A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
BY ALFRED WEST
(AKA THE SOVEREIGN EDITOR).
Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Vicente Fox Wants Orderly System to Move Mexicans into U.S.
I have no idea why this man thinks his statements can have any weight in persuading us to enact an immigration reform law that conforms to the desires of the Mexican political elite. In a recent speech, Mexican President Vicente Fox said the following:
Building a wall on the border is not the answer to illegal immigration into the United States. . . "Since the beginning of my administration, the government of Mexico has promoted the establishment of a new system that regulates the movement of people across our border in a manner which is legal, safe and orderly."(1)
As I pointed out in an earlier article, The Mexican government has no business telling us how to treat immigrants. They do horrible things to their own illegal immigrants and their legal ones don't fare too much better, in my opinion.(2) Vicente Fox needs to get his own house in order before he starts coming over and telling us how to run ours. Oh, and by the way, exporting Mexico's problems to the U.S. is not an acceptable way to get your house in order, Mr. Fox, and I'll kindly thank you to stop this instant.
If one wants to know Mr. Fox's true motive behind his stance on immigration, consider that "[m]oney sent back by Mexican workers in the US is one of the principal sources of revenue for the Mexican economy."(3)
Don't Forget About the Rising Dragon of China
I actually have the sources to write a more informative article on this topic, but I am short of time, so I'll just draw your attention to the BBC article:
China's is rapidly extending its military reach and could pose a threat across Asia, a Pentagon report warns.
It says Beijing has retained its focus on Taiwan -- but increased spending on aircraft, ships and missiles means it could project power further afield.(1)
Keep in mind that the so-called "People's Republic" of China has never for once respected the self-evident rights to life, liberty, and the opportunity to acquire and retain property. We ought not be trading with them. It is our buying of Chinese goods that is allowing them to build up their military might, which they have promised to use in the conquest of Taiwan, a sovereign and free state.
The Mexican State is Hypocritical -- Ignore Them
The people running the Mexican government are hypocrites They insist that illegal immigrants from Mexico be accorded the same treatment as United States nationals, and even threaten to sue if American civilians "break the law" while attempting to discourage Mexicans from coming across the border without permission.(1) Mexican President Vicente Fox has even stated that it is his intention to use international law and United States law to ensure that American civilian organizations dedicated to stopping illegal immigration "will not have any opportunity to progress."(2) Additionally, the Mexican government actually published a 36 page, comic-book-style "Guide for the Mexican Migrant."(3) "Using color drawings and simple text, the booklets warn migrants of the dangers of crossing in desert and mountain areas. They include basic dos and don'ts, such as adding salt to water to avoid dehydration and never to resist arrest or carry drugs."(4)
From all of this, the a neutral observer might get the impression that the Mexican government is trying to encourage illegal immigration to the United States. And that being the case, why should we let anything the Mexican government says have an impact on our policy decisions where immigration is concerned? Mexicans wax philosophical about human rights where illegal Mexican immigrants are concerned, but don't think for a minute that anything they say on this issue reflects what they really think about human rights and illegal immigration. They just take that position in relation to the United States to solve some political , economic, or social problem in their own country (if they gained from keeping people from leaving their country illegally, the principle of rational self interest dictates that they would do so).
At this point, I think I should reiterate something about how Americans feel about immigration. No one should confuse our desire that that illegal immigration be stopped, and that immigrants speak English and learn our customs with xenophobia, racism, or anti-immigration feelings in general. Contrary to popular belief (at least a belief held by pro-illegal immigration factions in the press, academia, the government, and the international community), we actually like immigrants. Immigrants can achieve great things in these United States -- even become the governor of a state. We do, however, have certain rules that immigrants must follow to enter this country and become citizens. And We the People get very annoyed when these rules aren't followed. Honestly, how would you feel if some foreigners moved into your house, told you that they had a right to be there, and also expected you to learn their language in order to make their life easier. That is exactly how we feel when millions of Spanish-speakers come to the United States, form Spanish-speaking communities, generally refuse to assimilate, and then demand that our government provide services in their language.(5) Don't confuse our natural repugnance at this extremely rude behavior with some sort of xenophobia, because it is nothing of the kind. If an Irishman was squatting on your lawn and wouldn't leave, and the government wouldn't do anything about it (except denounce you as a vigilante if you tried to do anything), your natural anger at the Irishman for his behavior and at the government for aiding and abetting that behavior does not mean you hate, or fear the Irish.
