Showing posts with label Antonio Villaraigosa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Antonio Villaraigosa. Show all posts

Friday, September 28, 2012

Black People v. Science . . . Or Legit Property Rts Gripe? 400 Trees Chopped for Space Shuttle

A very interesting post from www.DebbieSchlussel.com about the Space Shuttle Endeavor. This follows this post about a possible collapse of American society.  This follows this post about some of the music that was poplular during 2011. This follows THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!




Black People v. Science . . . Or Legit Property Rts Gripe? 400 Trees Chopped for Space Shuttle (VIDEO)

By Debbie Schlussel



On Friday, the Space Shuttle Endeavor made its final landing in Los Angeles, and on October 12th, it will be transported on a a two-day journey across the boulevards of Inglewood and Los Angeles to its new home at the California Science Center. But since the boulevards and streets of those cities are tree-lined and the Space Shuttle has a long wingspan, 400 trees will be cut down to make way for the shuttle. And the people of those cities–predominantly Black–are angry. I can understand their frustration.







Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy









Space Shuttle Endeavor Lands in L.A. as Trees Are Marked for Death to Make Way



If I were one of the people whose trees were cut down so that the Space Shuttle Endeavor could travel–wingspan intact–to its final destination at a museum, I’d be pretty angry. To me, that’s a government “taking” no different than the government seizing a woman’s home in Connecticut to make way for a development in Kelo v. City of New London. Yes, it’s a tree, not a house, but still, it’s big government taking from private individuals. You can bet that if the Space Shuttle went down the streets of Bel-Air or Beverly Hills, this would never happen. And maybe that’s why the Shuttle didn’t go that way. On the other hand, the elected Los Angeles and Ingleside officials are statist liberals who were put into power to do this stuff by the very people losing these trees.




While it looks as though most of the trees cut down are in commercial and other non-residential areas, some of the trees are in front of homes. And the museum’s pledge to plant two new, young trees in place of very old, mature trees is little comfort to homes that relied on the trees and their shade. Plus removing the trees lowers property values. The remuneration also seems like overkill that doesn’t redress the problem in the least: $400,000 toward tree trimming, up to five years of tree maintenance, at least 10 scholarships to area students, $100,000 to an education fund, and training for local teachers in science, according to the  Los Angeles Times. Also, half of the tree trimmers hired were to be from the affected communities. But if I lived in one of the affected homes, I’d just want my damn tree, as is.



It points to another issue. Is this really about science? The space shuttles–Endeavor and others–didn’t really do anything. They flew around and were an incredible waste of money. They didn’t land on the moon, go to Mars or do anything else of consequence or worth. So, I’m not even sure this was a worthy science exhibit in its own right, let alone one which deserved such a major re-landscaping of Los Angeles and a neighboring city.



But some commentators say the complaints are reflective of Blacks and their disinterest in science. There is some truth to that. In contemporary times, Black Americans just aren’t interested in science and math. The statistics back that up. And some people say that this might bear some relationship to the complaints they’ve made over the Space Shuttle. Perhaps that’s a little of it, but if they chopped down my trees for the Space Shuttle, I’d be pretty angry. And I like science. Whether or not they are interested in science has no bearing on whether or not their trees should be chopped down. It’s their property to do with as they see fit.



So, what do you think? Is this a case of Black people versus science? Or is it, as I’ve opined, an illegit government taking of trees for a pop culture undertaking that ain’t so worthy?



To me, this is yet another example of why Blacks should be anti-big-government conservatives.



Friday, September 7, 2012

Dog-Whistling Drudge Dodges Immigration Outrages at Democratic Convention

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about media coverage on immigration issues. This follows this post about the consequenses of the President's Executive Order Amnesty. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE.

Dog-Whistling Drudge Dodges Immigration Outrages at Democratic Convention


http://www.vdare.com/posts/dog-whistling-drudge-dodges-immigration-outrages-at-democratic-convention

By Patrick Cleburne




Triumphant Illegal Alien addresses Democratic Convention. Not newsworthy to Drudge



I see the Drudge Report has been in full Dog-Whistling mode for the Democratic Convention, serving up stories clearly intended to rile up and energize the Republican base:




Delegates at convention boo, hiss, jeer...



(linked to the Real Clear Politics story Jerusalem And God Vote Gets Booed At Dem Convention)



'VOTE BLACK' BUTTONS HIT CONVENTION HALL...



Florida DNC Boss: Christians Want Jews Slaughtered...



(A classic!)



and



Chance of rain at Obama speech time: 0%...



