An Absolut World Through the Reconquista

No, what you see above is not part of an underground La Raza goal planning briefing, it is part of the new advertising campaign for Absolut Vodka in Mexico.  Obviously playing on Mexican nationalist sentiments, Absolut implies that in a perfect world, about 1/2 of the United States would be Mexico.  This advertisement completely makes a mockery of national sovereignty and potentially only feeds the building sentiment in the SW U.S. and in Mexico about the re-conquering of “Mexico territory”. 

I am not one that typically calls for boycotts or silly actions aimed at making a political point.  I thought the call for a French boycott in 2003 was ridiculous and changing the name Frech Fries to Freedom Fries was even more so.  Even in this instance I do not call for the absolute boycott of Absolut, although I would fully support someone who made that decision on their own.  For me, the choice is easy, I don’t drink so I basically boycott all alcohol. Nevertheless, whether or not one chooses to boycott Absolut, at the least all consumers should contact Absolut and vent their disgust at such an ad campaign.  It is completely inappropriate. 

Now I recognize that this is just an ad campaign.  I seriously doubt Absolut vodka actually support the reconquista.  I also would not be so concerned about an ad campaign such as this if it were not playing on a real issue with a real movement behind it.  If they did the exact same ad with Canada claiming the Pacific Northwest or with Norway claiming Sweden, I wouldn’t really care because they are not really issues with any movement. But the reconquista movement is moving forward and is a real threat. 

I recognize that anyone that dares make such a claim is automatically labelled as racist.  Fine, call me racist.  Personally, I couldn’t care less what race, color, creed you are;  I just care about my country and preserving her sovereignty.  But even there I am not as hard core when it comes to illegal immigration or border control as many off my peers on the right.  However, I do believe that groups like La Raza have the ultimate goal of seeing SW U.S. return to Mexico.   Signs of the reconquista movement are everywhere, they were around back in the mid-1990’s as well. 

One of my favorite bands and perhaps the largest influence on me becoming politically minded was Rage Against the Machine (even though we disagree on practically everything).  They regularly sang about revolution and dropped jabs about reconquista and Mexican nationalism. 

In addition to La Raza, who tries to downplay their nationalist tendencies, there is also the Mexica Movement, who calls for the complete reconquest of North America by her indiginous people and the National Will Organization that calls for the standard reconquest of the American Southwest.  

While I personally think the reconquista movement is not a major threat at the moment, the more I read about it the more I think that there is the potential for trouble in the future; almost Islamic-fundamentalist like trouble.  Since the 1970’s and 80’s people have been talking about flooding the American SW with hispanics from Mexico in order to facilitate such a revolution.  While I think that on an individual basis, legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico come here with the intention of providing a better life for themselves and their families, there are well-organized organizations who are encouraging these movements for more sinister purposes. 

Ultimately, I am not ready to make the full leap into the conspiracy of the Reconquista, at least as a major movement, but it is something to be watched and monitored.  Controlling our borders is essential, but not to keep Mexicans out, but simply because we have laws about entering our country and they need to be upheld.  For me the issue isn’t immigration it is legal sovereignty.  As many hispanics, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, Asians, etc can come to our country as can make it for all I care, I just want them to do it legally. We have a process for a reason, use it.

 Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

P.S. The people living in the American SW would likely fight to death before allowing Mexico to take it over.  The SW is prosperous, modern, and generally well governed and free.  The last thing they want is a country with the poor leadership and infrastructure of Mexico taking it over.  Mexico can barely run the land they have, let alone attempting to take over a huge swath of the United States.  What a joke.

The Romneys, MLK, and 2008

On Thurday afternoon, after being in meetings all day and not being able to keep up with the latest news on the political front, I did a quick check of my favorite websites, my demeanor crashed, and started my one hour drive home in a frustrated state.

“How could he be so stupid?” I asked myself referring to Mitt Romney.  “How could he say over and over that his father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr, but yet it never occurred?  Didn’t he know that those are the kinds of things that ruined campaigns?  This will be his ‘brainwashed’ moment that destroyed his father’s Presidential aspirations.”  These are things that were going on in my head after seeing headlines and skimming through various posts that claimed that Mitt was lying.

