Allan Wall devastates the smoke and mirrors that the leftist propaganda machine of the Los Angeles Times and the local television stations are attempting to use to fool you into believing that Americans oppose the Arizona laws designed to protect us from illegal aliens:
According to a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey "70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of [SB 1070], while just 23% oppose it."
The essence of SB 1070 is revolutionary because it’s so simple—let Arizona’s police enforce the law, which the federal government has manifestly failed to do. As law professor Kris Kobach, who helped draft the legislation points out, SB 1070 only prohibits actions that, under federal law, are already illegal.
So what’s all the fuss?
But Mexico’s leaders have gone berserk, throwing a hissy-fit of massive proportions. Various Mexican political factions usually at loggerheads are now united in the lowest common denominator of Mexican politics—to keep the U.S. border open. (Though, as always, opposition politicians still fault the government of Mexico for not meddling more in U.S. internal affairs!)
And, ominously, they’re being joined by all the Hispanic organizations in the U.S.
Given Mexico’s own immigration policies, of course, this attitude is supremely hypocritical. For one thing, Mexican law requires that all Mexican police enforce its immigration law.
But the Mexican elite is right to fear SB 1070. [PDF]If it is successful, it is likely to inspire other states to follow suit. Then Mexico’s safety valve may be in danger and its leaders might actually (gasp!) have to figure out ways to create jobs for its own people, rather than dumping its poor on the U.S. welfare system.
Here’s what Calderon said [my translations throughout]:
"We are going to act, we are acting and we will act more. Nobody can stay with his arms crossed in the face of the decisions that so clearly affect the fellow Mexicans …who are there and who will suffer the abuse of an unjust law, who have contributed to the development and prosperity of Arizona, inexplicable without the Mexicans [Mexican politicians commonly claim that the U.S. owes its economic success to Mexican immigrants] and least of all when in this case a law is set in motion that opens the doors to an unacceptable racial discrimination."[ Gobierno Federal no permanecerá indiferente ante Ley Arizona: FCH]
But Calderon sees a silver lining:
"We know the severity of this law, SB 1070, but I also think that such an adverse circumstance has to be a spur, it has to be one more incentive to fortify and to increase the unity and organization of the Mexicans in the United States and of the Mexicans in the United States with the Mexican government."
(Emphasis added. In other words, the Mexican president is openly fomenting a Fifth Column in the U.S.)
Calderon is counting on Obama:
"We value in all of its dimension the rejection that the President of the United States himself has made to the anti-immigrant legislation of Arizona. I agree precisely with President Obama that the [Mexican and U.S.] Federal Governments have the responsibility to impel strategies that deal with the migratory phenomenon from a comprehensive perspective [a.k.a. amnesty].
According to Sarukhan in El Universal:
"Mexico will utilize all the diplomatic, political and economic resources in its reach in response to the signing of this law."
I don’t doubt that! What’s scandalous is that our government has never reprimanded this over-the-top meddling perpetrated over the years by undiplomatic Mexican diplomats.
Good! Because Arizona, as a U.S. state, is not really supposed to have a "relationship" with Mexico anyway. According to Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution: "No State shall….enter into any Agreement or Compact … with a foreign Power..."
Espinosa even had the gall to say that "the government of Mexico recognizes the sovereign right of all countries to decide public policies that should apply in its territory". Nevertheless, "criminalization is not the way to resolve the phenomenon of undocumented immigration. The existence of cross-border labor markets demand comprehensive and long-range solutions. The co-responsibility, the confidence and the mutual respect should be the base to deal with the shared challenges in North America."
North American Union, anyone?
An article reporting Espinosa’s anti-1070 stance stated that "the embassy of Mexico and the five [!] consulates of Mexico in Arizona will be redoubling their actions of assistance, consular protection and legal consultation." [Meddling]
The Mexican Congress is also a hotbed of anti-Arizona rhetoric.
Creel predicts it will be vetoed by the U.S. Supreme Court. He had a message for the Mexicans in Arizona:
"You shouldn’t feel alone, that although we are distant, we are Mexicans committed to the cause of the migrants and of our fellow Mexicans"
Claimed the PRD’s Domingo Rodriguez: "The only way to reverse this racist and xenophobic law is pressuring commercially and economically the government and legislature of Arizona."
