AntiBVBL

This is brilliant. Truly brilliant. This blog entry should be seen nationally. And it should be translated to Spanish. I think there is a real potential for national healing on this issue if enough people see this blog entry.

My hats off to Mr. Pearson. My God, the courage he must have to go so far down the anti-immigrant/anti-Hispanic path … so far in fact that he had fused his identity with this issue … and then to reflect and reevaluate, to look deep inside himself, and be as honest as he is, not only with himself but with the world. I am truly stunned.

Elena, your writing is nearly as brilliant. I have from the very start defended Corey Stewart from charges of racism. When people choose sides they can get wrapped up in winning, and become blind to their own faults and their own mistakes … let alone the mistakes of political allies … when still somewhere inside that decent human being, that good-hearted person is screaming to be freed from his prison of adversarial attacks and political grandstanding.

I knew this, and I didn’t know this. But I understand what has happened to Corey better now than I did before. I suppose that’s the shame of the political process and the two party system.

Re. Stirrup, I think you’re being too kind to him, but hey, it’s a new year, let’s turn the page. After reading this I could even have compassion for Letiecq.

Elena,

I think what you say is true only for that minority of people who have a lot of conscious, ingrained aversion to bigotry. They are in denial and have various methods to maintain their denial.

But I think the majority of the rest of the people out there just don’t care if something is or isn’t an act of bigotry. They care about getting rid of people they’ve identified in their own minds as bad people. They’re not shy about calling these people immoral as long as they can do it in a way that allows them to plausibly deny their bigotry. Immigration law is an excellent tool to be a bigot and get away with it.

I think Stirrup falls into this second category, except that he is even more extreme than most. His nomination of Duecaster, betrays a depth of extremism that is frightening. I expect that Stirrup shares Duecaster’s sentiments that mass violence against immigrants should never be taken off the table and may one day become an option that needs to be exercised.

I don’t think the appointment of Duecaster was any kind of a private matter for Stirrup. This was not a matter where his heart was in conflict with itself. It’s simple. He’s an asshole.

Wow! To admit one’s mistakes and change one’s life is the ultimate test of a person’s character… and Pearson passes the test! This guy should go on the O’Reilly Factor and Olbermann’’s Countdown (although I’m thinking that illegal immigration is no longer of news value as a subject).

I hold elected officials particularly accountable when they use an ill-conceived and immoral cause to advance their personal political careers. I’m guessing some of our Supervisors are personally agnostic on this issue; however, it served (note past tense) their purposes. Those types of politicians are particularly dangerous to a Democracy as they pander to the mob and its baser instincts. Fortunately, we may use their time as Supervisors to evaluate their instincts and extinguish further ambitions (preventing further damage to our Community, our State, and our Nation).

Good reporting 9500 Liberty! I’ve added Robb Pearson’s blog to my list.

I would agree Rob Pearson is a man of great character and integrity. I was awed when I first saw this video.

WHWN nailed it on this one and so therefore all I can say is DITTO!!!!!!

This needs to be seen by as many people as possible. Hopefully, for some, watching Robb on this video will be like looking in the mirror(part 1), especially from 2007 and ‘08.

I also see this video as a possible olive branch. I know from experience that good people can get caught up in the “fight” when “Fighting Illegal Immigration,” is your campaign strategy. But I also agree that elected officials ought to know better.

Happy New Year everyone. And great job on getting the front page yesterday.

I am very interested to hear what Chris P. has to say about this.

Being a student of the Gospel of Greg, not a follower, mind you, but a once-upon-a-time avid reader, I predict the Liar in Chief will have a severe reaction to this. He might not make his feelings public, just to save himself further humiliation, but Robb and Elena have basically exposed him, opened him up like a can opener and showed his empty prepubescent smallness for the world to see. Ouch.

Robb, you are a hero for your honesty. Elena, bravo on the play-by-play analysis! My only quibble is that the whole thing applies to Greg Letiecq, not just the first half.

My gosh, can you imagine a public debate between Robb and Greg?!?! Or how about a light saber duel! I’d watch that on pay per view.

I don’t really know if healing could come from this video because Robb Pearson, as well-spoken as he is, was not a participant in what happened to Prince William County, and therefor cannot apologize for it. There is only one person who could heal the wounds by apologizing and restore our reputation as a welcoming community by recanting, and that is Corey Stewart.

But as for Stirrup, I’m just disgusted beyond belief and would not care if he apologized, nor would I believe him. I really don’t know if it is true that “any of us” could get wrapped up in racism for political gain. I know many people who could not, and would not, no matter what the perceived rewards might be.

Stirrup has never tried to distance himself from Letiecq or Help Save Manassas as Stewart has. He signed his name to a hate group’s resolution in the quietness of an dank and dark room because he really feels hatred toward immigrants and people of color. It’s an awful thing to say. It hurts to say it, but I believe it.

Stewart has really offended me at times, but it’s hard not to see that he is just a big kid who is dying for attention and approval, and some how lost his ability to determine right from wrong when it comes to racial scapegoating and the relationship between cause and effect when it comes to county policy. These are HORRIBLE attributes for a leader of any kind, let alone the leader of one of the largest counties in the nation. But, it doesn’t mean he is a racist. At least he didn’t start out as one.

I could give Corey Stewart the same understanding that Robb earns in this video, IF AND ONLY IF, he came out and said something similar to what Robb has said. It would mean so much to this community to hear the Chairman say,

“The Immigration Resolution was a bad call, I accept responsibility, it seemed like a good election issue, I didn’t know it would blow up like this, I wasn’t the only Republican who thought we could win the White House on this issue, I see now that winning elections isn’t worth sacrificing my good name and the good name of this Prince William County, I apologize, I promise to do a better job of leading this county.”

NotGL,
I’ve watched the first video, and plan to watch the second a little later. I don’t think my comments would be all that interesting. I see why you think they might be. However, I don’t think my thoughts would be well received. I don’t think I’ve ever posted regarding Mr. Pearson in the past. I don’t discount his point of view. I do see things differently than him. More later.

It was very, very interesting to hear how the HSM-like group from New Jersey was vehemently opposed to Robb making anti-racism part of his platform.

Yes, it implies awareness, doesn’t it.

When white people stand up and applaud, white officials join them in support.

When non-whites stand up and applaud, those same white officials have them arrested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lWMp6KrCfU&feature=related

They are aware, always were aware, and didn’t pretend not to be aware. The whole illusion was that there was some way to separate prejudice out of the issue and make it purely a legalistic and legislative issue. They made careful statements. I saw a video of Jackson Miller who I think orchestrated the whole thing begging Help Save Manassas to find some non-white members to make it look good.

And I’m sorry, this is no olive branch because the HSM’ers will be offended by Pearson saying it all boils down to intolerance. It helps us understand them but they will not understand the people in the middle or anyone in the rest of normal society.

It isn’t just about race, I do not think. It is also very much about class and associated behavior.

Moon-howler,

Actually, I think it’s about ego, attention, and opportunism. Racists may jump on the wagon once it’s underway; however, I think sometimes (not always) the person driving the wagon ended up in the seat by accident (and can’t stop it). As I believe Robb states, he became a celebrity by accident and enjoyed his new found status and fame. Once established, it’s hard to walk away from the attention (it sounds a bit like a deal with the Devil). Politicians and opportunists are quick to exploit what Lennon called “useful idiots” (apologies to Robb) for their own purposes. Unfortunately, we have a lot of “useful idiots” (people who don’t really understand what they are doing or why) in Prince William County… and plenty of people to exploit them.

That’s a great point Opinion. I wouldn’t want to call Robb an idiot. I wouldn’t say that of Greg Letiecq who is obviously very smart. But you can understand how a guy with a blog might be flattered if a politician suddenly said, Hey you can help me win this election. Especially someone who has always idolized politicians like Greg seems to do.

