Friday, December 31, 2010

Thoreau, Gandhi, King And Gutierrez?

Tireless illegal alien advocate, Luis Gutierrez, is at his wit's end as 2010 draws to a close. Currently, he's not unlike the manager of a Big Lots outlet whose store has just had an entire aisle stocked with a new shipment from a department store that couldn't move the merchandise. In short, he's got a product no one's been able to sell.

Notions of "comprehensive immigration reform" have proven to be just as unpopular coming from President Obama as they were a few years ago when George W. Bush was singing their praises. And just prior to Christmas, yet another effort to enact the DREAM Act failed to pass a decidedly liberal Senate. That's about half a dozen times now that it has gone nowhere when put in front of Congress for a vote.  

It hasn't mattered how it's been dressed up, what sob stories have been marketed, how many newspaper columnists plead with their readers to feel "compassion," what "studies" are offered up to suggest that legalizing the undocumented will result in windfalls of billions, reduced crime, and improved race relations,  and that there have been thousands of attempts to equate illegal aliens with immigrants of yesteryear.  The truth is evident.  A sizable majority of Americans want no part of another amnesty. 

This has been infuriating for the elected representative who has publicly declared "I have only one loyalty, and that's to the immigrant community."

Resultingly, after seeing the most recent legislative attempt to grant residency rights to millions of illegal aliens scuttled, he stated “We need to decouple the movement for comprehensive immigration reform and justice for immigrants from the legislative process and from the Democratic Party process."  Shortly thereafter, he added “When black people in this country decided they were going to fight for civil rights and for voting rights, they didn’t ask if the majority leader was with them and when they were going to tee up the bill. They said, ‘We’re sitting where we need to sit on the bus! We’re integrating this counter! We’re going to march!'”

And herein lies Mr. Gutierrez's next problem - failing to change U.S. laws to accommodate illegal aliens who won't follow the ones we have, isn't unfair.

Civil disobedience worked for blacks in the 1960's because the protestors were right, and their actions drove the point home.  It was fundamentally unfair for average, decent people to be disallowed from dining at southern lunch counters because of their skin color. How can a man be asked to risk his life defending his country against Hitler, and then be required to sit in the back of a public bus? On what rational grounds was a U.S. citizen forced to attend substandard public schools, when better ones were nearby, but unavailable to non-whites? Such practices and standards were offensive to the espoused principles stated in our nation's Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the protests drew attention to them.

The same cannot be said, however, of people who have failed to follow laws that apply to would-be immigrants of all colors. There is no government or society spawned injustice when children of criminals are not rewarded for their parents' systematic, repeated and successful law violations. Some, like Congressman Gutierrez, believe that enforcing current immigration and employment laws is an attack upon Latinos. To disallow illegal alien children from receiving taxpayer subsidized college tuition rates is an injustice.  Those people, however, are a minority.  Most in the U.S. don't see it that way.

Consequently, when illegal aliens occupy the waiting rooms of U.S. senators and refuse to leave, the common question is why they weren't turned over to ICE.  As "Dreamers" from UCLA and Cal State Northridge lie down on major L.A. thoroughfares during rush hour, the usual commuter response is anger because of an inability to get home, rather than sympathy.

Put most simply, illegal alien advocates may believe they have a civil rights issue, however, most American voters don't agree.  And all the tantrums and cries of "racism" aren't going to be changing that any time soon in the hearts of most taxpayers who pay billions to subsidize the lives of people who have no business being here.

Civil disobedience and a "Latino revolt" on the streets in 2011, Congressman?  The staff at would love to see it happen, but quite frankly, we don't believe you're that detached from reality yet.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Disappointed "Dreamers" Speak Out

In the social circles the staff of inhabits, the senatorial rejection of the DREAM Act is considered an early Christmas present.  Border security proponents are happy that millions of people, who have no business being here in the first place, are not being made permanent additions to our nation ... at least on this occasion.

Many Californians, however, have very different sentiments.  They are emotionally invested in the notion of legalizing the undocumented and believe the DREAM Act should have passed years ago.

Below are some of their thoughts about the U.S. Senate's failure to pass what they believe would have been a "down payment on comprehensive immigration reform."

These messages were primarily collected over the weekend from comments sections in the websites for the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register.

What happened today, to me, is beyond sad, because it’s a lose-lose for everybody. – Senator Barbara Boxer

We are going to go around the country letting everybody know who stands with us and who stood against us. – Carlos S.

White Europeans illegal since 1492. They have no credibility on this land. – Derek G.

Holding the sins of the fathers against the children is irresponsible. We do not believe in liberty and justice for all in America. We believe in "I got mine, screw you."

What purpose is served by sending bright, talented young men and women out of the country who have done nothing wrong? How is America served by exiling kids who have known nothing but America since they became sentient beings?

Immanuel Kant was famous for saying that human beings should never be used as means to other ends but only seen as ends in themselves. Anything less is immoral and unjust. The scapegoating of these kids is immoral and unjust. It speaks poorly for the American people. And despite their vehement protests, it does suggest we have not overcome our racist and xenophobic tendencies. As Shakespeare said, "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

America is an adolescent nation in many ways. This is one of them. It's time to grow up, America. – Harry F.

Cowards in the Senate dashed the hopes of students who were brought here by their parents. These children have broken no laws and done nothing wrong. Shame on you. – Mac R.

If I may speak, does anybody remember where we come from, what is wrong with everyone, why is everyone hating immigrants and there nationality? This world was meant for everyone. America is a country with freedom, but no it does not have the freedom like everyone claims,  but it doesn't belong or is own by anyone, no country is, it doesn't matter if you were born here or have a power here rich or someone with higher authority. This world is meant for everyone to share, what kind of people is everyone evolving into? What are Americans so mad about? this was once a nation with different countries, do you not remember? And how are immigrants stealing education and health care because from what I know every kid in the U.S gets to go to school and receive an education and health care, they don't have the same benefits as the citizens?? Tell me because don't you realize you have it all? Why are you complaining? And the job market, it's really funny there are many jobs out there for everyone, but really, does any American really want to work cleaning bathrooms??  Go and apply there and stop blaming just because you're mad the economy is bad in the U.S.  Don't blame them for the actions that congress or senate are in debt for. America has been in debt for a quite awhile, hundreds and hundreds years back. Really, open your eyes. I mean that from the heart. – Tiffany M.

