Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: Did you miss this hate crime?

Homosexual Bigots Commit Hate Crimes State Senator Ruben Diaz .

“A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.” -

» If you like this article, please support Right Side News

The Knight of the Long Knives continues as the homosexual lobby commits one hate crime after another.

The latest victim of homosexual bigots? New York state senator Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, the only Democrat who voted against granting same-couples the “right” to marry in New York.

Diaz proudly says he is a “Christian first and then a Democrat,” and added that, “I always vote my conscience.”

Says Diaz, “As a Christian and as the President of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, I will continue to defend the teachings of the Bible and oppose homosexual marriage.”

In the debate that crested with Republicans casting the deciding votes to legitimize homosexual “marriage,” Diaz was blunt, direct and clear. “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

For taking a principled, religiously-rooted stand for the institution that undergirds all of human civilization, Diaz has become the latest in a long, sad string of victims of the true hatemongers in America, homosexuals activists. Their hate crime against him is motivated by prejudice against his religion, which teaches that God designed marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

Diaz and his family received death threats during the same-sex marriage debate and controversy, and his daughter was threatened with sexual assault by the same people who say you’re not supposed to force your values on anyone. The threats have been reported to the police and the FBI. (Good luck getting any help from them.) He has also received a barrage of hate calls.

Remember the legal definition of a “threat” for hate crimes purposes:

“It is an expression of an intention to inflict an evil or injury on another person...A threat is also defined as a menace that keeps the mind of a person upon whom a threat operates unsettled.” -

On top of that, homosexual paragons of tolerance sponsored a “F--- Ruben Diaz Festival” in a gay bar in Brooklyn.

Says Diaz, a Pentecostal pastor, "I have never preached hate. They're showing that they're the ones that are doing the hateful things."

Added Diaz in a recent press release, “I continue to be the target of a vulgar campaign by seething extremists who oppose my defense of New York’s marriage laws. As a Christian, of course I love those who hate me and I will continue to pray for their souls.” And gay activists say that he is the hater! Sounds a lot more like Jesus Christ to me.

His Democratic colleagues, the self-proclaimed champions of the downtrodden and victimized, are no help, saying he’s getting what he deserves. “You reap what you sow,” said one.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch admitted that the hatemongers on the left are at risk of overplaying their hand:

"Incidents of rage against 'haters,' verbal abuse of opponents, boycotts of small-business owners, absolutist enforcement of anti-discrimination laws: Those and other 'zero-tolerance' tactics play into the 'homosexual bullies' narrative. The other side in short, is counting on us to hand them the victimhood weapon. Our task is to deny it to them."

Well, if they were trying to deny Sen. Ruben Diaz the “victimhood weapon,” consider their efforts an epic fail.

Wrote Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York Catholic Conference:

“Where is the cry for tolerance and justice for Rev. Diaz against these hate purveyors?...The entire campaign to enact same-sex marriage is conducted under a banner of acceptance, and equality and respect for others. Yet behind that banner of tolerance is another campaign – of intimidation, threats and ugliness. What at first appears to be simple juvenile behavior by a few is becoming a culture and climate of abusiveness toward those who disagree. Is this the future we look forward to in our state? Intolerance masquerading as tolerance, intimidation in the name of respect? I hope not, but the wind certainly seems to be blowing in that direction.”

Mr. Barnes, the winds are not only blowing in that direction, they are reaching hurricane force.

Chuck Colson is another whose eyes are wide open to the steaming hate billowing from the denizens of the homosexual lobby. "The gay-rights groups have shown their fangs. They want to silence, yes, destroy those who don't agree with their agenda."