Fortunately, as a result of the claims in these articles, Anne Marie Curling of CoMITTed to Romney!, did some research and discovered CONCRETE evidence of Mitt Romney’s claims and my soul has been soothed:

• Detroit Free Press: “With Gov. Romney a surprise arrival and marching in the front row, more than 500 Negroes and whites staged a peaceful anti-discrimination parade up Grosse Pointe’s Kercheval Avenue Saturday. … ‘the elimination of human inequalities and injustices is our urgent and critical domestic problem,’ the governor said. … [Detroit NAACP President Edward M.] Turner told reporters, ‘I think it is very significant that Governor Romney is here. We are very surprised.’ Romney said, ‘If they want me to lead the parade, I’ll be glad to.’” (”Romney Joins Protest March Of 500 In Grosse Pointe,” Detroit Free Press, 6/29/63)
• In Their 1967 Book, Stephen Hess And David Broder Wrote That George Romney “Marched With Martin Luther King Through The Exclusive Grosse Point Suburb Of Detroit.” “He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit and he is on record in support of full-coverage Federal open-housing legislation.” (Stephen Hess And David Broder, The Republican Establishment: The Present And Future Of The G.O.P., 1967, p. 107)

There are other evidences of such claims that Anne Marie shares as well and I encourage you to go to her post (linked above) and read the whole thing, but this leads me to send some free advice to Mitt Romney: go after the Black vote. 

George Romney was a huge proponent of civil rights and was quite popular in the Black community.  He regularly attended civil rights events, lead marches, and met with and supported civil rights leaders.  Curling adds the following regarding George Romney:

In 1967, George Romney Was Praised At A National Civil Rights Rally For His Leadership. “Michigan Gov. George Romney walked into a Negro Civil Rights rally in the heart of Atlanta to the chants of ‘We Want Romney’ and to hear protests from Negroes about city schools. ‘They had invited me to come and I was interested in hearing things that would give me an insight into Atlanta,’ the Michigan Republican said. Led by Hosea Williams, a top aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the all-Negro rally broke into shouts and song when Romney arrived. ‘We’re tired of Lyndon Baines Johnson,’ Williams said from a pulpit in the Flipper Temple AME Church as Romney sat in a front row pew. ‘Johnson is sending black boys to Vietnam to die for a freedom that never existed,’ Williams said. Pointing to Romney, Williams brought the crowd of 200 to its feet when he said, ‘He may be the fella with a little backbone.’ Williams said Romney could be ‘the next President if he acts right.’ The potential GOP presidential nominee left the rally before it ended.” (”Romney Praised At Civil Rights Rally In Atlanta,” The Chicago Defender, 9/30/67)

Mitt Romney needs to run with these stories.  Continue to explain how his father is his hero and is whom he has tried to emulate.  Explain that he has the same passionate feelings for civil rights as his father did.  Then he needs to campaign in Black communities; go to Baltimore, Atlanta, Detroit, etc and ask for their vote.   Explain that the Black community has given unconditional support to the Democratic party and that while things have changed, they have not necessarily improved.  Then proceed to unmap a vision of how to help the black community improve their plight.  He should even meet with activists like Bill Cosby and seek their support.  

Granted such efforts may not increase the amount of votes he gets from the Black community substantially, especially considering he will be running against either the wife of the “first Black President” or a Black man.  However, he may be able to consolidate the independent vote and even a good portion of the moderate Democratic vote into his camp.  If Mitt can use his spirit of optimism and incorporate that into improving the Black community, he can win and effectively revolutionize the Republican party.

It has long been my belief that the GOP needs to more inclusive, not more exclusive.  It seems that since the party has been hijacked by the South and the religious right, we have closed ourselves off to expanding our support to minority groups.  Granted, this is not entirely the case, but the perception is there and often perception is more important than reality. 

This inclusiveness is not only important for the strength of the party, but it is simply the right thing to do.  The best way for a person of any situation to improve their plight is self-responsibility and discipline.  There is no better person to compassionately incorporate this principle into social policies than Mitt Romney. 

Correcting Lawrence O’Donnell’s Mormon Bash

Yesterday on the McLaughling Group, the question over Mitt Romney’s speech was brought up. After some praising of the speech by Pat Buchanan and others, Lawrence O’Donnell blew up, called it the worst political speech of his lifetime, and spent the next  5 minutes trashing the LDS Church, including blatantly lieing and spouting things that simply aren’t true.

