The March edition of ‘Front Line’, Help Save Manassas’ marching orders is on news stands now. (Please stand back while I hurl.) And what brilliance are we in for this month? Cultural Chaos. According to Dan Arnold, Vice President of Help Save Manassas Prince William County is in a cultural chaos. Okay, and what does he validate his claims on, well ‘a strange phenomenon.’ (Keep reading this is a classic.) According to Arnold, Prince William doesn’t enjoy a ‘pleasant mix of ethnicities’ as other cities like Chicago, Cleveland, Saint Louis and Minneapolis. You can’t make this up folks. Yes, he said a pleasant mix of ethnicities, please tell me, Mr. Arnold what is so unpleasant about the ‘mix’ in Prince William?
Well you see in those cities – the Polish, Italian, Puerto Ricans (note: Puerto Ricans are Americans), Germans and Lithuanians they ‘subject’ their ‘native, ethnic culture’ to the ‘dominant American culture.’ News flash Mr Arnold, those countries primarily immigrated last generation what would you expect? And the only Hispanic group named are the ones that are already Americans. This is a joke right? Wait, it’s not over yet. He proclaims, in those cities, ‘they are naturalized citizens’. Really? Okay, what did you do a survey in all those cities and Prince William, so you could come to this ‘determination’? No? Well, what did you do, just pull this out of thin air? Then he goes on to say, they are ‘second, third generation or legal residents pursuing citizenship.’ Exactly, my point Mr Arnold. And I actually wasn’t sure what I was going to write about today. These guys make it so easy. Let’s keep going. He states, ‘I couldn’t pinpoint it initially’ (I wonder why!) ‘but there was always a palpable something missing every time I would step foot back on Northern Virginia soil.’ Yeah, I’d really like to tell you what was missing from Virginia while you were away but I’ll refrain myself. Here’s where he loses it – ‘it strikes him what is missing in No. Va. is… the overwhelming presence of Mexican and Central and South American culture in Northern Virginia’. Personally, I don’t think that’s what he meant to say exactly but we get the drift.
Every time I get home, within 10 minutes or less of deplaning, I inevitably hear people speaking Spanish. And loudly, as if it were the American tongue. I have barely taken the onramp to Centreville Road and already I am seeing the little Honduran rearview mirror flags, and the Mexican bumper stickers. I reach Yorkshire and the business marquees in Spanish begin to appear. And then, as I enter Manassas, now just blocks from my home and family, the pain of this overwhelming deluge hits hard. All this change has swept through our community in but a few short years.
Here we go, in his final paragraph he admits that he doesn’t know people’s status’, he surmises – either ‘illegal immigration swarm is either less of an impact, or at least less apparent,’ in these cities. And he ‘relishes it.’ For these reasons, Mr. Arnold is ‘more convinced then ever that we must continue to fight the scourge of illegal immigration and all the negative effects it brings.’
Do we need anymore reason to discount what these people are saying? Do you hear their motivation? Hello?
Let me translate that, areas where there are ‘illegal’ Germans, Polish, Lithuanians etc… appear as though there’s less of ‘an impact’ of ‘illegal immigration’ and that’s what he relishes. So as long as they don’t look ‘illegal’ that’s okay?
This article is exactly why Help Save Manassas doesn’t sit well with me.
Any individuals and/or groups that target a particular ethniciy like this are open to descriptive labels like “Nazi,” “Hategroup” and “Skinhead,” among other things.
And these people claim they are not bigots? Supporters like Stewart and Stirrup claim they are not bigots?
The proof is in the reading, folks.
Thank you.
No further questions, your honor.
“We’re only against illegal aliens.” “We’re not against Hispanics or Hispanic culture”
Admin,
Let me begin by saying that I agree that the entire illegal immigration issue should be defined by issues of law and government and not have anything to do with culture (to the extent that a particular cultural practice is not unlawful, such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, genital mutilation, drug use, etc.). Let me also say that while not a member of HSM, I agree with their overall stated objective, which is dealing with the effects of illegal immigrants in the community. Illegal immigration is wrong, but I think we forget sometimes that the immigrants are victims as well. It is those who exploit this community, and the government that permits or even encourages this exploitation that is the problem, not the poor guy trying to feed his family or provide a quality education to his kids. There are a couple of reasons why I am not a member of HSM. First, I am an employee of the Fed, and must be mindful of how politically active I am because of the Hatch Act. Second, I share some of the same concerns that you have, but not to the same degree. I do think that there are those who joined because they are afraid that “American” culture is being eroded by changing demographics, especially the growth of Hispanics in the country. I also believe that there might be a very few classic racists I don’t think that this group represents the greater HSM membership or its leadership, but I wouldn’t want to associate with these none the less. Neither would I want to associate with the pro-immigrant advocates, since a small percentage of them are anarchists and true Marxists.