If you want to see what xenophobia and hatred of immigrants looks like, turn your attention to Mexico. The Associated Press has run a story about exactly how the Mexican government treats immigrants to that country -- and it isn't pretty, even if one is a legal immigrant:
In Mexico, nonnatives are banned from thousands of jobs.
They can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for natives.
Since at least 2003, the Mexican government has encouraged cities to ban nonnatives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.(6)
And that's how the legal ones are treated. An illegal immigrant to Mexico can forget about being treated as a human being:
Many of the illegals in Mexico, who emigrate from Central and South America, complain of "double dangers" of extortion by Mexican authorities and robbery and killings by organized gangs.
The State Department's Human Rights Practices report, released only last month, cites abuses at all levels of the Mexican government, and charges that Mexican police and immigration officials not only violate the rights of illegal immigrants, but traffic in illegal aliens.(7)
I think that Mexico should be silent on our treatment of illegal aliens. The People of these United States want them detained and then deported to their country of origin. Mexico treats them as feral livestock. Anyone who gives credence to Mexico's demands regarding our immigration policy isn't paying attention. Any United States Senator or Representative who listens to Mexico should promptly be booted from office. We need to take special note of which Congress-critters are Mexican lackeys and remind everyone of it next time they come up for re-election.
Congress Finally Listens to the People -- English to Become Official Language
I honestly didn't believe that the Senate had it in them. Typically, our Congress-critters are of a spineless variety that shy away from taking any sort of definitive action on any proposal aimed at protecting the borders, language, and culture of these United States. That's why I was thrilled to hear that "the Senate Thursday voted to make English the national language of the United States."(1) Additionally, "[a]lthough the immigration bill passed by the House last year doesn't have a similar provision, there is a separate "official English" bill in the House with strong support."(2) So it looks like that English, after many, many years of a multicultural onslaught, will be the official language of these United States.
If both Houses of Congress are successful in making this into a law, it will have the effect of finally killing the anti-American Executive Order 13166, issued in 2000 by one William Jefferson Clinton. In a nutshell, that executive order was issued to ensure that We the People pay to accommodate people who come here to live (and use government services) in their native language.(3)
I am absolutely fed up with this idea that American language and culture has no value. The people who live in the United States happen to speak English. Newcomers ought, according to the conventions governing such situations, learn that language. It is impolite not to. I, for example, would not dream of living in Japan without learning Japanese. In the case of the Spanish-speaking immigrants, what is their incentive to learn English if they come here in such great numbers that they can establish numerous non-English speaking communities across the nation, can get Spanish radio broadcasts, television programming, and even government services in Spanish? None. And the truth is, I don't care about Spanish radio and television. I don't pay for that. I do pay for the government to provide services in their language; and that must stop, now.
And it looks like it will stop. Because I am not the only one who is sick and tired of our government allowing such institutional assaults on American language and culture. Apparently, so many of us are so fed up with Spanish-speakers colonizing our country and not assimilating that Senators universally recognize that "it would be 'political suicide' to appear to not support English-language dominance in the United States."(4) It is exceedingly good that enough of us are outraged enough to scare Congress into passing a law like this. If we allow solely Spanish-speaking communities to persist, we will become a bi-lingual society.(5) A bi-lingual society (with a few rare exceptions like Switzerland) is naturally balkanized, and a balkanized society is easier for an entrenched political class to control because the People can be turned against themselves more easily. A People that speak one language can organize and unite against government oppression -- and this is a political tradition I hope we can preserve in this country.
