Their own Racism is OK

Don't you think its funny when people are offended by something that they make such a big to-do about it, that they get it dropped from stores selling that item. I am talking about nothing other than the Illegal Alien costume that was found to be offensive to the Illegal Immigrant advocates. One in particular, the Indigenous Xicano, I have talked about his racism before, but now he has truly shown it without covering it up. I wonder, since he has pictures of Conquistadors along with pilgrams, doesn't that mean that his ancestors were also Illegal Immigrants, or do they in some way not count because he doesn't claim them? Inquiring minds truly want to know!!

Sensationalized Headline? or Actual Stupidity?

Do Illegal Alien advocates have to lie in order to make themselves feel good? I mean, really, Dee's new topic headline: Napolitano/Holder Keep to Promise! Feds partner with State/Local Authorities to Crack Down on Gangs vs Workers! is so incorrect that the only thing I can come up with is, Stupidity. After reading her links to where she gathered her information from, she is attempting to justify that Napolitano some how has control over what the FBI does, from one of her other blog topics no less. Her other 2 links are to actual articles of the raid, in which they state there was no immigration charges in the list of charges.

The charges, part of a massive racketeering case dubbed Operation Knock Out, were outlined in several indictments charging 147 members and associates of the Varrio Hawaiian Gardens gang with murder, attempted murder, drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and witness intimidation.

This was a 4 year probe into the gang by the FBI, after the gang killed a local Police Officer in 2005. Eric Holder didn't even have influence on this case as he was just put in pace recently as the AG.

Then there is Mary, who cites the ACLU in stating that Illegal Immigration is a "civil offense".

The ACLU Report on the Rights of Immigrants States:

The U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) detains over 300,000 men, women adn children for violating immigration laws each year, placing them in jails and dentention centers even though immigration violations are civil -- not criminal -- offenses. Ironically, immigrants are not given the same access to legal representation and due process afforded to criminals.

The UCLU is non-partisan

Posted by Mary on 05/25/2009 @ 06:34PM PT

Did she not get the memo, Illegal Immigrant Advocates have already accepted and agreed to knowing that "overstaying a visa" (Nonimmigrant Status Violators) is an Administrative Offense (a violation of civil immigration laws), while "entry without inspection" (Violators of Conditions of Entry, Improper entry by an alien) is a Federal Misdemeanor Offense (is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail), which in fact, ironically to use one of her own words, is a criminal offense, both are subject to Deportation without hearing, unless charged with an "infamous crime".

In response to a question from an audience member, Christie said that immigrants are not committing a crime by being in the country illegally.

Monday, Christie said that while entering the country illegally is considered a federal misdemeanor, simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation.

“Deportable Aliens” have ‘NO RIGHTS’ granted to them by our Constitution just by being in the United States if they are in violation of our immigration laws. They are only granted ‘due process’ (Civil Rights granted from the UN Charter on Human Rights) if they are charged with an "infamous crime" for which the Government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the penalty imposed is Deportation for first time offenders.

Bigotry, Ethnocentrism, Ignorance, and Outright Racism from the Advocates of Luis Ramirez

Does the idiocy ever end within the mind of an advocate who is blinded by their own bigotry, ignorance, racism, and ethnocentrism that they can not be objective or even open minded to actual facts?

Folks, I give you yet another ignorant post by "the Indigenous Xicano". First he states:

So why is it that the only ones with perfect recall were teens whose minds were impaired by alcohol?

People cannot drive straight drunk but they can have perfect recall of a crazy violent beating?

Why is it that the drunken teens who were so emotionally charged that their angry screaming of racist slurs were heard inside the homes of the nearby residents are the only ones with perfect recall from that night?
....
These kids who told the truth were now accused by the defense for kicking Ramirez.

The arrogant Donchak and Piekarsky stuck to their fabricated story. They stuck to the advise offered by the cop who slept with Pietarsky's mother.

And yet he wants the "boys" testimony to be upheld as factual truth. I agree with him, let the "boys" testimony stand as it was stated. What he fails to recognize is that the "boys" recollection was given to them by Brandon himself the day after the incident as the boys clearly testify to. None of the "boys", according to court testimony, saw who kicked Ramirez, they stated that Brandon told them that he kicked Ramirez the day after the incident.

Lawson: Piekarsky said he kicked Ramirez during the meeting at his house.
Scully: Piekarsky said he kicked Ramirez, and Donchak "said he was glad he didn't break his knuckles."
Redmond: I saw Ramirez hit the ground, but saw no kick.
Walsh: me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez.
Walsh: I took Ramirez down with a solid "uppercut hook" and saw him hit his head
Walsh: Piekarsky kicked Ramirez in the head while he was down.

