For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up. Hosea, Chapter 8, Verse 7, King James Bible
My street-level introduction to Hispanic racism occurred on the day when I stepped into a situation in a gas station convenience store when seven or eight illegals moved to threaten the owner over two candy bars one of their companeros had shoplifted.
The owner was black, a naturalized American citizen from Nigeria, and he was moving back behind the counter to where his .357 was. I had come into the store unnoticed behind the Mexicans, so to give Wally time to get to his piece, I announced in a loud voice: "Donde esta carte verde?" Or, "Where is your green card?"
The illegals executed an about face, and from cursing about the "pinche cabron mallate" and saying very nasty things about his mother, they moved on me and began cursing about the "pinche cabron gabacho" and saying very nasty things about MY mother. "Mallate" is Mexican for "nigger." Gabcho means roughly "dirty Yankee white boy."
Unnoticed by the illegals, Wally made it to his .357. My .45 was in the car. Too far away.
So, if you ain't got it, make them think you got it.
I smiled real big and said quickly, tapping my chest with my left forefinger: "Si! Si! Mi 'Gabacho.' Mi gabacho LOCO con armas del fuego."
Or "Yes, Yes, I'm a dirty Yankee white boy. I'm a CRAZY dirty Yankee white boy with a gun."
My right hand was out of sight to them, tucked in my belt as if reaching for something.
They stopped their forward movement and grew quiet. The guy with the candy bars took them out of his pocket and put them on the counter. When he turned to do that, he spotted Wally with the .357 held casually and pointing at nobody in particular.
They left quickly and noiselessly.
Wally asked me afterward what a "mallate" was. I told him it meant nigger. He was incensed. "They've been calling me that for weeks, every time they came in." He paused. "What is a mujer negra?" (He mispronounced it, but it was easy to work out.) I told him they'd been calling him a black woman.
Now he was really pissed. Wally was a veteran of the Nigerian civil war and had done and seen things that the illegals who insulted him would have crapped their pants in abject fear had he even TOLD them about.
"I'm better than they are," he fairly shouted. "I'm an AMERICAN! They're not Americans, they don't want to be Americans. They just come here for the money. They're thieves! They try to steal from me! And THEY insult ME!?!?"
Shortly afterward, Wally went back to Nigeria. The regime had changed and it was now safer for political emigres like him. But I suspect that he preferred negotiating the tribal morass of Nigeria to the tribal politics of the United States. At least he understood the tribal ins and outs of Nigeria. He never understood why people would adopt tribalism in a country that was founded on some very untribal ideas.
Wally's problems were Hispanic racism at street level. As Patrick Buchanan points out below, Hispanic identity politics elevated to the federal courts is infinitely more dangerous. I'll have some comments on the other side.
A Quota Queen for the Court
By Patrick J. Buchanan
June 2, 2009
If the U.S. Senate rejects race-based justice, Sonia Sotomayor will never sit on the Supreme Court.
Because that is what Sonia is all about. As The New York Times reported Saturday, the salient cause of her career has been advancing persons of color, over whites, based on race and national origin.
"Judge Sotomayor, whose parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico," writes reporter David Kirkpatrick, "has championed the importance of considering race and ethnicity in admissions, hiring and even judicial selection at almost every stage of her career."
At Princeton, she headed up Accion Puertorriquena, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare demanding that her school hire Hispanic teachers. At Yale, she co-chaired a coalition of non-black minorities of color that
demanded more Latino professors and administrators.
At Yale, she "shared the alarm of others in the group when the Supreme Court prohibited the use of quotas in university admissions in the 1978 decision Regents of the University of California v. Bakke."
Alan Bakke was an applicant to the UC medical school at Davis who was rejected, though his test scores were higher than almost all of the minority students who were admitted. Bakke was white.
After Yale, Sotomayor joined the National Council of La Raza and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund. Both promote race and ethnic preferences, affirmative action and quotas for Hispanics.
But why should Puerto Ricans like Sotomayor, who were never subjected to slavery or Jim Crow -- their island was liberated from Spain in 1898 by the United States -- get racial or ethnic preferences over Polish- or Portuguese-Americans?
What is the justification for this kind of discrimination?
Like Lani Guinier, the Clinton appointee rejected for reverse racism, Sonia Sotomayor is a quota queen. She believes in, preaches and practices race-based justice. Her burying the appeal of the white New Haven firefighters, who were denied promotions they had won in competitive exams, was a no-brainer for her.
In her world, equal justice takes a back seat to tribal justice.
Now, people often come out to vote for one of their own. Catholics for JFK, evangelicals for Mike Huckabee, women for Hillary Clinton, Mormons for Mitt Romney, Jews for Joe Lieberman and African-Americans for Barack Obama. That is political reality and an exercise of political freedom.
But tribal justice is un-American.
In the 1950s and 1960s, this country reached consensus that denying black men and women the equal opportunity to advance and succeed must come to an end. Discrimination based on race, color or ethnicity, we agreed, was wrong.
Sotomayor, however, has an exception to the no-discrimination rule. She believes in no discrimination, unless done to white males and to benefit people like her.
How can any Republican senator vote to elevate to the Supreme Court a judge who, all her life, has believed in, preached and practiced race discrimination against white males, without endorsing the Obama-Sotomayor view that diversity trumps equal justice, and race-based justice should have its own seat on the high court?
Down the path Sotomayor would take us lies an America where Hispanic justices rule for Hispanics, black judges rule for blacks and white judges rule for white folks.
It is an America where who gets admitted to the best colleges and universities is not decided on grades and academic excellence, but on race and ethnicity, where advancement in jobs and careers depends not on aptitude and ability, but on where your grandparents came from.
On principle, Republicans cannot support Sonia Sotomayor.
And politically, if they do, why should the white working man and woman ever vote Republican again, as it is they who are the designated victims of the race-based justice of Sonia Sotomayor?
It was Richard Nixon who brought the white working class, North and South, into his New Majority, when he increased the Republican presidential vote from 43 percent in 1968 to 61 percent in 1972. Ronald Reagan solidified this base.
But why should the white working and middle class stay with the GOP? Its presidents exported their jobs to Mexico, China and Asia, and threw open America's doors to tens of millions, legal and illegal, from the Third World, who have swamped their cities and towns. If the GOP will not end race-based affirmative action, which
threatens the futures of their children, why vote for the GOP?
Why should white folks vote for anyone who says, "We are against race discrimination, unless it is discrimination against you"?
Obama would not have selected Sotomayor if he did not share her convictions. And there is nothing in his writings or career to hint at disagreement. Thus it comes down to the senators, especially the Republicans. A vote for Sonia Sotomayor is a vote to affirm that race-based justice deserves its own seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
But if that happens, it will not only be the race consciousness of Hispanics that will be on the rise in the good old U.S.A.
The Weimar Republic provided the Nazis with the societal cultural backlash that they rode right into power. A race war in this country, the logical result of codified identity politics, will be won by no one, but it will be a white, racist dictator who sits on the throne afterward. This is not the result that these ignorant "multi-culti" collectivists foresee in doing what they are doing, but it is the likely outcome.
And when the trains start running to an American Auschwitz, will they then, from the perspective of being themselves inside the boxcars, STILL support racial identity politics, government control over people's lives and gun control?
As for me and my friends, we'll be in the field, fighting collectivism still, albeit one with a different face.