This video is a little old, but funny just the same. Glenn Beck is a hemorrhoid with eyes, Sean Hannity is a rip-off artist, and Limbaugh is the GM of talk radio.
When I saw this article I thought, I’m not going to like this. And sure enough, I didn’t. Its easy for a liberal to criticize a Border Patrol agent when they know only idealogical philosophies of immigration, integration, and border security. Likewise, it is just as easy for a neoconservative to condone invading a country a world away and they have nothing in the way of military experience. But whose side should we be on?
The border patrol agent who did what he thought was best for his team and himself? Or the border-jumper, who by even setting foot on U.S. soil, was breaking the law? Call me indifferent, backwards, or maybe obtuse, but this is the United States of America, the land of the free, not the land of the lawbreakers.
Last year Robert Rosas, a husband and father of two children, was shot in the head. He died. Responding to an incursion, Rosas was involved in a gunfire exchange. A Border Patrol agent was murdered and no one says a word. An illegal immigrant gets killed and everyone loses their minds. From now on scrutiny will come harsher on border patrol. Even if border patrol agents are slain in an attack.
Border killing a symbol of failed border policy
El Paso, Texas (CNN) — On Monday, a U.S. Border Patrol officer shot and killed a 14-year-old boy, Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, under one of the international bridges that connects or, these days, divides, El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua.
The boy lay dead on the Mexican side and the Border Patrol agent was removed from the scene by U.S. officials. American officials say it was a case of self-defense. Mexican authorities condemned the killing as the use of excessive force.
The facts are still coming out, but based on the English and the Spanish news reports, it is easy to see that the two sides do not agree on the particulars, much less on their interpretation.
To people across the two nations who see reports of the death on TV or in the papers, it’s a dramatic news story — a boy with a bullet in his head and an agent under investigation. But here at the border, the scene, the actors, the act — as if carefully choreographed, chosen and scripted — read like an up-close metaphor for everything that is broken with our border and with immigration.
One could say that that boy represents the aspirations of many Mexican people because — whether, as some reports have suggested, he intended to cross the border or as others have said, was being used as a decoy for others to make a run — the spot where he died is known as a place where people try to cross illegally in search of work and a better life.
At the same time, a dehumanization plays out at the border, where some lives are worth more than others — a calculus that usually runs along wealth lines, as those with money can afford visas to cross over the bridge and the poor have to stay out or risk their lives by crossing under it.
Additionally, the episode highlights the blunt instrument — barriers and increased militarization — that the United States has chosen to deal with the countries’ 2,000-mile border.
Thousands of Border Patrol agents have been added in the past few years alone, and last month President Obama promised to send an additional 1,200 National Guard troops. An ineffectual fence stretches in fits and starts along about 30 percent of the border; it has been breached thousands of times, according to the Government Accountability Office, and costs thousands more to patch.
More fences, more walls, more armored vehicles and the National Guard, more helicopters and drones, more sensors and infrared goggles, more cameras and guns, and thousands of increasingly armed agents are all part of the border’s choreography. From October 1 through May 31, Custom and Border Protection agents have used their firearms 31 times, a spokesman told CNN. In these circumstances, it is only a matter of time before more deaths occur.
In this incident lies the inability of the Mexican authorities to protect their people and the apparently questionable practices of our own Border Patrol, which, for one thing, sends bike-patrol officers to a well-known trouble spot and for another seems unclear about whether they can or cannot shoot across the borderline.
Neither side seems to believe that we deserve much more than these poorly pieced-together strategies, which reflect failures of both the Obama and the Calderón administrations. Mr. Calderón has been unable to face squarely the inequalities of his people: More than one in three Mexicans would leave the country and move in search of a better life, according to data collected for a Pew Global Attitudes Project report.
And the event speaks to the political inability of President Obama to coax Congress toward immigration reform — to include an orderly flow of low-skilled workers, easing the pressure on the border itself and thereby acknowledging the continued integration of the two countries’ labor markets.
