Too many take “myths” for fact

I’m giving my commentary a rest for the day. I’ll be back Friday. Those of you who need to read something should take a look at this commentary from The Reporter newspaper of Fond du Lac, Wis.

It purports to be a list of “myths” and “strengths” about the growing Latino population in that Wisconsin community of 43,020 people, but it is one that literally could be applied to just about any community.

THEN AGAIN, THE community of Fond du Lac may well be like many other municipalities across the country. The city experienced only a 2 percent population growth during the past decade. Yet the number of Latinos who live either in Fond du Lac or the surrounding county went up by 120 percent.

My favorite point on the list might well be that “we don’t speak Mexican,” mainly because I have lost count of the number of times throughout the years that I have had to argue with ignorant buffoons who want to insist that I am wrong when I write about people speaking “Spanish.”

Some people want to live in their own clueless world, and don’t like having their ignorance pointed out to them. Which is what I’m sure will infuriate them about this particular list.

It ought to be interpreted as a light-hearted observation. But some will take it extremely seriously, and as a slam against themselves. Because their own ridiculous slams will be called out as cheap rhetoric.

THEN AGAIN, ONE of the “strengths” of the Latino community on the newspaper's list is one that ought to be applied to all – regardless of ethnic background.

“We believe that life is to be enjoyed. There has to be a time for work and a time for enjoyment,” according to The Reporter. I’d hate to think that Latinos are the only people on this planet with enough sense to realize the truth of that statement.

  -30-

Nice to see legal action against scams targeting immigration

It is encouraging to see federal officials take seriously the idea of prosecution of people running assorted scams that feed off the ignorance of newcomers to this country.

That is the case in Baltimore, where a judge issued orders that shut down a “business” that purported to offer legal assistance to people who wanted to make sure their papers were in order as they filed to maintain their residency status.

WE’RE TALKING ABOUT people who wanted to keep that visa valid, but for whatever reason felt intimidated at the thought of hiring a proper attorney who actually understands the law and what needs to be done.

Or maybe they thought it would be too expensive.

I can appreciate the idea of not wanting to deal with an attorney. That is an experience I prefer to keep to a minimum in my own life – and as a U.S.-born person I don’t have anywhere near the legal complications in my life that some of my ethnic brethren do.

But there are those who like to portray themselves as somehow more down-to-earth than an attorney, while still capable of performing the same legal services that a lawyer would be better suited to doing.

THAT IS WHAT is at stake with a couple who are the subject of a Federal Trade Commission that resulted in the court action.

The Baltimore Sun newspaper reported that Manuel and Lola Alban provided their clients with false qualifications, then took money from people to file the papers they needed to have legal residency status.

Because they didn’t have the proper training, many of the documents for the roughly 800 people who hired them were done improperly. Which means there are now about 800 individuals whose residency status, and the visas that allow them to live in this country without legal harassment, is questionable.

All because they got scammed by someone who figured there was money to be made off of resident aliens who they figured wouldn’t know the difference between their work, and that of a real attorney.

THE BALTIMORE SUN reported that the case against the Albans couple is one of the first to be filed under a new national initiative meant to use both civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution against people who target non-citizens.

But such scams are not at all unusual. Stories about them crop up in newspapers across the country, particularly in some of the smaller communities that don’t have as much of an immigrant population.

Perhaps the isolation makes some people more than willing to trust someone who comes along offering to help out with serious issues, for less money than they’re being charged by proper attorneys.

Not that I expect the filing of a case against this one couple – who had their financial assets frozen by the courts while their case is pending – to eliminate the problem, and  now claims they didn’t realize that they needed to be licensed by the state to perform the services they were providing to people. There will always be some individuals who don’t want to work for real, and who think that life is somehow about preying on other individuals.

THE BEST OUR society can do, if it really wants to back up its claims of moral superiority over other nations on this planet, is to let it be known that such conduct is unacceptable, and something that will be punished.

Now I can envision the crackpots, including some of the narrow-minded individuals who routinely send me e-mails and other messages to complain, are going to claim that it is the non-citizens living in this country who are somehow “preying” upon us.

Which is nonsense. Many of these people work too hard and for too little money and face too much potential for harassment to be thought of in such a way.

Which is why Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler told reporter-types it is pursuing this latest case because they, “are taking advantage of truly vulnerable people.”

