If you haven't checked out these videos before, a character actor by the name of Moppix does some hilarious impersonations of racist "rednecks" from Arizona on his Youtube channel. Below, I have included his videos of the "redneck philosophy" about the economy, discrimination (against rednecks), illegal immigrants, and Obama. In any case, check out all of the videos below.
If you have ever found yourself saying any of the things on this video WITHOUT joking, please do the world a favor and don't pass on your seed to the next generation. Thanks.
I found this compilation of Youtube videos from Jared Lee Loughner, the man accused of shooting Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 other people, including a federal judge, in Tucson Arizona in January, 2011. It looks like the links to the originals of his videos might have been taken down by the staff at Youtube. However, I've managed to find a compilation of his videos that were republished using other user accounts.
The information presented in these videos, and the manner in which it is presented, is weird and disturbing. At certain points, he seems to repeat himself over and over with obvious statements, somewhat akin to stating "1 + 1 = 2." It's grotesque.
Rep. Giffords shot, judge and 5 others killed at Tucson event
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot point-blank in the head on Saturday at a northwest-side grocery store, but surgeons say they are "very optimistic" about her recovery.
Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer's office is confirming federal Judge John Roll was among the dead.
Sheriff's authorities said there were six dead, including a child, as well as 18 wounded.
Giffords, who is in critical condition, is out of surgery at University Medical Center, said Dr. Peter Rayle, a UMC surgeon. The bullet passed cleanly out her brain, exiting her head.
Rayle said she was following commands, which is a good sign.
The shooting occurred at a Safeway supermarket where Giffords was holding one of her regular "Congress on Your Corner" events, which allows her to speak directly with constituents in her district.
A tearful U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata of Tucson, meanwhile, did not know why Roll was at the event.
"It's devastating to the courts and to me," Zapata said. "We've been friends for 25 years and he was a tremendous judge and a tremendous person."
The gunman has been identified as 22-year-old Jared Loughner, according to The Associated Press.
The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
"Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole Tea Party."
Which brings us to Sarah Palin, who is trying to backtrack, after being the leader of fomenting the atmosphere that breeds DOMESTIC TERRORISTS like this guy.
She tried to scrub her website, but it always lives in cyberspace.
Ahhh... nothing like the sights and sounds of Racist Republican policies falling apart. And so it begins. Round one goes to the sane & rational. But the Right vows to fight on.
PHOENIX — A federal judge stepped into the fight over Arizona's immigration law at the last minute Wednesday, blocking the heart of the measure and defusing a confrontation between police and thousands of activists that had been building for months.
Coming just hours before the law was to take effect, the ruling isn't the end.
It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court — ensuring that a law that reignited the immigration debate, inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight.
Protesters who gathered at the state Capitol and outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City cheered when they heard the news. The governor, the law's authors and anti-illegal immigration groups vowed to fight on.
"It's a temporary bump in the road," Gov. Jan Brewer said.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will now have to decide a question as old as the nation itself: Does federal law trump state law? She indicated in her ruling that the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding.
The Clinton appointee said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
Key points
Bolton delayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, she blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants for crimes that can lead to deportation.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.
It looks like this will drag on for quite some time, and will eventually be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was full of problems and had measures that were unconstitutional, even after the Arizona legislature tried to clean up their own mess by changing the text.
Related Links
See our previous postings on the Arizona Immigration Law here and here.
Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White
This is America, in 2010, and there’s a dozen more states and endless white-trash municipalities ready to Officially Adopt this same Official Racist Insanity.
From the Arizona Republic:
A group of artists has been asked to lighten the faces of children depicted in a giant public mural at a Prescott school. The project’s leader says he was ordered to lighten the skin tone after complaints about the children’s ethnicity ….
R.E. Wall, director of Prescott’s Downtown Mural Project, said he and other artists were subjected to slurs from motorists as they worked on the painting at one of the town’s most prominent intersections.
“We consistently, for two months, had people shouting racial slander from their cars,” Wall said. “We had children painting with us, and here come these yells of (epithet for Blacks) and (epithet for Hispanics).”
The children depicted on the mural, as we mentioned before but feel compelled to repeat, are little kids who go to the school — “a K-5 school with 380 students and the highest ethnic mix of any school in Prescott. Wall said thousands of town residents volunteered or donated to the project.”