Carlos Navarrette, president of the Mexican Senate, blamed the law on the anti-Obama "Right", and asked Obama to annul the Arizona law
"It is time to make a great call to the channels of Mexican diplomacy to avoid that a new error is committed such as the wall and the persecution against those who contribute to the development of the United States."
Other governors piping up included Fernando Ortega (Campeche) , Andres Granier (Tabasco) and Ulises Ruiz (Oaxaca).
There’s even talk in Mexico of a boycott against Arizona. The leader of the PAN (Partido Acción Nacional) Cesar Nava, called on Mexicans to boycott visiting Arizona: "In protest of this legislation and in solidarity with our fellow Mexicans who live there and who can be unjustly detained due to this legislation."
Others talking of a boycott are Mexico’s interior secretary Fernando Gomez Mont and some Mexican congressional representatives.
I think they’re on the right track here! But if they’re really going to boycott Arizona, how about Mexico withholding its illegal workers and drug smugglers from Arizona! That’s a boycott we could all support!
Meanwhile, as Americans, we should visit Arizona and spend some tourist dollars there!
Of course, there’s nothing surprising about Mexico’s hysterical reaction to SB 1070. If we had national leaders who protected our sovereignty, it wouldn’t matter a hill of beans what Mexican leaders do or say about immigration.
But then again, if we had such leaders, SB 1070 would have never been necessary.
In the end more disturbing than Mexican mewling: the opposition from organized Hispanic pressure groups within the US.
Needless to say, the NCLR (“National Council of the Race”) which as I’ve pointed out bases its ideology on that of one-time Nazi sympathizer Jose Vasconcelos), is lambasting SB 1070. Janet Murguia, president and CEO of La Raza, said that "We will continue to work with our allies to find a solution to our broken immigration system at the federal level…."
"Broken immigration system"? How about our unenforced immigration system?
And, needless to say, MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund) denounced the law, and promised to "pursue all legal options to challenge" it.
MALDEF even had the gall the use the U.S. Constitution to justify its opposition:
"..Our Constitution envisions a unified nation under one federal set of immigration regulations to be adopted by Congress and implemented by the President. [The federal government has immigration regulations—it just won’t enforce them, which is why Arizona is doing this]. By rejecting that constitutional plan, Arizona’s enactment of SB 1070 is tantamount to a declaration of secession. [Oh, and “sanctuary cities” aren’t?] In response, the federal government must act to preserve our united nation by clearly stating that it will not cooperate in any way with the implementation of SB 1070—that it will not adjust or alter its immigration enforcement priorities to the detriment of other states simply to accommodate Arizona's most recent exercise in racial demagoguery."
LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), which at one time was a patriotic assimilationist organization, is "outraged by the unconstitutional immigration law".
One of the loudest Arizona opponents of SB 1070 is MEChA alumnus Rep. Raul Grijalva [Email him], who opposes secure voter ID as a nefarious Republican plot. American Patrol has a whole archive devoted to him.
Grijalva is ready to betray his own state to defeat the law, calling the rest of the country to boycott Arizona. Speaking to a rally of thousands in Arizona, Grijalva boasted that
"We’re going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we’re going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law."
What "power structure"? The government of Arizona? The Constitution of the United States? The historical American nation? All of the above?
Another “American” Latino opponent of SB 1070: Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union. As I’ve pointed out recently, Medina has openly stated that the reason he wants amnesty is that it will legalize millions of new leftist voters. That’s totally logical, if treasonous—what a shame the Republican Party hasn’t gotten the message.
Reading about the attacks on the Arizona law, I even ran across a new Treason Lobby group! It’s a Miami-based outfit called "Fraternidad Americana", an organization "that represents thousands of children estadunidenses whose parents have been deported".
Its Nicaraguan-born executive director is Nora Sandigo. She said that Arizona governor Jan Brewer "is reviving the mentality that Hitler had. This is incredible, draconian and we are going to see the police of Arizona exactly as the Jews saw the Nazis".
