Kerry Has Strong Advantage Among Latino Voters

The Washington Post has an article claiming Latino voters are overwhelmingly in Kerry’s camp.

This is really troubling and, I must admit, very hard for me to understand. Why do my fellow Hispanics overwhelmingly(2/3) support a liberal candidate over a conservative candidate? Maybe it’s time for me to lay down my beliefs, and open up the floor to challenges among Hispanics. I am not going to get specific into an individual candidate, unless it relates to the overall point, but going to concentrate on giving an overall belief why I lean conservative(Republican) over liberal(Democrat). Please feel free to critique where you see necessary in the arrival of my beliefs.


Capitalism is the heart and soul of the American economy. As my previous blogs have shown, capitalism is what separates a prosperous nation from an nonprosperous nation. It is precisely this economic system that makes it possible such that a person like my father who came here at age 20, with no education, not even the education to write his own name, can rise, with hard work and dedication, to a level where he owns his own home, and is able to be the sole provider to a family of five. My father isn’t unique in all of this either, this story can be repeated over and over by many other life stories.

This is the same capitalistic economy that allowed me to rise from my poverty-stricken hometown of Compton, California to where I am now. I was able to pull myself through college and land a career at one of the most prestigious companies in the world. You find me another economic system that allows such drastic change; I challenge you.

At its core, economics is “the study of the efficient allocation of resources”. You judge economic systems not by how much lemonade they produce, but by how much lemonade they produce compared to the amount of lemons they started out with. If one economic system started out with two lemons and produced just as much lemonade as another economic system that started out with ten lemons, the first economics system is superior. Capitalism is so efficient at allocating resources that countries that adopt it often have much better results than countries that don’t, even though the country that didn’t adopt capitalism may have had more natural resources.

And why is the efficient allocation of resources so important? The result of an efficient allocation of resources is such that the poor people live superior. There will always be rich people in all countries, no matter how hard some economic systems try and abolish it (ie Communism).The way to compare economic systems is not in comparing one rich person to another, the true comparison is in the poor. You compare one countries poor to another, and the economic system that allocates resources better, is much better at getting lemonade to its poor. Therefore the poor are much better off.

And there is no doubt that the poor in the USA are far better off compared to the poor, and middle class for that matter, in most of the rest of the world. There is no other country in the world where so many poor people from several parts of the world risk death and leaving family members behind to come to a country where they usually don’t know the language, the culture and the area. Why do they go through such a huge sacrifice if not for the opportunities and financial advantage capitalism brings for them? If voting with your actions was allowed, all these immigrants who come to the USA are already casting their vote in favor of the USA’s economic system over their home countries. To understand poverty in the USA better, especially compared to the rest of the world read this article.

One more point that needs to be made here before I conclude this section, not only is capitalism the best economical system for the poor, but its counter part, Socialism, or government sanctioned welfare, is the worse economical system for the poor. Its failures can be seen in how Communism resulted (biggest killer of the twentieth century-more than Hitler, famines, etc) in the last century but can even be seen if you compare Europe to the USA; a continent that mirrors the liberal philosophy more than the USA.

So when capitalist are against social programs, and the expansion of government, it’s not that they dont have the same goal (help the poor) as those who do favor social programs, and the expansion of goverment. It’s that they believe those programs will actually hurt those poor people. And history is on their side. Those programs, if not done properly, actually encourage behaviors that in the long run hurt poor people more than they help. They either create a dependency, stimmy responsibility, or slow the economy down such that those at the bottom hurt the most. They also slow down economic mobility. Which makes it harder for those at the bottom to move up economically.Which is especially important for those at the bottom(poor).

So where does that leave us with regard to politics? It is clear for anybody who has been paying attention that conservatives (Republicans) are much more aligned to true capitalism than liberals (Democrats). It is always conservatives who are usually more for free trade than liberals. It is usually conservatives who are usually more for a free market (and laissez faire economic policies) than liberals. It is usually conservatives who are for lower taxes compared to liberals. It is usually liberals who fight for the expansion of government while conservatives fight for the expansion of the competitive market. In other words, if I were to hold pure capitalism up as the standard, it is usually always conservatives who are closer (not equal, but closer) to it than liberals. Liberals are closer to socialism/communism, the very same economic systems that showed such inefficiency during the last century that practically every country that adopted it failed horribly economically. In fact, those economic systems are such a failure that only under those systems did famines occur at greater levels than under dictators. As far as poor people are concerned, they are much better off living under a dictator than a communist/socialist regime.

So in conclusion, I lean conservative on economics for two reasons.

Premise A. Capitalism has repeatedly shown to be the best economic system for the poor.
Premise B. Conservatives are more capitalist in their economics than liberals.
Conclusion: Those who care for the poor most should prefer conservatives.

Now, I grant that capitalism is a hard concept to grasp. Noted Economics Scholar Thomas Sowell explains it this way,

Some ideas sound so plausible that they can fail nine times in a row and still be believed the tenth time. Other ideas sound so implausible that they can succeed nine times in a row and still not be believed the tenth time. Government controls in the economy are among the first kinds of ideas and the operation of a free market is among the second kind.

And I understand that. However there are many books that explain capitalism in laymens terms. Two notable books are Economics In One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt and for those who don’t mind reading extra, there is the awesome, Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell himself.


Some people think that the most important political topic with regard to education and how it relates to poor people is affirmative action. I disagree strongly. I think it is vouchers, sometimes referred to as school choice. Now, I personally disagree with affirmative action, but that is not the reason I lean conservative on this issue. It is not because I disagree with affirmative action, but because I so strongly believe in School Choice.

School choice means many things to different people. But what I call school choice, and what I believe to be the heart of school choice, is accountability. The key to the success of Capitalism is not the companies it creates, but the inefficient companies it eliminates. And the reason it does that so well is because of competition. Competition has repeatedly shown to be the greatest cause of efficiency than anything else. Under the current school system, if you lived in Compton, California, like I did, you would be forced to send your kid to that cities school system. What if that school system was wrought with gangs, failing teachers, and failing methods of teaching? There is nothing you could do, you would still be forced to send your kid to that school. Too bad for you.

Under vouchers/school choice, all of that changes. Before I get more into vouchers, let me give some background info. Currently in California, the government spends an average of $7,000 a year per student. In some other states, that number could approach 11K/year per student.

If a voucher plan was implemented, what would happen is all public schools would immediately go on a grading system. Those schools that fail for one consecutive year (or whatever time deemed by the Voucher designer), would be given a warning to improve and given a certain amount of time to do it. If that school does not improve in that period of time, vouchers would come into play, being phased in little by little to give the market time to catch up. The government would give the parents the $3,000, or some other fraction of the original amount of money that they had originally sent to that childs public school for that childs behalf. It’s important to note a few things here. One, that money is not coming out of anybodies taxes, it is coming out of money that was already being allocated for that child. Another point, the remaining ($4,000, in this example) goes back into the public schools that are passing to help encourage their success.

Now, what does that parent get to do with that 3k? This where the name voucher comes from, that voucher must be used for some other alternative means of education for that child, of the parents choosing. If the parent wants to send that child to some other school, in some other city, that is ok; if that parent wants to send that child to a private school fine. Shoot, if that parent wants to leave that child in the current school, that is fine too. In other words, the parent gets options that he/she never had before.

