A recent Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) study identified 926 hate groups in the United States—defined as groups with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people. By this definition, the SPLC is itself a hate group because it attacks entire classes of people such as the KKK, the Skinheads, and the Neo-Nazis.
The term “hate” is entirely too simplistic to be applicable to the entire spectrum of opposing beliefs and approaches to achieving power or influence over others. It is a term designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. The beliefs of the so-called hate groups range from a political philosophy that merely differs from that of the SPLC’s to actual advocacy of violence against entire classes of people. This broad brush treatment of those who dissent from political orthodoxy or correctness is unwarranted. It undermines whatever good they could otherwise accomplish through regular and consistent criticism of those who would do harm to others whom they perceive to be a threat to their way of life or simply “different” or “inferior.” The feelings of these groups are, of course, very human qualities that have been demonstrated time and again throughout history. Nevertheless, as we strive to recognize the pervasiveness of political, social and cultural differences that have frequently resulted in violence and wars, we cannot accept this as the norm or the behavior we should be striving for. Therefore, we must condemn violence of all kinds whether directed against individuals or whole groups of people or minorities.
This does not mean in any case that anyone must approve of or accept without comment behavior which he or she finds abhorrent, distasteful, contrary to law, or a perceived threat to his or her way of life. Currently the opprobrium of some is focused on the nation's first African-American president and an economy that is hemorrhaging jobs. For the past decade, illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico and Latin America, have also divided our society. The purveyors of the “hate group” mantra inevitably overlook the legitimate reasons for opposing illegal aliens and a new president whose political philosophy is foreign to the capitalism that drove America to the heights of power, prestige, and a standard of living of living that is the envy of many.
During the election, many candidates pussy-footed around their disagreements with Obama because they were worried that they would be considered racist. Similarly, today the SPLC would mute the criticism of the president by attributing it to racism or “hate.” The SPLC conveniently overlooks all of the legitimate bases for disagreeing with and disliking the policies of Obama. People quite properly worry about what will happen to our beloved country as its Latino population increases to such a degree that America becomes Mexico Norte with all the ills of disease, crime, poverty, joblessness, and corruption evident in the original. In fact, there is little about Latin American culture, government, and economic and scientific achievements that recommends them over the America we all cherish.
The current economic conditions have exacerbated the opposition to the politics of the left and the politics and organizational methods promoted by Saul Alinsky that formed the basis for the successful Obama campaigns. People who had been complacent in the past are now upset and more motivated to do something. They didn’t fully appreciate the size of the illegal alien population until the economic crisis hit and it became clear illegals, by accepting substandard wages and benefits, were taking jobs Americans needed and wanted. The movement to provide amnesty to millions of illegals simply added fuel to the fire. But the ire resulting from these events is not “hate”, it is simply the current economic reality and the longer standing interest in secure borders and a preservation of the rule of law and our national sovereignty.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Mexican Drug Wars to Spill Over into the U.S.
Drug violence spins Mexico toward 'civil war'
(CNN) -- A shootout in a border city that leaves five alleged drug traffickers sprawled dead on the street and seven police wounded. A police chief and his bodyguards gunned down outside his house in another border city. Four bridges into the United States shut down by protesters who want the military out of their towns and who officials say are backed by narcotraffickers.
Mexican police carry a body after a clash with gangs that left 21 dead in the state of Chihuahua on February 10.
That was Mexico on Tuesday. What is most remarkable is that it was not much different from Monday or Sunday or any day in the past few years.
Mexico, a country with a nearly 2,000-mile border with the United States, is undergoing a horrifying wave of violence that some are likening to a civil war. Drug traffickers battle fiercely with each other and Mexican authorities. The homicide rate reached a record level in 2008 and indications are that the carnage could be exceeded this year. Every day, newspapers and the airwaves are filled with stories and images of beheadings and other gruesome killings. Wednesday's front page on Mexico City's La Prensa carried a large banner headline that simply said "Hysteria!" The entire page was devoted to photos of bloody bodies and grim-faced soldiers. One photo shows a man with two young children walking across a street with an army vehicle in the background, with a soldier standing at a turret machine gun.
Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, calls it "a sickening vertigo into chaos and plunder." By most accounts, that's not hyperbole. "The grisly portrait of the violence is unprecedented and horrific," said Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. "I don't think there's any question that Mexico is going through a very rough time. Not only is there violence with the gangs, but the entire population is very scared," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy center.
Speaking on a news show a few weeks ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it a civil war. Birns agrees. "Of course it's a civil war, but that only touches the violence of it," he said Wednesday. "It's also a civic conflict, as an increasing number of people look upon the law and democratic values as something that can be violated." Hakim is not prepared to go that far. "One has to be careful and not overdo it," he said. "Mexico is a long way from being a failed state. Mexico has real institutions. It paves roads and collects the garbage. It holds regular elections."
Enrique Bravo, an analyst with the Eurasia consulting group, points out that the violence so far is mostly affecting just drug gangs and is primarily localized along the U.S. border and Mexico's western coast. The violence along the border is particularly worrisome, analysts say. "The spillover into the United States is bound to expand and bound to affect U.S. institutions," Birns said.
(One might add that the volume of cross-border traffic is so huge that it defies any meaningful security measures or efforts to curtail human and drug smuggling or trafficking. We could begin by prohibiting cross-border work commutes. If you work in the U.S. daily and are a U.S. citizen, you must live in the U.S.. If you are a Mexican citizen you must go to school in Mexico. Cross-border busing must end. Mexican trailers must be unhooked at the border and hooked to American tractors. Border infrastructure, staffing and rules of engagement must be improved and buttressed with vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification. Stopping illegal entry is essential to the solution to the drug problem. If they can’t get their product across the border, the drug problem will be solved. If we stop all illegals, we will surely stop the violent drug traffickers.)
Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs. Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States. And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas. "The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.
Pervasive corruption among public officials is central to the drug cartels' success. "There is so much money involved in the drug trade, there is so much fear involved in the drug trade, that no institution can survive unaffected," Birns said. "This has really revealed just how corrupt Mexican officeholders are," Hakim said.
In one recent instance, Noe Ramirez Mandujano, who was the nation's top anti-drug official from 2006 until August 2008, was arrested on charges that he accepted $450,000 a month in bribes from drug traffickers while in office. Such dire problems call for a new way of looking at the situation, some say."The unthinkable is happening," Birns said. "People are beginning to discuss decriminalization and legalization. ... There's only one thing that can be done: Take the profit out of it." Pastor calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era" and said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now."What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition." That viewpoint has picked up some high-level support in Latin America.
Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. "The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said at a news conference, in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken the war on drugs to the cartels and some say it's not working. "It's as if the burden of being the main arena of the anti-drug war has overwhelmed Mexican institutions," Birns said. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost. And there's no prospect the war is going to be won."
In the meantime, the killings will continue at a record pace. On Wednesday, the Mexican cities of Torreon and Gomez Palacio reported at least eight shootouts involving heavily armed men. The toll: seven dead, seven wounded.
(CNN) -- A shootout in a border city that leaves five alleged drug traffickers sprawled dead on the street and seven police wounded. A police chief and his bodyguards gunned down outside his house in another border city. Four bridges into the United States shut down by protesters who want the military out of their towns and who officials say are backed by narcotraffickers.
Mexican police carry a body after a clash with gangs that left 21 dead in the state of Chihuahua on February 10.
That was Mexico on Tuesday. What is most remarkable is that it was not much different from Monday or Sunday or any day in the past few years.
Mexico, a country with a nearly 2,000-mile border with the United States, is undergoing a horrifying wave of violence that some are likening to a civil war. Drug traffickers battle fiercely with each other and Mexican authorities. The homicide rate reached a record level in 2008 and indications are that the carnage could be exceeded this year. Every day, newspapers and the airwaves are filled with stories and images of beheadings and other gruesome killings. Wednesday's front page on Mexico City's La Prensa carried a large banner headline that simply said "Hysteria!" The entire page was devoted to photos of bloody bodies and grim-faced soldiers. One photo shows a man with two young children walking across a street with an army vehicle in the background, with a soldier standing at a turret machine gun.
Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, calls it "a sickening vertigo into chaos and plunder." By most accounts, that's not hyperbole. "The grisly portrait of the violence is unprecedented and horrific," said Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. "I don't think there's any question that Mexico is going through a very rough time. Not only is there violence with the gangs, but the entire population is very scared," said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy center.
Speaking on a news show a few weeks ago, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it a civil war. Birns agrees. "Of course it's a civil war, but that only touches the violence of it," he said Wednesday. "It's also a civic conflict, as an increasing number of people look upon the law and democratic values as something that can be violated." Hakim is not prepared to go that far. "One has to be careful and not overdo it," he said. "Mexico is a long way from being a failed state. Mexico has real institutions. It paves roads and collects the garbage. It holds regular elections."
Enrique Bravo, an analyst with the Eurasia consulting group, points out that the violence so far is mostly affecting just drug gangs and is primarily localized along the U.S. border and Mexico's western coast. The violence along the border is particularly worrisome, analysts say. "The spillover into the United States is bound to expand and bound to affect U.S. institutions," Birns said.
(One might add that the volume of cross-border traffic is so huge that it defies any meaningful security measures or efforts to curtail human and drug smuggling or trafficking. We could begin by prohibiting cross-border work commutes. If you work in the U.S. daily and are a U.S. citizen, you must live in the U.S.. If you are a Mexican citizen you must go to school in Mexico. Cross-border busing must end. Mexican trailers must be unhooked at the border and hooked to American tractors. Border infrastructure, staffing and rules of engagement must be improved and buttressed with vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on E-verification. Stopping illegal entry is essential to the solution to the drug problem. If they can’t get their product across the border, the drug problem will be solved. If we stop all illegals, we will surely stop the violent drug traffickers.)
Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs. Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States. And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas. "The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.
Pervasive corruption among public officials is central to the drug cartels' success. "There is so much money involved in the drug trade, there is so much fear involved in the drug trade, that no institution can survive unaffected," Birns said. "This has really revealed just how corrupt Mexican officeholders are," Hakim said.
In one recent instance, Noe Ramirez Mandujano, who was the nation's top anti-drug official from 2006 until August 2008, was arrested on charges that he accepted $450,000 a month in bribes from drug traffickers while in office. Such dire problems call for a new way of looking at the situation, some say."The unthinkable is happening," Birns said. "People are beginning to discuss decriminalization and legalization. ... There's only one thing that can be done: Take the profit out of it." Pastor calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era" and said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now."What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition." That viewpoint has picked up some high-level support in Latin America.
Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in strategy on the war on drugs at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. "The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said at a news conference, in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has taken the war on drugs to the cartels and some say it's not working. "It's as if the burden of being the main arena of the anti-drug war has overwhelmed Mexican institutions," Birns said. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost. And there's no prospect the war is going to be won."
In the meantime, the killings will continue at a record pace. On Wednesday, the Mexican cities of Torreon and Gomez Palacio reported at least eight shootouts involving heavily armed men. The toll: seven dead, seven wounded.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Neo-Copperheads
Although “Copperhead”, as a term of opprobrium, existed before the Civil War, it is known mostly for its application to Democrats in the North, some of whom were émigrés from the South,who opposed the war for a number of reasons. These included a fear of the growing centralization of government; doubts about the possible harmful consequences to themselves if slavery were abolished; in the Midwest, an economic-based envy of industrial New England; in New England, a fear among merchants and manufacturers of losing profitable commerce with the South; the continuing loyalty of the émigrés to the Confederacy; and the incentive among Democrats to make political capital out of the inevitable hardships of the war. In a more recent time frame, President Franklin Roosevelt revived the term by applying it to the noninterventionist stand taken by Charles A. Lindbergh in 1941.
The Civil War Copperheads opposed conscription, gave aid to deserters, hindered shipments of men and supplies, and terrorized Union sympathizers. Today, Neo-Copperheads are following a similar script. They oppose the rule of law, give aid to illegal aliens, hinder the efforts of Congress to do the right thing, and consistently and severely criticize their fellow citizens for demanding secure borders and a reduction in legal immigration.