  -30-

Now, he’s willing to talk on our behalf! Rahm w/out power (just influence) backs DREAM Act

On the one hand, it is nice to see a powerful public official (one of the most prominent mayors in the country) willing to publicly say he thinks the DREAM Act is a good thing.

EMANUEL: No longer able to act



Considering that all the DREAM Act really does is offers a significant perk (citizenship) to a non-citizen who achieves a major goal (higher education or military service) that ultimately benefits our society as a whole, support for it ought to be a political no-brainer.

BUT THERE ARE critics of DREAM, and any other measure that purports to make sense out of the bureaucratic mess that is our nation’s immigration policy. Those people tend to be loud and obnoxious, as though a bullying overtone will help them prevail.

Thus far, it has. Those politicians who ought to have enough sense to back DREAM (either because it fits in with the ideological beliefs of their political backers) have allowed themselves to be intimidated into silence.

Which is why it was significant that Rahm Emanuel on Monday was willing to come out in support of the DREAM Act. It’s not quite immigration reform, but it is a bigger step than Emanuel has been willing to take thus far.

Yet a part of me can’t help but want to give Emanuel a coscorron to the back of his cabeza. Why now?

JUST BECAUSE ANY mayor of Chicago (a city that is one-quarter Latino and one-sixth Mexican-American) who isn’t on board with something like DREAM is being ridiculous isn’t a good enough reason.

For Emanuel is the guy who, when he was a federal government official, was reluctant to do much of anything with immigration-related issues. It was all about not wanting to stir up the ideologues.

DUNCAN: Robin, to Rahm's DREAM Batman



Emanuel is the guy who called immigration the equivalent of  “the third rail” that kills you with an electric shock if you dare tamper with it. He is the guy who gets the blame for the fact that President Barack Obama hasn’t done much in the way of significant action on immigration issues.

While I think that Emanuel merely inspired Obama into not acting on an issue he would have been reluctant to touch, I do think that Rahm warrants some of the blame for the lack of activity.

ANYBODY WHO COULD get healthcare reform through Congress despite blatant politically partisan opposition could have worked immigration reform through, if he had been up to it.

He wasn’t. In short, when he was in a position to be able to do something, he punted. He let the issue go by.

Now, Emanuel is all for the DREAM Act when he’s no longer in a position to be able to do anything.

Being Chicago mayor is a post that will garner influence with the White House. But all Emanuel is really going to be able to do is pick up the telephone and speak directly to the people who NOW are in a position to act.

SOMEBODY ELSE WHO might not have quite the influence or organizing skills that Emanuel could have put to the issue, IF he really were that favorable toward it.

So the answer is, “Yes.” I do believe that Monday’s press conference, where Emanuel and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (also a former Chicago official, the Public Schools, to be exact) both said they favor the DREAM Act, is little more than a stunt.

My guess is that they want to be sure that when the day comes that this issue finally is achieved, they will be recorded on the correct side of the issue.

Which makes it seem more like cheap chat, more than anything else.

  -30-

Serious hearings? Or a lot of hot air?

It will be intriguing to see how seriously the issue of immigration officials harassing Latinos is taken when congressional hearings are held this week on the issue.

CONYERS: Will Judiciary back him?



Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is sponsoring a hearing of the House Judiciary committee in his home city of Detroit to investigate the problem of “Latino racial abuses” by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

SOME LATINO ACTIVISTS who have been complaining for months that immigration officials are singling out Latinos for harassment are hoping to use these hearings to draw a lot of public attention to the issue.

On Sunday, I got a message through Facebook asking me if I could show up at the hearings to help make for a stronger Latino presence. Not that anybody thinks I have any special knowledge that needs to be heard. But somebody wants to put on a bigger show, and is looking for all the warm Latino bodies they can find to be present in Michigan on Thursday.

Which is the day that the hearings are scheduled for. Not that they really mean much.

For while Conyers may well be a member of the Judiciary committee, he is a member of the House’s minority caucus (a.k.a., a Democrat).

THE JUDICIARY LEADERSHIP has made it clear they are pushing for changes in immigration law meant to crack down harder on people. If anything, the ideologues in charge in the House right now would probably be happy to learn that Latinos are being singled out for abuse – out of some twisted belief that it will scare people who “don’t belong here” to “go home.”

As if we’re not already home.

Thursday’s hearing could easily become Conyers positioning himself in front of a giant microphone, trying to make himself look incredibly important while actually accomplishing nothing of significance.

He may get a Latino or two to talk of how they got harassed. But it doesn’t automatically translate into action being taken on this issue.

