Thursday, January 24, 2008

What Difference Does Having a Christian President Make to God?

I don’t get that Americans insist on having a Christian as president. What difference does it really make? In fact, one could argue that having born-again George Bush as president has been a disaster for America. The country is now in a recession. Millions of Americans are losing their homes. America’s reputation has deteriorated so that now it ranks with Israel as one of the most loathed nations in the world. It has committed one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the 21st century, the invasion and destruction of a nation, Iraq, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands men, women, and children. See costofwar.com:

  • $275 million per day
  • $4,100 per American household
  • Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded
  • 700,000 Iraqis killed and 4 million refugees

We have already spent 500 billion dollars on the Iraq War. Imagine if that 500 billion could have been used for the stimulus package instead of a measly 150 billion in tax credits?


The nation is also being overrun by millions of alien invaders, transforming America into a divided nation: American Natives versus Illegal Aliens, which forebodes a future of social animosity, unrest, and conflict.


America’s economic sector is in decline. For example, Toyota Motor Corp. has overtaken Ford Motor Co. to become the No. 2 automaker by U.S. sales in 2007, breaking Ford's 75-year lock on the position. And American workers earn less and have less job security.


In addition, the cost of fuel and food spiked throughout 2007.


America has been in a steady decline throughout George Born-Again Bush’s presidency, and the decline will mostly likely continue for years if not decades to come. So the question is, “What difference does it make having a Christian as president of the United State?” Logically, one could conclude that it can only make things worse because Christians have a religious agenda and also believe they can do anything they damn well please and it will turn out okay because God is on their side.


But if you think about it, most organizations (other than religious institutions such as churches and ecumenical schools) would not hire a president based on whether or not he or she is a Christian. How many Christians would choose the Pope as their surgeon rather than medical doctor if they were given the choice?


The fact of the matter is God is indifferent to the fate of believers. Just look at the plight of Jews during the Holocaust or even today for that matter. Or look at the plight of Muslims throughout the world. If they are an example of what happens when a religious people receive God’s blessings, then it seems being a nonbeliever is a more sensible choice.


Oh, I forgot about Paradise. God’s blessings come later as soon as the world is destroyed.


Well, that explains George Bush’s “bring it on” behavior. Wars, plagues, environmental catastrophe, and economic collapse are the keys to paradise. I bet our children can’t wait.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Bush and Olmert: Two Warmongers Pitch for Peace

You might have witnessed the press conference in which President Bush and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed their farcical plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty. Most ludicrous is these two warmongers acting as peacemakers. I imagined each one standing barefoot in a tub of blood. Of course, Olmert is a small fry next to Bush. Whereas Olmert’s war against Lebanon killed only hundreds, displaced only thousands, and covered the landscape with thousands of cluster bombs, Bush killed at least 151,000 Iraqis during the first three years of the war (stated in the January 10 San Diego Union-Tribune, injured hundreds of thousands more, and displaced millions. (That means that American hands are also bloody, whether they like it or not.)

In the same edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune is an article titled “Insurgents kill 9 U.S. solders in Sunni strongholds.” It should read “George Bush kills 9 U.S. solders in Sunni strongholds” because President Bush is responsible for every person killed in the Iraqi War. It is his war. And Bush has killed so many people that perhaps he is not a warmonger but has actually achieved the status of war monster.

Of course, no one in room expected to hear any wisdom from these two shinigamis. Being in the same room with Olmert and Bush is like being in the room with two sociopaths. If they are unarmed or in a cage, you ignore their rantings, but if they are armed then you pay attention. Bush and Olmert are both armed sociopaths; their weapons are their nations’ militaries. It even could be argued that Israel has been a sociopathic state since its inception, a monster given life by Great Britain and the U.N. (actually a collection of lesser nations that made up the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine). What they released upon the world was a monster not unlike that created by Victor Frankenstein. The creation was a crime and its aftermath has been one of warfare, repression, destroyed lives, and international instability. Perhaps the best is to come: World War III.

Serving as Israel’s ally has made America an anathema in the Middle East and an enemy to a billion Muslims, for the legitimate reason that Muslims see Israel’s existence as a violation of international law and a continual act of terrorism. George Bush, a born-again nut case believes that by standing by Israel he is carrying out a higher law, which is literally nonsense. In the words of Olmert, who looked very much like a zombie in a suit, the Palestinians must recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist. The question is What right? A right given by a motley crew of insignificant nations (specifically Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay)? More nonsense. Recently on NPR an Israeli woman answered the question by saying God gave the Jews the right to Palestine, which is the ultimate nonsense. Whose God? She might as well have said that the Elder Scrolls by Bethesda Softworks gave the Jews the right to Palestine.