ShellyB,

I use the term “useful idiot” figuratively, not literally. It was used by the Soviets to refer to foreigners (including Americans) who supported Communism and joined the Communist Party while not really understanding what was going on inside the Soviet Union (the “Vatican” of Communism). These “useful idiots” served the Communists purposes well. I’m guessing Robb understands the difference and realizes his past role in the immigration debate. Most important, he was humble to admit a mistakes… the sign of a truly great man.

Thanks, O, and agreed about Robb.

BTW, I have heard unconfirmed reports of a few instances where Corey Stewart took certain HSM members aside and said this or that was racist and they should be more careful.

Good for Corey Stewart. I hope that is true. He is just one of those guys I would rather like than dislike but….he has given me no reason to like him. Please see if you can get confirmation on that NGL.

Whether it’s true or not, my point is that Elena’s analysis is off base with regard to Corey Stewart and Del. Miller. They are not in denial. They are not useful idiots. They are cynical calculating politicians who pander to racist voters and take ADVANTAGE of useful idiots like Letiecq, while at the same time creating an artificial separation to make it look good for half-interested voters not really informed on the issues.

Robb Pearson said he wanted to speak against racism at his rally as a matter of conscience. But he must have also known that open racism is a political black eye. He was trying to do the smart thing politically. This doesn’t take away from his doing the right thing, or trying to. But with Stewart and Miller, they are a lot more calculating and opportunistic with this.

The election strategy is to win 100 percent of racist voters, and get 30 percent of the uninterested voters who would vote against a politician who panders to racists if they knew. In PWC that can work as long as voter turn out is low: witness 2007. If turn out is high, it’s lights out, and the hate pandering politician loses: witness 2008.

I totally agree with JustinT. about Corey and Jackson Miller. Miller’s up for re-election this coming Nov. It will be interesting to see if he campaigns as a proud supporter of HSM and wears a Red Dot on his lapel at his campaign stops. I think he will try to overlook the events of the last two years or place the blame somewhere other than where it should be. He will problably talk about the need to “move foreward” and confront the “new” issues facing the Commonwealth in the coming years. I think he watched the results of the last two elections and is probably running a little scared right now.

It seems the men here agree re. Miller. His relationship to Letiecq and BVBL is tighter, deeper, and longer lasting than most people know. If and when this comes out, it will hurt him come November.

But come now, this is January, and the question on this thread is whether an ineffective leader (Corey Stewart) should also be condemned as a racist. I say no.

It is interesting to note that Robb Pearson is not accusing Corey Stewart of being a racist, nor is he accusing him of anything he himself has not admitted to. Both men have been caught up in a highly politicized issue, and said some things they regret. The difference is that Stewart has not recanted, and, sadly for Prince William County, he can still do a lot of damage to our collective future … damage that could last long after has resigned or been defeated.

NGL, yes, offering an apology is the most important thing that Stewart could do for this county before leaving office. But don’t hold your breath.

It’s been 25 years since they deserted us, but darn it if I don’t still have loyalty to the Colts. What a game. But go Ravens.

Well said Elena, once again. It takes courage, though, to let go of an identity as the “Mr. Crackdown,” especially when there is a guy sitting on the Board now who as also an alpha dog. Nope, Corey Crackdown is just not ready.

He’s entitled to his opinion. It has nothing to do with mine. I still live here, he doesn’t.

Not to be too unkind, but this guy is very full of himself. Anyone who takes out a web domain in their own name typically is. His opinion plus 50 cents will get you a gumball.

In my opinion, Corey Stewart is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in Prince William County (and perhaps Virginia) in the last 100 years. To the masses, he will be the poster boy for Right Wing Conservative intolerance for a long time. To those who really understand the nuances of what is going on, he will be representative of an opportunistic breed of politician who will seize any issue to achieve his own end (I would actually admire him a bit more if I thought he actually believed in what he was doing). All Democrats should be grateful for his actions (and perhaps send him a nice card or a fruit basket in appreciation of his contribution to advancing the Democratic Party in Prince William County).

It’s ironic that the housing slump is helping change PWC demographics to reflect a more diverse, minority population. Suddenly, minorities are finding affordable housing in great quantities in PWC and taking advantage of this unique situation. I have seen several estimates showing that Caucasians will no longer be the majority in PWC. I assume the PWC Democratic Committee (and other politically active groups) is smart enough to start citizenship classes (for legal residents) and voter registration drives (for citizens) so our new county residents may vote in future elections. It is also obvious that the Federal Government plans to finally solve the immigration issue and give long time illegal residents a path to citizenship. More voters. I just hope the Democratic Party keeps the Obama machinery in place for a few more years (as getting out the vote was never their strong suit in the past).

I’m also assuming that many centrist Republicans will find the opportunistic nature of Stewart and Stirrup offensive and opt for change as a matter of principle. The folks in Stirrup’s District particularly might want to redeem their reputation a bit. (If I were on the PWC Democratic Committee, I would set up a program to identify affordable housing for minorities in Stirrup’s District to balance the demographics a bit.)

The color blue is looking better all the time in Prince William County.

I couldn’t agree with you more in this respect. Well said!

Rick Bentley, 4. January 2009, 9:22
He’s entitled to his opinion. It has nothing to do with mine. I still live here, he doesn’t.

Opinion,
Very interesting post. Do you bleed blue?

You bring up some very valid points. Trust me, there’s PLENTY of affordable housing in the eastern portion of the Gainesville District.

I would say that 2011 (the next PWC Election for Chairman at Large, I believe) would give the PWC Democratic Committee enough time to identify a Hispanic candidate for Chairman at Large and orchistrate a campaign to ensure his or her success. I know that there are at least a couple of very active Hispanic businessmen in the county who would be superb in this position (and a stay at home mom or two I would consider qualified for the position). Let me be clear: I’m talking about superb candidates for Chairman at Large who happen to be Hispanic. There may also be a District or two worth targeting for new Supervisors. Our BOCS needs a bit of, how shall I say this politely and politically correct, “local color” (otherwise referred to as diversity).

The timing would be perfect, the irony delicious, and the opportunity for PWC to move forward in a new direction… well… “priceless”.

Chris,

I’m an independant. I’m willing to bleed for the right candidate; however, my blood is red, white and blue.

Opinion,
I was being sarcastic.
I’m an Independent too, and bleed the red, white and blue just like you.
I didn’t find myself disagreeing with much if anything in your post @ 9:47.

I would NEVER join up with either party. I’ll dictate and make my own choice of candidate.

You know, Chris, we independents ought to get organized (Independents unite?)

Opinion, excellent analysis. Independent here also. Similar discussions like yours are going on as we speak. Perhaps you need to email admin?

Opinion, I think most people really are Independents, but just can’t admit it due to their affliation with either part.
Independents United sounds great! I’m open for discussions and exchanging of ideas.

Opinion, I think your analysis is sound. Chris, I also bleed red, white, and blue, but here is my analysis from a Republican perspective.

It is my hope that Corey Stewart will resign the Chairmanship to run for Congress against Gerry Connolly in 2010.

It’s not that I think Stewart would make a good Congressman. But he would do less damage … in particular to Prince William County … if he were cooped up with his fellow partisans in Washington.

If instead, Stewart weathers the storm as PWC Chairman, he will be increasingly blamed for the disastrous economic, social, and public safety impact of the Immigration Resolution. Crime statistics will likely bear out the foolery of abandoning community policing, and as other counties recover from the national recession, people will want to know why PWC is lagging behind.

