Home » Articles posted by Bruno Pendleton

Christian Damnation

There’s a pervasive misnomer in society which suggests that America is a Christian nation of some kind.  More specifically, that America was founded on Christian values.  It’s not.  And it wasn’t.  America is a free democracy, not a Christian theocracy.  That’s why there has never once in our history been an instance of legislation, policy or decision making which references a Christian foundation.  When was the last time a lawmaker or official said, “Well, we are a Christian nation and Christ says ‘xyz’.  So let’s do ‘xyz’.”  The idea of Christian foundation is nothing more than tired rhetoric from religious flakes who are either trying to indulge their arrogance or satiate their insecurity.Preacher

I have searched high and low to find any spiritual reference or reference to a higher power in any of our country’s writings or legislation and the few places where it shows up don’t even have anything to do with Christianity.  We have ‘In God We Trust’ on our currency which is little more than some formalized looking slogan of sorts.  We mention God in our Pledge of Allegiance.  We mention it secondarily to the colorful flag itself.  Some courtrooms still use “So help you God” in a witness’s oath.  When it is used, I wonder if jurors are then more so convinced the witness’s testimony will in fact be the truth.  Even in the constitution, the few references to a higher power come in terms like ‘creator’ and ‘inalienable rights’. 

“The founding fathers who wrote our constitution were all Christian.”  This is a defense which is often trumpeted by the spiritual brain wash victims who feel they must link their faith to their patriotism.  Well, even if that’s partly true, the founding fathers who wrote our constitution were also all male.  They were all white.  They were all heterosexual (as far as we know).   I guess it makes just as much sense to say this country was founded on white, male, heterosexual values.  How can people be so arrogant as to decide which of our founding fathers’ common traits is the trait which signingserved as their primary motivation in writing the constitution?  And if there was a foundation of values which served as the impetus in writing the constitution, don’t you think the founding fathers would have mentioned it?  The constitution is one of the most clearly written documents in history.  They belabored over every portion of it to avoid any confusion or ambiguity.  Yet, its supposed foundation of Christianity was left to be some kind of cryptic cipher or a Where’s Waldo search?  That would be like writing the Communist Manifesto without ever once mentioning socialism.

A further constipation of thought in claiming Christian foundation within our constitution is to suggest that the rules and laws and values in the constitution mirror those of Christianity.  Once again, how dare anyone suggest that’s where the motivation must have come from?  Had none of the founding fathers ever been associated with Christianity, don’t you think they would still have been able to make laws under the constitution making murder illegal?  The fact that murder is bad was a notion shared by just about every civilization prior to America.   Are Christians so arrogant as to think they had cornered the market on that notion?   

After conceding to the fact that there’s no means of proving Christian foundation through anything that’s written, a lot of bible thumping nuts will then resort to claiming this is a Christian nation simply because Christians account for over 60% of the population.  Is that all it takes?  Any numerical majority status within the population is grounds to title that nation accordingly?   If that’s the case, then titling America as a Christian nation counts just as much as titling it a white nation.  A heterosexual nation; A right handed nation; An overweight nation; A nation who doesn’t like anchovies.  Etc, etc, etc…

constitutionTrue faith is a very introspective entity.  It manifests itself in body, mind, heart and soul.  It shouldn’t be some badge that has to be worn on the sleeve.  A true believer should not have to validate their beliefs by insisting those beliefs serve as the foundation of their country’s structure.  If you feel compelled to satisfy the term ‘foundation’ with reference to our country why not simply say this is a nation which was founded on ideals like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Although, Christians will probably claim they invented those ideals.  If they didn’t, then it must have been Al Gore.

License to Conceive

You need a license to drive a car.  You need a license to sell newspapers on a street corner.  You even need a license to catch a lobster out of the ocean.  Yet any two irresponsible, opposite gender, post pubescent citizens can legally conceive a child without any means whatsoever of providing for that child.  We have third generation families in this country on welfare.  That’s grandparent, parent and child, all under one roof, collecting one or more forms of government aide.  That’s what they do.  They reach puberty, they conceive children and then they become wards of the state.  The more kids you have, the more programs you qualify for, the more freebies you get.   