In other words, claiming one’s people has a right to something because their God gave them that right is a ploy Jews have been using since the good old days of the Old Testament when Yahweh's miraculous intervention, enabled the Jews to annihilate the Canaanite populace. (Europeans and Americans used the same justification to destroy the Indian nations and confiscate their homelands--using the same game book, the Bible.) This is the picture that the two warmongers probably had in mind when they invaded the Muslim nations Lebanon and Iraq: God is our sword. To be fair, that is also a favorite phrase among Muslims.

But if Yahweh is on the side of the Jews, then they should not need the help of the United States. Not only do they have Yahweh’s help but also nuclear weapons and the support of wealthy and politically influential American Jews. (Without this influence it is doubtful the U.S. would be involved in the Iraq War. Google for an eye-opening look at this influence.

Considering warmonger Sen. John McCain said that it would be fine with him “to have a U.S. military presence in Iraq for 100 years” (Bush is comfortable with 10 years), the American people might want to ask themselves how many trillions of dollars, how many thousands of lives (obviously the sacrifice of millions of lives would be all right with these warmongers), and how much disgrace is worth Iraq worth.

I believe that the Islamic war against the U.S. would cease as soon as America stopped meddling in Middle East affairs. The 9-11 attacks occurred primarily because the U.S. had a military presence in Saudi Arabia, and secondarily because of U.S. support of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. If America pulled out of the Middle East, those people would go back to killing themselves, which seems to be their favorite pastime when not under the thumb of a dictatorship such as that of the Saudis or that old bad guy and political realist Saddam Hussein. Of course, it is a good idea to keep the Muslims out of one’s own country. The U.S., France, Great Britain, and Spain have suffered as a result of disregarding that bit of commonsense, which is simply, Keep the enemy outside the city gates. The flip side is, of course, not to invade other peoples’ homelands and cities.

One reason touted for U.S.’s being in Iraq is oil, but fighting a trillion-dollar war for cheaper oil does not seem to make much economic sense, especially when oil is not all that cheap anyway. Of course, war profiteers such as Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton make a bundle either way. That Americans foot the bill in blood and dollars to make obscenely wealthy moguls wealthier is beyond me. It almost seems that most Americans are not any smarter than the man they elected to mislead them.

Could they make that mistake again? Why not? They did twice with George W. Bush.

Saturday, January 5, 2008

A Tiger’s Roar: A Lesson to America

You probably read about the tiger killed at the San Francisco zoo. That event should be a lesson not only to naughty boys who torment animals but to Americans who are not so slowly losing their nation. What is the lesson? It is this--that in 2007 America died a little more, which should have been in the obituary section that describes all the famous people who died last year.

Who killed a little more of America last year? Illegal immigrants, thats who. Each year like piranhas they eat away a little more of the American homeland (while their homelands, dysfunctional as they might be, stay intact). They do this by invading by the millions and then reproducing at an exponential rate once they get here.

Take the case of the photo in the San Diego Union-Tribune of triplets lying in Santa’s lap, the children of another unmarried Hispanic couple. Certainly the image cheered the hearts of the Hispanic Nation that is taking over the U.S., but to millions of Americans the children represent the Latino iceberg that USS America has crashed against, and now the damaged ship is taking on water (more immigrants), listing, and close to sinking.

On a less happy not, there is Felipe Mercado whose girlfriend died in the San Diego fires while she and her brother were attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, and now he has to raise their four children on a tamale-maker’s salary. Of course, he entered the country illegally but all four children were born in the U.S., so the children are Mexicans with U.S. citizenship who will receive an education, medical care, and other services at the expense of American taxpayers. And then become a part of the growing Hispanic Nation.

Most recently is the case of the two immigrant window washers from Ecuador who fell 47 stories, killing one of them. Were they in the country legally? Probably not. But we do know they settled in Linden, New Jersey. And how are things going in New Jersey? Let’s take a look. Foreign-born population (2000 Census estimate): 1,476,329. Foreign-born population (2006 FAIR estimate): 1,769,530. And Illegal Alien Population (2007 FAIR estimate) 490,000. It looks like the aliens are winning the immigration war in New Jersey, but that is to be expected when, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the Hispanic population in the U.S. grew 35% between 1990 and 1998.

