UN-Acceptable Censorship: The United Nations Tries to Outlaw Criticism of Islam

UN-Acceptable Censorship: The United Nations

Tries to Outlaw Criticism of Islam

More news stories on Censorship

Floyd Abrams, New York Daily News, January 14, 2009

{snip}

It is difficult to believe that in the 21st century anyone would seriously propose that conduct such as Luther’s should be deemed illegal. But a few weeks ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a giant step in that direction. It adopted—for the fourth straight year—a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the “defamation” of religion. Spurred by the Danish cartoons of 2005, some of which portrayed the Prophet Muhammed in a manner deemed offensive by the OIC, the resolution was opposed by the United States, most European nations, Japan, India and a number of other nations.

Nonetheless, it has now been adopted.

{snip}

While relevant, the American experience is hardly the most relevant one. Far more telling is the distressing experience of nations that supported the OIC resolution. There was the student in one Islamic nation who was sentenced to death in January 2008 for distributing supposedly blasphemous material regarding the role of women in Islamic society. There was the teacher in another Islamic nation who was sentenced to jail for “insulting religion” after naming a class teddy bear “Mohammad” at the request of a 7-year-old with the same name. And there was the tragic case of the 22-year-old Hindu who, as reported by the European Centre for Law and Justice, was beaten to death by three of his fellow workers at a factory for allegedly committing blasphemy (a crime punishable by death); the workers were arrested and charged not with murder but with failing to inform the police that blasphemy was underway.

From the very first OIC resolution to the current one there has never been any ambiguity about its purpose: to intimidate those who might criticize Islam. As phrased in the original OIC resolution introduced by Pakistan in 1999, Islam was “frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.” But it is a fact that however one may debate about whether “Islam” bears any responsibility for acts of terrorism ranging from the murderous 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the more recent massacre in Mumbai, terrible acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam. It is also the case that repeated human rights violations, including female genital mutilation, also have occurred in the name of Islam.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on January 14, 2009)

Previous story Next Story Post a Comment Send This Page Search

---

Comments

This is because the United Nations membership is overrun by Islamic countries.

The Judeo/Christian West must withdraw from this insidious setup and form its own United Nations.

I see the Islamic OIC is as usual, practicing the old Al Takiyya again. They must be stopped one way or another.

Incidently, when is the international community going to insist that the Islamic world return all the lands Muslims have stolen from the many natives of non-Muslim religions and cultures over the last fourteen hundred years. They have no rights whatsoever to any of them. After all, they stole them by massacre and enslavement to death of the rightful owners.

If they refuse then they shall have to be forced to.

Posted by A Swain at 6:58 PM on January 14

---

This is because Islamic countries, secular but pro-Islamic countries, and countries that aren’t Islamic but despise whites for reasons of racial jealousy, outnumber first-world countries in the UN. US out of UN, and vice versa.

Posted by Question Diversity at 7:25 PM on January 14

---

This has always been the problem: How to have a tent so large (United Nations) that all nations could fit inside. NATO has already found out the obvious problems and challenges of including nations outside of Western Europe. The EU is fast discovering limitations they never expected.

How is it possible to combine Christian, democratic, free, republican nations with nations that are opposed to everything we stand for?

Answer: only by complete and unconditional surrender. Either they have to surrender or we do, and they will never surrender.

Like the old cigarette commercial, I had “rather fight than switch.”

Posted by Memphomaniac at 7:40 PM on January 14

---

“And there was the tragic case of the 22-year-old Hindu who, as reported by the European Centre for Law and Justice, was beaten to death by three of his fellow workers at a factory for allegedly committing blasphemy (a crime punishable by death); the workers were arrested and charged not with murder but with failing to inform the police that blasphemy was underway.”

The one thing that I must state with both a clear conscious and wholehearted determination, is that I see why the “Religion of Peace” is so favored by the multicultural elites in the West. If there is anything that not only reflects their perverted values, but also provides them with some marginal cover while wallowing in them, it is Islam. It is one slightly more sophisticated cult of terrorism and death, engaging in a symbiosis with a mildly more primitive one.

Sort of like the bipedal pigs on the Animal Farm finding common cause with some wild boars who maul the sheep, in a retelling of that Orwellian tale!

As always, God help us all!!!

Posted by John PM at 9:48 PM on January 14

---

One of the most precious, and perhaps most the central, pillars of Western civilization — freedom of thought, opinion, and expression — is under attack by anti-Western religious fanatics (and others with their own self-serving agendas). These anti-Westerners envy the wealth and technology of the West – even enjoy the welfare systems, and the multiple inventions – but do not understand the source from which all of this comes.

We did not just get these benefits, this level of civilization, from out of nowhere. We had to struggle painfully upward from out of the Dark Ages to get them. Our people fought many terrible wars – religious wars, civil wars, revolutions – we suffered terrible persecutions and oppression, over centuries, before we were finally able to speak and write our opinions without being tried for heresy…. without living in fear of the gallows or the stake.

Even now, these precious, fragile, liberties are being gnawed at once again, under the pressure of non-westerners, non-Europeans, who are living in our midst … uncomprehending people who relish the eggs from the golden goose, but who do not appreciate the goose. In fact, while they like the eggs, they despise the goose intensely. That’s utterly illogical, but they don’t see the irony. And if need be, the more fanatical among them would be willing to go back to living in the 8th century, dragging everyone else along with them.