If we can recognize the need to make sure a motorist knows to stop at a STOP sign, wouldn’t it be equally prudent to ensure future parents know what it means to provide for a child?  Would that be asking a lot?  Conventional wisdom would suggest they should have thought of it themselves,   but as the fourth generation of state wards is almost certainly on its way, perhaps there are some for whom this revelation will never be realized.

For those who are chock full of conventional wisdom, this is a rare and fortunate case of licensing which would never have to nuisance them.  We already know who the perpetrators are!  Start by licensing those who are already on some form of government aide.  If they want to continue to receive free money from taxpayers they must agree to temporary sterilization or mandated birth control.  It’s like already knowing which motorists have failed their driving test!

Licensing Citizens to have children isn’t some means of targeting a lower socio-economic demographic.  This isn’t an even an economic issue.  This is a livelihood issue.  All a perspective parent would have to do is prove they can feed, clothe, shelter and provide for a child.  Granted, most applicants would prove that by economic means:

“We earn income in U.S. dollars and we will use said income as currency in the marketplace to acquire all means of providing general health and well being for our child.”  Good answer!  License: APPROVED

Some applicants may prove their means by less conventional methods:

“My family has lived off the land for
generations.  We find everything we need in nature to provide for ourselves and our children.  It is the very foundation of our culture.”  Good answer!  License: APPROVED

Some applicants, however, will give answers which prove the need for licensing:

“This is exciting for us.  We really want to have this child.  We’d like the American taxpayer to provide that for us.”  Bad answer!  License: DENIED

“Children are a miracle.  They are a blessing from the lord.  God will provide.”  Bad Answer!  License: DENIED

Later on, as we become more civilized and refined we can ask really tough, unheard of questions like, “What are you going to do if you lose your job the day after your child is born?”  Baby steps for now, though.  Let’s not ask too much of those who are responsible for the nurturing, livelihood, and welfare of a human being. 

While licensing could relieve financial burden as soon as nine months after it’s implemented, its long term benefits could be even greater.  We have a chance here to potentially wipe out the better portion of our next generation of criminals before they’re even born.  Most of the criminal element in our society comes from homes and neighborhoods which are receiving government aide.  This is the same element of society who would be denied licenses and never have a chance to conceive future criminals.  We must be patient with realizing this benefit of licensing.  It will take roughly 12 to 13 years for crime prevention benefits to kick in, since that is the age when criminals emerge and start victimizing society.

There are no unplanned pregnancies.  There are no pregnancies which are just random acts of god.  Knowledge of procreation is not some revelation that sneaks up on everyone.  It’s the exact same thing that fish do.  Are there people out there who are going to try to claim they don’t know how conception occurs?  Are these the same folks who would then be applying for licenses so they could parent children?  Even worse, is there anyone who would actually mind that we put a stamp of approval on parents to ensure a child is properly provided for?  If there are, I have a stamp for them: DENIED!

Can Anyone Count?

Racial discrimination in America has always been a very topical, hot-button issue marred in controversy and debate.  Much of the debate is facilitated by the fact that it is so difficult for any two parties to come to an agreement as to what the clear definition of racial discrimination is and when it definitively takes place.  Let’s face it, the only time we really know for certain that someone was discriminated against because of their skin color is when the perpetrator actually admits it.  The rest is just finger pointing and conjecture.   What we do really know though, is that discrimination does take place.  Without defining racism or determining which isolated case meets that definition, we can still say that over any given period of time there are individuals who were discriminated against because of their skin color. 

