The Hypocracy of the anti-immigration fascists
The anti-immigration fascists love to talk about heinous crimes that immigrants have committed. But even when they do that, they only talk about crimes committed by NON-WHITE immigrants.
Earlier this week, a French-Canadian immigrant wrestler who goes by the name of Chris Benoit killed his wife and son at his home near Atlanta. Benoit later killed himself.
Here is the grisly details
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19424899/
Pro wrestler Chris Benoit strangled his wife, suffocated his 7-year-old son and placed a Bible next to their bodies before hanging himself with a weight-machine pulley, authorities said Tuesday.
[paragraphs skipped]
Benoit’s 43-year-old wife was killed Friday in an upstairs family room, her feet and wrists were bound and there was blood under her head, indicating a possible struggle, Ballard said. Daniel was probably killed late Saturday or early Sunday, the body found in his bed, the district attorney said.
Benoit, 40, apparently hanged himself several hours and as long as a day later, Ballard said. His body was found in a downstairs weight room, his body found hanging from the pulley of a piece of exercise equipment.
A closed Bible was placed next to the bodies of the wife and son, authorities said.
If that was committed by an immigrant from Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, or any other non-white nation, the anti-immigration fascists like Pat Buchanan, Debbie Schussell, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, etc would say "these are people from a savage culture! why do you want more of these people coming to our country?"
To the anti-immigration fascists, heinous crimes committed by white people (like Chris Benoit) are considered "isolated incidents". However, if committed by non-whites, they'll yell out "see, I told you those people are like that? what, you want more of them in your neighborhood?"
The anti-immigration fascists dont want to talk about acts of kindness from non-white immigrants. They don't want to talk about the white American lives saved by non-white immigrant doctors, nurses, firefighters, lifeguards, etc. They don't want to talk about good customer service from non-white immigrant workers! They don't want to talk about non-white immigrant teachers, counselors, coaches, etc who inspire our young people!
The anti-immigration fascists don't care about the facts. They want an all-white America that they once knew, and they are uncomfortable around those with different skin colors, different accents, different cultures.
If a non-white immigrant commits a heinous crime, that scares the anti-immigrant a lot more than a Chris Benoit commiting a heinous crime. The anti-immigrant fascist would see Benoit (though a French-Canadian immigrant) as someone who reminds them of their brother, uncle, childhood friend, or boyfriend!
They dont have the same familiarity with non-white immigrants, so they freak out anytime a non-white immigrant commits even a minor moral violation!
Friday, June 08, 2007
Ron Paul on immigration
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been getting a lot of publicity for being the only Republican candidate who opposed the war on Iraq.
Ron Paul was once a Libertarian presidential candidate, is known for opposing most government programs.
However, Ron Paul wants more restriction on immigration, which will make government bigger & intrusive.
Stuart Hayashi sent me a great email on this topic
------
I remember the good old days, when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he wanted to eliminate federal expenditures on wasteful government boondoggles like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere.
"Yet Dr. Paul voted in favor of the ridiculous "border fence."
As Penn & Teller demonstrated, the border fence won't even be able to keep Mexicans out of the United States; they can easily scale over it, burrow under it, or even burst through it. (Uh, not that I mind the fence's inability to keep Mexicans out.)
Since the border fence won't even be able to fulfill its explicit purpose, it will serve as a deterrent against Mexicans illegally entering the country in no manner other than sending the implicit message "You're Not Wanted Here."
So, basically, Dr। Paul and the other Congressmen who voted for this bill have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . make a rude gesture.
This is a much more wasteful boondoggle -- a far more deplorable white elephant -- than some Bridge to Nowhere. It's a fence in the middle of nowhere that doesn't keep peope out.
Of course, it could be much worse -- I would be much more incensed if all this money were spent and it actually *succeeded* in keeping the Mexicans out.
As HPU Reason Club veteran Pablo Wegsend (2000-2005) [that's me ] put it, "In other words, Ron Paul wants to propose big government! After all, government would need to expand to find out who's illegal? That means more regulations on business, more regulations on human movement, mandatory ID cards, etc."
That's true. The exact same Ron Paul who accuses other Republicans of supporting fascist measures that trample on civil liberties for some imaginary increase in national security, is actually implementing the exact same program against undocumented Mexicans.
Ostensibly for the sake of preserving American security, Dr. Paul is abrogating the lives, liberty, and private property of Mexican aliens, not on account of their initiating force against anybody's life or private property, but simply because they are in this country without his permission.
But aren't the Mexicans trespassing on Americans' land? Not when they're working on some private site for really low "sweatshop" wages.
America -- "our" country -- is not public property. It is an assemblage of privately-owned plots of land that are adjacent to one another.
I think of America as being like a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle piece is a private plot of land. The edges of the piece represent the boundaries separating one private plot from another.
You can peaceably do what you want with your own private plot of land, and I peaceably do what I want on my private plot.