The Neo-Copperheads rend the fabric of our nation by supporting a form of comprehensive immigration reform that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, open the floodgates for millions of new immigrants and illegal aliens, continue chain immigrations and 14th Amendment abuses, and deny English as the official language of government. Like their Civil War predecessors the Neo-Copperheads pursue their own narrow interests rather than the national interest. They undermine all efforts to restore our national sovereignty. They evidence no interest in stopping immigration’s unarmed invasion with its deadly consequences for the America we know and love. They, like the earlier Copperheads, exhibit gross disloyalty to their country and make it exceedingly difficult to prosecute the war on terror and effectively deal with the companion problem of illegal entry. They oppose E-verification of work status, roundups of illegal aliens, continuous and vigorous internal enforcement, detention centers, and the expeditious processing and repatriation of those who are apprehended. Even though the rule of law requires both, the noninterventionist Neo-Copperheads say “Stop the roundups and close the detention centers.”
The Civil War Copperheads opposed conscription, gave aid to deserters, hindered shipments of men and supplies, and terrorized Union sympathizers. Today, Neo-Copperheads are following a similar script. They oppose the rule of law, give aid to illegal aliens, hinder the efforts of Congress to do the right thing, and consistently and severely criticize their fellow citizens for demanding secure borders and a reduction in legal immigration.
The Neo-Copperheads rend the fabric of our nation by supporting a form of comprehensive immigration reform that would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, open the floodgates for millions of new immigrants and illegal aliens, continue chain immigrations and 14th Amendment abuses, and deny English as the official language of government. Like their Civil War predecessors the Neo-Copperheads pursue their own narrow interests rather than the national interest. They undermine all efforts to restore our national sovereignty. They evidence no interest in stopping immigration’s unarmed invasion with its deadly consequences for the America we know and love. They, like the earlier Copperheads, exhibit gross disloyalty to their country and make it exceedingly difficult to prosecute the war on terror and effectively deal with the companion problem of illegal entry. They oppose E-verification of work status, roundups of illegal aliens, continuous and vigorous internal enforcement, detention centers, and the expeditious processing and repatriation of those who are apprehended. Even though the rule of law requires both, the noninterventionist Neo-Copperheads say “Stop the roundups and close the detention centers.”
Sunday, February 8, 2009
It's not about Race, Ethnicity or Skin Color
Immigration, as it relates to population, is not a racial issue; it’s about numbers, not race, ethnicity or skin color. It is not racist to consider what doubling or tripling our population would require of our resources and environment. We condemn racism in all its forms. But we also condemn taboos that prevent open, honest public discussion about issues so vital to all of us. With two-thirds of our population growth a direct result of immigration, the American people deserve some say in whether this kind of staggering increase is desirable. Immigration policy must be designed within the framework of overall U.S. population goals and the skills and numbers needed by our economy. Population-driven economic growth is ultimately unsustainable.
"It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest." Barbara Jordan, (D., Texas),Former U.S. Representative.
Notes from America
The Obama Watch
Pictures at an Exhibition
"It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest." Barbara Jordan, (D., Texas),Former U.S. Representative.
Notes from America
The Obama Watch
Pictures at an Exhibition
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Mexico Norte
A relatively small university town recently experienced some of the hints of Mexico Norte to come. Columbine Elementary School in Boulder, Colorado was scheduled for re-vamping because test scores were substandard and the curriculum had to be re-built to improve. Teachers were told that they would have to re-apply for their jobs because they obviously were failing to achieve results. Eighty percent of the students speak Spanish as their first language and qualify for free lunches. Some parents believe that the plan to re-vamp the school discriminated against Spanish-speaking parents and that they were not listened to in the discussion of the move to improve. One lady who spoke good English said as much and said, "We are Spanish".
Some of the parents support the changes but didn't want to be identified for fear of retaliation from their neighbors. The U.S. Department of Education is investigating.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-school-civil-rights020209,0,3056055.story
Some of the parents support the changes but didn't want to be identified for fear of retaliation from their neighbors. The U.S. Department of Education is investigating.
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-school-civil-rights020209,0,3056055.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)