The make up of the group of people who are the victims of racial discrimination is an element of the race issue which is not controversial or debatable for anyone who has the ability to count.  All too often we hear cries over the fact that minorities or non-whites are more often the victims of discrimination.  This can’t be helped.  This is a condition which is inherent to the numbers in our population.  Non whites are greatly outnumbered by whites.  That’s the definition of the word ‘minority’, there are less of them.  If there are more white people overall than anyone else then there are more racist white people overall than anyone else.  If there are more racist white people in the first place then the victims of racism will more often be, you guessed it, non white!

According to the Census, whites make up about 68% of the population.  In lieu of any other conditions, that would mean any general cross-section of society would adhere to those same numbers.  Pick a group of people: those who are tall, those are mean, those who are nice, those who walked into a Target store today, those who like anchovies, those who are racist.  Whatever group you choose, in general, their make up would be: about 50-50 male female, about 10% left handed, about 65% overweight, about 10% homosexual, about 8% vegetarian, etc., etc., etc.,  and about 68% white!  If 68% of those who victimize others with racial discrimination are white then about 68% of the victims of racism have to be non white.  Isn’t that how it usually works?  Don’t racists always victimize people who are a different skin color?

Look at it in whole numbers if that’s easier for you.  In a nation of 300 million with 68% white that would mean about 204 million people were white.  The next largest representations of skin color are blacks and latinos at about 13% each, totaling about 39 million people each.  No matter what the percentage of the population may be racist, that frequency will occur in proportion with those totals.  Let’s say that only 1% of the population is racist.  That makes about 2 million racist white people, 400,000 racist blacks and 400,000 racist latinos.  Two million versus, at best, four hundred thousand?    Do the math!  I don’t care if it’s a water balloon fight.  Non whites are guaranteed to get their heads handed to them.  Still struggling with the arithmetic?  Try this.  If you were to start a brand new country and populate it with 100 people made up of 68 whites, 13 blacks, 13 latinos, 4 asians, 1 middle eastern and 1 native american, who do you think would automatically have the upper hand in that society?  Who would be screwed?  Do the math!

This numerical dynamic of victimization is also represented in other arenas of socialization.  Have you ever heard of someone being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation?  When you have heard that, haven’t you heard it almost exclusively in one direction, straight people victimizing gays?  Did you ever do the math on that one?  When you did the math, were you able to realize the reason must be because straight people outnumber gays about 10 to 1?  If you can understand that dynamic at a 10 to 1 ratio you should be able to understand it in the arena of racism at a 5 to 1 ratio.  What if right handed people discriminated against lefties and vice versa?  Which group might take more grief in that scenario!?  Take off your shoes and socks if you need more digits to count with.

I don’t mean for this to sound like a justification of any kind.  It’s merely an explanation.  As long as the numbers in the population are what they are, so to, will be the ubiquitous victimization of non whites.  As the numbers spell doom for minorities they also reveal the solution.  The solution doesn’t seem possible though.  You would have to even out the numbers in the population and that would mean mandating breeding habits and it would take generations to have an effect.  So the next time any poor soul seems anxious or angry or otherwise discontented by this disparity you may offer them comfort in this explanation.  And the knowledge that the disparity only makes perfect sense. 

You’re a Bum!

Spare some change?  You gotta quarter?  I’m trying to get something to eat.  Can you help me out today?….Basically, “Would you please take your money out of your pocket and hand it to me so I can put it in my pocket?  That way, your money will then be my money.”

They’re all over the place.  Bums.  Not homeless persons.  Not the under-privileged.  Not those who are currently living out of doors.  Bums.  And I do mean all over the place.  The market place for bums used to be somewhat limited to highly populated urban areas, but as the world has shrunk, the opportunities for bums have broadened.  Still, no matter what corner of society they’re victimizing, no matter what rock they crawl out from under, if they walk up to a complete stranger and ask them for their money, then they’re a bum.