You do what you want on your puzzle piece, and I do what I want on my puzzle piece.
So if Dr. Paul doesn't want Mexicans on his land, he doesn't have to invite them onto it.
But he doesn't have the right to exercise government force -- backed by guns -- to prevent Prof. Schoolland from peaceably inviting consenting adult Mexicans onto the Schoolland Estate.
And since this is all peaceful, why should Prof. Schoolland and the Mexicans first have to get a Permission Slip from Dr. Paul and the State before they go through with this?
If Dr. Paul believes that he is right to have the State punish Prof. Schoolland for peaceably inviting Mexicans onto his own land, without first getting the government's permission, then, essentially, he's arrogating to himself the moral right to dictate over other people's private property.
If the government can dictate over whom you can or can't peaceably invite onto your own real estate, then the government is implying that your land doesn't ultimately belong to you; it belongs to the government.
That is the nationalization of real estate. It's Land Socialism.
The exact same Ron Paul who balks at the nationalization of health care and the steel industry would, in practice, himself nationalize land in this country.
And the argument that "Mexicans shouldn't be allowed into America freely until welfare is abolished for them" is utterly fatuous.
Is it true that no new X's should be freely allowed into America until all public expenditures on X's are abolished?
Farms and corporations get welfare, too.
If it's true that no new Mexicans should be allowed in America without facing a ridiculously cumbersome approval process, until welfare for Mexicans is banned, then wouldn't it also be true that no new farms should be allowed to exist in America without facing a ridiculously cumebersome approval process, until welfare for farms is banned?
Yet Dr. Paul says that the government already makes it too hard to start a new farm or new business in this country.
That's a double-standard on his part, especially since the conservative Heritage Foundation (another opponent of open immigration) actually admits that more money is spent on welfare to corporations and farms than is spent on the poor (including poor illegal aliens).
So when Dr. Paul votes for increases in federal spending to prevent greedy corporations from "exploiting" undocumented immigrant laborers, and to stop those Mexicans from "stealing" our jobs, he is voting for Big Government and Statism.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul has been getting a lot of publicity for being the only Republican candidate who opposed the war on Iraq.
Ron Paul was once a Libertarian presidential candidate, is known for opposing most government programs.
However, Ron Paul wants more restriction on immigration, which will make government bigger & intrusive.
Stuart Hayashi sent me a great email on this topic
------
I remember the good old days, when U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said that he wanted to eliminate federal expenditures on wasteful government boondoggles like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere.
"Yet Dr. Paul voted in favor of the ridiculous "border fence."
As Penn & Teller demonstrated, the border fence won't even be able to keep Mexicans out of the United States; they can easily scale over it, burrow under it, or even burst through it. (Uh, not that I mind the fence's inability to keep Mexicans out.)
Since the border fence won't even be able to fulfill its explicit purpose, it will serve as a deterrent against Mexicans illegally entering the country in no manner other than sending the implicit message "You're Not Wanted Here."
So, basically, Dr। Paul and the other Congressmen who voted for this bill have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to . . . make a rude gesture.
This is a much more wasteful boondoggle -- a far more deplorable white elephant -- than some Bridge to Nowhere. It's a fence in the middle of nowhere that doesn't keep peope out.
Of course, it could be much worse -- I would be much more incensed if all this money were spent and it actually *succeeded* in keeping the Mexicans out.
As HPU Reason Club veteran Pablo Wegsend (2000-2005) [that's me ] put it, "In other words, Ron Paul wants to propose big government! After all, government would need to expand to find out who's illegal? That means more regulations on business, more regulations on human movement, mandatory ID cards, etc."
That's true. The exact same Ron Paul who accuses other Republicans of supporting fascist measures that trample on civil liberties for some imaginary increase in national security, is actually implementing the exact same program against undocumented Mexicans.
Ostensibly for the sake of preserving American security, Dr. Paul is abrogating the lives, liberty, and private property of Mexican aliens, not on account of their initiating force against anybody's life or private property, but simply because they are in this country without his permission.
But aren't the Mexicans trespassing on Americans' land? Not when they're working on some private site for really low "sweatshop" wages.
America -- "our" country -- is not public property. It is an assemblage of privately-owned plots of land that are adjacent to one another.
I think of America as being like a jigsaw puzzle. A puzzle piece is a private plot of land. The edges of the piece represent the boundaries separating one private plot from another.
You can peaceably do what you want with your own private plot of land, and I peaceably do what I want on my private plot.
You do what you want on your puzzle piece, and I do what I want on my puzzle piece.
So if Dr. Paul doesn't want Mexicans on his land, he doesn't have to invite them onto it.
But he doesn't have the right to exercise government force -- backed by guns -- to prevent Prof. Schoolland from peaceably inviting consenting adult Mexicans onto the Schoolland Estate.
And since this is all peaceful, why should Prof. Schoolland and the Mexicans first have to get a Permission Slip from Dr. Paul and the State before they go through with this?
