Corruption of democracy in No Carolina

O'Keefe's Project Veritas exposes voter fraud and corruption of the democratic process in North Carolina:

Intellectual Ammunition to help you re-educate your children

David Horowitz and the Freedom Center have inexpensive pamphlets available to help you re-educate your indoctrinated children:

Voter ID Laws Prevent Fraud: So why are Obamacrats against them?

» Brown: Voter ID Laws Protect Electoral Process » Commentary -- GOPUSA:

"...It did not matter to the DOJ that an estimated 160,000 to 333,000 non-citizens were illegally registered to vote in Texas in 2008. But then again, this is the DOJ of Attorney General Holder — who was all about repressing the white vote when he dismissed the Black Panther Party case -- because he thought it demeaned "my people." With that in mind, no one should be surprised by Holder's state-by-state whack-a-mole game to exterminate voter ID laws..."

read the rest HERE

Immigration Enforcement does not equate to "hate"

A great clip taking an honest look at the illegal alien problem in America.  The first step in solving the problem is to quit referring to these economic invaders as either "undocumented" or "immigrants."  Is a drug dealer "slinging rock" out on the streets referred to as an "undocumented pharmacist"?  Is a home-invader referred to as an "undocumented guest"?  Are European or Japanese tourists in the US referred to as "temporary immigrants"?

For every personal anecdote about a hard-working, friendly neighbor who happens to be in the country ILLEGALLY, there are numerous personal anecdotes from victims of property crimes and physical injury crimes committed by an illegal alien.



"Islam's" Contributions to Western Civilization??

From a great piece by Counter-Jihad: Beyond the EDL

"...‘Let me highlight a handful of Islam’s contributions to Western culture. The guitar. Cough syrup. The university. Algebra. Mocha coffee...’

- Irshad Manji, from her The Trouble With Islam Today

 

This is one of the most common and annoying mistakes you can find in defence of Islam.

How can Islam itself have contributed the guitar, cough syrup, algebra, etc. to ‘Western culture’? How can a religion, or the Koran, the hadiths, etc. have contributed these things? How can even the affects of Islam, the Koran, etc. have done so? It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that Islam, a religion primarily based on the Koran, could have had an hand in the invention of the guitar, algebra, cough syrup syrup, etc. Which passages in the Koran, or the hadiths, etc. helped contribute to the creation of algebra? Which passages helped inspire the invention of cough syrup? Again, this is plain silly!..."

Read the rest of this insightful piece!

Is it "Islamophobia"...or rational and reasonable "concern"?

The word (and suffix) "phobia" was originally used by psychologists to denote "an irrational fear" of some object, substance, animal, situation, person(s), or place...etc. The key word in that definition was "irrational": meaning a lack of rational or reasonable basis for the fear.  However, from the psychologist's point of view, it is still very reasonable and rational to experience fear---or to be concerned with---certain "things", people, or situations that are dangerous (i.e. pose a threat to life, limb, family, or property): it simply means your instinctual drive for self-survival (or "genetic survival") is engaged with your intellect. 

Over the last few decades, however, usage of the suffix "phobia" was appropriated and distorted by political activists to mean: " irrational fear and/or hostility, prejudice, or hatred of." The intended meaning of any word created with the suffix "phobia" is now rather fuzzy; hostility is not the same as fear; prejudice is not the same as hatred; cognition is not the same as action.

In the public arena, usage of the term "Islamophobia" is very much in vogue these days . So, let's take an objective look at the veracity of the term---as it is often used by "Progressives" and Islamists today: in reference to criticizisms of the ideology of Islam or the spread of Islam throughout the world.  Is it now irrational to question or opine? 

Or conversely, is it actually reasonable and rational for non-Muslims to have---and express---some concerns about the ideology of "Islam"?  Is it reasonable and rational for them to have concerns about the Islamic mandate to spread Islam? And most importantly, does the fundamental ideology of Islam---including its self-mandated Expansion---pose a danger or threat to the life, limb, family members, or prosperity of non-Muslims?

Below are 2 video clips currently posted on youTube (although they may get yanked) that were made by Muslims FOR Muslims. [Unfortunately, the first one is in Arabic, so we must trust that the on-screen translation is accurate. The second one, however, is in English, and was made for English-speaking Muslims living in the UK and the USA.]

Many "Westerners" are completely unconcerned about the underlying ideology of Islam, or about the IMPORTATION of Islamism through immigration policy. What they NEED to know is that ISLAM is very concerned with THEM.

If you are a non-Muslim (infidel), get EDUCATED about YOUR ASSIGNED ROLE as a dhimmi under the ideology of Islam, and THEN decide if it is reasonable and rational for YOU to have concerns---and do something about those concerns; even if you are then IRRATIONALLY labeled an Islamophobe.

Email Newt and Tell Him to Scrap his Amnesty Plan

Newt's Amnesty Plan

This should be distressing to all conservatives and American patriots:

"...Unless Gingrich supporters push him to back off, he is promising a bigger amnesty than the giant blanket amnesty of 1986 that was supposed to be the first and last one ever.

Hopefully, his supporters can talk him into cutting out at least 90% of his amnesty.

We have no way to set up faxing to candidate Gingrich, but you can send an email to him at: 

http://www.newt.org/contact. Click on the "Platform" option and let him know what you want him to change and how you feel about his immigration platform..."