Thus, if Stewart runs for reelection in 2011, he will cause, if not create, a media circus that will increase turn out and help the Democrats. And, his extremist rhetoric in defense of the Immigration Resolution will have a toxic impact on the Republican ticket throughout the county. He will cost us seats in the General Assembly, and he could well cost Prince William County some of our most effective and forward-thinking County Supervisors who have stood up to Stewart during his ignominious tenure as Chairman. Meanwhile, Stewart himself would likely suffer a humiliating defeat and, among the party bigwigs, be considered personally responsible for handing the BOCS chairmanship to a Democrat.

Here is why I suspect Corey Stewart might already be thinking of resigning here to go up against Connolly in 2010:

1) Corey Stewart is well aware Opinion’s salient points re. demographic shifts in coming years.

2) Obama.

3) Corey Stewart enjoys a fight, hates Connolly, and is much better at electioneering than he has proven at grasping the nuts and bolts of county policy. He has savored hard-fought electoral victories in 2006 and 2007, and will be hungry for the possible new glory and guaranteed new publicity that would come with a showdown against his hated rival for a seat in the U.S. Congress.

4) Corey Stewart has a bad taste in his mouth right now. The Immigration Crackdown did not propel him to the Governorship or Lieutenant Governorship as he had hoped, and here he is slogging through the county budget process while his colleagues implicitly remind him this mess was primarily his making.

If Corey Stewart were to resign and run against Connolly in 2010, he would save face for himself, and offer a tremendous boon to the reputation of this county, as well as the morale of our police department, our county employees, and most importantly our citizens.

WHWN, do you think that most Republicans in that district would support Stewart over another Republican candidate? Afterall, he does bring the baggage of the immigration resolution and PWC’s fiscal problems along with him. I agree that it would be better for PWC if he pursues other goals, but would he have support within the party? Would the party be shooting itself in the foot by nominating someone as conservative and controversial as Stewart at a time when the area is turning bluer?

WHWN,

I think you missed a step. Corey Stewart has to first win the Republican Party nomination for Chairman at Large or a Congressional seat. I believe that the PWC RC will be forced to make some pragmatic choices to remain viable in the County.

The only thing certain in politics is that nothing is certain. We thought Hillary was a shoe-in at one time and that “black guy from Chicago” was a joke… woops?

whwn, well, those are certainly some interesting points you have there. I think Republicans will have a tough time for a while. Unless Obama bombs, the Democrats are going to have their day in the sun for a pretty long while.

I used to vote republican fairly frequently, about 20 years ago. Then the extremists got in. I would have a hard time pulling the lever now. I would think one of them had something nefarious up their sleeve. That doesn’t actually make me a democrat though. They act stupid also.

Opinion, I knew at the dem convention in 2004 that the black guy from chicago was going to be a force to be reckoned with. Just a 6th sense. I also didn’t think Hillary had a snow ball’s chance in hell. Little did I know it was from within the Dems. Go figure. The world has turned upside down.

Opinion, I’m right there with you, but if I had mentioned that contingency, I might have sounded as if I was advocating for a particular challenger from within the party and I am not. I do hope Stewart resigns and challenges Connolly (here I do think he would win the nomination, being that extremists will decide at the convention) because his exit would be less damaging to the party, and less damaging to the county by way of being sooner than later.

Moon-howler,

Agree with your comment about the 2004 convention. He reminded me of Kennedy; however, I wouldn’t have bet a dime on his chances (unless there were really great odds). Once I realized he had a shot, I donated to and voted for him (I generally don’t waste my time on causes I consider lost; however, I am occasionally wrong in my assessment).

WHWN,

You’re right. Conventions are driven by whomever shows up (and extremists usually show up.) Independents don’t get to play until the election (or do they?)

If anything will help the truth come out, this video will be it. Nothing packs a harder punch than a person who has gone through tremendous change and is brave enough to talk about it. Robb will end up being more famous now than he ever could have been supporting anti-immigrant lobbyists, racists and unsavory politicians. What we have here is a role model.

Having followed Stewart’s comments for some time now, I’ve decided that if you don’t stand up against organized racism and if you support racist groups, then you are as guilty as they are. It doesn’t matter if you consider yourself racist or not. You are an accessory to the crime–”aiding and abetting” as the anti-immigrant folks would say about us reformers. This is not to say anyone should be sent to the electric chair or that there isn’t time to change. Robb Person shows positive change is possible. But he also shows it’s not easy. Only the strong, honest and willing will attempt it.

I don’t think Stewart, Stirrup, Letiecq, Duecaster, Wood or a number of others would even consider sorting things out the way Robb has. And that’s why these people need to be out of our government. Not only are their prejudices toxic, their leadership is unsound.

Opinion, I thought we would be hearing more from the gentleman from Chicago, it just happened a lot faster than I thought it was. I think I thought perhaps America wasn’t ready. I am happy to note that apparently I was wrong.

I agree with Tuscadero, but I’d go a step further. People who don’t know any better are not as infuriating as Stewart. Duecaster, he could never be elected to anything because he wears his prejudice and hate on his sleeve, and he seems completely unaware of it. Then you’ve got Stirrup, who hid it very well until this issue came along and he came unglued on Ch. 23 several times. Now we know where he stands.

But Stewart is worse because he is exploiting people like Stirrup and Duecaster who don’t know any better. I just find that all the more repugnant. Not to mention all the other Help Save Manassas types who got dragged into a pitiful cycle of hate and indoctrination and hate anew. All for political purposes of a guy who thinks he’s above them. Sick.

I’m grateful to Robb Pearson that he allowed 9500Liberty the opportunity to interview him. He is charismatic. He’s able to articulate his transformation and it’s very insightful.

All these comments and nothing from Robb himself? What’s the deal here? Robb, where are you?

NotGregLeteicq:

I’m alive and well. I’ve simply been preoccupied with some other things over the past few days that have not allowed me to devote any time to dialogue on here. However, everything’s back to ordinary and I will be replying to a number of the comments made here recently. If not this evening, then definitely tomorrow.

ROBB

Robb, I hope you can comment on the forgiveness talk on this thread. Was that your intention? At least partly, to allow people to forgive each other? Do you think it’s necessary for public officials like Corey Stewart or John Stirrup to take similar steps to what you are doing/have done?

Robb,

Excellant commentary. I certainly agree with part one of your video, I do not agree entirely with part two of your video, in just the following points. I think you almost got it right, but overcompensated due to what I perceive as your own self-analysis guilt about rule of law applied to “common humanity”.

IMHO rule of law is and always will be a valid concept, and as you said absolutely must be applied within a context and understanding to simultaneously prevent racism. That is your most profound insight, and it was also mine. I refuse to talk about rule of law without also talking about preventing racism, and ALL of my comments contain such doctrinal criteria, to not judge people by race, gender, religion or ethnicity. but to judge them soley by their “legal” and “illegal” behavior.

As you indicate many people on both sides of the illegal immigration debate issue CANNOT do this. They almost all fall short of an understanding of the need for rule of law, AND the need to approach ALL humanitariam issues without regard for groups, gender, race, religion or ethnicity.

What you failed to include in your self analysis is that it is OK, even necessary to judge human behavior and “oneness” in humanity, by a “justice” and “injustice” cleaver of “legal” and “illegal” behavior, without regard to race, religion, gender or ethnicity.

Not all humans are equal in behavior, and not all are good, even though many people on the social activisim bandwagon believe that all people are the same, behave the same and deserve the same treatment, regardless of what laws they break, or who else the affect or harm by their illegal behavior. Those that are not able to judge entirely by the rule of law, and a by democratic concept of legal and illegal behavior (determined by law and enforced by judges), and those that break the law regardless of race, gender, religion and ethnicity need to be punished according to the judgement of judges and the laws of elected officials representing all of us in a democracy, and by those charged with protecting all of us (our freedoms) and our rights, in a democracy. How one group of humans behave cannot be judged in isolation of their impact on all others, and that is the “reality” of a distribution of “humanity”, humanness, acceptable behavior and un-acceptable effects created by the guilty (or actions of illegality) on the lives of innocents.