If Dr. Paul believes that he is right to have the State punish Prof. Schoolland for peaceably inviting Mexicans onto his own land, without first getting the government's permission, then, essentially, he's arrogating to himself the moral right to dictate over other people's private property.
If the government can dictate over whom you can or can't peaceably invite onto your own real estate, then the government is implying that your land doesn't ultimately belong to you; it belongs to the government.
That is the nationalization of real estate. It's Land Socialism.
The exact same Ron Paul who balks at the nationalization of health care and the steel industry would, in practice, himself nationalize land in this country.
And the argument that "Mexicans shouldn't be allowed into America freely until welfare is abolished for them" is utterly fatuous.
Is it true that no new X's should be freely allowed into America until all public expenditures on X's are abolished?
Farms and corporations get welfare, too.
If it's true that no new Mexicans should be allowed in America without facing a ridiculously cumbersome approval process, until welfare for Mexicans is banned, then wouldn't it also be true that no new farms should be allowed to exist in America without facing a ridiculously cumebersome approval process, until welfare for farms is banned?
Yet Dr. Paul says that the government already makes it too hard to start a new farm or new business in this country.
That's a double-standard on his part, especially since the conservative Heritage Foundation (another opponent of open immigration) actually admits that more money is spent on welfare to corporations and farms than is spent on the poor (including poor illegal aliens).
So when Dr. Paul votes for increases in federal spending to prevent greedy corporations from "exploiting" undocumented immigrant laborers, and to stop those Mexicans from "stealing" our jobs, he is voting for Big Government and Statism.
Kam Bowl
Kam Bowl's is closing down this coming week.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/06/news/story03.html
Kam Bowls was one of my favorite eating places , which is across the street from Kam Shopping Center (both places named after King Kamehameha) and right down the mountain from (drumroll, please) Kamehameha Schools.
(what an irony, my previous post criticized King Kamehameha!)
ANYWAYS!
Kam Bowl had a bowling alley and a restaurant (Kapiolani Coffee Shop).
While Kam Bowl was famous for it's oxtail soup (my dad's favorite), I really, really loved it's fried rice & scrambled eggs.
While many people prefer a fancier place to eat with their families on their birthdays, I always chose to have my birthday meal at Kam Bowls.
Unfortunately, on my birthday (October 15th) last year, there was an earthquake, so I wasn't able to go to Kam Bowl.
Because Kam Bowl is about to close down, I won't be able to have another birthday meal there!
So it means my last birthday meal @ Kam Bowl's was my 25th birthday in 2005.
End of last year, Tower Records closed (see my 12/21/06 post) and Kam Bowls is going to close. It makes me wonder what other favorite business of mine would close in the near future?
I'm going to miss Kam Bowl and it's fried rice & scrambled eggs!
Kam Bowl's is closing down this coming week.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/06/news/story03.html
Kam Bowls was one of my favorite eating places , which is across the street from Kam Shopping Center (both places named after King Kamehameha) and right down the mountain from (drumroll, please) Kamehameha Schools.
(what an irony, my previous post criticized King Kamehameha!)
ANYWAYS!
Kam Bowl had a bowling alley and a restaurant (Kapiolani Coffee Shop).
While Kam Bowl was famous for it's oxtail soup (my dad's favorite), I really, really loved it's fried rice & scrambled eggs.
While many people prefer a fancier place to eat with their families on their birthdays, I always chose to have my birthday meal at Kam Bowls.
Unfortunately, on my birthday (October 15th) last year, there was an earthquake, so I wasn't able to go to Kam Bowl.
Because Kam Bowl is about to close down, I won't be able to have another birthday meal there!
So it means my last birthday meal @ Kam Bowl's was my 25th birthday in 2005.
End of last year, Tower Records closed (see my 12/21/06 post) and Kam Bowls is going to close. It makes me wonder what other favorite business of mine would close in the near future?
I'm going to miss Kam Bowl and it's fried rice & scrambled eggs!
Kamehameha Day
I remember back in 2001, I was going to write an article on Kamehameha Day for Ka Leo (U of Hawaii's newspaper). However, the whole thing was delayed by the editor, who claimed to want a longer editorial. I was hoping that it would be run right before Kamehameha Day, but by the time I got the article ready, it was too late.
I wonder if then-Opinions editor (Jeremy Pippin) really wanted a longer, clarified article, or if he was too much a chicken-boy to run a controversial editorial.
Anyways, here's the long delayed article from my email archives!
----------------
Every June 11, the state of Hawaii celebrates Kamehameha Day. This holiday honors King Kamehameha I, the man who is credited for uniting all the Hawaiian islands.
But what are we celebrating on Kamehameha Day? Is it just the unification of Hawaii. Most people would say so. But there is a darker side to all this, a dark side few would admit because of the fear they would be called a "racist" or "anti-Hawaiian", if they're not Hawaiian, or "sellout" or "acting haole" if they are Hawaiian.