And then we have the case of a tiger being killed for defending its territory, a story that illustrates the extent of the alien invasion. The tiger, named Tatiana, escaped from its cage, probably because it was being taunted (Do you remember the mass Hispanic demonstrations designed to taunt and mock the American people?) and bites the first three people in sight, and guess what? All three turn out to be alien-Americans. Even the guy who runs the zoo, Manuel Mollinedo, is a Hispanic. And what is his hope for the zoo? “I'd like to have a bigger Southeast Asian population,” he says. I’m wondering whether he is referring to visitors or to San Francisco’s population, of which Asians are already 30%. Hispanics make up 14% of the population. Thirty-nine percent of San Francisco’s population were born outside the U.S. Thats why San Francisco is a minority-majority city, meaning aliens dominate the population. This is what Americans can look forward to their country becoming during this century.

Think of what happened at the zoo as a allegory depicting Americans struggle to protect their homeland from invaders, which is what the tiger was trying to do and as a result was killed by the cops. The U.S. government has been about as helpful to Americans as the cops were to tiger. And if any American stands up to the invaders, the government or some anti-American organization such as the ACLU is all over him or her. Take the example of the Philadelphia based cheese-steak bistro owner who was taken to court for putting up a sign that read, "This is America, please order in English." The sign should have read, “No Spanish Allowed,” because America is not under attack by the French, Germans, or Russians but by the ½ billion Spanish-speaking army south of the border.


Interestingly, one article about the incident was titled KEEPING ZOOS SAFE. What about keeping America safe? Well, don’t expect help from the California legislature, given that it’s dominated by Hispanic lawmakers, such as the Speaker Fabian Núñez, whose parents were Mexican immigrants; Senate President pro Tem, Don Perata, who parents were also immigrants: and Majority leader, Gloria Romero, who marched with the illegal immigrants and thus, like the other politicastros, represents the Hispanic Nation that is hijacking America, not Americans. Thus, California, like Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado, is a lost cause. Kudos to Mexico. I mean you have to give credit where credit is due. And shame on the U.S. government.


P.S. If I seem unsympathetic to the aliens invading the country, well what do you expect? My attitude is pretty much that of the invaded toward the invader: the Native American toward the European, the Palestinian toward the Jew, the Iraqi toward the American, etc. My view is pretty clearly illustrated in Travis Barrett’s novel Strangers. When someone steals your home, you can’t help but hate them.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Christmas Should Not Be Celebrated

Christmas should not be celebrated, except as a day of atonement for all the harm brought upon the world by the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, a tradition that began with a wrathful God that once flooded the world to destroy all life except for a boat load of survivors just because he was angry with the pathetic beings he created in his own image. Supposedly he created the world, but only because he is a bully that needs to be worshipped by his cloned children, who are severely punished if they choose to worship a different god, such as nature, and become romantic poets or philosophers or scientists.

His so-called chosen people, the Jews, used the belief that they are the raison d'être of a 14-billion-year-old universe to conquer the Canaanites and appropriate the Canaanites’ homelands, and nothing in their thinking and behavior has change since then. The Holy Land remains an open sore of human suffering.

Christians expanded the focus of that aggression to include all the peoples of the world and nature herself, which Christians consider to be either the devil’s workshop or raw material for their person use—and nothing more. And of course Christians, like the Jews and Muslims, cannot help fighting one another, each antagonistic group believing it possesses the truth, never considering the possibility that none of them possess the truth.

Islam is most noted today as a militant religion obsessed with fighting, having matured culturally no further than the pre-Renaissance Christians. Perhaps the greatest evidence of the failure of Islam is the internal bloodletting occurring today in Iraq and Palestine among various Islamic groups, which is not to imply that somehow Christendom has overcome its aggressive ways. It has not, as demonstrated by America’s own Christian Ayatollah, President Bush, and his religious war against the Iraqi infidels. And even the great bloodletting of the twentieth century was inspired by ideologies that can be considered offshoots of the Christian will-to-power.