Republicans are so brainless. They say they are for family values yet their real ideologies are bigoted. If it doesn't benefit their pocket they say screw everyone else who is coming into this country because of a FAILED immigration system that takes years to get any path to citizenship. People in other countries are getting desperate and are looking for a BETTER LIFE. Republicans you SURE aren't trying to PROTECT CHILDREN! BIGOTS! – Guillermo A.

This bill will be back. 

Non-US citizens who serve in the military will be allowed US citizenship no matter how many of you racist backwards losers think otherwise. 

The bill will be introduced again. – Octavio G.

Be proud today. The Senate "struck a blow for Christian Democracy." That's how Ku Klux Klan members described politicians who voted against equal rights for African-Americans. I think there are definitely some parallels here. – Regis J.

You honestly believe that illegals are gonna go back? Stop blaming all the problems in the world on illegals. – Alfonso M.

The United States of America, the land of the slippery slope argument. The land of 2 + 2 = 5. The land of entitlement and bigotry. Let's get rid of all of the illegal immigrants so that we can then shift our anger back onto the Irish and the Italians. We wonder why we lack progress in this country, and why we're being overtaken by other countries. You know what it must be, the foreigners!! Let's run for the hills of West Virginia! Join the other ignorant folk!! Our engine is leaking oil, let's just put more oil in the engine!! Forget actually fixing the problem. Illegal immigrants don't give back to the system, that's the problem!! While we complain to Congress, let's fight for tax breaks too!! – Cynthia A.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Undocumented and Unimpeded

The DREAM Act was rejected by the U.S. Senate, yet again, this morning.  That makes it now roughly half a dozen times it has failed to pass when offered up before federal legislators.  The will of the majority of taxpaying citizens was actually respected by elected officials, on this occasion.

That's the good news.  The bad news is that it really doesn't matter as much as it would seem.  

The people have just spoken about their revulsion at the idea of rewarding illegal aliens.  And they did the exactly same thing a few years ago when an avalanche of incoming calls, decrying an attempted "comprehensive immigration reform," crashed the U.S. Senate switchboard.  Americans want immigration and employment laws enforced, right?

It doesn't matter.  They won't be.  Certainly not in our neck of the woods.

Illegal aliens like Antonia Rivera and Jorge Herrera (pictured) will continue to scream and holler about their rights, how they feel victimized, and what they deem to be our obligation to change laws they and their families refuse to follow.

The reality is that illegal aliens are hardly "hiding in the shadows" on the West Coast.  The undocumented in California get away with a whole lot more than tax paying citizens ever could.  

Conducting unlicensed businesses, walking out on unpaid hospital bills, dumping education expenses, for children that have no business being here, on citizen taxpayers, engaging in unlawful employment, driving without insurance and licenses, utilizing fraudulent documents ... the list goes on.

They'll continue to do these things in L.A., Orange County and the Inland Empire, and elected officials and law enforcement will do next to nothing in response. Some of the younger ones wear shirts bearing the phrase "Undocumented And Unafraid!"

It makes sense.  They should be unafraid.  They know the will of the American people, the best interests of the state's and nation's citizens, and federal laws don't count for a whole lot in these parts.

Welcome to California in the early 21st century.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Whatever Abel's Smoking, We Want Some!

Republican Lt. Governor, Abel Maldonado, the elected official who made a recent enormous California tax hike possible, is worried about the health of the GOP in this state.  Specifically, he fears that promoting an Arizona-style immigration initiative will make Republicans unelectable. Maldonado has been quoted as issuing the following warning:  "You can pull the life-support machine off the party, just pull the plug ..."

Based upon this remark, I almost have to wonder what state he's evaluating.  More to the point, how could things possibly be made worse for the California GOP?  Aside from the opposition party declaring martial law and imprisoning political dissenters without trials, I'm not sure what would qualify as "worse."

Mr. Maldonado needs to take a good hard look at the post mid-term election terrain and come to terms with reality.

California has annual budget shortfalls and an illegal alien population that dwarfs those of any other state.  If states could file for bankruptcy, ours would be the first.  If states could opt to secede from the U.S. and join other countries, California would be the most logical choice to be handed over to Mexico.

Our sanctuary cities act as magnets that allow us to import the impoverished and under-skilled at a rate no other state comes close to matching.  Further, many of our public schools are now on a par with those found in Louisiana and Mississippi; we mass produce uneducated residents unfit for most white collar and technical jobs.  Additionally, California's unemployment rate is well-above the national average.  And to top it off, we are home to 15% of the nation's population, but can boast of hosting over 30% of welfare recipients in the U.S.

Yet in spite of all this, every single Republican candidate who ran for statewide office last month was rejected by a majority of California voters.  Instead, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer and a slew of other Democrats, precisely the people who meticulously crafted many of the problems we currently face, were selected to continue to provide leadership.

A quick survey of the situation reveals the obvious.  It's already about as bad as it will get for Republicans in California.  And here's more bad news - undereducated, low wage earners, particularly those who believe they have an ethnic axe to grind, don't commonly veer to the GOP.

What do we know about Arizona's law?  Many of its provisions were suspended when it was examined by a judge, and before it was ever implemented, over 100,000 people left the state for "safer" locations.

Our illegal alien population is well over double the size of the one that existed, until recently, in the Copper State.  Further, there are far more anchor babies with illegal alien parents in California than there were in Arizona.

Could future GOP candidates stand to lose six figures worth of illegal aliens and their family members?  Would frightening off over 100,000 bus boys, unwed mothers, people utilizing WIC benefits, car wash employees, patients who routinely leave hospital medical bills unpaid, and children who drop out of high school at a rate of over 50%, further cripple the California Republican party?  Would the hint of immigration enforcement intentions scare away the very voters who normally storm to the polls to cast their ballots for those promising fiscal responsibility and limited government?