You see, Kamehameha united the islands by invading the islands through military conquest. Kamehameha took over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu in 1795 thorugh violence. Though Kaui and Niihau came under Kamehameha's control peacefully, that didnt erase the fact that he took over the other islands through force.
And what motivated his conquests?
King Kamehameha I had a lust for power. The same lust for power that motivated Hitler to "unite Europe", Saddam Hussein to "unite Iraq and Kuwait", white colonizers to "unite America and Hawaii".
Not only that, there was no democratic reforms, no freedom of religion or expression. We currently condem third world nations that refuse to allow elections or the freedom of expression or religion, yet silent when the same happened during Kamehameha I's reign.
It's ironic that many in Hawaii get upset when they hear that in Japan, the Japanese troops of WWII are look at heroicly, when we in Hawaii look at Kamehameha heroicly. We are shocked when the Japanese education system deny the atrocities commited by Japanese troops during WWII, when we aren't even discussing whether Kamehameha's invasion was ethical.
-------
(that was the end of my old editorial)
It's also ironic that there is so much anger towards Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston for overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani in 1893, meanwhile there isn't so much anger towards Kamehameha for overthrowing the chiefs of Maui and Oahu!
I guess some people just feel better being brutalized by those of the same race!
There was also anger towards William McKinley for being the US President who made Hawaii a US territory.
My high school was named after William McKinley. Some Hawaiian activists wanted the school to change it's name. Nevermind that there's a large private school named after King Kamehameha, who violently colonized Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai.
It is Kamehameha Schools that has an ancestry-based (read: race-based) admissions policy. Meanwhile, McKinley High School is a public school that has students who come from various parts of the world!
The Hawaiian activists like to bring up that Punahou was started as an all-whites school. They dont' even bother to deal with the fact that Punahou is now an integrated school with some Hawaiian students!
Punahou's alumni includes Barack Obama & Michelle Wie. So much for Punahou being "whites only"
As one friend mentioned in an email "So between Punahou and Kamehameha, which decided to rectify past injustices, and which has kept its blinders on? Which has chosen to step forward with social progress, and which has yet to enter the twenty-first century?"
I remember back in 2001, I was going to write an article on Kamehameha Day for Ka Leo (U of Hawaii's newspaper). However, the whole thing was delayed by the editor, who claimed to want a longer editorial. I was hoping that it would be run right before Kamehameha Day, but by the time I got the article ready, it was too late.
I wonder if then-Opinions editor (Jeremy Pippin) really wanted a longer, clarified article, or if he was too much a chicken-boy to run a controversial editorial.
Anyways, here's the long delayed article from my email archives!
----------------
Every June 11, the state of Hawaii celebrates Kamehameha Day. This holiday honors King Kamehameha I, the man who is credited for uniting all the Hawaiian islands.
But what are we celebrating on Kamehameha Day? Is it just the unification of Hawaii. Most people would say so. But there is a darker side to all this, a dark side few would admit because of the fear they would be called a "racist" or "anti-Hawaiian", if they're not Hawaiian, or "sellout" or "acting haole" if they are Hawaiian.
You see, Kamehameha united the islands by invading the islands through military conquest. Kamehameha took over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu in 1795 thorugh violence. Though Kaui and Niihau came under Kamehameha's control peacefully, that didnt erase the fact that he took over the other islands through force.
And what motivated his conquests?
King Kamehameha I had a lust for power. The same lust for power that motivated Hitler to "unite Europe", Saddam Hussein to "unite Iraq and Kuwait", white colonizers to "unite America and Hawaii".
Not only that, there was no democratic reforms, no freedom of religion or expression. We currently condem third world nations that refuse to allow elections or the freedom of expression or religion, yet silent when the same happened during Kamehameha I's reign.
It's ironic that many in Hawaii get upset when they hear that in Japan, the Japanese troops of WWII are look at heroicly, when we in Hawaii look at Kamehameha heroicly. We are shocked when the Japanese education system deny the atrocities commited by Japanese troops during WWII, when we aren't even discussing whether Kamehameha's invasion was ethical.
-------
(that was the end of my old editorial)
It's also ironic that there is so much anger towards Sanford Dole and Lorrin Thurston for overthrowing Queen Lilioukalani in 1893, meanwhile there isn't so much anger towards Kamehameha for overthrowing the chiefs of Maui and Oahu!
I guess some people just feel better being brutalized by those of the same race!
There was also anger towards William McKinley for being the US President who made Hawaii a US territory.
My high school was named after William McKinley. Some Hawaiian activists wanted the school to change it's name. Nevermind that there's a large private school named after King Kamehameha, who violently colonized Oahu, Maui, Lanai and Molokai.
It is Kamehameha Schools that has an ancestry-based (read: race-based) admissions policy. Meanwhile, McKinley High School is a public school that has students who come from various parts of the world!