As humanity approaches its end caused by societal decay, war, disease, and natural catastrophes such as global warming (actually global warming is becoming the mother of natural catastrophes), it becomes evident that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is a false God, a God incapable of creating harmony for humanity because he (appropriately named given he is the product of male chauvinism) has proven himself to be a God that inspires disharmony and chaos. But this negative capability in no way demonstrates his being all-powerful, for he has no power over his children without acting as a divine Santa Claus passing out such benefits as miraculous cures and eternal life. His weakness is demonstrated especially during Christmas when his followers abandon him to engage in an obscene bacchanalia of shopping and worshiping the god of consumption.

Nevertheless, those who celebrate Christmas are acting in accordance with their faith, believing they are entitled to everything, that they should not be denied a single wish. That is why Christian nations have intruded into the affairs of the Middle East, for the same reason they invaded and appropriated the homelands of the indiginous peoples of the world, because they believe it is their God-given right to do so, just as Jews believe God gave them the right to the homeland of the Palestinians. Of course, Muslims believe that they have the right to slaughter men, women, and children in the name of Allah.

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God has brought horror upon the world; thus Christmas should not be a time of celebration, but a time of mourning and despair, especially given the fact that these theologies continue to sow their seeds of greed, destruction, and sorrow.

Christmas cannot be time of time of celebration until the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition has come to an end, but I am afraid that time will never come because, as that brilliant secular Jew Sigmund Freud explained in his The Future of an Illusion, these religions are security blankets needed by peoples who have not fully matured into adulthood. They truly are the God’s children. He would also say that their religions are inspired by the ego self (the I and the me). If there be such a thing as a true (i.e., good) religion, it would have to be one that promises the believer nothing but his or her own love for the world.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

No Country for Old Men and America's Multicultural Nightmare

Be scared. It is not just a story. It is what is happening to America and Europe.

No Country for Old Men could have been titled No Country for Americans. An allegorical reading of the movie gives a frightening look at America’s future, and the present situation in many U.S. cities and states. Ostensibly, the story is about a Mexican drug deal gone awry. The villains are scads of Mexican killers, but one especially, sociopathic killer, Anton Chigurh, who is unstoppable.

The good guys are a hapless bunch of Americans (Texans, specifically) who range from foolish and unlucky to downright stupid. The Vietnam veteran, Llewelyn Moss, falls into the first category. He believes the arrival of the Mexicans is to his good fortune, even though the scene of slaughter should tell him otherwise. Llewelyn is clever and brave but no match for the evil that has crossed the border from Mexico.

In an allegorical interpretation of the story, Chigurth, along with the other Mexican killers and drug dealers, represents the Hispanic immigrants who have been invading America for decades, bringing their criminal way of life with them. Like illegal immigrants, Anton shows up at every nook and cranny of American society: the highways, businesses, trailer parks, motels, the suburbs, even a police station, and everywhere he goes mayhem follows.

To those who would say this interpretation is too extreme, I recommend Lisa Ling’s documentary The Most Dangerous Gang in the World, a documentary film made for National Geographic. It is about “the rapid spread of the ultra violent gang MS-13, which has infected big cities and small towns across the country.” Of course, MS-13 is just one of hundreds of Hispanic gangs spreading across the United States. If street gangs can be classified as sociopathic (and I believe most can), then MS-13 is the Hannibal Lecter of Hispanic street gangs now terrorizing what were once American communities.

L.A. is just one example. To quote Lisa Ling, “Growing up in Los Angeles, it’s hard not to notice the graffiti that covers the sides of buildings, walls, fences and trucks in many parts of the city. It looks like meaningless scribble, but it’s used to mark territory. Though [L.A.] is home to Hollywood and the entertainment industry, large swaths of the city are also claimed by violent street gangs.”

According to the United States Government Accountability Office, 270,000 illegal immigrants served jail time in 2003, representing 21% of the federal prison population. It is estimated that currently 27% of federal prison inmates are criminal aliens, noncitizens convicted of crimes while in this country legally or illegally.

A 1996 National Youth Gang Survey revealed that Hispanics made up the largest percentages of the gang members in large cities (44%), small cities (33%), and suburban counties (50%).

It is thus not surprising to read in the local paper about violent crimes involving Hispanics. For example, the headline of the Our Region section of the October 29 San Diego Union-Tribune reads, “Homicide-free streak shattered in violent weekend.” The article tells about five men stabbed, two of whom died. The two who died had Latino names. Hours later the police responded to two separate fatal shootings. One of the two had a Latino name. Deputies were also searching for a man suspected of shooting his estranged wife. The man was described as a Latino who “should be considered armed and dangerous.”