You have gone past this very improtant concept of why we have law, why it is just and why it must be applied regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnicity, even though MOST people cannot do this (as you focused on in your commentary). It is essential to demonstrate this principle flaw to all people on both side of the “illegal” immigrant debate or it will never get solved peacefully, and with proper justice for all people, not just some people who politically speak the loudest, and sympathize with lawbreakers the most, in the name of some arbitrary numerical equality of “common humanity”. There is really no such thing as common humanity (it is an abstract ideal, unmeasurable and unenforceable), because all humans are individuals, some with good behavior that follow social law and some with bad human behavior that break social/legal law regardless of how many innocent people are hurt by that illegal behavior.

Once you grasp this, I believe you wilol go back to your original instincts that rule of law is our most important concept of morality, but cannot be enforced without also debating and insuring that no individual is judged in this rule of law behavior based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.

Behavior must be judged based on individual actions, and a standard of law protecting the entire humanity from those humans that hurt others, and must always be judges based on individual behaviors and not group affiliations, privileges or discriminatory politics and group actions against others.

My respect for your introspection went up as I found myself agreeing with your concepts almost 90% of the time. I think you just left some important humanity concepts out that protect ALL people from those that harm them.

The GAZA strip conflict is an exercise in this “rule of law” necessity as their are people who execute “illegal” and destructive behavior on “innocents” on both sides of the “ethnic” and “religious” divide between them. They lake all others who cannot see their own racism, cannot punish and judge based on individual behavior alone, and bring to prosecution only those individuals and those leaders who have broken law and harmed others, especially innocents. The GAZA strip is not a common humanity and never will be as long as decsions and “values” are made based on race, religion, gender and ethnicity, rather than applying “rule of law” to individuals harming others.

I picked this thread to come in off-topic and say we should really talk about this WSJ article that mentions PWC and describes the type of systematic mortgage fraud that lead to our mess – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111072368352309.html

If we’re going off topic and talk about the mortgage crisis, please listen to this episode of This American Life called “The Giant Pool of Money”

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

It’s long, but if you really want to understand why the mortgage crisis happened, it’s worth the time.

But if you’re too lazy, here’s my summation: Mortgage loans were being repackaged and sold to investors hungry for a good return on their “giant pool of money.” For some reason the regulators allowed the repackagers to lie about the risk involved and give themselves AAA bond ratings. The banks were making so much money on this, they lowered the standards for mortgages so that people didn’t even have to prove they had a job! When the hungry investors realized they had been defrauded, the stopped buying the toxic repackaged loans, and the credit world froze up.

It’s not really off-topic Rick, but yet another example of the very issues that Robb discussed in his video, and especially shows the ignorance of how people view the sub-prime crisis that has destroyed our economic stability and very likely our entire national/international economic competitiveness as a nation in a global economy.

This article points out the fatal flaw in what is wrong with looking at issues and fighting national issues based on race, religion, gender and ethnicity instead of looking at only those who are affecting the mortgage market because they are or were illegal at some point, and those who have never been illegal, and thus correclty blaming “illegals” and former “illegals” for the market insanity that was fueled by a huge population explosion and demand by poor people for sub-prime risky mortgages (pushed primarily by racist activists wanting to take care of only ther own gender, race, religion or ethnicity, rather than ALL individuals the same)

I’ll explain as follows, why this is the heart of racism, and racist political agendas, and major consequence of not following “rule of law”.

First the statistics in this article are FLAWED because they look at comparing race, religion, gender and ethnicity as reasons for bad behavior and as political reasons for justifying priviliged behavior. What is telling is the ratio of total numbers of people in one ethnic group compared to another (in fact all ethnic groups are not equally represented, and likely just lumped into a “white” column, instead of understanding “what is driving individual behavior, regardless of ethnicity”.

The ratios ARE THE SAME across all ethnic groups if you consider the number of “individuals” in a population group that are here or where previously here in the last 25 years as “illegal” individuals (regardless of ethnicity), because the ratios of sub-prime mortgages are equally distributed across the population of “illegal” or formerly “illegal” whites, “illegal” or formerly “illegal” hispanics and “illegal” or formerly “illegal” blacks, also asians and muslims and hindus as a percentage of the total “legal” populations in those demographic groups.

THe article wants you to believe it is a racist issue, when in reality it is a “legal” compared to “illegal” population demographic issue, specifically amoung the “illegal” and formerly “illegal” poor, who normally would NEVER get these sub-prime loans with their racist political counterparts advocating for specific programs and privileges just for certain ethnic, gender, religious and ethncity groups.

It is also true that people created ecomomic “coalitions” to benefit only members of thier own political group, based on thier perceived but illegal “right” to advocate for privilege and special humanitarian benefit based solely on their race, gender, religion and ethnicity. AND THAT CONCEPT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE MORTGAGE LENDING ETHIC, because it breaks and ignores “rule of law”.

JustinT correctly points out that the effects of this “illegal” impact by an “illegal” or formerly “illegal” population growth that was out of control for 25 years, is to create a market bubble where significant corporate greed is now enabled, due to the huge population demand for sub-primes, the profits of sub-prime rates and the lack of ethics to self police (often based on ethnicity and who was ethnically related to ethnic centric politicians), and to self-regulated (i.e follow “rule of law”).

The truth is in the numbers that show what percentage of those sub-prime borrowers were “illegals or formerly “illegals” within the last 25 years and what percentage were also “lying” and misrepresenting their actual income or legal ability to pay those mortgages as the rates responded to other market demand forces (ergo, the bubble pops, and the poor are the ones who can’t and won’t pay their obligations, thereby grossly affecting the security, stability, rights and prosperity of the rest of us innocent victims who “follow rule of law” and do not cheat, lie, steal or discrimminate based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity in order to have a social advantage over other “individuals”, that not all of us are “legally” entitled to.

ShellyB, you stated:

I hope you can comment on the forgiveness talk on this thread. Was that your intention? At least partly, to allow people to forgive each other? Do you think it’s necessary for public officials like Corey Stewart or John Stirrup to take similar steps to what you are doing/have done?

Tomorrow I will comment on forgiveness, and what my intentions were. And do I think it’s necessary for Stewart and Stirrup to take similar steps as I have done? Well, I think every person should do a serious re-inventory of themselves and their values and make transformative changes accordingly.

On my way to bed. I will catch you all tomorrow.

Be well.

ROBB

The mortgage crisis happened not because poor people where given access to loans they could not afford, but because “illegal” people and formerly “illegal” people, created such a huge population explosion in the past 25 years, and a significant increase in the number of “poor” people in the US over 25 years (a growth in total population change of around 15-20 million additional poor people (reflected in the number of peolple who NEEDED sub-prime loans to get into an house, regardless of their ability to pay or their income level.

This is the fundamental flaw with “social engineering” by group advocacy and by priviliging and politically helping people based only on their ethnicity, race, gender or religion, rather than whether they deserve help based on their situation as individuals and based on whether they are “illegal” or “legal” and held accountable to following a “common rule of law” that harms no innocent and protects no “illegal” person who harms another (in this case financially, and disastrously driving the US into deep economic depression).

The fundamental ethic issue in all of this is not how to help and advocate for a sepfici ethnic group, but how to advocate for the “legal” poor, to own homes, while ensuring they can pay for their loans for the duration of their loans, not how to politically advocate to support “illegal” people and formerly “illegal” people to continue to cause uncontrolled population growth, uncontrolled growth in the numbers of “illegal” poor and continued arrogance of supporting racism, religion and ethnicity as a means to benefit and support only your “ethnic groups” achievement of the American Dream.