It’s important when discussing school choice not to get bogged down into the details of how school choice is implemented. Some voucher programs only allow the parent to send their kid to other public schools, some allow private schools. Some voucher programs give more money to the parents, some give less. Some have tougher grading scales on schools; some have more lenient grading scales. Some allow home schooling as an alternative to public schools, others don’t. Some don’t take the money given to the parents away from the school that fails, others do. The point here is not to get bogged down in the details but to see the overall picture. Vouchers, unlike any plan the liberals suggest, adds accountability to a school system that has never seen it before. A school system that has been a monopoly for most of its existence. And competition, just like its track record in economics, does wonders to create efficiency.

And vouchers can only be found under the conservative banner. It makes more sense for them to be under the conservative banner as well, since conservatives are the pro-capitalist, remember. So every problem they encounter, they naturally want to solve that problem by a free market competitive solution; a solution that has proven to work time and time again.

And what exactly is the liberal alternative? That’s easy. It’s not reform, its simply more of the same thing. The liberal solution today, like that of yesterday and yesteryear, is simply more money. Liberals have this tendency to believe that the school system is like a bucket in the corner of the room, the more money you throw at it, the more money may eventually fall into the bucket. The bucket being those students who attend these schools. However, experience has shown that there is very little correlation between more money spent on schools, and better results out of our children. In fact, often times the very opposite is true. The most highly paid schools in the nation (DC for example) have the absolute worse educational record. And the reason is simple, in a monopolized market, you don’t have to improve, the consumer has no alternative. And in education, the consumer is us.

And I must admit, I have never seen an objection to vouchers that can not also be made against Capitalism in general, yet Capitalism works very well. So again, I think on another central issue, conservatives win over liberals.

Social Issues:

Hispanics have traditionally come from a very socially conservative background. They come from either a Catholic background, or, for those who changed religions here in the USA, they come from an evangelical Christian background. Either way, this worldview makes them socially conservative. For the record, although I do not consider myself very religious, and by that I mean I don’t attend church regularly, I still consider myself a Catholic. And my family still practices, to some degree, that Tradition.


Conservatives are without a doubt the pro-life party. To show you how extreme liberals are on this issue, we can bring up the issue of Partial Birth Abortion Ban. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban was created to make it illegal to perform abortions late in pregnancy. Sounds like a common sense bill, doesn’t it? Its name comes from the method of how the abortion is performed, where you remove the baby partially out of the womb, until its head shows, only to puncture the back of the head and suction out the brains; all with no anastasia. This should be a common sense bill that should have bipartisan support, right?

Negative! Almost 35 Democrats (liberals) out of the 48 Democrats in the US Senate voted against this bill. In fact, if you take our current presidential candidate, John Kerry, as an example, you will see the extreme nature of the liberal mindset. Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, against the Parental Notification law (where it required parental notification when minors wanted an abortion), he voted against the Laci and Conner’s Law, where it made it double murder if you killed a pregnant women and her unborn child, and he voted for passing the morning after pill out to high school students, without parents permission.

These are all laws that most Hispanics would find as common sense laws. Yet liberals continue to go against the Hispanic position on this. In fact, this is one of the issues where you will find more agreement among liberals than anything else. The abortion industry has such a tight grip on the Democratic party that the first place all the Democrat’s running for president went, was to an abortion convention.

On a side note, I stumbled across this today. If you are not sure where you stand on abortion, read this article. If you are repulsed by the article, you are on the conservative side when it comes to abortion, if you see nothing wrong, you are on the liberal side.

Gay Marriage:

Gay marriage is no exception when it comes to liberal beliefs. Liberals are not only for gay marriage, but they are for it in such a way where it is forced upon us without a vote by the people. John Kerry for example, was one of only six senators to vote against Clintons Defense of Marriage Act. The very Act that would make it illegal for one states marriage laws to affect another states. Remember when Kerry kept talking about how we should not amend the constitution, that we should leave the issue of marriage up to the states? Well, when that very issue came up before him, an amendment that calls for exactly that, for each state to make its own laws without any coercion by other states, he voted against it (typical Kerry, flip flop). Some liberals may not go this far, but generally liberals are for gay marriage at such a degree that the average Hispanic would be repulsed.

Before I conclude, I would like to give you another view of the differences between conservatives and liberals. An even bigger overall picture as to the differences between conservatives and liberals, is the fact that in every discussion, in every topic, conservatives trust the person more, and liberals trust the government more. Let’s take the 2000 election as an example. There were three main issues,


Conservatives: Give parents choices (vouchers).
Liberals: More money for the government sponsored method.


Conservatives: More money in the pocket of the citizens (tax cuts).
Liberals: More money for government.

Social Security:

Conservatives: Allow the individuals that so choose, to invest their Social Security investment as they so choose, while those that wish to continue to have the government do it for them, can.
Liberals: Government must be the sole decision maker in Social Security.

You notice how it’s always conservatives who are looking for the free-market, less government solution, the solutions that teach responsibility? While liberals are always leaning to the socialist, big government solution? History has clearly shown which way we should lean, yet liberals continue to resist.

Now, these are my positions, and these are the issues of which I judge all candidates I vote for. If a Democrat mirrors this standard more than a Republican, I will vote Democrat. I doubt that will ever happen, precisely because parties do mean something. Republicans tend to follow the conservative philosophy (mentioned above) and Democrats tend to follow the liberal philosophy.

So again, those are my views, and I challenge all Hispanics reading this to show me where I am wrong in supporting the conservative philosophy over the liberal philosophy. I strongly stand behind my belief that conservatives have more beliefs in line with Hispanics than liberals, and are the true supporters of Hispanics, and the poor and needy.

52 Responses to “Kerry Has Strong Advantage Among Latino Voters”

  1. […] political views, but I want to explain how I first came across his blog. I believe I found this post via Latino Pundit and here was a question I often asked myself: How come Latino voters aren&#8 […]

  2. […] 8217;t more conservative? I’ll stay away from that discussion for now, but I left a comment on HispanicPundit’s blog which then turned into a short-lived email corresponde […]

  3. […] . Please feel free to critique where you see necessary in the arrival of my beliefs. read the whole thing… […]

  4. oso says:

    These are gonna be some pretty vague and broad arguments, but I’m just trying to get the ball rolling. I think this is a good post – I’m also surprised that more Latinos aren’t conservatives.

    Conclusion: Those who care for the poor most, should prefer Conservatives.

    That’s a tough conclusion to make. Here’s the first problem with capitalism – once you have money, it’s easier to make more money, which leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor. If you own a house (or 30), you can charge your tenants rent and you can live happily and carefree on the rent they pay you. If you don’t own a house, you’re the one paying rent and working 40 hours a week (or more) to do so. Liberalism understands that the governement needs to put mechanisms in place to balance that fundamental nature of capitalism.

    Another responsibility of a liberal governement is to keep its eyes on corporations which run with only profit motives. Without government interference, more financial scandals like Enron would be taking place and you wouldn’t be using this blog software for free because Microsoft wouldn’t let it be compatible since it threatens their profits.

    Latin America has understood these points much better than the North America which is why it has such a history of leftist revolutions. (check out Jorge Castaneda’s Utopia Unarmed William M. LeoGrande’s Our Own Backyard and Skidmore and Smith’s Modern Latin America) Unfortunately and almost always because of US intervention (Smith’s Talons of the Eagle), those revolutions have been squashed.

    As far as poor people are concerned, they are much better off living under a dictator than a communist/socialist regime.

    That’s a very strong statement. You should give an example of one authoritarian state and one communist/socialist regime (unfortunately, the two are often tied together) and explain why the former is preferable. Have you been to either an authoritarian or communist/socialist country?

    I’ll leave it at that for now, but I’ve got some other comments if you wanna keep the conversation going. Great post.