What kind of a message does it send to those people in our country who have jumped through all the bureaucratic hoops to LEGALLY enter and remain in America if the Feds grant another blanket amnesty to the millions of foreign criminals who have ignored and disrespected our immigration laws?  Do you think another blanket amnesty would discourage---or encourage---more illegal immigration?

What is Newt thinking?

Beware of Bogus Polls that indicate a mjority of Americans favor Amnesty:

"...The pollsters have a single "Big Trick" that skews all the results:

The polls don't give voters the option of Attrition Through Enforcement.

Instead, they make voters basically choose between mass deportations or mass legalizations. In the case of a National Journal poll just released, voters were given a third choice of half-mass deportations and half-mass legalizations (which is essentially the Gingrich Amnesty).

But nowhere do voters hear that there is an Attrition Through Enforcement option that doesn't involve mass deportations or mass legalizations..."

It looks as though Newt Gingrich has a very good chance of getting the Republican nomination. Let him know that he needs to change his current stand on immigration policy.  Tell your current elected officials that Amnesty is NOT the solution to illegal immigration: Attrition through Enforcement is.

The Mythology of the Amnesty Movement

The recent political push for another mass amnesty is predicated upon the propagation of several myths concerning illegal immigration. In his recent speech to promote bipartisanship support for a Comprehensive Immigration Reform package, President Obama based his argument for an earned amnesty program upon several of those myths.



"Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it's not possible."
(The first sentence of this section of his speech uses the old "if this is true, then this is also true" fallacy, and then the second sentence is simply a "bare assertion fallacy.")

"Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive."
(Whereas a plan to find and round-up 11 million people for deportation---all at one time---would be very expensive and would pose all sorts of logistical challenges, that certainly does not mean that it would be impossible; nor does it mean that the ONLY viable alternative to a massive "round-up and removal" is to give legal residency status to millions of illegal aliens.

For example, if the illegal aliens living in this country could no longer keep or obtain jobs---and could no longer obtain public benefits and free health care---most of them would voluntarily leave and return to their own countries.)

"Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric."
(I'm relatively certain that the fabric of American society could survive the absence of illegal aliens, Mr. President---especially in this depressed economy.

There would be a period of adjustment however---as new job openings started springing-up in construction, housekeeping, landscaping, and the food-and-beverage industry. And we'd have to adjust to less congestion in classrooms, traffic, jails, and hospitals. But I think the fabric of America would survive all that, Mr. President.)

"Many have children who are American citizens."
(Those children are only considered to be citizens because of a correctable misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment clause erroneously granting them birthright citizenship. Anyway, if "family unity" is an important consideration in the enforcement of immigration law, then if there is not a citizen-relative willing and capable to raise them here, then dependent anchor-baby citizens should accompany their illegal alien parents back to their native country.

"Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job."
(Wouldn't a responsible parent tell their child that they were illegally present in the country, long before they applied to go to college or applied for a job? But then again, a responsible parent wouldn't make a criminal of their child to begin with.)

"Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable."
(Whereas the first sentence about "migrant farm workers" may be true, it implies that there is no other way to get America's crops harvested than with illegal alien labor. What about using legal-immigrant labor, or county prison "chain-gang" labor, or "at-risk" youth diversionary program labor, or AmeriCorps VISTA?

In return for lowered taxes, lower insurance rates, smaller class sizes, and less violent crime, I think most patriotic Americans would tolerate paying a nickel more for a head of lettuce.)


After setting the stage for his proposal to grant another blanket amnesty (rather than aggressively enforcing our immigration laws), Obama then presented a basic look at how this mass amnesty would have to be "earned."

"...we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law. They should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship..."

But what if an "earned" amnesty plan is legislated, but millions of illegal aliens still do not "come out of the shadows"---because they don't want to "register, pay past taxes, pay a fine, and learn English"?

And after they have "registered"---and have been given legal residency status---how long will you let them remain living (and breeding) in the country if they don't pay-off their taxes and fines...or learn English?

But most importantly, how does the granting of another mass amnesty prevent or discourage anyone else from illegally immigrating here; especially if our borders are not secured?

A Guide to Destroying America through the Democratic Process

1. Oppose any legislation that would require voters to provide proof of identification at polling places. Claim that it would discriminate against the "disenfrachised": minorities, immigrants, students, women, the poor, and the elderly.

2. Give speeches decrying "low voter turnout" at elections, and introduce methods to facilitate greater "civic involvement" in the "democratic process." Institute mail-in ballots, motor-voter laws, publicly-funded voter registration drives---and Universal Voter Registration.

3. Perpetually promote ethnic-based "identity"---and "cultural retentionism"---rather than cultural assimilation. Claim that "diversity" and multiculturalism are desireable goals for a society. Employ the word "community" to describe everyone that shares a common ethnic ancestry. Then claim that the entire "community" is being "oppressed" by the "white majority"---because of their ethnicity; this will create a greater sense of "shared vicimization"---and "ethnic solidarity"---that can be more easily manipulated by a politician.

4. Deceptively use the term "immigrant"---without any differentiation---to refer to every non-citizen that is living in America. In similar fashion, use the blanket term "residents" to refer to everyone living in the area---regardless of their immigration or citizenship status---when speaking about local political issues.