The Hawaiian activists like to bring up that Punahou was started as an all-whites school. They dont' even bother to deal with the fact that Punahou is now an integrated school with some Hawaiian students!
Punahou's alumni includes Barack Obama & Michelle Wie. So much for Punahou being "whites only"
As one friend mentioned in an email "So between Punahou and Kamehameha, which decided to rectify past injustices, and which has kept its blinders on? Which has chosen to step forward with social progress, and which has yet to enter the twenty-first century?"
Friday, May 04, 2007
More on the V-Tech Murders
1) Pat Buchanan, again, is using a tragedy committed by an immigrant to promote his anti-immigration agenda.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/01/the_dark_side_of_diversity
In that article, he lists all the violent incidents committed by immigrants, then concludes that we should stop immigration.
This is idiotic!
For one thing, majority of the school shootings in the U.S. were committed by Caucasians BORN IN THE U.S.
The Oklahoma federal building was blown up by a Caucasian born in the U.S. Though he wasn't even from Oklahoma, he was from Buffalo, New York.
I got nothing against Caucasians born in the U.S. Many are wonderful people. But Pat Buchanan act as if they never committed any terrorism, as if only immigrants are capable of terrorism.
Did Buchanan bother to find out about immigrants saving lives?
A lot of the doctors & nurses in the U.S. are immigrants, many coming from India and the Philippines. A lot of native-born Americans would've been dead if it wasn't for those immigrant doctors & nurses.
Maybe some of those who were shot BUT NOT KILLED in the V-Tech incident were saved by immigrant paramedics, surgeons, nurses, doctors, etc.
And what if Buchanan got a heart attack, and was saved by an immigrant using CPR on him?
A lot of the soldiers risking their lives for America in the Middle East are immigrants! Why doesn't Buchanan not care about that?
Many cops, firefighters, lifeguards, ambulance drivers, etc are immigrants.
However, the Pat Buchanans and the Debbie Schlussel DONT CARE ABOUT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM!
They just wait for another terrorist incident committed by non-whites! Once it happens, they use that incident to promote the hatred of the non-white!
2) While the Gun Control Crowd love to focus on the V-Tech killings, they CHOOSE TO IGNORE an incident at Appalachian Law School.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.
In other words, it took armed civilians to stop an armed lunatic. That's reality! It may not be "politically correct" reality, but IT IS REALITY!
The answer to armed lunatics isn't disarming everyone else. The answer to armed lunatics is armed civilians.
Anyways, the article also cites liberal media bias against guns,
Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.
With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.
Most US media outlets are run by anti-gun liberals. That is where many foreign media outlets get their US news from. This is why many foreign media folks view the US as a "trigger happy country". They don't even bother to investigate the other side of the story!
3) Many V-Tech students and professors cited Cho Seung-Hui's writings in a creative writing class as a sign that he was prone to violence.
Some see this as a sign that anyone who writes a violent story should be involuntary committed to a mental health institution.
This is over-reaction. The world is violent, so many of us write stories, songs, poems, etc with violence. But in most cases, we don't even bother to commit the violent acts.
If anyone who writes a violent story for a creative writing class gets involuntarily sent to therapy, that won't stop any violence. All it would do is that violence-prone people just won't write anything violent. They'll just keep it all inside.
Then when they finally lash out violently, everyone would say they didn't see it coming.
1) Pat Buchanan, again, is using a tragedy committed by an immigrant to promote his anti-immigration agenda.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/05/01/the_dark_side_of_diversity
In that article, he lists all the violent incidents committed by immigrants, then concludes that we should stop immigration.
This is idiotic!
For one thing, majority of the school shootings in the U.S. were committed by Caucasians BORN IN THE U.S.
The Oklahoma federal building was blown up by a Caucasian born in the U.S. Though he wasn't even from Oklahoma, he was from Buffalo, New York.
I got nothing against Caucasians born in the U.S. Many are wonderful people. But Pat Buchanan act as if they never committed any terrorism, as if only immigrants are capable of terrorism.
Did Buchanan bother to find out about immigrants saving lives?
A lot of the doctors & nurses in the U.S. are immigrants, many coming from India and the Philippines. A lot of native-born Americans would've been dead if it wasn't for those immigrant doctors & nurses.
Maybe some of those who were shot BUT NOT KILLED in the V-Tech incident were saved by immigrant paramedics, surgeons, nurses, doctors, etc.
And what if Buchanan got a heart attack, and was saved by an immigrant using CPR on him?
A lot of the soldiers risking their lives for America in the Middle East are immigrants! Why doesn't Buchanan not care about that?
Many cops, firefighters, lifeguards, ambulance drivers, etc are immigrants.
However, the Pat Buchanans and the Debbie Schlussel DONT CARE ABOUT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM!
They just wait for another terrorist incident committed by non-whites! Once it happens, they use that incident to promote the hatred of the non-white!