Arizona's immigration law on the California ballot, backed by the Republican Party?  It's a no-brainer.  Our state's GOP can't be rejected any more thoroughly than it already has, and at worst, assuming the ballot initiative is entirely overruled by the courts or rejected by voters, there will be tens of thousands fewer Californians around of precisely the type that most vehemently oppose conservative principles.

Mr. Maldonado might consider the notion that it is time to take a new tack, particularly in view of the fact that the old ones have failed so royally.  This time, let's try yanking away the welcome mat.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Deport Pedro

Pedro Ramirez is four things:  A person who graduated at the top of his high school class.  The Student Body President at Fresno State University. An illegal alien, and someone familiar with T-shirts, popular with Latino kids in California, that are emblazoned with the phrase Undocumented & Unafraid.

Mr. Ramirez is also clearly bright, and familiar with the realities of immigration enforcement in the state in which his family has decided to set up house.  For the latter reason, he has good cause to be "unafraid" and so do most his friends who share his immigration status.  California has far more illegal aliens than any other state; 25% of all the people unlawfully in the country.  California has two elected senators who talk about how much an amnesty (they like to call it "comprehensive immigration reform") would benefit the Golden State, at almost every opportunity.  Further, California has enormous sanctuary cities, and even a newly elected governor who recently spoke about his desire to hand out financial aid to illegal alien college students.  In short, immigration and employment law enforcement in California is a joke.  It's not that those laws are rigorously enforced in all other corners of America, it's just that it's worse here than other places, and the illegals certainly know it.

For these reasons, Pedro Ramirez is the first person who should be detained and subject to deportation proceedings.  Even ahead of Nicky Diaz (Meg Whitman's illegal alien housekeeper) and Matias Ramos (An activist who travels around the country, hollering about the need for  radical changes in our laws, entirely unimpeded by his illegal alien status).

Now why would anyone want to lower the boom on such a seemingly nice, well-spoken young man who clearly has great potential?  Simple.  To send a message to all the other illegal aliens who deem our laws too inconvenient to follow and yammer about how unfair it is that we won't subsidize their college endeavors after having provided them free public grade school educations. They should be afraid. They should have reason to believe that America has expectations of newcomers that are not optional.  They should fear policemen who enforce our laws, and not just the ones local elected officials deem palatable.

The notions of using forged documents, driving without insurance and licenses, and engaging in identity theft should give pause to anyone who is thinking of becoming a part of this country.    Currently, they don't.  Illegal aliens often break into California because it's close.  They stay here, however, because it's easy. It shouldn't be. It should be every bit as difficult and worrisome to use a stolen social security number as it is to fondle school children, swipe perfume bottles from department stores or intermittently slap and punch your wife.

By deporting Pedro Ramirez, illegal aliens with far fewer redeeming values might reconsider many of their every day law breaking activities - starting with living in California.

The story of Pedro Ramirez, as reported by the Huffington Post:

DREAM Act = Amnesty

The Jason Voorhees (the indestructible serial killer from the "Friday the 13th" movie series) of proposed federal legislation is about to be submitted, yet again, to congressmen for their consideration.  The DREAM Act simply won't die ... or more specifically, people who want it won't stop asking for it, no matter how many times it is rejected by legislators in Washington.

The folks who want to see millions of the undocumented legalized in this country are a minority, but they are passionate bunch.  Their emotional investment in illegal aliens and their family members prevents them from coming to terms with two basic mainstream realities:

1.  Most American voters view the DREAM Act as a reward to illegal alien families who have successfully violated our laws.

2.  If someone wants to be part of the U.S., most Americans expect that person to apply to enter like everyone else, and stay at home until we let him in.

Many proponents of the DREAM Act view themselves and/or their friends as powerless victims of our immigration system, and believe they are enduring a difficult existence that American citizens are obligated to undo - undo by letting them stay, work and vote here.

They will flatly deny that the DREAM Act is an amnesty by asserting that it allows a large portion of illegal aliens to "earn" citizenship rather than having it simply handed to them.  And that assertion is simply wrong.  The DREAM Act is, without question, little more than a glorified handout, and what it requires in return is hardly a fair price for the right to call oneself an American.  Is it an amnesty of the variety doled out to millions of illegal aliens in 1986?  No, it is the thinly disguised type championed by George W. Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain that has been peddled under the name "comprehensive immigration reform."  In short, it provides something of almost inestimable value (permanent legal residency leading to U.S. citizenship) in return for practically (not quite!) nothing.

The DREAM Act would work like this.  Any illegal alien brought in to the U.S. while 15 or younger, who has been here 3 years or longer and obtained a high school diploma or GED somewhere along the line, is given legal residency in return for 60 college units (2 years of college credit) or 2 years in the military.

The DREAM Act beneficiaries would not be required to earn a degree, would not have to attend a university or any traditional four-year institution (JC or community college course credits will be accepted), and would not have to receive training in any academic or professional area where the U.S. population currently produces insufficient numbers (Mathematics, Nursing, etc.).

For those illegal aliens incapable of, or unwilling to work for, junior college credits that could essentially be accumulated by many of the brighter household animals you may have had an opportunity to walk or feed, there is a military service option.  Two years is what it will take.  Period.  No combat requirement.  No assignment to ongoing conflict areas.  No length of commitment any longer than what was required of citizens whom we formerly drafted.

In short, the DREAM Act is a sad joke.  An amnesty?  Sure.  Why, because it requires nothing?  No, because it requires things that almost no one can fail to accomplish.  The academic and armed services "requirements" are so insultingly simple that they are a hop, skip and jump away from asking the beneficiaries to learn to chew gum and walk, clip their fingernails twice a month, and to make sure to have milk in the refrigerator for when the kids come home from school.

Think of it like this - You walk into the nearest Mercedes dealership and plop down $500 in cash.  In return, the salesman hands you the papers and keys to a shiny new 2011 model sitting in the showroom; that's pretty much the spirit and essence of the DREAM Act.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Laws Don't Apply To Us - Part II

Several weeks ago, a writing, touching upon community protests against police in Westlake, appeared on this blog.  The local residents around MacArthur Park (most of whom are illegal aliens and their offspring) were upset about the shooting death of a local drunk who confronted police officers with a knife.