5. Give speeches about why "immigrants" (see #3) should be granted the right to vote in "local" elections---such as school board and municipal elections. Create a sense of "legitimacy" for the proposal by giving historical---and current---examples of individual States and municipalities that have granted voting rights to "immigrants" in local elections.

6. Create a nebulous concept of "immigrant (see #3) rights." Promote the idea in conjunction with the term "human rights": people will begin to believe that "illegal immigration" to America is a "human right" that subordinates immigration laws. In order to gain political support from marxists---and labor unions---promote "immigrant rights" as a struggle for universal "worker rights."

7. Promote the idea that a blanket amnesty should be granted to long-time, "hard-working", illegal "immigrants" who have "built their lives here"---and who were simply acting on a fundamental "human right" to migrate to a "better" place to raise their families. Sprinkle your speeches with phrases like "America is a nation of immigrants", "they're only doing the jobs Americans won't do", "we have a moral obligation", and the phrase "family unity."

8. Repeat Step #5---in concert with Step #2---until formerly-illegal "immigrants" are routinely voting in all local elections in every State. Oppose any political movement seeking to have the Supreme Court correct the long-misinterpreted "14th Amendment" right of "anchor-baby" citizenship.

9. Repeat Steps 6 through 8 "as necessary" until un-assimilated, "foreign-born" voters and their children outnumber multi-generational-American voters.

10. Elect "progressive" candidates that continue to promote multiculturalism, redistribution of wealth, open-border policies, and global socialism.

Obama speaks about creating a Pathway for new Democrats

Barack H. Obama is arguably one of the best there is at delivering well-crafted, political speeches. His oratory skills can often lead the unwary to believe that he may actually be speaking the truth, that his policies may have the nation's best interests at heart, and that his solutions to America's problems are feasible, moral, and patriotic.

Fortunately, after the last 18 months, most Americans now know better.

However, it sometimes requires a closer look at the transcript of his speech to fully appreciate how skillfully his speechwriters' well-crafted verbiage diverts attention from the logical and ideological fallacies that are used to support Obama's proposed policies.

The same was true with his recent speech to promote Comprehensive Immigration Reform.



To keep the listener off balance, this speech often juxtaposed fact with fiction within one paragraph---or even within one sentence---and then would quickly shift focus to a series of platitudes or anecdotes.

To support Obama's contention that Arizona "acted stupidly" in taking immigration enforcement matters into its own hands---and their law had the "potential" to abuse civil rights---his speech used "facts not in evidence"; and then he boldly asserted that SB 1070 wouldn't "work", anyway. Instead, he said, America needed "one clear national standard" for immigration "rules." (I thought we already had one)

Then, using convoluted logic based on false premises and false dilemmas, his speech proclaimed that the ONLY alternative to rounding-up and deporting 11 million illegal aliens was the creation of "a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works." Besides creating a false dilemma, his speech ignored the fact that the vast majority of American citizens---and legal immigrants---do not want the American government to grant another blanket amnesty to illegal aliens.

Overall, it was a speech that was long on glorifying immigration and "immigrants"---in general---and very short on mentioning the destructive consequences of illegal immigration, or the detrimental effects of the last massive amnesty that was granted to millions of illegal aliens: like this latest political push for another blanket amnesty by their offspring.

However, for Obama and the Democrats, there is much more at stake in granting amnesty.

Statistically, foreign-born (naturalized) Hispanic voters are 50% more likely to register as Democrats than native-born Hispanic voters; and Hispanic immigrants (especially those who entered the country illegally) tend to have lower education and job skills than other immigrants---and those characteristics affect party registration in a Democrat direction. For that reason, former illegal immigrants from Mexico who get "legalized" through an a blanket amnesty will tend to register and vote Democratic.

Obama's speech didn't happen to mention any of that.

Why America should abolish Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell Policy

In this particular case, the abhorrent policy I am referring to is the "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy---of "sanctuary" cities---that prevents local law enforcement officers, and other public agencies, from asking anyone about their immigration status, and discourages them from telling federal authorities whenever they have contact with an illegal alien.

Over several decades, this unAmerican public policy---which was mandated in several metropolitan cities---has resulted in a destructive cultural corruption of the entire democratic process in America.

So why would the elected governments of several large American cities---as well as some States---have enacted official public policy that completely disrespects America's immigration laws?

It would be understandable if America's immigration laws were misguided, racist, immoral, unConstitutional, or "unjust", but they are not. America enacted her immigration laws for very rational, moral, and worthwhile reasons: To promote and preserve the American dream---for all Americans---through controlled assimilation of new legal immigrants.

So why did the local governments of some large cities (and States like Massachusetts) institute official policies that forbid public agency employees---and even private employers---from exercising their patriotic civic duty?



The reason---given by locally-elected politicians---is that local government is not "responsible" for enforcing federal laws, and that local taxpayers could not afford the extra manpower or resources required to enforce such laws.

But in reality, liberal politicians don't want anyone enforcing America's immigration laws in their cities, because they have too much to lose by the removal of their city's illegal alien population: They receive federal funds based purely on population head count, and they want to continue growing a grateful voter base that will keep them in political power.

The public outpouring of their compassion for the "hard-working", undocumented "immigrant" is self-serving and calculated.