These political activists and artivles that look only at race and ethnicity rather than “individuals” following “rule of law” are as racist as you can get and are thye main reason for our nations present political and economic demise.

Preventing “illegal” behavior and following “rule of law” are the only solutions that will protect ALL of us equally (regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion or race) from further economic and political disaster.

It is my hope that all of those lenders (regardless of ethnicity) who violated rule of law, ethics and made mortages available and sub-primes available to people based entirely on their ethnicity will be punished under “anti-discrimmination laws”, and that the people who lied on their sub-prime mortages, in order to get loans they should never be entitled to get if they “followed rule of law” will be punished by “anti-fraud laws” and FBI investigations into such massive fraud and ethnic-centric illegal behavior that caused such significant damage and loss of financial stability to the rest of us. The wide scale “victims” of this fraud is the rest of the “innocent” population, who do not lie, cheat, steal, de-fraud and ethnically privilige ourselves into having advantages over other individuals, and do not seriously harm innocent “individiuals” as a result of their “illegal” and ethnic-centric political behavior. “illegal” behavior and “illegal” politics must be punished, and severely or it will simply encourage more corruption and lawlessness the next time the opportunity for greed and dis-proportionate social advantage based on ethnicity and “illegality” happens.

What is this talk of loans based on ethnicity. It’s all B.S. They made loans to anyone they could find, regardless of ethnicity. People were encouraged to lie about their incomes by sharks looking for commissions. And when they still wanted more mortgages to repackage and sell off, they fixed it so no one had to lie about their income because they weren’t even asked.

I don’t even see the purpose of trying to hang this crisis on anything to do with race.

Please keep up the good work on this blog. You present the other side of the story. It helps to keep the society healthy.

Welcome to Anti blog, Simon. We are glad you are here.

“They made loans to anyone they could find, regardless of ethnicity.”

A big factor in this, and the decision to tell lies so boldly about personal income and assets, was the language difference. And the people knew that if some bank official or someone else realized they were lying and breaking the law, they could just pull a “No Habla Englais” and they wouldn’t get the punishment an English-speaking citizen would. Point of fact, American citizens wouldn’t have gotten away with this en masse.

Two Americas, two sets of rules.

“Well, I think every person should do a serious re-inventory of themselves and their values and make transformative changes accordingly.”

“Transformative changes”. Well some of us don’t have our identity tied up in false religions or feel-good philosophies, some of us are happy enough with reality, have our feet on planet earth and don’t feel a need to “transform”, just to occasionally make moderate-sized changes to ourselves. The same people who gravitate to religion are usually the ones eager to make “transformative changes” to theuir lives periodically.

Perhaps Robb will someday make another “transformative change” and feel as he originally did. Heck perhaps it would be accelerated if his neighborhood gets surrounded by flophouses as mine was 3 years ago and he feels his family is becoming less safe.

I don’t buy it, Rick. Looks to me like WSJ and other conservative media outlets are trying one more time to divide and conquer by blaming the housing/credit crisis on Hispanics and Blacks. There was money in it for these mortgage brokers if they confused people into signing their names on these predatory loans.

In the NPR radio story I posted above, one of the brokers convinces an English speaking Marine NOT to go with a military subsidized mortgage that would have saved him money, because he would earn a higher commission on a mortgage that, sure enough, led to a foreclosure.

Also, I think anyone could get confused by these slimy sharks with their fine print and hidden fees. Most people don’t comprehend financial stuff and are too trusting of people who do.

Language, skin color are non-issues here.

Elena, I thank you for posting my interview. I hope my experience and my story in some way encourages others to make radically positive and transformative change in their lives.

And to everyone who has responded, whether kindly or not, I thank you. Inasmuch as my story can encourage constructive dialogue, I am pleased.

Now, on to some responses to what’s been written here over the past few days . . .

WhyHereWhyNow, you stated:

I have from the very start defended Corey Stewart from charges of racism. When people choose sides they can get wrapped up in winning, and become blind to their own faults and their own mistakes … let alone the mistakes of political allies.

(3 January 2009, 2:17)

Corey Stewart’s issue may be worse than racism. His may be a problem of calculated intolerance embraced for the sake of advancing a personal political agenda. And his agenda, I suspect, is nothing more than to move up the political ladder. Undocumented immigrants become politically objectified and end up being relegated to nothing more than convenient rungs on that ladder. Which is convenient because of the limited recourse undocumented immigrants have in this country.

But was his intolerance conscious? Hard to tell. But what was conscious was his choice of political allies. And people choose political allies only if they think those people can help advance one’s agenda. And when that happens — especially if one is consumed by the hunger for their agenda — it’s easy to be influenced by the views of those allies.

Let’s not forget Corey Stewart’s famous words when he learned that 4.5 percent of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey interviews were conducted in Spanish: “Do we know whether those persons were legal residents or not?”

I’ll repeat here what I wrote on my blog recently:

But here is another part of the problem: the insistence that racism is present only when it is obvious, and then conveniently spotlighting certain racist groups as examples. It’s total and utter deflection, and even more so when it attempts to justify itself via super-inflated notions of devotion to “Rule of Law” or other imaginary pedigrees of superiority.

Mackie, you stated:

But I think the majority of the rest of the people out there just don’t care if something is or isn’t an act of bigotry. They care about getting rid of people they’ve identified in their own minds as bad people. They’re not shy about calling these people immoral as long as they can do it in a way that allows them to plausibly deny their bigotry. Immigration law is an excellent tool to be a bigot and get away with it.

(3 January 2009, 2:52)

The key part in your remarks is “as long as they can do it in a way that allows them to plausibly deny their bigotry.”

This is exactly what happened, and is still happening, in the “anti-illegal immigrant” lobby. It’s called deflection, and I wrote about this very thing recently, and I’ll repeat it (again) here:

But here is another part of the problem: the insistence that racism is present only when it is obvious, and then conveniently spotlighting certain racist groups as examples. It’s total and utter deflection, and even moreso when it attempts to justify itself via super-inflated notions of devotion to “Rule of Law” or other imaginary pedigrees of superiority.

And yes, immigration law can be misused to advance bigotry. Just like the “Rule of Law Resolution” in PWC was nothing more than legislated intolerance.

Opinion, you wrote:

This guy should go on the O’Reilly Factor and Olbermann’’s Countdown (although I’m thinking that illegal immigration is no longer of news value as a subject).

I highly doubt my interview will engender the interest of O’Reilly or Olbermann. Lou Dobbs actually might raise an eyebrow to it, but only because he reported on my rally on his show back in 2007. But nothing more than raise an eyebrow, even if that.

But in either case, I am certain my interview and my story is of zero interest to high-end politics-focused media programs.

Robb here is the math in my head.

Enforcing “rule of law” and causing discomfort to some will cause some people to see my community as bigoted, or at a minimum unfriendly and unwelcoming.

Not doing it will cause my community to continue a trend of overcrowding and paying less per capita property tax, eroding any ability to pay for our own needs and transforming my community into a “ghetto” rather than the suburban area I meant to buy a house and raise a family in. It also makes my family less safe.

So, call me a bigot, in big block letters if you want to, world at large! I prefer that of the two alternatives. I don’t think that I particularly am one. But if enforcing US law makes some Latinos think this is the land of “El Diablo” and so forth, cool. That’s fine.

Sticks and stones …

Mackie, you stated:

It was very, very interesting to hear how the HSM-like group from New Jersey was vehemently opposed to Robb making anti-racism part of his platform.

(3 January 2009, 11:15)

Firstly, the group is called “New Jersey Citizens for Immigration Control” (NJCIC). And while I wouldn’t say the group is entirely “HSM-like”, it does partner with other HSM-like groups to do weekly 4-person to 5-person protests at a day-laborer site at a town in northern New Jersey.