I understand what you are trying to do here, but I believe that in your efforts to counter Greg’s message, you have become what you so despise. For someone in the middle like me, I look left and right, seeing and hearing the same type of talk, and the same style of argument. You see Greg and his supporters as right-wing nuts and use their actions and statements as proof. Greg and his supporters see you and yours as left-wing nuts, and use your statements and those of your supporters as proof. From my perspective in the middle, there is little difference between a Fascist and a Marxist. The rhetoric and tactics are the same.
I read the article Greg did on one of your more vocal posters. I don’t approve of the tactics he used, but I have to say he supported his argument that the individual subject (I don’t mean to sound cold by not naming this person. I don’t want to contribute to the problem by doing so. Naming this person could have this post pop up in a Google search, and I want to respect her privacy) does approach things from the far-left, much the same way that as you and those here make a compelling argument that Greg approaches things from the far-right. I don’t think the target of Greg’s attack is some fifth-column Marxist revolutionary or a second generation Weatherman. I don’t think Greg is the product of a “Boys from Brazil” or a disciple of David Duke either.
I decided to post here to try to be a voice from the middle, and because I disagreed with Greg’s banning some because they presenting an opposing viewpoint. I don’t think I am here to present an opposing viewpoint. The thing is, regardless of which blog I choose to post on, I would be presenting an opposing viewpoint. Please think about this. This is your blog. I will say that do respect Greg more than you, only because he is willing to attach his name to what he writes. If you really believe that yours is the superior argument, you shouldn’t be afraid to attach your name to it.
HSM repeatedly claim to only be against illegal immigrants, but they always go on to make complaints that apply to immigrants in general, whether legal or not. This article is a great example.
And I support anonymity on the web – there are a lot of creepy people on the internet.
You acknowledge there might be ‘a few classic racists’ out there, so while I am willing to take the risk in speaking out, I do have safety concerns for myself and my family. I am opposed to staying silent but am reluctant to provide my name, especially considering there’s a fringe element out there. Please understand this is the primary reason for attempting to maintain my anonymity.
Joe – Do you want to know if Admin is a ‘Gomez, Perez, Hernandez or Fernandez’ so you can discount his position?
“It is those who exploit this community, and the government that permits or even encourages this exploitation that is the problem, not the poor guy trying to feed his family or provide a quality education to his kids.”
Joe, I VERY much agree with you and AMEN to that…so long as you aren’t using the “no documents” “I’m just plain poor” and “behind on taxes” as sole definitions of exploitation.
Let me say, I know whom it is you refer to because it’s me! Ha ha ha! And let me say also that I have blogged SO much on this already, that I’ve mentioned before, my level of annoyance and frustration has overtaken me at this particular website–I have already provided proof that I’m moderate at http://luxuriouschoices.blogspot.com/search/label/Immigration
Repeating myself over and over and over is like nagging my kids to get ready to school. I’m out of time and out of patience.
In any event, if you want “proof” I’m moderate, take a look at some of my comments on my blog. On this blog, I endorse RIDDING ourselves of the criminal element, INCREASING border control and domestic national security, IDENTIFYING everyone without proper documentation, ENSURING homes are not occupied beyond safety limits, ENFORCING ordinances (like don’t dump oil in your back yard, ENFORCING mandatory auto insurance….etc. I even think it’s fine to monitor international phone calls on a regular basis so long as the practice isn’t used to harass or recklessly incriminate people. What is so “LEFTIST” about that?
I think the immigration LAWS must CHANGE at the FEDERAL LEVEL NOW for the safety of our country. We need to provide hard working immigrants who have already been here a path to legal citizenship. We have done this in the past (pre-Clinton) and there is NO reason we can’t go back to doing it again now that we have better technology to identify people’s criminal histories. We CANNOT divide families who have lived here for years and deport them simply because Clinton changed the laws while they were here, leaving them in Immigration Limbo.