Their behavior is so blatantly disrespectful and rude that it should speak entirely for itself but for some reason society seems to practice a comprehensive tolerance of their shameless ways.  That tolerance does not exist in any other social dynamic.  Try to imagine any other life-scenario where this kind of behavior would fly.  When was the last time a casual acquaintance like a co-worker or classmate asked you for your money?  How about even a close friend or loved one?  If and when one of these parties asked you for your money, you could respond with some tired cliché like, “What do I look like, Bank of America?”  The reason that response would be tired and clichéd is because it has been so universally understood for so long that asking such a thing is reprehensible and shameful.  That’s how that response became a cliché!  We all seem to know perfectly well that when an acquaintance or loved one asks for money we can tell them to go jump in a lake.  But if it’s a complete stranger who just walked up to you on the street, well that’s a different story entirely, I guess.

Society’s tolerance of bums is rooted in some perverse, roundabout feeling of guilt.  When asked for money, people feel like they have to either give the bum their money or scamper with some explanation or apology as to why they have no change on them at the moment.  Bums recognize this guilt.  They learn that it is not only acceptable to ask this of strangers but that in doing so they now have some inherent upper hand over that person, knowing they’re laying a guilt trip on them.  This guilt based tolerance serves only to enable and expand the likelihood of their solicitive theft.  Many a bum has now gone ‘high dollar’ on us and now asks for something like ‘a couple of dollars for bus fare.’  ‘Bus fare’, of course, a bum’s euphemism for Night Train.

Why the hell should I give you my money?  Get outta my face, scumbag!  Get a job, degenerate piece of gutter trash!  These are all wonderfully perfect responses to bums.  Concise, direct, effective and, above all, absolutely justifiable.  They’re not for everyone though.  If you are the faint of heart, may I suggest a tactic which will be all too familiar to bums.  Just say, “God bless you.”  That’s what they say, isn’t it?  “No change? Ok, well god bless you, sir.  You have a wonderful day and may the lord watch over you and your children and blah blah blah blah…”  Instead of them becoming righteous and noble, you can preemptively take that moral high ground by offering them the Lord’s blessing first.  Now what good is a quarter next to something as generous and helpful as that?

Sticks and Stones…

In an airing of the football movie All the Right Moves with Tom Cruise, the executives at the FX network made an editing decision which was not very surprising.  In the original R rated version of the film, football coach Craig T. Nelson makes a pre-game motivational speech to his team where he refers to himself and his players in saying, “We’re the Dagos, we’re the Polacks, we’re the Niggers.”  In the edited version it became, “We’re the Dagos, we’re the Polacks, we’re the beep.”  This omission of the n-word only, was sadly an editing decision which all too often reflects every day society.

It would be very easy to trumpet the double standard and hypocrisy in this example from the movie with regard to all the slurs in question being racial slurs.  That’s very tempting and the racists at the FX network should be especially ashamed in this case, but I find all naughty words and name calling to be just that; naughty words and name calling.

If you’re clever enough, there are a countless number of ways to degrade, insult or offend just about anyone.  Who is anyone to quantify the level of degradation from one insult or another?  Can we really decide on everyone else’s behalf how much hurt or insult or pain they are entitled  to claim when victimized by one naughty word as opposed to another?  Who’s to say the n-word is more universally hurtful than even fatso or baldy or dumb-dumb.  What if the person being called a dumb-dumb actually is a little slow.  Maybe they road the short bus to school and were in romper room classes with no more than five students.  As such, maybe they faced constant ridicule and bullying in the form of incessantly being called a dumb-dumb.   Does that person ever count as much as a black person?  Can their feelings ever be hurt as much as a black person’s feelings?  Are they forever denied the same level of sensitivity just because of their skin color?  That is point blank racist to every non-black person on the planet!

Every naughty name has a meaning.  Every naughty word has a reason why it’s mean.  Every naughty word has a semantic origin and a history of usage.  How are parents or grade school teachers supposed to sell the blatant double standard about the n-word to our impressionable young children?  If we’re going to quantify name calling for them they may have the insight to ask if ‘double jerk’ is twice as bad as just ‘jerk’ or if ‘silly willy’is worse than just ‘silly’?