(VDARE.com comment: Told you so!)



Completely missing however was one of the biggest outrages of all:



Illegal immigrant makes history, addresses Democratic convention  By Hector Becerra The Los Angeles Times September 5, 2012



…when Benita Veliz stepped up to the lectern at the Democratic National Convention, she made history. The 27-year-old from San Antonio became the first illegal immigrant to address a national political convention…



In 2009, she allegedly rolled through a stop sign and was stopped by a police officer. Veliz had a Mexican consular card but no driver’s license…That started deportation proceedings against her… Veliz was ultimately spared deportation after President Obama signed an executive order to halt the deportation of some young illegal immigrants.



This dramatic flaunting of Obama’s Administrative Amnesty Coup D’état was clearly suppressed to avoid drawing attention to Romney’s shamefully weak response – and increases suspicion that a flip-flop is being planned.



Similarly Drudge made no mention of the refusal of ICE to take action against the “UndocuBus” illegal alien demonstrators at the Convention, as noted by Federale. UndocuBus is so egregious even the New York Times permitted dissent: Pure and Simple Lawlessness by John C Eastman August 1 2012 (H/T One Old Vet).



There was a time when Drudge was a reliable source of immigration outrage stories, which continue to infuriate the base. The message is plain: Drudge is now an obedient servant of Conservatism Inc, and GOP immigration policy is bought and paid for.








Friday, August 10, 2012

NATIONAL REVIEW’s Jack Dunphy on the (Reconquista: Shhh!) in Anaheim

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about  immigrants harrassing the citizens of Anaheim. Theis follows this post about a movie coming out called Django Unchained. .  This follows this post about some of the music that was poplular during 2011. This follows THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!

NATIONAL REVIEW’s Jack Dunphy on the (Reconquista: Shhh!) in Anaheim




http://www.vdare.com/posts/national-review-s-jack-dunphy-on-the-reconquista-shhh-in-anaheim

By Nicholas Stix
[VDARE.com reports by yours truly, on the same incidents:

Anaheim I: Report from Occupied America: Thanks to Immigration (and the MSM), Not Walt Disney’s Anaheim; and

Anaheim II: “Strategic Deportation” Would Stop Reconquistas, Leftists Re-Running THE CIVIL RIGHTS SHOW and Seizing Power in Anaheim.]

Sometimes not being first has advantages—one can gather more facts, and reflect on them. This is not one of those times.

For one thing, you’ll not see the word “reconquista” once in the following column. You’ll also see nothing about the local Marxists allied with the reconquistas. Dunphy also makes the mistake of repeating the false claim by the reconquista/Marxist alliance, that no Hispanics “currently serve on the city council.” (One member is half-Hispanic, half-Filipino.)

Jack Dunphy is an old LAPD copper, and for that, I thank him for his service. He once was a must-read, but that time, unfortunately, has passed. I don’t know whether it’s because Dunphy’s a neo-con, or because he fears getting Derbyshired by house censor Rich Lowry, but he pulls his punches these days, which means that in a choice between reading an ordinary report on a crime and Dunphy, I won’t necessarily take the time to read the latter. But I’ll let the reader decide.





* * *







Anaheim, Calif., crime map (www.spotcrime.com/Google )

There is more to Anaheim, Calif., than Disneyland. As shown by this crime map, the unfortunate tourist who takes a wrong turn on his way out of the Magic Kingdom may quickly find the neighborhood he has entered is far from The Happiest Place on Earth.

Things are not getting any happier. On a recent Friday morning, Anaheim police officers shot at (and missed) a man who attempted to run them down with a car when they interrupted him and an accomplice while committing a burglary. The previous weekend, officers tried to stop a stolen car whose driver led them on a brief pursuit before crashing. The two men and a woman in the car fled on foot, and, as one of the men did so, he pulled a gun and fired at the officers. The officers returned fire and killed him. Also that weekend, officers on patrol attempted to stop some suspected gang members, one of whom ran away. A pursuing officer believed the man was pulling a weapon as he ran, prompting the officer to fire at him. The man died, but was found to have been unarmed.

The four suspects involved in these shooting incidents were Frank Armenta, Jose Campos-Castellanos, Manuel Diaz, and Joel Acevedo, names that might lead the reader to assume a shared lineage that leads to countries somewhere south of the U.S. border. And, as you might imagine, the uproar that has followed these incidents is not limited to the shootings themselves but instead about the cauldron of racial politics that has come to a boil in the city of Anaheim.