Here is the video:

The vitriolic hatred that O’Donnell has with Republicans, Mitt Romney, and the LDS Church should come as no surprise to anyone who pays attention to politics and the media.  He has blown up many, many times before and consistently sounds like a complete buffoon.  The thing that I hope viewers realize is that when a person gets that fired up, they lose all sense of rationality and pragmatism; the person is running completely off of emotion and will say whatever comes to mind regardless of factuality.   I hope this is what happened with O’Donnell here; otherwise he was just out and out lying and that is inexcusable. (Also note that O’Donnell “plays a Mormon” on the HBO show Big Love; this must be where he gets all of his information on Mormonism).

The first claim O’Donnell makes is that the Church let go of it’s “racist” policies in 1978 for political reasons.  The policies he is referring to is the fact that the LDS Church did not give Blacks the Priesthood pre-1978.  The change in policy was far from political.  What political expediency was there?  The civil rights movement, the height of political pressure, had long since passed.  There was no LDS person running for President and no threat from the federal government for revoking it’s recognition as a church or whatever.  What it came down to is the fact that God was ready to make the change and revealed it to the church leaders, in fact nearly all of the church leaders were relieved and had been hoping for such a change for a long time.  Here is the official declaration from the Church regarding the change.

The next falsehood, and this one may be less consequential, is he claims that Blacks could not be members of the Church.  The fact is, Blacks could become members and could participate in the church and partake of the sacrament like all members. This was the case from it’s earliest days.  However, Blacks could not receive the Priesthood until 1978.

Then he brings up what he apparently thinks is our basis and doctrinal belief on where this policy stemmed from.  He said, “Black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God.”  Completely, completely false.  If this were the case and they turned away from God in heaven, those spirits never would have come to Earth, they would have been cast out with the 1/3 of the hosts of heaven that Lucifer lead away (see Revelations, etc). 

He then goes onto directly accuse Mitt Romney of racism, for firmly believing the “faith of his fathers.”   O’Donnell completely and knowingly ignores facts here.  Mitt even mentioned in his speech that his father marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.   Mitt’s father continually pleaded with the Church to overturn the policy and stridently fought for civil rights and equality.  Mitt has never done anything to remotely imply that he is a racist and O’Donnell’s attacks here are wholly unfair.

The most egregious and false claims made by O’Donnell, however, is the claim that both Joseph Smith and the Church as a whole supported slavery and racist political policies.  Nothing is further from the truth.  One of the largest reasons the Mormons were persecuted like they were in Missouri and were so hated, was that they were ardent abolitionists as a whole.  Slavery was an economic necessity to the Southerners (or so they thought) and this influx of immigrants into their area from America’s Northeat and Midwest, Canada, and England caused great apprehension and concern among the local populace in terms of political might and power.  The Mormons were seen as a political threat that would in an instant revoke the right of Slavery if given a chance.

Further, Joseph Smith ran on an abolitionist platform when running for President in 1844.  He consistently preached against Slavery his entire life.  In a pamphlet sent around the country stating Joseph’s political stances in his run for the Presidency, it was made clear that, “Joseph Smith expressed his feelings on most important issues of the day except his desire to add to the powers granted the federal government. This may have been an effort to demonstrate that he was truly aware of national problems and would not use the office of president merely to promote the interest of the Saints. Among other things he called for prison reform, abolition of slavery, economy in government, a national bank, and territorial expansion.”  I take this attack from O’Donnell to be the most offensive.   Never at any time did the Church promote slavery, on the contrary, it always seeked to abolish slavery.

I do not blame people for criticizing the Church for it’s pre-1978 racial policy.  It is fair game as far as I am concerned.  People are free to criticize as they desire.  I just ask that people be accurate in their characterizations of such criticism.  At least be truthful; and here O’Donnell was anything but.

Now, to address the present standing of the Church on racial issues.   I would submit that no faith is as inclusive to all races as the LDS Church is today.  They have vast Missionary efforts in every corner of the world.  Africa is one of the fastest growing regions for the Church; more and more wards, stakes, and missions are being created there.  The Church even has Temple’s in Ghana, South Africa, and Nigeria. 

Finally, this issue of race was discussed by the President of the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley, in the Church’s General Conference in April 2006, here is the segment on race:

I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? 

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.