Appeasing such fanatics does not work. They are mentally ill. They have got to be confronted and thwarted very firmly and not allowed to spread their illness. Let them wallow in backwardness and superstition in their own countries, if they so wish, but they must be granted no right to impose any of their lunacy upon anyone else.

Posted by ghw at 11:07 PM on January 14

---

Yet another absurdity that follows from the “all peoples are equal” false axiom. And you would thing that one proof by contradiction is enough to establish its falsehood.

Posted by A Reader at 5:13 AM on January 15

---

Definition: “Hate Speech”… publicly stating ANYTHING about any minority which members of that minority would prefer not have the general public become aware of. Like the propensity for Blacks and Mexicans to commit crimes far out of proportion to their actual numbers. Like the Muslim religion encouraging violent action against ANY non-Muslim.

Posted by Fed Up at 7:42 AM on January 15

---

I guess with this new “law”(is it a law?) the following people would be arrested:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781

It’s well worth the time to watch that “horror film”.

Posted by Silvia at 4:24 PM on January 15

---

“This is because the United Nations membership is overrun by Islamic countries.” …..A.Swain

Another part of the problem (with the UN) is that every tiny island or speck of territory — such as Barbados, Antigua, Tonga, Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. are admitted and considered as a “nation” equivalent to the United States. This is patently absurd. But if it is to be so, then each one of our 50 states should be counted separately so as to give some reasonable balance. For populous countries, such as Germany or Japan, to be given only the same voice as Grenada or the Bahamas is beyond ridiculous.

Posted by Anonymous at 5:07 PM on January 15

---

Can anyone on this blog give me one credible reason that we should remain a member of the U.N.? It’s not a rhetorical question. I really do wonder, and I seek an answer from those more politically astute than me.

Posted by Lex Concord at 5:11 PM on January 15

---

I say outlaw the criticism of whites and of the U.S. Make it a law because I said so! (if that’s the way they want to play)

Posted by 24/7 at 8:23 PM on January 15

Race Is Still An Issue for America

More news stories on Black Myths

Susan Glisson, CNN, January 14, 2009

{snip}

{snip} [The] election of Barack Obama did not end the America’s problems with race.

{snip}

The U.S. Census notes that the United States will no longer have a white majority by 2050. Social Security payments for an aging white population will have to be paid by an increasingly brown and black work force, which may resent such support.

Clashes over immigration and tensions between blacks and Latinos suggest that we have much work to do to fulfill the vision of “a more perfect union.”

{snip}

This brings us to another stumbling block on the road to creating a more perfect union. We are quick to laud leaders such as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy for their contributions, which were very significant. But much of what we have been taught about those contributions is a myth perpetuated by the most egregious shortcoming in teaching history: the savior narrative.

We have all been told that a charismatic leader transformed the South and brought everyone to freedom. For example, everyone knows the story of Rosa Parks. Most students are taught that Rosa Parks was simply just too tired to get up from her seat on the bus that day in Montgomery, Alabama. She was a simple, brave woman who answered the call to stand—in this case, sit—for the Greater Good.

It’s a great story.

The reality, however, goes something like this:

In the spring of 1955, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin was arrested for violating the segregation ordinance of Montgomery, Alabama. A group of local activists debated using her case to challenge segregation on buses there but decided to wait for a more appropriate case.

That opportunity came in December of that year, when a secretary of the local NAACP, who had been attending leadership and organizing training sessions at Highlander Folk School, chose to remain in her bus seat with the goal of being arrested, allowing the Montgomery group to launch their challenge to the segregation code. That woman was Rosa Parks.

{snip}

The savior myth suggests that social change occurs only from a charismatic leader; and that in the absence of such a leader, we cannot accomplish social change on our own. The opposite and more accurate characterization is a more useful model for change.

{snip}

The reality of social change during the civil rights period is more complicated and more accessible than any savior myth. Social change begins from the bottom up, with everyday people joining together to make a change. They learn the necessary tools for investigation as well as for resolving conflicts in a nonviolent fashion and for engaging the community.

These first steps are followed by careful analysis of the problems and negotiation with stakeholders who can make a difference. Massive protests are actually a final step when all previous work has failed, not a first-strike response. In the absence of such work on the ground, massive protests fail.

{snip}

[Editor’s Note: Susan Glisson is director of the William Winter Institute for Racial Reconciliation, based at the University of Mississippi.]

Original article

(Posted on January 14, 2009)

---

Comments

My guess is they did not have the benefit of this article when the massive protest was organized at Jena, Louisiana.

Posted by Memphomaniac at 7:21 PM on January 14

---

Already they’re circling the wagons and now lowering their expectations about how a ‘black’ President can transform black Americans.

We were told that he’d be a great role model and generations of black kids would now strive to be their best.

Nothing in or about the black community is going to change other than louder racial demands. And when Obama fails to deliver, they have their ready-made excuse: he’s not black enough.

Posted by sbuffalonative at 7:29 PM on January 14

---

Miss Glisson admits that most libs and neocons will not:

(1) A brown America in 2050 will resent paying FICA taxes to maintain old gringos. The logical deduction is that the brown-run American government will repeal Social Security and Medicare. This is why neocons who call for open borders to “solve social security” don’t know beans from shinola.

(2) Rosa Parks was not an innocent seamstress that decided to take action, but a long time well-trained NAACP operative.