Finally, anyone who says I am a Socialist is misguided.
Below is the email I just now sent to the Prince William County Police Department. Perhaps since my irritation is at a lower level this morning this posting and the email will suffice : )
_____________________________________________
[email protected]
Dear PWCPD:
Yesterday, Officer Sundby visited me to discuss a complaint about a threatening email I received from Greg Letiecq of Help Save Manassas. As I explained to the officer, this was not the first time Mr. Letiecq has emailed me (the first time was sometime last year with a threat to sue me over my blog posting which contains links to supporting evidence).
Apparently, since then, Greg Letiecq has decided to rant about me on his blog, BVBL.net which I have been banned from because I hold differing opinions. Besides labeling me as a Socialist (which actually amuses me because of my affiliations with fair democracy groups), he apparently has posted something about my being fired from Prince William County Public schools. This, of course, is not true. As I explained to Officer Sundby, I work contract from home, and since they do not have the online program they were offering before, I am not currently contracted with them. I am contracted with a college that I have worked for online for a little over six years.
I just wanted to let you know because, since my visit from Officer Sundby yesterday, this has escalated into a personal attack against me and at least one other teacher whom he names in his blog.
Finally, I want to thank Officer Sundby for taking the time to explain the processes of the police department regarding the immigration resolution. He cleared a few things up for me, and while I am still opposed to the resolution for a variety of reasons (which no one on the BOCS seems to want to hear from ANY Of us), I understand it’s not the PD’s fault. I hold your Chief in high regard for his handling of this no-win situation.
Best Wishes,
Katherine Mercurio Gotthardt
http://www.luxuriouschoices.net
P.S. I read the pamphlet Officer Sundby gave to me regarding the resolution. If this were the only thing I was reading from the PD, I would not understand the implications. If you want to know why or details, let me know and I’d be happy to respond. No offense….just the “writing instructor” and “confused citizen” talking right now. : )
Joe,
I sincerely appreciate your posting here. I would requestfully ask that you not attribute comments made by users to me. Just because they are allowed to post doesn’t mean I’m in agreement with their comments. Also, please use discernment when reading the comments; I would caution against taking some of these users comments at face value. – Thanks
Admin,
To remain anonymous is your choice. I simply stated that to someone in between the two camps, I give Greg’s arguments more slightly more credibility. I happen to agree with James Young to the extent that if you believe your motives are pure, you shouldn’t be ashamed of your words. I can understand not wanting to become a target of personal attacks, but the argument can be made that remaining anonymous is also to prevent legal action against you as the operator of this blog. To what extent you are liable for what your readers post, I do not know. But, you are liable for what you post, just as Greg is for what he posts.
Bring It On,
I am more inclined to discount the position of an anonymous poster than the position of someone who identifies themselves along with their comments. I am not in the business of discounting anyones position based on their ethnicity. I think the entire issue of illegal immigration is clouded by the whole race issue. It shouldn’t be. But I will thank you for proving my point stated above. I am sure I would get the same reaction over at the other blog.
For the record, I’ve been out there on the Internet for a long time because I work online, I write, and I engage in national discussions. I want my work “out there.”
Furthermore, I’m just not into the “hiding” thing because people eventually can figure it out if they want and because I don’t believe it is right I should have to hide. This IS AMERICA, is it not?
I, too, fear the safety thing, but in some ways, I think hiding creates more safety issues than anything else. Real tech pros can (literally) hunt you down and hide behind screen names. They can lobby government under different names, pretending there were mass emails sent when in reality, there are multiple emails being sent from the same people. Do you think a group like the BOCS has the time or ambition to even CHECK that? Hiding promotes unethical and ILLEGAL behavior because people think they can get away with it.
Trust me….I’ve had my share of cyber creeps and it was much less than pleasant…so being “out in the open” makes WAY more sense to me. Greg et al have “incriminated” THEMSELVES on BVBL, in meetings, in the newspaper and on video.
In my estimation, we should NOT hide–though I understand why some do and I respect that as well.
“I think the entire issue of illegal immigration is clouded by the whole race issue.”
Oh, yeah. Race ALWAYS comes up as justification for legally persecuting a particular group. Look at history. It’s a “red herring” (distraction from the real argument).
