.jpg)
First, what is capitalism? Socialism? Communism? Without a clear understanding of what these words mean, it is easy to simply slide back into the common American distrust of that which is Red. Even growing up in the 80s and 90s, I was still instilled with this idea that Communists are the bad guys, that Capitalism is good.
There was a man named Karl Marx. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? He believed that there were distinct stages of development in human civilization. First was Primitive Communism. This was when men lived in communal tribes, each person pulling their weight and the small groups succeeded based on teamwork and cooperation. After this, one man found he could exploit another, sometimes due to prisoners of conflict, and the Slave Society was born. This society signified the tribal progression to city-state status, and the aristocracy was born. In Feudalism, aristocrats were the ruling class, and merchants evolved into capitalists, those who are ever searching for more profit, or capital. These capitalists become the ruling class by becoming the owners of “the means of production.” The means of production is a broad term for the land, mines, factories, machinery, etc that is needed to create or produce. Everything but labor. For labor, the capitalists ‘created’ and employed the proletariat, or workers. After this, the workers gain ‘class consciousness’ and, via revolution, depose the capitalist dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (those with the means of production) for a dictatorship of the proletariat. After this is communism, a classless and stateless society.
You see, even then, Marx knew you could not simply decide to be communist. There had to be a transition period. He believed, as do so many out there, that human behavior is something that is learned through culture. That if you reward a man for working as a piece in the machine, he will eventually gain pleasure from it. Current human nature is more like a man’s desire to gain more than the man next him. He believed that this ‘nature’ is actually a product of the capitalist mentality. We have been groomed to want more, to strive to be better, to push ourselves to earn what we can.
So, for definition’s sake, Capitalism is a system in which the means of production is owned by private individuals or corporations. Socialism is that which the means of production is owned and controlled by the community as a whole, and communism is a system in which ownership of all property is assigned to the community or to the state (country), and all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state, dominated by a single political party. If you don’t know, totalitarianism is absolute control by the state that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion.
You see, Communism can only work if everybody is on the same page. The only way for that to happen is if there is only one voice leading the masses. The Big Brother for the little man. The last blog I wrote talked about democratic centralism. Once the decision is made, every person must obey and defend that choice, even if they don’t like it. The Communist Party of the USA (cpusa.org) believes in democratic centralism.
Just based on these few ideas, the definitions of words, we can see why America rose up against the Communist threat decades ago. It is against everything this country is supposed to stand for. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances, specifically to prevent this country from going down the path to fascism, totalitarianism, etc. They wanted to ensure that there is always room for the voice of dissent. The first three articles of the Constitution discuss these checks and balances. In this, there is no room for one dictatorship. Article 4 talks about state’s rights. Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” The very first amendment, the first in the Bill of Rights says that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Under democratic centralism or totalitarianism, one of which would be required for the communist form of government, there is no ‘petitioning the Government’ and with the former, all ‘free speech’ ends with the decision being made.
In the next blogs, I’ll discuss a planned economy (which is something that communism depends on) vs. a free market economy (which we don’t truly have anymore) and why communism didn’t work before and isn’t likely to work now.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Beware of Democratic Centralism
If you ever hear anyone advocating something called Democratic Centralism, I want you to stick your fingers in your ears and shout nonsense until they go away. Do not be fooled by the fact that it says “Democratic” in the term. This is so absolutely against our ideals in this country, it should never become a part of any conversation. However, it is the way that any country or party based on the ideas of Lenin is run. For example, the Communist Party of the USA believes in Democratic Centralism. The USSR was run with Democratic Centralism.
So what is it, you ask? Well, the Democratic part indicates that every person top to bottom who has any influence at all is elected. Every issue or decision that needs to be made is voted on. Sounds good, right? Sure… then we get to the Centralism part. Once a decision has been made by the top of the food chain, all debate ends. All conversation ends. All members, citizens, whatever are duty-bound not only to obey the decision, but explain and defend it as well. Sounds great if you were a part of the majority that voted in the decision, but what if you weren’t? What if you were not allowed to say that Bush or Obama should never have been elected? What if you were not allowed to say that the stimulus, Obamacare, or the Patriot Act was not good for this country? You see, no matter which side of the fence you are on, you likely value the right given to you by the First Amendment- free speech. With Democratic Centralism, there’s no such thing, at least not after a decision has been made.
So while I haven’t heard of anyone besides the CPUSA using this policy, I just want everyone to know what it is, so that nobody is fooled into trusting someone touting the idea that anything “democratic” is good.
So what is it, you ask? Well, the Democratic part indicates that every person top to bottom who has any influence at all is elected. Every issue or decision that needs to be made is voted on. Sounds good, right? Sure… then we get to the Centralism part. Once a decision has been made by the top of the food chain, all debate ends. All conversation ends. All members, citizens, whatever are duty-bound not only to obey the decision, but explain and defend it as well. Sounds great if you were a part of the majority that voted in the decision, but what if you weren’t? What if you were not allowed to say that Bush or Obama should never have been elected? What if you were not allowed to say that the stimulus, Obamacare, or the Patriot Act was not good for this country? You see, no matter which side of the fence you are on, you likely value the right given to you by the First Amendment- free speech. With Democratic Centralism, there’s no such thing, at least not after a decision has been made.
So while I haven’t heard of anyone besides the CPUSA using this policy, I just want everyone to know what it is, so that nobody is fooled into trusting someone touting the idea that anything “democratic” is good.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Coming Storm
Disclaimer: I am about to make myself sound like the right-wing extremist Secretary Napolitano has tried to make all vets into.
It's funny how motherhood can shift your mentality. Two years ago, before I had gotten pregnant, if I had heard all the reports, seen the videos of people openly calling for revolution in the streets, if I had known what was in the air now, I would have said "Let them come." In my household, we own a rifle (scoped) a shotgun, 2 handguns, a machete and 2 swords. This is in addition to all the smaller hand to hand weapons we have such as saps and brass knuckles. My husband is capable with his weapons, and I can defend myself with the .22 handgun if necessary. I never thought it would be necessary for me to do more than shoot the intruder coming through my bedroom door. My father, though I didn't know it when I was growing up, is also capable with his weapons and owns his own arsenal. With all the guys I knew in the Navy, with all their combined weaponry, I thought they were getting a testosterone kick. I thought it was their hobby to collect weapons as some girls I know scrapbook. There were always jokes of the coming Zombie Apocalypse. Tactics discussed, plans formulated, games played... even if it was in jest, it was a mental excercise that I'm now glad has been in the works. Back then, I'd have taken up my handgun and made my way to safe haven with my husband, driving only 5 hours up the road to Vegas and my family, then down to Texas. The me of two years ago would know America would survive. Our way of life would continue once the storm had passed. And God save the idiot who got in our way.
Now, I read the stories. I watch the videos. I am preparing our house to move to San Diego. San Diego, within stone's throw of the Mexican border. San Diego, who is currently attempting a failing boycott against Arizona. Now San Diego seems to be the worst place in the world to be moving to. If something were to happen, not only are we right next to the border, but we're also completely surrounded by Aztlan. And now, it's not just me and my armed accomplice. Now I have this tiny person who is completely dependent on me for everything.
I'll admit it. I'm scared. I'm afraid that something really bad is just on the horizon. Something truly horrible that will have to happen to really get people to realize how serious this is. The worst part of it though... the worst part is that the government won't do anything to help. In San Diego, if anything were to happen, the local government is likely full of people who are on the other side of the revolution. Otherwise, why would they be boycotting a federal law made state law? Now I look at her and I wonder if she will have an America to grow up in.
My husband thinks I'm paranoid. He thinks I've been reading too much too fast. He says "If this were all real, and serious, it would be all over the news." Never mind the fact that he doesn't listen to the news. We don't watch the news. His whole perspective on the world is what is showed in thumbnails on Yahoo. I point this out and he says "Fine, let's turn on CNN and see if it's on there." I tell him CNN more or less works for the White House and can't be seen as an unbiased source of information... especially when our President is playing at race politics and is trying to push a socialist agenda and probably trying to push amnesty as well. Then he says, "Anything but FOX." You see... a few years back, a journalist at Fox condemned the video game Mass Effect for 'penetration shots' of human-alien sex... something that isn't true. Because of this, he thinks that Fox is the least trusted news source around.
Maybe I am reading too far into this. Maybe that's just another symptom of this mentality shift of motherhood. Either way, I am truly afraid for our country. We have La Raza in the southwest, trying to start a revolution. We have people sneaking into this country through our more-or-less open borders, not only from Mexico and Guatemala, but from Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran. We are under attack from radical Islam, from Al Qaeda, from sociopathic idiots who just want to make the headline news. And amidst all this, we have a President... a President who is slowly but surely trying to "nationalize" our economy. This is code-speak for becoming a socialist nation. At first this whole Kagan thing seemed like it wasn't so bad... but when he pushes a law through Congress (who has been trained to not read the documents in front of them) that, yet again, violates the Constitution, who is going to call him on it? His fellow socialist in the Supreme Court? The problem here is that it will take something extreme, like the rise of La Raza, to get everyman, like my husband, to realize there is something happening. By that time, it may be too late for many real Americans who live in places like LA, San Diego, and Arizona.
It's funny how motherhood can shift your mentality. Two years ago, before I had gotten pregnant, if I had heard all the reports, seen the videos of people openly calling for revolution in the streets, if I had known what was in the air now, I would have said "Let them come." In my household, we own a rifle (scoped) a shotgun, 2 handguns, a machete and 2 swords. This is in addition to all the smaller hand to hand weapons we have such as saps and brass knuckles. My husband is capable with his weapons, and I can defend myself with the .22 handgun if necessary. I never thought it would be necessary for me to do more than shoot the intruder coming through my bedroom door. My father, though I didn't know it when I was growing up, is also capable with his weapons and owns his own arsenal. With all the guys I knew in the Navy, with all their combined weaponry, I thought they were getting a testosterone kick. I thought it was their hobby to collect weapons as some girls I know scrapbook. There were always jokes of the coming Zombie Apocalypse. Tactics discussed, plans formulated, games played... even if it was in jest, it was a mental excercise that I'm now glad has been in the works. Back then, I'd have taken up my handgun and made my way to safe haven with my husband, driving only 5 hours up the road to Vegas and my family, then down to Texas. The me of two years ago would know America would survive. Our way of life would continue once the storm had passed. And God save the idiot who got in our way.