Posted by Question Diversity at 7:29 PM on January 14

---

“Racial myths and charismatic leaders not the solution to race problems”

Because there is no ESTABLISHMENT SOLUTION to race problems, and there never will be short of behavorist B.F. Skinners solutions in books like Walden Two and Beyond Freedom and Dignity which call for changing brains with operant conditioning for the “good” of society. He wanted to create a kind of utopia, without strife and social problems. To be fair to Skinner, however, he wanted this in a decentralized society, because he knew his methods couldn’t be trusted to big centralized governments.

Posted by Bobby at 8:11 PM on January 14

---

If the situation was reversed, if a colored people had been almost 90% of the population in 1950, do you think they would allow White immigration to turn them into a minority? Not a chance.

Posted by Anonymous at 9:16 PM on January 14

---

Of course Obama’s election doesn’t mean a “post-racial” America.

Even if all prejudice disappeared tomorrow morning the Racism Industry (NAACP, SPLC, ADL, La Raza, etc.) would never admit it as they’re raking in million$ from gullible fools.

Posted by Madison Grant at 10:08 PM on January 14

---

To paraphrase an old episode of “Lou Grant:” “Of course she sees racial problems everywhere. If there are no racial problems, she’s out of a job.”

Posted by Tony S at 12:08 AM on January 15

---

What a hoot.

“The U.S. Census notes that the United States will no longer have a white majority by 2050. Social Security payments for an aging white population will have to be paid by an increasingly brown and black work force, which may resent such support.”

Support? Ha ha, only Whites seem to be able to “support” more than their own race. The real problem is that PEOPLE ARE THE ECONOMY and “black and brown” people cannot (thanks to evolution) build/run/maintain a White society.

Sorry diversitoids, but your slogan of “place not race” is the wrong way round.

Posted by Harry at 5:13 AM on January 15

---

[The] election of Barack Obama did not end the America’s problems with race.

It’s like with blackmail. No matter how much ransom you pay to the thugs, it’s never enough and they come back to extort more.

Posted by A Reader at 5:16 AM on January 15

---

CNN sees racism everywhere they go, and they are always on the wrong side.

Posted by abc at 6:15 AM on January 15

---

America’s black politicians are giddy at the prospect that Obama will help them abolish our Second Amendment and disarm the evil whites. Here is an example of recently proposed legislation by a radical black politician who is a member of the Obama cabal:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86039

I wouldn’t worry about it since it will never pass. Washington knows that gun control was the catalyst that sparked our first revolution and we stand at the brink of seeing history repeat itself. This is the last thing the politicians want. So, don’t worry be happy, but also be ready in the event it is our destiny to take our place in history beside the Colonial Minutemen.

Posted by Anonymous at 8:23 AM on January 15

---

Why do they say that blacks need a “leader”? It sounds quite condescending.

Posted by Anonymous at 8:52 AM on January 15

---

The U.S. Census notes that the United States will no longer have a white majority by 2050. Social Security payments for an aging white population will have to be paid by an increasingly brown and black work force, which may resent such support.
———————-
I keep saying this to anyone who will listen and this shows the stupidity of leaders here and in Europe. They think importing third world non-whites will help support their aging white populations in retirement. What an absolute fantasy, when whites are no longer a majority non-white thugs will probably show up at your door and kick you out in the streets claiming you “stole” the house you live in and they are now “reclaiming” it for it’s “rightful” owner. They will probably take the clothes off your backs too, claiming those were made by third world “slave labor” so you have no right to them either. This country is going to be a mess by 2050.

Posted by RHG at 9:10 AM on January 15

---

I keep saying this to anyone who will listen and this shows the stupidity of leaders here and in Europe. They think importing third world non-whites will help support their aging white populations in retirement. What an absolute fantasy, when whites are no longer a majority non-white thugs will probably show up at your door and kick you out in the streets claiming you “stole” the house you live in and they are now “reclaiming” it for it’s “rightful” owner. They will probably take the clothes off your backs too, claiming those were made by third world “slave labor” so you have no right to them either. This country is going to be a mess by 2050.

It’ll be a mess long before 2050.

Posted by Anonymous at 11:41 AM on January 15

---

To Annonymous’ post I would add this: No, gun control will never work. Because it would end up requiring the INCARCERATION of probably a third of all Americans. I mean seriously, give up our right to defend ourselves against the millions of Black and brown criminals in our country. People only too ready to attack those ‘affluent’ White Americans to rob them of what they worked for.

Years ago, I laughed at that bumper sticker: “Give up my gun? Only when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.” Today, decades later, that phrase makes perfect sense to me… and millions of other THINKING (as opposed to liberal) Americans.

Posted by Fed Up at 12:41 PM on January 15

---

“are no longer a majority non-white thugs will probably show up at your door and kick you out in the streets claiming you “stole” the house you live in and they are now “reclaiming” it for it’s “rightful” owner. They will probably take the clothes off your backs too, claiming those were made by third world “slave labor” so you have no right to them either. “

That is exactly the position of all those affirmative action Judges and attorneys. Whites have no right to earn a living. All jobs must go to blacks and hispanics. Stealing a job through affirmative action is just as much theft as armed robbery.

In the case of affirmative action however, the government Judges and DOD lawyers stole the jobs from whites and distributed the jobs to blacks and hispanics.

Posted by Anonymous at 3:06 PM on January 15

---

RHG wrote:
“I keep saying this to anyone who will listen and this shows the stupidity of leaders here and in Europe. They think importing third world non-whites will help support their aging white populations in retirement.”

I’m sure ‘some’ of the second and third tier government leaders believe they are doing the right thing, but not the ones at the very top. There is no way they cannot be aware that they are destroying western civilization and the White race.