Joe,
Many of us know each other behind the scenes. The internet is not always a safe place. The more controversial the issue, the more danger. I will respect anyone’s right to remain anonymous.
Katherine,
First I hope that you don’t object to my using your first name, since you address me by mine. I did not mean to imply that you are a _______ (fill in the blank). Please forgive me if that is what you read. My point was as long as we are throwing labels around, calling names and such, nothing is going to be accomplished. I can tell you are passionate about this issue, and more so now that it has become personal. Passion is good. What I am trying to say is that from my point of view, I see very little difference in the methods both sides employ, and in your passion to make your point, you are acting like those you disagree with. I can tell Greg has passion too. See where I am going with this?
For what it’s worth, you do have my respect. You are brave enough to attach your name to your comments, and are willing to accept the consequences of doing so. The main benefit of doing so is that I give your arguments much, much more weight than I do others, even the Admin. If someone asks are you a ____ or ____ or_____, I usually answer “Christian” or “just me”. You don’t need to prove to me or anyone where on the spectrum you sit. Your words have the power to pursuade. I hope mine do too. I will read what you write and I will agree with what I agee with, and disgaree with what I disagree with, but I won’t slap a lable on you and then challenge you to peel it off. That accomplishes nothing.
Moon-Howler,
I don’t mean to offend, but I put little stock in someone’s position when the advance it from a position of anonymity fear. I also think that the majority would be more civil, thoughtful, and respectful if our identities were not secret, which is why I choose to post in the open. When someone speaks before the Board Of County Supervisors, they aren’t free to walk up and state their positions without first stating their name for the record. If you aren’t willing to do that, why should I consider what you have to say?
Another thing, I am Republican of the same variety as McCain, Bush & Giuliani. I don’t subscribe to an open border policy; however I recognize immigration policies over the past two decades that have actually encouraged ‘illegal’ immigration. The primary example being that during the 90’s we allowed ‘side-door’ immigration meaning allowing people to adjust their status after arrival through work sponsorships. There are people that came with the expectation that they could become legal once they came and many did and many could not. So they have been here for a decade, they purchased homes and started families; rounding them up and sending them back just doesn’t feel right to me.
Admin,
I agree. Rounding up masses of people for the sole crime of their immigration status is not practical, and would cause disruptions in our society that few could fathom. Secure the border and focus on the real criminals. Issue a probationary status to those who pass a background check and and continue to obey the law. Revoke the status of those who don’t. Enforce the quota system and provide an effective sponsership program and most of all provide oversite that the laws are being enforced.
Admin, repsectfully your party affiliation means little to me, since you are anonymous. Being a Federal employee, I am not affiliated with either party and I have voted for members of both based on the issues that matter to me.
Mr. Enders –
Thank you for your posting – it is always good
to hear a “voice from the middle” although, as you have
realized, it can leave one in a no-man’s land between hostile
and highly polarized advocates and one is apt to take a blog bashing
from both sides. Guess it is still better that the events
described in “Pistols and Pens”, a book about 19th century
newspapers in Virginia, when duels were a common way to settle
policy disputes.
And I don’t vote in primaries either. I feel if I am not willing to put on a particular team’s uniform, I shouldn’t be allowed to play on the practice field.
Mr. Randolph,
Thanks for the kind words from someone who knows what it is like to be in the middle, and my hat is off to you since you are serving the citizens as a true independent.
Joe, thank you for your clarification and words. And you are right that I get passionate about these things. I also get angry because I have been bullied throughout my lifetime and sometimes, this is the only way I can say, “I will NOT put up with this in my life or where I live!”
Sometimes I look at the “name calling” and “labels” as more descriptives. However, please allow me to be even more descriptive. It is racist to single out a particular group and lobby to have them legally harassed. That’s what is happening in our county. Do you see why I use the decriptive “Nazi” etc.? It’s a metaphor or simile, “He’s acting LIKE a Nazi.”
In terms of passion and use of metaphor, I’m right up there with the Spanish speakers. And along with them, I’m trying to get back to conversation in more concrete terms. (I write poetry…this is HARD for me sometimes!)
I don’t know why you don’t vote in the primaries. Who cares about “teams”? Vote on the ISSUES not the PARTY!!! I dislike parties. I think people should run as themselves and address the issues, not a party. But that’s me.