Now, I read the stories. I watch the videos. I am preparing our house to move to San Diego. San Diego, within stone's throw of the Mexican border. San Diego, who is currently attempting a failing boycott against Arizona. Now San Diego seems to be the worst place in the world to be moving to. If something were to happen, not only are we right next to the border, but we're also completely surrounded by Aztlan. And now, it's not just me and my armed accomplice. Now I have this tiny person who is completely dependent on me for everything.
I'll admit it. I'm scared. I'm afraid that something really bad is just on the horizon. Something truly horrible that will have to happen to really get people to realize how serious this is. The worst part of it though... the worst part is that the government won't do anything to help. In San Diego, if anything were to happen, the local government is likely full of people who are on the other side of the revolution. Otherwise, why would they be boycotting a federal law made state law? Now I look at her and I wonder if she will have an America to grow up in.
My husband thinks I'm paranoid. He thinks I've been reading too much too fast. He says "If this were all real, and serious, it would be all over the news." Never mind the fact that he doesn't listen to the news. We don't watch the news. His whole perspective on the world is what is showed in thumbnails on Yahoo. I point this out and he says "Fine, let's turn on CNN and see if it's on there." I tell him CNN more or less works for the White House and can't be seen as an unbiased source of information... especially when our President is playing at race politics and is trying to push a socialist agenda and probably trying to push amnesty as well. Then he says, "Anything but FOX." You see... a few years back, a journalist at Fox condemned the video game Mass Effect for 'penetration shots' of human-alien sex... something that isn't true. Because of this, he thinks that Fox is the least trusted news source around.
Maybe I am reading too far into this. Maybe that's just another symptom of this mentality shift of motherhood. Either way, I am truly afraid for our country. We have La Raza in the southwest, trying to start a revolution. We have people sneaking into this country through our more-or-less open borders, not only from Mexico and Guatemala, but from Yemen, Afghanistan, Iran. We are under attack from radical Islam, from Al Qaeda, from sociopathic idiots who just want to make the headline news. And amidst all this, we have a President... a President who is slowly but surely trying to "nationalize" our economy. This is code-speak for becoming a socialist nation. At first this whole Kagan thing seemed like it wasn't so bad... but when he pushes a law through Congress (who has been trained to not read the documents in front of them) that, yet again, violates the Constitution, who is going to call him on it? His fellow socialist in the Supreme Court? The problem here is that it will take something extreme, like the rise of La Raza, to get everyman, like my husband, to realize there is something happening. By that time, it may be too late for many real Americans who live in places like LA, San Diego, and Arizona.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
A Message Forwarded To Me
This was forwarded to me. Really makes you think, huh?
Guest opinion: Raza studies gives rise to racial hostility
JOHN A. WARD...
As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.
During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.
Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.
I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.
I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.
Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.
Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.
The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.
In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos."
It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.
It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.
It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.
As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.
When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."
The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.
The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.
It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.
Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.
The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.
The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.
Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.
Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.
John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.
Guest opinion: Raza studies gives rise to racial hostility
JOHN A. WARD...
As a former teacher in Tucson Unified School District's hotly debated ethnic studies department, I submit my perspective for the public's consideration.
During the 2002-2003 school year, I taught a U.S. history course with a Mexican-American perspective. The course was part of the Raza/Chicano studies department.
Within one week of the course beginning, I was told that I was a "teacher of record," meaning that I was expected only to assign grades. The Raza studies department staff would teach the class.
I was assigned to be a "teacher of record" because some members of the Raza studies staff lacked teaching certificates. It was a convenient way of circumventing the rules.
I stated that I expected to do more than assign grades. I expected to be involved in teaching the class. The department was less than enthusiastic but agreed.
Immediately it was clear that the class was not a U.S. history course, which the state of Arizona requires for graduation. The class was similar to a sociology course one expects to see at a university.
Where history was missing from the course, it was filled by controversial and biased curriculum.
The basic theme of the curriculum was that Mexican-Americans were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of middle and upper-class whites.
In this narrative, whites are able to maintain their influence only if minorities are held down. Thus, social, political and economic events in America must be understood through this lens.
This biased and sole paradigm justified teaching that our community police officers are an extension of the white power structure and that they are the strongmen used "to keep minorities in their ghettos."
It justified telling the class that there are fewer Mexican-Americans in Tucson Magnet High School's advanced placement courses because their "white teachers" do not believe they are capable and do not want them to get ahead.
It justified teaching that the Southwestern United States was taken from Mexicans because of the insatiable greed of the Yankee who acquired his values from the corrupted ethos of Western civilization.
It was taught that the Southwest is "Atzlan," the ancient homeland of the Aztecs, and still rightfully belongs to their descendants - to all people of indigenous Mexican heritage.
As an educator, I refused to be complicit in a curriculum that engendered racial hostility, irresponsibly demeaned America's civil institutions, undermined our public servants, discounted any virtues in Western civilization and taught disdain for American sovereignty.
When I raised these concerns, I was told that I was a "racist," despite being Hispanic. Acknowledging my heritage, the Raza studies staff also informed me that I was a vendido, the Spanish term for "sellout."
The culmination of my challenge to the department's curriculum was my removal from that particular class. The Raza studies department and its district-level allies pressured the Tucson High administration to silence my concerns through reassignment to another class during that one period.
The Raza studies department used the "racist" card, which is probably the most worn-out and desperate maneuver used to silence competing perspectives.
It is fundamentally anti-intellectual because it immediately stops debate by threatening to destroy the reputation of those who would provide counter arguments.
Unfortunately, I am not the only one to have been intimidated by the Raza studies department in this way.
The diplomatic and flattering language that the department and its proponents use to describe the Raza studies program is an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When necessary, the department invokes terms such as "witch hunt" and "McCarthyism" to diminish the validity of whatever public scrutiny it does get.
The proponents of this program may conceal its reality to the public. But as a former teacher in the program, I am witness to its ugly underbelly.
Arizona taxpayers should ask themselves whether they should pay for the messages engendered in these classrooms with their hard-earned tax dollars.
The Raza studies department has powerful allies in TUSD, on its governing board and in the U.S. House of Representatives and thus operates with much impunity.
Occasionally there are minor irritations from the state superintendent of public instruction and the Legislature.
Ultimately, Arizona taxpayers own TUSD and have the right to change it. The change will have to come from replacing the board if its members refuse to make the Raza studies department respect the public trust.
John A. Ward is a former teacher at Tucson High Magnet School.
Say NO to Amnesty
"Amnesty" What does it mean?
-Millions of new Americans whose first act was to break our laws by crossing the border.
-Millions of people now legally sapping our south-western states' economy through welfare programs that they won't pay for.
-Millions of votes for the Democrats who pushed it through... wonder why they're pushing so hard.
Why do it? Because it's easier. It's easier than going house by house and looking for illegals to deport them. It's easier than deporting the hundreds of thousands who come through the legal system already. It's easier than chartering a boat to put them on, sending them to Southern Mexico.
You know what else is easier? Crossing the border in the first place. It's easier to cross the border illegally than to wait in line and pay the fees.
It's also easier to copy someone else's math test answers. Is that ok?
It's also easier to steal a Jaguar than earn the money to make the payments. Is that ok?
It's also easier for a President to pit one side against the other to fracture our government so he can grab more power, claiming the greater good rather than making real change that is needed. Is that ok?
If there's anything I've learned, it's that the right way is very rarely the easy way. Get over it.
What does it say to all those who became legal immigrants? You wasted your time and money. You shouldn't feel special as a citizen as every numb skull that crosses the border and hides out gets to be one too.
America was built by immigrants. True. Legal immigrants. We are all children of immigrants. Unless you are 100% Native American, your ancestors (or you) came here to be American. We do not discriminate against the legal immigrants. We don't discriminate against legal immigrants with so-called "funny names" like Schwarzenegger (Governor), Alito & Sotomayor (Supreme Court Justices), Menendez & Inouye (Senators), Ortiz & Diaz-Balart (Representatives). The only office in our country an immigrant cannot hold is President of the United States. Three of the Justices on the Supreme Court are first generation Americans. Their parents were born elsewhere.
Is it so much to ask that citizens be law-abiding? Does it not follow then that illegal immigrants are not in that category? Any person who is an American citizen should owe all allegiance to America. Do you think these people who did not have to work to become citizens (besides working to break the law, of course) will owe anything to America? All it will do is give people who believe things like La Raza a vote. That vote could mean the legal dismantling of our country.
A large number of illegals in this country don't want equality. They want to have more. They want to take the Southwest and make it Aztlan... then cleanse it of any non-Chicanos. Do you really want to give them a vote?
All amnesty will do is create an even bigger reason for illegal immigration. It will encourage a flood of Mexicans, encouraged by a Mexican government who gives them DUAL CITIZENSHIP, to come over here and stake a claim, then take it back home to Felipe Calderon.
Some studies estimate there are 20 million illegals in this country. That's 20,000,000. What does that mean? That means places like California which are full of illegals will gain more citizens, making their voice louder in the House of Representatives, and louder when it comes to the electoral college in electing a President. That's 20,000,000 people who will vote for even more government freebies, and probably 19,000,000 people who can't speak English.
Why do the Democrats want to reward law-breakers with citizenship? Because then that's 20,000,000 votes for Obama's re-election. Other than that, it doesn't make sense to me.
-Millions of new Americans whose first act was to break our laws by crossing the border.
-Millions of people now legally sapping our south-western states' economy through welfare programs that they won't pay for.
-Millions of votes for the Democrats who pushed it through... wonder why they're pushing so hard.
Why do it? Because it's easier. It's easier than going house by house and looking for illegals to deport them. It's easier than deporting the hundreds of thousands who come through the legal system already. It's easier than chartering a boat to put them on, sending them to Southern Mexico.
You know what else is easier? Crossing the border in the first place. It's easier to cross the border illegally than to wait in line and pay the fees.
It's also easier to copy someone else's math test answers. Is that ok?
It's also easier to steal a Jaguar than earn the money to make the payments. Is that ok?
It's also easier for a President to pit one side against the other to fracture our government so he can grab more power, claiming the greater good rather than making real change that is needed. Is that ok?
If there's anything I've learned, it's that the right way is very rarely the easy way. Get over it.
What does it say to all those who became legal immigrants? You wasted your time and money. You shouldn't feel special as a citizen as every numb skull that crosses the border and hides out gets to be one too.