Here’s a brief story about the meeting I had with NJCIC.

For starters, I was invited by the head of a group called “United Patriots of America”, which was a partner with NJCIC. At the meeting were representatives from two other partner groups, one being “You Don’t Speak For Me”; the other one’s name I can’t remember. “You Don’t Speak For Me” is a group of Hispanic-Americans who are against illegal immigration.

When it came time for me to speak about my upcoming rally, I mentioned that one of my themes was to speak out against racism, particularly anti-Hispanic intolerance. When I brought that up, I thought they were going to throw me out the second-story window. They were absolutely outraged.

Their chief objection was this: to include anti-racism talk in an anti-illegal immigration rally would be an admission that racism was actually a problem in the overall movement. Therefore that would undermine the movement’s image, and therefore invalidate its efforts.

And that’s when I said, “Well, um, hello! We’re already perceived as racist and in order to kill the perception you have to engage the issue, not ignore it.”

Of course, they disagreed, and then said they wouldn’t come to my rally if I insisted on speaking out against racism.

I was, to say the least, utterly astounded and could not understand the objections.

But what I neglected to mention in the interview is that after that meeting there was so much suspicion about me being a “plant” from the “other side” that an email had been circulated accusing me of “ulterior motives”. I I’ll try to find that email and post it on my blog. It was ridiculous.

And all because I wanted to engage the issue of racism.

By contrast Greg L addressed that issue from the start of HSM. And I was there at I think the second HSM meeting when he made it very plain to an audience that included some big, scary guys in it (who were muttering) that this organization was not about anything anti-Latino or anti-minority. It was somewhat dramatic and striking. He is not nearly the closeted bigot that some on this board want to see him as.

ShellyB:

Perhaps the most, and best, I could say on forgiveness is that it should be something everyone engages in. As for my intentions: at least in terms of the interview, to do nothing more than share my story and hope it encourages others look inside themselves, take an inventory of their core motivations, and make changes where change is needed.

Let’s talk about Corey Stewart for a moment. As an elected official his accountability to the public requires that he be under constant scrutiny, insofar as his public duties are concerned. And yet in recognizing whatever issues of intolerance he has evidently embraced, we have to guard against two things: (1) vilifying him, and (2) making him out to be the preeminent model of intolerance in PWC (which he in fact isn’t), and therefore the one upon whom we cast all disparagements for the “sins” of intolerance that have been fomented in PWC over the past two years.

Now, I’m not saying anyone here has done any of those two things. I’m just saying let’s be mindful that appropriate criticism not turn into inappropriate castigation.

One of the things that was edited out of the final cut of the interview is when I said this isn’t about Corey Stewart, or Greg Letiecq, or Robert Duecaster. It’s about all of us, and how we all can potentially possess the “bad inner soil” in which the seeds of fear and hate and intolerance can take root.

And so inasmuch as we can recognize the errors in others, in doing so we must first doubly recognize the errors in ourselves. And only then can we achieve a spirit of humility, compassion, and forgiveness which is the only viable means of creating the genuine reform of our fellow neighbor.

Rick Bentley, you stated:

Enforcing “rule of law” and causing discomfort to some will cause some people to see my community as bigoted, or at a minimum unfriendly and unwelcoming.

Well when enforcement of a “Rule of Law Resolution” designed to combat illegal immigration ended up yielding deficient results far below madly inflated expectation, then of course people are going to reexamine the law’s intent and arrive at conclusions which, in PWC’s case, would reasonably include racism.

Chief Deane himself in July 2007 predicted that’s what would happen. And, alas, he was right.

Rick Bentley, you stated:

By contrast Greg L addressed that issue from the start of HSM. And I was there at I think the second HSM meeting when he made it very plain … that this organization was not about anything anti-Latino or anti-minority.

No, all Greg Letiecq wants to do is “send the home with love.” The absurdity of that notion cannot be overstated.

Like I’ve stated a number of times today already, intolerance is not only present when it is obvious or openly announced. To allude to some words of Jesus, “you will know the tree by its fruit.”

Robb, thanks for taking the time to respond to our ideas and comments. That is a pearl of wisdom, that intolerance is not only present when it is obvious or openly announced.

By the same token, the fact that Letiecq has made a habit of announcing that his fear-mongering-and-hate-mongering-for-political-gain website was NOT intended to target Hispanics, well, that doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth about that. Same with his leadership of Help Save Manassas. He had those people frightened out of their minds. Where fear goes hate is sure to follow.

NotGL,
I really don’t think Greg had people frightened out their minds. There were many that were already frightened to some of the things that were going on in their neighborhood, etc. They have/had valid concerns. I still have the same concern over taggings(often letter before thirteen). I will not state the gang names, as they do dont deserve the publicity. You know the ones, and have seen my pictures of these taggings. There are many other crimes going on that do have people fearful. Everyone should want to live in a clean and safe community.

Now, I don’t know who was and wasn’t illegal. However, I was in a car accident in the 1993. The drunken fool that total a brand new car I was in while pregnant was an illegal alien, and his side kick also, the admited to this. This scared me, and I’ve been in another accident where the lady had no ID, no proof of insurance, and no drivers license while driving someone elses car. Oh, she also, left the scene of an accident. The officer was not allowed to ask of her legal status. However, he made no bones about all indications would be she was. Hell, she didn’t know her address. This should could concern anyone that travel in a vehicle in the Commonwealth. My issuse with illegal immigration was going on over a decade before HSM was born.

These are just some minor things many have concerns about. I think most would. imho
I don’t think you give some credit for being able to have their own thoughts.

To allude to some words of Jesus, “you will know the tree by its fruit.”

Well let’s look at the fruit of the permissive society created by bleeding hearts who embrace diversity at the cost of sovereignty and who see everyone as a victim.

Mortgage fraud systematically perpetrated, Americans’ wages reduced systematically, and government bailouts for the crooks who enabled all this in the first place. Continued massive transfer of wealth to our ruling class, usually sold to us as Christian charity. Hooray. Three cheers for America.

Robb 6 Jan 11:13

You are absolutely right. Speaking out about racisim and preventing it entirely is the only way to show people that the “rule of law” is focused only on finding and convicting “illegal” people. It cannot be about anything else. What I find interesting is that neither side of the social activism bandwagon can recognize the racisim in their own cultures and actions, and both sides use racism and ethnicity arguments to prove they are victims of the others racially activist accusations. They cannot admit it is simply wrong to break the law, and Ignore “rule of law” by committing “illegal” acts and harming innocents who do not commit “illegal” acts. The people who support the “illegals” are most often members of ethnicities affiliated with “illegals”, or are sympathetic only to specifc ethnic groups, or in politics to only support specific ethnic groups, and the people who are against “illegals” often erroneously make comments that define their anger based on race (as you warn people about over and over). The problem is, anger can only be directed justly and ethically against those “individuals” who break law, are “illegal” and harm innocents as a resiult of their “illegal” activities.

There are many of us, like myself, and I suspect you as well, who are aware of the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigration, and are fighting as hard as we can to stop “illegal” activity which harms millions of innocent people when you consider the rights of the ENTIRE Population of humans and the harm done by individual behaviors toward others, by focusing only on the “illegal” activity, and doing so without favoring any racial, gender, religious or ethnic group. We focus only on “individual” accountability to the “rule of law”, and get very upset when either side confuses and obfuscates the morality issues by sympathizing with, or demonizing “individuals” based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.

The only thing I think I diasagree with you about is you seem to advocate that the “innocents” are the people who break the law, because people are angry with them for breaking the law, and the damage on them the breaking of the law causes.

