Demographics


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

Professor Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas at Arlington, founder of La Raza Unida Party; 1995

Here are a couple of little known quotes on immigration from another point of view.

“In recent years a new International System has been developing, oriented toward the establishment of norms and principles of universal jurisdiction, above national sovereignty, in the areas of what is called the New Agenda…we have to confront ….. what I dare to call the Anglo-Saxon prejudice against the establishment of supra-national organizations.”   — Mexican President Vicente Fox Club XXI, Hotel Eurobuilding, Madrid, Spain 5/16/02

“I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this.” – Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, Chicago on July 23, 1997

“The effort to unite the economies of the Americas into a single free-trade area began at the Summit of the Americas which was held in December 1994 in Miami. The heads of state and government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct the Free Trade Areas of the Americas (FTAA) in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000.” So begins the history of what President George W. Bush called “The Century of the Americas” (Summit of the Americas, 1994).

Lets now consider some of the following goals and objectives of the FTAA as taken from their website:

Share best practices and technologies with respect to increasing citizen participation in the electoral process, including voter education, the modernization and simplification of voter registration…” [remember motor-voter and the ubiquitous early vote by mail]

Support initiatives designed to strengthen linkages among migrant communities abroad and their places of origin and promote cooperative mechanisms that simplify and speed up the transfer of migrant remittances to their country of origin.  [do you get the idea that because Mexico is bankrupt and ungovernable, remittances from the U.S. are about all that's keeping that country stable?]

Support programs of cooperation in immigration procedures for cross-border labor markets and the migration of workers, both in countries of origin and destination, as a means to enhance economic growth in full cognizance of the role that cooperation in education and training can play in mitigating any adverse consequences of the movement of human capital from smaller and less developed states into … [I think you get the idea where that one goes]

Strive to ensure that migrants have access to basic social services, consistent with each country’s internal legal framework… [now you know why AHCCCS is subsidized by the Federal government to some extent]

In Mexico’s official “National Plan of Development 2001-2006″ specific strategies for expanding the nation’s political reach far beyond the U.S. / Mexico border are outlined.  Through out the lengthy document, globalization is frequently referenced, however again, the devil’s in the details.  To achieve their national plan, the government of Mexico reliles on those of its peoples migrating into the United States who, in 2002 sent back to Mexico over $14 billion dollars of hard U.S. currency.  These remittances as of 2006/07 were Mexico’s #1 source of foreign capital, replacing tourism and oil.  This of course isn’t counting drug money pouring into that country.
In 2001 the Mexican National Congress established dual citizenship for all Mexican national living abroad, legal or otherwise.   In the words of Mexican Congressman Manuel de la Cruz, an American citizen elected to the Mexican National Congress in 2002 and residing in California, “There are 23 million Mexicans in the U.S. that need a voice in Mexico.” (Washington Times, Ken Bensinger)

In a 2000 FoxNews interview, Mexican President Vicente Fox made Mexico’s intentions crystal clear:

“I’m talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take are, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean in 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.”

Now does it all make more sense?  Now do you have an idea why the Obama Administration is suing the State of Arizona?  Now do you know why our Southern Border is open and our Federal government has no intention of doing anything unless they achieve an Amnesty Program?

And why John McCain is needed back in the U.S. Senate?  Is it beginning to make some sense?  Its not about race and its not about human rights – its about globalism and the Free Trade Area of the Americas.


Emil FranziOnce again Oro Valley is conducting a mail-in election. And once again I will tell you why the concept is fundamentally wrong.

It makes voting easier? Check Iraq or Afghanistan or lots of other places trying to build democratic regimes where they still shoot at you for making the attempt. Voting was pretty damn easy here for quite a while.

My liberal Democrat radio co-host Tom Danehy, who shares my opinion on this subject, reminds us of a news clip from a Philippine election in which an official with a ballot box is being chased by a group of thugs. Not shown is the part where they succeeded and killed him. I witnessed a few years back huge lines in Rocky Point when they were holding something unusual in Mexico – a real election. People wanted to be part of it.

We had it pretty soft. Having to actually leave home and go to a safe polling place isn’t exactly a root canal.