America was built by immigrants. True. Legal immigrants. We are all children of immigrants. Unless you are 100% Native American, your ancestors (or you) came here to be American. We do not discriminate against the legal immigrants. We don't discriminate against legal immigrants with so-called "funny names" like Schwarzenegger (Governor), Alito & Sotomayor (Supreme Court Justices), Menendez & Inouye (Senators), Ortiz & Diaz-Balart (Representatives). The only office in our country an immigrant cannot hold is President of the United States. Three of the Justices on the Supreme Court are first generation Americans. Their parents were born elsewhere.
Is it so much to ask that citizens be law-abiding? Does it not follow then that illegal immigrants are not in that category? Any person who is an American citizen should owe all allegiance to America. Do you think these people who did not have to work to become citizens (besides working to break the law, of course) will owe anything to America? All it will do is give people who believe things like La Raza a vote. That vote could mean the legal dismantling of our country.
A large number of illegals in this country don't want equality. They want to have more. They want to take the Southwest and make it Aztlan... then cleanse it of any non-Chicanos. Do you really want to give them a vote?
All amnesty will do is create an even bigger reason for illegal immigration. It will encourage a flood of Mexicans, encouraged by a Mexican government who gives them DUAL CITIZENSHIP, to come over here and stake a claim, then take it back home to Felipe Calderon.
Some studies estimate there are 20 million illegals in this country. That's 20,000,000. What does that mean? That means places like California which are full of illegals will gain more citizens, making their voice louder in the House of Representatives, and louder when it comes to the electoral college in electing a President. That's 20,000,000 people who will vote for even more government freebies, and probably 19,000,000 people who can't speak English.
Why do the Democrats want to reward law-breakers with citizenship? Because then that's 20,000,000 votes for Obama's re-election. Other than that, it doesn't make sense to me.
The Influence of Educators
Fair warning: This one is a little less research, a little more opinion.
Ask a teacher why they chose their profession. In America, I can pretty much guarantee the answer isn't "for the money." As a future educator, my answer would be to shape and mold young minds, to make this world a better place.
Therein lies the problem. Who followed that leap? I want to teach history. I want my students to learn what has happened in the past so they can prevent it from occurring again. I want to teach them how America got to be where it is, as a "city on a hill" and the lone remaining superpower. I want to teach them that while government is good and necessary, too much government can be easily turned into a dictatorship... a charismatic leader in times of fractured government can easily turn to fascism a la Hitler. I want to teach them about great leaders who have unified people like George Washington, Abe Lincoln. I want them ready and able to stand up for their beliefs. "I believe that children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way."
The problem? Ron Gochez I'm sure feels the same way. He wants to teach his students about how America stole the southwest from Mexico. He wants to teach them not to be fooled by the government. He wants to teach them about great leaders who have unified people across borders like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro. He wants them to be ready to stand up for their beliefs.
When you teach something like math or science, it's relatively easy to teach a student how to think. There's only one right answer (most of the time). Teach the laws of math and scientific method, and let them figure it out. When teaching something more abstract, like history, government, even English, it is incredibly difficult to restrain your own personal beliefs. Some might say it is impossible.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer took a brave step in the right direction. She recently signed a bill to eliminate classes and curriculum that promote one race over another or are only open to one race or another. Growing up in an area where whites were the minority, I always wondered why there was a Black History Month, a Latino History Week, a Women's History Month. I'd wonder aloud why there wasn't a White History Month, and somebody would say "Because every month is White History Month." In our normal history classes, do we not talk about the George Washington Carvers? Do we not have an entire section of our history books dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King? In the next 5-10 years, we'll probably have an entire quarter dedicated to the studies of Barack Obama, first black President, while other Presidents like Polk and Taft don't even get remembered.
There was a principal up north who took an all-black after school club to see a black rocket scientist, saying that he wanted to close the gap in test scores between his white students and his black students. A lot of people are saying that it isn't right to 'close the gap' by denying the white students the opportunity to learn as well. I want to know why there is an all-black school sanctioned club in the first place. This Arizona legislation will hopefully address some of that.
I have to curb myself here because I really want to go on this long rant about racism, but I'll save it for another blog. This is the influence of educators. Most of us remember at least one teacher who changed your life. Chances are that you don't even know which one truly changed your life and opened your eyes to the world. Either way, would it be surprising to learn that students coming from the same school often have similar views on issues in the world?
In school, students are taught to think by their teachers. They influence how you think by lectures, tests, and assigning grades based on how well you've adapted to their ideas. Is it a stretch to think those ideas can also mean ideals or political ideology?
Educators are influential. We need to watch what is being promoted, especially to younger students who blindly follow any adult, no matter the message. Educators like Ron Gochez should not have a job in our public school system, and AZ's Brewer should be commended for helping erase race lines that divide us.
Ask a teacher why they chose their profession. In America, I can pretty much guarantee the answer isn't "for the money." As a future educator, my answer would be to shape and mold young minds, to make this world a better place.
Therein lies the problem. Who followed that leap? I want to teach history. I want my students to learn what has happened in the past so they can prevent it from occurring again. I want to teach them how America got to be where it is, as a "city on a hill" and the lone remaining superpower. I want to teach them that while government is good and necessary, too much government can be easily turned into a dictatorship... a charismatic leader in times of fractured government can easily turn to fascism a la Hitler. I want to teach them about great leaders who have unified people like George Washington, Abe Lincoln. I want them ready and able to stand up for their beliefs. "I believe that children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way."
The problem? Ron Gochez I'm sure feels the same way. He wants to teach his students about how America stole the southwest from Mexico. He wants to teach them not to be fooled by the government. He wants to teach them about great leaders who have unified people across borders like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro. He wants them to be ready to stand up for their beliefs.
When you teach something like math or science, it's relatively easy to teach a student how to think. There's only one right answer (most of the time). Teach the laws of math and scientific method, and let them figure it out. When teaching something more abstract, like history, government, even English, it is incredibly difficult to restrain your own personal beliefs. Some might say it is impossible.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer took a brave step in the right direction. She recently signed a bill to eliminate classes and curriculum that promote one race over another or are only open to one race or another. Growing up in an area where whites were the minority, I always wondered why there was a Black History Month, a Latino History Week, a Women's History Month. I'd wonder aloud why there wasn't a White History Month, and somebody would say "Because every month is White History Month." In our normal history classes, do we not talk about the George Washington Carvers? Do we not have an entire section of our history books dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King? In the next 5-10 years, we'll probably have an entire quarter dedicated to the studies of Barack Obama, first black President, while other Presidents like Polk and Taft don't even get remembered.
There was a principal up north who took an all-black after school club to see a black rocket scientist, saying that he wanted to close the gap in test scores between his white students and his black students. A lot of people are saying that it isn't right to 'close the gap' by denying the white students the opportunity to learn as well. I want to know why there is an all-black school sanctioned club in the first place. This Arizona legislation will hopefully address some of that.
I have to curb myself here because I really want to go on this long rant about racism, but I'll save it for another blog. This is the influence of educators. Most of us remember at least one teacher who changed your life. Chances are that you don't even know which one truly changed your life and opened your eyes to the world. Either way, would it be surprising to learn that students coming from the same school often have similar views on issues in the world?
In school, students are taught to think by their teachers. They influence how you think by lectures, tests, and assigning grades based on how well you've adapted to their ideas. Is it a stretch to think those ideas can also mean ideals or political ideology?
Educators are influential. We need to watch what is being promoted, especially to younger students who blindly follow any adult, no matter the message. Educators like Ron Gochez should not have a job in our public school system, and AZ's Brewer should be commended for helping erase race lines that divide us.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Supreme Court- Why It Doesn't Matter What WE Think of Kagan
Before we begin, I'd like to point something out to all: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle. I bring this up because there are points in this blog that I may say I understand why someone would think one way or another. Just because I understand does not mean I agree. This goes for anyone else as well, and it works both ways. Anyone can understand another viewpoint without agreeing, and many can agree with a viewpoint without understanding... like the sheeple. Also, I try to make it a point to see both sides of an issue before passing judgement. Just because the RNC says "this is good" doesn't mean I go out and shout it from the rooftops. I have my own ideals, my own opinions. Not everything I believe is espoused by the Republican Party. Not everything the Democrats say is automatically disregarded as propaganda and BS. Just because Obama has nominated Kagan does not mean I'm going to automatically think of her as unqualified and a liberal plant for the Dems.
In this country, we are governed by two types of people: the elected and the appointed. The average citizen elects some, like Senators, Representatives, and to a point, the President. Those who are elected, mostly the President, makes appointments. Voting for a President is never just about the person he/she is, it's also about who he/she is going to appoint to those positions of power.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2, Paragraph 2:
"He [the President] shall have Power... and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court...."
U.S. Constitution Article VI Paragraph 3:
"...judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
The purpose of the Supreme Court is mainly to interpret the Constitution. When a judge is said to be liberal or conservative, it is their legal outlook that is being described, not their political leanings. Their job, first and foremost is to ensure everything that takes place is Constitutional.
A justice is seated for life, or until they resign or are impeached. In a way, this can prevent wild swings of governmental control with the shorter-term executive and legislative branches able to swing from one side of the spectrum to the other every four or twelve years. While one president's administration may differ wildly from the next, the Supreme Court is fairly stable in its makeup. Right now, the average age of the justices is nearly 69 years.
Currently, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia are the Conservative Wing; Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer are the Liberals, and Justice Kennedy is more of a swing vote, typically conservative, but occasionally voting with the liberals. Sotomayor, the most junior Justice, nominated by President Obama and seated just last August seems to be voting liberally along the lines of Souter, who she replaced.
Kagan is being nominated to replace Justice Stevens who has been in the Supreme Court since Ford nominated him back in 1975. He was born in 1920. He is often considered the most liberal of all the Justices.
Now for the question- who is Elena Kagan? How will she vote on the issues at hand?
Kagan is currently the Solicitor General... which basically means she's the lawyer for the United States when in court... the Supreme Court. She has been the Solicitor General since March 2009.
Before this, she was the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law and the 11th Dean of Harvard Law. At Harvard, she taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving the separation of powers.
She served as Associate Counsel to the President in the White House from 1995-96 and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council from 1997-99. What a mouthful.
She started teaching at the University of Chicago Law School in 1991 where she was a colleague of Obama. She worked in the law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989-91. She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court, where she was apparently given the nickname 'Shorty'. She was a clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986-87.
She received her bachelor's from Princeton, an M. Phil. from Worcester College, Oxford, and then attended Harvard Law where she was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Experience
One big omission from this list is that she has never been a judge. The last Supreme Court Justice who was never previously a judge was Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1972. Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod says, "I don't think the president has one bit of hesitation" that she is lacking judicially. Calling her "one of the foremost legal scholars in the country," and "supremely qualified."