  5. Right on! I am too a Hispanic conservative, who thinks more alike the same line as you. I am a register Republican in the liberal bastion of New York City. It feels great to know another fellow Hispanic who is conservative.

  6. Thanks for the comments!!! I appreciate the feedback.

    Oso, let me address your criticism, you write,

    Here’s the first problem with capitalism – once you have money, it’s easier to make more money, which leads to a greater divide between the rich and the poor. If you own a house (or 30), you can charge your tenants rent and you can live happily and carefree on the rent they pay you. If you don’t own a house, you’re the one paying rent and working 40 hours a week (or more) to do so. Liberalism understands that the governement needs to put mechanisms in place to balance that fundamental nature of capitalism.

    If this is true oso than why is it that the more capitalists a country the more the poor people own? Also, the US is without a doubt the home to the richest people and corporations in the world. Yet our poor people experience the exact opposite of what you worry about.

    In fact, if you look at areas where monopolies dominate around the world you will see that they all have one thing in common, a huge amount of government regulation. The areas that have the least mobility from poor to rich, are precisely the areas with less free-market policies.

    Donald J. Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University, writes this,

    “The market itself actually contains a built-in policing mechanism that, if not perfect, is surely less imperfect than dependence on public officials and the courts. If a firm’s nonprice strategies in a particular market are likely to lead to future monopoly power, entrepreneurs and investors have every incentive to remain in, or plan to enter, the market. Long-term monopoly is thus avoided.”

    He also writes,

    “It is true that insofar as entry into markets is not instantaneous, voluntary consumer responses today might very well lead to net consumer losses in the future. But no public policy can successfully mitigate this problem. Any attempt to guard against net long-term losses would require bureaucrats and the courts to distinguish between consumers’ responses that will lead to net reductions in consumer welfare and those that will not. To make such distinctions public policy authorities would first need an accurate measure of the aggregate net benefit to consumers, from today’s product innovations or promotional efforts. Then authorities would need to estimate both the likelihood that the nonprice competitive activities will lead to market power and the extent of the market power- its magnitude and duration. Without comparing the consumer benefits of nonprice activities (which we know to be positive) with the possible future costs of increased market power, neither bureaucrats nor the courts can hope to guard successfully against only those nonprice strategies that reduce long-term welfare rather than increase it.”

    And this is the main problem with regulations. Free-markets have repeatedly shown to adapt to the many changing forces of the consumer much more efficiently than any type of government regulation. This is why many of the government regulations, with time, further exacerbate the problem that they are supposed to solve.

    You also write,

    Another responsibility of a liberal governement is to keep its eyes on corporations which run with only profit motives. Without government interference, more financial scandals like Enron would be taking place and you wouldn’t be using this blog software for free because Microsoft wouldn’t let it be compatible since it threatens their profits.

    Conservatives agree that the rule of law, a law that encourages free trade, is something necessary and indeed, fundamental to any capitalist system.

    You also wrote,

    That’s a very strong statement. You should give an example of one authoritarian state and one communist/socialist regime (unfortunately, the two are often tied together) and explain why the former is preferable. Have you been to either an authoritarian or communist/socialist country?

    Bryan Caplan, Professor of Economics, has a website dedicated specifically to communism. In it he writes,

    “While a wide variety of governments in this century have used slave labor camps, mass death due to man-made famine can be fairly described as an original Communist invention. ”

    More information can be found on the website.

    Thanks for your response.

  7. Armando says:

    I don’t have time to get into a serious discussion on party platform issues. I just want to write that in the past I’ve voted for Dems and Repubs. I voted for Bush in 2000 (yeah, yeah people say this all the time, but I actually did). However, a needless war in Iraq driven by neoconservative ideoogy makes Bush unpalatable to me. My vote will go to Kerry/Edwards this election year. When American troops are sent into harms way, it must be for a legitimate reason. Whether or not Saddam had WMD is beside the point. My contention is he was NOT a threat to the U.S. and to think that Iraq was the only place a terrorist could obatin WMD in the world is wrong. America, along with the media, bought into this delusion. I’m not some pacifist, I served four years in the Marine Corps infantry in your area–Camp Pendleton and eleven years in the Coast Guard. I just can’t bring myself to vote for Bush this time. Thanks for letting me express myself. Must run…


    St. Louis, MO

  8. X.CANO says:

    I agree…. when Reagan closed mental hospitals and threw all of us out on the streets to become homeless republicans were definetly helping us…. now the Los Angeles county Jail has the most mentally ill ppl in it in the country…. more than even the mental hospitals in numbers of mentally ill residents. And what did the republicans use this money they saved from cutting social programs???? To build more bombs and make the defense industry wealthy at the expense of the defenseless handicapped ppl that now live on the streets. It has been 2 decades since Reaganomics took effect…. and from the looks of it…. your bullshit way of doing things hasn’t helped us…. it has hurt us. I’ve lived homeless on the streets, ate out of trash cans, slept under bridges in the rain, prayed to make the cold go away and and saw the prayers do nothing all due to being untreated for my schizophrenia…. I’ve suffered from being put on old 1950-60 medications with horrible side effects since the greed driven republicans that run the pathetic health care system don’t want to give the better drug to those of us that can’t pay the high costs of them (until they finally had to)…. so I have lived the raw end of this system just as you claim to have in Comptone and I can say from firsthand experience that republicans have screwed us over worse than anyone. I am not liberal because I see both Democrats and Republicans as two sides to the same coin…. but in my experience the democrats have been far more merciful to us. You asholes threw us out to freeze and starve on the streets…. the SOCIALISTS had the mercy to fight to keep public funding for programs to give us that are too dysfunctional to take care of ourselves a real home instead of throwing us in prison or on the streets. Republicans are the friend of the poor…..? ===> what a lie!

  9. Miguel Gomez says:

    I agree totally with you. I’m just sad that there is people out there that disagrees because they had the oportunity to get out of poverty, but blame the government for not doing enough. I was raised in East Los Angeles, so I know from first hand experience what you had to do through. My parents never took on welfare and still I managed to find away to support our family, YES we took the Capitalist approach and managed to get out of poverty. I’m in the U.S. Navy and currently completing my fourth tour, now that I’m more informed I’m a conservative as well, all the brain washing that the democRATS give to the Hispanic population is ridiculous.. for those of you that disagree here are som figures….The rate of home ownership among Hispanics is at an all time high. Before Republicans took over in Congress in 1994 the rate was at 39.4. Today its up to 51.1 also the rate of Hispanic-owned businesses underwent and astounding 231.8 percent change from 1994. This were not the results of leftist, Clintonial policies!! One more note the liberals are beginning to see that a more informed Hispanic will not buy their Bull!!
    To X.Cano: Federal Government does not run City or State Hospitals, open your eyes and see who was your City Major when the hospitals were closed! Stop blaming the Government for your misfortunes!!
    And to the wash out Marine….. 98% of our Armed Forces backed our Commander In Chief…too bad you had to be the 2%…

  10. maybe says:

    so you buttered your tortilla. you are a minature version of gonzalez the ceo of kellog. my question is what is the root cause of poverty in north america? why do the huddled masses come to north america from south america and the world over?
    it could not be the failed model of world wide capitialism? by its very nature capitalism is predatory and leaves more than it takes.
    i find it ironic that hispanics are jumping on the bandwagon of republicanism. go ahead you deserve the freedom of self deception.
    i have partaken of some of the best education in north america – uc berkeley and yale. i enjoyed both but in the end i am not terribly impressed with this adventure in democracy.
    times are definitely changing and you and your ilk maybe that ‘latino wave’ but at the end of the day i would prefer to see buffalo instead of the walmart nation.
    maybe your metaphor of ‘lemonade’ is apt i personally think you have partaken a bit too much of that kool-aid.
    being a secure bourgeoise is only a temporary respite from a collapsing world economy.