It was asserted in that piece that the real issue vexing the locals was that the LAPD had enforced the law in an area where the undocumented are used to police turning a blind eye to many of their daily illegal activities.  Los Angeles is a sanctuary city and the illegals like it that way.

It is unfair of you (and racist to the core!) to prevent us from running unlicensed businesses, using fake ID's, ignoring health code regulations, engaging in identity theft, etc. etc. - This is pretty much the unspoken attitude of the locals and their well-organized advocates.    One such advocacy outfit is The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), headed by Angelica Salas.

CHIRLA, and organizations like it in L.A., exist for one basic reason:  To perpetuate and aid the continued presence of Latino illegal aliens in Southern California.

In short, if you're brown and "without papers," CHIRLA will have your back.  Whatever unlawful shenanigans you've been engaging in are almost entirely irrelevant to the staff members of CHIRLA, whose political mindset is well to the left of mainstream American thought.  These folks aren't "liberals," they are ethnocentric extremists bent upon shielding local illegal aliens from any consequences of their actions.

Case in point:  The recent vice squad bust of Club 907 near downtown.

Club 907 is a "hostess club" that offers dancing and "companionship" to patrons (all at an hourly charge).  It is one of several such area businesses that advertises pretty girls and dancing, but is commonly rumored to be offering less wholesome forms of entertainment.

The LAPD recently busted Club 907, and in response, CHIRLA and Angelica Salas had these public observations to offer:  Most who were arrested were simply "honest, hard working immigrants."  From CHIRLA's management's perspective "The LAPD has acted rashly by arresting those it claims to protect, and in the process, endanger the delicate balance between local policing and immigration enforcement."

So, what did the cops actually find when they engaged in a long overdue raid of one of these hostess club rat holes?

$100,000 in cash
Two bags of cocaine
Supplies of condoms
Alcohol (Club 902 has no liquor license)
Dozens of allegedly fake ID's
A missing 17 year old girl

Assuming that what the terribly illegal alien friendly LAPD claims to have found turns out to be accurate, it appears that Ms. Salas and her subordinates have a somewhat different idea of what constitutes "honest,  hard working immigrants" than most of the rest of us.

Remember, for them, illegal aliens remaining here is the bottom line.  And for that to work, the laws simply must remain unenforced.

The story as reported by the L.A. Times:

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Free Expression At Denair Middle School

This week includes Veterans Day, so a student attaches an American flag to the back of his bike.  He pedals his way to Denair Middle School, and upon arrival, school staff members advise him to remove the Stars and Stripes.  Word of this set of events quickly reaches the media, and upon questioning, the school provides the following response:

"(The) First Amendment is important," Superintendent Edward Parraz said. "We want the kids to respect it, understand it, and with that comes a responsiblity."

Parraz said the campus has recently experienced some racial tension. He said some students got out of hand on Cinco de Mayo.

"Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want," Parraz said. "We want them to appreciate the cultures."

Parraz said if a disruption arises over a flag, they want it to be taken down to protect the safety of all students.

Now, I studied Law, and I understand how it has been interpreted to protect not only free speech, but other types of expression, as well.  Therefore, I am completely stumped.  Maybe someone who reads this can point out what I'm missing here.

The Superintendent wants the children to "respect" and "understand" the First Amendment - a portion of the Constitution he describes as "important." Therefore, he orders the kid to cease his display of American pride so as not to agitate the students who feel stronger loyalties to Mexico?

What?  Someone help me out here, I'm lost.

The story as reported by KCRA:

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Nightingale For Governor?

Question:  Is there a candidate currently seeking statewide office in California who has an unwavering commitment to oppose amnesty and enforce immigration laws?

Answer:  Yes, Chelene Nightingale, the American Independent Party's candidate for governor.

Question:  Do you believe illegal immigration is a serious problem in our state?

Answer:  It's the most serious -- to the degree that you can't realistically attempt to address California's other problems (budget deficit, crowded roadways, public education) without taking care of illegal immigration first.

Question:  Will you be voting for her then?

Answer:  No.

Question:  Why not?

Answer:  For the following reasons ...

Seven Things Chelene Nightingale Wants You To Know, And Three That She Probably Doesn't

1.  President Obama is an illegal alien.  When Chelene is elected governor, she will be calling the president to confront him on this issue.

(1:22 of the video):

2.  Had he won the election in 2008, John McCain would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve as our nation's president.

3.  She's very concerned about poisonous chemtrails that are being seeded in American skies - probably by the government.

4.  The Bilderberg Group, in conjunction with the Rothschilds and drug cartels, is in control of America.

5. Communists in the government are building prison camps to enable enactment of martial law.  Chelene knows this because she saw some construction in the Antelope Valley.  Twice.  The facility was equipped with one-way glass and looked very suspicious.

6.  It's time we started asking serious questions about what really happened on 9/11.

7.  Chelene Nightingale has a plan and is prepared to fix California's ailing economy.

8.  Chelene filed for personal bankruptcy in 2007.

(Case No.: 1:07-bk-11509) (see first post)

9.  She has had finance-related legal problems after her bankruptcy filing, as well.  Chelene and her husband were lent approximately $6000 and signed a contract that gave them two years to make repayment.  When the loan went unpaid, they were sued this year in Kern County Superior Court.  The Nightingales asserted, in both the original case and the appeal, that the debt is not due because of subsequent e-mails that were exchanged by the parties.  The judges who presided over both matters disagreed and awarded judgment ($6200) to the plaintiff, Frank Jorge.  The judgment remains unpaid.

(Case No.: M-1502-CS-7854; Kern Co. Superior Court) (see first post)

10.  At the time Chelene gave up her position as Save Our State's Managing Director (she was the acting head of SOS for about 18 months), the organization had practically no money.  People were scrambling around to find funds to simply keep the website operational.  Shortly after her abrupt departure, Save Our State lost its corporate status because proper papers had not been filed and necessary fees hadn't been paid. (search corporation name "Save Our State" and click on the 2nd entry)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The Maid Is Not The Issue

I simultaneously don't like and don't care about the "scandal" involving Meg Whitman's undocumented house help.  The latter because it's not what should be enraging people regarding the GOP's candidate.  The former because it may distract the public from what should.