I suppose the question here is: Does law require experience? More to the point, does being on that side of law require experience? She has some experience arguing a case, but do you need experience listening to a case to know what is right and what is wrong? She taught constitutional law, which is what the Supreme Court upholds. She is the Solicitor General, so is familiar with the proceedings in the Court itself. She just doesn't have experience behind the bench.
Moderate in disguise?
Granted, this comes from the big O himself, but Obama points out that when Harvard had "gotten a little one-sided in its viewpoint," Kagan recruited prominent conservative scholars and attempted to spur healthy debate on campus. This is, of course, supposed to point out that she doesn't turn a deaf ear to differing viewpoints. As someone recently pointed out to me though, right of left doesn't always mean center... it could just mean left. When asked by a FOX reporter if she was "center-left," neither Axelrod nor Bauer responded.
It appears as though Kagan is generally a liberal when it comes to social issues, but she takes these stands cautiously. Either she honestly looks at both sides of the issue and takes actions to satisfy as many as she can while still within her own beliefs (as moderate as a liberal can get, in other words) or the woman who "loves poker" just has an awesome poker face. Either way, it appears that most liberals are less than thrilled about her nomination, preferring someone with a farther left outlook.
Another woman
Most will remember that the first Justice nominated by Obama was Justice Sotomayor- a Latina woman. Now another woman, this time of Jewish descent. She will be only the fourth female justice seated. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law. Is this because she was best suited for the job? Axelrod says Kagan's gender and relatively young age were important factors "but not determinative." When are the Dems going to realize that no matter which side of the line you are on, if you are drawing one based on sex, race, or creed, it's still discrimination?? Her gender should never be a factor, let alone an important one. Only when we stop looking at things like race and gender will we be past discrimination- not by giving more support or more praise to the minority.
The vetting process
In 1995, before the Senate really got into questioning nominees, Kagan wrote a piece for the University of Chicago Law Review saying that the confirmation process was "an embarrassment" and said that Senators don't do any digging to get the nominee to reveal what type of Justice she would make by disclosing her views on important legal issues. Both critics and supporters want to know what she thinks about the process now, since she will likely be questioned more than any to date, simply because she has so small a public voice in published documents.
Princeton Thesis
Her thesis focused on the demise of the Socialist movement. She referred to it as "...a sad but also chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Many conservatives are taking this simple quote to mean that she is socialist. Her supporters say that her paper examined Socialism, but did not condone it. From such a small quote, it is really impossible to say which is right. The professor who oversaw the research for this piece called Kagan "the furthest thing from a socialist- period." Without more of the piece to read, I cannot, at this point, make a comment as to which side I would be on.
Don't Ask Don't Tell
Many of the reports I've read regarding this incident seem to be left vague on purpose. They say she's against the policy of discrimination in the military which is why she supported the attempt to remove military recruiters from campus. This way, the liberals will be on her side: "Kagan believes in equality for gays." From this light reporting, you have groups like Move America Forward, a self described grassroots military support group, calling her "anti-military" though she has been careful to note her respect and admiration for the work the military does. One thing that seems to be left out of many of these reports was that the military was still able to recruit through a student group called the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. That ability was never removed. It was only use of an on-campus office that was suspended during the bans.
There is a law out there, generally referred to as the Solomon Amendment, that says if a school refuses to allow military recruiters or an ROTC program on campus, school will be denied federal funding. It was changed to the entire college specifically in 2001 because of law schools. For instance- Harvard Law does not rely heavily on federal funding, so they had little reason to allow military recruiters in the first place. However, Harvard University is paid over $400 million a year in funding, including research grants.
In 2005, Kagan and 39 other professors signed a brief, urging reconsideration for law schools. Rather than calling the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional, as many others tried, they simply said that they treat the military the same as any other employer unwilling to sign the non-discrimination waiver. The subject at hand was for their 'Job Fair' of sorts, and any employer wishing to recruit had to sign a statement announcing that they do not discriminate based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. Because of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, the recruiters were unable to sign the statement. This is the basis for their 'ban'. Prior to the change to the law, when only Harvard Law would be affected, the military had been banned from campus for 25 years. It was only when it would affect the entire college that the ban was lifted.
When the Solomon Amendment was ruled unconstitutional, as Dean, she reinstated the ban. When the Supreme Court took the case under the Bush administration, she removed the ban again. All these times, she followed the current law first, and her school's belief system second.
In 2009, during her confirmation as Solicitor General, however, she wrote that there is no federal Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, showing that when her personal beliefs go against what the current law says, she would follow the law. Justices are not supposed to make laws, or legislate from the bench, as many call it. They are simply keepers of the Constitution- to ensure current laws are followed as written, and as intended, not to try to bend them or find loopholes.
Some of her critics say that her attempt to change the law is the sticking point in their argument. The problem here is that nobody ever claimed the Constitution was perfect all the time. There is a mechanism of change written right into the text in the form of Amendments. A fight to change the law is not something that should be looked down upon. If anything, it should count in her favor that she fought for change, and when it was deemed that law was correct, she still followed it. A respect for law is, in my opinion, one of the most important traits an official should have. And yes, you can respect something while also trying to change it.
Other topics
Kagan has successfully skirted around controversy over issues like abortion, death penalty and gun control, but said she was fully prepared to argue that under prevailing law and the Constitution, that the death penalty is legal as is a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Again, this shows that no matter the belief of the person, she will follow current law in her rulings.
In 1997, as a White House adviser, she urged President Clinton to support a ban on late term abortion. She encouraged Clinton to support a compromise that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the health of the mother was at risk.
Other random topics
Obama mentions that by nominating a woman, it will be a "court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before." Apparently he means just when it pertains to sex. The majority of Americans are Protestant. The only Protestant judge is the one who Kagan will replace. Catholics represent 2/3 of the court, and while only 2% of Americans are Jewish, with Kagan's addition, the Court will be 33% Jewish. There are 3 first generation Americans on the bench currently- Scalia's father was Sicilian, Alito's parents were Italian, and Sotomayor's father was Puerto Rican. There is one Latina justice, one black justice, the rest all white. If he was truly looking to have the court be more representative of the real world, he wouldn't have looked for a white Jewish woman. Now, in no way am I saying she's not qualified because she's a white Jewish woman. What I am saying is that he is holding too tightly to the idea of forced diversity. Diversity is good, I agree... but not diversity for diversity's sake. It just seems like he tried to find someone who wasn't a white Protestant male... and eventually, with that kind of attitude, the white Protestant male will be absent from any appointed office, even though he is still the majority in this country... at least until the census shows the results.
Back to what I started with, you can understand without agreement. It seems she is able to. The question is, when it comes time to rule on a case, will she follow law or her beliefs? It seems that she can follow law even if she doesn't agree because she understands.
I'm sure there will be more to come as the Senators pick through all her writings and decisions, but for now, this is what I have found. The Senate vote will not take place until August, so we have until then to discover who she really is. For now, all I'll say is it could be a lot worse.
Edit: After reading her thesis, it appears that the woman IS actually a socialist. If I seemed to endorse her in this blog, I wish to make it known that I do not. Thanks!
In this country, we are governed by two types of people: the elected and the appointed. The average citizen elects some, like Senators, Representatives, and to a point, the President. Those who are elected, mostly the President, makes appointments. Voting for a President is never just about the person he/she is, it's also about who he/she is going to appoint to those positions of power.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 2, Paragraph 2:
"He [the President] shall have Power... and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court...."
U.S. Constitution Article VI Paragraph 3:
"...judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
The purpose of the Supreme Court is mainly to interpret the Constitution. When a judge is said to be liberal or conservative, it is their legal outlook that is being described, not their political leanings. Their job, first and foremost is to ensure everything that takes place is Constitutional.
A justice is seated for life, or until they resign or are impeached. In a way, this can prevent wild swings of governmental control with the shorter-term executive and legislative branches able to swing from one side of the spectrum to the other every four or twelve years. While one president's administration may differ wildly from the next, the Supreme Court is fairly stable in its makeup. Right now, the average age of the justices is nearly 69 years.
Currently, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia are the Conservative Wing; Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer are the Liberals, and Justice Kennedy is more of a swing vote, typically conservative, but occasionally voting with the liberals. Sotomayor, the most junior Justice, nominated by President Obama and seated just last August seems to be voting liberally along the lines of Souter, who she replaced.
Kagan is being nominated to replace Justice Stevens who has been in the Supreme Court since Ford nominated him back in 1975. He was born in 1920. He is often considered the most liberal of all the Justices.
Now for the question- who is Elena Kagan? How will she vote on the issues at hand?
Kagan is currently the Solicitor General... which basically means she's the lawyer for the United States when in court... the Supreme Court. She has been the Solicitor General since March 2009.
Before this, she was the Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law and the 11th Dean of Harvard Law. At Harvard, she taught administrative law, constitutional law, civil procedure, and seminars on issues involving the separation of powers.
She served as Associate Counsel to the President in the White House from 1995-96 and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council from 1997-99. What a mouthful.
She started teaching at the University of Chicago Law School in 1991 where she was a colleague of Obama. She worked in the law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989-91. She clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the Supreme Court, where she was apparently given the nickname 'Shorty'. She was a clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986-87.
She received her bachelor's from Princeton, an M. Phil. from Worcester College, Oxford, and then attended Harvard Law where she was supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Experience
One big omission from this list is that she has never been a judge. The last Supreme Court Justice who was never previously a judge was Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 1972. Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod says, "I don't think the president has one bit of hesitation" that she is lacking judicially. Calling her "one of the foremost legal scholars in the country," and "supremely qualified."
I suppose the question here is: Does law require experience? More to the point, does being on that side of law require experience? She has some experience arguing a case, but do you need experience listening to a case to know what is right and what is wrong? She taught constitutional law, which is what the Supreme Court upholds. She is the Solicitor General, so is familiar with the proceedings in the Court itself. She just doesn't have experience behind the bench.
Moderate in disguise?
Granted, this comes from the big O himself, but Obama points out that when Harvard had "gotten a little one-sided in its viewpoint," Kagan recruited prominent conservative scholars and attempted to spur healthy debate on campus. This is, of course, supposed to point out that she doesn't turn a deaf ear to differing viewpoints. As someone recently pointed out to me though, right of left doesn't always mean center... it could just mean left. When asked by a FOX reporter if she was "center-left," neither Axelrod nor Bauer responded.