In the same section was a report of a “man with a shaved head and a semiautomatic handgun carjacking a woman outside Wal-Mart." The man pointed a gun to her head. The ethnicity of the man was omitted, even though there was an eyewitness. In addition, according to Wikipedia the ethnic makeup of the 2007 population of South San Diego is Hispanic 68.1% and White 12.9%. Thus, most likely the man was a Hispanic gang member.*

A man was also described as being run over by a car thief stealing his SUV at Qualcomm Stadium. The authorities later spotted the car near the U.S.-Mexico border and a suspect was arrested.

In Escondido one man was shot dead two wounded. The dead man was Latino.

Finally, in the same section was an article titled, “Residents protest surge in crime rate.” This was in regard to the rising crime rate Baja California Mexico. One concern was kidnappings, which were “up for the third year in a row, with 220 so far this year.”

Most recently (December 5) we read about the killing of a high-ranking police officer in Tecate, Mexico. He was shot to death in his bed. The killing occurred after the discovery of a drug tunnel leading to the U.S. Also found was a shipping container filled with tightly wrapped bundles of marijuana.

And in the same issue of the San Diego Union-Tribune we learn that “There were more than 30,408 [immigration-fugitive] arrests in fiscal 2007,” twice that of the preceding year.

In other words, Mexico, like many of the other nations south of the U.S. border, have become criminalized societies, and allowing their citizens to enter into America is like opening the doors to a prison and allowing the convicts to invade the surrounding communities. Were the Hispanics not allowed into the country, the crimes they commit would be committed south of the border instead in American communities.

No Country for Old Men is an allegorical depiction of the violent crime America has allowed to brutalize American communities. Frighteningly, the movie also suggests that American law enforcement is unable to protect American citizens from the Hispanic crime wave spreading throughout the country.

In the movie the America’s defenders are an ineffective crew of worn-out old-time sheriffs such as Tom Bell, played by Tommy Lee Jones, or inept younger deputies. There is even a swaggering American hitman who proves himself no match for the Mexican killer. (In other words, to reference another movie that is currently out in the theaters, America has no Beowulf capable of dealing with Hispanic Grendels invading the U.S.)

In addition, most American citizens in the story seem as mentally challenged as the deputies. The message seems to be that Americans are too haggard or dull-witted to be a match for the cunning, ruthless, and driven Mexican killer who looks upon the Americans he encounters with disdain and disgust. I can’t say the depiction is inaccurate after seeing images of Americans waiting throughout Thanksgiving night at stores such as Wal-Mart for the Black Friday shopping spree, and then rushing into the stores like cattle with shopping carts when the doors opened. America seems to have become a land of complacent consumers who could care less about what happens to the country.

Recently we have seen that the movie applies equally to European nations, which will soon become no place for civilized human beings. Moslem hooligans have been rioting in France, destroying property and attacking police or anyone else who doesn’t look Arabic. A while back, well educated and financially successful Muslims in Great Britain sought to blow up planes headed for the U.S. These people are the Islamic version of the psychopathic killer in No Country for Old Men.

What Europeans can’t seem to understand is that the Muslims who immigrate into Europe hate Europeans. And one can argue that given America’s support of the Jewish occupation of Palestine and George Bush’s attempt to dominate the Middle East in a manner reminiscent of the Crusades, the Moslem world has good reason to hate the West. Nevertheless, Europeans are foolish to allow those who hate them to settle in their nations, just as Americans are fools to allow Hispanics to create a Hispanic nation in America. The reason is simple: the conflict between the invaders and the invaded will never end, and in fact will become far worse as the invading populations continue to grow in number.

There appear to be many reasons the Europeans tolerate the Islamic Trojan Horses they have allowed into their nations. Perhaps the most important is a Pollyannaish naiveté based on the false belief originating during the Age of Reason that if you give people the educational opportunity to become rationally enlightened that they will give up their irrational beliefs and attitudes and allow reason to become the basis for universal harmony. However, for a number of reasons that will never, ever happen.

Take the French rioters, for example. First of all, they hate the French because their homelands were probably colonized by the French. Second, many if not most of them could care less about education. Third, they are members of an aggressive religion that celebrates violence and is especially hostile toward nonIslamic religions. Fourth, they consider the nations they came from as their true homelands, not France. Fifth, they do not believe French law applies to them. In fact, they may not believe that any Western civil or moral law applies to them. Sixth, they hate living in a society that is not an Islamic theocracy.