As a final note, I would like to address something before it gets out of hand. There is the perception "that attacking immigrants for speaking Spanish is veiled racism. "(6) It is nothing of the kind. Racism is literally the belief that one race is superior to, and should rule another. Wanting someone to speak your language so that they may be integrated into your society is not racism. Anyone who says otherwise should have their motives examined. My motive in supporting English-only is very straightforward. I would like the United States remain one nation.
At what point did nationalism become something to be condemned? Or, to put it another way, why are illegal immigrants who refuse to assimilate into American culture allowed to display their own nationalism without criticism? And why is it perceived as somehow wrong for Americans to react to that by displaying their own nationalism? Maybe this backwards way the media has of looking at things will change soon. The People have been heard by Congress. Maybe the mainstream media will finally wake up and realize that Americans are sick and tired of being treated as quaint or insular when they express any nationalist sentiments. If the mainstream media doesn't stop treating the academic view that Americans need to embrace every culture but their own (and, in fact, that it is somehow wrong to want to embrace American culture) as a centrist view, and the desire to defend American cultural heritage from attempts to radically change it as fringe, they will become irrelevant to We the People. We are sick and tired of being told that it is wrong to want a strong, English-speaking, self-sufficient America. To those of you who actively work toward a weak, multi-lingual, internationally dependent America, your day is over. We the People are waking up, and woe unto you if you continue to stand in our way.
______________________________ (1) James, Frank. "Senate votes to make English the national language of the U.S." (Chicago Tribune) The Mercury News, Politics & Government, 2006 May 18, paragraph 1, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14614255.htm. (2) Ibid. at paragraph 9. (3) United States Department of Justice. "Overview of Executive Order 13166," Civil Rights Division, Coordination and Review Section, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm (4) James at paragraph 28. (5) see: Bernstein, Robert. "Hispanic Population Passes 40 Million, Census Bureau Reports," U.S. Census Bureau News, 2005 June 9, paragraphs 1 & 2, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/005164.html"The nation's Hispanic population reached 41.3 million as of July 1, 2004, according to national estimates by race, Hispanic origin and age released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Hispanics, who may be of any race, accounted for about one-half of the national population growth of 2.9 million between July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2004. The Hispanic growth rate of 3.6 percent over the 12-month period was more than three times that of the total population (1.0 percent)." And these are the legal settlers. For your information, as of May 2006, the Census Bureau puts the total population at 298,773,587 (U.S. Census Bureau. "U.S. and World Population Clocks - POPClocks," http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html). (6) Hoffman, Nathaniel. "English angst aggravates immigration debate," Costa Contra Times, paragraph 9, http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/14613612.htm.
More on the Unprovoked Killing of Dr. Culosi by Virginia Police
It has been some several weeks since I first talked about the shooting death of Dr. Salvatore Culosi by Deval V. Bullock.(1) In that time, my outrage has not diminished. At least once a week, I mention the incident to someone new, and in all cases it is the first time they have heard of it. I would really like to know why a clear act of aggression by the State against a citizen isn't the topic of constant national debate. Isn't that why the first amendment exists? So we can publish our grievances (actual or potential) against the State? In any event, I have come across some new information about this case. It turns out that the investigating officer, Fairfax police detective David J. Baucom, age 35, is also culpable in the shooting death of Dr. Culosi.
I don't know what the impetus was for Mr. Baucom to begin investigating Dr. Culosi, but the fact is that the amount of money wagered among the optometrist and his friends was far below the minimum amount under which someone could be charged under Virginia law with "conducting an illegal gambling operation."(2) Mr. Baucom had to infiltrate Dr. Culosi's group of friends and work on the optometrist for at least three months before he finally agreed to a wager involving $2000, which the smallest amount the state could charge him for.(3) And so it happened that "[o]n January 24 of this year, Detective Baucom assembled the Fairfax County SWAT team, and marched off to Culosi's home to arrest him."(4) What happened next is telling.