The more you research, the more it becomes apparent.

Posted by Harry at 4:53 PM on January 15

---

Bill Clinton had a ‘race initiative, that forced banks to give home loans to unqualified minorities. If Bill Clinton did not solve anything in 8 years, then what is the problem?

The problem is that these race-based organisations HAVE to earn their keep, so they have to attack all the ‘statistical’ inequities, (but NOT IQ statistics)

As long as the race based organizations are funded. they will keep finding inequities. They have no practical solution, so it will go on forever.

Also, if blacks and hispanics are going to resent funding SSI for ‘okd white folk’ maybe we will need some anti-discrimination laws on the books.

Posted by Anonymous at 5:44 PM on January 15

Hispanics want to retain “control” of California congressional seat.

WCVI Profiles Newly-Vacated District

More news stories on Racial Identity

William C. Velasquez Institute, January 13, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE—January 13, 2009
Contact: Steven Ochoa, 323-222-2217

WCVI Profiles Newly-Vacated District

Seat Vacancy Created by Solis Appointment to Labor Secretary

LOS ANGELES, CA—A special election to fill the California 32 nd Congressional District will be held soon to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of U.S. Representative Hilda Solis (D). Solis was nominated Secretary of Labor by President-Elect Barack Obama in December 2008. The William C. Velasquez Institute (WCVI) prepared an updated voter profile for the public’s education as the special election approaches.

The San Gabriel Valley district has elected a Latino for almost 30 years. The district currently enjoys a 51% Latino voter registration percentage, according to recent voter data compiled by WCVI from Political Data. Asian voters also make up 16% of the voter registration. To date Senator Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles and State Board of Equalization Member Judy Chu of Monterey Park have shown interested in running for the seat. A special election is expected for March 2009. “Traditionally Latino voters have controlled this district, electing candidates of choice since 1982. As such, the 32 nd CD is protected as a majority minority seat by the voting rights act,” said WCVI President Antonio Gonzalez.

The 32 nd District comprises an important part of heavily Latino eastern Los Angeles County. It stretches west to east, from the East Los Angeles area through El Monte, Baldwin Park, and then West Covina. Some city registration figures are listed below:

Click here to download the complete regional, party, and ethnic breakdowns of registration and recent votes cast.

About WCVI

The William C. Velásquez Institute (WCVI) is a tax-exempt, non-profit, non-partisan public policy analysis organization chartered in 1985. The purpose of WCVI is to: conduct research aimed at improving the level of political and economic participation in Latino and other underrepresented communities; To provide information to Latino leaders relevant to the needs of their constituents; To inform the Latino leadership and public about the impact of public policies on Latinos; To inform the Latino leadership and public about political opinions and behavior of Latinos.

City (or Portion of City within District)	Total Reg	Latino Reg	Latino Reg %
Total Congressional District	241,749	122,893	50.8%
CITY OF AZUSA	16,277	8,053	49.5%
CITY OF BALDWIN PARK	25,237	17,488	69.3%
CITY OF COVINA	22,995	7,951	34.6%
CITY OF DUARTE	10,739	3,488	32.5%
CITY OF EL MONTE	31,170	17,148	55.0%
CITY OF IRWINDALE	833	682	81.9%
CITY OF MONTEREY PARK	16,469	5,651	34.3%
CITY OF ROSEMEAD	18,861	6,348	33.7%
CITY OF SOUTH EL MONTE	6,399	4,611	72.1%
CITY OF WEST COVINA	47,764	19,545	40.9%

Original article

Virginia Takes Constitutional Convention Stage – should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it

Virginia Takes Constitutional

Convention Stage

By Chuck Baldwin

As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that monstrous reality. (Please review my column on this subject here.)

At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs. Fortunately, enough people from that good state inundated their state representatives with objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next battleground state.

In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives, demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional Convention.

As I noted in my previous column on this subject, “If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, ‘There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.’”

Since 32 states have already approved the new Con Con, only 2 more states are required for the enactment of this debacle.

For clarification, Virginia already passed a Con Con resolution, but in 2004 rescinded that resolution. Therefore, the debate this year will be whether to reverse the bill to rescind. Simply put, the state legislature in Virginia may again take up the matter of issuing their call for a Constitutional Convention very soon, and citizens in that good state need to rally against it now!

To give readers a simple tally, the following states have never voted to ratify a new Constitutional Convention: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

These states voted for a new Constitutional Convention but later rescinded their resolutions: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Arizona, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.

If you do not see your state listed above, it means your state indeed voted to call for a new Constitutional Convention and has not rescinded its vote. I strongly suggest that citizens of these states demand that their legislatures rescind their previous votes calling for a new Con Con. Start now!

Of course, the problem is, it is not clear whether the court will allow states to rescind their votes after having passed a Con Con resolution. Article. V. of the U.S. Constitution is vague on the subject, and there is no case law precedent on the matter. As far as I’m concerned, however, the Tenth Amendment settles the issue, and states should be regarded as fully qualified under the Constitution to determine their own fate in the matter. Since there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting rescission, states are duly authorized to rescind their votes, as they please. But I don’t expect the powers that be in Washington, D.C., to see it that way. Does anyone remember that little skirmish known as the Civil War? This, in essence, was the same view of the Confederate States: they voted to rescind their decisions to join the Union. The tyrant, Abraham Lincoln, determined that states have no such sovereignty (thus nullifying the Tenth Amendment, among several others) and sent the entire federal army to force the southern states back into the union. If history is any teacher, therefore, no state will be allowed to rescind their votes, and we are only two states away from a new Constitutional Convention being assembled.

