reconquista continues

In case you are as yet unconvinced that one of the underlying motivations of the illegal alien protests is the taking back of the former Mexican territories, may I present this:



The criminals marching for their rights at a high school in California defiled the symbol of this country by subjigating it to the banner of a foreign nation on our own soil. And it gets worse and worse and worse.

political backlash 101

A few points about the recent "immigrant" protest marches in Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, et al:

• The participants are not calling for equal rights for immigrants, but amnesty for illegal aliens. Two entirely different issues.
  
• Any discussion you see about opposition to "immigration" or "immigrants" is a blatant lie. I have never heard anyone say that they are opposed to immigration. What some people are opposed to is lawlessness and flagrant violation of current immigration policy. Follow the law on the way in the door, and we welcome you with open arms. Break the law as your first act in this country, and you deserve nothing but the inside of a jail cell.
  
• As you can see in the top-right corner of this photo, some of those masquerading under the banner of "immigrant rights" are actually engaging in a "reconquista" of the southwestern United States. Believe it or not, it's a fact.
  
• Why are those allegedly rallying in support of equal rights for immigrants carrying so many flags of their native countries? If they want equal rights here, maybe they should be carrying American flags. Granted some are, but there are at least as many with Mexican flags. If they're so fond of their home country, I hear it's quite easy to get across the border. It's not a one way type of thing either.
  
• Why is it that half a million illegal aliens can gather openly in downtown Los Angeles without fear of arrest and deportation? Kinda like the town hall meeting in Houston last year in which illegal aliens shouted down city officials who were trying to allay their fears about alleged (though unfortunately not actual) INS sweeps. These people are growing more brazen by the day, and our elected officials and bureaucratic overloards are coddling them as if they were natural born citizens of this country. It's completely unacceptable.
  
• As my title suggests, these protests are going to do little to bring about the amnesty that they seek. Quite the contrary, every talk radio show I caught today was on this top to bottom. This is going to create a backlash that will blindside the protesters like nothing they've seen. It's just like what happened with the marriage rights debate in 2004. Because of all the people staging protests and flagrantly violating the law by granting null and void marriage contracts, they pissed the rest of the country off and helped pass 11 state constitutional amendments and laws ridigly defining marriage. While I support their cause (marriage, not alien amnesty), their tactics were counter-productive in the long run. These amnesty protests will probably help get more Republicans elected in November and make the proposed immigration reform in Congress even more strict (as it should be).
  
• Although I can't credit it as my own, I had to pass along an amusing phrase I heard on the radio today. Someone called in and identified himself as an "undocumented border patrol agent" since he had participated in the Minuteman project. *claps* Genius...and patriot.
  

thou shalt not pursue happiness

"If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."

That sentence should send chills down the spine of any clear-headed freedom-loving person. It is most commonly used as part of an illogical defense of invasive and oppressive security or safety measures implemented by either tyrannical or maternal governments (redundant, I know). We all know that my personal political philosophy is a unique balance between freedom and security, but when it comes to sacrificing basic civil liberties like free transit and association, I draw the line quite clearly in the sand.

Take for instance the recent crusade by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission that has resulted in the arrest of more than 2200 people for drinking in...get this...bars. Gosh, I feel so much safer now that my nanny state government is protecting me from all those people enjoying themselves. These people were not fighting in the streets or driving with blood alcohol above the legal limit, they were just acting like drunk people do. And who is to say that they weren't going to call a cab on their way back home, or have a sober friend drive them?
If the Imperial State Government is going to start arresting people who "may be a danger to themselves or others", how about going down to the local Planned Parenthood clinic and sterilizing all the single women looking for information on the morning after pill or abortions? That would certainly eliminate lots of potential "dangers to others".

full circle

Some commentators on the Right like to point out that others on the Left are so radical that they are (consciously or not) siding with terrorists against Western and American ideals. Well, I would like to point out a converse and infrequently discussed collusion between those on the Right and those who plot the destruction of Western civilization.
Andrew Sullivan pointed out a story about how some Christianists who rail against gay marriage have added a new facet to their argument - that terrorists don't like gay marriage, so if we do, we are attracting the wrath of terrorists.
To some of you, this might seem like a logical argument. To the rest of us, it is the most illogical argument possible. We do not live one way or another at the whim of those who wish us harm. We live how we choose. However, this appeasement argument has become more common among conservatives, not only on the gay marriage issue, but on media saturation as well. They complain about Hollywood and decadent movies and culture partly because it makes the terrorists hate us.
Well, my hypocritical friends, so do freedom of the press, freedom of religion, two-piece bathing suits (oh, sorry, those are evil too), and hickory smoked bacon, but we're not giving those up, are we? Only those issues on which you agree with Islamists we should give up.
I have a different idea. How about everytime a wackjob in a C4 vest points out something about us that he doesn't like, we do more of it? That would seem to be a more idealisticly sound and intellectually consistent proposition. We're not inviting more terrorist anger; they hate us already and forever simply because we exist. Responding to the reverse of their demands (as with things like Shock & Awe) is only going to make them more vocal and more visible. We want the psychos to stand up and tell us that they don't like what we do and that we should be destroyed because of it, so then we know where they are and can send Predators after them. Not that we have the balls to do that though...

judicial urination

Well, that didn't take long. I found a story that is so clear-cut and so obvious and yet has not been politically mangled by anyone I've heard.

Ruling on an appeal brought by a Berkeley man who was charged with cocaine possession after an officer stopped him mid-pitstop, the Court of the Appeal for the Second District said Wednesday that public urination is a crime that justified the officer's search of the man's pockets.
"Urination on or near a busy commercial street interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of both life and property," Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline wrote in an opinion that concluded public peeing qualified as "a public nuisance."
"The sight and smell of urine are vile and offensive, and those who use the public streets and sidewalks cannot be freely subjected to such unpleasantness," Kline continued.

If anyone wants to whine about judicial activism, here's your...um...golden opportunity. This justice decided that even though there is no public urination law either in the area or state where this arrest occured, he was going to pretend that there was one so that the arresting officer had a legitimate reason to search the defendant. Sure, public urination may be "vile and offensive" but if the California legislature or Oakland city council can not be bothered to make it illegal, then, Mr Presiding Justice, it's none of your fucking business.

political boredom

So, you may be wondering why I haven't posted anything in quite a while...

*crickets*chirping*

Well, I'm bored. I'm bored with the entire state of politics and government and society lately. Nothing grabs my attention. Well, I take that back. Plenty grabs my attention, but as soon as it does, it gets so instantly turned into partisan rancor that any interest I may have had gets quickly quelled. Yawn. Dubai Ports World pulls out of port terminal deal, and potentially many other US industries. Yawn. Tom Delay wins 63% in primary. Yawn. The economy is roaring. Yawn. Abortion is illegal in South Dakota. Yawn. It's just all so...done.
Maybe I need to read another Ayn Rand book.

Arabian whoppers

Recently everyone's favorite vice president-turned-insane rambling lunatic thought it would be fun to take a trip to Saudi Arabia and tell everyone that the United States has been scooping up scores of Arabs amongst its population, interning them, and torturing them without due process. This claim is only hilarious because it's the exact opposite of the truth. Since the Day We Woke Up, our federal government has been implementing as many policies as it can to ensure that no two Arabs are looked at in the same way, regardless of potential threats.
To add an additional layer of irony onto Vice President Gore's statements, the current president is planning to allow an Arab company to purchase leasing rights in several of our seaports. So not only are we not interning Arabs in this country, we are giving them control of some of our infrastructure.