And these children, for the past several months as this happy mural encouraging “green transportation” was being painted by local artists, have been treated to the city of Prescott’s finest citizens driving by and yelling “Nigger” and “Spic” at this school wall painted with pictures of the children who attend the school. And this has been encouraged by a city councilman, Steve Blair, who uses his local radio talk show to rile up these people and demand the mural be destroyed.
And now the faces are being painted white, “because of the controversy.”
Let that sit around in your brain for awhile.
Let's make this clear: they are erasing the presence of STUDENTS THAT GO TO THE SCHOOL.
These are Black and Brown children THAT GO TO THE SCHOOL.
Black people routinely get accused of being ' emotional'. You're so ' emotional'. The President is being criticized for not being ' emotional'. Yet, the moment he would show some emotion, he'd be labeled the ' Angry Black Man'.
If I was a parent at this school, I admit it.
I'd be in jail right now because I WISH I WOULD let some school administrators, who are fucking gutless, decide to paint over the faces that represent my child and others like my child.
Being Black in America is about picking and choosing your battles. For all the prattling that White folks do about Black people ' playing the race card', we DO pick our battles. That's because there's far too much racist shyt that comes across in our lives, and if we tackled every incident, when would we actually have the time to live our lives?
Being a Black parent in America is preparing your child for the day when they find out that someone hates you - not for anything that you've done, but because YOU EXIST. The Black parent doesn't know when that moment in time will happen; they just know that the day will come. That they will have to be an accomplice to the racists who want to harm their children, because they will have to strip that innocence from them in order to give them the tools by which they can maneuver in a racist society. And, that moment isn't within the power of control of the parent. The most basic instinct of a parent is to protect their child. It's the most natural instinct in the world. And, don't think that Black and Brown children love their children any less than White folks. So, when someone goes out of their way to harm their children, why should they react any differently?
This is a big deal because the mural was based upon CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOL.
What lesson do you think the children will get from seeing themselves ERASED FROM THAT MURAL?
What lesson do you the children will get from knowing that they have an school administration, that, when trouble came a calling, they didn't tell the racists to go jump in the lake, but that they buckled? Why should those children trust those administrators? As a parent, I wouldn't trust them. When faced with obvious idiocy and racism, these ADULTS buckled and caved, instead of standing up and defending the innocent children. Instead of calling it out for what it was-they wimped out, because, in the end, it wasn't ' THEIR' children being insulted.
A school is supposed to be a safe haven. That security has been stripped away from these children. In the end, they will know that others attacked them, and the adults who are supposed to protect them when they're away from home, GAVE INTO THOSE THAT ATTACKED THEM.
And, as a parent, how can you, in good conscience, leave your child in that school? How could you trust those administrators ever? There is a bond between parent and the school, and it's been broken.
As usual, a poster writes something so profound, it had to be included.
From Town:
The principal (whether she/he knows it or not) sent a signal to the white teachers at the school that it's ok to ignore and dismiss the black and brown students at the school. Those children will become more demoralized and not want to participate in school. I'm pretty sure some of the white teachers were already ignoring RaShawn and Jose but the principal just legitimized it.
The principal sent a signal that only the feelings and opinions of white people count. Black and brown parents will not want to participate in the school because they will be ignored. Children pick up on this.
So now you have an environment where the principal has signaled that only the feelings of white people are to be respected. Some white teachers will see this as a signal that ignoring RaKia and Gaby while paying attention to Miley is ok. Black and brown kids will pick up on the disrespect and not do well in school. White teachers will see the black/brown kids not doing well in school and continue to ignore them. Black/brown parents will either try to participate in school but be ignored or not even bother to participate because they'll be ignored. Either way the kids pick up on their parents not caring and the school not caring.
All because the principal cared more about not getting angry phone calls from racist white people than the kids at the school. This principal committed psychological murder on the black/brown children and needs to be removed from his/her post.
However, there's also a part of the story involving a city councilman and local radio talk show host who declared his own fatwa against the mural, demanding that it be taken down:
City Councilman Steve Blair spearheaded a public campaign on his talk show at Prescott radio station KYCA-AM (1490) to remove the mural. In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?"
Why indeed? Why is a local city council member with a radio show complaining about a mural because it has a picture of a black kid in it? Why would he care? Are black children not full American citizens (the 14th amendment to the US Constitution was passed to insure their citizenship rights were respected under the law)? The school made this decision to include minority children in the mural based on the composition of their racially diverse school. Why should that bother a city council member?