ONE STATEMENT ISSUED  by activists trying to get people to show up talks of how Latinos have experienced increased harassment for the past decade – ever since Sept. 11, 2001.

Which makes me giggle, because I remember how in those early weeks following the destruction of the World Trade Center and damage to the Pentagon how some people of Arab ethnic background tried distracting attention from themselves by pretending to be Mexican.

I have heard stories of how some Arabs went out and got themselves Mexican flags to display, figuring that the ideologues were too clueless to tell the difference.

That part is true. They are clueless. They don’t want to have to distinguish. Which is why we get masses singled out for abuse rather than trying to figure out who is really who.

MY POINT BEING that there is a serious problem at stake. Yet I can’t help but think these hearings are going to be a lot of posturing that accomplish little.

Anybody who thinks there isn’t a problem isn’t aware of the rallies that took place earlier this month in Detroit – where people protested the professional conduct of Immigration agents because of how unprofessional they perceived it to be.

The Detroit Free Press newspaper reported about claims of six or seven incidents during the past two months of people being harassed by immigration as they entered the offices of an organization that provides services to needy families.

When that agency tried to intervene on behalf of those individuals, their leaders say immigration deliberately interfered – going so far as to trap them inside their automobiles, according to the Free Press.

THOSE ACTIONS MAY pale in comparison to those of past decades, where there are documented cases of U.S. citizens being deported because somebody thought they looked too “foreign” or “Mexican.” But the fact that such acts still take place means the spirit of the past still lingers.

Those rallies earlier this month resulted in activists canvassing neighborhoods and circulating petitions to draw attention. Which probably is the real reason why these hearings are being held in Detroit.

Conyers wants to appear as though he’s acting on the issue, even though he likely doesn’t have the influence these days to do much of anything. And the people who can do something don’t want to.

That is the real problem we face these days.

  -30-

EXTRA: Mexico 4 – U.S.A. 2

I don’t think I will forget the look in the eyes of Tim Howard for quite a long while. It was anxiety, mixed with terror, with a dash of disappointment.

Howard was the goaltender for the U.S. national team Saturday when they jumped out to a quick 2-0 lead over the Mexico national team. It was starting to have the feel of a U.S. blowout, with a whole crowd of Equipo Mexico fans at the Rose Bowl on their way to having their emotions shattered.

A LOSS TO los Estados Unidos. How embarrassing, particularly since the sporting pundits were saying that Mexico was the favorite to win the Gold Cup championship game.

But El Tri managed to score two goals of their own to tie the match up at half-time. My Facebook “friends” who follow futbol and were posting eager updates after each early U.S. goal suddenly became silent.

Then, about two minutes into the second half, Pablo Barrera managed to work the ball around, then past, Howard into the net for Goal Number Three.

There went the U.S. “victory.” There created the high likelihood that Mexico’s team would hang on to the lead. That fourth goal late in the match felt like piling on, to tell the truth.

AND HOWARD HAD that look of “What the h—l?” in his eyes – made all the more apparent by the fact that Univision’s broadcast of the Gold Cup final gave us a live close-up of the U.S. goalie’s face in those initial seconds.

If anything, the moment reiterated that old soccer cliché about goaltenders – the typical soccer match is 88 minutes of boredom, 1 minute, 40 seconds of mild interest, and 20 seconds of sheer terror.

Howard’s 20 seconds of terror resulted in three goals, and a loss, that will feed into the rivalry that has escalated between the two nation’s national teams -- particularly since it is one of the few futbol victories Mexico has achieved on U.S. soil during the past decade.

I also must confess to getting a kick out of seeing Freddy Adu play on behalf of the United States. I still recall him as the 14-year-old phenom who was supposed to energize the sport in this country. Now, at age 22, he may very well turn into a respectable player in coming years.

  -30-

U.S.A. vs. MEXICO: The futbol pitch becomes an athletic battlefield yet again

By all standards of reasonability, Saturday’s soccer match between the men’s national teams of the United States and Mexico shouldn’t be that big a deal.

They’re playing for the championship of the Gold Cup – which goes to the winner of the North American/Caribbean region of the world. Which, in all honesty, only has two teams worth noting.

Nobody hanging around Pasadena, Calif., on Saturday will be wearing a U.S./Mexico "friendship" pin.

THE UNITED STATES and Mexico. The REAL story would have been if any other nation’s team had made it to the finals.