Anaheim is an oddly shaped city in Orange County, about 25 miles south on the I-5 from downtown Los Angeles. It is, in effect, two cities, with a mostly white and moderately affluent population living in Anaheim Hills on the city’s east side, and a mostly Latino and far less affluent population occupying the areas to the west — known locally as “the Flats.” Although Latinos make up slightly more than half of the city’s population, none currently serve on the city council, whose members are chosen in at-large elections rather than by individual districts. (Four of the five current members live in Anaheim Hills.) This arrangement has, of course, attracted the attention of the ACLU, which has sought to end the practice with a lawsuit.

It is against this civic backdrop that the recent police shootings and the protests they have engendered must be viewed. Yes, just over half of Anaheim’s residents are Latino. But some significant portion of them are not U.S. citizens and therefore cannot vote — at least in theory. At the same time, the vast majority of the city’s criminals are also Latino, and, as the map linked above indicates, they are a busy lot. The overall crime rate for the city puts it well below the national and state averages, but what crime there is is concentrated in a few neighborhoods in the center of town where the population of Latinos is highest.

This puts the Anaheim Police Department in an uncomfortable political situation, with the city government demanding an aggressive approach to fighting crime and protecting the tourism on which the city depends. Of necessity, this brings police officers into frequent — and sometimes violent — contact with Latino gang members. According to a statement released by the Anaheim Police Association, the officers’ labor union, the two men killed in the police shootings described above — Manuel Diaz and Joel Acevedo — were documented gang members who had served time in prison….

“Empowering people,” imbalance, “root causes.” This is the language of the community organizer, one who sees a wave coming and wishes to ride it rather than see herself swept away by it. In one shape or another, change is coming to Anaheim. When that change comes, will Disneyland’s Main Street, U.S.A., bear any resemblance to the city’s actual streets?

[Anaheim: No Laughing Place by Jack Dunphy, National Review Online, August 8, 2012 4:00 A.M.]



I thank the old friend who sent this article to me.

Monday, May 14, 2012

Los Angeles Sanctuary City - WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS EXCEEDS $646 MILLION

A very interesting post from www.Alipac.US about the COSTS of illegal immigration, since we are frequently told about the benefits of their "hard work." This follows this post  about legislation to block the suing of states for enforcing immigration laws that the federal government won't enforce. This follows this post about Marco Rubio's DREAM Act. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read a very interesting book HERE!

Los Angeles Sanctuary City - WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS EXCEEDS $646 MILLION


by Jean Rate this article



Over $646 million in welfare and food stamp benefits were issued to illegal alien parents for their native-born children. The $646.2 million consisted of $258 million in CalWORKs (welfare) and $388 million in Food Stamps) — a $21 million increase over the previous year.



WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS EXCEEDS $646 MILLION



LOS ANGELES COUNTY – Year-end closing 2011 figures from the Department of Public Social Services reported that over $646 million in welfare and food stamp benefits were issued to illegal alien parents for their native-born children, announced Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.



February 16, 2012

For Immediate Release

Contact: Tony Bell, Communications Deputy

Website of Michael D. Antonovich



The $646.2 million consisted of $258 million in CalWORKs (welfare) and $388 million in Food Stamps) — a $21 million increase over the previous year.



“With the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to County taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” said Antonovich. “These costs do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars for education.”



Figures from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services-February 2012





WELFARE COSTS FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS EXCEEDS $646 MILLION – Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich

Friday, January 14, 2011

MLK Day Reading in the age of High Immigration: Brown vs. Black—vs. America

A very interesting article reviewing this book which you can get from Amazon here or your library here and then ask a Black friend of yours to comment on it. This follows this book review about Timothy McVeigh's international connections, and this article about the recent news about offshore drilling to encourage American energy independence that follows this previous post about it.. This is a key issue to prevent money from going to hostile countries such as Iran and Venezuela. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read another very interesting book HERE!

Brown vs. Black—vs. America


By Steve Sailer

California lawyer Nicolas C. Vaca got his start as an ethnic activist by listening to Malcolm X lecture at Berkeley in 1963.But by the end of the 1960s, Vaca had discovered that, in the civil rights struggle, all minorities are equal, but one minority is more equal than others:"Before arriving in Washington I expected to encounter other Mexican Americans at the [U.S. Commission on Civil Rights], but I discovered that I, a summer intern, was the highest ranking Mexican American there."Eventually, more Latinos elbowed their way into the lucrative business of being professional minorities. But they found that the dominant blacks weren't willing to allow them places at the table in proportion to their burgeoning numbers.Vaca became fascinated by how the black-Latino political conflicts that he saw all around him were swept under the rug in the media:"For years I discussed these issues with close friends and fellow attorneys—Anglo, Latino, and Black—as I waited for a book to appear that would address the conflict or at least go beyond pat analyses like 'Interethnic conflict can exist, but it is believed that there is more of a basis for cooperation than there is for conflict'—and then drop the subject."He eventually realized he would have to write the book himself.