It appears as though Kagan is generally a liberal when it comes to social issues, but she takes these stands cautiously. Either she honestly looks at both sides of the issue and takes actions to satisfy as many as she can while still within her own beliefs (as moderate as a liberal can get, in other words) or the woman who "loves poker" just has an awesome poker face. Either way, it appears that most liberals are less than thrilled about her nomination, preferring someone with a farther left outlook.
Another woman
Most will remember that the first Justice nominated by Obama was Justice Sotomayor- a Latina woman. Now another woman, this time of Jewish descent. She will be only the fourth female justice seated. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law. Is this because she was best suited for the job? Axelrod says Kagan's gender and relatively young age were important factors "but not determinative." When are the Dems going to realize that no matter which side of the line you are on, if you are drawing one based on sex, race, or creed, it's still discrimination?? Her gender should never be a factor, let alone an important one. Only when we stop looking at things like race and gender will we be past discrimination- not by giving more support or more praise to the minority.
The vetting process
In 1995, before the Senate really got into questioning nominees, Kagan wrote a piece for the University of Chicago Law Review saying that the confirmation process was "an embarrassment" and said that Senators don't do any digging to get the nominee to reveal what type of Justice she would make by disclosing her views on important legal issues. Both critics and supporters want to know what she thinks about the process now, since she will likely be questioned more than any to date, simply because she has so small a public voice in published documents.
Princeton Thesis
Her thesis focused on the demise of the Socialist movement. She referred to it as "...a sad but also chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Many conservatives are taking this simple quote to mean that she is socialist. Her supporters say that her paper examined Socialism, but did not condone it. From such a small quote, it is really impossible to say which is right. The professor who oversaw the research for this piece called Kagan "the furthest thing from a socialist- period." Without more of the piece to read, I cannot, at this point, make a comment as to which side I would be on.
Don't Ask Don't Tell
Many of the reports I've read regarding this incident seem to be left vague on purpose. They say she's against the policy of discrimination in the military which is why she supported the attempt to remove military recruiters from campus. This way, the liberals will be on her side: "Kagan believes in equality for gays." From this light reporting, you have groups like Move America Forward, a self described grassroots military support group, calling her "anti-military" though she has been careful to note her respect and admiration for the work the military does. One thing that seems to be left out of many of these reports was that the military was still able to recruit through a student group called the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. That ability was never removed. It was only use of an on-campus office that was suspended during the bans.
There is a law out there, generally referred to as the Solomon Amendment, that says if a school refuses to allow military recruiters or an ROTC program on campus, school will be denied federal funding. It was changed to the entire college specifically in 2001 because of law schools. For instance- Harvard Law does not rely heavily on federal funding, so they had little reason to allow military recruiters in the first place. However, Harvard University is paid over $400 million a year in funding, including research grants.
In 2005, Kagan and 39 other professors signed a brief, urging reconsideration for law schools. Rather than calling the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional, as many others tried, they simply said that they treat the military the same as any other employer unwilling to sign the non-discrimination waiver. The subject at hand was for their 'Job Fair' of sorts, and any employer wishing to recruit had to sign a statement announcing that they do not discriminate based on sex, race, or sexual orientation. Because of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, the recruiters were unable to sign the statement. This is the basis for their 'ban'. Prior to the change to the law, when only Harvard Law would be affected, the military had been banned from campus for 25 years. It was only when it would affect the entire college that the ban was lifted.
When the Solomon Amendment was ruled unconstitutional, as Dean, she reinstated the ban. When the Supreme Court took the case under the Bush administration, she removed the ban again. All these times, she followed the current law first, and her school's belief system second.
In 2009, during her confirmation as Solicitor General, however, she wrote that there is no federal Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, showing that when her personal beliefs go against what the current law says, she would follow the law. Justices are not supposed to make laws, or legislate from the bench, as many call it. They are simply keepers of the Constitution- to ensure current laws are followed as written, and as intended, not to try to bend them or find loopholes.
Some of her critics say that her attempt to change the law is the sticking point in their argument. The problem here is that nobody ever claimed the Constitution was perfect all the time. There is a mechanism of change written right into the text in the form of Amendments. A fight to change the law is not something that should be looked down upon. If anything, it should count in her favor that she fought for change, and when it was deemed that law was correct, she still followed it. A respect for law is, in my opinion, one of the most important traits an official should have. And yes, you can respect something while also trying to change it.
Other topics
Kagan has successfully skirted around controversy over issues like abortion, death penalty and gun control, but said she was fully prepared to argue that under prevailing law and the Constitution, that the death penalty is legal as is a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Again, this shows that no matter the belief of the person, she will follow current law in her rulings.
In 1997, as a White House adviser, she urged President Clinton to support a ban on late term abortion. She encouraged Clinton to support a compromise that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the health of the mother was at risk.
Other random topics
Obama mentions that by nominating a woman, it will be a "court that would be more inclusive, more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before." Apparently he means just when it pertains to sex. The majority of Americans are Protestant. The only Protestant judge is the one who Kagan will replace. Catholics represent 2/3 of the court, and while only 2% of Americans are Jewish, with Kagan's addition, the Court will be 33% Jewish. There are 3 first generation Americans on the bench currently- Scalia's father was Sicilian, Alito's parents were Italian, and Sotomayor's father was Puerto Rican. There is one Latina justice, one black justice, the rest all white. If he was truly looking to have the court be more representative of the real world, he wouldn't have looked for a white Jewish woman. Now, in no way am I saying she's not qualified because she's a white Jewish woman. What I am saying is that he is holding too tightly to the idea of forced diversity. Diversity is good, I agree... but not diversity for diversity's sake. It just seems like he tried to find someone who wasn't a white Protestant male... and eventually, with that kind of attitude, the white Protestant male will be absent from any appointed office, even though he is still the majority in this country... at least until the census shows the results.
Back to what I started with, you can understand without agreement. It seems she is able to. The question is, when it comes time to rule on a case, will she follow law or her beliefs? It seems that she can follow law even if she doesn't agree because she understands.
I'm sure there will be more to come as the Senators pick through all her writings and decisions, but for now, this is what I have found. The Senate vote will not take place until August, so we have until then to discover who she really is. For now, all I'll say is it could be a lot worse.
Edit: After reading her thesis, it appears that the woman IS actually a socialist. If I seemed to endorse her in this blog, I wish to make it known that I do not. Thanks!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
The Fourteenth Amendment
Amendment XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....
This one sentence is the cause of 300,000 children each year being born in the US to parents in this country illegally. Three hundred thousand children each year being granted citizenship just because they are born in the country. Three hundred thousand children each year providing the avenue for illegal immigrants in this country to obtain government funded healthcare, welfare, and other benefits that are easier to attain as a natural-born citizen. Three hundred thousand children each year who know nothing of America, besides its generosity. Three hundred thousand children of three hundred thousand mothers who are likely still Mexican at heart. Three hundred thousand mothers, three hundred thousand fathers who will protest at being deported and leaving their "American" children behind. These so-called anchor babies comprise one of the biggest headaches when it comes to the problem of rounding up illegal immigrants and sending them back home. When America deports a mother and father, splitting up a family, it is the work of an Evil Empire called America who does not value the family. It's bad for our image, and that's why these illegal immigrants are doing it. They know how to play America for fools.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to those newly freed slaves after the American Civil War. There was no limit to immigration then, so there was no concept of 'illegal immigration.' There was no need to specify this statement.
In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The wording of the Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to exclude automatic citizenship from those who did not owe allegiance to the US. If a person is unlawfully in the US, the native country has a claim of allegiance. If Americans are in England when their child is born, is the child English? No. The child is American just like the parents. Why would anyone think we would write into our Constitution that we are so arrogant as to claim allegiance (a PC way of saying ownership) of a child just because of where he/she is born?
1884, Elk v. Wilkins- Mr. Elk was an American Indian, born to an Indian tribe. He separated himself from his tribe, placing himself under sole jurisdiction of the US law. When he tried to vote in Nebraska elections, Mr. Wilkins, as registrar, denied him the opportunity, stating that he was an Indian and thus not a citizen. In the court ledger, it mentions that Indian tribes were not, strictly speaking (as entities inside the borders), foreign states, but were still alien nations as they were not taxed and the US dealt with them through treaties as though to foreign nations. The people of these tribes owed their direct allegiance to the various tribes, and not the US. The court ruled that Mr. Wilkins was correct, as an Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the US without the consent and cooperation of the government, even if he was born inside the borders.
Eventually, in 1924, Congress passed a special act, the Citizen's Act of 1924 that says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
1889, The United States v. Wong Kim Ark- a child, Wong Kim Ark, was born in San Francisco, CA to citizens of China who were legally in the country, in a permanent residence. The family visited China temporarily, and when they returned, customs allowed Wong Kim Ark entry based on being a natural-born citizen. A few years later, he again visited China, but when he returned this time, customs stopped him and said he was not a citizen. This case was heard by the Supreme Court. It found that Wong Kim Ark was indeed an American citizen. This is believed to be a precedent for the illegal alien situation we are in now, but since the case was found in his favor due to his parents' legal domicil(e), it does not address illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant cannot own a legal domicile, and thus it does not extend citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.
Each year, illegal immigrant mothers are adding more to the population than all other sources of immigration. In 1993, it was estimated that in the seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens, the cost of educating illegal alien children was $3.1 billion. That is estimated to be $5 billion in 2000. It does not include the additional costs of ESL/bilingual education, or other special needs. That is $3 billion of American taxpayer money that other countries, like Mexico, should be paying.
It is estimated that there is between 287,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens in the US each year. The average cost of birth in 2007 was $8000. That cost would be $3-6 billion a year. Guess who picks up that tab. The American taxpayer.
The Mexican government grants dual citizenship for the children of Mexicans born in America. Those "anchor-babies" are seen as advocates for the claims that the American Southwest is actually occupied Mexico. These children, as dual-citizens, retain that allegiance to Mexico, and the dual nationality discourages assimilation, despite the Oath of Allegiance they make. If allegiance is not owed to America, why are they granted citizenship?
In England, if a child is born on English soil, he still must have at least one English parent to be granted Birthright Citizenship. In France, children between 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek citizenship. The Irish were the last of the EU to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and benefits as a result of birth in the country in 2004. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004)
Whether by rephrasing the Fourteenth Amendment, or writing a new one, this must change. Not only is it a drain on our economy and resources, it is also allowing groups like La Raza the opportunity they need to fulfill their Anti-American goals. It is giving citizens of other countries a reason to cross the border to give birth with the sole intent of making their child a citizen. Remove this ability, and we should see a sharp decline in illegal immigration and anchor-babies.