What kind of grown-assed man, an elected official no less, goes around, on the radio, even discussing a mural on a school wall?
What kind of pathetic, insecure, unstable, racist picks on pictures of CHILDREN?
I say let em secede. Cut off Federal funding to these jackasses. As a matter of fact. They can have the South if they want it. Can't stand the South. Never liked it. (although I am not ready to give up Florida or Texas.... two of my adoptive home States). I would be ready to fight for Texas or Florida. But the rest, they can have. lol
Well, when Arizona Law SB 1070 passed, a whole lotta Black folks were like, ' good', because they have resentments towards the Latino community.
Let me make this clear. I believe I'm to right of the rest of the FP bloggers when it comes to immigration. I don't only dislike illegal immigration, I'm not too fond of legal immigration. The whole ' nation of immigrants' thing - try it on someone whose ancestors weren't brought here stacked up in the hull of slave ships.
But, for me, this wasn't about immigration. Even Rev. Al admitted that on The Ed Show: he was like, ' yeah, I guess we gotta do immigration reform, but that's not why I'm against this bill'.
Rev. Al saw it as I did:
the attempt to CODIFY RACIAL PROFILING INTO LAW.
There's a Black person, more likely, a Black Man, racially profiled EVERY DAY in this country.
The only way that we've remotely been able to fight this, is because it was ILLEGAL.
Now, if this happens when it's ILLEGAL, what do you think is going to happen if they make it LEGAL?
Well, I'm not willing to find out.
IS there a Black person out there that thinks that doesn't recognize THAT WE ARE NEXT ON THE LIST?
Please point to me something in the history of Black folk and Law Enforcement in America that could make me conclude anything OTHER than this.
So, it's opposition to SB1070 for the selfish reason of SELF-PRESERVATION for me.
But, you couldn't possibly have thought that they were going to stop with SB 1070, did you?
Measure prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity By JONATHAN J. COOPER
PHOENIX - Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district's ethnic studies program, hours after a report by United Nations human rights experts condemned the measure.
State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district's Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.
Public schools should not be encouraging students to resent a particular race, he said.
"It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it," Horne said.
Brewer's signature on the bill Tuesday comes less than a month after she signed the nation's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration — a move that ignited international backlash amid charges the measure would encourage racial profiling of Hispanics. The governor has said profiling will not be tolerated.
The measure signed Tuesday prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.
The Tucson Unified School District program offers specialized courses in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies that focus on history and literature and include information about the influence of a particular ethnic group.
You see how the courses for African-Americans were lumped right in there, don't you?
So, courses that tell THE TRUTH about a group's experience in America, must be banned.
How the hell are you going to tell THE TRUTH about Black folks', Latinos and Native-American history in THIS country without it pointing to the rotten and evil done to them?
The truth is the truth, and THAT is the truth of the history of the ' IF YOU AIN'T WHITE' crowd in America.
This is about Black folks being able to tell the truth about Black history in this country for our children to be given the ammunition to live their lives with self-respect and hold their heads up high.
Chris Chambers of Nat Turners Revenge discusses the new policy and the distortion of Martin Luther King, Jr. in defense of what they did.
The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.
The crackdown applies to classes deemed to have students who are learning English, mostly as a second language. Federal No Child Left Behind regulations call for students to be taught by persons fluent in English. The determination of fluency is left up to individual states.
Arizona seems to think that includes accents. Of course, they are wrong - accents do not by themselves measure fluency. And almost every person who is a native speaker of another language is going to have an accent when speaking English, unless they learned English at a young age.
"This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state," said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.
Indeed. Arizona's action against immigrants didn't begin with the recent passage of the "show me your papers" bill, but it emboldened anti-immigrant sentiment in other states around the country, and apparently in the Arizona educational system too.
Arizona's education department has sent people into schools to audit teachers on comprehensible pronunciation, correct grammar and good writing. Teachers who fail are given the chance to improve, but if not, they must be fired or reassigned.
I bet someone reading this is like, ' well, it's just for students learning English'.
You can't believe it's really going to STAY with the teachers just teaching English. I believe most folks have had a teacher that was hard to understand. But the thick accent doesn't mean they're not good teachers who don't demand excellence from their students and push them to be their best. Think about your own experiences.....did the thick accent translate into you not learning the material? Did the thick accent mean that they were bad teachers? And, if you considered them bad teachers, wouldn't they have been so, if they could speak perfect King's English?
