THEY’RE OBSESSED

A few days ago I posted a piece (CELEBRATION, ANYONE?) that featured the following paragraph:

“Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.”

The Census Bureau provides for us another example of the “Liberal policy-makers and administrators” that I wrote about in that paragraph. Question #8 of the 2010 census form asks: “Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?” If the answer is ‘yes’ there are several boxes for you choose from that identify the specific type of “Hispanic” that you are. Among the selections are “Mexican”, “Mexican Am.”, “Chicano” (Does anyone know which country “Chicanos” come from?), “Puerto Rican” and “Cuban”. By the way, can someone explain to me what the difference is between a “Mexican” and a “Mexican Am.”?

If you answer ‘no’ to question #8 question #9 then, allows you to declare what race you are. A few of the options include “White”, “Black”, “African Am.”, “Negro”, “American Indian”, “Chinese”, “Japanese”, “Filipino”, “Vietnamese” etc. Apparently none of these groups was special enough to merit a whole question just about them—they had to be lumped in with the “White” people. Let the healing begin!

The concept of being judged not be the color your skin but by the content of your character was a fundamental component of the Civil Rights movement that I once supported but, it is not a component of modern Liberal philosophy. Liberals are obsessed with race and skin color. I wouldn’t mind their obsession if they quietly kept it to themselves but, they keep forcing it on the rest of us. They’re not interested in simple equal protection of the law for all people. Instead, they want to engage in social engineering by redistributing wealth and bestowing rewards and preferences on some groups based upon their victim status and voting value to Liberal politicians.

If Liberals were really ‘liberal’ in the true meaning of the word they’d quit asking the rest of us intrusive and insulting questions that keep the nation racially divided. Leave us alone!

CELEBRATION, ANYONE?

Whew! Black History Month ended just in time to give Americans—exhausted from a month of vigorous celebrating—time to recover. Promoters of Brown History Month, Yellow History Month, Red History Month, White History Month and Green History Month will continue to have to wait for a month of their own. There was a time when we celebrated the birthdays of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in February but Liberals put an end to that (be warned, they’re still working on exterminating Christmas). I wonder what Barack Obama does during Black History Month—since he’s only half black maybe he only celebrates half the month?

Black History Month reminds me of that portion of an application form that asks for the race of the applicant; race is not supposed to matter but everyone knows that it does—especially to Liberal policy-makers and administrators. Despite the Civil War, a civil rights movement, several acts of congress, amendments to the constitution and ongoing preferential treatment Liberals are still convinced that new and institutionalized racism is the cure for past racism. They must believe that new injuries cure old injuries.

While we’re on the subject of needless celebrations maybe it’s time we resurrect one of the ancient celebrations and replace Black History Month with it. The Romans had some exciting ones to pick from and none of them have yet been ruined by Liberals. We could have it in February and best of all, all Americans could participate—not just the preferred few.

OBAMA, THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT

I’m still shocked that a person as unfit and anti-American as Obama got elected president. He’s not just your average destructive Liberal. How did it happen? How did a closet-Muslim named ‘Barak Hussein Obama’ get elected? Was it the flaccidness of the Bush administration? Was it the uncompromising weakness of John McCain? Maybe those things contributed but, I think that real answer lies in the social conditioning  infused into our culture by our universities and pop culture over the last five decades—especially in the area of race relations.

 

A critical element of this conditioning is the untrue teaching that America is a “racist” nation and that black people are an oppressed group who are constantly being exploited by the greedy, white majority who ought to feel shame and guilt for the oppressions they inflict—even the unintended ones. The Liberal solution to these oppressions (after a hefty dose of guilt) are “Affirmative Action” programs—programs where blacks and other minorities are given preference in hiring and other areas over white applicants. That’s right, the same folks who insist that race shouldn’t matter want race to matter.

 

During the election I heard many a white Liberal say that “it is time our nation had a black president”. Like any Affirmative Action program the racial outcome is more important than the qualifications. All of these decades of conditioning have bestowed upon Obama a layer of protection never experienced by any previous president; just watch how many of his critics will continue to be labeled a “racist”.

 

You can bet that Hillary Clinton is one Democrat who isn’t enjoying this presidential Affirmative Action but other Liberals remain obsessed with racial issues. Why stop with the presidency? Let’s go whole hog. I think that every Democrat in congress should resign their seat in favor of a minority replacement. Let the healing begin!

QUIT RUNNING FROM THE BATTLE!

I hate to say it but there is no group of people more incapable of fighting and winning a battle than Congressional Republicans. In fact, I think that “doormat” and “weakness” could be descriptive planks in our party platform. This is especially true of my Republican colleagues in the United States Senate. If we ever hope to get any part of a Conservative agenda enacted our side needs to learn how to stand up to the Democrats—including using some of the same dirty tactics employed by Democrats. But fighting won’t get the job done if it isn’t accompanied by a desire to actually defeat, and sometimes punish, the Democrats—just like they do to us. “Elections have consequences.” 