Voting by mail does make it easier – for the election bureaucracy. They prefer to use the money involved to hire a few more permanent employees rather than go through the hassle (for them) of using Election Day temps.

The costs involved are clearly increased in some areas (postage) and decreased in others (poll workers), but that should never be a deciding factor. Ahead of even cops, courts and armies, choosing who’s in charge is the first and most primary duty of government.

At-home voting destroys the secret ballot. Why do you think we have those little booths and curtains? So husbands can’t muscle wives or wives husbands. Mailing out ballots is an invitation to cajole by anyone from the family patriarch and union boss to your mama.

It’s also quite obviously a fraud magnet. Why the same Republicans who are convinced thousands of illegal aliens are voting at the polls are ignoring a system that eliminates their having to go there to do it is beyond me. I recognize that most voting systems are legit, but it doesn’t take much dog barf to ruin an otherwise great burger.

While supposedly being in the best interest of individual voters, the at home ballot can screw them in two ways by returning it too early or returning it too late.

Return it too early and you may learn something that would’ve changed your mind about a candidate or an issue. The elimination of late information was sold as a virtue by advocates of early voting because it would eliminate last-minute smears. It also eliminates last-minute facts. Which is why many folks hold onto their ballot until the last minute.

Only return it too late and it doesn’t count. One stat I have never seen election officials produce is how many ballots get tossed every time for late delivery.

But my greatest complaint is that the entire concept (beyond taking care of the ballots of those physically unable to get to a polling place including those who are out of town) is totally demeaning to the election process.

What advocates are really saying is “we recognize this voting thing is really not important to you. You’re right — it’s no big deal. We want to make it so easy it won’t inconvenience you at all.” Turnout is not increased by telling people voting is not worth much effort.

Election days used to be local and national events. They were part of that Norman Rockwell kind of glue that helped hold the country and its culture together. To eliminate them is to eliminate one more part of what made America a great nation.

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!

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.

Sonoran Alliance was featured on this Sunday’s edition of 12 News’ Sunday Square-Off. That’s right, yours truly made my debut appearance on the show in which I had the opportunity to represent conservative Arizona bloggers and activists.

Brahm Resnik hosts this weekly show which is always fast-paced and quick thinking. My two co-guests were Katie Hobbs from the liberal blog, Democratic Diva as well as a Democratic candidate in LD-15, and Casey Newton from the Arizona Republic. The show will actually not show tomorrow morning because it is being pre-empted by another show but you can view it online right here on Sonoran Alliance.

The insurgency against “fundamentally changing America” has begun!

With the victory tonight in Massachusetts, the “Progressive’s” effort to “fundamentally” socialize America has been derailed!

Democrats (and even incumbents) across the country need to be very afraid as conservatives and independent voters who are now leaning right of center, are out for “political blood.”

Here in Arizona, even our own incumbent Republicans should not take it for granted that they are in good favor with the voters. Governor Brewer should expect to face an extremely difficult primary by challenger John Munger and man on a mission, Dean Martin, who has been warning for over a year of the impending Arizona budget doom.

Democrats in supposedly “safe” districts should now take heed as insurgent-backed conservative candidates like Ruth McClung and Janet Contreras wage ground-level campaigns against incumbents, ultra-liberal Raul Grijalva, and deeply submerged, Ed Pastor. The best and most tangible consequence of the Massachusetts miracle would be for both these women to receive the full-fledged support of tea party activists and anyone intolerable of the status quo.

Kirkpatrick, Mitchell and Giffords can also expect the same type of beating from whoever wins the GOP primaries in their districts.

If fiction can become cold hard reality in a place like Massachusetts – the bluest of blue states in the union – it can even happen in Arizona’s purple districts.

Finally, Senator McCain should not take it for granted that “this is his time” despite his best efforts to give the perception he is leading the charge. This is no longer his battle. This is the people’s battle now – those who have tirelessly worked, protested and waited for battleground days as today. The people want fresher angrier people from among their midst to wage this war of ideas. Old warriors step aside. New warriors have arrived and it is their time.

Where has the color blind society gone?

Where has the color blind society gone?