According to press accounts, police affidavits, and the resulting investigation by the Fairfax prosecutor's office, Baucom called Culosi that evening, and told him he'd be by to collect his winnings. With the SWAT team at the ready just behind him, Baucom waited outside Culosi's home in an SUV. . .Culosi emerged from the doorway, clad only in a t-shirt and jeans.(6)
Keep in mind that Mr. Baucom had "befriended" Dr. Culosi (and by "befriend", I really mean "lied to him about his actual purpose for approaching him so he could get the optometrist to do something that the detective could arrest him for). He had befriended him, and had gotten to know him over a period of several months. In other words, Mr. Baucom was in a position to know exactly what sort of person Dr. Culosi was. Yet, when it was time to make the arrest, he felt so threatened by Dr. Culosi that he "gave the sign for two SWAT officers to move in."(6) Mr. Baucom apparently thought that the t-shirt clad, unarmed man was such a grave threat that the SWAT team should be deployed. In any case, what happened next is already a matter of public record. SWAT officer Deval V. Bullock drew his .45-caliber H&K handgun, pointed it at Dr. Culosi, shouted "police" and then proceeded to shoot and kill him.(7) Typically, the language used to describe what happened is intended to divorce Mr. Bullock from the actual shooting.
For example, Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. likes to say that "[i]n the course of bringing his weapon up, it discharged. [Mr. Bullock] has no real explanation how."(8) Mr. Horan, and anyone who has any idea how guns work, should know exactly how the handgun discharged. Guns are inanimate objects. Inanimate objects cannot perform actions. A discharge is an action. Guns, therefore cannot discharge. The actor who discharged the handgun was Deval V. Bullock. The handgun was in his charge. He was responsible for keeping it, maintaining it, and using it. According to Mr. Horan, Mr. Bullock's "gun was tested and was not at fault."(9) This means that the handgun was, in a mechanical sense, working exactly as it was supposed to. Mr. Bullock actually had to point the weapon at Dr. Culosi and pull the trigger in order to shoot and kill him. This is exactly what happened. That he is not being charged is monstrous.
But this vile situation doesn't end with the shooting death of Dr. Culosi. Mr. Baucom has continued an aggressive -- and perhaps malicious -- investigation into the optometrist's gambling practices, "to the point of calling friends and acquaintances he'd gathered from the dead man's cell phone."(10) The detective even called Dr. Culosi's brother-in-law, Steve Gulley, and asked, using deliberately accusatory phrasing, "How much are you into Sal for?"(11) Mr. Gulley got the impression that "police were 'trying to intimidate people' who may assist Culosi's family in a civil suit against the county."(12) This is also the impression held by Ben DiMuro, the Culosi family's attorney.(13)
The most recent news to come out of all of this is good, though:
FBI investigators have opened a preliminary investigation into the case. So far, they have collected the case's file from the county police department and have spoken with key officials. A full FBI investigation may be forthcoming, though it hinges on advice from Justice Department legal counsel.(14)
Now, I do not necessarily agree with the idea that the FBI should have jurisdiction over an action that took place within a state and with no interstate elements, but in this case, there is a clear instance of a man being killed by state authorities, and no redress being granted by that state. Here, FBI intervention could serve a beneficial end. And it would be nice to see them going after someone for an actual harm they committed against another.
Something needs to be done about this. The police need to learn that they cannot go around shooting people. A possible way that ordinary Americans can show their outrage is through police benevolence associations. When receiving a call asking for money, concerned Americans can ask whether any of the money they donate could ever go to the families of David J. Baucom or Deval V. Bullock of Fairfax County, Virginia. If the answer is yes, a refusal to donate accompanied with an explanation detailing the egregious actions of these two officers and the fact that the police in general seem to support them ought to shine some light on the situation. If the actions of a few cops start to really hurt all of them, they may start to police themselves. But as long as We the People keep letting the police act with impunity, they will continue to do just that.
"If you love wealth more than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest
lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."