There is no question in my mind that, should a new Constitutional Convention be called, it would be the end of the United States of America as we know it, and our current Constitution and Bill of Rights would be forever altered beyond recognition. The globalists who currently control Washington, D.C., and Wall Street are, no doubt, salivating over the opportunity to officially dismantle America’s independence and national sovereignty, and establish a globalist North American Union—in much the same way that globalists created the European Union. A new Constitutional Convention is exactly the tool they need to cement their sinister scheme into law.

I urge readers to contact their state representatives regarding this critical matter.

CCIR’s Greatest Hits: The Reconquista Rant Audio Clips

CCIR’s Greatest Hits: The Reconquista

Rant Audio Clips

By Paul Nachman

California voters passed Proposition 187 by a 59% to 41% landslide in November, 1994. The proposition, which was slowly strangled to oblivion in federal district court over the subsequent four and a half years, would have eliminated most state-funded public benefits for illegal aliens in California.

(For a refresher on Proposition 187’s substance and tortured history, see Tom Shuford’s review here. Note for politics junkies: the electorally-triumphant proposition’s “coattails” also rescued the re-election campaign of Governor Pete Wilson, who came from far behind to beat state treasurer Kathleen Brown—so much for the myth that it the GOP. In subsequent years, the GOP ran away from the immigration issue and got clobbered because it failed to mobilize its base. Note for immigration aficionados: Some years ago, American Patrol’s Glenn Spencer discovered that at least part of Proposition 187 is actually on the books in California! Of course, it’s not being enforced. )

In response to 187’s passage, Armando Navarro [Email him], Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of California, Riverside, organized the “Latino Summit Response”. It was held on the Riverside campus over two days in January, 1995, with the university’s chapter of MEChA as host. The conference’s theme: encouraging massive non-compliance with Proposition 187.

(For those new to the fray, MEChA is the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, which translates as the “Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán,” Aztlan being the homeland, perhaps mythical, of the Aztecs. The sentiment most frequently associated with MEChA, which has hundreds of chapters in high schools and colleges across the U.S., is their statement “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada”, meaning “For the Race, everything, outside the Race, nothing.”)

Probably the most famous “product” of the UC Riverside meeting was a line in one Art Torres’s speech to the throng:

“Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that.”

That smoking howitzer of an utterance by Torres is no mere urban legend. If the computer you’re using has sound capabilities, you can hear it for yourself right now.

But you may object: “So a Hispanic man said something both frank and inflammatory about illegal immigration and California. So what?”

Well, Torres isn’t just some obscure Joe Shmoe or even Jose Shmose. He is—and was, at the time he spoke—Chairman of the California Democratic Party. [Send him mail] He’d previously spent 20 years in the state’s legislature.

So how did the world learn of Torres’s blaring case of ethnocentric foot-in-mouth? For that we can thank the derring-do of Evelyn Miller.

Evelyn, whom I know personally, is one of the long-time pillars of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform [CCIR]. She signed on during the signature-gathering campaign that propelled Prop. 187 onto the ballot.

CCIR was founded and is headed up by the formidable Barbara Coe. (In the linked Wikipedia article, the photo is definitely not Barbara!) I think of Ev as one of Barb’s “lieutenants,” along with Elaine Proko and Lupe Moreno, whom you can see in action here. (Dan Sheehy discusses the “lieutenants” in the chapter about Barb in his book Fighting Immigration Anarchy: American Patriots Battle to Save the Nation.)

Ev’s productive foray behind enemy lines started with a directive from Barb: “Pack your bags. You have hotel reservations in Riverside for two days.”

Why Ev? “Barb probably thought I was brazen enough to do it,” she tells me. Maybe Ev’s background as a certified bilingual (Spanish/English) teacher in the Los Angeles public schools from 1959 to 1978 also figured into Barb’s choice, although it turned out that the conference was conducted almost entirely in English.

As Ev recounted her first undercover assignment to me in a phone interview:

“I took my little hand-held tape recorder. There were about 500 people at the conference—elected officials, media, academics, and students—filling a huge auditorium. There were Brown Berets all over the place, in uniform. [VDARE.COM note: The Brown Berets are a Chicano paramilitary group modeled on the Black Panthers.]

“I was the only non-Latino, and they asked me, ‘Why are you here?’ I told them that I was a socialist and didn’t like borders, so they liked me.

“The conference had many breakout sessions, ones for lawyers, medical people, media, and so forth. I attended as many of those as I could.”

So Evelyn then just traipsed out of the conference with a fistful of explosive recordings, including those I highlight below? Not quite!

When she got home, Ev discovered that her tape recorder hadn’t been up to the task (perhaps due to her vantage point out in the audience?)—the sound quality of the recorded speeches was too poor to be usable.

So, undaunted, Ev later found her way to Prof. Navarro’s office at the Riverside campus and brazened it out, requesting copies of the event’s official recordings.

” ‘You know, people need to hear these,’ I told them. ” ‘I want to spread them around to help with this terrible Prop. 187.’

“They gave me everything, every syllable of every speaker. I had to go there three times, because the tape cassettes weren’t all ready at once.”

Back home with her treasure, Ev condensed the cassettes’ contents into their essentials. For example, the sound clip of Art Torres linked above includes his infamous “last gasp of white America” prediction followed immediately by a wise-guy remark about whites’ impending need for affirmative action, but it’s clear that these weren’t contiguous passages in his speech. (You’ll also hear Torres blithely liken Prop. 187 to the Nazis’ extermination camps.)