I suggest watching the movie Paris, Je T'aime to gain some insight into how Arab men behave in Paris. In the segment titled Place des Fêtes an African man is attacked and stabbed to death by Arabs. The person I saw the film with and who lived for six years in Paris said that is exactly how Arabs in Paris behave. She added, they especially have no respect for Western women.

At the end of the movie No Country for Old Men the viewer discovers that once the problem arrives, it remains, just as for the Trojans, once they allowed the horse to enter their city of Troy, it was too late. Given that perspective, it is too late for both Europe and America and all their citizens can do is what the old sheriff Tom Bell does: Give up and watch the bad guys take over.


*I assume the carjacker’s identity was not given for reasons of political correctness and profit. This may benefit the ethnic group in question, but it does a disservice Americans overall by giving a distorted impressive of the impact of a particular ethnic group on American society. The American people deserve the whole truth about what goes on in their communities, especially now when the welfare of those communities is being jeopardized by illegal immigration.

However, I am afraid Americans can never expect such truthfulness from organizations and individuals who profit from illegal immigration (e.g., politicians, church officials, business leaders, and union officials) because being truthful might insult the Hispanic community, an important source of votes, dollars, and membership.

And you will never get honesty from Latino spin doctors such as Ruben Navarrette, who calls for honesty in the immigration debate but really provides a Pollyanna gloss favoring illegal immigrants. What this Latino rhetorician wants is to open the gates protecting America from the Hispanic Trojan Horse. This is understandable and as it should be since he is speaking on the behalf of his people.

What is intolerable is the gringo turncoats who betray their people each and every day. Had the Bush Administration told Americans what was really known about so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and the administration's real motives for going to war, America would not now be bogged down in a war that has done far greater harm to America than the 9/11 attacks, which Iraq had nothing to do with, and has diverted money and manpower that could have been used to protect American borders.

The fact is, lies are America’s Achilles heel. They more than anything else will destroy the country. This is especially true when liars run the country. (The difference between Navarrette and Bush is the former is a rhetorician, the latter a liar.)

By the way, a full account of the carjacking was provided by the North County Times, a newspaper that is willing to tell the whole ugly truth even if the color of crime** is offensive to certain groups:

“According to a police report, a 35-year-old woman waiting in a 2006 Lincoln Navigator
for her daughter outside the Wal-Mart was approached by a man with a semi-auto
handgun.... He is described as Hispanic, in his 20s, 5-feet 6-inches tall with a heavy build and
shaved head.”

And I take back my earlier criticism of the San Diego Union-Tribune because in more recent reports (Dec. 2 Sunday paper) the SDU-T did provide the whole truth about the criminals. First was a Bank of America bank robbery in Carlsbad: “The robber was described as Latino, 5 feet 8.” Second was a robbery of El Torito Market in Carlsbad: “Two masked robbers held guns on a store clerk and demanded cash....One robber held a shotgun to the employee’s head, and the second robber held a handgun to her ribs....The gunmen were describe as Latinos.” Third was a stabbing that occurred in Carlsbad: “A Carlsbad man was stabbed in the stomach during a party altercation....” The suspect was described as “Latino.” Gee-whiz, Latino-land does sound like No land for Old Men, or any law-abiding Americans.

**See SDU-T article “Political correctness thrown into fray of ‘dangerous city’ report.”

Monday, December 3, 2007

Never Forgetting the Homeland Illegal Immigrants Are Taken From Us

In the November 28 issue of the San Diego Union-Tribune Ruben Navarrette was waxing nostalgically in an opinion piece titled “Never Forgetting Where We Came From.” Navarrette begins by recounting his leaving his home in the California Central Valley and feeling guilty about turning his back on family and friends. Then he references expressions of nostalgia on the part of David Letterman, Bruce Springsteen, and the television show October Road.

Next, he points out that American young people leave their hometowns for the greener pastures of bigger cities. That, he explains, is why Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa proposed recruiting illegal immigrants to help alleviate the state’s perpetual youth drain. What he does not explain is that the farmers, meatpackers, and other businessmen prefer, like Wal-Mart, to hire illegal immigrants for slave-wages than to offer honest wages and benefits to their own people.

In Navarrette’s words, “some folks are looking for immigrants to bail them out.” I would put it differently: Some folks are looking to get richer even if it means destroying their communities. Navarrett says that others resist “because they fear the cultural changes that immigrants might bring.” No kidding! FEAR is the key word here.