So he has: The Presumed Alliance: The Unspoken Conflict Between Latinos and Blacks and What It Means for America.



Vaca recounts some fairly well-known tales: for example, how in Los Angeles in 2001, South Central blacks teamed up with San Fernando Valley white conservatives to defeat Antonio Villaraigosa's bid to become the first Mexican mayor since LA was a dusty pueblo. He also gives the once-over to the convoluted story of how Fernando Ferrer's attempt to win the 2001 Democratic mayoral primary in New York City with a Latino-black coalition foundered upon his protracted and frustrating courtship of Al Sharpton.More interesting are the fresher stories—about how baldly Hispanics in Miami disdain blacks; and how dismissively the black ruling class in Compton, just outside of L.A., treats that suburb's Chicano majority.As the refuge for Batista Cuba's upper and middle class, Miami has the best-organized, wealthiest (and whitest) Latino community in the U.S. In contrast, it may have the most degraded African-Americans. In both 1982 and 1989, Latin American immigrant policemen shot African-American citizens under suspicious circumstances, triggering major black riots.Florida blacks with anything on the ball quickly wise up and head for Atlanta, where the white business class is a lot easier to shake down. (Vaca, however, points out that even in Georgia there are expected to be more Hispanics than blacks by 2010.)As white as Miami's Cuban powerbrokers are, they feel no white guilt whatsoever. After all, they hadn't oppressed American blacks (which is certainly true—before 1959 they had been busy back home oppressing Cuban blacks).Compton, the spiritual home of West Coast gangsta rap, is notorious for its corrupt and dysfunctional black-run government. Still, a lot of people south of the Border have been down so long that even Compton looks like up to them.By 2001, 59% of Compton's residents, but only 15% of its voters, were Latino. Chicano activists routinely demand that Compton's black elected officials share power with its voteless illegal aliens. But the African-American leadership responds with ringing endorsements of the sanctity of citizenship that would warm the hearts of VDARE.com readers.Of course, in the long run, the American-born children of Compton's illegal immigrants will vote their own Latino hacks into the city job sinecures (as recently happened in nearby Lynwood). In the meantime, however, Compton's black political class is getting while the getting's still good.Few of Vaca's stories are edifying. In some, it's as hard to figure out who morally deserves support as it was during the Iran-Iraq war.Not surprisingly, most black and brown activists wish Vaca had never written the book. (One longtime ally in the Chicano movement stomped out of the bar when Vaca described the subject of his work, and hasn't talked to him since.) And in fact it wasn't very discreet of Vaca to document for us "gringos" that the modern civil rights movement is just another pork-snorting contest over who can shove the most snouts into the taxpayer-subsidized trough.Occasionally, though, Vaca's narrative rises above war stories about the tawdry ethnic jostling for taxpayer-supported jobs and discusses legitimate issues. Unlike the economic illiterates at the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, who proclaim that immigrants do the jobs Americans don't want, lawyer Vaca simply takes it as one of his seven axioms that "Immigrants Will Compete for Unskilled Jobs with African Americans."In this dispute, Vaca's allegiance lies with his fellow co-ethnics. My loyalties, however, have to rest with my fellow American citizens.Personally, I am a citizenist. That is not a word you see often (here are all twelve uses of the word known to Google) which is not surprising because few pundits seem to think like this.My starting point in analyzing policies is: "What is in the best overall interests of the current citizens of the United States?"In contrast, so many others think in terms of: "What is in the best interest of my: identity group / race / ethnicity / religion / bank account / class / ideology / clique / gender / sexual orientation / party / and/or personal feelings of moral superiority?"Precisely because basing loyalties upon a legal category defined by our elected representatives is so unnatural, it's the least destructive and most uplifting form of allegiance humanly possible on an effective scale.The interesting question that Vaca doesn't answer (but I will in a future column) is not: why are blacks and Hispanics competitors for government goodies? (The answer of course: because, like Mt. Everest, they are there). Instead, the interesting question is: why does the African-American political elite disregard the black rank and file's hostility toward immigration?Nobody ever asked African-Americans if they wanted their nation's ethnic balance rearranged to pry them out of their hard-earned spot as the biggest minority.So why have their leaders acquiesced in this disastrous social engineering experiment?