A doctor is under oath to care for any and all who need assistance. I'm not saying they should deny medical treatment. What I am saying is that once the mother and child are healthy enough for travel, the whole family is sent back to their home country, and the medical bill forwarded to their native government. Perhaps once Mexico is on the hook for the $3-6 billion, they'll stop urging citizens to make a run for the border.
Stop granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, or we won't have to wait for a major terrorist attack or war to make us lose our country.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....
This one sentence is the cause of 300,000 children each year being born in the US to parents in this country illegally. Three hundred thousand children each year being granted citizenship just because they are born in the country. Three hundred thousand children each year providing the avenue for illegal immigrants in this country to obtain government funded healthcare, welfare, and other benefits that are easier to attain as a natural-born citizen. Three hundred thousand children each year who know nothing of America, besides its generosity. Three hundred thousand children of three hundred thousand mothers who are likely still Mexican at heart. Three hundred thousand mothers, three hundred thousand fathers who will protest at being deported and leaving their "American" children behind. These so-called anchor babies comprise one of the biggest headaches when it comes to the problem of rounding up illegal immigrants and sending them back home. When America deports a mother and father, splitting up a family, it is the work of an Evil Empire called America who does not value the family. It's bad for our image, and that's why these illegal immigrants are doing it. They know how to play America for fools.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to those newly freed slaves after the American Civil War. There was no limit to immigration then, so there was no concept of 'illegal immigration.' There was no need to specify this statement.
In 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The wording of the Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to exclude automatic citizenship from those who did not owe allegiance to the US. If a person is unlawfully in the US, the native country has a claim of allegiance. If Americans are in England when their child is born, is the child English? No. The child is American just like the parents. Why would anyone think we would write into our Constitution that we are so arrogant as to claim allegiance (a PC way of saying ownership) of a child just because of where he/she is born?
1884, Elk v. Wilkins- Mr. Elk was an American Indian, born to an Indian tribe. He separated himself from his tribe, placing himself under sole jurisdiction of the US law. When he tried to vote in Nebraska elections, Mr. Wilkins, as registrar, denied him the opportunity, stating that he was an Indian and thus not a citizen. In the court ledger, it mentions that Indian tribes were not, strictly speaking (as entities inside the borders), foreign states, but were still alien nations as they were not taxed and the US dealt with them through treaties as though to foreign nations. The people of these tribes owed their direct allegiance to the various tribes, and not the US. The court ruled that Mr. Wilkins was correct, as an Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the US without the consent and cooperation of the government, even if he was born inside the borders.
Eventually, in 1924, Congress passed a special act, the Citizen's Act of 1924 that says: "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
1889, The United States v. Wong Kim Ark- a child, Wong Kim Ark, was born in San Francisco, CA to citizens of China who were legally in the country, in a permanent residence. The family visited China temporarily, and when they returned, customs allowed Wong Kim Ark entry based on being a natural-born citizen. A few years later, he again visited China, but when he returned this time, customs stopped him and said he was not a citizen. This case was heard by the Supreme Court. It found that Wong Kim Ark was indeed an American citizen. This is believed to be a precedent for the illegal alien situation we are in now, but since the case was found in his favor due to his parents' legal domicil(e), it does not address illegal immigrants. An illegal immigrant cannot own a legal domicile, and thus it does not extend citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.
Each year, illegal immigrant mothers are adding more to the population than all other sources of immigration. In 1993, it was estimated that in the seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens, the cost of educating illegal alien children was $3.1 billion. That is estimated to be $5 billion in 2000. It does not include the additional costs of ESL/bilingual education, or other special needs. That is $3 billion of American taxpayer money that other countries, like Mexico, should be paying.
It is estimated that there is between 287,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens in the US each year. The average cost of birth in 2007 was $8000. That cost would be $3-6 billion a year. Guess who picks up that tab. The American taxpayer.
The Mexican government grants dual citizenship for the children of Mexicans born in America. Those "anchor-babies" are seen as advocates for the claims that the American Southwest is actually occupied Mexico. These children, as dual-citizens, retain that allegiance to Mexico, and the dual nationality discourages assimilation, despite the Oath of Allegiance they make. If allegiance is not owed to America, why are they granted citizenship?
In England, if a child is born on English soil, he still must have at least one English parent to be granted Birthright Citizenship. In France, children between 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek citizenship. The Irish were the last of the EU to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and benefits as a result of birth in the country in 2004. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004)
Whether by rephrasing the Fourteenth Amendment, or writing a new one, this must change. Not only is it a drain on our economy and resources, it is also allowing groups like La Raza the opportunity they need to fulfill their Anti-American goals. It is giving citizens of other countries a reason to cross the border to give birth with the sole intent of making their child a citizen. Remove this ability, and we should see a sharp decline in illegal immigration and anchor-babies.
A doctor is under oath to care for any and all who need assistance. I'm not saying they should deny medical treatment. What I am saying is that once the mother and child are healthy enough for travel, the whole family is sent back to their home country, and the medical bill forwarded to their native government. Perhaps once Mexico is on the hook for the $3-6 billion, they'll stop urging citizens to make a run for the border.
Stop granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, or we won't have to wait for a major terrorist attack or war to make us lose our country.
La Reconquista/ Texan beginnings
Our country has come to a critical junction. Many don't realize it, many dismiss the idea as idiocy. The truth of the matter is that we are in grave danger of losing a large part of our country. I grew up in Las Vegas, Nevada. While I was in high school, the demographics shifted so much that whites were no longer the majority in my city. Did this bother me? No. At the time, all it meant to me was that maybe the 'oppressed minority people' would stop falsely claiming underdog status. It saddens me to see that as hard as this country has worked to destroy a culture of racism, it is those that were once targeted that are now the main perpetrators. But, as is often quipped, only whites can be racist.
I recently read an article that said up to 70% of all people of Mexican descent (did not specify if only Americans, or illegals were also in the poll) are loyal to Mexico first, America second, if at all. There is something called La Reconquista in the works. In our rush to cater to every lost soul, provide for those who cannot (or will not) provide for themselves, and welcome any and all into our midst, we have allowed house-by-house street-by-street city-by-city invasion by our neighbors to the south. By use of anchor-babies and lax immigration policies, a majority of the American Southwest is populated by Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos that long to see the southwest returned to Mexico.
This is not some isolated group of people. There is a group called MEChA, prevalent as an after school club in many high schools in the Southwest and endorsed at many colleges and universities across the country. Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan... Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
Anyone else get chills from just reading the phrase 'ethnic cleansing'? Opposition groups would be mainly loyal Americans.
Now some people may say, "Well, California's already run itself into the ground. If Mexico wants to pay for the land, why not give it back? It's just causing headaches for us now anyway." Not only is that an insult to all those Americans who worked hard to make the southwest as prosperous as it is, it is also naive. These people of La Raza won't seek to extend the borders of Mexico northward. As illustrated in the previous post I wrote, they don't believe in borders anyway. They will populate the local governments with their own. Local governments will endorse and support the state governments. State governments will elect senators and representatives sympathetic to their cause. Their cause? To continue forcing the American tax-payer to pay for freebies. Those who follow this group are not looking to better themselves. They are not looking to be a productive member of this country. They seek to destroy America from the inside out by sucking our economy dry with welfare, healthcare, and a number of other government assistance programs that were initially created to help our fellow country-men. They have used America's generosity and ignorance against us, and now we have come to this point.
What can we do? By now, any local vote will be severely biased towards La Raza. Generations of anchor-babies have produced American citizens with no loyalty to America. Look at what happened recently at Live Oaks High School. American students of Mexican descent were offended because of a display of the American colors. "We don't do that on the Fourth of July," one student said. We also aren't in Mexico. We're in America, and if it is truly offensive to show the American flag, any day of the year, any hour of the day, we may have already lost this fight.
Can we ask each citizen to swear an oath of loyalty to America, and if they refuse, have citizenship stripped? Perhaps. More than likely some left-wing lawyer or another will sue on grounds of Constitutionality. Also, what is to prevent these impostors from simply lying? We must first and foremost secure our borders from any more illegal entry into this country. We must purge the illegals from our land. Border patrol commanders who turn a blind eye to the drug runners need to be fired or relocated. Government officials with ties to the extremist side of La Raza, or any other anti-American group need to be removed from office. We must take back our country.
History Lesson:
1819- The Adams-Onis Treaty ceded Florida to America, but also had the US give up its claim to Texas. Spain, however, had little to do with the area. Mexico declared independence from Spain in February of 1821. Even then, very little was put into Texas. Mexico renewed a policy encouraging white settlement of Texas, attempting to boost the economy. (It seems that even then, Mexico was willing to let America take care of its own hard work.) Mexico allowed Stephen Austin to begin colonizing the land and building the economy, with the stipulation that all those who came to Texas had to convert to Mexico's state religion- Roman Catholicism. By 1830, there were roughly 25,000 Americans living in Texas, along with 2,000 slaves. About this time, Mexico wanted their booming colony back. They saw that the religious requirement was being largely ignored, and they had abolished slavery, and decided that these Americans living on Mexican soil needed to be disciplined. Lax laws were put into place that angered the Americans, but did not actually hinder their lives at all. In 1833, Austin was jailed in Mexico City for urging Texas to become a self-governing state inside the Mexican federation. In 1836, General Santa Anna marched towards Texas, and a group of settlers met to declare Texan independence. The Alamo was besieged, giving Sam Houston enough time to prepare for Santa Anna. At San Jacinto, a smaller American force defeated the Mexican Army, winning Texan independence. We all know what came of all of that.
Now I want to highlight a couple of bullet points here.
-Mexico encouraged white settlers (America encourages people of all races to join her)
-25,000 Americans were living in the borders of Mexico. (40 million Mexicans now live in the borders of America.)
-Lax laws put into place angered Americans, but didn't DO anything. (Lax immigration policies are angering Mexicans, but not actually stopping the problem.)
Do we really want to get farther into the parallels before we do something about it?
I recently read an article that said up to 70% of all people of Mexican descent (did not specify if only Americans, or illegals were also in the poll) are loyal to Mexico first, America second, if at all. There is something called La Reconquista in the works. In our rush to cater to every lost soul, provide for those who cannot (or will not) provide for themselves, and welcome any and all into our midst, we have allowed house-by-house street-by-street city-by-city invasion by our neighbors to the south. By use of anchor-babies and lax immigration policies, a majority of the American Southwest is populated by Latinos/Hispanics/Chicanos that long to see the southwest returned to Mexico.