Sanctuary policies create a permanent magnet for illegal aliens and their anchor-baby "citizen" offspring. As those anchor-babies reach voting age, they will naturally vote for those politicians that will work to prevent their "undocumented" family-members from being arrested and deported. Eventually, the "citizen" relatives of illegal aliens begin to outnumber the voters in that city---who have never had an illegal alien relative---and the elections get hijacked by a subculture based upon crime and "ethnic solidarity."

Impatient "progressives" are calling for voting "rights" for "non-citizen" in local elections: (from San Francisco Wants to Let Non-Citizens Vote)

The [San Francisco] Board of Supervisors want to put a ballot measure on the November ballot that would let "non-citizens" who have children in SF schools vote in elections for the Board of Education in the city. [...] Shockingly, 1 out of every 3 students in San Francisco have parents who are not citizens.

(and from ImmigrantVoting.org

"...Seven cities in Maryland and Massachusetts have passed laws allowing immigrants to vote in all local elections. New York City and Chicago have allowed immigrants to vote in local school board elections. Major U.S. jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, New York City, and Washington D.C., are currently considering proposals that would allow immigrants to participate in all local elections..."

The problem is that these "progressives" never seem to mention whether they are only talking about LEGAL immigrants. However, as long as liberal journalists don't ask them, they probably won't tell.

The Environmental Impact in the Arizona Desert

from an email I received and then confirmed through snopes:

"You won't see these pictures on CNN, ABC, NBC or the Arizona Republic Repugnant newspaper. Nor will they mention the disease that comes from the uncovered human waste left in our desert.

The trash left behind by people illegally crossing our border is another Environmental Disaster to hit the USA. This information needs to be seen by the rest of the country.

If these actions had been done in one of our Northwest Forests or Seashore National Parks areas, there would be an uprising of the American people---but this is "just" the Arizona-Mexican border.

We, in Arizona, know you're boycotting us -- but you really should come out here and see our Beautiful Sonoran Desert. It's just gorgeous right now! We know you'd love it, and maybe you can share what you saw with the rest of the country---so they can love it too!



This is on an 'illegal super - highway' from Mexico to the USA (via Tucson) used by human smugglers. This area is located in a wash, approximately 1.5 miles long, just south of Tucson, Arizona. If a flood came, all this would be washed to the river and then onto the sea!



It is estimated over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash. Countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces, including thousands of soiled baby diapers. And as you can see in this picture, fresh footprints leading right into it.



As we kept walking down the wash, we thought for sure it was going to end, but around every corner was more and more trash!



And of course, the trail leading out of the wash into our city:



They've already come through there. Isn't Arizona just beautiful, America?
Our Sonoran desert has basically been turned into a landfill. Why would you boycott us???"




FINISH THE FRICKIN' FENCE, and DEFEND our borders, WASHINGTON!

A Factual Look at "Occupied Aztlan"

Let's take a factual look at the outlandish beliefs propagated by Aztlan groups like MEChA and the Brown Berets (and even college professors!)

Although it is a clever turn of a phrase, the popular motto, "We didn't cross the horder, the border crossed us", has no valid meaning unless "you" are over 150 years old.

Despite his marxist-inspired gobbledygook, the lands encompassing the states of Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado haven't been a part of Mexico since 1854.

Following the Mexican-American War---which America won in 1848---the United States of America graciously PAID the government of Mexico for all of that land. America then established it's current sovereign southern border in 1854 through The Gadsden Purchase.

Per the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and the Treaty of Mesilla---and the payment of millions of dollars to the Mexican government---all the lands and resources in those purchased territories were no longer under the governance of Mexico, and became part of the sovereign United States of America.

In America, sovereignty means that the citizens of America---through their duly elected government---determine the "laws of the land" within their national borders; including those laws that determine which foreign-born individuals may enter and/or legally remain within those borders. They're called our immigration laws.

none of these people look over 100 years old---let alone 150!

The fact that "you" may have had distant ancestors that once migrated through a foreign country does not give you any legitimate claim upon "the land" in a foreign country; nor does it mean that you have a "human right" to simply enter or live in that foreign country if you want---unless that is the law of that land. In America, however, THAT is not the law of the land; nor should it be. National borders are not simply arbitrary lines on a geographical map.

Everyone's ancestors were conquered and/or oppressed by someone at some time: that's simply the history of conquest and nation-building throughout the world. That doesn't mean that anyone owes you anything now. The Aztec empire---which was later conquered by Spain---had also been created through conquest, oppression, and enslavement of other indigenous tribes.

Unless it can be documented that America has been directly responsible for the abject poverty and government corruption in Mexico---since 1929---then Mexican citizens should be addressing those problems from within their own borders. America already gives billions of taxpayer dollars in humanitarian and foreign aid to the Mexican government every year.

Foreigners who come to America as legal immigrants---and assimiliate themselves into the American culture within one or two generations---become "successful" Americans. But if you intentionally embrace a word like "Latino" or "Chicano" or "mexican-american" to describe who you are, then you really haven't assimilated yet: You are still identifying yourself as being something "different"---and "apart"---from other Americans.

If you want the same respect and acceptance that any law-abiding, patriotic "American" gets, you should abandon your divisive sense of "foreign identity" and "ethnic-solidarity", and simply become an assimilated "American" like the rest of us.

If you do NOT want to adopt and embrace our traditional American cultural values as your own, then you probably shouldn't "immigrate" here to begin with.

Ethnic Studies: Teaching Hate and Treason?