I do not agree with you if you have “transformed” by guilt to think like that, I prefer to protect the innocents and not the criminals. I agree with you we must protect all individuals from racism, but in doing so we MUST NOT protect “illegal” criminals, just because we feel sorry for them, or can claim they are “affected” by racism that exists on all issues, and on both “sides” by people who cannot express their politcal opinions unless they convey them in terms of race, gender, religion or ethnicity advocacy, and bel;ong to groups and organizations which politically divide themselves by race, gender, religion and ethnicity concepts, while ignoring innocent victims of those “illegal” activities because one “individual” has harmed another “individual” by committing “rule of law” illegal acts.

I think that is the only social justice concept you have yet to grasp and made an un-biased decision regarding who is the most right and who is the most wrong.

When you remove all racial, gender, religious, and ethnicity group elements that cloud the issue, that decision is easy to make based solely on “legal” and “illegal” behavior.

I think your other philosophical error is that you believe all humans are equally good. They in reality are not, and are not morally and ethically the same. Some humans gleefully harm innocents for their own personal and social gain. It is these “INNOCENTS” who MUST BE protected by the rule of law.

HSM must engage and prevent racism by any and all of its members. They cannot fairly enforce rule of law without also engaging and preventing racism in their actions against “illegal” activities. I have told them this many times. Many have listened. MWB and other pro-immigrant groups, must ALSO engage and prevent racism by their OWN members and prevent politically ethnic centric advocacy as a form of racisim that must be equally prevented. I have told all on this blog they need to self-police their own members who are racists, and think only ethnically-centric solutions are justified, but they are just as guilty of this as any HSM member doing the same.

You only have to read how peole are “classified” in how people write, to see their underlying racism at work, although they deny it. This denial is especially prevalent in the “pro-illegal” community when I compare political advocacy concepts with “rule of law enforcement” concepts.

Common humanity (as idealistic and un-measurable as it is) can only “occur” when we have common law, and common enforcement of the “rule of law” so that ALL people treat everyone the same politically and socially, unless they have broken the law or harmed another, then they must be punished according to the law they have broken.

I am not a member of HSM, and I intend to follow my own moral compass and to judge people only by observation of their “illegal” or “legal” activities, and not by what race, religion, gender or ethnicity they belong to. Because of this I must also morally fight against the use of racist ideology, bigotry by both sides, gender-centric ideology, religious preference, and use of ethnicity as a tool to politically advantage one segment of the population over another, and to chose or ignore one law over another to discrimminate one segment of the population over another, such as what illegally happened with advantaging mortgage lending practices by unlawfully advantaging different groups of people based on target ethnicities and races that Realtors promoted and preferred over others, primarility based on their own racist based political beliefs.

I can’t help but remind people that the “rule of law” resolution in this county was actually written word for word to simply give police officers official guidance that they had no choice but to identify “illegal” people from “legal” people anf follow the law. Under previous guidance by the police shief they where given permission to let certain people slide around the law, based on their own personal political beliefs rather than equal enforcement of the law. The support of the 287G program and rule of law resolution, was not a charter to make any law enforcement based on ethnicity. I read it, cover to cover. It was ONLY about “illegal” and “legal” behavior, and NEVER guided by racism guidance. It was the people upset about the possibility that more “illegal” people might actually be caught, especially “illegal” criminals under the 287G program, that caused “ethnic-centric” communties and “ethnic-centric” community leaders who supported only those people of their own ethnicity to claim racism, in order to prevent members of thier own ethnic communities (who had greater numbers of “illegals” than other ethnic communities, who DID NOT GET UPSET ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. By claiming racism, racist based communities could mis-represent the real context of the actual law enforcement policy which was to simply cleave “legal” people from “illegal” people, and in so claiming this created an ethnic, racist-based war by design,. The very people who use “racism” to protect their ethnic community from prosecution by the law, used “racism” to call other people racists. If they could find a few racists in the group, they could then wrongly claim everyone in favor of the rule of law is a racist.

THAT IS A VICIOUS LIE, that impacts ALL innocent people like myself that only want the rule of law to prevail on ALL “illegals” regardless of their race, religion, gender or ethnicity.

This Robb is why you are SO RIGHT that “rule of law” cannot be enforced and ethically discussed without ALSO preventing ALL use of racist’s political tactics by both sides.

That community of advocates was VERY WRONG not to let you discuss the destructive nature of RACISM and racists political beliefs used by both sides.

This is why I do not advocate “rule of law” resolution and enforcement on “illegals” only, without ALSO preventing all racism and judgement of “individuals” based on race, gender, religion or ethnicity.

Until people can do this, NEITHER SIDE will be RIGHT.

Michael, can I ask you, based on your desire to separate law enforcement from prejudice/racial profiling, are you happy with the repeal of the “Probable Cause” standard that mandated police officers to use their judgment as to who looks “illegal” and who does not?

I just don’t understand how the wacko’s on the old blog could be calling for riots with pitchforks and shovels over this change if they’re not simply racist and desirous of a culture of fear that would make people who “look illegal” afraid to live here.

Forgive me if you’ve stated this before.

Chris, it was a perverse type of fear and hate celebration, that seemed to tell people they could be empowered by their fear, and empowered by their hate, if they learned certain catch phases, repeated them often, and voted a certain way.

If you weren’t already afraid of the people Greg wanted you to be afraid of, you were immune. If his pictures of terrorists with machine guns couldn’t convince you that “we arrr being invaded!!!!” like it did Mr. Duecaster, then you were immune.

But if fear someone how got a hold of you, because of a car accident, or because of something you read on Greg’s blog, or because of something you saw on Lou Dobbs, or just the sense of anxiety from seeing a lot of dark skinned people all of the sudden in your home town, if that fear somehow got a hold of you, well then you were putty in Greg’s hand.

First he told you you were in real danger, under attack, and only he could protect you. But in return you had to do things he told you to do. Once you gave in to that, yeah, there was a lot of neat talk about getting involved with John Stirrup our wonderful elected official and fellow HSM member. I’m sure it felt cool and all, and hats off to Greg for being such a good community organizer (note to Freedom Fry Voters, you don’t have to hate community organizers any more, election’s over).

Chris, all the things you are concerned about, public urination, grafitti, etc. those are behavioral, you know that. You didn’t need to be afraid or hateful to be proactive and fix those things.

Oh, and I didn’t mean to say you were hateful. I was using the word you like “one” didn’t need to be hateful.

NotGL,
Those were just a couple of things that concern me. There’s much more. I’ve had to run drunks off of my mom’s porch from the nearby flophouse, because they couldn’t remember where they “lived”. These along with many other things have a lot to do with my concerns. I read the newspapers and the addresses of some of the criminals, and yes some were illegal aliens. We’ve had several horrible incidents in nearby subdivision that involved illegal aliens as well. So yes, I had MANY good reasons to be concerned/worried/scared about. These are just the tip of the iceberg of some truce incidents.

For me personally I never addressed the issue using “talking points” and/or statistics. I spoke of true unembelished incidents. I would also, add I often had pictures of my concerns.

Greg may have said a lot of things, but I can assure that doesn’t mean everyone bought into to his every word.

No problem I don’t take your comments to say I was hateful.

Forgive me, I am going to go to bat for some of the HSM folks. There were some people who had some pretty rotten things going on in their neighgborhoods that affected their quality of life. There was overcrowding and things going on that made people uncomfortable. I don’t fault these people for seeking out solutions. They were going on the ‘in unity there is strength’ theory.

I blame the politicians and some of the leadership for seeking solutions that fed the fear and the anger. I blame these same people for using people’s uncomfortable situations for political gain and to win elections.

I do not blame the people who had lived in middle class neighborhoods for years when they revolted over their neighborhoods turning into NON-middle class neighborhoods. They felt like they were being overrun and they saw their biggest investment, their home, being devalued because of the behavior of others.