Well let’s move on to the Ops article. Looks like camp is comming. Let’s all sign up!!! I like the Ops stuff; it always makes me feel good. Sounds to me like (note SOUNDS LIKE) our own little Ruby Ridge going on in Manassas. Have they moved on to plural marriage yet? Maybe that’s in the next issue. Maybe I am mixing my fundamentalist groups?
No according to them, this is a seminar presumably to engage in civil discourse with fellow citizens that hold an opinion other than theirs or with those they believe (or can tell by lookin’ at ’em) are here illegally. So it must be a communications workshop. 🙂
I have never been to a communications workshop or seminar that included some of the follow phrases as outcomes of the program, “assess and exploit the oppositions weakness while neutralizing the oppositions strength.” or ” you will learn how to attack at a time and place that favors sucess” and finally “You will learn how to quickly adapt to the efforts of the opposition,and prevent them from achieving success.”
Now this SOUNDS like vigilantism, but, no, you can’t be a non-profit and sponsor seminars/workshops on lawbreaking can you? But no, HSM is all about the RULE of LAW, oh wait, can you pick which laws you follow?
Katherine,
It is racist to single out and harass a group based on their race or ethnicity, which you did not specify. That is not in my opinion what HSM as an organization is doing. Would you classify those who oppose gay marriage as racists? They single out a particular group, gays and lesbians and advocate denying them the right to marry and limit certain other rights traditionally reserved for husband and wife. Many oppose gay marriage simply on religious grounds. What label or descriptor would you apply to them? Would homophobe be accurate? That’s the problem with labels.
Joe E,
Can you please share the posts that show the majority of those posting here to be to the far left. Guadelupe Hildago was the one that said Greg was a Nazi and or KKK. I, along with a few others, believe pretty strongly that “she”is not who “she” says she is. It wouldn’t surprise me if that wasn’t Greg L posting, but we’ll never know the identity for sure. What I have said is that there are similarities in language and discourse to many white supremist groups and to some rantings from other people that visit “other” blogs. That is not left wing nuttiness, that is simply stating why so many of us feel the moral and ethical requirment to speak out against such fervor against latinos. I agree that there needs to be an immigration overhaul, but the question we then debate is “what is that overhaul suppose to look like”. That is where I want to be, talking about the solutions in a humane and fiscally responsible dialogue.
Joe Enders, face it Katherine is a hammer. When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
independent t,
Since I am being asked to demonstrate something, please show me where I made this claim. If you are referring to my comments to the admin, I believe my general point was if posters on this blog want to call Greg and those who support his position names, and cherry-pick statements to support this, then the same standard can be applied by them to the people here. My specific point was that if you read only the statements Greg referenced in his post on Katherine, a reasonable person could conclude that her political views are left of center.
Please look at Jutruna’s most recent post. I went and read the article he/she is referring to. The author uses martial terms for sure, and cites an historical example of the few defeating the many, but I have had managers use the same terms when I worked in the private sector. I didn’t see anything about polygamy, ruby ridge, or anything that would justify his/her claims. What I read is HSM is holding training on grass-roots advocacy, given by someone who obviously spent time in the military, and applies the training he has had in planning to his political efforts. Not a bad approach if you ask me, as there is no better planner than a military trained one. Years ago I read “Sun Tzu and the Art of Business”. The author took the principles developed for war and applied them to the business world, which is a non-violent struggle of wills. The same could be said of politics. I didn’t put the book down and think the author was advocating businessmen inflict physical harm on the competition.
I think this further demonstrates my point about labels and name calling. I cannot take someone seriously if they are making wild claims about training vigilantes, setting up compounds and the other things I have read here (and on other blogs). They may have a legitimate point, but I’ve already discounted what they are saying. It is almost as if I can’t tell the two blogs apart. It certainly all sounds the same.
Joe,
“I agree. Rounding up masses of people for the sole crime of their immigration status is not practical, and would cause disruptions in our society that few could fathom. Secure the border and focus on the real criminals. Issue a probationary status to those who pass a background check and and continue to obey the law. Revoke the status of those who don’t. Enforce the quota system and provide an effective sponsership program and most of all provide oversite that the laws are being enforced.”