Freedom of speech is one of the hallmarks of a free society. However, one of the consequences of having freedom of speech is that morons, racists, anarchists, marxist-socialists, and religious loonies also get to speak their minds in the public arena.

One of the consequences of America's misguided "tolerance" for ethno-centrism---and affirmative action---is that some radical ideologues even manage to get themselves hired as university professors; and are all too often even given tenure.

["professor" Ward Churchill]

So, despite how radical and seditious their rantings become, they are still able to keep their bully-pulpits because they've been granted "academic immunity."

Who knows how many impressionable young people have been infected by radical, unAmerican ideologies, because students assumed their professors were the "authoritive experts" in their field; simply because their teachers had been hired by a university---and had perhaps written a book.

It would be one thing if these arrogant "intellectuals" were able to give lectures, and grade class assignments, without imposing their own biased viewpoint upon the material, but that is rarely the case for "Ethnic Studies." In fact, it's usually at the core of the curriculum.

"The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in the land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years. And we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights ... law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male. This is our homeland. We cannot -- we will not -- and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not immigrants that came from another country to another country. We are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It’s a matter of time. The explosion is in our population." -Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez

And then there's good old Ward Churchill (whose own chickens finally came home to roost):

“As for those in the World Trade Center ... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire -- the ‘mighty engine of profit’ to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved -- and they did so both willingly and knowingly… If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.” -Ward Churchill

["Churchill was made a Professor of Ethnic Studies in 1996, was promoted to full professor in 1997, and finally became Chair of the department in 2002 -- though he did not (and still does not) possess a Ph.D."

The Denver Post has also reported that in the late 1960s Churchill became involved with the Students for a Democratic Society and its sister organization, the Weather Underground. The Post, quoting Churchill, stated that he briefly taught Weather Underground members how to make bombs and to fire weapons -- “Which end does the bullet go, what are the ingredients, how do you time the damned thing.”]

And then there's Professor emeritus of Chicano studies at California State University, Rodolfo Acuna:

[Exhorting his students "to critically think about identity," Acuna urges them to reject terms like "Latino" because "it is a term that has been imposed upon us." Such themes are central to Acuna's course, "History of the Chicano/a," and trace their origins to Acuna's very first book, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. Now the most widely assigned text in Chicano Studies programs across the United States, this tome includes such chapter titles as: "Legacy of Hate: The Conquest of Mexico's Northwest"; "Remember the Alamo: The Colonization of Texas"; "Freedom in a Cage: The Colonization of New Mexico"; "Sonora Invaded: The Occupation of Arizona"; and "California Lost: America for Anglo Americans."]

And there's Chicano Studies professor, Dr. Charles Truxillo - at the University of New Mexico:

Professor Predicts 'Hispanic Homeland'

Along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border “there is a growing fusion, a reviving of connections,” Truxillo said. “Southwest Chicanos and Norteño Mexicanos are becoming one people again.”

Truxillo, 47, has said the new country should be brought into being “by any means necessary,” but recently said it was unlikely to be formed by civil war. Instead, its creation will be accomplished by the electoral pressure of the future majority Hispanic population in the region, he said.

Truxillo, who teaches at UNM's Chicano Studies Program on a yearly contract, believes it's his job to help develop a “cadre of intellectuals” to think about how it can become a reality.

In addition to "Ethnic Studies", the continuing practice of "academic tenure" in America has resulted in producing college students who have been taught to be unpatriotic, and conditioned to think "critically" of the founding principles and traditional values that made America the greatest nation in the world.

Arizona takes another step in reclaiming America for Americans

Thank heavens Gov. Jan Brewer and the State of Arizona are doing something about the disease of "progressive" education and racial-identity politics:

Arizona bill targeting ethnic studies signed into law
By Nicole Santa Cruz, Los Angeles Times - May 12, 2010
(excerpts below---with some pertinent links added)

"HB 2281 bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals. The bill also bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government."

"Tucson Unified School District officials say the Chicano studies classes benefit students and promote critical thinking. "We don't teach all those ugly things they think we're teaching," said Judy Burns, the president of the district's governing board."

"She has no intention of ending the program, which offers courses from elementary school through high school in topics such as literature, history and social justice, with an emphasis on Latino authors and history. About 3% of the district's 55,000 students are enrolled in such classes."

"[Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction] Tom Horne has been trying to end the program for years, saying it divides students by race and promotes resentment. He singled out one history book used in some classes, "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos," by Rodolfo Acuna, a professor and founder of the Chicano studies program at Cal State Northridge."

"To begin with, the title of the book implies to the kids that they live in occupied America, or occupied Mexico," Horne said last week in a telephone interview.

Also last week, Augustine Romero, director of student equity in the Tucson school district, said it now had become politically acceptable to attack Latinos in Arizona."

I don't quite see how this law constitutes an "attack" on "Latinos", Gus. It's an "attack" on certain taxpayer-funded public school programs that promote ethnic divisiveness and unpatriotic sentiment.

Arizona Bans Ethnic Studies in Public Schools
Dana Chivvis Contributor
(excerpts below---with a pertinent link added)

"The law, which takes effect Dec. 31, bans classes that are designed for [any] particular ethnic group, promote overthrow of the U.S. government, foster resentment toward a particular race or class, or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." "

"Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said the bill was written to target a Mexican-American studies program in the Tucson school system, according to the Los Angeles Times. The 14-year-old program offers courses in standard topics like literature and history, but with an emphasis on Latino authors or history. It also has specialized courses with African-American and Native American emphasis."