This is a predictable match between two teams that aren’t exactly among the elite of the top soccer squads of the world. Mexico ranks number 22, while the United States is number 28. Not bad. But nowhere near “Number 1!” that the fans would like to chant that they are.



While the United States national soccer team has improved significantly in the past 15 or so years, it only means our nation’s team is about as good as Mexico – which throughout the years has developed a reputation as a team that can qualify every four years for the World Cup, only to find a way to fall short once it gets there.



While this bear is a cute take on the rivalry, others get vulgar

All of this is to say that Saturday’s matchup, taking place in Pasadena, Calif., at the Rose Bowl, isn’t going to give us a game of historic quality that will have the eyes of the world upon us.

ITS ONLY SIGNIFICANCE is that it will feed into the rivalry that has developed between the two nations – where each team manages to play better at home rather than on the road.

If this matchup were taking place at the Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, everybody would be predicting a Mexico blowout.

Because it will be staged in the United States, nobody is dismissing the idea of a U.S. victory – although some soccer pundits have cited what they think is lackadaisical play that could make Mexico a slight favorite. But a U.S. victory wouldn’t really be an upset.

Although it might upset emotionally the many people who attend Saturday night’s match who will be rooting for Equipo Mexico. Is Saturday going to be a physical reminder in the face of the conservative ideologues of our society that California was once a part of Mexico proper?

BECAUSE THERE WILL be many people cheering on the Mexican national team – which has developed a significant fandom among Latinos of Mexican descent looking to maintain a tie to the old country largely by playing many matches in various U.S. cities.

For those people who now are going to complain that there is something wrong, almost treasonous, about rooting for Mexico, keep in mind that many of the people who are rooting for El Tri to win Saturday night are doing so in order to spite the ideologues.

If some people (you know who you are, you’re throwing things right now at your computer screen) weren’t so narrow-minded in your approach to life and our society, maybe we’d be more willing to accept the idea of knee-jerk rooting for the “other” national team.

But futbol fans in this country have an international character to them. Following the sport invariably means following the foreign leagues that exist around the world – particularly since it can be easier to catch a Mexican League match on television than it is to watch a Major League Soccer match. That factor also boosts the Team Mexico following in this country.

SO THE BOTTOM line is that I will be among the people watching when the match takes place at 8 p.m., my time (6 p.m. in Pasadena). I’ll be hoping for a good match, particularly if El Tri can pull off one of its rare wins on U.S. soil.

Yes. I’ll probably follow the match on Univision rather than Fox Soccer. It always seems that the Spanish-language broadcasts are about a step ahead of the on-field action than the U.S.-intended English broadcasts.

Tonight’s matchup is about little more than local bragging rights. Barring a miracle, I can’t see either nation being a serious contender to win the World Cup when the elite squads of the world meet again in 2014 in Brazil.

  -30-

Everybody’s going to spin meaning of Latino vote

Is it possible for us to have both a record-high number of Latino voters in the 2012 election cycle, AND a significant number of Latinos who don’t bother to vote?

It seems so. The National Association of Latino Elected Officials (the group that is cheesed-off with President Barack Obama because he’s not including an appearance at their weekend convention on his public schedule) issued their projections this week for the Latino voters.

OF THE ROUGHLY 50 million people who live in this country who are of the various ethnic backgrounds that comprise Latinos, almost half are both U.S. citizens AND old enough and eligible to register to vote.

The group figures 12.2 million Latinos will cast ballots in the ’12 election cycle. That would be a 25 percent boost from 2008 – the year that two-thirds of us chose Obama over Republican nominee John McCain, making us a factor in that election’s outcome.

But that also means, according to NALEO officials, that another 12 million Latinos who are eligible to vote are likely to decide it’s not worth their time or effort.

NALEO executive director Arturo Vargas says the emphasis among people interested in promoting Latino political empowerment ought to be, “to develop a culture of participation in which we vote every year.”

WHICH MEANS THAT the “success” of Obama in getting himself re-elected will be how he deals with those two issues.

I can already tell you that a majority of Latinos who cast ballots for U.S. president in the 2012 election cycle WILL vote for Obama over whichever individual manages to get the Republican presidential nomination.

What we don’t know is how many Latinos will be so disgusted with the Republican hostility and Obama apathy toward our concerns that they just decide that neither candidate is worth their vote.