I agree with everything you just said. This is not the position that I hear being espoused from groups like HSM. Honestly, I believe this is the most likely national solution; however I’m afraid that this will not solve the issues of the members of HSM. If all the ‘illegals’ become ‘legal’, there are still going to be their concerns about assimilation etc… that need addressing.
Joe,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I for one find the “ops” training analysis very troubling. Maybe I am just too sensitive, but comparing dealing with people in real life human situations to war tactics is NOT the same as a business venture. I’m sorry, that does NOT sound like any grass roots advocacy that I have EVER been involved in. “We” aren’t the oppostion in a war, we are all human beings, trying out best to live our lives while not trampling over other people. What people like me are saying, and will continue to say, is that HSM’s message is hate filled, fear filled, and dangerous to any civil society. Personally, the “ops training” sends a very disturging message. I am no flamimg liberal, I have met John McCain on several occasions and found him genuine and trustworthy. I am thankful for people like him, not willing to gain electoral votes by scapegoating on the backs of the most vulnerable in society.
Suggest people take a time out and read “Hispanic Immigrants
and Citizens in Virginia” by Qian Cai at UVA’s Weldon Cooper Center.
It is on the internet.
The first information that leaps out is that the three jurisdictions
in Virginia with the highest Hispanic populations are
Manassas Park(30%), Manassas(27%) and Prince William(19%) –
the state wide number is 6%. (2006 numbers).
An interesting study for anyone interested in this subject.
independent,
Yes, we can agree to disagree, because you and I are not tossing names at each other. I hope I haven’t given you cause to. I wouldn’t even if someone did. “If someone strikes you, offer them the other cheek as well”. We can have a civil debate.
I find it curious that a few on this blog need to throw out the names of what candidates they voted for or support, as if by doing so it gives their words greater impact or like I am judging someone by this. Maybe someone can explain why this is. As I stated several times, I am an independent voter. I am issue oriented to what is important to me. If a thread starts about life, the death, penalty taxes I might comment there as well.
Mr. Randolph.
Thank you for the information. Could this possibly explain why it seems the issue has exploded here, and people on both sides of the argument are so fired up? I think so.
I would also like to know what social and economic forces are driving this great difference between our area and the rest of Virginia. I would assume that it was the recent construction boom driving this, but I could be wrong.
I’m an Independent who is socially liberal and more fiscally conservative. I’m not too concerned about remaining anonymous for my sake but rather for my relatives’ sake. If my point of view is discarded because of my anonymity, so be it. I can guarantee that a relative or two of mine would bare the brunt of what I have to say otherwise. My relatives aren’t posting so why should they be harassed?
I found the Special Ops piece to be disturbing for one reason only. It automatically splits the community into enemy camps which is what HSM has done from the beginning. It makes outmanuveuring the opposition its primary goal rather than listening to the rest of PWC’s and Manassas City’s residents. I’ve seen no effort on HSM’s part to attempt to bridge the divide that that organization has created. I can understand its members’ neighborhood problems, but the tack taken hasn’t solved those problems and won’t. It has used efforts of last resort as its primary means of achieving its goals locally. I think that its position of lobbying the state is more appropriate than peeing in the local sandbox where most of us have to live. Actually, I think its target should have been the federal government. (As for military imagery, I think the special ops piece is telling in the same way that Wagner as an intro to the local pols during the fall election was a tactical error. Where the speaker may have heard martial music and seen heliocopters about to reign victorious a’ la “Apocalypse Now”, many others heard Wagner and thought “anti-Semite” with its accompanying imagery. That music was a big faux pas. And I believe painting your fellow PWC residents as an opposing force to be overcome and defeated is a mistake…particularly when you’re asking them to pony up their money for your tax increase.)
And what I’ve said, I’ve not said out of emotion…I’m not a woman known to possess a lot of it.
Censored,
You make a compelling a rational argument. To your point (Ops) “makes outmanuveuring the opposition its primary goal rather than listening to the rest of PWC’s and Manassas City’s residents.” I would think that it would be the goal of this sub-group, and I would imagine that those that are on the other side of the issue have a group performing a similar function. Maybe they don’t use the same terms or imagery, but the goal is the same. It is my understanding that political campaigns often have people dedicated to “opposition research”.
Where can I learn more about the whole music faux pas?