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website http://www.isteve.blogspot.com/  features his daily blog.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Ariz. official dares L.A. to stage boycott - Will Cut Electricity in Response

An interesting post from www.alipac.us about Arizona's response to L.A.'s boycott. This follows this post about Mexico's President meddling in U.S. immigration policy, this post about the TEXAS text book controversy, this post about the MURDER of ROBERT KRENTZ, who the protestors and boycotters won't give a solution for, but will call Americans racist for trying to prevent another MURDER, and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso across from the recent Juarez shooting. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.


Ariz. official dares L.A. to stage boycott
Illegal Immigration News in the US
The spat over Arizona's new immigration law expanded Tuesday as a state official dared Los Angeles to follow through on its new boycott by agreeing to give up the 25 percent of electricity the city gets from Arizona sources. In a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce said a boycott war is bad for both sides, and said he would "be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements" to end the electricity flowing to Los Angeles. Subjects: Illegal Immigration, Arizona immigration law, Gary Pierce, boycott, Mayor Villaraigosa, renegotiate power agreementsMay 18, 2010Stephen DinanThe Washington Times"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Mr. Pierce said. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy." Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to adopt a boycott of Arizona businesses - at least in instances where it wouldn't impose a significant economic cost to the city. Arizona's law requires police to ask for proof of legal residence from anyone they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally. In most cases, a driver's license is sufficient to comply, and the law prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion. Nonetheless, critics say they expect the measure to spark racial profiling. Civil rights and Hispanic groups have sued to try to block the law, and the Obama administration is reviewing the legislation to see if it violates civil rights laws. The law goes into effect in July, but already a number of municipalities have condemned or announced boycotts of Arizona. Mr. Villaraigosa said his city's boycott was intended to hurt the Arizona economy. Mr. Pierce, the Arizona official, said in his letter to Mr. Villaraigosa that this was a poor path to trod. "I received your message; please receive mine," he said. A message left with the Mr. Villaraigosa's office was not returned. But Mr. Villaraigosa offered his own tongue-in-cheek challenge to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon this week in a bet over the NBA playoff series between the Los Angeles Lakers and Phoenix Suns. Mr. Villaraigosa said if Phoenix wins, Los Angeles will have to accept Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a fierce opponent of illegal immigration. If the Lakers win, Mr. Villaraigosa said Phoenix will have to accept Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, two Republicans battling for the GOP's gubernatorial nomination in California, where illegal immigration is a major issue.
DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE WITH OUR ONLINE ACTIVISTS AT...

Monday, June 8, 2009

Mexico’s Take Over Of California: Complete By 2014?

An interesting insight into what could happen in 5 years by Joe Guzzardi of http://www.vdare.com/.