Is the accusation true?  Did Ebay's former CEO knowingly employ an illegal alien and then cast her aside when the arrangement posed a degree of political danger?  Maybe, maybe not.  The "charge" is about as reliable as anything else that jumps into the public's view from psuedo-lawyer and publicity hound, Gloria Allred.

More broadly, however, who cares?  Is it that skirting immigration and employment laws is insignificant?  Hardly.  It's that whether Whitman did or not pales in significance to the grossly insulting and dishonest campaign she's been wallpapering across our state with her endless resources, for months on end.

Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to politics in the Golden State knows two things about the Republican gubernatorial candidate - She's loaded and she's a liar.  Meg Whitman has voiced almost as many different positions on California's most significant problem, illegal immigration, as Lindsay Lohan has had incidents where she has fallen off the wagon.  Her story changes from one moment to the next, or more specifically, from one audience to the next.

During the Republican primary she was, at first, for legalizing those unlawfully here and then, later, someone who would be "tough as nails" on illegal immigration - an enemy of sanctuary cities and employers of illegal laborers!

When her chief challenger for the GOP nomination was easily dispatched, however, she quickly rolled out an expensive Spanish language campaign singing a decidedly different tune. Latinos were assured on TV, radio and billboards that Meg Whitman objected to previous California voter supported legislation aimed at curbing illegal immigration and saving taxpayer resources.  Further, she advised she certainly didn't want what Arizona has been trying; providing some annoyingly transparent rationalization that it wouldn't work in California because of our state's size.

Yesterday, however, just before the story involving the maid broke, she was back to her border hawk stance in Davis.  Speaking in front of what she knew would be a predominantly white middle-class audience of listeners, she went on to distinguish her position from Jerry Brown's ... and this only weeks after telling a reporter that her views on immigration were much the same as that of the Democratic candidate.

Is this what passes for a major political candidate in 2010?  Has the GOP actually sunk this far, and is truly unable to provide any better option to voters?

The management at recently changed political registration from Republican to Decline to State, and has never felt more confident in the wisdom of the decision than now.

It would indeed be ironic if this maid incident costs Ms. Whitman the election.  Not because she hired and fired the illegal, but because no one believes her when she insists she didn't know of the woman's residency staus.  Indeed, why should anyone in California believe a single word that comes out of her mouth?

This election can't come soon enough.  Meg Whitman deserves to lose.  She deserves to be rejected by California voters - the ones on the left, in the middle, and on the right. Not because she may have knowingly hired an illegal, but because she has she has repeatedly and obviously attempted to deceive Californians, who I guess are expected to forget her prevarications like employees who want to keep their jobs by giving the boss a pass on her endless bullsh--.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

In Defense Of Aunt Zeituni

A video currently going "viral" on the internet is a report from WBZ in Boston about our president's aunt, and former illegal alien, Zeituni Onyango. One of the station's new reporters inquired about the disability checks she's been receiving, her defiance of two deportation orders, her assessment of criticism she has received, and asked a host of related questions.

To say that this woman should have checked her attitude at the door before sitting down for the interview, is probably the largest understatement I'll author this year.  From describing her taxpayer funded decade in the U.S. as "a nightmare" to insisting that she is owed citizenship as an immigrant in the U.S., her assertions and demeanor are nothing short of flabbergasting (For those who haven't seen the interview, I include the following link:

Nonetheless, I'm aware the United States is a large country and that people's opinions will differ.  In a nation composed of tens of millions, there is always going to be X percentage of the population that will defend even the most outlandish insults and manifestations of disrespect.  

Therefore, I scoured the internet for just that.  I looked high and low for posted opinions that voiced support for the substance of what Ms. Onyango conveyed in her recent interview.  Here's what I was able to find:

- There are plenty of Asians, Africans, Europeans who are getting the same thing. They never paid anything into the system either...

- I think all of the people that commented need to calm down. A friend of mine met her and she turns out to be a very nice person. Don't go off saying she is terrible and disgusting because chances are most of the people here don't know her. You can't judge people if you don't know them as a person. Shame on all the people who typed that she was disgusting and rude.

- I didn't see a person that felt entitled. I saw a person unfamiliar with the sublties of the English language sandbagged by a Scum, Smart a*s reporter. If she were more aware of the nature of the media she would have just refused to talk to anyone. She doesn't know that the story is written first then the reporter goes out to manipulate her into saying what he thinks the story needs to appeal to the Haters that he is trying to reach.

- It's very disappointing to me that WBZ would choose to put this woman (who has clearly been through very tough times)on the spot for something that's in her past and also, for something that is practically a matter of routine when it comes to people who overstay a visa and remain in this country unlawfully. I for one would like to welcome her to America - and I don't feel she owes any one of us an explanation. She wasn't living the high life; in fact, living in a shelter has to be one of the most demoralizing things there can be. There are people born in this country everyday who are immediately granted citizenship - something that should be of far greater concern than Zeituni Onyango. I say God Bless her and let her live here in peace. Please instead, do what you can to make her feel welcome, if for no other reason that she's an aunt of our President. Portraying this story now, and putting this woman on the spot in the manner you did, is downright evil.

- This is a nation of immigrants that was built by immigrants. Aunt Zeituni has a right to the American Dream like your ancestors wanted.  Stop your hating and be compassionate to someone who has needs and hardships that spoiled Americans can never know.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

What's Going On In Westlake?

If you are aware of the rioting that is being wildly underreported by Los Angeles media, that commonly takes great pains to avoid showing illegal aliens misbehaving, you may be wondering what's going on.  After all, what we know about the incident that is the subject matter of the unrest seems pretty straight forward.  A Guatemalan day laborer, who was well known in his neighborhood for getting drunk and acting up in public, was shot dead when he lunged at police with a knife he had refused to drop after being ordered to do so, in English and Spanish. Apparently, one of the people he had been threatening on a street corner referred to the trio of officers who responded to the disturbance as "angels."

Nonetheless, the complaints issued from various corners of the "community" around Macarthur Park center  on anger over the presence of police.  Why? Isn't police presence in a gritty neighborhood a good thing? Why the fuss?

Well, it's simple.  Los Angeles is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens and that neighborhood is chock full of them.  In a sanctuary city, people here unlawfully aren't held to the same standards as they would in locations where laws aren't just for citizens.  They're not going to be questioned about their immigration status unless they commit other crimes.  They won't be required to carry ID that legal non-citizen immigrants must have on them, as a matter of federal law. They're not going to have to apply for and acquire bothersome permits to sell food and other items on the street.  Further, if they get picked up for driving without licenses, they won't be arrested.  And even if they do something that results in arrest, the chances of having their backgrounds checked for legal residency in the U.S. are pretty slim.

Illegal aliens are not criminals here.  Hell, our mayor told them so just a few years ago, in response to enthusiastic cheers. Not only that, but the new Chief of Police would never have gotten his promotion signed off on by Mayor Villaraigosa if he had given any indication that he had much interest in making life unpleasant for the millions who live here in violation of immigration laws. Everyone knows this, including the "immigrant community" where this shooting took place.

Therefore, the locals don't want or expect cops to do much law enforcement at all.  After all, Mr. Jamines had been drunk and loud plenty of times.  What's the big deal now?  I mean, it was only a knife with a little blood on it and it's not as though he'd hurt anyone previously on the occasions he made an inebriated spectacle of himself, right?

It's a culture, folks.  Criminals don't want police around, period.  If you're not going to enforce these other laws, hell, why should we have to answer to anyone in a blue uniform?

This is a situation in which Villaraigosa and Police Chief Beck should happily marinate.  They have no one to blame other than themselves ... unless you want to count the City Council and other race-baiting local politicians who have made endless excuses for the undocumented and allowed this situation to fester for years.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

White Nationalist Alert

I shot this clip awhile back because I had good reason to believe these guys were white nationalists who had walked into a legitimate border security advocacy street protest. I was about 85% sure, but when we're talking about calling people "Nazis," I'm not going to say anything until and unless I'm certain. Well, now I'm certain.

These two gentlemen are or were affiliated with a white nationalist outfit by the name of Freedom 14 (the number 14 has significance for white supremacists: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children / 14 words). From publicly available information, I have learned that they like to use the illegal immigration issue to ingratiate themselves/introduce their materials to the public. They have advertised and/or posted on the Stormfront website and, apparently, one of their common "ploys" when asked about the Holocaust is to behave as if they've never heard of it. The taller, dark haired guy has used or been referred to by multiple names, even in the group's own promotional videos.

To my knowledge (which is admittedly limited), all their public appearances/"activism" have taken place in Orange County. I shot this in San Juan Capistrano and they've distributed materials on at least one occasion in Huntington Beach.

VIDEO:  San Juan Capistrano, 2010

This is just an FYI. We didn't know who or what these guys were at our demonstration in South O.C., and I didn't openly confront them or round up a bunch of border security advocates to shoo them away (as we did when the Golden State Skinheads attempted to rally with us in Simi Valley, a few years back) because I simply wasn't 100% sure. I am now and will be forwarding this information to every border security activism organization of which I can think, here in California.

More Freedom 14 Videos/Promotionals:

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Carly Fiorina Wants It All ...

... and she's hardly alone.  A number of the uber-wealthy Republican candidates, who have been staking out positions on the immigration issue, seem to be saddled with the same desire.

I dunno, I've never had tens of millions of dollars to my name.  Maybe acquiring huge amounts of capital makes people more likely to believe that they can have two entirely contradictory positions and that all things are possible.

Case in point, Ms. Fiorina's fellow Californian and GOP member, Meg Whitman. The former Ebay CEO ran a string of ads prior to the Republican primary wherein she was touted as being "tough as nails on illegal immigration."  Only weeks later, however, she made the public pronouncement that her position on illegal immigration is almost identical to that of Jerry Brown.

Never one to be outdone by people who have never held elected office, Arizona Senator John McCain simply decided to rewrite history while plastering the Phoenix and Tucson areas with campaign ads characterizing him as a hawk on that state's border crisis.  When asked repeatedly at campaign stops why he championed the push for an amnesty when seeking the presidency two years ago, he repeatedly stated  I didn't.

Now getting into this groove is the woman who would replace Barbara Boxer as California's junior senator.  Without batting an eye yesterday, during a debate with the incumbent, Ms. Fiorina asserted (almost in the same breath) that she supports the DREAM Act and is absolutely opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

That Ms. Fiorina, is quite a trick.  Even for a former head of Hewlett-Packard with your impeccable academic credentials.  In fact, in that same vein, I would request that you attempt at least one of the following to prove that you indeed possess the ability to pull this whole Love-DREAM-Act-And-Hate-Amnesty stunt off:

A.  Vow to expose yourself to the Arts and improve your mind this Labor Day Weekend while making sure you miss not a minute of the Keeping Up With The Kardashians marathon being featured on VH1.

B.  Go on a crash diet while eating 3 meals a day at Church's Chicken.

C.  Proclaim your disgust with Lebron James for his narcissism and self absorption while anxiously standing in line to purchase Lakers tickets decked out in an NBA replica Kobe Bryant jersey.

D.  Criss-cross the country in a private jet and limousine to various engagements where you are scheduled to warn people about the dangers of global warming.

E.  Suck down a couple cans of Red Bull on the way to the gym, to get yourself primed for exercise that your doctor has told you is necessary to reduce your blood pressure.

F.  Religiously watch MSNBC while complaining about the bias and lack of objectivity present on the FOX News Channel.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

The Democrats' Political Football

We have an election coming up, just around the bend, and it appears to be a pretty bleak one for the folks currently holding superior elected numbers in Washington.  All indicators point to the Democrats being hauled out to the woodshed in November, by voters dissatisfied with a different type of change having been delivered than what they had expected.

Long story short:  The Republican voters are charged up, the Democratic ones anxious, and in the era of rocketing deficits, the independents have been sharply veering to the right.

Obama, Pelosi and the surprisingly endangered Harry Reid, would love to energize the people of color who played a large part in the Democratic success two years ago.  There's a problem, however.  A lot of them were Latinos and a good number are peeved that the president hasn't delivered on his "comprehensive immigration reform" promise.