A significant refusal to vote is what will cause damage for Latinos – which is only rightfully so. I have always said that refusing to vote means you lose your right to complain about how inept the government officials are. If we don’t vote in significant numbers, then we are doing ourselves in by erasing our voice.

THAT ACTUALLY IS what the conservative ideologues who want to view our growing population numbers as a problem to be eradicated want. They’d like for us to be irrelevant in this society despite our population increases.

Which is why I think that casting ballots is the best way to spite their hostility!

I’m sure the ideologues are going to emphasize that NALEO figure of 12 million non-voters. The spin will be that Obama is doing so poorly that he can’t motivate his base.

Which also happens to be the argument made by one-time George W. Bush political operative Karl Rove – who wrote in a commentary published in the Wall Street Journal that Obama will lose because all of the interest groups that should support him aren’t as enthused as they were back in 2008.

AMONG THOSE HE cites are Latinos, who he says give Obama 20 percent less support now than we did three years ago.

That is based on the polls showing his support significantly lower than it was on Election Day 2008. Although those same polls show that of late, his Latino support is rising again – which means we’ll have to see how high it gets 17 months from now for the next presidential elections.

Besides, setting a precedent now for Latinos thinking of casting ballots as something that ought to be done come Election Day is something that will benefit us in the future.

Because the reality is that the share of Latinos who are both U.S. citizens AND old enough/eligible to vote will increase in coming decades. When it does, it is going to create a voting bloc so large and mighty that people of the future will look back and wonder how anyone could ever have been silly enough to try to dismiss it.

  -30-

Catholic church on Venezuela leadership no different than church’s views on other issues

I have found that it is hard to predict the Catholic Church’s official stance on any political or social issue. Or perhaps it isn’t that the church’s position is so difficult as it is that many people want to twist the church stance to back up what they want to believe.

That was the thought that popped into my head when I learned of the latest happening revealed to us by WikiLinks – that outfit that wants to make us more informed but doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what constitutes news judgment.

THEIR LATEST DISCLOSURE involves documents related to the Catholic Church’s relations with the government of Venezuela – led by the Fidel Castro-wannabe Hugo Chavez.

The church during the past decade has taken a stance that the bishops based in Venezuela should stay out of the political mess in that country. The pope himself (in the form of John Paul II) made statements that the church was not to support any of the efforts to overthrow Chavez.

Yet the information from the U.S. State Department being released by WikiLinks (which has been picked up by certain newsgathering organizations and turned into actual news stories with proper context and background information to make it comprehendible) shows that many of those bishops were more than willing to support the efforts to dump Chavez from power.

Not that those efforts have been successful. Chavez has been able to take such hostility and use it to convince a majority of the Venezuelan people that HE represents their interests, and the critics do NOT.

IN THIS CASE, we have a situation where the Catholic leadership set a policy that not even the bishops were willing to enforce. Yet those cable messages from 2002 from the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican to the State Department acknowledged that the pope himself realized that his own bishops were likely not to listen to his directives.

For the record, the Vatican was more interested in trying to inspire a dialogue that might persuade Chavez to behave like a more rational leader than he has during his years in power. Officially, the church was interested in avoiding violence. Maybe there is some logic to their thought process.

But this is something we need to keep in mind whenever we take into account what the Catholic church thinks of an issue. On some level, the church’s leaders realize that nothing is absolute.

Which is why I take offense to those people who claim their Catholicism is absolute and that anybody who doesn’t follow everything they desire is worthy of ex-communication (as in removal from the church’s good graces).

ABORTION IS THE ultimate issue where some people try to use the church to justify an absolutist viewpoint, although the death penalty is another (and all too often, many of us aren’t consistent in our view of those two issues with the church – which takes the ultimate “pro-life” viewpoint in opposing both).

Immigration reform is another of those issues, with the Catholic church taking a humanist viewpoint that the current bureaucratic mess splits up families, and therefore is wrong. That view offends too many Catholics who think the church should somehow be more “fire and brimstone” in backing deportations. Then again, those people probably would think it was the Pope who was wrong in trying to urge dialogue in Venezuela – rather than supporting revolutionaries who wanted to dump Chavez.

What it comes down to is that these people are trying to use the church to reinforce their own ideological beliefs, rather than trying to take guidance from the church’s teachings in determining their beliefs on various issues.

If Jesus Christ were resurrected on Thursday, they’d be the first to tell him all the ways in which he was wrong!

  -30-

Obama offensive by his absence?