It’s actually kind of funny to watch you folks get all frothed up.

Care to elaborate on that one Slow? If the past couple of comments are fun for you, it sure doesn’t take much. I can assure you I wasn’t frothed up. I just had a touch of humanitarian in me momentarily. Perhaps the operative word here is momentarily…..

No, No, not the last couple of comments, this thread and the similar one that preceded it generally. Many messages had been posted before I got to see it, so I didn’t have much of a choice to jump in at the right time. I’ve been watching in general, in fact, I haven’t even read the last couple of posts. Come to think of it, much of the post stuff I read had little to do with the story itself.

It moved so I got all confused. I am a linear thinker. Move something and I don’t handle it well. I don’t think anyone here is too rigid about where you get to comment, unless there are special circumstances.

You’re very welcome Elena.

That’s really interesting Chris. So those people who didn’t buy a lot of Greg’s hyperbole, I wonder how many of them are still in the crucible. If you are able to question even one thing he says, then you probably lost all respect for him by now.

Perhaps that’s why the Help Save Manassas membership is now in single digits.

NGL, I’m one of the one’s who did not buy Greg’s hyperbole, preferring instead to make my own judgment of the situation. In that regard, I totally agree with what moonhowler just said, citizen’s were watching their neighborhoods deteriorate way before Greg got into the political solution, and most of those people joined as the only available means to protect their rights and community, against an on-slaught of rising indifference, arrogance, and downright racism on the part of ethnic-centric politicians advocating for preference and special treatment based only on people’s gender, race, religion and ethnicity, and those same ethnic-centric communities they represented who were becoming politically active in supporting “illegal behavior” rather than “deporting” illegal aliens.

That is the fundamental problem, people began to see their neighborhoods (including me) were being seriously affected by wide spread indifference and lack of respect for law and law enforcement, lack of respect for other people in the community, a rise in gang activity and ethnic racism by minority groups, and lack of law enforcement on “illegal” immigration.

People only had to connect the decline in their neighborhoods with the very visible increase in support for “illegal” aliens, and witness a growing awareness that local police officers were not asking, inquiring, or even checking on the legal status of people at traffic stops and other arrests, even though “illegal immigration” is “illegal, carrying a federal and civil penalty.

THIS pissed a LOT of law-abiding citizens off, so tmany joined HSM. I did not join HSM however because I saw that a very “FEW” racists and racists comments were going to cause “pro-illegal” activists to scream “racism” and distort the issue by evasive and corrupt politics, even though they themselves were promoting and openly practicing ethnic and religious racism, growing militism, and racially based politics.

I got upset when I saw the resolution was not going to “REQUIRE” officers to check the legal status of ALL people at ALL encounters with law enforcement. Forget a “probable cause” sentence, it is no better and no different than the current policy that still allows officers to determine, and report “illegal” status based on their own “judgement”. “judgement” is not ever a “standard of law”, that is what judges do. It is up to the police to enforce the law, period, regardless of what they “judge” to be the case, the issue, or what they politically believe in. By checking EVERYONE at any encounter with the police for legal or “illegal” status, then there is no judgment, only the burden of “proof” by proper presentation of ID and legal documentation on everyone the same.

Everyone here legally in this country has access to almost immediate proof of status (even if they have to show it later), when their driver’s license is checked for either a DMV reference to citizenship status, or a valid passport, birth certificate or visa/I-94. I personally believe we should all be required to show this status on our driver’s license or another document issued by the government that proves our legal right to be and our legal right to citizen’s and legal resident rights here (such as national ID), even if we just want to use a national park resource we all are paying for. If the driver’s license does not have that legal status proof on it today (and most records at DMV can be verified for legal status accuracy in time, provided we prevent continued falsification and fraud on those driver’s records. It is a simple matter to present a driver’s license and get cleared in a computer as to legal status, and to arrest EVERYONE at ANY encounter with police that cannot produce a valid driver’s license, pass a records check, and pass a background check for legal status with the INS, via an INS/police record computer database, regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnicity.
The main reason everyone is upset about driver’s licenses, is they one’s supporting “illegal” behavior don’t want it to be accurate or proof of status, because the one’s with false status will get caught. Ther are enough political supporters for “illegals” now in the government, and in politics that they roadblock all such laws that would require honesty and integrity. THAT IS RACISM, when it supports your own ethnic group advantage over the LAW.

The current DMV records system for legal status, is not perfect, but is getting better, and only people who can’t pass a DMV records check and quick background check, need to be asked to return to court with a summons to prove their legal status in front of a judge if they can’t prove it to a police officer who stopped them.

If we do this to everyone the same, there IS NO RACIAL PROFILING, NO JUDGEMENT, and no NEED for a “probable cause clause”. It quickly weeds out “legals” from “illegals” in a community. THEN people can’t complain, and just have to deal with LEGAL POVERTY.

All we need is proof of “legal status” presented to a judge. If you are not legal, the judge then issues you a deportation order along with your ticket summons. Almost every country in the world does this except the US (what a buch of political idiots we are, at the cost of further destruction of our own country, financially and ethically)

While there is PROOF that militant political elements ARE IN the country, 99% of them would be found and caught by this simple CHECK EVERYONE procedure.

The problem is mis-guided support for “illegals” as if they are “innocents” rather than the lawbreakers they are, and this is why I continue to fight with this group, who seem to be supportive and ONLY sympathetic to “illegal” people, and I’m angry that they are essentially supporting lawlessness, allowing criminals to go un-noticed, allowing “illegals” to go un-caught, and allowing neighborhoods to continue to decline into ghettos due to the massive influx of “illegal” people over the past 25 years, and rapid rise in the number of people in poverty in our communities, as a result of the “actions” and “attitudes” of “illegal” people and those ethnic centric communities who support only their own gender, race, religion and ethnicity, regardless of how many innocent people that support harms.

I could care less about probable cause tight-rope walking, I simply support that ALL police check ALL individuals legal status at ALL encounters with the police. No preferences, no advantages, no profiling, based on your race, gender, religion, or ethnicity.

I have questioned Greg’s statements, especially his religious fanaticism,when it mirrors the gender, racial, religious, and ethnic bigotry that is also prevalent on this blog. He has never denied my those comments, and never banned me from the blog, because just like I do to people here, I try to argue thier lack of “ethics and morality” respectfully. You can cange a mind only with truth, honestly and lack of malice, by showing people their views are wrong when they question motives, personal ethics and personal emotional outbursts. But when I was frequenting that sight (BVBL), instead of this sight (anti-bvbl), I more more often questioned the racism and bigotry of some of the other “racist and pro-illegal”commentators that greg also questioned but could not control or prevent from commenting except in the cases of the worst and most morally disgusting hate dialogs (just like elena, allana and moonhowler, can’t control racists and bigoted comments here, banning people only if it violates “their” rules. I also know just like here, some people were blocked because of spam filters and initial “probation” periods, untill they showed themselves to be respectful of others views. I do not think Greg, Corey, John Stirrup, Elena, Allana, Moon-howler (I really like her cool head and respectful perspective), and even NGL who often disagrees with me, are as wrong as people on both sides who don’t know the issues claim them to be. A lot od “proof” is mis-represented and mis-understood third party character assasination without valid proof of truth in context. Making out of context arguments IS THE NATURE OF POLITICAL MANIPULATION. That is why I try to hold to a very solid and common ethical path, thought through as well, straight and narrow as I can. It is hard to rebutt, ethical logic, with malicious political commentary, as many find out. I have also grown in respect for
Robb because he too has tried to walk an ethical path, even if I don’t agree with his concept of “common, equitable humanity” that assumes ALL people are innocents. They are not. Some deserve your respect, some deserve punishment for how they treat and harm others. This is why “illegal” behavior is unlawful, because it harms innocents.