Unnamed email writer in blue
Response by Hal Netkin in red
==================================
At 07:57 AM 5/14/2001, you wrote:
I regret that you feel the need to spread hateful lies through the 'net, though that is one role this vehicle has come to play, unfortunately.
Would you care to point out anything I said on the MayorNo site that you believe is a lie? If you do, I will either point out your error, or recant anything you can prove is a lie.
Yes, for example, you suggest that AV is a conspirator who will participate in a Mexican
"takeover" of southern California and/or LA.
Those are your words. I simply state the facts and let the chips fall as they may. Antonio was the Chairman of MEChA and to this date refuses to renounce them, and as a matter of fact I can document that he said "He is proud of his membership
That is baloney, and you know it, and you are simply spreading, or trying to
spread, the backlash that was sparked by propositions like 187.
Don't fret, When Antonio loses he can always get together with Governor Gray, and Presidente Fox and overrule the will of the voters like they did with Prop 187.
But you expose yourself as a racist, or at least one who is willing to take up the cudgel for racists -- despite your family background
In America, we are free to question, criticize, and discuss our government and their policies -- and we should! This freedom in and of itself will of course create unintended conflicts whether racial conflicts or other kind of conflicts by many who have underlying agendas. Just as some communists, seditionists, and racists will climb in bed with MECHISTAS, certain racist elements will try to climb in bed with those of us who are opposed to Raza's racism. But the difference between MECHA and me (and others who agree with my philosophy), is that, while I stick to my convictions, I reject those who are racists. "Deed" is the true measure of hidden agenda -- not your unfounded conjectures of racism. With no logical defense of your disagreement with me, you resort to shameful attack on what you believe are my motives (if you are the Union Lawyer who I think you are, it is doubly shameful).
Well, your wrong about my motives! But even if you were right, there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about the motives of those who want our laws enforced. If that were the case, one person of one race accused of a crime, would be acquitted if he simply said that his accuser of another race, didn't like him because of his race. Sound absurd? That is your implication!
No one is saying you don't have a constitutional right to spread your spurious claptrap, but either you think I am naive that I don't or shouldn't perceive the "latino-card" being played, or you are yourself blind to the hateful implications of your own rhetoric and
approach.
Lets Face it, You have no credible argument for the facts raised on this sight. That's why you are reduced to slanderous accusations about motives. Respond with one fact at least!
...when you defend Prop 187, and when you deny our history of stealing land and exploiting people.
I never denied any such thing anymore than I denied that Mexico was stolen from Spain, or before that was stolen by Spain. Therefore what?
Therefore, it is natural for people of Latino descent, who are a people who have been
oppressed and colonized by Europeans and Americans, to identify with that history, and seek unity in that history. The same is true for Jews, and virtually any ethnic
group. So, when you take Mecha, and connect it with AV, and then graft all of Mecha's views onto AV, you are trying to frighten people from supporting him, though you have no factual basis for doing so.
First of all I have grafted nothing, The National Council of La Raza publicly condemned La VOZ, DE AZTLAN for it's anti Semitic statements, so what's so hard about Antonio coming out against the radical separatist tenants of MEChA?
Villaraigosa was correct to declare it unconstitutional, and he was not alone in doing so, by any means, and of course, the federal court agreed with him.
Only one federal judge, Mariana Phaelzer, ruled 187 unconstitutional, NO ONE ELSE! -- the process wasn't over. If Villaraigosa agreed with her, he should have said so and let the appeals process play itself out. Instead, Villaraigosa must have thought of himself as the supreme authority above all nine U.S. Supreme Court judges. No one denies Villaraigosa his opinion, but usurping of the constitution is a different matter. This is obvious to anyone, even if they are not a lawyer. (Maybe I'm mistaken about you being a lawyer).
Be careful how you twist your wishful thinking. Nowhere in the MayorNo Website do I defend Prop 187 on its merits. My issue is simply that Antonio Villaraigosa abused his authority by high-jacking the appeals process in conspiracy with the president of Mexico, and stated publicly that it was unconstitutional, something that couldn't have been established unless it went to the U.S. supreme court. With this action, Villaraigosa was instrumental in destroying the confidence of California's voters in our initiative system because he didn't want the U.S. Supreme Court to make a decision he was afraid of. An honest politician who believed Prop 187 to be unconstitutional would have left the final decision to the U.S. Supreme Court -- and later, if he was right, could have said "I told you so."
You are guilty of the same cynicism that put 187 on the ballot in the first place. You hide behind the process and the voters' voice, when the truth is that the prop was clearly unconstitutional, patently so, and was put on the ballot as a vehicle to get
out the right wing vote.
I'm not hiding, in fact I'm in the forefront and obviously having an impact or Antonio wouldn't have unleashed spinmasters like you on me, and no matter how many times you say unconstitutional, You will never be the Supreme Court!
The good news was that the Republicans paid dearly in this state for taking anti-Latino stances in propositions.
It won't be so good for either party when there is a backlash by citizens of both parties protesting the disintegration of California and Los Angeles.
How would Prop 187 have been a positive enactment when it denies children an education which the Supreme Court had declared was the birthright of everyone who is present in this country?
As mentioned before, the issue of the MayorNo sight was not about the merits of Prop 187, but about Villaraigosa's quenching of it. But since you seek answers to irrelevancies I will give you some limited response.
You're right, it is a birthright. And if you read Prop 187 carefully, you will see that it does not effect children who are U.S. citizens. Non legal U.S. Citizen children are citizens of another country whose responsibility it is to provide that child with an education. Before you try and race whip me, I want you to know that if there was a storm of undocumented Norwegian children, I would be just as opposed to their free education. So please stop trying to second guess my motives.
In this regard, the constitution protects non-citizen students as well, presumably to your
regret.
What's this? There is a higher authority after all! but of course only as you, Antonio, Gray and Presidente Fox interpret it.
Your hysterical concerns about a Mexican "takeover" of Los Angeles could be nothing other than a call for racists to vote for the white candidate, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
The shame is yours. I have pointed out strong evidence of individuals who declare that the Southwest U.S. should be taken over in the name of Aztlan and/or Mexico, but would you mind pointing out where in the site I show hysteria about a Mexican "takeover?"
You may not have noticed that there was another Latino candidate, Xavier Becerra also running for Mayor. Now if I were so anti-Latino as you allege, wouldn't I attempt to discredit Becerra also?
PLEASE READ MY LIPS! Villaraigosa's race has nothing to do with my opposition to him. IT'S HIS POLITICS. There are a number of Latinos who I would have voted for had they run for mayor based on their politics, not because of their race. But certainly, had such Latinos run for mayor, you would probably be in the forefront calling them traitors.
Respectfully,
Hal Netkin