I’m not seeking to use the n-word.  I’m not looking to encourage others to do so. In doing so, the response to that bit of name calling may very well be some form of physical, criminal, lawless violence.  I’m merely suggesting equal sensitivity to everyone no matter what that level of sensitivity may be.  Clearly we are a long way from that.  Even in this post I have perpetrated that which I am contesting by writing out words like ‘dumb-dumb’ yet oh so gingerly tiptoeing around the dreaded ‘n-word’.  I’m just a gutless chump for bending over and pretending that I too find that word to be more mean than other insults.  I guess that’s better than being one of the racist pigs who actually find that to be true.


Look Both Ways Before You Cross the Street

Does that title ring any bells with anyone?  Weren’t we all taught that growing up?  Isn’t that the best way to teach it?  As early as you can talk to a child, don’t you say something to them like, “Now, pumpkin, watch out for 30 mile per hour, one and a half ton moving objects.   They make big boo-boo on you.  Ouchy-ouchy, Danger.”  It seems like more and more the safe and sensible mantra of  ‘Look both ways before you cross the street’ has given way entirely and dangerously to a state ofPedestrians have the right of way’.

Pedestrians have the right of way is certainly the correct rule of thumb.  That should be understood through simple human nature.  Obviously.  A car versus a person is not a fair fight like a fender bender.  So if push comes to shove, no matter what, don’t run them over.  I get that.  But by pushing that rule of thumb we have enabled many an arrogant and selfish pedestrian to endanger everyone by walking out into the street when they shouldn’t.

Their body language says it all.  They should be crossing the street with a humble, mild sense of fear while constantly looking from side to side to ensure their safety.  Instead their cross is more of an arrogant strut, looking straight ahead with a conceited bobb of the head while bringing their elbows up high in motion with each step.  As if to say, “That’s right.  You have to stop…  I’m the pedestrian…I have the right of way… I’m on foot.  You and your nasty combustion engine will just have to sit there and wait.”  Sadly, that head bobb may end up receiving  a little boost of momentum by the windshield of an SUV.

The brainwashing has become some invasive that it’s effecting everyone’s driving.  More and more often drivers will come to a complete stop in the middle of the street, where there isn’t even an intersection, if they see any hint of someone looking to cross.  This is so dangerous!    You can’t stop in the roadway.  The roadway is where motor vehicles operate.  They should be ticketed for obstructing traffic. Instead of drivers making sure the noble pedestrian makes their way ever so safely to the curb, how about leaning on your horn for a good three seconds then yelling out your window, “You’re in the middle of the street, you dumbass!”  This may seem extreme, but it’s for good of the community.  If necessary we will educate them one dumbass at a time…

I Call Shotgun

We’ve all heard it.  We’ve all done it.  If there is more than one passenger entering a car to travel to a destination, only one of those passengers can sit in the front seat.  I get it.  What I don’t get is when the journey is a round trip destination and one of the passengers has the shameless gall to call shotgun both ways!

Let’s use the typical scenario of a round trip with a driver and two passengers. (Obviously, the more passengers there are, the more disgraceful it becomes for one passenger to call shotgun more than once.)  If there are two chances to sit in the front seat and there are two passengers doesn’t it stand to reason that each of those passengers should get their turn?  Is that really high-end arithmetic?  If there were two pork chops left on the serving plate and two guests just sat down to dinner, how might those two pork chops be allocated between those who are seated?  Wouldn’t you be insulted if someone actually asked you that?  Wouldn’t the average seven year old be insulted by that?  And yet we have full grown adults who call shotgun both ways all the time and do so with giddy, childlike excitement knowing they’re going to get their way.

Get their way.  I guess that’s what it’s all about.  I guess they’re the type of person who would prefer to be more comfortable rather than less comfortable.  That’s the distinction.  I see now.  They’re probably the same people who actually don’t like waiting in line or being stuck in traffic.  I guess the rest of us should be more sensitive to their needs…..UGH!!!  Of course the front seat is more comfortable.  That’s the entire reason the distinction has ever been made since the dawn of vehicular travel!