Excerpts from five speeches given at the Riverside conference constitute the nucleus of CCIR’s audio clips medley, all of which are accessible through this web page. The linked page has the verbatim transcripts for, altogether, 19 sound clips, with the links to the clips themselves embedded in that page.

The other gleanings from the conference are of Navarro himself (Clip #1), Jose Angel Gutierrez (#3), Joe Baca (part of #8), and Fabian Nunez (#15).

Arguably, all four of these characters are doofi [plural of "doofus"]. But at least two of them can’t be dismissed as Jose Schmoses.

• Joe Baca [Email him]is now a Congressperson from California’s “Inland Empire”, east of Los Angeles, who probably brags about his career grade of F-minus from NumbersUSA.
• Fabian Nunez has just completed a six-year stint in the California Assembly, having been Speaker of the Assembly for the last four of those years.

That’s Evelyn you’ll hear at the start of Clip #15, introducing Nunez and recounting his role in the October 1994 “Gran Marcha” in downtown Los Angeles against Prop. 187, just a few weeks before the voters resoundingly approved it. (You can also see some of the Gran Marcha proceedings, including Nunez’s doings, in this video narrated by Hal Netkin.)

In his UC Riverside speech, Nunez touted “the power of the masses”—a very Latin American approach to determining public policy, quite consistent with the Gran Marcha—and proposed a 1996 million-person march in Washington, DC so that “those rednecks that are out there making decisions for the betterment of their communities will think twice before they push forward anti-immigrant legislation against our community.”

• Jose Angel Gutierrez, [Email him] a professor at the University of Texas in Arlington, has had persistent visibility, having tangled in a 2006 debate there with Jared Taylor.

But, judging from the transcript, Taylor scoured the floor with Gutierrez. At about the same time, Gutierrez debated David Horowitz on Sean Hannity’s show and further displayed his apparent inability to make a lucid argument.

Those sound clips from the 1995 conference don’t exhaust the items of interest in CCIR’s online collection. Far from it! Over the years, until she could no longer do it incognito, Evelyn slipped into several other fifth-column functions to make recordings. Plus, always ready with an itchy finger on her tape recorder, she captured other anti-gems from radio broadcasts.

For example, in Clip #5 we hear Mario Obledo, on the radio, urge whites to go back to Europe. By the date of this broadcast, Obledo had already received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bill Clinton. He had also been California’s Secretary of Health and Welfare during the 1970s, in Jerry Brown’s administration. No Jose Schmose, he!

And former Secretary of Commerce designee Bill Richardson complained on the radio that “illegal and legal immigration are being unfairly attacked,” lumping the illegal and legal varieties of immigration together as does Center For Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian, but with different intent.

So where is all this going? Well, I’m not providing the history and these details on the sound clips merely for the entertainment of VDARE readers. We all need to be using them.

Why? Because, for example, John McCain was the Republicans’ presidential candidate this year, illustrating the nation’s short attention span. Despite the patriotic immigration reform movement’s prominent defensive successes against 2007’s attempts at mass amnesties, a huge, naive national audience out there still doesn’t comprehend our civilization’s mortal peril under the immigration onslaught nor the fact that the fifth column among us isn’t really motivated by an idealistic love of “diversity“.

Oblivious Republican primary voters, especially in Florida, were actually able to think that illegal-alien-doormat McCain is an enthusiast for border security!)

The CCIR clips, if played widely enough by patriots also able to provide the clips’ context, could provoke legions of our still-uninvolved fellow citizens into recognizing reality—and then joining the patriotic immigration reform movement.

CCIR sells a CD containing all 19 clips for $7, postpaid, convenient if you’d like to play the clips “on the road” before a large audience. Evelyn Miller and other CCIR stalwarts have hand-delivered copies of the CD to legions of Congressional offices on Capitol Hill, and Ev has also mailed them to several hundred radio hosts.

Terry Anderson routinely plays CCIR clips just before the 9:30 pm (Pacific Time) break on his 9 p.m.-to-10 p.m. Sunday night radio show, which can be heard over the internet. Terry seems especially partial to playing Clip #14, featuring Brown Beret Augustin Cebada, who says, in part:

“We’re here in Westwood, this is the fourth time we’ve been here in the last two months, to show white Anglo-Saxon Protestant L.A., the few of you who remain, that we are the majority, and we claim this land as ours, it’s always been ours, and we’re still here, and none of the talk about deporting. If anyone’s going to be deported it’s going to be you! Go back to Simi Valley, you skunks! Go back to Woodland Hills! Go back to Boston! Go back to the Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out!”

I’ve used several of the choicest clips a number of times before naive audiences, always to productive effect. When I participated, in-studio, on a radio talk show here in my hometown of Bozeman MT, and we played some of the tracks from the CD, the shocked host referred to them as “Hispanic fatwas.”

So, in public venues, try provoking the enemy into falling back on their dead-end charges of “Racism!”

And then fire-up the best of CCIR’s Reconquista Rant sound clips!

Obama’s Recession Remedy: Tax the Poor!

By Michelle Malkin

“Everybody’s going to have to give,” President-elect Barack Obama warned over the weekend. And some people will have to give more than others—starting with low-income smokers.

Democrats are rushing this week to impose massive tax hikes of at least 61 cents on every cigarette pack sold in America, in addition to new increases on other tobacco products. The money will fund a long-plotted federal expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Yes, this is Dr. Big Nanny’s prescription for recession: punitive tax increases on the poor to feed a universal health care Trojan horse.