Now, let's be REAL CLEAR about what's going on here:
Nearly two-thirds of Americans back Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law, which makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. The law also requires local and state law enforcement officials to question people about their immigration status if they suspect they’re in the country illegally.
Sixty-four percent favor this law, while 34 percent oppose it. But those numbers are essentially reversed among Latinos -- with 70 percent of them opposing the law, and only 27 percent supporting it.
Even though almost two-thirds of the public supports Arizona’s law, nearly an identical number (66 percent) believe it will lead to the discrimination of Latino immigrants who reside in the U.S. legally.
Do you understand that?
Unlike the reaction to when Black folks have been talking about racial profiling for forever and a day that it was ' ALL IN OUR IMAGINATIONS'...
They actually ADMIT, that the law WILL discriminate against Latinos, BUT SINCE IT'S NOT THEM, THEY DON'T GIVE A SHYT.
Now, for the readers of MOA, this won't come as a surprise.....
But, I'd be hard pressed not to believe that this is a shock to some in the Latino community. We'll see if this is a ' wake up call' for them.
I don't need any 'Black/Brown' coalition to act in my best self-interests. That it overlaps with the interests of the Latino community - it is what it is.
And don't believe for one moment that what has been attempted in Arizona is going to stay in Arizona.
The Arizona legislature modified their racist and unconstitutional immigration law earlier this month because they knew that the original law wouldn't hold up in Federal court. The move was made in anticipation of a mountain of lawsuits that would have likely made the legislation null and void in the Federal appeals courts.
The original law would have allowed (and in many cases required) police in Arizona to use an immigration check as the reason to make initial contact with an individual. Now the law states that officers can check immigration status as a consequence of some other violation of the law or some other contact, which could be just about anything. The provisions in the modification, for the most part, always existed. This is currently part of normal police practice across the country. Police officers already contact immigration authorities to report suspects who may be undocumented, when the issue comes up as a consequence of other violations of the law. So if that's the case, why have a law that codifies what is already the normal practice? Because that was not the original intent of the law. Arizona is trying to be slick with this move.
The changes will help the State defend against legal challenges, and will make the law tougher to kill in the courts. However, the law is still racist and unconstitutional. The law will still require some level of racial profiling. It still violates equal protection rights. It would still require a certain segment of the population to show proof of citizenship, while not requiring the same from others. The only way that this law could be constitutional, would be if everyone in Arizona were required to carry proof of citizenship and all were scrutinized equally. Gov. Brewer herself tried to claim that she didn't know what an immigrant looked like (in an attempt to blunt criticism.... and to try to show that the law would be applied to everyone....of course that's a lie. Of course this whole issue is about Mexicans). It is inherently racist...even with the changes....the changes only lessen the degree of the racism. The law also tries to trump Federal laws and Federal jurisdiction, another problem for Arizona as it tries to come up with a defense. Unfortunately those who want to challenge the law will have a steeper hill to climb.
The modifications were aimed at fixing some of the 4th amendment problems. But the problems with the 14th amendment are still there. Fortunately, this law was so horribly bad to begin with, that there are a number of routes to kill it. The modifications only plug one hole in the dam. This is why I believe the law was never really meant to be practical. I think it had more to do with Arizona wanting to send a message to Washington.
The president of FAIR (Federation of American Immigration Reform), Dan Stein, was on the Rachel Maddow Show. It was brutal.
Because of this interview (read: tussle; read: battle; read: slaughter), we have a new word: "Steined"... as in, "You've been Steined by Rachel Maddow".
Is Arizona trying to secede? It looks like they are doing just about everything they can to send that message.
Their symbolic declaration of war will be Governor Jan Brewer signing new immigration legislation into law that would basically legalize racial profiling and discrimination, by wiping out the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as a generation worth of civil rights laws. Of course it wouldn't wipe out the Constitution...but it would basically mean that Arizona would ignore Federal laws and precedent. If the law in Arizona is allowed to stand...then other States could do the same....undermining the Federal Government.
The initiative would require local law enforcement (who are busy enough...and understaffed enough as is) to enforce Federal immigration laws...by seeking out those who are potentially in the U.S. illegally. It's essentially a "show us your papers" law. Those who can't prove citizenship would presumably have to face further questioning.... further investigation and detention.