Homosexuals are rapidly cementing their position as the number one perpetrators of hate crimes in American today. Sen. Diaz is simply the latest prey of the hatemongering hunters on the left, who live in mortal fear that someone, somewhere, actually believes what God says about marriage and human sexuality. And the list will grow longer before it grows shorter.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott: The House has passed "Cut, Cap & Balance"

The peoples' House has passed "Cut, Cap & Balance" by a substantial margin but the Senate under the arrogant leadership of Senator Reid has rejected it 51-46. Obama promised to veto it if it passed but I doubt he would do that if the August 2nd deadline was upon us. How can anyone be against the balanced budget amendment? It's like apple pie and motherhood. This goes to show that it is the Democrats in the Senate that are at fault if the nation defaults. Time to jack up you senators and tell them this is the only bill on the table so it's time to man-up and pass it to save us from the default they are crying about. Put up or shut. Fish or cut bait.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott is out of her depth on budget matters

Dee Perez-Scott wrote,”As Republicans continue to pander to the Rich and demand more cuts (Medicare, Social Security) for the Middle Class, IF they continue to stonewall the President and push our country into a deeper Recession/Depression and refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling, then the President should invoke the 14th Amendment and pay our Country's bills. True Americans stand behind our President.”

She uses the phrase "true Americans" but her readers will remember vividly how critical she was of those who used the term "real Americans. She doesn't get to decide who is and who is not a true or real American. Dee Perez-Scott, if she had any sense, would know that America will pay the interest on the national debt as its first priority. Everyone but she knows that. Next in line are Social Security and Medicare and Armed Services pay. Moreover, as Obama has already stated, he does not plan to resort to any sort of tricks such as invoking the 14th amendment. He understands that he has no basis for doing so as long as we have the resources to pay the interest on the national debt. Even if he did, only the House has the constitutional authority to appropriate money. If Obama tried to operate solely on the basis of more debt, that would surely seal his fate in 2012 as everyone begins to realize that every dollar of such debt has Obama written all over it.

It really takes two parties to stonewall anything. If the president and the democrats weren’t stonewalling, there would be no crisis. It makes no sense to raise the limit on a credit card when one is already deep in hock. In fact, ethical credit card companies would refuse to do so. China should let it be known that if the U.S. does not undertake austerity measures like those being imposed on Greece, it will cash in its U.S. bonds and refuse to buy any more. The who will finance the national debt?
If Dee understood the budget deficit and national debt, she would realize that even if the super rich were taxed at 100% that would not be enough to cure the problem. We have to cut expenditures and Medicare and Social Security are the only major budget items that have the capability of solving the problem. I am not in favor of drastic cuts in either of them but there will have to be some contribution from that quarter if there is to be any chance for our country to return to solvency. The proposed changes are modest: a small adjustment in the cost of living formula and an increase of the age for a full annuity to 67. I don’t like either one but, unlike Dee, I am being realistic.

In a recent article, ultra-liberal-progressive, Katrina vanden Heuvel said: "Invoking the 14th Amendment defuses the bomb Republicans have strapped to the hostage." By doing so, the President would end the debt ceiling negotiations and create another basis for his impeachment. The 14th Amendment says: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” vanden Heuvel and others of her ilk should understand that no one is questioning the “validity of the public debt” and that includes the intra-governmental debt (like all the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund) which the Obama Administration and the Congress often conveniently overlook because it runs the national debt up to $120 trillion.

Katrina continued: In Freytag v. Commissioner (1991), the Supreme Court held that the president has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." The Supreme, the final arbiter of constitutionality, will have the final word.. "As a simple matter of constitutional logic, the president can refuse to enforce a statute he believes violates the Constitution," said Professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School in a telephone interview with me. It is also unlikely that the action would be successfully challenged in court. Only Congress would have standing to sue, but doing so would require a joint resolution, something a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost certainly block." In other words, vanden Heuvel is suggesting that the President rather than the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of a statute. That would inflict such heavy damage to the concept of separation of powers that even the Democrats in the senate would hesitate to take that route. Instead the statesmen in both Houses should expedite the resolution and ask the court to give it immediate priority.

I do think the Republicans would be making a PR mistake by continuing to insist on no tax increases of any kind, direct or indirect. However, any tax increases should be limited to individuals rather than the businesses that we depend upon to create jobs. If they do so , we will stand behind the Republicans and toss Obama out of office next year.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Dee Perez-Scott supports Mexifornia

Recently, in symbolic fashion, spectators of Mexican ancestry in Pasadena's Rose Bowl did not merely cheer on the Mexican national soccer team in a game against the U.S. national team -- such nostalgia is natural and understandable for recent immigrants -- but went much further and also jeered American players and, indeed, references to the United States.

Which was the home team?