  11. maybe says:

    sorry, i do not want to appear ‘inept’ in my rhetotic, i meant to say capitilasim ‘takes more than it leaves’

  12. Maybe,

    why do the huddled masses come to north america from south america and the world over? it could not be the failed model of world wide capitialism? by its very nature capitalism is predatory and leaves more than it takes.

    What you write is not true at all, and can be debunked by taking an overview of different countries economic structure. In fact, if you rank countries along capitalists lines, you will see that the closer alligned to capitalism a country is, the better is the standard of living and human rights record for the poor. Read This and This.

  13. Observer says:

    I have read your comments and arguments for denying gay marriage. I find some of them to be poorly reasoned out and would like to debate them with you. However, the site at which I read your remarks refuses, for reasons unknown to me, to accept my post.

    Would you be willing to debate them at this site?

  14. Hello Observer, by any chance are you the famous and articulate Observer1 from a discussion board I used to participate on?

    Sure I would like to debate/discuss that with you. However, although I am against gay marriage, it is not one of my central issues. So I’d prefer not to overwhelm this specific blog with a topic I am not particularly passionate about. How about we discuss it on the comments of this thread? If so, I’ll see you there.

    Btw, where did you read my arguments against gay marriage at?

  15. Observer says:

    LOL @ “famous and articulate!”
    Yeah Al, it is I. Your comments on gay marriage were excerpted on soy, and since, as you noted, you no longer participate there it is impossible to debate or carry on a dialogue.
    I will try to copy and paste my reply to a couple of your arguments at the site you suggested.
    Thank you.

  16. Blanca says:

    I found your website intriguing. Though I vehemently disagree with many of your views, it is always nice to see a Latino seriously discussing these issues. I think more than anything we need a voice in today’s political discourse, even if we don’t always agree.

    You did, however, welcome critiques, and while I have many, I only feel truly compelled to discuss two. While I am what can be referred to as a ‘social liberal,’ I am waxing fiscally conservative in some sense. I don’t believe sky high taxes are the best way to repair an ailing economy, for example. But I do know that when capitalism is left unbridled, it produces many injustices, particularly for unskilled, low-wage workers.

    I had the strongest reaction to your stance on school vouchers, however. As a fairly new educator, I can’t say I am incredibly well-versed on the subject, but I do know that there are many problems with the ‘school choice’ system.

    While I acknowledge that many schools are failing to serve their most vulnerable students well, school vouchers are hardly the answer to this bohemeth problem. First off, places an undue burden on the ‘good’ schools that have to take in these students. Often, the student from a low-performing school (who is likely to be a low-performer too) comes to the new school with no additional resources other than the stipend for his share of the educational year. Unfortunately, high-performing schools usually aren’t properly staffed to handle students with these particular needs. What usually happens, unfortunately, is these students end up dragging the test scores of the ‘good’ schools down.

    More importantly, the issue of school choice doesn’t take into account the root of low-performing schools: the community. The biggest predictor of a student’s academic success isn’t the school he or she attended, it is the involvement and enthusiasm of his or her parents (or lack thereof). There are students in the best schools in the country who are underperforming due to lacksidaisical parenting. In turn, there are students from low-performing schools who are successful due to supportive or demanding parents.

    There is plenty more I’d like to say on this issue, but of course, this comment is already ridiculously long. I would like close by saying thank you for your thoughtful website, and also this: While capitalism isn’t a perfect economic institution, it is probably the best we’ve got. This doesn’t mean, however, that the principles of a successful economic system should be applied to the educational system.

    Again, thanks,


  17. Hello Blanca,

    Thanks for stopping by. With regard to your critique of vouchers, they missed two fundamental things. 1. If vouchers were implemented, you would have more schools enter the market…not less or the same number. For example, if I wanted to open up a school in my hometown of Compton, I could do so and pay for my expenses from the vouchers I receive from the parents. In other words, vouchers also encourages other entrepeneurs to enter the market. As long as they can produce better results, they will continue to make money, and we will continue to get better educated kids. Win-win for all.

    As for your second critique, that the real problem is the community and the parents. I couldn’t agree more with you there, and what better way to get them more involved and feel like they are a part of the system than by empowering them w/ the money they need to send their kids to the school of their choice? In other words, vouchers also helps solve that problem.

    Thanks for stopping by, and you are welcome here anytime.

    PS: If you feel a private conversation is a better avenue to communicate, feel free to email me.

  18. Zeke Santa Maria says:

    I have read all your bull, and it does not show me any reason why I should that it is anything else but bull. You keep harping about liberals spending more money on government, but you never give any true evidence or facts to back up your empty charges. You are like many other minority journalistsexamples: Lida Chaves, Ruben Navarrette Jr. Two so called hispanics who have forgoteen their toots. They climbed p on the social ladder on the backs of their parents who probably worked in the fields and who supported the labor movement.

    They are what the real hispanic call “vendidos”, they are so hungry to distance themselves from what their parents were, ard working hispanics of mexiccan decent.

    They speak on various topicsbut never give the reader the truth from both sides of the issue. They dwell on atacking the liberal view point. One example is the Social Security iIssue, they do not tell their readers why Social Security is going broke. They fail to mention that it is going broke because a conservative President (and I use the word President loosely )is using the Social Security Fund to finance other programs such as his private war in Iraq and other programs tht he favors, but instead of asking for congressional funding, he side steps the legal way of doing it, by robbing programs like Social Security.

    I could go on and on with other examples, but I would be wasting my words on you because you are of the same mold that has created minority conservtive journalism, you are just another “wannabe” climbing up the social ladder on the backs of your race.

  19. Hey Zeke,

    Thanks for your response.

    What I find most ironic about your response, is that it is made up of the same stuff you are accusing me of doing. Claims with no supporting facts, and accusations based on personal opinion.

    But thanks for stopping by anyway…let me know when you want to discuss facts, I’ll be here waiting. 😀

  20. Lila says:

    You praise education vouchers and refer to them as “School Choice”. Yet, when it comes to a woman’s right over her own body, you relegate choice and instead focus on creating mandates over a body you could never understand. For this reason, the Republican Party is not Pro-Life but Anti-Choice, and the Democratic Party is Pro-Lifetime as well as Pro-Choice. We aim to ensure that if a human life is brought into the world, that life has social programs intact that will ensure his/her prenatal care, healthcare, higher education, and social security, programs spanning the entire lifetime.

    Furthermore, what is common sense regarding the “partial birth” end to pregnancy issue is that most women do not practice their human right to end pregnancy in latter trimesters. Rather the majority of women faced with this decision choose to end pregnancy in the first trimester, making the partial birth abortion a ruse that gives Democrats no other option but to vote against it.

    Speaking as the average Hispanic who comes from a father with a Catholic background and a mother with an evangelical Christian background, I am not repulsed by the democratic view on same-sex marriage. Rather, I use my Christian background and specifically the teachings of not judging others and all creatures being God’s creatures in conceptualizing my duty as a Christian to embrace individuals and their human right to love, family, and public announcement of a lifelong commitment.

    For these and many other reasons, this average Hispanic completely understands why the majority of Hispanics can relate to the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, thanks for your comments.