Just imagine for a minute that you are an Hispanic American...living in Arizona...and one day you decide to go for a walk or you want to take your dog to the park a block away. You may decide that you don't want to take your wallet because you aren't going to the store & won't need money...and you are coming right back. For the sake of comfort, you just don't need your wallet or purse. While in the park... the police decide to do what is commonly known as a 'pedestrian check' because you 'fit the profile'. They already suspect something is wrong...because they have approached you. Now when they ask you for your papers and you tell them that you don't have any ID with you, you can be detained and questioned...and you will even be subject to arrest if your story doesn't fly. Better not have a heavy Spanish accent. Is this America? Are Hispanics (or any other group) expected to just get used to being stopped and frisked? Police can check your name and verify drivers licenses without the actual ID.... but what about those legal residents and citizens from out of State? What about legitimate residents who don't happen to drive and don't have a State issued ID card? There are too many variables that the law doesn't seem to address. You can't subject one group to this kind of scrutiny... it just wouldn't work.
It seems as though this Country sinks a little deeper into the crazy quicksand with each passing day. I had to pinch myself when I heard this story.
Of course as soon as this nonsense is signed into law (if the Governor agrees with the nutters and in fact signs it) it would face a Federal injunction within hours. I almost want to see the law go into effect...because I want the nutters to see just how crazy they are. It would be a good lesson for them about the Constitution and how the Country is supposed to work. I want them to see just how fast this law would be knocked down by the Federal Courts.
I'm all for the enforcement of immigration laws. However, I think that the States and the Federal government should know their roles. There has to be a better way to deal with the issue without endangering Constitutional protections for Hispanic citizens. This law was a simple-minded approach to a delicate and sometimes complex problem. I'm pretty sure that if this legislation becomes law, it won't last for more than a few days (if that). It would take a Hell of a loophole for it to survive. From what I have read and heard about the legislation so far, it wouldn't last more than a couple of days. Its intent doesn't seem to be practical. Instead, it seems to be intended as a symbolic gesture designed to send a message to the Obama Administration.
One problem that this might create is a situation where Obama feels the need to tackle immigration reform this year. This is exactly what the Republicans want...and it may be part of their whole strategy. If Obama takes the bait, it could spell big trouble for Democrats. This is exactly the kind of fight that the Republicans would want going into the midterms. The majority of Americans support tougher enforcement of immigration laws....and Republicans have already framed immigration reform as an attempt to give undocumented individuals amnesty and a free pass. It's a losing battle for Democrats.
Obama should steer clear of any major overhaul of immigration, at least in his first term. If he gets a second term... then this might be an issue that he could try to tackle. This is my view...not because I think it is better to play politics.... but because after looking at the issue it seems clear to me that comprehensive "immigration reform" simply isn't doable. It's not a realistic goal, at least not in the current political and social environment. Why should President Obama waste energy and what little political capital he has left on something that isn't achievable, especially when there are so many other things that the Country needs to deal with? It makes no sense. It is not the kind of battle that he can fight and win...especially not in a Country that is so politically and racially polarized (thanks to the Republican Party and its Tea Party wing). This issue could derail just about everything else in Obama's agenda if he decides to push for any major reforms. The fight over immigration would be bigger than the fight over Health care - exponentially bigger. Do we really want to go back to that? This is exactly why I don't believe that Democrats in the Congress will touch it. The issue is too radioactive. But then again...the Dems in Congress aren't exactly the brightest people in world. They have done incredibly stupid things before.
A Republican - George W. Bush - tried this a few years ago...and failed miserably after his ideas were flatly rejected by his own party. What in the Hell makes anyone think that comprehensive immigration reform is achievable for Obama? Sure....he managed to get a watered down Health Care Bill passed...but Health Care Reform was not nearly as partisan an issue as immigration is. On Health Care...the Country was and is basically split down the middle. On the issue of immigration... Republicans are much more energized...and emotional, and support for tougher enforcement leans heavily in favor of the Conservative position...although this is due, in part, to a lack of understanding about the problems that immigration reform could fix.
The nutters didn't stop with just this immigration initiative. They also have legislation that would require proof of citizenship for any Presidential candidate. Those who don't provide proof of citizenship won't be put on the State ballot. Of course this is aimed at President Obama.
Sometime over the next few days we will know if Governor Jan Brewer will sign this legislation into law.