Now a Border Patrol officer will have to live with the idea of having cut short the life of a young boy whose death, regardless of what he was doing at the bridge, means pain and sorrow for a family likely under the stress of 30 months of outrageous drug-related violence in Ciudad Juárez.
It is mindboggling to think that $50 billion a year in trade makes its way back and forth over the bridges that divide El Paso and Juárez, but bullets and rocks are now traded right under them.
So, we have to ask: Is that what we want the future of our border to be? An incident such as this should not spur us to finger pointing but to acknowledging that we have a problem; that we desperately need to sit down to order and shape our interactions and take joint control of our future.
If we forget or justify this incident, we will be condemning ourselves to many more like it.
It should come as no surprise in the hype of the anti-government rhetoric from the American people that Barack Obama would nominate someone that says government should have the right to censor free speech if it deems it offensive.
I’ve said it before that Republicans and Democrats only select someone to folow their agenda’s, not that of the U.S. Constitution. By the way, I was thinking the other day, can someone tell me what happened to Barack Obama’s position of being against NAFTA?
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is perfect in every way – perfect that is if you think the role of the highest judicial body in the United States is to ban free speech, indefinitely detain Americans without trial, resurrect command and control socialism, while urinating on everything the Constitution stands for.
We already discovered Kagan’s penchant for treating Americans as guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”
So under that definition, if you send money to a charity later linked with some nebulous terrorist group then you are financing Al-Qaeda and could be thrown in Gitmo or some other CIA black site never to be seen again. And this is the woman being forwarded to sit on a body that is supposed to safeguard civil liberties? That would be like hiring Charles Manson to coach the high school basketball team.
But it gets worse. Now we learn that Kagan thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?
In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).
“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.
Kagan also argued as recently as September that corporations shouldn’t be allowed to engage in free speech, and that the government can censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.
Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.
“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.
Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.
Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”
If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.
Christian Lander is a white guy. In fact, to be more precise, he is a Canadian-American white guy, and he is ashamed of it. Now when I say that he is ashamed of it, I am not saying the Mr. Lander wishes he were black or some other minority color, no, just like any other liberal who likes to live in the past, Christian Lander is guilt ridden from the actions in the past of the white majority.
Now like I have said in the past, I am not racist: slavery was wrong and white people fought for the freedom for blacks. Prohibiting the rights of women and peoples of other color the right to vote was wrong, and everything else to do with social injustice was wrong. But in todays world where women have the right to vote, hold office, and run for President of the United States, minorities have affirmative action on their side. And even with all of this, it is still not enough.
I’m not attempting to assert some sort of superiority through my whiteness; quite the opposite actually. Thanks to my liberal upbringing, I am imbued with the appropriate amount of guilt and shame about my ancestors and their actions in the New World.
Even in my home, I can’t offer a blanket to a nonwhite friend without the fear that they will look at me and say “no smallpox on this right?” A joke, but I still want to apologize.
I’m a white male. I belong to a group that pretty much always been able to own land and to vote. I’m more or less from the kind that grabbed power somewhere after the fall of Rome and never let go. In other words, I’m the kind of white guy that has never experienced any real oppression, writes Lander.
Okay, for starters, what in the hell does apologizing to someone who didn’t live through this, and what’s more, neither did you do in the first place? You didn’t do this, did you? If I were a person of color I would say, “seriously, dude, stop it, just shut up. Lets live in today.”
The fact that liberals cannot seem to grasp that we live in the twenty-first century and the not the nineteenth or even the twentieth centuries goes right over their heads. And as for buying homes and land, aren’t blacks doing that now?
But in addition to being white and having ancestors on the Mayflower, I’m also Canadian. Yes, I know that might actually make me more white than before, but it also technically makes me an immigrant to this country.
