Roy Edroso shortened this piece by Mark Krikorian at the National Review as, “What good are wetbacks if we can’t use them against faggots?” Then he added, “you think I’m kidding?!”

Sadly, Roy is not kidding, for if you click on the piece by Krikorian, you see a lot of verbose garbage that could indeed be reduced to that base, racist sentiment. Look:

While Hispanic immigrants, like black Americans, are conservative on certain social issues (though not as much as some might think), it doesn’t matter politically. As one political scientist recently put it, in reaction to a new poll:

“It’s always been said that Latinos have a conflict between their religion and their political tendencies. That they’re usually more progressive on economic policy but conservative on social issues,” said Matt Barreto, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle and advisor to Latino Decisions.

However, Barreto said the poll reflects no such conflict: “Religion and social and moral values are not among their priorities when they make their political and election calculations.”

That’s part of the reason why California, the state with the largest share of immigrants in its population, has “the first state law mandating lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender history and social science curricula.” It’s not that immigrants demanded this nonsense; they probably don’t even like it very much. But their large-scale presence solidifies the position of the Left, making this kind of thing possible, and they aren’t turned off by it enough to rebel against it. When there’s a referendum, sure, they’ll vote against gay marriage, for instance, but that’s not the way most social policy is made. Both by importing faithful Democratic voters and through sheer numbers creating more safe leftist seats in local and state and federal legislatures, mass immigration empowers statism and cultural leftism.

It’s all a conspiracy by the “leftists” and the “statists” and the gays to “import Mexicans” in order to create laws mandating that gay history be taught in California, you see. Now, what I want you to notice about this fine wingnut hackery is just how many of their ooga-boogas it involves. You’ve got big gub’mint, you got lib’ruls, you got gays and you’ve got “illegally imported” Mexicans! This works on their readers because wingnuts don’t have to explain anything. They just have to invoke the specter of things their readers are afraid of and it’s considered a Q.E.D. situation.

It’s not that Democrats are necessarily bad (well, the slaveholder part was bad, but we finally beat that out of them),

By turning them into Republicans…

But it does mean that any successful GOP effort to woo immigrants and their children will take generations — and if small-government, morally traditionalist, pro-sovereignty conservatism is to have any chance of lasting political success during our lifetimes, future immigration must be curbed.

In order to keep ‘Murka pearly white, Christian and heterosexual, we have to keep dark-skinned people out. Gotcha.

How exactly has conservative rhetoric changed in the past forty years?

Regular readers know that I am very pragmatic when it comes to the issue of supporting Obama for re-election next year.  I am often branded an ObamaBot (or whatever creative name it is these days) for failing to sign on to the idea that the best course of action for progressives would be to primary the president with an “unelectable pony promiser.” However, we do criticize the president and his administration when it’s appropriate, and this is one of those times:

The Obama administration ordered the expulsion of a gay man’s spouse who petitioned for permanent U.S. residency to care for his ailing partner.

On July 26, the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, citing the Defense of Marriage Act, denied John Makk’s application for an I-130 visa, a spousal petition seeking permanent residency, the San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday. DOMA, which became law in 1996, denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

Makk married Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, in Massachusetts seven years ago. He told the newspaper he left Australia to be with Bradford, starting a business in San Francisco and investing in real estate to meet visa requirements. The couple have lived in San Francisco for 19 years.

Makk was ordered to leave the country by Aug. 25. He is the sole caregiver for Bradford, who has AIDS.

WTF, Barry?

Your own administration has, as is pointed out in the article, said that you have the power to “exercise discretion in individual cases.”  Well, this is an individual case calling for discretion if there ever was one, and you know, your people should really get on that.

I mean, really.  WTF?

Peter tends to be confused, so that’s not news, but it’s fun to occasionally gander in his general direction and marvel at how a human being can be so consistently incorrect about everything at all times. No stopped clocks here, as the hands were ripped off at a leathersex convention in the late 1990′s [allegedly]:

A pro-family activist is outraged that the Obama Justice Department has cancelled the deportation of a homosexual who is in the U.S. illegally.

The New York Times reports that federal officials recently cancelled deportation proceedings of an illegal immigrant from Venezuela who is involved in a homosexual relationship. The ruling comes in the wake of Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that the administration views the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional and will not defend it in court.

Right, because the guy is married, to a man, under Connecticut law, and they’re trying to treat him like they would treat any other person. Equality! It really hurts Peter’s fee fees:

Peter LaBarbera, founder and president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), decides this case is all about pandering.

“The law is clear. This man would not be eligible to stay in the United States,” he contends. “President Obama is pandering to his radical homosexual base for the 2012 election. What they’re saying is because you practice sodomy, you get to jump to the head of the line in immigration.”

No, not the head of the line, ding dong. He just gets to stand in the same line other people involved in bi-national marriages do. Equality! It really ruffles Pete’s tailfeathers.

LaBarbera warns that the ruling could have serious implications down the road.