Mexico’s Take Over Of California: Complete By 2014?
By Joe Guzzardi
In March, April and May, I wrote a series of columns about the sorry condition of California’s GOP (here, here and here). I also handicapped the party’s dismal prospects for winning any of the three most critical elections—either of the two U.S. Senate seats currently held by Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein or the 2010 governor’s race to replace termed-out Republican incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Although Boxer will also run in 2010 for re-election, California is in such dire straits that all eyes will be on the governor’s contest. That shapes up as a probable match between Republican political novice Meg Whitman versus either of two Democratic veterans, Feinstein or the omnipresent former governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown.
But since early spring when I gave my first assessment, California’s political sands have shifted. And with the change, a Republican has suddenly vaulted into the forefront of the state’s politics.
In fact, although it’s way early, I make State Senator Abel Maldonado the odds-on pick in 2014 to become California’s governor.
For immigration reform patriots, that’s much more bad news than it is good news. While Maldonado is indeed a Republican—technically—he points to his migrant farm worker parents as the reason for his fierce illegal immigration advocacy.
How a relatively obscure state representative from Santa Maria will become California’s first Hispanic governor since Romualdo Pacheco, Jr., in 1875 is an interesting tale. [Senator Abel Maldonado Has Made A Name for Himself, by Steve Chawkins and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2009]
Maldonado will pull it off with a combination of luck and skill.
Specifically, this is how he’ll do it:
In a stroke of good fortune for Maldonado, Lt. Governor John Garamendi recently announced that he was abandoning his moribund gubernatorial effort to run instead for the congressional seat about to be vacated when Ellen Tauscher leaves for Washington DC to serve as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. [Ellen Tauscher Is Off to the State Department for Sure, by Anne Schroeder Mullens, POLITICO.com, March 19, 2009]
That means Schwarzenegger must appoint Garamendi’s replacement. And, as it happens, Republican Schwarzenegger owes Republican Maldonado a favor.
During Schwarzenegger’s bitter dispute with the state legislature to close California’s $40 billion budget deficit (via higher taxes and more debt), Maldonado infuriated his conservative Republican colleagues when he sided with the governor.
But at the same time, Maldonado ingratiated himself, not only with Schwarzenegger, but also with California’s Democrats and independents eager to end the impasse.
Step one in Maldonado’s ascent, then, will take place in a few weeks when Schwarzenegger appoints him to replace Garamendi.
Suddenly, Maldonado will emerge from relative political obscurity to become a key player who, because of his Mexican immigrant background, will be hyped to the max by California’s adoring MainStream Media.
Step two will occur in November 2010 when either Feinstein or Brown easily defeat the Republican candidate—presumably Whitman.
By 2014—the next year the gubernatorial election rolls around—several things will have evolved, all of which play in Maldonado’s favor.
California’s overall economic health will remain on life support—horrible news for an incumbent hoping for another term.
Feinstein will be 81, Brown 76 but Maldonado only 47. In age-obsessed California that creates a huge edge for Maldonado. According to census data, in 2014 the average age of California’s Hispanics will be about 30. Ask yourself this simple question: will those young Hispanics vote for the fossilized white incumbent or the polished Maldonado who can appeal to their ethnic roots?
California’s demographics will have shifted even more dramatically toward Hispanic domination. The state’s population will be about 40 percent Hispanic—the largest voting bloc.
Add to Feinstein and Brown’s age and demographic negatives is that they have knocked around California politics for nearly four decades. If voters of all stripes aren’t sick of them by 2014, then I don’t know what.
Maldonado has been building toward his political ascendancy since 2000.
As a freshman state assemblyman he accepted an invitation from then-presidential candidate George W. Bush to give a Spanish-language speech to the Republican presidential convention aimed at wooing Hispanic voters. (Vainly, of course).
And in 2008, again addressing the Republican convention, Maldonado closed with these words (translated from Spanish):
“John McCain and my father would be good amigos. Ladies and gentlemen, que viva the immigrant story.”
Maldonado’s bracero father, it is worth noting, has lived in California as a permanent resident for more than forty years without becoming a citizen.
In his own words, Maldonado calls himself "the future of this party" and claims that the GOP needs more Latinos to be its public face.
"If we don't change, we're going to go back to the old ways, and we're going to continue to lose," said Maldonado, who faulted the party's hard line against illegal immigration. "They don't get it on illegal immigration," he said.
Republican old-timers who may disagree with Maldonado "can beat me up all they want," he told reporters at a luncheon while he was surrounded by erstwhile allies who, since his support of Schwarzenegger’s budget compromise, now view him as an enemy. [GOP Withering Away in California Heat? by Alex Isenstadt, Politico.Com, April 14, 2009]
Another Maldonado bonus: his campaign will attract a broader base of non-Hispanic California voters, who cannot support other would-be Hispanic candidates like the sleazy Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, but can stomach the vastly smoother, more intelligent Maldonado.
Last but certainly not least, Maldonado will play his immigrant success story to the hilt. His family’s strawberry farm is a 6,000-acre multi-million dollar business that ships produce worldwide.
By the time Maldonado reaches the governor’s mansion, Mexico’s takeover of California—what remains of it—will be complete.
Thousands of educated, wage-earning Californians like me move away every month. Moving in are under-educated, low earning but needy aliens.
Maldonado’s family succeeded. But the vast majority of immigrant newcomers fail.
For those optionless Californians left behind, the picture will not be pretty.
By 2014, Hispanics could control state politics, both the legislature and the governor’s seat.
Whatever token resistance now exists to defeat illegal immigrant measures like driver’s licenses for aliens or reduced access to health care will vanish. Don’t expect Maldonado to get religion once he becomes California’s chief executive.
Of course, none of this is inevitable. As Peter Brimelow recently pointed out, the GOP has so completely failed to mobilize its base in California that in 2008 John McCain actually failed to carry the white vote there. But there is no sign that “Republican strategists” are going to get the message.
California’s tragedy has been a long time coming. Immigration reform patriots have predicted the state’s demise for years.
Still, for this California native, watching it actually happen is unbearably sad.

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Texas to ban Sanctuary Cities?