But there’s one small problem with the tired and worn-out Nazi analogy: Hitler wasn’t trying to keep the Jews from immigrating to the Third Reich. If illegal aliens would stay out of Arizona, the state would have no beef with them—now would it?
This hysterical and hypocritical attack on the people of the Grand Canyon state would not be complete without the participation of Chicago congressman Luis Gutierrez. Gutierrez is of Puerto Rican extraction, so immigration laws wouldn’t affect him anyway. But he’s long taken up the amnesty cause, presumably (and ominously) out of some sense of ethic solidarity.
Gutierrez is telling his Chicago constituents to boycott Arizona:
"Why would you want to contribute to a group of people that clearly are engaged in a discriminatory act?"
Another “American” of Puerto Rican ancestry slamming SB 1070: Evangelical leader Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. (I’m an Evangelical, by the way). Rodriguez really goes over the top on his blog :
"Today, Arizona stands as the state with the most xenophobic and nativist laws in the country. We need a multi-ethnic firewall against the extremists in our nation who desire to separate us rather than bring us together. Shame on you Arizona Republicans and shame on you Senator John McCain for endorsing the legislation."
"We call upon RNC Chairman Michael Steele to condemn this new law or Hispanic Americans will read the silence as a de facto endorsement and a purview of what will come if the GOP takes over Congress in 2010. Second, we call upon Attorney General Eric Holder to review this legislation since it’s clearly a violation of constitutionally protected civil rights. If you are Hispanic in Arizona, you just became a suspect and open to police harassment. We call upon all Latinos and immigrants who are citizens in Arizona to defend their constitutionally protected rights." [VDARE.COM links added].
Another Evangelical Hispanic, William Sanchez, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders Legal Defense Fund , which claims to represent 30,000 evangelical churches and 300 Arizona Latino pastors, opposes the law and is getting a federal lawsuit ready. [Immigration advocacy groups to challenge Arizona law, Washington Post, April 25, 2010]
Rich Latino celebrities too, are jumping on the bandwagon. George Lopez, Eva Longoria-Parker, Jessica Alba and Ricky Martin were busy tweeting against SB 1070.
Meanwhile back in Arizona, the "Arizona Hispanic Republicans" posted a statement attacking the law. It was posted on the Somos Republicans (We are Republicans) website and was entitled "Arizona Hispanic Republicans React to SB1070 and We View It As An Attack Against Our Civil Rights". (Some of the text of the document appears to be written by a non-native speaker of English).
The conveners of the "Latino Congreso", which is an umbrella organization of over 1000 Hispanic groups, including LULAC, MALDEF and others, "issued a unanimous rebuke of the anti-immigrant bill SB1070".[National Latino Congreso Outraged by passage of Arizona Immigration Bill, Apr 22, 2010]
I could go on and on. But it’s obvious that practically every U.S.-based Hispanic organization with any influence is bashing this Arizona law.
Not all Americans of Hispanic ancestry are Open Border fanatics. But it seems that virtually all influential Hispanics, famous Hispanics, organized Hispanics, and Americans who consider it important to self-identify as Hispanics support illegal immigration—or at least oppose doing anything about it, which amounts to the same thing.
Even rich, successful Hispanics, and organized Republican Hispanics, are attacking Arizona’s attempt to protect its own people from illegal immigration.
Don’t these vocal Hispanics, insofar as they self-identify as such, betray a deep-seated resentment of our country?
Is this going to continue as the Hispanic proportion of the population continues to grow in numbers and influence?
Before we import more Hispanics, shouldn’t we reconsider if we are going to lose all control over our immigration policy?
And is it really a good idea to encourage Hispanics to think of themselves as Hispanics rather than Americans?
Have we turned our immigration policy over to the Hispanic voting bloc?
Does the historical majority of our country have any say over our future—or is it all up to La Raza now?
The bottom line is: anybody who opposes SB 1070 is supporting illegal immigration—and the abolition of America.
These are the issue that SB 1070 is bringing into sharp relief.
Meanwhile, let’s do what we can to support the courageous leaders and citizens of the great state of Arizona.
They need our support.
Their struggle is our struggle.
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here;
In 1973 homosexual activists, mental health professionals, and sympathetic academics successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM).