2) While the Gun Control Crowd love to focus on the V-Tech killings, they CHOOSE TO IGNORE an incident at Appalachian Law School.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html
Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.
In other words, it took armed civilians to stop an armed lunatic. That's reality! It may not be "politically correct" reality, but IT IS REALITY!
The answer to armed lunatics isn't disarming everyone else. The answer to armed lunatics is armed civilians.
Anyways, the article also cites liberal media bias against guns,
Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.
With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.
Most US media outlets are run by anti-gun liberals. That is where many foreign media outlets get their US news from. This is why many foreign media folks view the US as a "trigger happy country". They don't even bother to investigate the other side of the story!
3) Many V-Tech students and professors cited Cho Seung-Hui's writings in a creative writing class as a sign that he was prone to violence.
Some see this as a sign that anyone who writes a violent story should be involuntary committed to a mental health institution.
This is over-reaction. The world is violent, so many of us write stories, songs, poems, etc with violence. But in most cases, we don't even bother to commit the violent acts.
If anyone who writes a violent story for a creative writing class gets involuntarily sent to therapy, that won't stop any violence. All it would do is that violence-prone people just won't write anything violent. They'll just keep it all inside.
Then when they finally lash out violently, everyone would say they didn't see it coming.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Virginia Tech murders
Virginia Tech murders
Like any other tragedy, the mass murder at Virginia Tech 2 weeks ago (4/16/07) has been exploited by the fanatics on the far right and far left!
1) Being that the killer, Cho Seung-hui, is a Korean immigrant, many right-wing fanatics have been using this opportunity to promote hatred of immigrants in general.
Salon's Andrew Leonard has discussed right-wing fanatic Debbie Schlussel's bigotry
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/04/17/vtech_korea/print.html
"Pakis" is a racial term for Pakistanis. So Schlussel's 1st reaction to a mass murder was to blame a mostly Muslim ethnic group.
Nevermind that most school shootings in the U.S. were caused by Caucasians non-Muslims!
Schlussel doesn't care about victims of terrorism, she only uses terrorism to promote her bigotry.
And again, most school shootings in the U.S. were caused by Caucasians BORN IN THE U.S.
But does Schlussel comment on their white-ness? Nope! She justs uses terrorist incidents caused by non-whites to promote her bigotry!
By the way, the website which once had Schlussel's rants now has this to say
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/04/who_is_the_asia.html
In other words, she can't even back up what she's saying, so she's covering up!
Debbie Schlussel is nothing more than a Jewish-female version of Don Imus.
Her columns are nothing but extremely shallow, extremley immature, extremely bigoted commentary on issues that require mature analysis.
Her website is www.debbieschlussel.com
Just don't expect to read mature analysis of serious topics there!
2) The Gun Control Crowd has also pimped the Virginia Tech tragedy to pomote a ban on guns.
Even worse, many foreign media outlines has bitched about the "American gun culture", showing their ignorance about America, guns, and crime.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=61090
Valid reason for wanting one? How about ---- protecting yourself from a large, violent person trying to beat the shit out of you?
What am I supposed to do in that situation - Sing "Give Peace A Chance"?
So is the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. China allows almost no civil liberties and is one of the worst human right's violators. Why should we listen to them on this issue.
Nonsense! There's a federally mandated 5 day waiting period between the day you buy a gun and the day you finally pick up the gun from the store!
More nonsense from that article
And here is Neil Cavuto's response to all that nonsense!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267961,00.html
Pablo's note: The nerve of El Universal to make my ancestor's home look idiotic! Blame American guns for crime in Mexico? It's the Mexicans that are shooting the guns in Mexcio! El Universal should spend more time focusing on why those Mexicans want to use guns to terrorize others!
Back to Cavuto's comments
And is Europe as safe as it claims?
Scotland bans gun, but has a higher crime rate than the U.S.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock6.html
(skipped paragraphs)
3) How do you stop a lunatic who already started shooting?
Sing "Give Peace A Chance"?
OR shoot back?
Shoot Back!
Yet, some at the University of Hawaii (my alma mater) don't want the campus to have armed guards?
Let's live in reality! People with bad intentions Exist! Guns already been invented, so it's too late to stop bad people from getting them!
So, if someone starts a random shooting at school, someone needs to fire back! By the time police arrive, it might be too late!
By the way, how would police stop an insane person shooting randomly at people? It aint by negotiation, it's by shooting at the shooter!
So, if police ain't around, security aint around, why not have regular citizens fire back?
After all, not every with huge muscles use them to bully others. In fact, some use them to protect the weaker ones!
Same is true with those with martial arts skills!
So do people really defend themselves with guns?
Check this out and find out
http://www.2asisters.org/armed_women.htm
By the way, despite all this talk of "American gun culture" and "Virginia's execssive leniency on guns", the Virginia Tech University already banned guns from it's campus BEFORE the shooting incident.