Mr. Enders,
Certainly the large rapid demographic changes locally
played a key role in this area becoming “ground zero” on
this issue.
Also note that the report estimates that 40% of the Hispanic
residents are not US citizens. Another dynamic.
Gosh, this IS the website of fertile imaginations!
Joe Blow,
I think somene IS coming for them….a process server with notice that th blog owner and a few others are being sued. If not a process server then a guy with a big butterfly net and a jacket that buckles in the back. Watch out, special ops team Valkrie is sneaking in your window and tapping your phone, going through your trash and conducting photo servaillance on You!
Joe Enders, the Wagner music was in one of 9500liberty’s videos – film shot during one of HSM’s meetings which introduced the candidates running for office. If I can pinpoint the particular video before DH comes home, I will.
I would agree that now that the grenade has been launched, opposition to HSM has formed. That might not have been the case (division into opposing camps) had a different tactic been used in the beginning…public hearings perhaps.
Joe,
“The thing is, regardless of which blog I choose to post on, I would be presenting an opposing viewpoint.”
Can you please expand on your earlier statement. If we were suggesting blanket amnesty I could see you point. But as far as I can see, no one here has taken the opposite view of HSM. No one here has proclaimed that their are not community issues. So what exaclty is your “opposite viewpoint”. The only “opposite viewpoint” I, and others, have taken, is not villify people based on their ethnicity.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=U6c3jX_QsZA
Joe Enders, the particular video is “Fear Comes To Town: HSM Pt. 1” . If you’re not familiar with the videos, do a google search for 9500Liberty. There are 74(?) videos and they’re labelled. I don’t know if links are permitted or I’d put one.
Joe Enders
My point that I was trying to make was that this ‘training’ is not a marketing campaign where you are attempting to crush the opponent for profit, or a sporting event. The purpose of this
“training” is to deal with, presumably, illegal immigrants and those defined by HSM as proponents of illegal immigration, or I would imagine, civil discourse. These adjectives are not what I would consider appropriate when dealing person to person on issues. Sounds like plan B to me.
The 40% of Hispanic residents who are not US citizens as defined in the study include the following:
“Since neither the federal census nor other Census Bureau
surveys ask questions about immigration status, our data
on Hispanic immigrants include both those authorized and
unauthorized. Authorized immigrants typically include green
card holders; people with valid temporary visas for working,
studying or visiting; and refugees and asylees. Unauthorized
immigrants include those who entered the country without
inspection, and those who were legally admitted but stayed
beyond the date they were required to leave. As you read
this study, remember that the category of Hispanic immigrants
includes both those living here with authorization of
some form, and those who are here unauthorized.”
Joe,
You didn’t offend me. And I do agree with you when you say that most people would be more civil if they were not hiding behind anonymity (and a computer screen).
My reasons for having a moniker are job related and force of habit. I have been on the internet for almost 15 years, back in the days when people had ‘handles.’ I also have some work related issues. Additionally, I just think it is stupid in this day and age for women to put themselves out on the internet. There are times when it cannot be avoided. And there are times when it can. To compensate, I have put my email address up to be contacted offline. So I am only a half hider, if there is such a word.
And finally, I am certainly not disagreeing with your right to feel as you do and state how you feel. I can respect that. I also respect the courteous manner that you address others here.
[email protected]
I have not read through all of these comments so if this point has been made, please forgive me.
I want to address the issue of anonymity as it relates to blogs. I am from Loudoun County and one of the most popular and well read blogs (perhaps even the #1), Too Conservative, has two anonymous bloggers, most notably Loudoun Insider. There are countless examples of bloggers who chose to remain anonymous, and for jsut as many reasons. I think that we need to consider the forum and accept a blog for what it is.
I am guessing that Greg L uses his name in part because, like many people, he enjoys being a public figure. That’s ok. As such he must be prepared to get attacked, it comes with the territory. By attacked I don’t mean in the literal sense, but his character and his views are subject to scrutiny and he should be willing and able to defend both. I feel he did a poor job of doing so with his recent post about Katherine (Sp). The letter that he wrote to her and included in his post reveals a lot about his character, none of which is flattering, IMO.
On the other hand, someone who chooses to act and voice strong opinions without revealing their identity could well be admired for demonstrating a lack of ego.