Obama and his liberal Democratic colleagues sure have a funny way of demonstrating “progressive” values, don’t they? Health surveys show that smokers are more likely to be blue-collar workers, minorities and have less than a high-school education. The National Taxpayers Union noted that tobacco taxes take a 50 times larger share of income from those earning less than $20,000 than those earning more than $200,000. Put another way: Families making less than $30,000 per year pay more than half of all taxes paid on cigarettes, while families making more than $60,000 pay only 14 percent.

That’s the dictionary definition of “regressive,” not “progressive.”

And what will that money buy? SCHIP, you’ll recall, is the joint federal-state program that covers health insurance for children and families at or near the poverty line. During the last two years, President Bush and the Republicans took a rare fiscally conservative stand against widening eligibility criteria far beyond the working poor. Democrats wanted to be able to enroll families with incomes at 300 or 400 percent of the poverty level—adding an estimated $35 billion over five years to the existing SCHIP funding costs.

Opponents of this HillaryCare-esque push were lambasted as cruel child-haters for arguing that the program should not be extended to include well-off families, illegal aliens and single adults. They were attacked as heartless penny-pinchers for questioning the wisdom of subsidizing the SCHIP expansion with a dwindling and unstable funding source (smoking is on the decline and cigarette tax revenues are shrinking). Left-wing comedienne Joy Behar called me a “b*tch” on national television for reporting that the Democrats’ poster family for SCHIP expansion to cover the “poor,” the Frost family of Baltimore, owned middle-class assets including two properties and three cars.

But if these do-gooders truly cared about The Children, they’d be cursing mightily over the squandering of current SCHIP funds and the cheating of the very children the program was intended to help. State data analyzed by the Department of Health and Human Services reveal that 13 states spent more than 44 percent of their SCHIP funds in 2008 on people who are neither children nor pregnant women. Michigan topped the list with more than 70 percent of its federal children’s health insurance funds earmarked for adults who have no kids.

In New Jersey, people earning as much as $295,000 were enrolled in its SCHIP program, dubbed “NJ FamilyCare.” Like many states, New Jersey failed to check eligibility for all program enrollees and refuses to conduct stringent assets tests.

As I’ve noted before, the refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. After an audit found that the New Jersey program had paid $43.1 million to participants without knowing whether they were eligible, Republican Assemblyman Richard Merkt observed that it “called into serious question the state’s competence to run health insurance programs.” Multiply that by 50 states.

How will the Democrats prevent such fraud? I’d give you more details about the Obama/Democratic tax hike on the poor to expand children’s health care coverage for the non-poor and non-children, but as of Tuesday afternoon, there was no legislation text available. And no hearings are planned before the expansion is rushed through for Obama to sign.

The Wall Street Journal did report that Democrats plan to lift decade-old restrictions to allow legal immigrant children to tap into SCHIP. But there’s no word on whether citizenship eligibility requirements will be strengthened. Democratic leadership hasn’t responded to Republican entreaties on that issue, either. Hurray for the deliberative process.

What I can tell you for sure is that the SCHIP expansion is a rest stop on the road to a universal health insurance entitlement built on the backs of overtaxed low-income workers. Welcome to the era of “shared sacrifice.”

Hostettler For The Nation

[Previously by W. James Antle III: ‘Open Heart’ Methodists—Empty-Headed Immigration Activists]

By W. James Antle III

Like life itself, politics isn’t always fair. Just ask former Congressman John Hostettler, a six-term Republican from Indiana. On most of the big questions that President Bush got disastrously wrong—the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, the unpopular war in Iraq, and, of particular importance to VDARE.COM readers, the amnesty for illegal immigrants traveling under the name of “comprehensive immigration reform”—Hostettler got it right.

Among prominent Republicans, only Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul were more independent—and more willing to oppose the Bush administration from the right.

Yet that didn’t prevent Hostettler from being swept out of office in the midterm elections’ anti-Bush tide. His House seat was one of the very first called for the Democrats in 2006, as he took just 39 percent of the vote against a challenger who imitated him on immigration and wanted it both ways on Iraq.

To add insult to injury, Hostettler’s loss was cited by the Wall Street Journal as a data point against both immigration restrictionists (in a gloating editorial) and antiwar conservatives (by James Taranto). After all, Hostettler stood like a stone wall against the 2006 amnesty bill from his perch as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee. Also, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, he was one of just six House Republicans to vote against authorizing the war. Obviously, the argument went, for Republicans there was no winning alternative to what Steve Sailer has described as Invade the World/Invite World.

Indeed, that’s the line President Bush himself has taken in his farewell tour, unabashed by presiding over a spectacular decline in Republican fortunes. In an exit interview with FOX News, alongside his father, the president boasted that he did not “bail out my political party” by withdrawing troops “during the darkest days of Iraq.” (It may have been the only bailout he opposed.) Then in his final press conference, Bush lectured Republicans to be “open minded”—presumably as in open borders—rather than “anti-immigrant.”

Further compounding the injustice is the reception given Hostettler’s book explaining his war vote, Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq. Hostettler was an early skeptic of WMD claims that were originally accepted even by most mainstream war critics. Despite that obvious news angle, no major publisher was interested in his book. The ex-congressman had to release it through his own small publishing house. (He will probably make more money if you buy the book direct from its website).