WASHINGTON — The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jO8jbAnwaP-wLfs93UGI-l_-llMgD9CKM8VG0

It was once said, by the losing side of the last major debate over immigration,  ‘… they who control a nation’s immigration policy control the future of that nation.’

That was said in 1924 just prior to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924.   Many are unaware that in the nearly two decades leading up to this legislation , the issue of immigration had been building to a crescendo of national passion and debate.  So what’s changed?

Consider carefully the policies, cultural practices, religious orientation, and achievements of the United States prior to the last huge wave of population migration onto our shores.  This flood of humanity, many responding to the words on the Statue of Liberty, lasted for just a bit more than one generation, about 30 years.

During that time our population grew dramatically and peoples mostly from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean region fled oppression and  sought new political expression within our borders.  Certainly they did not assimilate immediately.  However, its been now about three generations and look at the changes in our policies, cultural practices, religious orientation and society today.  The wave of immigration shown in this chart certainly changed America.

Notice the absence of illegal immigration since President Reagans limited amnesty program in the 1980s

Notice the absence of illegal immigration since President Reagan's limited amnesty program in the 1980's

Now consider the abortion chart below (provided courtesy of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Abortions in the US since RvW

This graph is a link to source.

There have been more than 32.5 million abortions in the twenty one years since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized unrestricted abortion on January 22, 1973.

Conservative immigration statistics; the impact on population however is culmutive

This graph is a link to original

Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.

Next consider the chart of illegal immigration into the United States – presently supported by some U.S. Senators from border states and entirely supported by the previous U.S. Administration.

Unlike any culture in history, we are aborting our children.  Have we bought into the Self-Hate so much that we are committing a protracted national and cultural suicide?

America can you handle the CHANGE?  You’ll have to.  Consider once again that we are aborting our native born population and importing their replacements.  The numbers speak for themselves.

Presently the Department of Homeland Security estimates the population of individuals residing within the United States now to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 million souls.  This does not include children of undocumented residents.  They are counted as legal citizens under a Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.

A glimpse of the past is necessary once again here.  In 1964 the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act, and under Republican President Richard Nixon the first Affirmative Action programs were instituted in 1971.  There are 2 cases ruled by the SCOTUS that directly shaped the outcome of these actions;   Griggs v. Duke Power Company in 1971 and  the University of California v. Bakke in 1978 in which a minority student was admitted to the university’s medical school with a C+ undergraduate grade average over a non-minority student who held an A- undergraduate GPA.

The entire point of this trip down memory lane is to understand where we are as a people today.  To understand why the Associate Press in conjunction with other mainstream media chose to highlight the story that is linked to in the opening paragraph of this blog.  Why does it matter when the whites become a minority?  If we are moving towards a color blind society, it should not.  Yet there it was in big headlines on Yahoo.

Please understand, Veritas is not really concerned about daily life in the North American Union much after 2040.   For me the point is moot.   My hope is to bequeath to posterity an  independent, sovereign and color blind United States in which the innocent unborn native population will realize the American Dream.   Unchecked immigration is no substitute for a healthy birthrate.

Really think about it.  Has immigration become a substitute for a natural birth rate?  And consider the impacts of a generation of immigration, remembering the first huge wave of immigration from Eastern Europe and the changes it has wrought in all sectors of our society and has influenced our view of government and society.

So what might the United States look like in 3 generations following the mid-1980s, or a decade before there is no more ethnic majority?  And what cultural, political and religious changes will their posterity on our shores bring?    Here are the sources for the look of the future.

Country of Origin (January 2006)

Mexico 6,840,000 57%
Latin & Central Amer. 3,000,000 24%
Asia 1,080,000 9%
Europe + Canada 720,000 6%
Rest of World 480,000 4%

by Mark Flatten
Goldwater Institute
 
The operators of Tucson International Airport have scrapped the use of racial preferences in awarding concession contracts. That is in sharp contrast to efforts by the City of Phoenix to preserve race-based programs at Sky Harbor International Airport.
 
The Goldwater Institute reported in October that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program at Sky Harbor has allowed lucrative airport concession leases to go to a small group of political insiders. The owners of companies deemed “disadvantaged” are often little more than a name on the lease, brought in to meet requirements for participation by minority and woman-owned businesses that are set by Sky Harbor officials.