"Approximately 2 percent of the Tucson Unified School District's 55,000 students are enrolled in the program."

Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies
By JONATHAN J. COOPER (AP)
(excerpts below---with some pertinent links added)

"State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district's Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people."

"Public schools should not be encouraging students to resent a particular race, he said."

" "It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it," Horne said."

"The measure signed Tuesday prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group."

"Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, said the [Mexican-American Studies] program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race. He's been trying to restrict it ever since he learned that Hispanic civil rights activist Dolores Huerta told students in 2006 that "Republicans hate Latinos." "

"Six UN human rights experts released a statement earlier Tuesday saying all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage, they said."

"Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman didn't directly address the UN criticism, but said Brewer supports the bill's goal.

"The governor believes ... public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," Senseman said."

Despite the UN's "human rights" experts weighing-in on American public school policy, this law does not prevent or restrict ANYONE from "learning" about any ethnic culture or linguistic history that they want to; that's what public libraries and the internet are for. However, taxpayers should not have to fund educational programs that promote the divisiveness of "ethnic solidarity", or race-based resentment against other American citizens. Imagine the outcry if there were a tax-funded "White Supremacy Studies" program being taught in public schools.

The Attacks Against Arizona are an Attack on America

Despite what is being said publicly, the recent nationwide protests and violent demonstrations against "AZ's racist legislation" are not REALLY about Arizona's "new" law (a state law that basically just reflects Federal immigration law, and allows and directs local law agencies to arrest illegal aliens). In reality, these protests and demonstrations are an assault against America's immigration laws.



The protests are a condemnation of the fact that the United States of America is a sovereign nation that has the legitimate right to defend its recognized borders and lawfully determine who may enter the country---and who must leave once they've entered. Such laws are nothing "new" or unique to America; all sovereign nations have immigration laws.

Just because someone from another country WANTS to enter America---or wants to live here---does not mean they have a "fundamental right" to do so. If they enter America's borders without government permission, or if they overstay their temporary permission, they are not "immigrants"---they are foreign invaders.



Throughout history, all invaders entered a country to "make a better life for themselves and their families"---or to destroy the established culture of a country.

If a stranger wants to enter your home---or live on your property---does that mean that he or she has some "human right" to do that? Would you refer to someone who has broken into your house as simply an "undocumented" guest or an "undocumented" resident?

Yet, the liberal media, the neo-marxists, the reconquistadors, and liberal politicians trading on racial-identity politics, all love to use euphemisms like "migrants" and "immigrants" and "undocumenteds" to describe those foreigners who have invaded our borders or have over-stayed their temporary permission to live here. By using such euphemisms, open-borders "progressives" blur the actual issues, and then demonize anyone who wants America's borders defended---and our immigration laws enforced---as being anti-"immigrant." Then, it's just a small step to calling them "racists" and "xenophobes."

America is (or at least was) a nation of assimilated immigrants.

America was not intended to be a nation of unassimilated minority "communities" clinging to their ethnicity and trying to impose their cultural view upon the rest of American society. However, due to massive illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America we now have the sort of ethnic-based, La Raza "mentality" that is spurring-on these demonstrations against Arizona's enforcement of American immigration laws.



The demonstrations against Arizonans enforcing American immigration law---within their state---is actually a larger protest against America still enforcing immigration laws; which amounts to a protest against American sovereignty, itself.

Amnesty: Obama's Next Throat-Stuffer

some choice excerpts from:
Bryan Fischer-Focal Point
Next battle royale: immigration
Date: 4/26/2010

"[But]the president, who has never let piddly things like the will of the people, the rule of law, or common sense get in his way, is ready to force amnesty down the throats of Americans just like he did with health care reform. He's making it clear that, as far as he and the Democrat junta are concerned, this is no longer a government of the people but a government of leftist ideologues."

"The Amerophobic impulses of this president will soon be on display in all its florid ugliness. Expect ordinary Americans who believe in the rule of law and orderly immigration to be castigated as racists and bigots. We're all xenophobes now. Expect endless references to Jim Crow laws and the KKK. We must be demonized and dehumanized, just as Hitler did with the Jews, in an effort to intimidate us into silence and meek acquiescence."

"The one thing the president said with which we agree is, “Surely we can all agree that when 11 million people in our country are living here illegally, outside the system, that’s unacceptable. The American people demand and deserve a solution.”"
"The problem with the president's plan, of course, is that it is not a solution at all. You expect a "solution" to, well, solve something, but the president's plan to give amnesty to 20 million lawbreakers will only make things far, far worse."

"The solution is simple: a fence and attrition. Let's build a fence all along the southern border, and then deport every single illegal alien who comes to the attention of law enforcement or any government agency. Those that remain in the shadows will at least have the incentive to behave themselves and stop being a drain on taxpayer-funded social services."

Read all of his brilliant piece here!

"Racial Profiling"...or Effective Enforcement Consideration?

Why are the raucous protestors of the new AZ state law condemning it as a gateway to "racial profiling" and an infringement on "civil rights"?

I've read the entire legislation and found nothing in it that directs law enforcement and government agencies to apply the new AZ law against any particular race---or to exempt any particular race(s) from application of the law.