Though it had armed guards, obviously Cho Seung-hui started shooting when the security wasn't around!
Like any other tragedy, the mass murder at Virginia Tech 2 weeks ago (4/16/07) has been exploited by the fanatics on the far right and far left!
1) Being that the killer, Cho Seung-hui, is a Korean immigrant, many right-wing fanatics have been using this opportunity to promote hatred of immigrants in general.
Salon's Andrew Leonard has discussed right-wing fanatic Debbie Schlussel's bigotry
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/04/17/vtech_korea/print.html
Conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel's first reaction to the news that an "Asian" was responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre was to declare that a "Paki" was likely responsible. After being confronted with irrefutable evidence of her nearly criminal idiocy, she amended her analysis: "Even if it does not turn out that the shooter is Muslim, this is a demonstration to Muslim jihadists all over that it is extremely easy to shoot and kill multiple American college students."
"Pakis" is a racial term for Pakistanis. So Schlussel's 1st reaction to a mass murder was to blame a mostly Muslim ethnic group.
Nevermind that most school shootings in the U.S. were caused by Caucasians non-Muslims!
Another fact provided by the Marmot's Hole: According to one report, Korea has more students studying abroad in the U.S. than any other country: 100,000. Debbie Schlussel thinks that the foreign residency of Cho Seung-hui is "yet another reason to stop letting in so many foreign students." But 99.999 percent of those 100,000 Koreans somehow managed not to engage in mass killing sprees
Schlussel doesn't care about victims of terrorism, she only uses terrorism to promote her bigotry.
And again, most school shootings in the U.S. were caused by Caucasians BORN IN THE U.S.
But does Schlussel comment on their white-ness? Nope! She justs uses terrorist incidents caused by non-whites to promote her bigotry!
By the way, the website which once had Schlussel's rants now has this to say
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/04/who_is_the_asia.html
I've removed this entry, mostly because I am spending too much time monitoring the slimy comments from the Nazi-infested Media Matters for America cretins.Posted by Debbie at April 16, 2007 02:57 PM
In other words, she can't even back up what she's saying, so she's covering up!
Debbie Schlussel is nothing more than a Jewish-female version of Don Imus.
Her columns are nothing but extremely shallow, extremley immature, extremely bigoted commentary on issues that require mature analysis.
Her website is www.debbieschlussel.com
Just don't expect to read mature analysis of serious topics there!
2) The Gun Control Crowd has also pimped the Virginia Tech tragedy to pomote a ban on guns.
Even worse, many foreign media outlines has bitched about the "American gun culture", showing their ignorance about America, guns, and crime.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view_article.php?article_id=61090
In Sweden, civilians can acquire firearm permits only if they have a hunting license or are members of a shooting club and have no criminal record. In Italy, people must have a valid reason for wanting one.
Valid reason for wanting one? How about ---- protecting yourself from a large, violent person trying to beat the shit out of you?
What am I supposed to do in that situation - Sing "Give Peace A Chance"?
Firearms are forbidden for private Chinese citizens.
So is the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. China allows almost no civil liberties and is one of the worst human right's violators. Why should we listen to them on this issue.
If the guns are harder to get a hold of, fewer people will do it," said Michael Dent, a 65-year-old construction worker in London. "You can't walk up to a supermarket or shop and buy a gun like in the States."
Nonsense! There's a federally mandated 5 day waiting period between the day you buy a gun and the day you finally pick up the gun from the store!
More nonsense from that article
"Only the names change -- And the numbers," read a headline in the Times of London. "Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"
The French daily Le Monde said the regularity of mass shootings across the Atlantic was a blotch on America's image.
"It would be unjust and especially false to reduce the United States to the image created, in a recurrent way, from the bursts of murderous fury that some isolated individuals succumb to. But acts like this are rare elsewhere, and tend to often disfigure the 'American dream,'" it said.
The French daily Le Monde said the regularity of mass shootings across the Atlantic was a blotch on America's image.
"It would be unjust and especially false to reduce the United States to the image created, in a recurrent way, from the bursts of murderous fury that some isolated individuals succumb to. But acts like this are rare elsewhere, and tend to often disfigure the 'American dream,'" it said.
And here is Neil Cavuto's response to all that nonsense!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267961,00.html
Nothing heals like healing words… unless they're not entirely healing.
I call them condolences with a catch.
They are the ones that express sincere regret over what happened at Virginia Tech, but proceed to become a lecture, if not a hypocritical one.
Like this cover on The Economist: Pity for our losses at Virginia Tech… but an added pity that we Americans are clueless how to prevent them.
Germany's Der Spiegel relaying its sympathies to those affected by this American massacre, but quickly adding whether the United States, "Should be looking at why these kinds of horrible crimes happen so often."
I'd have asked the same of Der Spiegel, whose editors neglected to mention Germay's own brush with violence a few months ago, when an 18-year-old guy carrying three guns and pipe bombs opened fire at a high school in the German town of Emsdetten. And not a word about an April 2002 incident involving a 19-year-old man who killed 16 people at a high school in the German city of Erfurt.