  21. MikeV says:

    Hispanic Pundit,

    I read the blog on your site and was struck by one of the statements you made. which to me magnified one of the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats in my opinion. You stated:

    “Under the current school system, if you lived in Compton, California, like I did, you would be forced to send your kid to that cities school system. What if that school system was wrought with gangs, failing teachers, and failing methods of teaching? There is nothing you could do, you would still be forced to send your kid to that school. Too bad for you. ”

    “There is nothing you could do.” “Too bad for you.” These, to me, seem like such negative statements. You’re basically giving up on making those schools (that are already in your community) better schools. I think you might be asking the wrong questions here. What I would ask is how do we solve the problems of the gangs and the failing teachers and the teaching methods. It needs to be more about ownership of your community, not just finding the best route for your kids to get out of it. A big part of the Latino/Hispanic culture is family and community. Why turn our heads from the problems that others are facing, when we can use our minds to solve them.

    Politics should be about “How to make this world better.” Not “How to make this world better FOR ME.”

    I’m an engineer as well. I understand logic and reason. But I understand compassion too. Let’s use that logical way of thinking to help others!



  22. Hello Lila,

    Your response begs the question so much; it’s hard to read through without squirming.

    Here, let me give you a fundamental difference between ‘school choice’ and ‘abortion choice’. School choice is giving the parent what us conservatives call a fundamental right, the choice to send their kids to a school that will provide proper education. Pro-choice, on the other hand, is a different choice. It is giving a women mother the right to choose whether or not to kill her own child. In other words, one is a harmless choice, the other is not. Now, if you disagree that abortion is the same as killing a person that’s fine, but that is the point of disagreement (and I’d love to have an exchange with you on that topic). You can’t simply assume that point in a discussion with someone of opposing views.

    So to answer your question, yes my party is anti-choice when it comes to life. We believe in individual freedom but believe that freedom stops when it infringes on the freedom of others. This is why we are not pro-choice with regard to abortion; this is also why we were not pro-choice when it came to slavery either. Remember, the Democrat party was also the pro-choice party back than (if you read the Douglas Vs. Lincoln debates, its almost the same as abortion debates – if you don’t want to own slaves, don’t own one, but let me have the right to decide for myself if I want to own one – etc).

    So the question isn’t why we aren’t pro-choice when it comes to abortion while being pro-choice when it comes to education. The proper question is the reverse, why Democrats are pro-choice when it comes to abortion and those issues that involve the serious matter of killing another human being, yet anti-choice when it comes to benign issues like school choice, or social security choice, and what not. That sure seems like a backwards order of priority.

    Now, as far as partial birth abortion, you write, “most women do not practice their human right to end pregnancy in latter trimesters“. That is true, but what about the women that does? Let me ask you clearly, do you support abortion in later terms, say in the 8th or 9th month if women decide to for no other reason than because she decided she doesn’t want the baby after all? If you don’t, than where do you draw the line, and why?

    And as far as gay marriage goes, the arguments against gay marriage, contrary to your understanding, are not based on religious views, but on simple historical and economical issues regarding marriage. I’ve even discussed this on my blog.


    You speak about compassion, and making things better for all, yet you use that as a basis to defend the status quo. We have already tried to fix the school system. This has been a ‘national tragedy’ since the time of the early 60’s and 70’s. We’ve tried everything from a dramatic rise in funding, to a stricter test requirements. Yet none of this works. How many more chances should we try before we say, enough is enough; we need to try something different? I wonder how patient you would be with this system if it was your child going to Compton High School, if it was your children getting robbed of one of the primary things that will get them out of poverty, education.

    I have compassion, but my compassion is directed at those who need compassion, the parents and children that attend those schools. It is primarily them that vouchers have in mind. And it will benefit ALL of them.

    In addition, vouchers would be the best thing to happen to teachers that do a great job of teaching, since it will allow a free market reward system to be given to such teachers; something that they are currently deprived of.

    Monopolies are bad, government monopolies are even worse, we have witnessed this time and time again throughout history, yet Democrats continue to defend this system in education. In addition, keeping that system primarily hurts our people the most. And worse of all, they do it while claiming to be the ‘party for the poor’, PLEASE.

  23. MikeV and Lila, since we are having the same discussion over on your blog, and since I don’t want to clutter this specific post with long dialogues, I am posting a link to the blog in question so that readers who are interested could go and follow our exchange there.

    So please, from now on, respond to me on that blog, and I will address your issues there. Anybody who is interested can follow the link and read our exchanges.


  24. MikeV says:

    Hispanic Pundit,

    Shouldn’t we continue this on your blog, though. It’s your statements on this specific blog that have sparked these dialogues. Are you scared our liberal views will somehow taint your site? 🙂


  25. LOL. No, I like for people to see both sides. But I have dialogued on several discussion forums throughout the years, and so I have enough experience in this to know that this has the potential to drag on for several, several comments. Just look at the boxes that have already been opened, we are now talking about vouchers, abortion, gay marriage, in addition to all the economics I mentioned.

    I want this specific blog, since its representative of my overall views, to be a place where I get someones first impression, not necessarily the dialogue we had. I don’t want it to be overwhelmed with one specific conversation.

    That is why I left a link to the original place this discussion started at. If people want to see that long discussion, they have the chance by clicking on that link.

  26. Flanigan says:

    Wow! you have some in interesting views. However, I feel that you failed to address the rights of women in your abortion posting. Why shouldn’t women be the ones to make the choice if they do want an abortion? Why should the government be the one that dictates what a woman does with her body? Isn’t this the land of the free? Or is it only free when you are a male? I grew up protestant and I am pro-choice. It is interesting to hear people like you act all moral and mighty while so many cuts are taking place in programs that directly affect single poor mothers. So where are these children are suppose to go? To foster care system that admits that sometimes children go to homes that are less safe than where they were? Are you going to adopt them? Are the fathers going to take the responsibility? We live in a society where the child support system is broken and men are too often not held responsible. Are you aware that 80% of the people who live in poverty are women and children! How can you be so high and “moral” when your conservative views do not even hold the two commandments that Jesus left in the Gospel?

  27. Why shouldn’t women be the ones to make the choice if they do want an abortion? Why should the government be the one that dictates what a woman does with her body? Isn’t this the land of the free? Or is it only free when you are a male?

    I couldn’t agree more!! You’re right, why shouldn’t the female unborn children have a right to decide for themselves whether or not to live, why should the mother be allowed to force her views onto the unborn child? Isn’t this a free country? Why doesn’t the government, like it does in all other cases where an innocent life is being threatened, not come down and defend the innocent life? Oh, wait, you probably weren’t referring to those females in your post, you were only referring to the females that agree with your views.

    Do you see now how your post begs the question. The fundamental question in any abortion discussion is whether or not the unborn child is a human person or not. To avoid answering this question and continue to talk about freedom and choices, is like having a discussing about property rights in the slavery debate. If the slave is a person, property rights don’t apply, they become a moot point. The same with the abortion debate, if the unborn child is a person, like in all other circumstances, killing that innocent person is not, and should not be, a choice.

    It is interesting to hear people like you act all moral and mighty while so many cuts are taking place in programs that directly affect single poor mothers. So where are these children are suppose to go? To foster care system that admits that sometimes children go to homes that are less safe than where they were? Are you going to adopt them? Are the fathers going to take the responsibility? We live in a society where the child support system is broken and men are too often not held responsible. Are you aware that 80% of the people who live in poverty are women and children! How can you be so high and “moral” when your conservative views do not even hold the two commandments that Jesus left in the Gospel?