I understand this is kind of a childish social dynamic.  But that childish nature is precisely the point.  It is during childhood when every individual should fully understand everything there is to understand about this.  Share and share alike.  Doesn’t that ring any bells with these people?  Didn’t they ever have parents?

We must stand up to these ogres of civilization.  We must challenge their shameless, selfish, arrogant, inconsiderate, disrespectful, discourteous ways.  Be warned though.  In challenging them, you are almost certain to be immediately labeled ‘the bad guy’.  “Geez.  I didn’t realize it was such a big deal.”  Well then great!  If it’s not a big deal then they won’t mind if you get shotgun both ways.  There.  Now you get it your way. Shame on all of them.



For as long as there has been human socialization, discussion, debate, confrontation or even dialogue, there has been the age old tactic of ‘changing the subject.’  We’ve all experienced it.  We’ve all indulged in it.  Those of us who are a little smarter than the average folk out there are especially victimized by a particular genre of this tactic.  The discussion is underway, and each party is offering their thoughts.  The tables then turn in your favor, and you see the victory in sight.   Your counterpart then comes out with…“Why are you so angry?’

            For someone to say ‘why are you so angry’ to someone else is pragmatically insane.  Just look at what they’re doing to you.  In one sentence, one sentence, they are telling you how you feel and asking you to explain why you feel the way you’ve just been told you feel.  Notice the question includes the words ‘are you’, meaning ‘you are’.  And the object of the sentence is ‘angry’.  In total, meaning ‘you are angry.’  Preface that interrogatively with the word ‘why’ and you have one of the most crippling, straight jacketing mind games you could hope to lay on someone, and in only five words.  Is telling someone they’re angry supposed to help things at that point?  Is that an endorsement or a means of endearing yourself to someone?  In terms of intensity of degradation and insult I would liken its impact to telling someone they’re mean or stupid or childish, rude, defensive, arrogant, cold, stuck up etc.  Are those normally the kinds of rainbows and butterflies which bring a discussion to a sound and agreeable conclusion?  And if being told you personify something negative wasn’t bad enough, in this case you also have to explain why you are so dastardly.  As long as it’s fair game to lead someone with a statement that is part question and part identification, why not ask a parent why they don’t love their child?  Ask a straight person what they desire about their own gender.  Ask a vegan why they like meat. 

             The most obvious and probably the most truthful reason for someone to ask you why you are angry during a discussion is with the intent to deliberately sabotage the discussion.  It’s no coincidence that the most common time for someone to use this sinister tactic is right at the moment in the discussion when the tide has turned in your favor.  As soon as you make a good point or you have them cornered with something that’s incontestable that’s when they suddenly become obsessed with clarifying your emotional disposition.  Would it be so hard for them to simply acknowledge that you’d made a point they hadn’t considered?  Must they cower like gutless children, petrified they may have to concede in any way?  It’s such an obvious ploy to avoid accountability when you consider: What possible answer or explanation could you give, such that the two of you could then resume your discussion?  The moment you may say, ‘I’m not angry’, they’ve won.  The two of you will now be engaged in an actual debate over what your emotions are.  “You’re not angry? You seem angry. I could tell by the look on your face and the sound of your voice…” and you’re off and running…What if you tried to give them an answer that would acknowledge or endorse their query ? “I’m not just angry.  I’m enraged.  The reason I’m enraged is because I’m a Nazi bastard.  We’re always enraged.  Now can we please get back to the point I just made?”  That probably wouldn’t work either.  

             If asking you why you’re angry is not an act of deliberate sabotage, the alterative reason may be something far more sad.  Perhaps they truly are obsessed and fascinated with your feelings and emotions.  They must suffer from such a lack of socialization that the moment they think they witness human emotion in another person, everything they’re doing at that moment ceases and they just have to find out, ‘My god, what makes this person tick?’  They absolutely cannot continue the discussion until their obsession and fascination is satiated.  Poor souls.