Is President Barack Obama really killing off his re-election chances by his absence from the National Association of Latino Elected Officials’ convention taking place this week?

OBAMA: Won't go to San Antonio



There are some activists who want to claim that Obama is snubbing Latinos by not showing up at this event, in part because candidate Obama showed up in 2008 and promised to come back as president.

SO UNLESS HE manages to squeeze in the event during 2012 at the heart of the election cycle, it may well turn out that Obama does not keep that “promise” – which some activists will try to elevate to the same scale as “Read my lips. No new taxes.”

If it reads like I’m mocking this idea, you’d be correct.

I think some people are just a little too eager to come up with an issue. Considering that there are many real reasons for Latinos to be concerned about Obama’s commitment to supporting our concerns, there really is no reason to come up with phony issues such as this.

Perhaps I just take into account that any president (or any government official who is worth anything) has a busy schedule, and that there always are more public events desiring the presidential “stamp of approval” than the president is capable of attending.

SO THE FACT that NALEO is not getting Obama on its schedule is a shame for the group. But it’s not the end of the world.

Besides, I can’t help but think that the presidential spin in response to this particular conference isn’t completely full of bull. They cite the fact that Obama will attend the National Council of La Raza conference to be held next month, and just recently made a prominent appearance in Puerto Rico.

Although one could argue that one lone day in the Caribbean isn’t that much, and that the La Raza conference is being held in Washington – so Obama would be a complete baboso if he were to miss that event.

But these are a couple of prominent Latino-oriented appearances made within a couple of months time-span, and there is still more than a year to go until the actual Election Day voting takes place.

WHICH MEANS I’M not about to say that the world is coming to an end because Obama thinks he can spend his time better this weekend in places other than San Antonio, Texas.

That would have given him a chance to have his picture taken with the various local government officials of Latino ethnic backgrounds – which probably does more for their re-election bids than it does for Obama’s.

Personally, I’m less concerned about where Obama appears during the coming months than I am with the actions he takes while serving as president.

If Obama really were the “radical” that the conservative ideologues try to claim he is, he would be in so tight with Latinos that there would be no question about his chances of re-election.

BECAUSE THERE REALLY isn’t anything radical about what Latinos want – acceptance as part of this society, particularly since the majority of us were born here and are just as much a part of the United States as anyone else in this country (regardless of what any ideologue wants to believe).

Because the Obama record when it comes to concerns of Latinos is that the president seems more concerned about offending the sensibilities of those people who want to view our growing population numbers as a problem to be dealt with by government.

Obama could easily show up at the NALEO conference (instead of sending Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, as he is doing this year) and say the right things (like he did earlier this year along the U.S./Mexico border).

But if Obama’s actions don’t back up his rhetoric, no amount of appearances at any group will overcome his presidential record.

  -30-

Oh, be quiet senator!

I can’t really say that I was either surprised, or offended, by the remarks of recent days by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is willing to encourage the idea that the dozens of wildfires taking place across Arizona these days is somehow the fault of all those dreaded Mexicans who crossed over the border without a valid visa.

McCAIN: The senator's conspiracy theory

In short, the dreaded illegal aliens are now physically destroying the state.

QUITE FRANKLY, THE image is so laughable that I expect anyone with common sense to ridicule McCain. I think he has done his public image more damage than I could ever do by criticizing him in any way.

The reality is that on Saturday, McCain made some remarks while speaking to a group, saying there is “substantial evidence” that some of the 40-plus fires now burning were caused by campfires started by people who were slipping over the U.S./Mexico border to get into this country without proper papers.

After being called out by assorted activists for speaking like a nitwit, McCain went on to elaborate what he meant in a way that only confirmed what I suspected was the truth all along – this  was a cockamamie theory he concocted to try to appease the conservative ideologues whom he wants to be among his supporters.

Those people are more than willing to believe that a batch of foreigners is trying to burn down the country. Just as “Gold Hat” didn’t “need no stinkin’ badges” in the film “Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” the ideologues don’t need no stinkin’ facts.

McCAIN APPEARED ON the radio program hosted by Don Imus, who questioned him about what he said during the weekend. The senator now says that he has heard reports of how people crossing over the border do set campfires to help them survive while they’re out in the middle of nowhere that exists between the two countries.

His source for that is briefings he has received from the Forest Service. But he doesn’t have any specific information that says any of the 40-plus fires now burning came from a campfire that was started during a border crossing incident.