So why are opponents belligerently claiming that this new legislation "opens the door to racial profiling" in Arizona? If the law does not specify a particular "race" to enforce the law upon, why would "hispanic" Americans be concerned?

To anyone familar with the illegal immigration problem in America, the answer is obvious.

The opponents of this law, who cry "racial profiling" the loudest, rarely admit "why" race would be a logical consideration in the enforcement of the law. They only complain that "hispanic" people will now be "unfairly" singled-out and "harrassed" by law enforcement officers.

But if the law itself does not allow for discriminatory enforcement, why would "racial" profiling even be a concern for hispanic citizens?

The usually "unspoken" fact is that around 80% of all the illegal aliens in this country are "Hispanics"---from the countries of Mexico, Central America, and South America. That means that 4 out 5 illegal aliens in this country have certain ethnic, cultural---and "racial"---characteristics in common.

Due to Arizona's geographic proximity to Mexico, I surmise that the percentage of illegal aliens in their state who are "hispanic" is probably even greater than 80%, but that's purely speculation.

Does that then mean that 4 out of 5 hispanics in Arizona are illegal aliens? Of course, not. Many police officers and elected government officials are citizens of hispanic descent. However, there is other important demographic information about Arizona that should also be looked at.

It is estimated that there are about 460,000 illegal aliens living in Arizona. This would amount to about 7.5% of the state's total 2009 population (6,595,778). Additionally, according to the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, "Hispanics and Latinos (of any race) make up 29.0% of Arizona's population."

I don't know if "hispanic" illegal aliens were included in the AZ count of "Hispanics and Latinos", but 29% of the total AZ population---6,595,778---equals 1,912,776 "hispanics." If illegal aliens were included in that "Hispanic and Latino" population count, then that would mean that 24% of the total Hispanic population in Arizona is living there illegally: 460,000/1,912,776 = 24%.

That's almost 1 in 4: Nearly one in four hispanics in AZ are living there illegally!

If hispanic illegal aliens were not included in that US Census Bureau demographic study, then "only" 19% of the "Hispanic and Latino" population in Arizona are there illegally: 460,000+1,912,776 = 2,372,776; 460,000/2,372,776 = 19%

That's "only" 1 in 5.

The vast, overwhelming majority of people in our country who are breaking Federal Immigration law---and therefore the new corresponding law in Arizona---are "hispanic." Are any of the demonstrators disputing that fact? Why isn't network news "asking" protestors about that fact? They are only reporting that "hispanics" in Arizona may "unfairly" fall under suspicion of being in the country illegally "now" ---simply because they are "hispanic."

It seems rather "reasonable" to me to have a certain level of suspicion about the legal status of at least 1 out of every 5 hispanic individuals in Arizona---since at least 19% of all hispanics in Arizona are there illegally.

But, all these noisy demonstrations against the pending AZ law are not REALLY about "racial profiling" or "imagined" violations of civil rights, anyway. They are actually a protest against the fact that America has the sovereign right to determine who can cross-over the recognized borders of our country, and who must leave once they've crossed over those borders. And the protestors don't like that fact.

When 80% of the individuals who are violating our immigration laws are indeed "hispanic"---and are therefore subject to deportation---it would appear that the loudest opponents to immigration "enforcement" in this country are the actual "racists" in this debate....spurred-on by the liberal politicians that promulgate racial-identity politics.

What Role are Marxists Playing in the Push for Amnesty?

Controversial YWC speaker Tancredo to return in April
(from the Daily Tarheel) March 23, 2010

A controversial speaker is returning to UNC to finish his talk that was cut short in April [2009] by a broken window and a conflict between protestors and police.

The speaker — former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. — will be hosted by UNC’s chapter of Youth for Western Civilization on April 26 in the Student Union Auditorium. In the past year, the conservative student group has brought a number of speakers to campus who were met with protests.

Tancredo ended last year’s talk after only five minutes when a window in the classroom he was in broke. Beforehand, he was confronted by protestors.

Daryl Ann Dunigan, president of UNC’s chapter of YWC, said the group wanted to give Tancredo a chance to finish last year’s intended talk, which she said will focus on the question, “Is western civilization worth saving?” She added that University administrators and the UNC Department of Public Safety are preparing for the event.

Below are some interesting, different "journalistic" views concerning what happened the last time Tancredo tried to speak at UNC, in April 2009. The WTVD news story excerpted below is factual and presents video clips made at the time; compare it to the "blogs" after it that report what happened. I have italicized and placed in red any Lefty code words used to spin the information about what occured in 2009.

UNC protest gets rowdy
Thursday, April 16, 2009

"UNC announced Thursday it is investigating the student protest that got out of hand Tuesday night on the UNC Chapel Hill campus.

Dozens of protesters turned out to oppose a speech given by a former Colorado congressman, who was on campus to speak against illegal immigration.
[...]
The former congressman once ran for president on a platform firmly against illegal immigration. He was invited to UNC to deliver a speech opposing in-state tuition benefits to illegal immigrants.

Protesters interrupted his speech, stretching out a banner in front of him that read, "No one is illegal." Tancredo grabbed the banner and confronted one of the people holding it.

Then there was the sound of glass shattering. A window was broken by more opponents outside. As the situation escalated, Tancredo left.