Another eye witness, Elizabeth Schlack, states she saw 3 boys kicking Ramirez. This also corroborates what Walsh testified to, "me, Piekarsky, Donchak and Scully kicked the fallen Ramirez."

1:17: Schlack: I called 911 after I heard continuous thumping and saw three males kicking a prone man. On cross-examination, defense enters Schlack's 911 tape as evidence. Fanelli points out that Schlack referred to "teenagers fighting and beating each other" and counted 6 to 8 people during the 911 call.

Yet in another topic, he goes off yet again. Does he not read what he writes? Is he unable to actually comprehend his own statements? I have to question his IQ, is it equivalent to others of his ethnicity?

White shoes. Red shoes. Blue shoes. Green eggs and freaking ham. The fact is that two of Brandon's buddies pointed him out in court and said that Brandon KICKED Ramirez in the head.

In Shenandoah, direct testimony by eyewitnesses is not enough to convict White "boys"(they were referred to as just "boys" in jury deliberations) for killing a Mexican.

These two who testified that Brandon kicked Ramirez know Brandon by sight. They did not have to focus on the color of a shoe. They knew Brandon by face. They go to school with Brandon. They play sports with him. They spend boring Saturday nights in Shenandoah drinking with him. They were not confused by whom they saw kick Ramirez.

Yet, the jury was able to ascertain that these two friends were lying. They were somehow able to come to that collective understanding.

This jury could not come to the collective understanding of how easy it would be, under the extreme circumstances, for Ariel to not be sure of the color of a shoe.

Rather than convict with eyewitness testimony, the jury used the understandable confusion of a fellow teen who witnessed a good friend killed before her eyes as grounds for acquittal.

But according to the "boys" testimony that he so desperately wishes to be used and states "These kids who told the truth were now accused by the defense for kicking Ramirez.", but can not see what is clearly in front of his own eyes? All the boys testify to having been told by Piekarsky that he kicked Ramirez. Maybe its a lack of comprehension on his behalf? "Who" were the eye witnesses to the kick, since Piekarsky had to tell the "boys" he kicked Ramirez? Schlack didn't see who did the kick, the Garcia's didn't see who kicked Ramirez, yet Ariel could clearly show how the kick was done. What about Burke? According to her interview, she saw the same as Schlack. So who was/were the "eye witnesses" to this kick in the head? Maybe it was made up and never happened!?

So I ask, does talking in circles and contradicting yourself make you intelligent and able to "think critically"? I don't think so, I think it shows his own bigotry, ignorance, ethnocentrism, and racism.

If You Can't Refute, Change the Argument.

Well, seems that the Indigenous Chicano now has a new argument as to why the Shenandoah teens have been acquitted. The argument now relies on Ariel Garcias interview and a statement of "It happened so fast".

Ariel was not even sure what color the shoes were that kicked Ramirez. But it happened so fast. Her friend was on the ground foaming from the mouth. It was perhaps the craziest, most chaotic few moments of her life.

This understandable uncertainty was used by the defense attorney used to allow the all-White local jury to "find" the all_white local defendants not-guilty.

Other witnesses' credibility were also attacked for their lack of perfect recall. Eyewitness Eileen Burke was not even called to testify in court. She has stated that the prosecutor told her that she had discrepancies in her statements.

According to the video he has posted of Ariel explaining what happened, at the 39 second mark she states "It happened so fast" in regards to the second fight moving from the grass on W. Lloyd Street to the middle of the Asphalt on W. Lloyd Street. She explains how her Husband Victor is trying to get kids off himself and how Ariel is screaming to "Stop". Next thing they know Luis is laying on the ground. She explains how there was a kid standing next to Luis and then she shows how he was kicked @1:02. Now, if she can show "how" he was kicked, surely she should know who did it, or at the very least recognize the type of shoe that was worn and its description.

As Indigenous questions, Can the Drunk Teenage Boys Have Perfect Recall? I don't think they can simply due, as Indigenous points out, People cannot drive straight drunk but they can have perfect recall of a crazy violent beating? If this truly is the case, then how can anybody take their testimony in court as credible? Since 3 of the boys pointed the finger at Piekarsky for the "last kick to Ramirez' head". How can the advocates then themselves hold Piekarsky as the "MURDERER" of Ramirez when he was only pointed out by the 3 teens who were drunk at the time and were told the next day by, as they alledge, Piekarsky himself told them that he kicked Ramirez in the head? The one teen who was not drinking, Redmond, his testimony points to Ramirez swinging first and Piekarsky "tackling" Ramirez. Redmond ran from the scene at the point of Walsh knocking "Ramirez out cold".

