Latino politician for his poor English? Mayhem would ensue comrades, mayhem. Witness this double-standard for yourself.
He pledged to enforce AB 540, a new law I've written about in the past that allows undocumented immigrants to pay the same tuition at state colleges and universities as in-state residents.
In other words, the law gives undocumented students the same rights as citizens.
No, AB540 gives illegal immigrants rights not available to American citizens. Not only are you a cheat, Guillermo, but you are a fucking liar to boot.
Then you call anyone who opposes this form of treason as "xenophobic" when the only thing xenophobic is your fear of white people, you fucking-banana-truck chasing excuse for a chimpanzee:
"With respect to the tuition, I just see inequities," Simon said in copy that needed no translation. "You're basically punishing citizens, and I don't think that's appropriate. I think there are better priorities, and my priorities would be citizens."
Spoken like a true xenophobe.
What does citizenship have to do with a fear of foreign cultures, Mr. Guillermo? Anyone who opposes the cultural hegemony is cast out as "racist" or "xenophobic" in this world of Marxian class-conflict. You are a cultural terrorist, Mr. Guillermo. You are not an American: you are a racist for attacking someone's skin color. Petty Bourgeois gives you the big "fuck you," Mr. Guillermo. Rot in hell, scumbag.
|
|
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}