Among the biggest beneficiaries of the program at Sky Harbor is Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, owner of a DBE-certified business which is part owner of a Chili’s restaurant franchise in Terminal 4.

Airport operators in both Phoenix and Tucson suspended their use of “race-conscious” methods after a 2005 federal court ruling required detailed disparity studies to justify using race as a factor in awarding concession contracts. If airport operators cannot meet their goals through race-neutral means, they can resort to “race-conscious” preferences based on race and gender, if they can prove those methods are necessary to offset the effects of discrimination.

Even though Tucson did not attempt to preserve the preference program it had been using before the court ruling, it still has a goal that 16 percent of airport concession sales will be attributed to firms owned by minorities and women. But airport operators will achieve that goal without resorting to preferences that take race or gender into account, according to Paula Winn, spokeswoman for the airport authority.

Phoenix, on the other hand, has gone to great expense to justify the preference program at Sky Harbor. Phoenix officials commissioned a disparity study in 2007 that to-date has cost taxpayers more than $600,000. The study results are due in December. While the study has been underway, Phoenix extended leases issued while race and gender preferences were in effect.

Regardless of the study results, on the 2010 election ballot Arizona voters will have their say in whether or not government offices can use race and gender preferences in contracting.
 
Mark Flatten is an investigative reporter for the Goldwater Institute.

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
I received the following question after last week’s article explained that (once again) Arizona scored below the national average on the Nation’s Report Card, this time in Math: 
 
Do these test scores take into consideration the massive influx of students who do not speak English and who do poorly on tests?
 
Before I break the data down by ethnicity and other student groups, I want to note that the JLBC reveals that total inflation adjusted spending per pupil increased by more than 20 percent between fiscal year 2000 and 2009 alone.
 
Ok, buckle up for a ride through the scores, it is going to get rough.

  • In 1992, white Arizona students scored 2 points below the national average of white students; in 2009 they scored 5 points below the national average. Five points represents about half a grade’s worth of learning. Essentially, white students in Arizona are about half a grade behind white students nationally.
  • Arizona’s African American students scored 6 points ahead of the national average for African Americans in 1992. In 2009, they tied the African American national average.
  • In 2003, Arizona’s Asian students scored 2 points below the national average for Asian students. In 2009 they scored 10 points below their national peers, or a full grade level behind. Over the course of this decade, Arizona’s American Indians doubled their learning gap from 5 to 10 points, and are now also a full grade behind other American Indians.
  • In 2000, Arizona’s ELL population scored 4 points below the national average, but in 2009 they scored 17 points below the national average. Immigration obviously played a role. But, if you examine the trend for non-ELL students you find that they scored 4 points behind the national average in 2000, but 7 points behind in 2009.

Some of the gaps grew larger while scores actually improved, but the overall trend is unmistakable: Arizona isn’t keeping pace for any student ethnic subgroup. Are demographics a challenge? Yes. But they are no excuse.
 
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134080

Take these two items together and consider how the individual in the White House views Israel.  This is being posted so folks who wish to can consider how events like these may impact them.  The White House is stalling on Afghanistan and the dollar is still in ICU.  And, why on 9/11 there was no mention in the U.S. media of the words “Muslim”, “radical”, or “Islamic.”

YouTube Preview Image

by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
This summer, Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Dan Lips and I published an article in the journal Education Next explaining why a student’s race, ethnicity or family income are not accurate predictors of their future academic success. We were very pleased when the Chancellor of New York City Schools, Joel Klein wrote a letter in response to the article.
 
Here is an excerpt from Klein’s letter:

In “Demography as Destiny?” (features, Summer 2009), Matthew Ladner and Dan Lips argue that Florida’s reforms–school accountability, literacy enhancement, student accountability, teacher quality, and school choice–have helped students there achieve record academic success. Florida’s results support school-focused reform strategies, such as those we’ve implemented in New York City. New York City’s progress in narrowing the achievement gap confirms that policymakers and advocates can no longer use demographic factors like race, ethnicity, income, or zip code to excuse differences in educational achievement between high- and low-needs students…We still have a long way to go, but it’s clear that even the most disadvantaged students can achieve at high levels when provided with a strong education.