Of course, the reality of the situation is that Obama can't deliver that promise before this election.  Not in a country boasting double-digit unemployment.  So, what can he do to appease these folks?  Well, you've been watching it.  He instructed Eric Holder to sue Arizona and he's made sure that a very public series of dismissals of immigration-related prosecutions in Houston have been available for public consumption by the media.

Will the White House make good on its promise to legalize millions of the undocumented any time soon?  Not likely.  Will the Democrats continue to use immigration as an issue to attempt to keep Hispanics on a short leash, and to ensure that they don't wander too far into more conservative pastures?  Absolutely.  Just ask Harry Reid.  He can't imagine how any Latino could be a member of the GOP.

The bottom line is that illegal immigration is too valuable an issue for people on the Left to resolve.  The value it holds as a demonization of the opposition tool, has enormous utility and they're trying to max it out to avoid the anticipated upcoming election upheaval.

Make good on promises instead?  That's a good one! 

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Start Paying ... Now!

Not all hard-core amnesty advocates are entirely unrealistic.  Most realize that the legalization for millions, that they'd love to obtain, will not be coming this year.  After all, there's an election around the bend and the nation is mired in a lengthy recession.

In response, a good number of folks on the left have adopted a more piecemeal approach.  Specifically, they want a "down payment" on comprehensive immigration reform from the American public.  And in their minds, the appropriate immediate compensation should be in the form of the DREAM Act.

For those not familiar with the DREAM Act, it is proposed legislation that would grant an amnesty (with a few bells and whistles on it) to tens of thousands of illegal aliens who were brought to the U.S. as minors.  It's been rejected by Congress on each of the prior occasions it has been offered up in bills.

Nonetheless, its proponents remain undeterred.  Go ahead, "google" the words Dream Act Down Payment.  You'll receive dozens of hits.

Now, I'm neither a financial nor real estate expert, but I do understand two basic things about the term down payment.  It means a debt is owed and that more than one payment will be required to pay it off.

Therefore, my question to anyone who has read this far:  What do you believe American citizens owe to people who have been living in our country illegally?

How can we make this right with the illegals?  What's fair compensation from citizen taxpayers to the undocumented?  How much is owed to our neighbors who unlawfully reside in our nation and what is the best way to make fair payment?

I'd like to know and hope you'll share your opinion in a comment below.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Jamiel Shaw's Detractors

Most Californians who bother to stay informed about our state's illegal immigration crisis recognize the name Jamiel Shaw, Jr.  Jamiel was a star football player at Los Angeles High, looking forward to his senior season, when he was shot dead a few doors down from his house.  The person believed to have committed the murder turned out to be an illegal alien with gang ties and a considerable criminal record.  As a result of sanctuary city policies that permeate Southern California law enforcement, however, the alleged killer was never turned over to federal immigration authorities on the occasions he had been taken into custody.  He was released back into L.A. County, repeatedly.

Shortly after Jamiel's tragic death, Walter Moore, a local attorney, proposed a modification to longstanding LAPD policy that prevents Los Angeles officers from inquiring about a suspect's immigration status under most circumstances. The alteration would have been limited to known gang members.

It makes sense, right?  After all, which L.A. residents, documented or undocumented, want illegal alien gang members traipsing around our neighborhoods?

Well, in the Southern California scheme of things, it apparently did not make sense.  No members of the L.A. City Council made even the slightest effort to enact Jamiel's Law.  The family's pleas fell on their deaf ears, along with the mayor's.

In fact, some local illegal alien advocates have gone as far as to suggest that Jamiel Shaw was gunned down because of alleged gang ties, and thus, the law denying sanctuary city protections to violent undocumented gang members is inappropriate.

To these assertions, I have the following responses:

- I don't believe Jamiel Shaw was involved in gang activity.  Why?  Simple, gang members have criminal records including lots of arrests.  Not Jamiel Shaw, Jr., however.  No evidence, written, witness or otherwise, has ever been produced to illustrate that he had any run-ins with the law or local officers.

No one ever came up with a story of this kid being hassled by cops or getting questioned or cufffed.  What kind of a gang member or affiliate gets through 17 years near South Central Los Angeles without arrests, detentions and police contact reports?  The non-gang member type.  Ask any local criminal lawyer.

- If he was, who cares?  Under what circumstances is it OK for known gang members, who are illegally in the country, to be  released by police back onto our streets?  Is it acceptable when some of the Americans they cripple or kill have gang affiliations?

An affirmative answer to the last question is patently absurd.

If you're fed up with endless excuses being made as to why our state has to be filled with people who reside in our country unlawfully, and having to endure the consequences of their local presence, then I urge you to lend a hand to the Shaw Family.  In the near future, they will be making a large effort to place Jamiel's Law on the ballot in a local election.  They'd like voting Angelenos to decide whether or not sanctuary city policies should be extended to illegal alien gang members.

The Shaws are upstanding people who deserve far better from the elected officials who supposedly represent them, than what they got.  Let's see if we can help them out in some small way, so that L.A. is safer and they won't believe that their son's murder is no big deal to the people with whom they share this city.

For more information about Jamiel's Law, please visit

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Pablo's Obstacle

Pablo Alvarado is a man with a mission.  He wants to assist illegal aliens across the United States.  The more he can do to help them acclimate to, and navigate through, life in America, the happier he is.

Tom Tancredo?  Ira Mehlman?  Jan Brewer?  In terms of motivation, Mr. Alvarado is there with them every step of the way.  He just happens to be on the other end of the political spectrum, regarding the illegal immigration debate.

After helping launch The Institute for Popular Education of Southern California, an organization that runs half a dozen day labor sites for the City of Los Angeles, and provides innumerable types of assistance to legal and illegal immigrants, he went on to start the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Yes, there is such a thing.

In fact, the NDLON which is based in Los Angeles, has been around for a few years now.  The organization has more than sufficient funding, employees, a staff attorney, dozens of organizations with which it partners across the country, and an almost religious devotion to the idea of obtaining legalization for undocumented workers and their families.

