Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole (38 page)

Ordinary people have noticed. But without these eyewitness accounts in blog posts and online comments, it would be impossible to make sense of news stories about park closures and mass littering.

IT’S PROBABLY “TEABAGGERS” VANDALIZING IRREPLACEABLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL TREASURES

In 2013, Joshua Tree National Park was beset by inner-city graffiti on rocks and boulders—as well as on ancient petroglyphs etched by Serrano and Chemehuevi Indians thousands of years ago. The century-old Barker Dam had graffiti carved into it. Rather than suggest that any particular group was responsible for the vandalism and garbage, federal officials closed large sections of the park.

Joshua Tree Park is located in two California counties, San Bernardino and Riverside, that had recently become majority Hispanic. Twenty years ago, both these counties were more than 80 percent white.
⁵⁴
By 2010, according to the U.S. census, San Bernardino County was 51.1 percent Hispanic and 31.4 percent white,
⁵⁵
while Riverside County was 46.9 percent Hispanic and 38 percent white
⁵⁶
—and this from a census bureau that undercounts illegal aliens.

Luckily, Huffington Post readers drew no connection between the recent influx of Latin American immigrants and the sudden appearance of gang graffiti in our national parks, allowing them to blame “teabaggers,” “kids today,” and “this generation of parents.”

          
IF_Toci

              
Think of short-sighted TEABAGGERS running a town of twenty-one thousand people for a dozen years. Thousands of people, only in the desert for Cheap Housing, badly wanting a MALL and looking for something to do. Looks like some of them have found something to do.

              
12 APR 2013 3:42 PM

          
SilverStacker

              
I’m surprised the kids today can get off Facebook long enough to do this.

              
12 APR 2013 7:18 PM

          
cjaco

              
Yet another sign that this generation of parents is the worst in history.

              
12 APR 2013 8:27 PM
⁵⁷

Later that year, all of Cucamonga Canyon in Rancho Cucamonga also had to be closed because the trails were piled high with garbage and the canyon walls covered with graffiti. In 1980, Rancho Cucamonga was 88 percent white and 16 percent Hispanic.
⁵⁸
By 2010, the town was officially 42.7 percent white and 34.9 percent Hispanic.
⁵⁹
USA Today
has a nice photo gallery of “scenic Sapphire Falls,” including one shot of four Hispanic men in the act of spray-painting rock cliffs.
⁶⁰

But the U.S. Fire Service stressed that it was closing the canyon not because of the trash and spray-painted gang symbols, but as a simple fire precaution.
⁶¹
Most of the canyon remains closed to this day.
⁶²
Overwhelming popular opinion on hiking blogs was that the closure of Sapphire Falls was due to the epic amounts of trash and graffiti in the canyon, put there by Mexicans:

          
August 2013

              
Yes this is above Rancho Cucamonga, the Beverly Hills of the IE, but the problem is it’s surrounded by places like Fontucky, Rialto, Ontario, and the like. Who do you think writes all that graffiti in the canyon? It’s not the high-end soccer moms from Rancho. These guys find these pristine places and ruin them for the rest of us. Same thing happened to Rosarito, Mexico in the 90s (off-topic I know, but illustrates my point). I wouldn’t bring my wife or teenage daughters here.
⁶³

          
March 2014

              
I grew up down the street from here. And as a kid (1990s), we used to gather all the neighborhood kids and walk up to the falls on hot summer days. . . . I have noticed the past few years, it was pretty much always crowded and the trail was littered with trash and graffiti. . . . The same thing happened to Joshua Tree National Park last year. . . . most of the Indian land is now forever closed off to the public because of the disrespect people showed for their ancient monuments. . . .
⁶⁴

BUYING OFF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS

Where are the environmentalists? For fifty years, they’ve been carrying on about overpopulation; promoting family planning, birth control, abortion; and saying old people have a “duty to die and get out of the way”—in Colorado’s Democratic Governor Richard Lamm’s words. In 1971, Oregon governor and environmentalist Tom McCall told a CBS interviewer, “Come visit us again. . . . But for heaven’s sake, don’t come here to live.” How about another 30 million people coming here to live?

The Sierra Club began sounding the alarm over the country’s expanding population in 1965—the very year Teddy Kennedy’s immigration act passed
⁶⁵
—and in 1978, adopted a resolution expressly asking Congress to
“conduct a thorough examination of U.S. immigration laws.” For a while, the Club talked about almost nothing else. “It is obvious,” the Club said two years later, “that the numbers of immigrants the United States accepts affects our population size and growth rate,” even more than “the number of children per family.”
⁶⁶
Over the next three decades, America took in tens of millions of legal immigrants and illegal aliens alike.

But, suddenly, about ten years ago, the Sierra Club realized to its embarrassment that importing multiple millions of polluting, fire-setting, littering immigrants is actually fantastic for the environment! The advantages of overpopulation dawned on the Sierra Club right after it received a $100 million donation from hedge fund billionaire David Gelbaum with the express stipulation that—as he told the
Los Angeles Times
—“if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”
⁶⁷

It would be as if someone offered the Catholic Church $100 million to be pro-abortion. But the Sierra Club said:
Sure! Did you bring the check?
Obviously, there’s no longer any reason to listen to them on anything. They want us to get all excited about some widening of a road that’s going to disturb a sandfly, but the Sierra Club is totally copasetic with our national parks being turned into garbage dumps.

Not only did the Sierra Club never again say another word against immigration, but, in 2004, it went the extra mile, denouncing three actual environmentalists running for the Club’s board, by claiming they were racists who opposed mass immigration. The three “white supremacists” were Dick Lamm, the three-time Democratic governor of Colorado; Frank Morris, former head of the Black Congressional Caucus Foundation; and Cornell professor David Pimentel, who created the first ecology course at the university in 1957 and had no particular interest in immigration.
⁶⁸
But they couldn’t be bought off, so they were called racists.