It’s time for leaders across America to stop making excuses for low student performance. As Florida and New York City demonstrate, we can offer all students, regardless of their backgrounds, the educational opportunity they need and deserve.

Joel I. Klein
New York City Schools Chancellor

Klein led the Clinton administration’s anti-trust action against Microsoft and currently heads the nation’s largest school district. Teacher’s unions and other anti-reform groups face a growing and philosophically diverse array of critics who will not accept the sorry state of American schools. Liberals, conservatives and libertarians can all agree: Getting better results for the amount of money this country spends on education is critical for America’s future. Increasing parental choice is a key ingredient to an overall K-12 improvement strategy, and has growing support among the entire political spectrum.
 
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute.

Often we are unaware of events happening on the other side of the Atlantic.  This has been posted, so that you may consider the issue of “Defamation of Religions” as viewed by the Islamic world.

Of course, little thought is given by them to reciprocity in regards to Christians…

Printer Friendly Forward to a Friend
http://www.eclj.org/
(Geneva, Switzerland) – The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), the international affiliate of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), has told the United Nations Human Rights Council that it is pleased that the “Defamation of Religions” concept being promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is continuing to lose support.

It became clear that the OIC countries – lead by Egypt and Pakistan – continue to see an erosion of support which became evident during a public discussion before the U.N. Human Rights Council on September 30th.  During that session, discussion focused on the most recent report “on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers.” (Document A/HRC/12/38)

This report, presented by Githu Muigai, the new Special Rapporteur “on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” advocates for a “change of paradigm” – has shifted the debate from the “sociological notion of the defamation of religions to the human rights and legal concept of incitement to racial and religious hatred.”  This legal concept is grounded in relevant international, regional and national instruments, in particular references are made to article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and to articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which proscribe incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

The ECLJ, in its oral presentation before the Human Right Council, expressed its satisfaction to see the gradual abandonment of the concept of “defamation of religion” and the shift toward a legal approach. The ECLJ has been advocating for two years in favor of this legal approach and considers this change as very positive. The ECLJ representative recalled that anti-blasphemy laws are very often implemented in a totally arbitrary way and serve as a pretext for persecution of religious minorities – mostly Christians – in countries like Pakistan, for example.

“It is clear that the continuing push to protect Islam with this ‘defamation of religions’ concept amounts to a dangerous effort to eradicate current international standards on freedom of expression, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ECLJ and ACLJ.  “We’re already getting ready for the next phase in the challenge over the ‘defamation of religions’ which will intensify at the end of October at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, when the OIC is expected to once again introduce its ‘defamation of religions’ resolution.  We will continue to educate member nations about the dangers of this concept.”

During the discussion, the OIC countries strongly opposed this shift away from the concept of defamation of religions, explaining that the issue is “too complex” to be addressed by the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. In fact, it’s clear that the goal of the Islamic countries is nothing less that to internationally defend and safeguard the “name of Mohamed” and the religion of Islam against any form of irreverence or criticism, by limiting the freedom of expression actually protected in international human rights laws.  That places current international legal standards on freedom of expression at risk.

The ECLJ has been working to educate and inform member nations about the dangers of the concept of “defamation of religion”, a concept often used to silence religious minorities – including Christianity in many countries. A growing number of organizations and legal experts recognize now the threat of this notion to religious freedom.

In June, the European Center for Law and Justice had already been invited to submit to the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights a detailed legal analysis on the same issue.

Does anyone see the irony in Defamation of Religion?

Does anyone see the irony in Defamation of Religion?

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!

Arizona Hispanic Republicans Launch New GOP Group

For Immediate Release Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Contact: Communications, info@somosrepublicans.com

Phoenix, AZ — On the eve of Mexican Independence Day and Hispanic Heritage Month, we are proud to announce the launch of Somos Republicans - a grassroots Hispanic GOP organization in Arizona.

Our mission and goals are simple: Increase Hispanic GOP voter registration; Recruit Hispanic Precinct Committeemen; Promote Hispanic GOP candidates; and get more Republicans involved and elected to office.

