Washington is awash in lies these days, perhaps even more so than under the previous Administration. The new gang of thugs (D-flavor) is pumped up by electoral success and what they imagine to be a popular mandate, failing to recognize that a moral collapse of the Republicans does not mean that the American people are clamoring for more state control and open borders.
One of the symptoms of an increasingly Stalinist left is repression on the basic freedom of free expression.
A common strategy from the left is the accusation of "hate speech"—a condemnation attached to any idea with which they disagree, e.g. legal, controlled and reduced immigration.
Speak the truth that any informed person knows—that Open Borders kill—and the response will likely be a bogus accusation of the dreaded "hate speech", or the nuclear option, "racist", which will deflate many a discussion. VDARE.com writers are slammed frequently in this way. The aim is to win through intimidation, an approach which is often successful in Europe, where disgruntled Muslims go jihad if they feel insulted. (Over a hundred people were killed around the world during riots by Muslims unhappy about the Danish cartoons mocking Mohammed.)
Anti-hate is a big theme among the multicult crowd. The Southern Poverty Law Center has its Hatewatch blog; La Raza promotes We Can Stop the Hate and Latinos against Hate Speech exhorts its uncritical acolytes to complain about speech protected by the First Amendment. When MALDEF launched its talking points website in 2008, lawyer Peter Zamora declared: "Anti-immigrant hate speech has led to an increase in violent crimes against Latinos and has created tensions which divide communities."
That's an interesting theory. But the supporting evidence is often weak and anecdotal at best: a so-called "hate crime" occurs and speech favoring immigration law enforcement is blamed.
When Ecuadoran illegal alien Marcello Lucero was beaten to death on Long Island by a group of drunken teenagers, the New York Times tried to blame the crime on a local pro-borders official, Steve Levy. However, the NYT's own reporting suggested that the real culprit was the town's permissive policing toward rowdy teens who were allowed to run wild. (See my VDARE.COM article, Treason Lobby Moves to Suppress Free Speech, for more details on the case.)
In another recent crime, Ecuadoran Jose Sucuzhanay was jumped and beaten to death in Brooklyn as he walked home arm in arm with his brother at 3 am. Gov. David Paterson visited the family and denounced the crime as "not the New York we aspire to." The New York Times gushed with sentimental coverage, but was somewhat incomplete in its description of the perps: Ecuadorean Man Dies From Beating Before His Mother Arrives to See Him [by Jack Healy, Dec 14, 2008].
"Yelling anti-gay and anti-Hispanic slurs, one of the men broke a bottle over Mr. Sucuzhanay's head and, when he fell to the ground, another began beating him with a baseball bat, the police said. The men kicked and punched Mr. Sucuzhanay until his brother told them that he was calling the police on his cellphone, the authorities said, and the attackers piled into the S.U.V. and drove away. Romel Sucuzhanay was not seriously injured in the attack.
On Tuesday, the police released a description of one of the men, saying that he is 6 feet tall and thin and that he wore a black leather jacket, boots, dark jeans and a dark baseball cap during the attack. The reward for information was set at $22,000. "
An inquiring citizen had to read the New York Daily News to learn that Sucuzhanay was attacked by three black men, according to witnesses. (Gov. Paterson visits family of hate crime victim Jose Sucuzhañay, By Stephanie Gaskell, December 19, 2008). New York Times readers just found that one bad guy was tall and…wore clothes (!).
So the NYT played up the crime as a terrible thing, but wasn't concerned enough to include descriptions that might help locate the killers. Doing so would violate a couple of important media myths: 1) that only whites attack colorful oppressed peoples; and 2) that the rainbow coalition of melanin-enhanced persons stand together in solidarity.
False ideas, as the Sucuzhanay killing showed, but the NYT won't violate its self-defined taboos.
In recent days, a long-simmering murder mystery appears to be solved. Media coverage should prove interesting.
The summer before the 9/11 attacks was filled with the disappearance of 24-year-old Chandra Levy from Washington DC. The Bureau of Prisons intern from Modesto went out for a jog and never came home, leaving her parents distraught and desperate for answers. Despite supposedly thorough searches in Rock Creek Park where she was thought to have gone running, her body was found a year later by a man walking his dog.
Investigation found that Chandra had been romantically involved with Congressman Gary Condit. His shenanigans to cover up the affair looked a lot like a man guilty of murder. He managed to convince the police, much of the press and the public that he was a killer. Only the terrorist attacks removed Condit from frequent media speculation of whether he was a cold-blooded murderer or merely a disgusting cad whose prevarication had slowed police progress with the case.
A more likely killer from the viewpoint of previous behavior was Ingmar Guandique, a Salvadoran illegal alien who had been in and out of police crosshairs. He was a low-level burglar and had attacked two women in Rock Creek Park the same summer Chandra disappeared.
Now, almost eight years later, the news was an eye-opener: Levy Parents 'Bittersweet' Over News of Expected Arrest in Daughter's Murder [Fox News, February 22, 2009].
"Police interviewed and are close to charging California prison inmate Ingmar Guandique for the murder of Levy, who vanished in May 2001, a law enforcement official told FOX News on Saturday. Levy's body was found a year later in Washington's Rock Creek Park.
"Guandique, a Salvadoran immigrant, was convicted of assaulting two women in the same park around the time of Levy's disappearance and is serving a 10-year sentence in federal prison."
Can we count on the Main Stream Media to examine a Salvadoran killer with the same enthusiasm as they pursued a Congressman?
Might any among the scribbler class note that Chandra's tragic death was entirely preventable if our immigration system worked to keep out criminals?
Not only was Guandique an illegal entrant, he was also a burglar who had contact with the criminal justice system. Guandique had been arrested for burglary, but he was released back onto the streets after killing Chandra, but before assaulting the other women.
Dangerous, violent foreigners are routinely released again and again because ethnic special interest groups like La Raza and Maldef agitate for sanctuary city policies and other relaxation of law and order. The result is a level of lawlessness that is hard to imagine, where child rapists are freed to walk American streets, as a 2008 Houston Chronicle investigation found. [An abuse of freedom: Many illegal immigrants out on bail commit another crime or vanish before trial, by Susan Carroll, November 17, 2008]. The same series reported on Tina Davila, the mother of five who was killed in a carjacking attempt by an illegal alien who had been in custody, but not deported. Three-year-old Marten Kudlis was struck and killed in Aurora, Colorado, by a truck driven by an illegal who had been arrested 16 times, but never deported.
The blood of these innocents and many more are on the hands of the Open-Borders extremists—the Raza mouthpieces, the immigration lawyers, the journalists who crank out sob stories about lawbreakers. They work to overthrow our system of law and borders for their own selfish reasons, while the number of dead killed by illegal aliens continues to mount. Yet the Open-Borders enablers act like they are on the side of virtue. Why is that?
The Open Borders side is guilty of more crimes than treason. They must be held to account.
Brenda Walker (email her) lives in Northern California and publishes two websites, LimitsToGrowth.org and ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. She considers herself a political independent of the Goldilocks variety who believes there should be just enough government—neither too much or too little—given the situation. The borders require more government, for example.