Nearly forty years later, a small group of mental health professionals, academics, and researchers have gathered in Baltimore, Maryland, to discuss how to normalize pedophilia and remove it from APA's manual of mental disorders. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, whose book Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences exposed Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey's fraudulent sex science research, the Baltimore conference is part of the strategy used by mental health professionals to condition the public to accept pedophilia as normal.
"The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender's emotional state … [and] to empathize and sympathize. You don't change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning."—Dr. Judith Reisman
B4U-ACT, a political activist group made up of pedophiles and pro-pedophile mental health professionals, is proposing that pedophiles be involved in rewriting the APA's classification of pedophilia in the current draft of its DSM, which is scheduled for major revisions by 2013.
"The current revision of the DSM is full of inaccurate and misleading information on people who are attracted to children or adolescents. It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding. …We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about."—Howard Kline, B4U-ACT science director
B4U-ACT wants the current DSM classification rewritten because it ties pedophilia to criminal behavior. The group is lobbying to put pedophilia on the same plane with neuroses or clinical depression so that pedophiles will be counseled instead of imprisoned.
"The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison."—Dr. Judith Reisman
B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation and opposes treatment for pedophiles or pederasts who are sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
"No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood. … Studies of the effectiveness of reconditioning methods to change feelings of attraction … have found that they are no more effective with pedophilia or hebephilia [pederasty] than with homosexuality."—B4U-ACT Fact Sheet
Since the early 1970s, homosexual activist groups have been working aggressively behind the scenes to lower the age of sexual consent for adolescents and children and to destigmatize pederasty and pedophilia in society. The National Coalition of Gay Organizations called for a "repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent" in its 1972 "Gay Rights Platform."
When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked as an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1977, she co-authored a report with a feminist Brenda Feigen-Fasteau recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years old.
The Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision decriminalizing sodomy provided the groundwork for a leftist Court to eventually legalize pedophilia. If Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy keeps his word and retires in 2012 and the Ruler appoints his replacement, leftist judges will be in the majority on the Court.
In spite of public denials, homosexual rights activists have pushed the idea of sexual freedom in legislation and in the courts to gain access to adolescents and children.
"[O]ne of children's essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution. ... We have to have an emancipation proclamation for children."—Kate Millett, feminist writer and activist
Homosexuals are inexorably linked to pederasts and pedophiles, which is why they have been lobbying for so long behind the scenes to normalize pedophilia in society.
"The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality"—San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.
To impose a new sexual order, homosexual activists, mental health professionals, and academic sympathizers are feverishly working to declassify pedophilia as a mental disorder and add it to the growing list of acceptable sexual orientations. To normalize sex with children, they intend to abolish all consent laws.
"The ultimate goal of the gay liberation movement is the achievement of sexual freedom for all – not just equal rights for 'lesbians and gay men,' but also freedom of sexual expression for young people and children."—David Thorstad, founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and former president of New York's Gay Activists Alliance
Once pedophilia is declassified in the DSM as a mental disorder and the behavior is no longer considered immoral or criminal, homosexual lobbyists will pressure society's cultural institutions to destigmatize "consensual" sex between adults and children.
"What purpose does calling someone a 'pervert' or 'predator' serve anyway, other than to express contempt and hatred? … It certainly doesn’t protect children. I would urge all SO [sex offender]activists to listen to their own message: Stop buying into and promoting false stereotypes. Stop demonizing a whole class of people, and start learning the facts."—Dr. Fred S. Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic
A civilized society needs a moral code to survive, and when it loses moral clarity, human predators will fill the void and impose amoral laws to ensure their survival.
"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. … [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men. … The family unit … will be abolished. The family unit … must be eliminated. … All churches who [sic] condemn us will be closed. … We shall sodomize your sons … We shall seduce them in your schools … wherever men are with men together. Your sons will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."—Michael Swift, pseudonym used by the author of The Gay Manifesto
For more on the story, see ‘Time to Normalize Pedophilia’: Firsthand Report on B4U-ACT Conference, Conference aims to normalize pedophilia, and Academic conference seeks to normalize pedophilia.