             Since ‘changing the subject’ is an age old tactic, I recommend an age old defense.  Fight fire with fire.  Do the exact same thing they’re doing by answering immediately with, ”Why are you so scared?”  If they’re gonna tell you how you feel, tell them how they feel.  And if that seems silly or childish or stupid then it had to be silly, childish and stupid when they initiated it.  You could actually make a case at that point that they really are scared and that’s why they’re changing the subject but you don’t have to bother.  Just keep going back and forth with them until they agree to resume the discussion.  “Why are you so angry/Why are you so scared?  What do you mean,, scared?/What do you mean , angry?  Well I can tell you’re angry./Well I can tell you’re scared.  Where do you get the idea I’m scared?/Same place you get that I’m angry.  Can’t you be any nicer?  Can’t you be any smarter?  Would you please calm down?/Would you please overcome your fear?”……It’s so simple, it’s brilliant.

             Discussions, disagreements, confrontations and debates all embody a two sided nature.  One person’s anger is another person’s passion.  It’s only normal for there to be an inherent heatedness to these discussions.  Chances are more than likely that one, if not both parties are angry.  So what?  It would only make sense.  Even in reading this post you could easily, and cleverly, say to me, “Gee, you seem awfully angry.” What if that was true?  Is that some kiss of death?  Would that negate my position somehow?  Although hopefully by now you realize that if you did dare to tell me I was angry I’d have no choice to but to tell you, you were just scared.


A full time college student in Florida recently announced his status as an illegal immigrant at a public rally.  Jose Salcedo, an elite student at Miami Dade College, fearlessly proclaimed his ‘undocumented’ status in what was said to be a rally of support for the proposed, and recently delayed, DREAM Act.  The Dream Act proposes that illegal immigrants brought here when they were babies, toddlers or teens who end up enrolled in college or in the military, be granted citizenship.  Salcedo’s announcement and the DREAM Act are further examples of our contradictory immigration policies and enforcement.  For this student to have so shamelessly confessed to a crime in public and for Congress to consider modifying a standard which is already so ambiguous, only complicates and confuses the immigration issue.  This ambiguity of policy, law, law enforcement, and basic decision making is why it’s difficult to have an informed position on immigration as there is no way of knowing how our current laws would even work because they’re not enforced.

            When Salcedo proclaimed his criminal status it was widely reported as a controversial and intriguing story.  A story that really ‘hits a chord’ with the community by raising awareness and ultimately creating sympathy for these victims and their plight.  A story which raises questions and challenges us to consider where we stand on an issue like this (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/17/1931298/at-dream-act-rally-a-surprise.html).  There were no subsequent stories however, of law enforcement officials taking Salcedo into custody, let alone contacting him.  His unlawful status is somehow different.  There are no other crimes for which we distinguish their status as much as we do illegal immigration.  Once the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is introduced, we should have all the information we need.  Yet so often we particularize each case of illegal immigration. Asking questions about the specifics and scrutinizing deeply as if we had no laws in place whatsoever.  These stories come up all the time. If there’s an illegal immigrant who’s pregnant and seeks an abortion, we actually stop and ask ourselves, “Hmm, should we allow illegals to get abortions?”  How is that question even raised?  Why do we take any action other than charging, trying, convicting and sentencing her for her crime?  The sentence being deportation.  Should we allow them to finish college if they’re already enrolled?  No.  We should deport them.  Should we allow them to seek state or federally funded jobs?  No.  We should deport them.  Should we provide them with medical treatment?  As much medical treatment as they need to fulfill their sentence: deportation.  Should we educate them?  Well, as much education as they need to understand the details of serving their sentence: “Get on boat.  Get off boat.”  Should we allow them to vote in local elections?  Provide religious sanctuary?  Issue driver’s licenses?  No.  No.  No.  Deport.  Deport.  Deport.  Put simply, you say ‘murderer’, I say 25 to life. You say ‘illegal immigrant’, I say deportation.