Pablo Alvarado's National Day Laborer Organizing Network headquarters is located just outside the western the edge of MaCarthur Park, east of L.A.'s Koreatown.

Interested in purchasing bootleg DVD's of recently released movies or knock-off designer handbags?  At least some of the street vendors near MaCarthur Park should be able to hook you up.  Do you require forged identification documents? Take a stroll through MaCarthur Park.  That's what a crew from 60 Minutes did several years ago when seeking to illustrate the availability of fake drivers licenses and Social Security cards.

Are these NDLON affiliated or sponsored enterprises?  No.  Are these "businesses" relatively common features in America's largest sanctuary city, particularly in illegal alien neighborhoods?  Absolutely.

As you can imagine, Pablo Alvarado is no fan of the recent legislation enacted in Arizona.  His organization has sponsored a website urging resistance and opposition to the efforts to enhance enforcement directed at that state's undocumented population ( ).  Employees and other persons associated with the NDLON have participated in and orchestrated civil disobedience protests in response to SB 1070.

When interviewed about the new immigration enforcement policies in Arizona, Mr. Alvarado described them as "absolutely unacceptable to our community." And insofar as that assessment is concerned, I could not agree more.  He's absolutely right.  In fact, to families and neighborhoods saturated with illegal aliens, enforcement of employment, residency and local code regulations, makes the lives of the undocumented nearly impossible.

In a sanctuary city like Los Angeles, where law enforcement routinely looks the other way, people can continue to pour into the community and engage in all manner of law violations necessary to sustain the existence of most illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Citing fruit vendors at freeway onramps for failing to properly refrigerate and store produce, however, is not part of that equation.  Confiscating and arresting hot dog vendors preparing food at non-code compliant and unlicensed stands is also contrary to the running of a sanctuary city.  Further, checking the residency status of unlicensed drivers pulled over for moving violations is a near disaster for illegal aliens.  And of course, day laborer restrictions cripple the cash-driven economy of illegal alien saturated locations like Los Angeles, Houston and San Bernardino.

In fact, sizeable illegal alien communities rely on non-enforcement of all sorts of local and federal laws.  They simply can't get by without it.  Stripped of the ability to steal Social Security numbers, deal in forged ID's and engage in about a dozen other prohibited types of conduct, the whole system falls apart.

Therefore, we can expect Pablo Alvarado to fight like hell.  What has taken place in Arizona he cannot permit to continue, much less spread to other states. It's real simple.  The minute laws apply to illegal aliens in the same fashion as they do to everyday American citizens, his "community" ceases to exist.  Pablo Alvarado has spent much of his life assisting illegal aliens in the U.S.  And he has recently watched tens of thousands of the undocumented, along with their American-born children, flee the Copper State.  He knows that law enforcement works, and that, Pablo Alvarado simply cannot permit - not if his "community" is to survive in the U.S.

For more information about the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, log on to .

Friday, July 30, 2010

America In A Post SB 1070 Litigation World

Two questions:

1.  What will happen in the event Roe v. Wade (the foundational case law upholding a woman's right to an abortion under most circumstances) is overturned?

2.  What on Earth does #1, above, have to do with Arizona's attempt to pass tougher illegal immigration laws?

If Roe v. Wade is struck down by a conservative Supreme Court, will abortion services in every state simply cease to exist?  Most legal experts don't believe so.  The famous 1972 legal decision simply set forth circumstances under which a state may not interfere with a woman's decision to terminate a fetus she's carrying.  In reality, some states in the Bible Belt would like to outlaw abortion under most circumstances, and many, along the coasts, would not seriously consider passing such legislation.

In a post-Roe U.S., there would likely be "abortion states" and "no abortion states."  A young woman residing in Louisiana or the Dakotas might find herself traveling to California or New York to seek the medical service she feels is in her best interests.

The last two paragraphs answer Question One.  The answer to Question Two is, after Arizona's legal battles over SB 1070 are concluded, we might have a very similar situation to the one described above.  There will be "sanctuary" or "illegal alien" states, and there will be "rule of law" or "no illegal alien" states.

The Department of Justice's attorneys attempted to enjoin all the illegal immigration fighting legislation contained in SB 1070.  They didn't succeed. Certainly, key parts were temporarily suspended.  Indeed, those injunctions may become permanent upon further judicial review.  Several key provisions were left standing, however and, as this is being written, Maricopa County sweeps for illegal aliens are taking place.  Further, in anticipation of immigration law enforcement legislation being enacted, tens of thousands of the undocumented, along with their family members, have fled Arizona for friendlier terrain.

The bottom line is that states can engage in some fashion of immigration law enforcement.  No knowledgeable party has represented otherwise.  287(g) employee checks, day laborer restriction regulations, and a host of other programs or currently existing laws are available to states that want to deter the influx of the marginally educated and financially needy population that is unlawfully setting up house in their cities and villages.

In fact, the SB 1070 litigation is likely to better clarify what the limits are regarding the federal government's ability to prevent states from performing the immigration enforcement-related duties it has avoided.  Nonetheless, some of SB 1070 will remain standing, and with it, the ability to encourage illegal aliens to flee.

States already considering Arizona-type laws (Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Oklahoma ...) will have a blueprint after the Supreme Court has spoken, and may decide to follow suit.  And certainly, there are illegal alien saturated locations in the United States, such as California, New York and New Mexico, that are currently far too politically liberal to anticipate that they are the next locations where an "Arizona uprising" is likely to unfold.

Will most illegal aliens in "rule of law" states head home?  Probably not. Particularly when the economy improves.  They're likely to pack up for Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago and other locations with entrenched sanctuary policies.

In short, the illegal alien saturated states will become more so, and the less hospitable will reap much smaller and quieter populations of those "living in the shadows."  There'll essentially be Illegal Alien States and Non-Illegal Alien States.

Will California, Illinois and Texas exploit their abundant "resource" and become reborn manufacturing centers, fueled by sub-minimum wage laborers?  Will Arizona, Pennsylvania and Ohio flourish with improved public schools and greatly reduced tax burdens.  Hold on to your hats.  There's a reasonable chance we'll find out before the last of the baby-boomer generation reaches retirement age.