    Lets say that it was about 150 years ago, around the time of the 1850–1860’s, and instead of the topic being abortion, the topic of the day was slavery. As you probably already know, Democrats were the pro-choice party back then as well, only instead of them being pro-choice regarding abortion, they were pro-choice regarding slavery. Also, as you probably already know, the Lincoln-Douglas debates back then centered around many of the things abortion centers on today.

    The people in favor of slavery would say, “If you are against slavery, that’s fine, don’t own any slaves, but don’t force your views on me”. In addition, since the abolitionists were arguing against slavery primarily on Christian principles, much like those arguing against abortion today, those in favor of slavery would say, “don’t push your Christian views onto us”.

    But here, related to the point you raised, let’s suppose that a person who is for slavery made this argument, “If you want to end slavery, what are we going to end up doing with all of these uneducated black people? Are you going to take them into your home, are you going to provide for their education, are you going to compensate everybody for the crimes they do. Etc. Etc”

    What would you say to such an argument? Of course you would say that if it is a proven fact that black people are persons just like you and I, than it is wrong to own slaves regardless of the negative repercussions that may follow. In the same way, regarding abortion, if the unborn child is a person, than it shouldn’t be killed regardless of the negative circumstances. You see how that fundamental question keeps poping up?

    So really your response is meaningless, even supposing worse case scenario, it is still an unvalid point when it comes to abortion. We don’t go around killing innocent children because we think they may start to crowd adoption agencies, or because they may contribute to a higher level of crime, or whatever.

    However, there is good news here. The scenario you give, of adoption agencies being overcrowded, is only valid for older children. Specifically those age five and above. Infants, on the other hand, are in very high demand. There is currently more than a five year waiting list for families that want to adopt infants. In fact, there is such a short supply that any willing mother can choose any terms she likes in the adoptive parents. She can choose that they be of a certain income, or education level, or that she be seen as part of the family, like an aunt or something, or to be completely invisible to the child. She can even choose to be compensated for the pregnancy. So again, your scenario does not match reality.

    But back to my main point in all of this, and that is that the question you must answer and can not avoid, is whether or not the unborn child is a person or not. So if you want to discuss that, I am more than willing. But just remember, like the slavery debates of 150 years ago, just because it is primarily Christians who are against abortion/slavery, that doesn’t mean that it is only on Christian principles that one can argue against abortion/slavery. Both can be argued w/o using Christian principles, there are even atheist pro-life organizations. Just look at my section on abortion to see how exactly this is done.

    However, if your questions/responses are not answered in that section, feel free to bring it up here. I would love to have this discussion further with you. Thanks again for stopping by!!

  28. Danay says:

    First, let me say that your blog rocks, Alfonso.

    First, Liberals vs. Conservatives. How is it that we have been able to separate and mark such a wide spectrum of beliefs and views into 2 very narrow categories?

    I am a self proclaimed conservative-liberal. I don’t vote partisan, I vote on the issues. There’s not one crooked, sold-out, soul-less politician out there that I have met, read about or supported, who’s views are perfectly in line with my own.

    Now, onto my pet peeve issue:

    Gay Marriage: The FACT is that marriage is a legal contract that allows for medical and financial safety nets for men and women (should be consenting adults). Let’s not forget that your faith based marriage ceremony has absolutely no bearing to the government. In the eyes of the gov, you are not married unless you procure a marriage certificate.

    So, enough of the faith based arguments. I conservatively believe that we should let marriage be what it is to each couple within their relationships. The only role the gov should have is to make sure that the rights of married couples (i.e. hospital visitations, death benefits, etc)are upheld.

    Marriage is too easy for ANYONE. Most marriages nowadays are huge mistakes made for all the wrong reasons. I can tell you that I have an amazing husband and 2 beautiful children. Would I divorce him? Yes and No. We made a pact, for better or worse, but we also promised to honor, cherish, obey each other. If we break that promise, such as by cheating, then all bets are off. If there are problems that come up (excluding cheating) then we work through them as a married couple.

    Why not focus more energy on educating about treating marriage as a legally binding contract that should not be entered into unless one is completely ready? Why not focus more energy on supplying free contraception to single women to avoid unwanted pregnancy?

    Enough with the antigay sentiment! Frankly, it’s a ridiculous waste of precious time and resources which I pay sooooo much tax money for.

    just my 2 pennies folks.

  29. Hello Danay,

    Thanks for the kind words and thanks for stopping by. Allow me to address some of your concerns about gay marriage….

    When discussing gay marriage, it is important to stress that the gay marriage debate is not a debate about gays, it is a debate about marriage. What does marriage mean, what are its limitations, and what will changing it do to the future of society? How you answer these questions regarding marriage in general, will dictate on what side you stand on in this debate. I know that supporters of gay marriage try to frame the debate as if it is about gays, but it is not, it is about marriage.

    So why am I opposed to gay marriage? To summarize what I said in more detail here, it all basically boils down to children. Marriage has always been tied to children, and the proper upbringing of children. This is how Andrew Sullivan (a strong supporter of gay marriage) defines the traditional purpose of marriage,

    They make a deeper commitment to one another and to society; in exchange, society extends certain benefits to them. Marriage provides an anchor, if an arbitrary and weak one, in the chaos of sex and relationships to which we are all prone. It provides a mechanism for emotional stability, economic security, and the healthy rearing of the next generation. We rig the law in its favor not because we disparage all forms of relationship other than the nuclear family, but because we recognize that not to promote marriage would be to ask too much of human virtue. In the context of the weakened family’s effect upon the poor, it might also invite social disintegration.

    Of course, I believe he goes too far in his support for gay marriage. Basically everything he said could be accomplished by a civil union, it doesn’t have to be a marriage. Nonetheless, he gets at the core of what marriage has always meant.

    In other words, I am against gay marriage for the same reason that our society currently is against first-cousin marriages, because they are inherently ordered against the procreation of children.

    The loving commitment of a heterosexual union, by its very nature, has the potential for children. It is the core of all families, and something that is cross cultural, it is unique, makes its mark on everyone, and is the basic building block of all societies. It has something that all other unions fall short of, whether they be first cousin unions, polygamous unions, platonic unions, and yes, even homosexual unions.

    And any argument any other union gives to being established into law, the loving heterosexual union has that claim, and more. And therefore should always be seen separate and above all other unions.

    To read more on my views on gay marriage, go here.

  30. Right fielder says:

    A Hispanic with an educated opinion, THANK GOD!!!. I grow so tired of these pseudo intellectual “comemierdas” who scam entire populations with their socialist rhetoric into thinking that liberals have their best interest at heart. Thankfully, some of us can see past their emotional tirades and pie in the sky ideals to what reality holds for us as a community. Hard honest work , education, and traditional values is what has made us successful, deviation from that is what will keep us poor and stupid, and voting for Democrats.

  31. Observer says:

    Al, I cannot believe that you’re still using that tired ass old and intellectually dishonest comparison of slavery and abortion. We had a long conversation the short of it is that your analogy is flawed; for a Black person was, in fact, a person. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are not qualified by “race.”

    Indeed, the Constitution concedes that Black slaves were persons. Now, where does the Constitution concede that a human fetus is a person?

    Al c’mon now, please stop using that pitiful analogy; you have been shown that it is pitifully flawed.

  32. Ok, change person above to, “person who deserves the same legal rights and recognition as all other citizens”.

    That should clear up the misconceptions.

  33. Observer says:

    “That should clear up the misconceptions.”


    Well, not really, for the debate over whether or not a human embryo has not benn resolved.