But before I dismiss McCain for speaking a whole lot of nonsense, I’d have to say that with so many fires ongoing (so many and covering such a large area of the state that it is now considered the largest wildfire in Arizona history) it is very possible that at least one of them began with a campfire that wasn’t properly extinguished.

Who’s to say it didn’t begin during a border crossing? It may well turn out that McCain is correct – although not because he knew what he was talking about. Merely because he shot his mouth off, and then Lady Luck backed him up factually.

BESIDES, CONSIDERING THAT this is 40-plus fires, the fact that one MAY have had some origin that can be connected to a border crossing makes the whole accusation seem so exaggerated.

Then again, exaggeration isn’t something that worries the ideologues. They WANT to be able to overhype the current situation into a crisis for which the only solution is their extremist regulations.

If it reads like I’m writing that McCain’s rhetoric of late is so over-the-top that I can’t take it seriously, you’d be correct.

After all, his line from Monday, “I’m surprised that anyone should be surprised that people have been doing this for some period of time,” doesn’t come anywhere near to backing up anyone who wants to believe that the current fires were started by foreigners – which in their mini-minds means Mexicans.

BESIDES, ALL OF this is perfectly in character for McCain – who may once have been a member of Congress who was inclined to look favorably toward serious reform of the nation’s immigration laws.

But when he ran for president in 2008, he made his choice. He backed away from his previous proposals, promised not to do anything like that again, and since has geared his rhetoric toward trying to appease the ideologues (many of whom are wary of him because they can’t forgive his one-time sensible approach to this issue).

In short, McCain picked sides on this issue when he sought the GOP presidential nomination three years ago and then unsuccessfully took on Barack Obama in the general election. He stood with them in his rhetoric during the 2010 re-election to the Senate, and all he’s doing with his latest talk is showing that he’s sticking with the ideologues.

Which is his prerogative; this is a free country. All I know is that the next time the political pundits ponder why McCain isn’t more beloved by the growing Latino population (as they do from time to time), it will be moments like this that get thrown back in his face.

  -30-

THE FOLLOWUP: No more billboards, but lots of Latinos in Alabama and Texas

It was earlier this month that anti-abortion activists decided to erect a series of billboards en Español meant to discourage Latinas from considering abortion in the event they became pregnant.

Those billboards were so similar to the assorted campaigns used by the conservative ideologues to try to make black women think that abortion is a “liberal conspiracy” to kill black babies that it was downright ridiculous.

SO RIDICULOUS, IN fact, that the billboards – sponsored by the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles group – didn’t even last a month.

No longer will we be able to read the phrase, “the most dangerous place for a Latino is in the womb.”  The companies that sold the billboard space to the ideologues are going along with the desires of activists who wanted them taken down because their message is so blatantly hateful.

The activists who objected to the billboards told the Orange County Weekly newspaper that the ad campaign was “anti-woman” and “anti-immigrant.” Which ought to be blatantly obvious to anybody who sees these things!

Of course, we’re now getting the ideologue dialogue that claims THEY are the ones who are being picked upon. Which strikes me as being typical of the bully, who complains and whines and thinks it a great injustice that someone would stand up to him (or her) when the bully tries to intimidate everyone else into buying into his level of nonsense.

ALSO CATCHING MY attention when it comes to past commentary is the situation in Alabama, which passed a new state law that some activists see as more appalling than the conditions in Arizona – where state officials are currently fighting in the courts for the right to keep their own ridiculous measure in effect as law.

I have previously said what is ridiculous about the Alabama situation. But new figures from the Census Bureau related to Alabama show what has the ideologues running scared.

Personally, I don’t think any self-respecting Latino would want to live in Alabama. But there really isn’t any place in this country that didn’t experience a significant boost in the number of people during the past decade with ethnic ties to a Latin American nation.

For Alabama, the Latino population went up by 145 percent from 2000 to 2010 – from 75,830 a decade ago to 185,602 last year. Who’s to say what it is now, or will be come 2020?

SOME COUNTIES IN Alabama literally tripled the number of Latinos they have now, compared to a decade ago when the biggest fear of many people was whether or not the coming of a new Millennium would mean that all our computers would go haywire and cause mass rioting and looting.

Now, those same paranoid people want to think all these Latinos are the evidence that something went haywire and will cause mass rioting and looting.

Ridiculous? Of course! But some people are just determined to live their lives in misery. Which is why the best thing we as a society could do is to ignore those folks – rather than give their goofy conspiracy theories any credibility by enacting public policies meant to reinforce their warped view of life.