America’s premiere hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, jumped into the fray, with multimillionaire con man and SPLC head Morris Dees running for the Sierra Club board simply to smear the three real environmentalist candidates as “white supremacists”—yes, even the former
head of the Black Congressional Caucus Foundation. Dees had never before shown the slightest interest in environmentalism. But, evidently, what poor Southerners need most is a massive influx of foreign poor people competing for their jobs. And what the environment needs most is millions of poor immigrants trashing our national parks. Now the alliance makes sense, no?

In 2012, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune announced that the Club officially supported mass immigration—amnesty, no borders, more legal immigration, the whole nine yards. “The Sierra Club,” he gushed, “has thrived because of the ability for our members to engage with the full tools of democracy.”
⁶⁹
Businessmen seeking cheap labor take note: The Sierra Club’s “tools of democracy” are new voters, who will give the Left hegemonic control of our politics. At that point, the EPA will start shutting down power plants, coal mines, oil exploration, and so on.

Environmentalists can’t keep ignoring immigration forever. They have eyes. If mass-immigration enthusiasts want to make the argument that preserving America’s natural wilderness is not as important as transforming our culture to a poorer and more Latin one, then they should make that argument. Instead we get bald-faced lies from the government, silence from the press, and bought-off “environmentalists” denouncing anyone who threatens their money supply.

13

CARLOS SLIM: THE
NEW YORK TIMES
’ SUGAR DADDY

C
AN WE TRUST ANYTHING THE
NEW YORK TIMES
SAYS ABOUT IMMIGRATION?

In 2008, the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, saved the
Times
from bankruptcy. When that guy saves your company, you dance to his tune. So it’s worth mentioning that Slim’s fortune depends on tens of millions of Mexicans living in the United States, preferably illegally.

That is, unless the
Times
is some bizarre exception to the normal pattern of corruption—which you can read about at this very minute in the
Times
. If a tobacco company owned Fox News, would we believe their reports on the dangers of smoking? (Guess what else Slim owns? A tobacco company!) The
Times
impugns David and Charles Koch for funneling “secret cash” into a “right-wing political zeppelin.”
¹
The Kochs’ funding of Americans for Prosperity is hardly “secret.” What most people think of as “secret cash” is more like Carlos Slim’s purchase of favorable editorial opinion in the Newspaper of Record.

It would be fun to have a “Sugar Daddy–Off” with the
New York Times
: Whose Sugar Daddy Is More Loathsome? The Koch Brothers? The Olin
Foundation? Monsanto? Halliburton? Every time, Carlos Slim would win by a landslide. Normally, Slim is the kind of businessman the
Times
—along with every other sentient human being—would find repugnant.

Frequently listed as the richest man in the world, Slim acquired his fortune through a corrupt inside deal giving him a monopoly on telecommunications services in Mexico. But in order to make money from his monopoly, Slim needs lots of Mexicans living in the United States, sending money to their relatives back in Oaxaca. Otherwise, Mexicans couldn’t pay him—and they wouldn’t have much need for phone service, either—other than to call in ransom demands.

Back in 2004—before the
Times
became Slim’s pimp—a
Times
article stated: “Clearly . . . the nation’s southern border is under siege.”
²
But that was before Carlos Slim saved the
Times
from bankruptcy. Ten years later, with a border crisis even worse than in 2004, and Latin Americans pouring across the border, the
Times
indignantly demanded that Obama “go big” on immigration and give “millions of immigrants permission to stay.”
³

What a difference one thieving Mexican billionaire makes!

True, it’s not unusual for the
Times
to root for the destruction of the United States. Maybe, in this particular instance, the
Times
agrees with every single thing Slim says. Perhaps there was a secret meeting with Slim:
You may have saved us, Carlos Slim, but this newspaper will be in no way cognizant of your financial interest in continued illegal immigration. You’re just very lucky that we happen to agree with you. However, if you get into offshore drilling, we will take a VERY strong position against you.

On the other hand, there’s no question but that the
Times
has become exceptionally shrill on immigration since Slim saved the company from bankruptcy.

CARLOS SLIM: FAT, PUDGY WHITE KNIGHT

In 2008, the
Times
was hemorrhaging money. Evidently people were finding more economical means to line their birdcages. In less than a decade,
the stock had collapsed from $45 a share to $15 a share. Ratings agencies were threatening to lower the
Times
’ debt rating to junk bond status.
⁴
By the fall of 2008, advertising sales were cratering, and the company had a $400 million line of financing coming due in May 2009—with no hope of borrowing any more money. Poor minorities don’t get in as much trouble with zero-down mortgages as the Newspaper of Record had with its loans.

The
Times
began offering buyouts to the news staff and then, not getting enough of them, warned of firings. Company-wide spending cuts of $230 million were announced.
⁵
(The announcements were published in the
Times
, so few people noticed.) As the clock ticked on the
Times
’ $400 million credit line, insiders were predicting catastrophe for the Old Gray Lady. “For the first time,” one
Times
employee said, “people really are thinking this place could go bankrupt.”
⁶
According to
New York
magazine: “Fantasies about a white-knight businessman who might ‘save’ the
Times
with a cash infusion abound in the newsroom and in media circles across the city.”
⁷

The white-knight fantasies ran more toward Michael Bloomberg or Google executives than a Mexican robber baron, but beggars can’t be choosers. And that’s how the
New York Times
got in bed with a monopolist looter whose wealth depends on millions of Mexicans moving to the United States.