    I know that you consider a human embryo is a person, and thusly you conclude that he/she is due all rights and considerations that are available to citizens of the US. But why do you believe the human embryo to be a person?

    There is as much science to suggest that the embryo is not a person as much as there is to suggest it is a person. I think that many cling to a belief, which seems to me, rooted in emotion, rather than in science.

    Admittedly, my knowledge of biology is extremely limited, but I decided to conduct a very unscientific test to see if my hypothesis had any merit. My hypothesis is: many people who conclude that a human embryo is a person are making that judgment on emotion rather than on science.

    I asked several co-workers (5) the following questions:

    1.) Do you consider the yolk inside a freshly laid chicken egg to be a chicken?

    2.) Would you consider it to be immoral, for to amusement purposes to hurl a freshly laid chicken egg off a five story building onto pavement?

    3.) Would you consider it to be immoral, for amusement purposes, to hurl a live chicken off a five story building onto pavement?

    4.) When does the yolk inside a chicken egg become a chicken?

    Now everyone who was asked answered “no” to questions # 1 & # 2, and answered “yes” to question # 3, and all stated that the chicken came into being when it hatch from the egg.

    I then asked, “Do you consider the human embryo to be a person at the instant of conception?” And 4 of the five said they did. The four who answered yes had a difficult time reconciling their inconsistent views. “Why is a human embryo a person at the moment of conception a person and a freshly laid chicken egg not a chicken,” I asked. They laughed and really couldn’t supply a rational answer, they merely said, “Because it’s human.”

    I dunno exactly where I’m going with this, but I thought it was interesting food for thought.

    How would you answer thos questions, HP?

  34. We as humans beings develop as we age. We are all familiar with infants, adolescents, adults, and seniors. All throughout these various stages we may look differently, acquire different human functions and so forth, but throughout the whole process we are always considered human beings.

    The same is true with the fetus, the embryo and so forth. Granted, the fetus does not look like an infant at that stage of development, but neither does the infant look like the adult. In other words, the fetus, the embryo, the infant, and the adolescent all look exactly how they should look at that specific stage of development. To demand that a fetus look and have the same human functions as an infant is as reasonable as to demand that the infant look and have the same human functions as an adolescent. In other words, it’s not reasonable at all.

    So going back to your example, you are confusing stage of development with species. Of course the chicken is not the same as the chicklet, just as the infant is not the same as the adolescent. But just because they are at different stages does not mean that one is any less a part of that species as the other. So going back to your questions, ask this instead,these are relevant questions,

    1. Do you consider the infant just as human as an adult? Even though the two look radically different?

    2. Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that we are talking about bald eagles, and bald eagles are extremely high on the endangered species act. In other words, there is only a handful of these animals left on earth so each one is extremely valuable. Lets also assume that the United States claimed a $100,000 bounty on anybody that killed one of these animals. Would you consider it a punishible act for me to find a newly produced bald eagle egg and destroy it? Remember, this is an egg that, given time, will fully develop into an adult bald eagle.

    3. Will you find it an equally punishable act for me to find two bald eagles procreating, decide to disturb them, and ruin their procreational act?

    4. When does an infant become an adult?

    In other words, what defines us as human beings is not the specific stage of development we are in, but our inherent potential. The infant has the potential within it to become an adult, to fully function as a human being and all that comes with it, just as an adolescent does, just as a fetus does, and just as an embryo does. So to kill a member of that species, no matter where along the path of development that species is, is an act against the whole species itself.

    This is why a reasonable person will answer yes to 1 and 2, but no to 3.

  35. Observer says:

    LOL I guess you wouldn’t answer those questions, eh?

    “So going back to your example, you are confusing stage of development with species.”


    In what regard? Does not the yolk have the potential to become a chicken? Is not the newly laid egg in its infant stage of development of the same species that spawned it; that is the chicken egg and chicken are the same species.

    “Of course the chicken is not the same as the chicklet”


    Did Isay they were? I mentioned the “yolk” not a chick let are you claiming that the yolk in a “freshly” laid egg is, in fact, a chickling? Once you answer the questions I posed I will reciprocate; I’m all about reciprocity, bro.


  36. I would say that yes, a yolk in its newly laid form, is just as part of the chicken species as a full grown chiken is.

    Granted, it is at a much much earlier stage of development, much like the infant is at a much much earlier stage of development than the senior citizen, and so one expects them to look very different from one another, but they are both equally of the same species.

    I think that one feels better killing one over the other (and for the record, I eat just as much eggs as I eat chicken) because one is more exposed to one over the other.

    But yes, like the newly laid bald eagle example I gave above, and like the infant to the adult, both are equally of the same species.

  37. I’ll respond more tonight, after class…

  38. Observer says:

    “I would say that yes, a yolk in its newly laid form, is just as part of the chicken species as a full grown chiken is.”


    Ok then, you’d conclude that hurling a freshly laid chicken egg at a moving vehicle to be as immoral as hurling a live chicken at a moving semi? That is, assuming of course, you think immoral to hurl a chicken, for entertainment purposes, at a vehicle immoral, right?

  39. No, I would not. The chicken experiences more pain, the chicken has consciousness, and the chicken is already a evolved. So I would say that it is more humane, much less repulsive, to kill it in egg form than in chicken form.

    THe same with humans. I believe that it is much more humane to kill someone with less pain involved, with less consciousness, and with less potentional than it is to kill others. So it will always be easier to kill any species much earlier in life than later.

    As a standard for moral action, the emotional criterion rests on a very unstable foundation. Feeling is notoriously an unsure guide to the humanity of others. Many groups of humans have had difficulty in feeling that persons of another tongue, color, religion, sex, are as human as they. One usually feels a greater sense of loss at the sudden death of a healthy parent than one feels for the hundreds who die daily of starvation in underdeveloped countries. Does this mean that the latter are less human than one’s parent? Certainly not.

  40. Hal says:


    Let me give you some Education. Read and research the OCCULT OF THE THIRD REIGH (HITLER), and you will see how hitler and his circle of friends studied various religions and believed that they decended from a divine God-race. They actually sent expeditions to China to try to find their ancestors living the mountains! When that failed they turned to the criminal. Their ideology is based on the Supremacy of the White race above all races. NOW REMEMBER THIS POINT, because Bush is using that same Ideology in HIS OWN WAY (thru War, propoganda and other ways) to continue the Supremacy of the White Race. PLEASE TAKE HEED OF THIS. Any leader can say these believe in God and then still do evil acts. And just to spark your curiousity about the Third Reigh, hitler had baby farms where he would use polygamy (by him and other soldiers) to create an Arean population. These babies never knew their parents. You are Hispanic (and American, ofcourse) and you should always cultivate your own independent thoughts away from political parties and the various books you read. Feel free to respond to me here or to my email:

  41. Yawn. I’m not big on conspiracy theories Hal, sorry.

  42. hal says:


    No need to Yawn! This is not conspiracy theory, the OCCULT in the Nazi regime is a fact in most history, sociology, and religion/philosophy books. Do the research and you will be surprised by what you will find ! Take Care 🙂

  43. hal says:

    Also, Alfonso … check out

    This shows you SOME of the misunderstandings that the Bush Administration has been involved in for the past five years. You need to develop yourself as an individual, part american, part hispanic, etc. … Take Care 😉

  44. I read the article hal, and you seemed to have missed the last part, it reads,

    “But panel chairman Timothy Shanahan, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, says he’d be surprised if the book-length findings weren’t snapped up by a publisher.