Again, according to court testimony by 2 officers on the scene not of Shenandoah, Ariel stated: "Sculy was the kicker". But according to the advocates, the police, DA, Judge, and Jury have conspired in a cover up of a Mexican National being MURDERED and HATED due to "Walking While Brown."

PRO Ethnic Advocates and their own Hypocricy and Racism

Don't you just enjoy it when the Advocates expose themselves for what they really are, Hypocrites and Racists themselves. I give you the Indigenous Xicano and his ramblings of If Only One of the Shenandoah Cowards had an Ounce of Independent Thought and Decency, where in he states:

If only one of these kids could have had the insight, the empathy, the lack of prejudice, and the courage to have stepped between Ramirez and his buddies and said "Stop!"

But there were no independent thinkers that night. It was a mob mentality. There was no empathy that night. There was anger and a hatred for Mexicans.

There was also no decency that night. Everyone of those kids could have stopped a fatal beating. But no one stepped up when they were called upon to save a life. For that they are the Shenandoah Cowards. If any of them are capable of any insight (and I seriously doubt that Brandon Piekarsky has the ability)they will have to ponder the reality that they had a chance to prevent a death but instead they participated in a fatal beating.

Indigenous also claims to accept the testimony from Scully, Walsh, and Lawson as truth in many of his other ramblings. Yet, all 3 witnesses claimed Piekarsky said nothing to Ramirez that could be labeled as "Ethnic Intimidation", but that doesn't stop Indigenous nor any other Advocate from wanting Piekarsky held accountable for Ethnic Intimidation, and because he was accused of kicking Ramirez in the head, the advocates want him held accountable for MURDER, the problem is that 2 separate coroners said the cause of death was due to blunt force trauma. This could have happened during numerous occasions, first could have been Ramirez hitting his head on the ground in the first fight when Piekarsky tackled him, or possibly by 3 of the boys kicking Ramirez as testified by Walsh, or it could have been the punch from Walsh, or when Ramirez hit his head on the Macadam, or when he was kicked in the head at the end. The problem is that Lawson, Scully, and Walsh state Piekarsky kicked Ramirez. The problem lies in the fact that Ariel Garcia told the officers the night of the incident that Scully was the kicker, witnesses testified to it on day 4. In her court testimony on day 3, she states;

9:34 Cross examination by prosecution.

Garcia: I saw multiple feet stomping the fallen Ramirez.

The problem is that Officer Senape on day 4 @9:09 AM;

I interviewed Arielle Garcia on-scene, and she identified Scully as the kicker and the "he's not dead" comments to Walsh.

@ 9:28 Fanelli calls officer Michele Ashman, of the Frackville police. Ashman:

on-scene, I saw Officer Hayes interview Arielle Garcia, and she identified Scully as the kicker.

Now, on to Indigenous' criticism of the boys, Scully on cross examination between 10:11 and 10:41 A.M. of day 2, states in his testimony specifically that, "one fight stopped after Donchak pushed Ramirez away." Donchak pushed Ramirez away, stopping one fight, the first fight, yet, according to Indigenous, "If only one of these kids could have had the insight, the empathy, the lack of prejudice, and the courage to have stepped between Ramirez and his buddies and said "Stop!"", well, it sure seems to me that Donchak had that insight, that empathy, that lack of prejudice, and the courage to say the fight is over, lets go. The boys begin to walk away from the park and up W. Lloyd Street where Burke lives, between 50 & 100 feet from the original incident on Vine Street. Ramirez runs up behind Scully and punches him in the back of the head.

The boys were walking away!! During this time is when Ariel and Victor were trying to calm down Luis, and according to Ariel, "He was so MAD, he went after the boys". This is when Luis ran from the park side of the street, caught up to the boys from behind in front of Burkes house (between 50 & 100 feet away), and punched Scully in the back of the head numerous times. Walsh, defending his friend, punches Luis and knocks him out cold, his head hits the macadam, allegedly he is kicked in the head. A thud was heard by Victor and Burke during the time of "punch, head on ground, kick", but they could not contribute it to any single event, as they did not see what happened.

So, what the advocates advocate for is the heads of these boys for one of their own Raza having died from the lack of "insight, empathy, lack of prejudice, and the courage to just "STOP!" after Donchak pushed him away, the boys were walking away, and Ariel and Victor were attempting to calm Ramirez down." He would probably be alive today, and this incident would never have made headlines had Ramirez listened to his friends and that one "boy" who pushed him away.