Mexico's El Universal had the nerve to equate the Virginia Tech killings with its own increase in violence, saying easily available American guns are the reason.
Pablo's note: The nerve of El Universal to make my ancestor's home look idiotic! Blame American guns for crime in Mexico? It's the Mexicans that are shooting the guns in Mexcio! El Universal should spend more time focusing on why those Mexicans want to use guns to terrorize others!
Back to Cavuto's comments
Then French President Jacques Chirac expressing "horror and consternation" at this uniquely American tragedy, but not a peep about those violent French student protests or Muslim uprisings. Curious.
All I'm saying is you offer someone your sympathy, save them your lecture.
This is not the time. Yours is not the issue. Their pain is.
We try not to speak ill of the dead in this country, at least for a few days.
---
All I ask is you try not to make a soapbox out of them in your country, at least for one day.
And is Europe as safe as it claims?
Scotland bans gun, but has a higher crime rate than the U.S.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock6.html
A United Nations report has labeled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.
(skipped paragraphs)
3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent.
3) How do you stop a lunatic who already started shooting?
Sing "Give Peace A Chance"?
OR shoot back?
Shoot Back!
Yet, some at the University of Hawaii (my alma mater) don't want the campus to have armed guards?
Let's live in reality! People with bad intentions Exist! Guns already been invented, so it's too late to stop bad people from getting them!
So, if someone starts a random shooting at school, someone needs to fire back! By the time police arrive, it might be too late!
By the way, how would police stop an insane person shooting randomly at people? It aint by negotiation, it's by shooting at the shooter!
So, if police ain't around, security aint around, why not have regular citizens fire back?
After all, not every with huge muscles use them to bully others. In fact, some use them to protect the weaker ones!
Same is true with those with martial arts skills!
So do people really defend themselves with guns?
Check this out and find out
http://www.2asisters.org/armed_women.htm
By the way, despite all this talk of "American gun culture" and "Virginia's execssive leniency on guns", the Virginia Tech University already banned guns from it's campus BEFORE the shooting incident.
Though it had armed guards, obviously Cho Seung-hui started shooting when the security wasn't around!
Friday, April 13, 2007
Who are you calling a Ho?
Radio talk-show host Don Imus was having a conversation on his show about the recent NCAA women's college basketball championship game between Tennessee & Rutgers. ( Tennessee won that game).
Imus was comparing those 2 teams, their image, etc. Then Imus called the mostly African-American Rutgers team "nappy-headed hos".
That's where the controversy started!
Imus offended African-Americans and women by that comment!
I don't really know much about Don Imus, though it has been said that Imus had a long history of shallow, bigoted remarks.
1) Imus needs to grow up already! Imus is 67 years old! That means he should've been more mature than that before I was even born!
A mature adult shouldn't be making insulting remarks about how someone looks!
Even if Imus was just "joking", he's supposed to more mature than that!
2) Many have pointed-out that Don Imus "nappy-headed hos" comment is very similar to how many rappers describe women in their song.
Here's Snoop Dogg's comments on that issue
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1556803/20070410/id_0.jhtml
First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them [expletive] say we in the same league with them. . . . [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing [expletive], that's trying to get a [expletive] for his money. These are two separate things.
I grew up as part of the hip-hop generation. When I was a teenager, gangsta rappers like Snoop Dogg, 2pac, Biggie, Westside Connection, EAZY-E, etc were very popular, and I was listening to their CD's
Also, booty music by 2 Live Crew, Uncle Luke, etc were popular at school dances and I was a big fan of their music.
It was obvious that those rappers weren't calling their moms, grandmas or daughters "bitches" or "hos". However, they bragged about having sex with "bitches and hos". They made songs like "Me & My Bitch" So they were basically referring to young women as "bitches".
It was also obvious that they were just joking around when they calling young women "bitches". However, that doesn't make it OK!
3) I also remembered during my freshman year, my friend was joking about a male classmate "hanging out with the bitches", and I thought that was funny. I then made similar jokes, writing in classmate yearbooks about "hanging out with the b******s"
Obviously, I wasn't going to refer to my female relatives or my favorite female teachers as "bitches"!
It wasn't like I believed women had "inferior status". I NEVER believed that men should rule over women. It was just my generation's version of using the words "chicks" or "babes", just with a more "gangsta" edge to it. However, it doesn't erase the fact that the use of the word "b*****" was totally innappropriate!
I can't be going along with jokes that irritate innocent people. (This show I matured a lot faster than Don Imus)
I admit I'm taking a big risk admitting all this on the Internet, since not everyone who knew me back then (and definitely no-one who 1st met me afterwards) knew I was joking with my friends like that!
So if anyone heard me joking around in that manner, and was offended, I sincerely apologize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)