Unfortunately, too many Republicans (Moderates and McCain types mostly) are more interested in getting along with Democrats. There have been plenty of recent examples of our side fleeing the field of battle at a critical moment. Does anyone remember how McCain wouldn’t let his campaign staffers utter Obama’s middle name? Or how Bush quashed investigations into Clinton’s criminal conduct with his “New Tone”? And who could forget how Republicans in the senate wouldn’t fight to hold a proper impeachment trial of Bill Clinton? We meekly back down every time. 

To the above list Senator Jeff Sessions is about to make another contribution. Last week during the Sotomayor confirmation hearings he said: “I will not support, and I don’t think anybody on this side will support a filibuster.” He followed up with: “I’ll look forward to you getting that vote before we recess in August”. To round out the niceties Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, responded: “Thank you, Jeff, I appreciate that.” In that short exchange we have summarized the prevailing Democrat-Republican behavior pattern of the last three decades. Why say something so stupid? Maybe Sessions should give him his lunch money too. 

What reasons would persuade our side not to filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination vote? Are they the same reasons that caused the Democrats to filibuster Bush’s judicial nominations? Have Sessions and the other Republican senators forgotten how radical, bigoted and thoroughly unfit for judicial duty Sotomayor truly is or are they that fearful of cloture? Regardless of how Al Frankenized the U.S. Senate has become it does not relieve Republicans of their duty to exert every possible means to keep a person as dangerous as Sotomayor far away from the Supreme Court.  

Quit running from the battle! 

The constant weakness and retreating by top Republicans has demoralized our party’s base and cost us the last two elections. We need to get some backbone. Republicans need to get into the fight. We need to fight Democrats every single step of the way. 

Hopefully the next health care plan will included testosterone therapy for Republicans in Congress.

HOMO-FASCISM

The only thing more intolerant than a Liberal is a gay activist. Our most current example of heterophobic bigotry is provided by the flamboyant Perez Hilton a celebrity judge for the Miss America Pageant. During the question-and-answer portion of the pageant Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, the following question: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

 

To her credit Miss California answered: “….I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Her honest answer probably cost her the crown according to Hilton (imagine a teenage Barney Frank voice): “The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!”

 

In an interview with Larry King Hilton commented: “I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct….Miss USA should be all inclusive.” How does he square these two comments? Apparently being “all inclusive” does not include those who object to gay marriage.

 

Hilton isn’t the only celebrity with a double standard weighing in on this. Brittany Spears joined Perez Hilton’s “Twitter rally for gay marriage” (I don’t know why, but the words “Twitter rally” and “Perez Hilton” go remarkably well together) saying: “Love is love! People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!” Should people who oppose gay marriage be allowed to do what makes them happy?

 

So, a beauty pageant contestant gives an honest answer to a question put to her by a pageant judge and for that answer she is discriminated against by that judge who openly admits that he did so. Hilton probably thinks that he’s prettier than Miss California (he’d probably rather be a contestant than a judge too) but shouldn’t someone ask him if he violated her civil rights? Would we allow the pageant to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity? Then why allow it for personal beliefs?

 

Gay activists are thoroughly committed to forcing society to accept their abnormal behaviors. They are willing to disrupting religious services, file law suits, intimidate church attendees, spray paint graffiti on church buildings and tear up pictures of the pope on late-night television shows—the usual things they do when they get angry. They’re intent on forcing their will on the rest of us.

 

We don’t have to look any further than our own state for examples. In 2003 Governor Janet Napolitano signed Executive Order 03-22 (she didn’t think that the voters or their representatives in the legislature could be trusted enough to consult on the matter) directing that no state agency “….shall discriminate in employment solely on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation…” The purpose of the executive order was to “Affirm the State’s commitment to the elimination of all barriers to employment that artificially restrict hiring, promotion, recruitment, compensation, and tenure on the basis of any status or characteristic that is not directly related to the performance of a job….” (Note to Governor Brewer: could you please rescind this order?)

 

The next time that Napolitano isn’t busy annoying the Canadians maybe she could, in the spirit of her own executive order, ask the DOJ to investigate the pageant and its discriminatory practices.

 

To many of us Carrie Prejean is the winner of the pageant.

GASCON TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Mesa police chief, George Gascon, is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary committee tomorrow. The committee is holding hearings regarding local law enforcement’s involvement in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Mesa is Arizona’s third largest city and a haven for ILLEGAL immigrants because, in part, Chief Gascon (like his Phoenix counterpart, Jack Harris) is a committed to non-enforcement of our immigration laws.

 

2008 was an embarrassing year for Gascon. Crime sweeps last April conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Mesa netted dozens of ILLEGALS. All Gascon could do was grumble in a letter to Sheriff Joe Arpaio saying: “….these operations have attracted a substantial level of attention by groups in support and against your anti-immigration policies.” “Anti-immigration policies”? If there were any doubts about where Gascon stood on ILLEGAL immigration he really let the cat out of the bag on that one! More embarrassment was to follow.