Then, there is Texas – which recently had its state Senate live up to the goofy image that the late political commentator Molly Ivins used to use to depict the Lone Star State.

DESPITE THE WARNINGS of various people that approving a bill prohibiting the concept of “sanctuary cities” for local governments wishing to show symbolic solidarity with immigrants and their relatives, the Texas state Senate took the low road.

They passed the bill, which already has sensible people predicting its reversal in the courts. Until then, Texas gets to show just how politically depraved its public officials can be.

Then again, perhaps those officials are merely following the lead of Gov. Rick Perry, who recently told a gathering of ideologues in New Orleans (ie., the Republican Leadership Conference) that Republican officials should focus on pleasing the conservatives and electing ideologically-hardnosed officials.

This is a case where following the leader (who has dreams of someday becoming U.S. president)could wind up hurting the GOP, which seems determined to become the political party of choice for an Anglo minority that wants to rule by exclusion of others. 

IT'S NOT EXACTLY the image for our society that anyone with sense wants now that we're in the 21^st Century.

It was an appalling enough image back when it was close to reality back in the 19^th.

  -30-

Not even the apologists among Latinos can defend “Alabama” activity toward immigration

How abhorrent is the political activity of late in Alabama – the activity by which state officials want local police to get overly involved in immigration enforcement and would take various steps meant to undermine federal law?

So much that not even the conservative Latinos who usually like to offer up rhetoric in support of Republican and conservative causes are willing to defend the state.

AT LEAST THAT’S the reaction I got after reading the statement put out by the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

“Alabama’s new immigration law succeeds not in addressing the immigration crisis or offering a viable and sustainable solution, but rather the law succeeds in fostering a spirit of racial and discriminatory practices,” Rodriguez said in his statement.

“It resurrects the old spirit of George Wallace and places pastors and clergy in peril as they reach out to all in their communities with the love of Christ,” Rodriguez said.

The pastor, who just a couple of months ago denounced Democratic politicians for not opposing measures that benefitted the ability of gay couples to marry or engage in legal unions, said he hopes his religious colleagues in Alabama join in opposition to the bill state officials signed into law earlier this month.

“THIS TIME, SILENCE is not an option. The answer to the immigration crisus in America lies in the word of God,” Rodriguez said.

The conservative ideologues, of course, are supporting Alabama’s measures, which include requiring school districts to verify the citizenship status of students (even though the courts have already ruled that citizenship is not a requirement to attend a public school).

It also would be forbidden for people to transport, house or rent property to non-citizens who lack a valid visa. And any community that thinks they can pass laws that offer legal protection to non-citizens will find themselves in violation of Alabama state law.

The conservative ideologues are out to take the humanity away from human beings, which I suppose in their mini-minds is their way of justifying the restrictions they want to impose on who should be allowed to live in our society.

NOW I KNOW the ideologues like to think they represent the majority of our nation’s mentality. They’re even going to claim that the views I often put forth don’t even represent the thoughts of the growing Latino population.

They can usually count on people like Rodriguez to offer up a viewpoint on a social issue in agreement with them to reinforce their beliefs.

Yet on this, not even Rodriguez would side with them, which is why he is meeting with Republican governors in hopes that they can sway Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley into taking some future action that might restrict his state’s activity of this week.

Of course, Rodriguez is among those who has even expressed his thoughts on this issue to President Barack Obama, which makes me think that he is someone willing to reach out to all sides on this issue – instead of letting HIS side prevail and finding ways to put a gag in the collective mouth of the opposition.

WHAT ACTUALLY CATCHES my attention on this issue is the way it seems to be uniting many religious denominations. The Catholic Church, which has a significant and growing Latino segment of its ranks, has been outspoken in its belief that U.S. immigration policy is flawed because it can split up families.

Yet it’s not just the Catholic Church speaking out in some self-interest. Rodriguez himself represents the growing number of Latinos who find faith in the Evangelical movement.

Even the Southern Baptists are in support of immigration reform measures, thinking that most of those now lacking visas ought to be given some legal means of gaining them without having to endure the rants and cries of “Amnesty!” from ideologues everywhere.

It just seems to me that while many conservatives like to tout religious rhetoric, it’s too bad they don’t listen to what religious leaders themselves have to say. They should listen to the “word of God,” rather than trying to put words into God’s mouth when it suits their political interests.

  -30-