    He says he doesn’t think the Bush administration is trying to distance itself from the report, but simply decided to let the panel publish it independently.

    “If they tried to eat the copyright, that’d be different,” he says. “That would mean that I can’t show you the report. The fact is, it’s going to be available and I intend to see that this thing gets published in a highly visible way.”

    There is contradictory data on bilingual education, both sides have their ‘scientific experiments’ and both sides have their biases. In situations such as those, Bush is free to choose which ever side he thinks is best.

  45. […] I agreed that there would probably be two or three years of chaos. Novelty alone would probably entice many Mexicans who had never even given thought of crossing the border, to try out a life in a foreign country, culture, and language. There would also be an excess low-skilled labor pool which would encourage low-skilled Americans and Mexicans alike to make themselves more marketable by educating themselves at universities, community colleges, and tech schools. But more to the point, after two or three years, most Mexicans will realize what a pain in the ass it is to live and work in a foreign country with a cold culture and lingering racism. A few others will decide they prefer the American way, will assmiliate rapidly, and will probably become dedicated followers of HP’s trademarked minority conservativism. The majority, though will come here to work for a year or two, gain a more global outlook, hopefully some entreprenuerial skills, and return to Mexico – a country and culture they love – to make it something better. As simpleminded as it sounds, much of the motivation for crossing the border comes from the (often mistaken) assumption that we must be protecting some gold-paved streets if we’re willing to spend so many billions on keeping people out. But if the average Mexican can just come and go, I’m convinced that (s)he will do exactly that. […]

  46. Pete says:

    Hey man,

    Actually only 1 remark. (Although I disagree on a lot of it)

    Refering to the part in which you claim socialism is the worst economical system for the poor (off course incorrect; see non-socialist Africa) and you use the Europe – US differences as an argument. Being European (Dutch) and having lived in the US (downtown LA) for a couple of years I can savely say; the western European social-capitalistic political, social and economical enviroment is VASTLY superiour for the it’s poorest residents. I am affraid I must come to the conclusion, based on this little detail as well as the bigger picture of your beliefs and conservative nature, that you have not seen anything of the world outside of the (marginally small) American continent. But correct me if I’m wrong. If you feel the urge to discuss any of the above don’t hesitate to send me an e-mail,


  47. Hey Pete,

    So much to respond to, so little time. First, about socialism, while there are small pockets of capitalism that may have problems (mainly because of the lack of rule of law, or cultural factors) the vast majority of failures are because of socialism and communism.

    Economist Walter Williams writes:

    Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they’re closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.

    What is more important is that if we ranked countries according to how Freedom House or Amnesty International rates their human-rights guarantees, we’d see that citizens of countries with market economies are not only richer, but they tend to enjoy a greater measure of human-rights protections. While there is no complete explanation for the correlation between free markets, higher wealth and human-rights protections, you can bet the rent money that the correlation is not simply coincidental.

    As far as your personal preferrence for Western Europe, well it is very different than several people in Western Europe. For example, look at this recent poll from France:

    Less than a third of French people polled were optimistic about their and their children’s future, a drop of 28 percentage points since the last poll in December 2004 and the lowest since the first Ifop survey for newspaper Dimanche Ouest-France in February 1995….

    But the poll showed that only 25 percent surveyed had confidence in the government’s battle to lower unemployment, which has stayed at over 10 percent.(emphasis added)

    In fact, that 10%+ unemployment number, is overall consistent with the vast majority of western European countries. So while President Bush is being criticized for having an unemployment number around 5%, most European countries, especially the Western, more socialist leaning ones, have unemployment numbers of around 10% or more.

    In addition to this, the United States citizen, whether you compare middle class to middle class, or poor to poor, has a much higher living standard than the typical European. For example, the Wall Street Journal writes:

    Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. “Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near,” the Swedish study says….in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the “poor” own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.

    And lastly, lets look at economic growth:

    if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average…U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn’t closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.

    In fact, our economic growth is so much larger than the vast majority of countries in Europe that the GDP of Italy, France, Germany and Belgium – the countries with the more socialist-capitalist economic structure – is about the same as the GDP of Arkansas, Montona, and Mississippi, our poorest states (Imagine that, the whole country of Frace, or Germany, or Belguim, produce about as much as our poorest states of Arkansas, Montona, etc!!! Wow).

    So while Bush continues to preside over an economy that is growing at 3%+ per year, most European countries are growing at less than 1% per year. So based on all major indicators of economic performance, and based on the views of several Europeans themselves, not only is the USA economy better, but it is vastly better than that of Europes, especially the ones with the more socialist-capitalist type markets.

  48. Sirc_Valence says:

    I think that more Latinos vote for Democrats because they’re the only ones that are less patriotic (to the U.S. that is) than an Illegal Alien can be!

    LOL JK (kind of).

    It has taken some time for Americans to catch on to lib bias in the media, but imagine how it would be to catch the intentional manipulation without being able to view primary sources for yourself while you speak a different language. That explains why illegal immigrants vote against their own values when they come into the U.S.

    Its really a communication issue. All the Dems have done is turn the issue of law enforcement into a “persecution” or a “racist” issue and there you get a kind of voting block. I think that at this point in history, America is running purely on market-driven innovation and plain old hard work but the leftists, the baby boomers generation is mostly in charge of the education institutions today so the “brain” of America is “asleep” right now. We’re kind of intellectually/morally inebriated at the moment so figuring these things out is kind of tricky and that’s why its hard for us to understand these things as a society.

    That’s why there’s so much incoherence and confusion.

  49. pincheloco says:

    i think that all of you are right and the racial issuses are sometimes misunderstud and what i want to know is why white people do not like us mexicans and black people and what started it so give me your view on this and write back please?

  50. Observer says:

    “All the Dems have done is turn the issue of law enforcement into a “persecution” or a “racist” issue and there you get a kind of voting block.”


    The Democrats have turned “law enforcement into a racist issue”, and therefore, Latinos tend to vote Democrat? Is it just me, or does this sound humorously ill-thought out?

    What Sirc is saying, is that “Latinos” are so gullible (perhaps, stupid) that they can be and have been duped by Democrats into falsely believing that legal institutions and law enforcement officials have in the past unfairly and immorally targeted minorities. Of course, to me, that sounds pretty farfetched; many of us simply need to turn to our own experience to figure out that law enforcement has targeted us because we “fit the description” of a criminal suspect.

    But let’s say that were true, how does that explain the fact that Latinos tend to vote Democrat?

  51. davidamez says:

    I am sure that the type of Conservatism that works in Latin America will never work in America. Conservatives in America tend to be more racist and there will always be that White-Caucausion vs Others. There are lots of black folk in conservative parties, but they have to act, talk and understand things the White Man’s way. That is why to many Latinos will not be part of the Republican Party.

  52. soranny says:

    Friday, June 27, was the last day of work in Microsoft Corporation founder Bill Gates. Monday, June 30, was the last day, when partners received copies of Microsoft operating system Windows XP, created seven years ago. Microsoft is planning to stop supplying Windows XP as early as January 2008. The more so that the operating system Windows Vista, which, on the idea were to move users XP, has been on sale in late 2006 years. Vista many disliked.Microsoft under pressure from computer manufacturers extended the deadline for the end of your Windows XP operating system until the end of June 2008. Postponement of Microsoft Corporation Hour XP at the end of June did not crush XP. They appealed to the leadership of the corporation in the project Save XP with the request “not to kill Windows XP”. As of June 27, 2008 petition signed by the relevant more than 210 thousand people.

Leave a Reply