            I can certainly understand the argument behind the DREAM Act.  The idea that it isn’t some 10 year old’s fault that his parents were such shameless, degenerate criminals in bringing him here illegally.  But that scenario is only a further example of how ambiguous and lax our laws have been for so long.  And to identify someone in that position as a victim who should be exonerated is to basically create a statute of limitations on the crime of illegal immigration based on someone’s age and duration of lawlessness.  So, if you can get away with it for long enough, we’ll let you get away with it forever.

            We all know how this country was founded.  Through conquest and immigration.  That lax foundation of immigration structure, basically a  free-for-all, is what makes us the great American melting pot we are.  As well as it can be understood that this foundation was beneficial to us at the time, it should be equally understood that it isn’t the way things are anymore.  We have since become a country that has immigration problems, population problems, and as much as ever, homeland security problems. The more we indulge ourselves in debate over specific instances of alleged controversy, the more we discredit our current laws and confuse the entire issue. Whatever direction we are going to take, whatever goals we seek, whatever we decide is in the country’s best interest, we should at least take it seriously enough to be able to legislate, adjudicate and execute a clear standard of laws and conviction to those laws. Legislate, adjudicate and execute. Yes. I’m quite certain I’ve read that somewhere…


The State of Arizona just recently passed the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative which prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment of individuals based on race in public institutions. This initiative is aimed primarily at public colleges and universities with respect to their admissions policies (http://www.nas.org/polPressReleases.cfm?Doc_Id=1634). While I am encouraged by the fact that Arizona has taken steps similar to other states to ensure equal treatment among college applicants, I find it disturbing that such laws or propositions are even necessary when they are seemingly redundant with what is already mandated in our constitution.

            This issue received attention several years ago at The University of Michigan when a white applicant to the school’s graduate program sued for discrimination because blacks and latinos were given preference in admissions because of their race. This policy of preferential treatment is not in question. Public schools are required to make their process available and their blatant racism is actually documented. They have a point system when determining eligibility for admission and if you’re black or latino, you get more points. As un-American and criminal as this may sound, it is sadly the norm.  University officials will tell  you, right to your face, “When it comes to admissions at our school, we try to maintain a student body comprised of diverse backgrounds.” Well, what do you think ‘of diverse backgrounds’ means? It means based on the color of the applicant’s skin! Even as the issue comes to light, it gains support and validation. When the University of Michigan case went to the State Supreme Court the school’s policy was upheld. Judges said, “Colleges and universities in our state are allowed to be shameless, degenerate racist pigs in their admissions policies as long as their degenerate racism works in favor of the wonderfully righteous and noble black or latino.” Granted, I’m paraphrasing their wording a bit but I find it hard to phrase such a decision otherwise.

            These are the kinds of policies which can turn a decent citizen into a racist. Someone who is perfectly fair, objective and non-discriminatory who is victimized by or even enlightened to a policy like this could then easily adopt that mind set of racial distinction. Thereafter, they may justifiably demand or mandate distinctions in the name of any demographic which they personify. And the cycle of corruption continues.

             Once someone is aware of a policy like this, they could easily view minority professionals differently. What if you had to hire a doctor or a lawyer to help you with something that was important to your livelihood? When considering a perspective black or latino, would it occur to you that perhaps that individual got to where they are through less stringent standards? They wouldn’t be perspective black and latino professionals to you,  in that regard, had they never been distinguished as black and latino college applicants in the first place.

            Please. Aren’t there any minorities out there who are terribly insulted by policies like this? Isn’t it demeaning to know you gained admission to a school based on your skin color rather than your merit or achievements?

            The ideal means of viewing any demographic is to be blind to it. The more we make distinctions in the name of color or age or gender etc., the more we perpetuate that socially corruptive mind set. Again, while it’s nice to see Arizona’s initiative get voted in, I wonder how much destruction is already in place and worry about how much farther we have to go.

Hidden Secret Revealed A simple strategy to trade stocks is uncovered!