Was America to be appreciated for accepting poor aliens, or resented for not granting them amnesty? Is the idea of the United States to be conveniently booed or opportunistically thanked -- depending on whether you are watching a soccer match or, for example, entering an Los Angeles hospital emergency room with a life-threatening injury?

This otherwise insignificant but Orwellian incident reminds us that illegal immigration in the 21st century is becoming an illiberal enterprise. But that doesn't bother liberal Dee Perez-Scott.

Consider the prevailing myth of Mexico as America's "partner." Aside from the violence and drug cartels, an alien from Mars who examined the relationship would instead characterize it as abusive. Close to a million Mexican nationals annually try to cross illegally into the United States, aided and abetted by a cash-strapped Mexico -- in a fashion that the latter would never permit on its southern border with Guatemala. Indeed, if Guatemala had published an illustrated comic book instructing, in picture fashion, its presumed illiterate emigrants how to enter Mexico illegally -- as Mexico actually did -- the Mexican government would have been outraged. So is the surreal logic of Mexico City summed up by something like, "We value our own people so much that we will help them break laws to go elsewhere"? Dee Perez-Scott, in a similar fashion, supports those who have already broken the law by their illegal entry and presence in the U.S.

In the old immigration narrative of the 1960s and 1970s, affluent, profit-minded white American employers often exploited cheap workers from Mexico. But that matrix now is often superseded. So-called whites are no longer a majority in California, where large Asian and African-American populations often object to illegal arrivals from Mexico who cut in front of the legal immigration line or tax social services and raise costs to the detriment of American citizens.

Even the notions of "white" and "Latino" are becoming problematic in today's intermarried and interracial society. Does one-quarter or one-half an ethnic ancestry make one a member of the "minority" or "majority" community -- and, if so, by what logic and under which convenient conditions? For the purposes of hiring or college admission, should we apply one-drop rules from the Old Confederacy to measure our racial purity?

Poverty is no longer so clearly delineated either. In an underground economy where wages are often in cash and tax-free, and entitlements easier than ever to obtain, well over $20 billion a year in remittances are sent southward to Mexico alone, maybe double that sum to Latin America as a whole.

Something here once again has proven illiberal: Does a liberal-sounding but exploitive Mexican government cynically encourage its expatriates to scrimp and save in America only to send huge sums of money back home to help poor relatives, so that Mexico City might not? In turn, do an increasing number of illegal aliens count on help from the American taxpayer for food, housing, legal and education subsidies in order to free up $20 billion to send home?

The paradoxes and confusion never end these days. Do today's immigration activists work to grant amnesty on the basis of legal philosophy and principled support for open borders, or just because of shared ethnic identity? Dee Perez-Scott clearly supports illegal aliens because of shared ethnic identity! If there were now 11 million East Africans in America illegally, would today's Hispanic immigration lobbyists seek amnesty, bilingual services in Swahili, and yet more illegal immigration from Kenya and Uganda? Would they ever seek racially blind legal immigration into the U.S., based on education and skills rather than point of origin? Obviously, they wouldn't and neither would Dee Perez-Scott.

The yearly arrival of hundreds of thousands from Latin America, mostly without English-language skills, a high-school diploma and legality, has also challenged old ideas of everything from the assessment of U.S. poverty rates to affirmative action. Once an impoverished resident of Oaxaca crosses the border, does his lack of education and his modest income immediately help cement the charge that the American Latino population has not achieved economic parity?

Or, in the first nanosecond after illegally crossing the border, does a Mexican national or his family in theory become eligible for affirmative action, on the basis of past historical underrepresentation or present-day discrimination or poor treatment in Mexico -- in a way not extended to the Arab-American or Punjabi-American citizen?

Why does the present administration oppose new anti-illegal immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia that are designed to enhance existing federal law -- but not so-called "sanctuary city" statutes that in some municipalities deliberately contravene federal immigration law?

The old liberal ideal of a racially blind, melting-pot society where the law is applied equally across the board has descended into the new postmodern practice of enforcing many laws only selectively -- and based entirely on politics, matters of race, ethnic chauvinism and national origin.

In sum, yesterday's immigration liberals have become today's illiberals.

---Victor Hansen