A very interesting story about immigration enforcement in Texas. Sanctuary cities are those that discourage local law enforcement from helping the short-handed federal authorities to enforce immigration laws. H/t http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/capitol/2009/03/ag-state-can-ban-sanctuary-cities.html, Vaqueros & Wonkeros.

Texas AG: State can ban sanctuary cities
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion today giving lawmakers the go-ahead to prohibit cities from becoming so-called "sanctuary cities."
State Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, had asked Abbott whether legislators could prohibit cities from adopting policies that prevent local authorities from cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement.
Some Republican lawmakers want to require cities to enforce immigration laws or risk losing state funding for certain programs.
In his opinion, Abbott wrote that since federal law preempts city policies, any sanctuary policy a municipality adopts would be moot anyway.
"The Texas Legislature is not prohibited from adopting some form of legislation designed to compel local governments to comply with any duties they may have under federal immigration laws, so long as such legislation is not inconsistent with federal law," Abbott concluded.

Posted by Brandi Grissom http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/capitol

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

An American Catholic Despairs over his Church's Future

After St. Patrick's day http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/st-pattys-day-ireland-becoming-muslim.html some American Roman Catholics are analyzing the politics of their religion and see a bleak future for them. Read this from http://www.vdare.com/! and see if what he sees is also a danger for the nation!!

“Spiritual Wickedness in High Places”—A Catholic Looks At His Post-American Bishops
By Matthew Richer