I write this as someone who was a public figure and was attacked both personally and professionaly in many different mediums, including blogs. In the end, a blog is a blog is a blog. Take it or leave it.
VG,
Excellent post. Thanks for sharing your persepective, and your battle scars.
I don’t believe criticism is a one way street. If you dish it out, learn how to take it. It doesn’t seem like that has been done.
It sounds like the PLACE THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED sings the Cry-baby Blues to me.
You people are humorless and just don’t get “tongue in cheek” nuances. Katherine, keep up with idioms you profess to teach.
# redawn said on 6 Mar 2008 at 9:03 pm:
? Do what ?
Truly, I have claimed this before: My LAST post.
I discovered this antibvbl blog a couple of days ago, yet have not commented on it’s site.
Instead, I tried to post HERE ( BVBL) under the “open thread” of my new discovery.( and my comments were deleted, as have been in the past)
I said I could understand why one would chose to set up another site (the censorship)
After reading some of the comments on that site, I found it no better than this site!!!!
I posed the question of WHO HAS THE BETTER COMMUNICATION?
More importantly, what do you choose to gain?
I SEE a DEAF ear!
I will copy and paste to the other site as I stated above I have seen my comments go and I am not sure it will stay here. SAD, after some loyalty, that I have been censored too. ( and STILL hung in there)
I am NOT choosing sides and if ( and it seems it has) come to this,
I hope everyone wakes up! This division in dialog will bare no fruit.
Hi Redawn,
Glad to have you visiting. Unlike the other site, we like to have productive back and forth. There have been some fake posters here, creating some unwelcome discourse, mainly a guadelupe hildago. We all may not agree necessarily, but we seem to be able to communicate reasonably well here. James likes to point out spelling errors, but other than that, I find this dialogue much less stressful:)
“You people are humorless and just don’t get “tongue in cheek” nuances.”
On the other hand, “Jo Blow” is soooo creative, such a fresh, clever, and witty little name. I’ve never heard it before, what does it mean? It’s so avant-garde…Does it have anything to do with tounge-in-cheek?
Joe,
I think the reason people feel compelled to throw out their non left political “credentials” is because there is a smear campaign against anyone who believes that illegal immigration is a complicated human and fiscal issue. But you are right, I shouldn’t have to state where I fall politically. It is easy to get caught up in playing defense. Of course, people like Martin Luther King would have been called Liberal and I find it complimentary to put in the same category as him!!
Joe,
Here is some background on Wagner:
Prior to 1850 there is little evidence that Wagner held any strong views on Jews. However, in that year he published “Das Judenthum in der Musik” (originally translated as “Judaism in Music,” by which name it is still known, but better rendered as “Jewishness in Music”) under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. The essay began as an attack on Wagner’s Jewish contemporaries (and rivals) Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, but went on to accuse Jews of being a harmful and alien element in German culture. Wagner claimed that the German people were repelled by the alien appearance and behavior of Jews: “with all our speaking and writing in favour of the Jews’ emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” He argued that, because they had no connection to the spirit of the German people, Jewish musicians were only capable of producing music that was shallow and artificial. They therefore composed music only to achieve popularity and, thereby, financial success, as opposed to creating genuine works of art.
Wagner’s writings on race would probably be considered unimportant were it not for the influence of his son-in-law Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who expanded on Gobineau’s ideas and Wagner’s interpretation of them in his 1899 book The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, a work proclaiming the superiority of Aryan races, which had a wide circulation and later became required reading for members of the Nazi party.
Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Wagner’s music and saw in it an embodiment of his own heroic mythology of the German nation. There continues to be debate about the extent to which Wagner’s views might have influenced Nazi thinking. As with the works of Nietzsche, the Nazis used those parts of Wagner’s thought that were useful for propaganda and ignored or suppressed the rest. For example Joseph Goebbels banned Parsifal in 1939, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War, due to the perceived pacifistic overtones of the opera.[13] Although Hitler himself was obsessed by “the Master” many in the Nazi hierarchy were not, and, according to the historian Richard Carr, most Nazis deeply resented the prospect of attending these lengthy epics at Hitler’s insistence.[14]
As a consequence of this appropriation by Nazi propaganda, Wagner’s operas have never been staged in the modern state of Israel. Although his works are broadcast on Israeli government-owned radio and television stations, attempts to stage public performances in Israel have