When Nothing For The Nation hasn’t been ignored, it has elicited the usual smears from the usual suspects. Based on the book’s treatment of neoconservatives, Abe Foxman charges the congressman with “outlandish notions of secret Jewish cabals”. [Here We Go Again: Blaming the Jews for the Iraq War, by Abraham H. Foxman, August 14, 2008] But Hostettler—an evangelical sympathetic to Christian Zionism and the state of Israel—makes no such noxious claims. His foreign-policy arguments may be debatable, but he makes specific criticisms of specific individuals rather than any ethnic or religious group.

As a leader of the patriotic immigration reform movement, of course, Hostettler is used to being called names. In the spring and summer of 2006, as the immigration debate raged on Capitol Hill, he was one of the legislators who argued that House Republicans should defy the Senate and defy their own president by refusing to bring “comprehensive” immigration legislation up for a vote.

Then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner was instrumental in keeping the GOP leadership from caving. Tom Tancredo, then-chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, was the public face of the anti-amnesty congressmen. But Hostettler, at the helm of the House’s most important immigration subcommittee, also played a key role.

Hostettler’s position on Iraq failed to gain much traction among his fellow Republicans. Seven Republicans in the entire Congress voted against the war resolution and only about as many oppose the war today. But on immigration, Hostettler’s side carried the day. According to the Washington Post, 75 percent of the House Republican Conference opposed the Senate immigration bill.[Immigration Deal at Risk as House GOP Looks to Voters, By Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb, May 28, 2006] That legislation only passed the upper chamber due to a high number of Democratic votes.

Opposition wasn’t limited to conservative hardliners. Such liberal Republicans as Chris Shays of Connecticut and Charlie Bass of New Hampshire also refused to support the Senate’s approach to immigration policy. With such a high percentage of the Republican caucus opposed, the leadership had good reason to remain steadfast—despite pressure from their president and their Senate colleagues.

In September 2005, President Bush received an early warning sign that his expansive view of immigration policy wasn’t going to carry the day among House Republicans. Hostettler, along with past immigration subcommittee chairman Lamar Smith, sent the president a toughly worded pro-enforcement letter:

“We write as Members of Congress concerned about immigration. Recently there has been much discussion of new guestworker or temporary worker programs. However, we believe that there should be no new guestworker program or any expansion of the number of lawful residents in our country until the Executive Branch better enforces current immigration laws.

“History has shown that enforcement provisions are ignored and underfunded while guestworker and amnesty provisions are always implemented.

“The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act contained amnesties for farm workers and other illegal aliens as well as employer sanctions and other enforcement provisions. Unfortunately, the amnesties were carried out and the enforcement was not.

“The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act also contained enforcement provisions that were not implemented. For instance, the bill mandated the implementation of a national exit-entry tracking system for all aliens. Nine years later the exit-entry system is still not near completion…

“The American people need to see that the current laws against illegal immigration are being enforced before any guestworker program can be considered.”

At the time, Hostettler and Smith could find just 17 cosigners for their letter. But by 2007, when the amnesty juggernaut got rolling again, there was opposition from across the political spectrum. The warmed-over Senate immigration bill once again failed, even with Democrats controlling both houses—and Congress shorn of members like Hostettler.

Why then did Hostettler and the Republicans lose? The conventional wisdom says that the anti-amnesty campaign was a political liability, something that alienated Hispanic voters will motivating no significant constituency to vote Republican in compensating numbers.

But clearly that’s not the judgment most savvy politicians made. They voted the amnesty bill down not just in 2006 but also in 2007, despite Democratic control of Congress.

Red-state Democrats and Republicans running for reelection were among the most likely to oppose the various iterations of Bush-McCain-Kennedy. They knew which way the wind was blowing.

Also, hardly anybody outside of safe Democratic districts openly campaigned in favor of amnesty. While the substance of their positions varied, most candidates in competitive races used the rhetoric of border security and immigration enforcement.

Hostettler’s 2006 Democratic challenger, Brad Ellsworth, was a case in point. He did not campaign against the incumbent’s immigration stance. In fact, he mirrored it: Ellsworth opposed the 2006 amnesty bill and called for tighter enforcement. This Ellsworth statement could have come from Hostettler himself:

“I oppose granting amnesty to people who have broken the law by entering our country illegally.  Instead, we must stop the flow of illegal immigration, secure our borders, and enforce the laws already on the books

“A strong immigration policy starts with effective border control, so the Department of Homeland Security must be given the resources they need to secure our borders. This isn’t just an illegal immigration problem, it’s a homeland security problem. And Congress must address it.”

Unlike many politicians who ran for Congress using such rhetoric in 2006, Ellsworth has actually voted that way since taking office (though he hasn’t shown the same leadership on the issue as Hostettler—nor the same interest in more controversial issues like birthright citizenship or reducing legal immigration). Ellsworth has received an A-minus rating from Americans for Better Immigration. He has teamed up with fellow Democrat Heath Shuler on the SAVE Act, which promotes attrition through enforcement. And he introduced his own e-verify bill, the Legal Employment Verification Act.

It is therefore clear, despite open-borders propaganda to the contrary, that the immigration issue did not defeat Hostettler in 2006—nor did it lead to the Republicans’ loss of Congress. Democrats like Ellsworth read the politics of immigration, especially as it played in their own districts, exactly the same way.

It remains to be seen how the Republican Party will deal with immigration in the Age of Obama. Some Republicans will undoubtedly argue that the party is better off without principled voices like John Hostettler.

No Hosttetlers—and nothing for the nation.