One illustration of what is to be feared if one’s community becomes a barrio is provided in the same issue of the paper in a story titled “Leader of Anti-Crime Group Attacked.” The leader is Alberto Capella, “who has spoken out boldly against violence and corruption in Baja California,” but who was “yesterday on the verge of tears,” having just survived “an attack at his house by heavily armed assailants,” his house “pockmarked with 220 shots.” CRIME, CORRUPTION, and VIOLENCE are the cultural changes that immigrants bring that ordinary Americans (those who cannot live isolated in affluent safe communities) fear.

And you might remember the recent story on Tijuana titled “Residents Protest the Surge in Crime Rate.” The president of the Baja California Citizens Council for Public Safety, Alberto Capella, said “kidnappings in Baja California are up for the third year in a row, with 220 so far this year.” So why would Americans not fear having the crime, corruption, and violence that is rampant in Mexico and other nations south of the border being brought—legally or illegally—into their communities?

As a rhetorician what Navarrette seeks to draw the reader into the universality of the theme of nostalgia for the home left behind so that it can be applied sympathetically to illegal aliens who have left their national home behind to invade the U.S., saying, “And I bet you thought that protesters waving Mexican flags were making some sort of obnoxious political statement. Nope. It’s a personal one.” Of course, the Mexican flags were a political statement, which was that THE HISPANIC NATION IN AMERICA IS UNITED. But Navarrette is right when he says that the flags expressed a personal sentiment, which is Mexico, not America, is the first home of the Mexicans-in-America. And everywhere the Mexicans go in America they create mini-Mexicos called barrios.

Navarrette intentionally uses equivocation when he tries to get his reader in the mood for understanding the nostalgia the illegal immigrants feel for their homeland by implying that leaving home to go off to college is similar to leaving one’s national homeland to go off to live, work, benefit, and multiply in someone else’s national homeland. But that is not the situation. The situation is that Mexicans consider themselves first and foremost Mexicans living in America. Mexicans will never be Americans for two reasons. First, their homeland is next door. Second, they see Americans as gringos, i.e., as their enemy.

Mexicans have hated Americans ever since the Americans took a large part of Mexico, which Mexicans call Aztlan, and Americans will always hate Mexicans for invading their country illegally and because they know that the invasion has been encouraged by the Mexican government, and now a Mexican television network, TV Azteca, will be providing English lessons on television in America. What better way to ensure that the millions strong civilian army that now occupies the U.S. will remain?

Navarrette says that for Americans “who never forgot where they came from and still remember the road back, it shouldn’t be so hard to relate” to the homesick Hispanics who have set up camp in America. That is like saying the Iraqi people should feel sympathy for the homesick Americans soldiers who illegally invaded Iraq. I don’t think so. Beside, the Mexicans still have a homeland to feel nostalgic about. Soon Americans will feel nostalgia for a homeland that will have been taken from them. Then every road back will lead them to a barrio. Take, for example, Navarrette’s hometown of Fresno, California. Latinos are now the dominate group in Barrio Fresno.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

News Flash: Vice President Dick Cheney without Heart

Vice President Dick Cheney underwent an examination for an irregular heartbeat. During the examination doctors discovered that the irregular beat was actually caused by gas and that the Vice President is missing a heart. “This is very rare,” commented one of the physicians treating the Vice President. The physician went on to say that Mr. Cheney was the first patient lacking a heart that he had encountered during his career as a cardiologist. He explained that in the past there have been speculations that such men as Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Adolf Hitler might have lacked a heart; however, either empirical evidence unavailable because the body had been destroyed or was never found or a heart had been found, even if severely diseased. "Nevertheless," the doctor said, "a human being without a heart is not a contradiction and therefore not logically impossible."

Political scientists and philosophers quickly began speculating on the possibility that had the Vice President had a heart, that perhaps the war in Iraq may have been avoided and that the billions of dollars spent on the war might have been devoted to addressing urgent needs in America, such as water shortages; the spread of disease; mortgage foreclosures; deteriorating infrastructure such as schools, bridges, and dams; and the growing homeless populations.

Some scientists have even speculated that President George Bush himself, and perhaps even Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove, could be lacking a heart; however, the president turned down a request to be examined.

When asked about how Cheney’s condition would be treated, the doctor leading Cheney’s medical team said that a mechanical heart was being considered.