 

In October sheriff’s deputies armed with 25 warrants conducted a pre-dawn roundup in the Mesa city hall and in the library arresting over a dozen persons here illegally using stolen identification and employed by a cleaning service under contract with the city. The roundup was the culmination of an investigation that lasted several months and began when a former city employee reported to the Mesa police that the company was hiring ILLEGAL aliens. When no action was taken the former employee tipped off the sheriff’s department which infiltrated the company with an undercover person claiming to be here illegally. Say what you will about the sheriff’s tactics but with this many ILLEGALS right under Gascon’s nose how could he be so inert?

 

There is no question where Chief Gascon stands on ILLEGAL immigration issues. In both word and deed he is a firm believer in non-enforcement of our immigration laws. So, I will predict in summary form what Gascon will tell the committee tomorrow: he will say that local enforcement of immigration laws is dangerous, anti-immigrant and, probably, racist.

Jack Harris, What Happened? -Follow up.

Monday I posted a piece designed to highlight the problems that I see with Jack Harris and the double standard applied by the media and other Liberals. In my effort to go after Jack I referenced a certain, sleazy website that criticized him and other top PPD management. This was a mistake on my part because the site criticized Phoenix police officers in general as well. Please do not interpret my comments about Jack Harris or the raid being a general criticism of our police officers, they were meant to highlight the problems that I see with PPD’s management. I should have been more careful to point that out.

 

Personal note to Ann: The vast majority of law enforcement officers that I have ever worked with are honest, hard working people who work under extraordinary circumstances. They put their lives on the line of us every second that they are on duty—and sometimes when they are off duty. Please accept my apology.

Jack Harris, What Happened?

Facts about this incident are scanty but apparently Phoenix police raided a private residence this past Thursday or Friday thought to be in conjunction with an internal investigation. According to one report the police seized all of the computers, routers and modems in the residence. The warrant was reported to be missing the page that specified the reasons for the search and seizure. The residence is the home of a man who runs the blog: BadPhoenixCops.com, a blog that is hyper-critical of Phoenix police administration, especially the assistant city manager for public safety, Jack Harris.

I scanned through the blog, it’s generally an unsavory read, but it does bring up some noteworthy questions about the activities of the PPD’s upper management. I’m in no hurry to conclude that there has been any abuse of power by the police. The facts, once they all come to light, will eventually answer that question.

For the moment it is interesting to me that our state’s largest newspaper, the Arizona Republic, has so little interest in the story, despite the suspicious smell of retaliation. I predict that if the Republic ever gets around to covering the story it will be much different than their coverage of Sheriff Joe (unless the owner of the blog is an ILLEGAL immigrant.) The reason for this is that Jack Harris has been extremely helpful in creating a city environment where ILLEGALS know that they can live free of fear that our immigration laws will be enforced. When it comes to immigration laws Phoenix is an enforcement-free zone.

Note to Attorney General Terry Goddard: the raid may be worth investigating. Surely you could link it to Phoenix mayor, Phil Gordon. Take down Phil now and you’d have one less opponent in a future governor’s race.

Maybe the raid will merit an investigation by the Obama/Napolitano justice department? Not likely, unlike the sheriff, Janet left Arizona on good terms with Jack Harris.

Stay tuned…

The Political Takedown of Sheriff Joe

One thing Democrats have learned to do well—a skill that Republicans unfortunately have yet to acquire—is the use of government power to destroy the opposing political party. Why, our very own Arizona attorney general (a Democrat), Terry “Barney Fife” Goddard prosecuted Republicans faster than we could elect them.

Now that the Democrats control Washington they’ve taken their act on the road to target Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio for alleged civil rights violations. A “civil rights violation” appears to be defined by Democrats as any act done by Republicans that Democrats don’t like. Too bad the Bush justice department missed the opportunity to investigate Goddard’s civil rights violations—maybe we could do that next time around?

 

Could it be that the sheriff is interfering with Democrat plans to turn these ILLEGALS into perpetual Democrat voters? Once the ILLEGALS are on government assistance they’ll be forever Democrat voters—once amnesty is granted. The next time Janet Napolitano is in town busily ignoring our open southern border we should ask her.

 

What is most troubling about the political takedown of the sheriff is the silence of our congressional Republican delegation. Where is McCain, Kyl and Flake? Where’s the angry press conference?

 

Why aren’t they demanding an investigation of the Obama justice department?

 

It would be nice to see a prominent Republican with a spine (just once!)—be willing to denounce this dangerous and naked use of government power to destroy our sheriff. This investigation is nothing more than an attempt by a Democrat controlled federal government to destroy a Republican—a Republican who is doing his job.

 

Sadly, because McCain, Kyl and Flake are more interested in amnesty than enforcement the sheriff may get thrown under the bus! If this happens no one is going to be willing to enforce the law regarding ILLEGAL immigration. By the way, when do we get to investigate a Democrat for “civil rights violations”?

 

Stay tuned…