For far too long, Hispanic Republicans have been neglected and taken for granted. Somos Republicans has something to say: ?We are Conservative in our beliefs and we will be active in politics and shape the new Republican face!? We share the values and principles of the Republican Party, but our voices in the past have fallen on deaf ears.

When elected and party officials are quoted as saying such outlandish comments as, ?Operation Wetback; Change the Constitution because of too many anchor babies in our country; and all the terrorists are coming through Mexico (knowing full well that the 9-11 terrorists came from Canada when they overstayed their visas)? it is no wonder why Republicans continue to lose elections and registration advantages.

17% of eligible voters in Arizona are Latino. How many elections are determined with a margin of victory or defeat with less than 17%? — Almost all of them. Imagine the impact Latinos would have if all eligible Hispanic voters were registered to vote. Somos Republicans will work tirelessly to ensure that approximately 673,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Arizona are registered to vote, and will explain the Republican values of being pro-family, patriotic, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-religious freedom, pro-life, pro-Capitalism, supportive of the school voucher system, supportive of a strong military and national defense, against tax increases, for smaller government, and for humane immigration reform focusing on legalizing labor that would yield significant income gains for Americans and our households.

 

Pat Buchanan has a provocative assessment of the current political climate posted over at World Net Daily in which he asserts that American may be coming apart.

Given the growing dicension and unrest, I would have to agree with him. And we should have expected it. For several generations, American attitudes have been shifting between those who give and those who take; those who reap the benefits of government and those who pay for them.

It’s an attitude of entitlement and that everything other than life, liberty and property is a “right.”

We’ve been warned about this already many many years ago by a Scot named Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler when he supposedly said:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

I’m not certain that Tytler had our situation in mind when he made his famous statement given that we are actually a Constitutional Republic, but I would have to agree that once a certain number of the population realizes that they can vote themselves into dependence on the state, we have a real problem.

I can easily see the other portion of the population revolting and collectively shutting down funding of the entire system. Already some conservative celebrities have suggested they’re gonna stop paying taxes into the system probably through tax avoidance (not to be confused with tax evasion). Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they will be blatant in their refusal to fund the federal government. Regardless, I get a sense that those who have been funding the system are a day short from refusing to pay any more. And why should we expect anything but that when we’ve already escalated our everyday financial vernacular to the use of the word “Trillion” with a capital “T?”

I hope I’m wrong about this but I have a terrible gut feeling that our economic political and social system is about to collapse under the weight of entitlement.

If or when that happens, life in America will be very different. A post-American senario has already been predicted by Russian political science professor, Igor Panarin, but I don’t give total credence to his disintigration of the US hypothesis. We may be weak but not to the point where other countries rapidly infiltrate and balkanize us into six separate nation states. But his assertion that we are overwhelmed with financial turmoil and to a certain degree, moral degredation, does worry many of us.

Back to Buchanan’s column where he says:

We are not only more divided than ever on politics, faith and morality, but along the lines of class and ethnicity. Those who opposed Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and stood by Sgt. Crowley in the face-off with Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates were called racists. But this time they did not back down. They threw the same vile word right back in the face of their accusers, and Barack Obama.

Consider but a few issues on which Americans have lately been bitterly divided: school prayer, the Ten Commandments, evolution, the death penalty, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, affirmative action, busing, the Confederate battle flag, the Duke rape case, Terri Schiavo, Iraq, amnesty, torture.

Now it is death panels, global warming, “birthers” and socialism. If a married couple disagreed as broadly and deeply as Americans do on such basic issues, they would have divorced and gone their separate ways long ago. What is it that still holds us together?

The European-Christian core of the country that once defined us is shrinking, as Christianity fades, the birth rate falls and Third World immigration surges. Globalism dissolves the economic bonds, while the cacophony of multiculturalism displaces the old American culture.

“E pluribus unum” – out of many, one – was the national motto the men of ’76 settled upon. One sees the pluribus. But where is the unum? One sees the diversity. But where is the unity?

Sounds to me like our motto may be changing to “E Pluribus Discerpo” but I pray I’m wrong, if praying is still allowed.

Next Page »