St. Patrick’s Day has just been celebrated by millions of Catholics across the country—oblivious to the real intentions of their bishops. If American Catholics do not wake up soon, they may well lose both their Church and their country.
At a Sunday Mass in New York City a few months ago, we were told that our parish would begin hosting “Tolerance Sundays” in order to understand the plight of minorities and immigrants.
I turned to my wife, rolled my eyes, and said, “I can’t do it anymore.” I then got up from the pew, walked out of the church, and haven’t attended Mass since.
It was an unfortunate, though inevitable, breaking point. After all, I haven’t placed a cent in the collection plate in years for fear of inadvertently funding some radical cause—such as the $7.3 million that the Church has given to ACORN over the last ten years, or the bishops’ recent campaign to strip E-Verify from President Obama’s stimulus bill.
My skepticism, however, isn’t new. It comes from having grown up and attended Catholic school in the Archdiocese of Boston, where Catholics have long viewed the Church as an excessively politicized institution.
Indeed, it used to be quite common for the Bishop of Boston to weigh in on local politics, often unwisely. Cardinal Humberto Medeiros earned the eternal enmity of Boston Catholics for vocally supporting forced busing during the 1970s, even though most of the people affected by busing were Catholic.
Still, this politicization did have its occasional advantages, if you knew the right people. When I was a teenager, for example, I remember nervously informing my parents that, unlike my peers, I would not be receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation that spring because I had blown off the required two years of catechetical instruction.
But a few phone calls were made and I was soon confirmed by Cardinal Bernard Law at a parish I had never even visited before.
In the Archdiocese of Boston, it was all about who you knew.
Such a political fix might sound terribly immoral—if you’ve never had to sit through a modern-day catechism class. But you have to understand that for my generation, religious education never included learning about the Mass, or the Sacraments, or the saints.
Instead, we were taught that being Catholic simply meant being sensitive toward those who were not like us—especially blacks, homosexuals, and immigrants.
Did we believe any of it? Not really, since there wasn’t much of substance to believe in. But that’s the thing about propaganda. It’s almost always extremely boring, but when your elders spend years spoon-feeding it to you, you often end up accepting some of it anyway.
Luckily, at a young age, I acquired some unique exposure to Church politics when my entire family began attending the annual Catholic Charities fundraiser held on the lawn of the bishop’s residence, a lavish Italianate mansion across the street from Boston College. It was called the “Garden Party” and for years it was the most exclusive fundraiser in Boston.
Few people, of course, actually attend charity fundraisers out of charitable motives—they go to network and to be seen. This was especially true of the Garden Party, which was attended by the most important business and political leaders in Boston.
Cardinal Law would always give a short speech at the event. It invariably included some trite statement on public policy. For example, at the 1996 party, the Cardinal loftily denounced the Republicans’ attempt to reform welfare.
Yes, Law was an important man, which was why so many important Bostonians wanted to befriend him. But what I learned at the Garden Party is that our Church leaders and our political and corporate leaders are all part of the same clique.
Mark Krikorian has described our political and business elites as being “post-American”. They are people who do not primarily identify themselves as being American, but prefer to see themselves as “citizens of the world”—a world that invariably revolves around them.
In the same way, the American Catholic Church is run by post-American bishops. Like many politicians, they identify little with the regions of the country they are supposed to serve.
This is the part of the story people miss when they try to fathom the bishops’ brutal disregard for the victims of clerical sex abuse—the hush money, the high-priced lawyers, the legal stone-walling, the mountain of lies and mendacious public statements.
Do we not associate such tactics with the typical post-American corporation? Or perhaps a corrupt politician caught in a bribe?
It wasn’t always this way. New York’s Cardinal Francis Spellman was devoted to the vision of the Founding Fathers and taught American Catholics to be the same. Bishop Fulton Sheen was a dedicated patriot who preached that love of God was impossible without love of country.
Unfortunately, such church leaders are now very hard to find.
Today, New York’s bishop, Cardinal Edward Egan, counts former General Electric CEO Jack Welch—a pioneer of outsourcing to India—among his closest friends. An unabashed post-American elitist, Cardinal Egan reportedly raises his hand and snaps his fingers to summon a subaltern to his side during meetings.
In 2002, when it was revealed that Cardinal Law had harbored dozens of sex predator priests in greater Boston, his residence was hounded around the clock by protestors holding signs that read “Honk if you want Law to Resign!” Law apparently lay awake at night listening to the endless blare of passing motorists honking in derision.
During this very dark time, do you want to guess who Cardinal Law’s bigger supporters were?
Yup, Hispanic immigrants, who formed small, but very dedicated, counter-protests at most every anti-Law demonstration.
Cardinal Law had spent years courting Boston’s immigrants, often boasting in Spanish of having been born in Mexico. He even claimed that he was an immigrant too—just like them. In reality, Law grew up in a military family and spent much of his childhood on American military bases overseas before moving stateside to attend Harvard University.
Still, Boston’s Hispanics defended Law as one of their own, despite all of his well-publicized sins. To them, he was “El Cardenal” and all that mattered was that he was on their side.
Now it has long been my hunch that when Bernard Law was being forced out of Boston, the other bishops carefully took notes, especially Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles.
Mahony harbored scores of sex predators in California, virtually from the moment he was made Bishop of Fresno in 1975. The worst of them, Irish-immigrant Fr. Oliver O’Grady, sexually assaulted children as young as nine months old.
So when calls for Cardinal Mahony’s resignation grew louder in 2007, he was well-prepared. Mahony had spent the previous years thoroughly ingratiating himself with his Hispanic constituents, particularly illegal immigrants.
Mahony’s lies about immigration are as transparent as his lies about Oliver O’Grady. But none of that seems to matter to his Hispanic supporters. As long as Mahony takes on their cause, they will excuse him anything.
The difference is that in Boston, Hispanics have very little influence, so their support for Law had no impact. In Los Angeles, however, Hispanics are the emerging majority. Mahoney’s critics have been unable to overcome their strong support for him.
If my hunch is accurate, then the bishops are advocating for Open Borders simply because they desperately need more constituents who will forgive them anything, especially if the sex abuse scandal gets even worse.
This is a terribly short-sighted strategy for the Catholic Church for at least two reasons. First, American Catholics will continue to abandon an increasingly corrupt and Hispanicized Church. Second, as Hispanics begin to flex their growing political muscle, they will have less need of the bishops.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Cardinal Mahony’s influence within the Latino community has gradually weakened simply because there are so many emerging Hispanic leaders with whom they more closely identify.
These Hispanic leaders, like former Assemblyman Fabian Nunez and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, almost always ignore the bishops on anything but immigration. They are typically pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion and their constituents do not seem terribly bothered by the fact.
“Aim at heaven and you get earth thrown in,” wrote C.S. Lewis. “Aim at earth and you get neither.”
Perhaps no bishop has more earthly aims than Cardinal Roger Mahony, whose spiritual bankruptcy is most comically illustrated by the new “Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels” that he commissioned in 1996.
The cathedral is a $200 million New Age monstrosity that inspires revulsion rather than reverence. Among its many awful features is a statue of the Virgin Mary that depicts her as a boyish, short-haired feminist with a plunging neckline.
In his Letter to the Ephesians, Saint Paul admonishes us to be wary of “spiritual wickedness in high places”.
Certainly, it is hard to conceive of a greater wickedness than consciously placing innocent children at the mercy of sex predators. American Catholics, however, must wake up to the fact that the bishops’ attempt to globalize their congregations is another form of wickedness—which they must fervently oppose.
Both our Church and our country are at stake.

Matthew Richer (email him) is a public relations specialist who divides his time between New York City and New Hampshire. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW.