Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

View Detail

You're Not The Boss Of Me

You're Not The Boss Of Me

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

You're Not The Boss Of Me

View Detail

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

View Detail

Latino Theme Parks

Latino Theme Parks

Barack Obama's Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has now been recruited to bring back the Hispanic votes for the post-racial President. They've largely failed on the Dream Act, and the economy is so bad that even the illegals are starting to leave. So what to do? Start creating more Latino-themed national parks and historic landmarks.

No, I'm not talking about more Taco Bells. They're about as Hispanic as Arby's Roast Beef. El Pollo Loco is closer, if only because I'd love to have a national landmark called "The Crazy Chicken." Salazar is talking about real parks and real landmarks. And while he's at it, he thinks parks and landmarks should also increase the representation of women, African-Americans and other "minority" groups. Obama has basically lost the middle class of all colors and ethnicities, so it's time to make a big splash to draw back the victim groups.

Obama first appealed to the Hispanic demographic during his famous Cinco de Cuatro speech. Things have been going downhill ever since. Now, he realizes that he has a built-in Latino to do his demagoguing for him. Pan y Circos (bread and circuses) are out, parks and landmarks are in. Obama and Salazar deny that this is about vote-getting. Salazar says "the White House meetings following Hispanic Heritage Month have nothing to do with electoral politics--and are instead designed to improve the country's poor preservation of Hispanic history and culture." And if you believe that, I still have that orange bridge in San Francisco I'm willing to sell you cheap.

I don't want to be difficult, but in California alone there are four major landmarks not named after famous Swedes--San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego. Salazar doesn't care. His view is that "less than three percent of all the national landmarks we have are dedicated to 'minorities.'" So now, conveniently, is the time to start catching up because "that tells you that the score is not even." It's purely coincidental that the time to do it coincides with the nadir of Obama's popularity among minorities and the opening shots of the 2012 electoral wars.

It's also coincidental that on Wednesday, the White House held a major conference at the executive mansion to discuss Latino heritage. The mission statement of the conference: "To focus on whether the government is properly serving Hispanic students, small business owners, military veterans, and artists." The four California cities I mentioned aren't enough, so Salazar met earlier with California National Park Rangers to try to identify Latino-themed sites in the state. I hope they met at historic and tourist-popular Olvera Street in Los Angeles.

Salazar has said that there's a huge history of Latinos in the United States that's never been told. How that is going to be advanced by creating or altering national parks and landmarks he didn't say. One spot he would like to choose is the "Forty Acres" used by Cesar Chavez during his attacks on farms, farmers, and unwilling migrant farm workers. Here's a snap quiz: Name any California city with a population over 500,000 that doesn't have a street, avenue or boulevard named after Cesar Chavez.

Not to be outdone by the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial in Washington DC, Salazar has recently involved himself in the proposed National Museum of the American Latino. Salazar and multiple Latino special pleaders, with the enthusiastic support of the DC city planning commission are looking to locate the museum near the Capitol, at an estimated cost of $600 million. Now, Salazar has ordered a national study (cost unknown) of people and places worthy of national historic preservation.

I have a suggestion. The Alamo was designated a national historical landmark in 1960. Whites, Texans, expansionists, jingoistic norteamericanos, and xenophobes co-opted the site. So in 2011-2012, the Alamo should be re-designated a Latino Historical Landmark. After all, the Mexicans won that battle, didn't they?

Barack Obama's Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has now been recruited to bring back the Hispanic votes for the post-racial President. They've largely failed on the Dream Act, and the economy is so bad that even the illegals are starting to leave. So what to do? Start creating more Latino-themed national parks and historic landmarks.

No, I'm not talking about more Taco Bells. They're about as Hispanic as Arby's Roast Beef. El Pollo Loco is closer, if only because I'd love to have a national landmark called "The Crazy Chicken." Salazar is talking about real parks and real landmarks. And while he's at it, he thinks parks and landmarks should also increase the representation of women, African-Americans and other "minority" groups. Obama has basically lost the middle class of all colors and ethnicities, so it's time to make a big splash to draw back the victim groups.

Obama first appealed to the Hispanic demographic during his famous Cinco de Cuatro speech. Things have been going downhill ever since. Now, he realizes that he has a built-in Latino to do his demagoguing for him. Pan y Circos (bread and circuses) are out, parks and landmarks are in. Obama and Salazar deny that this is about vote-getting. Salazar says "the White House meetings following Hispanic Heritage Month have nothing to do with electoral politics--and are instead designed to improve the country's poor preservation of Hispanic history and culture." And if you believe that, I still have that orange bridge in San Francisco I'm willing to sell you cheap.

I don't want to be difficult, but in California alone there are four major landmarks not named after famous Swedes--San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Diego. Salazar doesn't care. His view is that "less than three percent of all the national landmarks we have are dedicated to 'minorities.'" So now, conveniently, is the time to start catching up because "that tells you that the score is not even." It's purely coincidental that the time to do it coincides with the nadir of Obama's popularity among minorities and the opening shots of the 2012 electoral wars.

It's also coincidental that on Wednesday, the White House held a major conference at the executive mansion to discuss Latino heritage. The mission statement of the conference: "To focus on whether the government is properly serving Hispanic students, small business owners, military veterans, and artists." The four California cities I mentioned aren't enough, so Salazar met earlier with California National Park Rangers to try to identify Latino-themed sites in the state. I hope they met at historic and tourist-popular Olvera Street in Los Angeles.

Salazar has said that there's a huge history of Latinos in the United States that's never been told. How that is going to be advanced by creating or altering national parks and landmarks he didn't say. One spot he would like to choose is the "Forty Acres" used by Cesar Chavez during his attacks on farms, farmers, and unwilling migrant farm workers. Here's a snap quiz: Name any California city with a population over 500,000 that doesn't have a street, avenue or boulevard named after Cesar Chavez.

Not to be outdone by the Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial in Washington DC, Salazar has recently involved himself in the proposed National Museum of the American Latino. Salazar and multiple Latino special pleaders, with the enthusiastic support of the DC city planning commission are looking to locate the museum near the Capitol, at an estimated cost of $600 million. Now, Salazar has ordered a national study (cost unknown) of people and places worthy of national historic preservation.

I have a suggestion. The Alamo was designated a national historical landmark in 1960. Whites, Texans, expansionists, jingoistic norteamericanos, and xenophobes co-opted the site. So in 2011-2012, the Alamo should be re-designated a Latino Historical Landmark. After all, the Mexicans won that battle, didn't they?

Latino Theme Parks

View Detail

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

The Obama administration is entirely uninterested in protecting the rights of most Americans, but when it comes to protecting the rights of illegal immigrant workers, they're johnny-on-the-spot. In fact, last week Labor Secretary Hilda Solis signed partnership agreements with a number of Latin American ambassadors to make sure the "rights" of their expatriates in the illegal labor market are fully protected.



We used to make agreements with foreign nations in the form of treaties, ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution. But who needs treaties or the Constitution when you can have partnership agreements? Such agreements have been signed with the embassies of Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala. The new agreements have been made with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Unlike treaties, which generally give and get from both sides, partnership agreements require no quid pro quo. We give, they get.



The agreements not only grant protections that are already in place as statutes and/or case law, but assures the ambassadors that the illegals will be guided to jobs, instructed on how to make maximum use of American labor law, and told how they can prevent "abuse" in the workplace. Most of all, Solis declares that these agreements are designed to protect "documented and undocumented workers" evenly under the law.



When leftist Democrats start talking about equal enforcement of the law, you know what is coming next is a complete distortion of the law. And Solis doesn't disappoint. All workers in America are already protected by volumes of statutory and case law. No employer, with or without these agreements, can violate the wage and safety rules legally. So why write these agreements at all?



Beside the obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote and the amnesty-now crowd, it's also a good way to draw the public's attention away from the real law. Nobody wants human rights abuses to go unnoticed, but employers who are criminals themselves can get away with it because of the ease of hiring so many illegals at poor wages and in poor working conditions. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books. Barack Obama just signed an executive order stalling deportation for about 300,000 illegals



Solis says that "migrant workers have a right to a legal wage." Yes, they do, if they're here legally and have work permits. But the Immigration and Nationality Act says very clearly that "employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States." They're not entitled to any wage if they're here illegally. "The Act protects both U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals who are here with legal work visas from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship." That last sentence is on the Department of Labor website. Do you see anything in the Act about illegal immigrants working illegally?



Still, the United States is a generous nation. We do apply the same law to anyone within our legal jurisdiction, and that includes illegal immigrants, at least until they're identified and deported (small chance). Once an employer, knowingly or unknowingly, hires an illegal, that worker is entitled to the same rights as anyone else. No new law or partnership agreement is necessary to accomplish that goal.



So what Solis is attempting to do has two major elements. First, she wants to make it very clear that illegal immigrants are not only welcome, but they're entitled to good treatment and longevity on the job so that they can use their lengthy stay and work record later when the Future Democrats of America come to call. Oh, and then there are the lawsuits for back wages, harassment, and discrimination.



Second, she is making it clear that the United States is ready, willing and able to accommodate a wave of immigration from countries that are utter failures at doing what is necessary to create and encourage employment in their own sorry nations. All of this is being done without even an insincere pledge from the other nations that they will at least attempt to help stem the tide of emigration.



Solis also slipped and gave out another reason for her deep and abiding concern for the poor benighted illegal workers. Says Solis: "In many cases, taxes aren't being appropriately paid, those taxes should go into our US Treasury, and if everyone is brought out of the shadow in that manner, then we'll have more assistance to protect people." Aha! Get better wages for the illegals, identify the offending employers, and there will be more money for government programs. How did I miss that obvious jewel the first time around? Maybe some of that money that is being sent out of the United States by illegals should also go into the US Treasury.



And then the ultimate insult from Solis and the ambassadors. The agreements also promise that the Labor Department will work closely with the embassies and consulates to enforce OSHA and Wage/Hour provisions in American law. That's just what we need. Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic "assisting" us in enforcing our laws.



Also assisting the foreign governments in deciding how to enforce American law will be the thuggish SEIU and the reprehensible United Food and Commercial Workers Union, both of which were in attendance at the signing ceremony. The whole ceremony was timed to coincide with Labor Rights Week, and that's a traditional American thing, isn't it? Well, no. It was started in 2009 by the Mexican consulate, and as Solis says: "The Labor Department works in conjunction with fifty Mexican consulates across the nation to bring US labor law education to migrant workers and their employers."



While signing the agreements that give away more American sovereignty, Solis spoke Spanish exclusively at the event. The theme of Labor Rights Week this year is the plight of migrant women in the workplace. Solis invoked the name of that great Spanish-speaker, Cinco de Cuatro Obama by saying (in Spanish, of course): "On behalf of President Barack Obama, we stand together to denounce hatred, violence, and prejudice and recommit ourselves to protecting migrant women in the American workplace." Well, who wouldn't want to get behind that noble cause?



One final note. Solis, Obama and the whole illegal immigrant claque are so pleased with these agreements that Solis is headed off to Asia next month to sign more of them.

The Obama administration is entirely uninterested in protecting the rights of most Americans, but when it comes to protecting the rights of illegal immigrant workers, they're johnny-on-the-spot. In fact, last week Labor Secretary Hilda Solis signed partnership agreements with a number of Latin American ambassadors to make sure the "rights" of their expatriates in the illegal labor market are fully protected.



We used to make agreements with foreign nations in the form of treaties, ratified by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution. But who needs treaties or the Constitution when you can have partnership agreements? Such agreements have been signed with the embassies of Mexico, Nicaragua and Guatemala. The new agreements have been made with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Unlike treaties, which generally give and get from both sides, partnership agreements require no quid pro quo. We give, they get.



The agreements not only grant protections that are already in place as statutes and/or case law, but assures the ambassadors that the illegals will be guided to jobs, instructed on how to make maximum use of American labor law, and told how they can prevent "abuse" in the workplace. Most of all, Solis declares that these agreements are designed to protect "documented and undocumented workers" evenly under the law.



When leftist Democrats start talking about equal enforcement of the law, you know what is coming next is a complete distortion of the law. And Solis doesn't disappoint. All workers in America are already protected by volumes of statutory and case law. No employer, with or without these agreements, can violate the wage and safety rules legally. So why write these agreements at all?



Beside the obvious pandering to the Hispanic vote and the amnesty-now crowd, it's also a good way to draw the public's attention away from the real law. Nobody wants human rights abuses to go unnoticed, but employers who are criminals themselves can get away with it because of the ease of hiring so many illegals at poor wages and in poor working conditions. It isn't the law that's the problem, it's the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books. Barack Obama just signed an executive order stalling deportation for about 300,000 illegals



Solis says that "migrant workers have a right to a legal wage." Yes, they do, if they're here legally and have work permits. But the Immigration and Nationality Act says very clearly that "employers may hire only persons who may legally work in the United States." They're not entitled to any wage if they're here illegally. "The Act protects both U.S. citizens, and foreign nationals who are here with legal work visas from discrimination in hiring or discharge on the basis of national origin and citizenship." That last sentence is on the Department of Labor website. Do you see anything in the Act about illegal immigrants working illegally?



Still, the United States is a generous nation. We do apply the same law to anyone within our legal jurisdiction, and that includes illegal immigrants, at least until they're identified and deported (small chance). Once an employer, knowingly or unknowingly, hires an illegal, that worker is entitled to the same rights as anyone else. No new law or partnership agreement is necessary to accomplish that goal.



So what Solis is attempting to do has two major elements. First, she wants to make it very clear that illegal immigrants are not only welcome, but they're entitled to good treatment and longevity on the job so that they can use their lengthy stay and work record later when the Future Democrats of America come to call. Oh, and then there are the lawsuits for back wages, harassment, and discrimination.



Second, she is making it clear that the United States is ready, willing and able to accommodate a wave of immigration from countries that are utter failures at doing what is necessary to create and encourage employment in their own sorry nations. All of this is being done without even an insincere pledge from the other nations that they will at least attempt to help stem the tide of emigration.



Solis also slipped and gave out another reason for her deep and abiding concern for the poor benighted illegal workers. Says Solis: "In many cases, taxes aren't being appropriately paid, those taxes should go into our US Treasury, and if everyone is brought out of the shadow in that manner, then we'll have more assistance to protect people." Aha! Get better wages for the illegals, identify the offending employers, and there will be more money for government programs. How did I miss that obvious jewel the first time around? Maybe some of that money that is being sent out of the United States by illegals should also go into the US Treasury.



And then the ultimate insult from Solis and the ambassadors. The agreements also promise that the Labor Department will work closely with the embassies and consulates to enforce OSHA and Wage/Hour provisions in American law. That's just what we need. Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic "assisting" us in enforcing our laws.



Also assisting the foreign governments in deciding how to enforce American law will be the thuggish SEIU and the reprehensible United Food and Commercial Workers Union, both of which were in attendance at the signing ceremony. The whole ceremony was timed to coincide with Labor Rights Week, and that's a traditional American thing, isn't it? Well, no. It was started in 2009 by the Mexican consulate, and as Solis says: "The Labor Department works in conjunction with fifty Mexican consulates across the nation to bring US labor law education to migrant workers and their employers."



While signing the agreements that give away more American sovereignty, Solis spoke Spanish exclusively at the event. The theme of Labor Rights Week this year is the plight of migrant women in the workplace. Solis invoked the name of that great Spanish-speaker, Cinco de Cuatro Obama by saying (in Spanish, of course): "On behalf of President Barack Obama, we stand together to denounce hatred, violence, and prejudice and recommit ourselves to protecting migrant women in the American workplace." Well, who wouldn't want to get behind that noble cause?



One final note. Solis, Obama and the whole illegal immigrant claque are so pleased with these agreements that Solis is headed off to Asia next month to sign more of them.

Hilda Solis Saves The Illegal Laborers

View Detail