This is not some isolated group of people. There is a group called MEChA, prevalent as an after school club in many high schools in the Southwest and endorsed at many colleges and universities across the country. Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan... Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
Anyone else get chills from just reading the phrase 'ethnic cleansing'? Opposition groups would be mainly loyal Americans.
Now some people may say, "Well, California's already run itself into the ground. If Mexico wants to pay for the land, why not give it back? It's just causing headaches for us now anyway." Not only is that an insult to all those Americans who worked hard to make the southwest as prosperous as it is, it is also naive. These people of La Raza won't seek to extend the borders of Mexico northward. As illustrated in the previous post I wrote, they don't believe in borders anyway. They will populate the local governments with their own. Local governments will endorse and support the state governments. State governments will elect senators and representatives sympathetic to their cause. Their cause? To continue forcing the American tax-payer to pay for freebies. Those who follow this group are not looking to better themselves. They are not looking to be a productive member of this country. They seek to destroy America from the inside out by sucking our economy dry with welfare, healthcare, and a number of other government assistance programs that were initially created to help our fellow country-men. They have used America's generosity and ignorance against us, and now we have come to this point.
What can we do? By now, any local vote will be severely biased towards La Raza. Generations of anchor-babies have produced American citizens with no loyalty to America. Look at what happened recently at Live Oaks High School. American students of Mexican descent were offended because of a display of the American colors. "We don't do that on the Fourth of July," one student said. We also aren't in Mexico. We're in America, and if it is truly offensive to show the American flag, any day of the year, any hour of the day, we may have already lost this fight.
Can we ask each citizen to swear an oath of loyalty to America, and if they refuse, have citizenship stripped? Perhaps. More than likely some left-wing lawyer or another will sue on grounds of Constitutionality. Also, what is to prevent these impostors from simply lying? We must first and foremost secure our borders from any more illegal entry into this country. We must purge the illegals from our land. Border patrol commanders who turn a blind eye to the drug runners need to be fired or relocated. Government officials with ties to the extremist side of La Raza, or any other anti-American group need to be removed from office. We must take back our country.
History Lesson:
1819- The Adams-Onis Treaty ceded Florida to America, but also had the US give up its claim to Texas. Spain, however, had little to do with the area. Mexico declared independence from Spain in February of 1821. Even then, very little was put into Texas. Mexico renewed a policy encouraging white settlement of Texas, attempting to boost the economy. (It seems that even then, Mexico was willing to let America take care of its own hard work.) Mexico allowed Stephen Austin to begin colonizing the land and building the economy, with the stipulation that all those who came to Texas had to convert to Mexico's state religion- Roman Catholicism. By 1830, there were roughly 25,000 Americans living in Texas, along with 2,000 slaves. About this time, Mexico wanted their booming colony back. They saw that the religious requirement was being largely ignored, and they had abolished slavery, and decided that these Americans living on Mexican soil needed to be disciplined. Lax laws were put into place that angered the Americans, but did not actually hinder their lives at all. In 1833, Austin was jailed in Mexico City for urging Texas to become a self-governing state inside the Mexican federation. In 1836, General Santa Anna marched towards Texas, and a group of settlers met to declare Texan independence. The Alamo was besieged, giving Sam Houston enough time to prepare for Santa Anna. At San Jacinto, a smaller American force defeated the Mexican Army, winning Texan independence. We all know what came of all of that.
Now I want to highlight a couple of bullet points here.
-Mexico encouraged white settlers (America encourages people of all races to join her)
-25,000 Americans were living in the borders of Mexico. (40 million Mexicans now live in the borders of America.)
-Lax laws put into place angered Americans, but didn't DO anything. (Lax immigration policies are angering Mexicans, but not actually stopping the problem.)
Do we really want to get farther into the parallels before we do something about it?
La Raza Speech at UCLA
I'm sure a lot of you have seen this video floating around. I know a lot of people never bothered to watch, and several probably turned it off before it was over. I'm going to post a transcript, then I have a few comments on it. Despite the violent nature of this speech, the sign in the background appears to read "Hate Speech is not Free Speech." The man speaking is Mr. Ronald Gochez, a history teacher at Santee High School in Los Angeles. You can visit their website at http://www.santeefalcons.org/, (213) 763-1000. The Los Angeles Unified School District can be reached at 213-241-7000 or superintendent@lausd.net. The LA Board of Education can be reached at 213-241-6389 or steve.zimmer@lausd.net.
"I want to start off by saying that the young man who spoke a little while ago is one of my students. And that made me so proud because I know that our people have strong leaders for years and years to come. As[el militante de la barrio?] a revolutionary Mexican organization here we understand what the [?] is saying . You're right. This is not just about Mexico. This is a global struggle against Imperialism and Capitalism. But we know that all of that is happening in the context that where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico. And the message that we bring, if you want to bring a little more of a revolutionary context to this, why is that these people- these frail, racist, white people want to keep us out of this country? It's not because, simply because of the color of our skin. It's not simply because they just want to exploit us. Let me tell you why. Because on this planet right now are six billion people. At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. [??] We have a long history and example of our Commandante Fidel Castro Ruz. We got Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, we got Brazil, Ecuador. You name it. We have nine, nine [??] governments in Latin America right now. And they know something that one young Argentine named Che Guevara said. It was called the Domino Theory. And he knew that every single country would go revolutionary one after the other, after the other, after the other.
So what do they fear? They know that every single country, they know that we will no longer fall to these lies called borders. We know that El Salvadoran, and a Guatemalan, and a Nicaraguan, se el Mexicano- that there's no damn difference. That we are all one people. So with that in mind, we see ourselves here- all of us here- as the northern front of a Latin American revolutionary movement.
There are more than 40 million of our people north of the Rio Grande. That means to them that's 40 million potential revolutionaries north of the border, inside the belly of the beast. So when you think about Why do they want to kick us of all people out, that's why. Because they know that we now know the truth. They know that now we are Raza, we're professionals, we're educators, we are revolutionary students. What does that mean? We are not just a regular culture anymore. We are a culture of revolutionary spirit. And that's the fear.
So with that being said, I want to leave you with this: as a Revolutionary and with revolutionary context, let's be clear about one thing. Our enemy is not the Minutemen. Quote me. Our enemy is not the Minutemen. Because the Minutemen are not the ones who have killed over four thousand six hundred people at those borders. Our enemy is the same enemy as Hugo Chavez- that Hugo Chavez has. Our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Africa poor. Our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Asia poor. Our enemy is Capitalism and Imperialism. OK, That's our enemy.
And I'll finish with this. I'll finish with this in respect of time. If we are serious about making change, if you are serious about making change, let me tell you- this struggle will go on for many more years after we leave UCLA. Reading a book, or writing a book, or teaching a class... that is not, that is not part of the movement. What you do 24 hours a day as a professional revolutionary- that is what's going to lead our people, and all people, to liberation. Viva La Raza."
So we'll start with the first bold statement- "Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico" My initial statement is this: February 2, 1848, the Mexican government and the US government sat down and signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to end the Mexican-American War. General Scott's troops had taken Mexico City, and the US hadn't lost a battle. The US was given the remainder of what is now California and New Mexico. The Mexicans agreed to acknowledge the Rio Grande as the southern border of Texas, and the US gave Mexico $15 million, as well as taking on any debts owed to citizens of the former Mexican territory. Spoils of war or legal 'business' transaction, Mexico gave up that land.
Second on that statement is this: If the US has no legal claim on the land because it was 'stolen' by the armies of the US, then neither does Mexico as they took it from Spain when they revolted. Before that, the Spanish conquistadors took it from the Aztecs.
Third, later on he mentions the 'lies that are borders.' If borders are lies, what matter does it make who 'owns' that land? It is not truly the US nor is it Mexico if you follow that logic.
Next is a line that I first bolded, then italicized because there are two separate, but similar points I want to make. First, by calling white people "frail, racist, white people" that is saying that white people are frail and racist- which is racism. (Racism- hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.... Usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.)
Second, "It's not simply because of the color of our skin." Hmmm... that sounds like the requirement to be racist. If "frail racist white people" aren't solely judging you on the color of your skin, they're not being racist. However, I have a word for him: bigot. Bigotry is the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Sound like someone he knows?
"We will no longer fall to these lies called borders." Then why be in the US at all? Is it because on one side of this imaginary line, the standard of living is higher (like his leather jacket) the opportunities for education and promotion are higher (like his job as an educator) or because the civil liberties are better (like his right to gather PEACEFULLY and speak his mind)? Or does he just like the view better?
"There's no damn difference. We are all one people." Mexico is notorious for their harsh handling of the Guatemalan, Honduran, and El Salvadoran illegals crossing their own Southern border. Often the military is involved in border patrol, and three groups- criminals, local police, and immigration agents- all mistreat and abuse those that are caught. If all Latino/as and Chicano/as are one people, then why treat your brother so badly? If borders are lies, why patrol your own so harshly?
"north of the border" again with the border statements?
"Why do they want to kick us of all people out?" It's not just the Latino illegals. It's all illegals. Illegal means "forbidden by law or statute; contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc." Guess what... if you are an illegal immigrant, if you crossed the border without authorization, a green card, a work visa, you are breaking the law. Not just any law, either, but the United States' most sacred law- the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 paragraph 4: "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." We don't want to ship all those of Latino descent out of the country. We only want those who are here illegally to go back home and then, if they so desire, come back the right way.
Quick history lesson:
Fidel Castro- Communist leader of Cuba for over 45 years. Known for his long-winded anti-American speeches. Born into a wealthy family, graduated from Havana University as a lawyer. Led an ineffective revolution, was granted amnesty, and came back a second time, this time successfully.
Hugo Chavez- friend of Castro, leftist leader of Venezuela. Venezuela is constantly suffering from national strikes, threatening to severely disrupt the national economy. Venezuela is rich with oil, and supplies Cuba. Attempted to overthrow the government, and failed. He was elected to power in a landslide victory six years later, ousted, then after 2 days, his supporters took the streets, and he was placed back in the presidential palace.
Evo Morales- leader of Bolivia since 2006. Close relationships with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro. As a coca farmer himself, he encourages growing coca (but not the production of cocaine), he is often at odds with the US's anti-drug policies. Another Socialist leader, he was not revolutionary, per se, but lost an election, building his fame from the defeat, and taking the next. He is Aymara Indian, and boasts that he is the first indigenous president of Bolivia.