Still, I am loath to call myself an immigrant because I don’t want to demean the very real, very difficult challenges faced by immigrants to this country who have had to overcome differences in language, culture and distance from their families. I would say my biggest hardship has been trying to find Ketchup Chips.
But in the eyes of the U.S. government, I am an immigrant, the same as someone from China, Mexico or India. I would not be in this country had I not met my wife in graduate school, and I am thankful every day for her and the opportunity to live in the United States.
So when the census came around, I was absolutely thrilled. I’ve lived in the United States for eight years (four of them as a graduate student), and in that time, I have never been able to vote or access any public services. The census meant I was going to be counted, I was going to be a part of American history. A good part, not that blanket part.
I hate to tell you this, Christian, but you are still a native born Canadian, and thusly, still an immigrant, and thusly, still unable to run for the presidency. Sorry.
Under the Constitution the original intent for the Census was to conduct a “head count” in order to properly redistrict Congress.
The reality is that America has a long history of welcoming immigrants who will never be able to check that white box on the census, and unfortunately that means America also has a long history of discrimination against those people regardless of their status in the country. Just one example would be the treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II contrasted against the treatment of German-Americans.
But all of that was in the past right? Well, ask yourself this: Who is more likely to get pulled over and forced to show his papers in Arizona today? A first generation Canadian immigrant, or a 10th generation Mexican-American?
Regardless of what kind of liberal spin you want to put on this, the United States has immigration laws. And as a law, we are obligated to impose those laws, no matter of color. Just because we are the “land of the free” doesn’t mean people can come over here of their own free will undocumented.
What happened to the Japanese-Americans during WWII was disgraceful, and I am inclined to believe that the same will happen in the future, and it won’t be limited to immigrants. But what is wrong with requiring an immigrant to carry their verification on them?
White people aren’t the only ones who are racist…
What Christian Lander fails to mention, either by intent or by accident, is that white people are not the only racist ones. Just read this list of quotes:
“White folks was in caves while we was building empires… We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” — Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in “Democrats Do the Dumbest Things
“The white race is the cancer of human history.” — Susan Sontag
“There’s no great, white bigot; there’s just about 200 million little white bigots out there.” — USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux
The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.” — Louis Farrakhan who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002, City College audience in New York
“There are white n*ggers. I’ve seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time.” — Former Klansman and Current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate” in March of 2001
“Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” — Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights
“I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.” — Charles Barron, a New York city councilman at a reparations rally, 2002
With the vacancy of John Paul Stevens by reason of retirement, Washington and the mainstream media will be blasting our ears with reasons why a Republican needs selected or a Democrat. But isn’t there a question that isn’t getting asked? What about the Constitution? Shouldn’t they be selected based on how close they will follow the Constitution? Afterall, they do pledge to protect, defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States.
Given Ann Coulter’s laundry list of “nasty not niceness” comments in the past, can anyone really blame the University of Ottawa for sending her a warning of “hate speech”? They didn’t say “you cannot come here” or “stay away, you blankity-blank.” No, they just simply said no derogatory words to individuals or groups.
With Canada having some of the strongest hate speech laws in the world, Ann Coulter should know better than being her normal self. When the University of Ottawa doesn’t want her there, and her other speeches get canceled, suddenly Ann Coulter is the victim.
Claiming that her right to free speech in Canada has, in a way, been suspended, she goes on the defensive. Should someone remind her that she’s not in Kansas anymore? There’s a complete difference between the U.S. and Canada. But I guess that this sort of realization goes beyond her train of thought.
Now I am not saying that Ann Coulter should be nice, and I am most certainly not for hate speech laws (they are only a tool for tyranny), but c’mon, Ann. You cannot have a whole history of bigoted, judgemental comments (she said Timothy McVeigh should bomb the New York Times building, just a reminder), commenting on peoples personal appearance, and not expect some sort of blowback.
The same sort of free speech Ann Coulter endorses is the same free speech that liberals have a right to. But in Ann Coulter’s world (Kansas) this world just doesn’t exist.