Those who went to hear him speak were clearly upset. ""Obviously there wasn't a point," one attendee said. "He wasn't going to be allowed to speak."

Below is an excerpt from a UNC professor's blog, referring to the protest of Tancredo's speech, and as you can see he uses some common Lefty code words.

Defining the line between free speech and hate speech
by Daniel H. Pollitt
April 22, 2009

"Last week, several members of the newly formed Youth for Western Civilization invited Tom Tancredo to the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill to speak against permitting undocumented immigrants to enter state community colleges on the same basis as other North Carolina high school graduates. Former Congressman Tancredo was invited because of his well-known nativist views against immigration.

A hostile crowd of protesters thwarted his speech with catcalls and placards. Someone threw a rock and smashed a window. Campus police cleared the protesters with pepper spray. Tancredo quietly slipped away..."

"Quietly slipped away"? As Campus Security were ushering Tancredo through the mob of violent protestors, his toe got broken in the scuffle. Furthermore, Pollitt referring to illegal aliens as simply "undocumented immigrants" is like referring to drug-dealers as "unlicensed pharmacists."
Because of the popularity of the movie "The Gangs of New York", open-border Lefties like to use the word "nativists" as a perjorative for conservative patriots---and they often smear them as being against immigration; which is not the case. There is a big difference between someone promoting controlled-immigration and someone opposing all immigration.

Before reading the radical-marxist version of what happened the last time Tancredo tried to speak, below is an excerpt from the YWC website's "About" page (the group that invited Tancredo to speak at UNC). Does this student organization seem racist, dangerous, and unAmerican to you?

Youth for Western Civilization was incorporated in 2006 and began actively organizing in 2008. The founder was Kevin DeAnna, a graduate student at American University.

Since then, Youth for Western Civilization has stirred up debate on controversial issues like illegal immigration, multiculturalism and classical education that were thought to be driven off college campuses. YWC stands alone in challenging the dogmatic left-wing orthodoxy of American higher education.

Youth for Western Civilization is a 501c(3) non-profit educational foundation. All contributions are tax deductible.

Below is a reporting from one of the typical radical protestors that was involved. It was originally posted at Fight Back! News, but the marxist website that reposted the story is one that every American patriot should take a look at...so they know who is promoting the big push for amnesty.

Protesters were right to shut down the racist Tancredo
April 26, 2009
by Kosta Harlan is from Fight Back! News:

"Students at University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill made national headlines last week when they confronted the racist ex-congressman Tom Tancredo. 200 students marched, shouted down, or silently protested Tancredo. When 60 students chanted in the lobby of the building where he was to speak, police attacked the demonstration with pepper spray. Two women were thrown to the floor, another protester had her hair pulled by a cop and several people were pushed into the walls. The police drove the students out by threatening them with tasers. Shortly after we were pushed out, a window was broken and the event was shut down.

Thousands of articles, commentaries, and editorials have been written on this event. Most of it is a waste of everyone’s time. In typical mainstream media fashion, most of the coverage has completely turned reality on its head. Like Malcolm X would have said, they make the victim look like the villain and the oppressors look like the oppressed.

These ‘respectable’ ruling class commentators – who incidentally don’t give a damn about the most basic human rights of 11 million undocumented immigrants, or the respect and dignity they deserve as human beings – assume the absolute right of racists like Tancredo to say or do whatever they want, anywhere they want. But the minute the oppressed fight back, some kind of horrendous crime against ‘democracy’ and ‘free speech’ has been committed!

So let’s get some things straight.

Tancredo was invited by a new right-wing, racist organization, Youth for Western Civilization (YWC). Who is YWC? Their mission statement says they work “to create a culture that will promote the survival of Western Civilization and pride in Western heritage.” Compare that to the Ku Klux Klan, who say they are a “white rights political organization working to promote western Christian civilization.”

Do you see a substantive difference? I don’t..."

Maybe that's the problem: "Progressive" university professors are no longer teaching students HOW to think---logically---as an American; they are teaching them WHAT to think, as a "global citizen." Harlan can not "see a subtantive difference" between a student organization that's promoting the preservation of Western culture and civilization---on college campuses---and a radical, white-supremacy, anti-Jewish, anti-Catholic organization like the KKK?

Is he able to see a "substantive difference" between legal immigration and illegal immigration?

[Maybe Harlan is too busy running around the country organizing anti-American, SDS demonstrations---and writing propaganda for FightBack! News--to see "anything" but RED.]
Below is another "news story" about another SDS demonstration at UNC---one week after they managed to "silence" Tom Tancredo:

Six arrested while speaking out against racism
Students Protest Virgil Goode and Youth for Western Civilization
by Kosta Harlan April 26, 2009

“Just one week after the racist Tom Tancredo was driven off campus by turbulent protests, the Youth for Western Civilization (YWC), a white supremacist organization, brought former Virginia congressman Virgil Goode to speak about affirmative action and immigration."
[...]
We called on students to boycott the Virgil Goode event. The media makes them out to be the victim, but we understand that YWC is a national organization funded by white supremacists,” said Ariana Lucido, a first-year student at UNC and a member of Students for a Democratic Society and Alianza. “Our protest served to give students a voice that had been silenced by Goode and YWC’s hate speech. We will continue to speak out anywhere white supremacists and racist bigots try to oppress people.”