Che Guevara- Argentine who studied medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, worked as a doctor. Joined Fidel Castro in Mexico while Castro was exiled between revolution attempts. Was instrumental in overthrowing Batista's rule in Cuba, inciting the Cuban public to revolt against their incumbent government. The CIA eventually caught him, and he was executed.
And now a quick vocabulary lesson:
Sedition- incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. Any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion. syn. Insurrection, mutiny.
Treason- the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution- "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The speech was an act of sedition. If any of La Raza were to act on the speech, it would be treason. However, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 expired and were not renewed, so this speech is protected under the First Amendment (assuming that as a public school teacher, Mr. Gochez is indeed a legal citizen of this great country. If he isn't, he doesn't have the rights of the Constitution.)
Either way, as an educator, and a history teacher no less, you would think he'd have a firmer grasp on the realities of borders and who California really belongs to. You'd think after studying so many failed communist/socialist countries, and how many of his idols failed in their politics, that he'd realize that maybe he's on the wrong side of the line. We cannot force him to cease these speeches, but we can learn from them.
"I want to start off by saying that the young man who spoke a little while ago is one of my students. And that made me so proud because I know that our people have strong leaders for years and years to come. As[el militante de la barrio?] a revolutionary Mexican organization here we understand what the [?] is saying . You're right. This is not just about Mexico. This is a global struggle against Imperialism and Capitalism. But we know that all of that is happening in the context that where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico. And the message that we bring, if you want to bring a little more of a revolutionary context to this, why is that these people- these frail, racist, white people want to keep us out of this country? It's not because, simply because of the color of our skin. It's not simply because they just want to exploit us. Let me tell you why. Because on this planet right now are six billion people. At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. [??] We have a long history and example of our Commandante Fidel Castro Ruz. We got Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, we got Brazil, Ecuador. You name it. We have nine, nine [??] governments in Latin America right now. And they know something that one young Argentine named Che Guevara said. It was called the Domino Theory. And he knew that every single country would go revolutionary one after the other, after the other, after the other.
So what do they fear? They know that every single country, they know that we will no longer fall to these lies called borders. We know that El Salvadoran, and a Guatemalan, and a Nicaraguan, se el Mexicano- that there's no damn difference. That we are all one people. So with that in mind, we see ourselves here- all of us here- as the northern front of a Latin American revolutionary movement.
There are more than 40 million of our people north of the Rio Grande. That means to them that's 40 million potential revolutionaries north of the border, inside the belly of the beast. So when you think about Why do they want to kick us of all people out, that's why. Because they know that we now know the truth. They know that now we are Raza, we're professionals, we're educators, we are revolutionary students. What does that mean? We are not just a regular culture anymore. We are a culture of revolutionary spirit. And that's the fear.
So with that being said, I want to leave you with this: as a Revolutionary and with revolutionary context, let's be clear about one thing. Our enemy is not the Minutemen. Quote me. Our enemy is not the Minutemen. Because the Minutemen are not the ones who have killed over four thousand six hundred people at those borders. Our enemy is the same enemy as Hugo Chavez- that Hugo Chavez has. Our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Africa poor. Our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Asia poor. Our enemy is Capitalism and Imperialism. OK, That's our enemy.
And I'll finish with this. I'll finish with this in respect of time. If we are serious about making change, if you are serious about making change, let me tell you- this struggle will go on for many more years after we leave UCLA. Reading a book, or writing a book, or teaching a class... that is not, that is not part of the movement. What you do 24 hours a day as a professional revolutionary- that is what's going to lead our people, and all people, to liberation. Viva La Raza."
So we'll start with the first bold statement- "Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico" My initial statement is this: February 2, 1848, the Mexican government and the US government sat down and signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to end the Mexican-American War. General Scott's troops had taken Mexico City, and the US hadn't lost a battle. The US was given the remainder of what is now California and New Mexico. The Mexicans agreed to acknowledge the Rio Grande as the southern border of Texas, and the US gave Mexico $15 million, as well as taking on any debts owed to citizens of the former Mexican territory. Spoils of war or legal 'business' transaction, Mexico gave up that land.
Second on that statement is this: If the US has no legal claim on the land because it was 'stolen' by the armies of the US, then neither does Mexico as they took it from Spain when they revolted. Before that, the Spanish conquistadors took it from the Aztecs.
Third, later on he mentions the 'lies that are borders.' If borders are lies, what matter does it make who 'owns' that land? It is not truly the US nor is it Mexico if you follow that logic.
Next is a line that I first bolded, then italicized because there are two separate, but similar points I want to make. First, by calling white people "frail, racist, white people" that is saying that white people are frail and racist- which is racism. (Racism- hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.... Usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.)
Second, "It's not simply because of the color of our skin." Hmmm... that sounds like the requirement to be racist. If "frail racist white people" aren't solely judging you on the color of your skin, they're not being racist. However, I have a word for him: bigot. Bigotry is the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Sound like someone he knows?
"We will no longer fall to these lies called borders." Then why be in the US at all? Is it because on one side of this imaginary line, the standard of living is higher (like his leather jacket) the opportunities for education and promotion are higher (like his job as an educator) or because the civil liberties are better (like his right to gather PEACEFULLY and speak his mind)? Or does he just like the view better?
"There's no damn difference. We are all one people." Mexico is notorious for their harsh handling of the Guatemalan, Honduran, and El Salvadoran illegals crossing their own Southern border. Often the military is involved in border patrol, and three groups- criminals, local police, and immigration agents- all mistreat and abuse those that are caught. If all Latino/as and Chicano/as are one people, then why treat your brother so badly? If borders are lies, why patrol your own so harshly?
"north of the border" again with the border statements?
"Why do they want to kick us of all people out?" It's not just the Latino illegals. It's all illegals. Illegal means "forbidden by law or statute; contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc." Guess what... if you are an illegal immigrant, if you crossed the border without authorization, a green card, a work visa, you are breaking the law. Not just any law, either, but the United States' most sacred law- the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 paragraph 4: "The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." We don't want to ship all those of Latino descent out of the country. We only want those who are here illegally to go back home and then, if they so desire, come back the right way.
Quick history lesson:
Fidel Castro- Communist leader of Cuba for over 45 years. Known for his long-winded anti-American speeches. Born into a wealthy family, graduated from Havana University as a lawyer. Led an ineffective revolution, was granted amnesty, and came back a second time, this time successfully.
Hugo Chavez- friend of Castro, leftist leader of Venezuela. Venezuela is constantly suffering from national strikes, threatening to severely disrupt the national economy. Venezuela is rich with oil, and supplies Cuba. Attempted to overthrow the government, and failed. He was elected to power in a landslide victory six years later, ousted, then after 2 days, his supporters took the streets, and he was placed back in the presidential palace.
Evo Morales- leader of Bolivia since 2006. Close relationships with Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro. As a coca farmer himself, he encourages growing coca (but not the production of cocaine), he is often at odds with the US's anti-drug policies. Another Socialist leader, he was not revolutionary, per se, but lost an election, building his fame from the defeat, and taking the next. He is Aymara Indian, and boasts that he is the first indigenous president of Bolivia.
Che Guevara- Argentine who studied medicine at the University of Buenos Aires, worked as a doctor. Joined Fidel Castro in Mexico while Castro was exiled between revolution attempts. Was instrumental in overthrowing Batista's rule in Cuba, inciting the Cuban public to revolt against their incumbent government. The CIA eventually caught him, and he was executed.
And now a quick vocabulary lesson:
Sedition- incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. Any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion. syn. Insurrection, mutiny.
Treason- the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution- "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The speech was an act of sedition. If any of La Raza were to act on the speech, it would be treason. However, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 expired and were not renewed, so this speech is protected under the First Amendment (assuming that as a public school teacher, Mr. Gochez is indeed a legal citizen of this great country. If he isn't, he doesn't have the rights of the Constitution.)
Either way, as an educator, and a history teacher no less, you would think he'd have a firmer grasp on the realities of borders and who California really belongs to. You'd think after studying so many failed communist/socialist countries, and how many of his idols failed in their politics, that he'd realize that maybe he's on the wrong side of the line. We cannot force him to cease these speeches, but we can learn from them.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
An Introduction
I suppose the best thing to do is get introductions out of the way. I am 27 years old, married, and the mother of a beautiful baby girl. I served this country for eight years in the US Navy as a nuclear technician and am currently taking college courses to finish a degree in History. I am conservative in belief, but also open to new ideas.
I've always been fairly outspoken, at least since I gained my confidence in middle school and high school. I've just never really had anything important to say. The last 'blog' I had was on MySpace, and all I talked about was whether my boyfriend was 'The One' or not. Before that, it was Yahoo Journals, and what I was going to see that weekend at the theatres.
Now, however, I look around this country and I worry. I see celebrities who are lifted to royalty status by the sheeple. Many of these celebrities see their fame as a way to speak out about things they often have very little clue about, causing those sheeple to then have misguided opinions about how the world should work. I see a government that is not actually working to better this country, but seems instead to be working to gain more power.
Though I have far less reach than even the lowest celebrity, I am hoping that this blog, written by someone with no political intention, can find its way into the mind of some of those who can help re-mold this country into one we can all be proud of. I am Reminding America, through commentary on current events and parallels to the past, of our Glory and our ability to continue this great human experiment that was founded over 200 years ago.
I look forward to traveling with you on this trip through time.
I've always been fairly outspoken, at least since I gained my confidence in middle school and high school. I've just never really had anything important to say. The last 'blog' I had was on MySpace, and all I talked about was whether my boyfriend was 'The One' or not. Before that, it was Yahoo Journals, and what I was going to see that weekend at the theatres.
Now, however, I look around this country and I worry. I see celebrities who are lifted to royalty status by the sheeple. Many of these celebrities see their fame as a way to speak out about things they often have very little clue about, causing those sheeple to then have misguided opinions about how the world should work. I see a government that is not actually working to better this country, but seems instead to be working to gain more power.
Though I have far less reach than even the lowest celebrity, I am hoping that this blog, written by someone with no political intention, can find its way into the mind of some of those who can help re-mold this country into one we can all be proud of. I am Reminding America, through commentary on current events and parallels to the past, of our Glory and our ability to continue this great human experiment that was founded over 200 years ago.
I look forward to traveling with you on this trip through time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)