“Are we going to let in anybody from a foreign country where there is a sodomy law or where they don’t allow homosexual marriage?” he wonders. “Are we going to be letting in all these homosexual activists from countries around the world that don’t have liberal attitudes on homosexuality?”

Y’know, gays will probably abuse the privilege at about the same rate straight people do. But yes, Peter, this means all the Iranian gays are coming here. Tomorrow. They’ll be living in the Western Chicago suburbs.

Equality! It really scares the bejesus out of Peter. Boo!

Joe Sudbay points to a post from immigration lawyer Lavi Soloway, explaining the news that cases involving binational gay couples have been put in abeyance while DOMA’s status is being resolved, and hopefully, eliminated:

Some married gay and lesbian binational couples will now have an opportunity to take a major leap toward full equality under our nation’s immigration laws. However, it is important to remember that DOMA is still the law of the land and despite this tremendous news, filing green card applications in this uncertain environment could result in a foreign spouse being placed in removal (deportation) proceedings. For that reason, no couple should make a move toward marrying or filing on the basis of the marriage without first consulting an immigration attorney with specific expertise in both LGBT immigration issues and the developing landscape of DOMA.

[...]

This development will have the greatest impact on two groups of couples:

1. Married gay and lesbian couples where the foreign spouse lawfully entered the United States but is now an “overstay” and without lawful status. For these couples, the filing of an alien relative petition and application for adjustment of status to permanent resident should automatically give temporary lawful status to the foreign spouse for the duration of the period that the case is pending. If these applications are in fact held in abeyance until DOMA’s final demise, this could mean that couples who have wrestled for years with the nightmare of deportation, separation and instability caused by a lack of lawful status may now be on the verge of a new reality. The foreign spouse will not only receive (temporary) lawful status, but also employment authorization and potentially other benefits, as long as they have a pending green card application. Unfortunately, despite the temptation that this will present to many couples, for many it will be better to wait until there is greater certainty about this policy and the future of DOMA.

2. Married gay and lesbian couples who are already facing removal (deportation) proceedings. It is now likely that we will be able to stop virtually all deportation proceedings involving married gay and lesbian couples who have filed green card petitions/applications and who are, but for DOMA, otherwise eligible to receive a green card based on their marriage. Even couples in removal (deportation) proceedings must proceed cautiously when considering whether to marry and file a green card petition/application based on that marriage. However, unlike those who are not in proceedings, the risk of deportation is very real, and the likelihood is that this new development will provide protection to almost every couple facing deportation, if they are currently in proceedings.

There is light at the end of the tunnel for binational couples. The individual stories of binational couples suffering separation, exile or the threat of deportation continue to be our most important weapon in the fight against DOMA. There is still a long road ahead before we achieve full equality and we cannot be complacent.

Just one of the many, many issues that even many of our straight allies don’t realize gay couples confront under DOMA, and another reason it’s so crucial that DOMA be relegated to a stain in our history books.

Read Soloway’s entire piece.

What awful news:

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a gunman at a public event in Tucson on Saturday. There are conflicting reports about whether she was killed.

The Pima County, Ariz., sheriff’s office told member station KJZZ the 40-year-old Democrat was killed. At least nine other people, including members of her staff, were injured.

Giffords, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting a “Congress on Your Corner” event at a Safeway in northwest Tucson when a gunman ran up and started shooting, according to Peter Michaels, news director of Arizona Public Media.

Giffords was talking to a couple when the suspect ran up and fired indiscriminately from about four feet away, Michaels said.

Condolences to all of the families involved.  At first it was reported that Giffords had been killed, but MSNBC and Reuters are now reporting that she is alive and in surgery.

The suspect is in custody, but little is known about motive at this point.

It has already been brought up, though, in several places, that Giffords was one of the representatives targeted [on a map, with gun sights] by Sarah Palin’s PAC for voting for healthcare reform. If it becomes evident that this was politically motivated, Sarah Palin’s metaphor is no longer a metaphor.

More to come…

UPDATE: TPM has confirmed that one of those shot this morning was a federal judge.

UPDATE II:  NBC is reporting that Giffords is expected to survive.  The gunman’s name is Jared Laughner, and motive is still unclear

Meanwhile, here is some more information on John Roll, the federal judge who was murdered this morning, from Jane Hamsher:

Roll was appointed to the US. District Court for the District of Arizona in 1991 by George H.W. Bush, and served as the court’s lead judicial administrative officer.

Roll received death threats in 2009 after he ruled that a case filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher could go forward.  Four men were identified, but Roll did not press charges on the advice of the Marshals Service:

In February, when U.S. District Judge John Roll presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher, the Marshals Service was anticipating the fallout.

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, Gonzales said talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats.

In one afternoon, Roll logged more than 200 phone calls. Callers threatened the judge and his family. They posted personal information about Roll online.

“They said, ‘We should kill him. He should be dead,’ ” Gonzales said.

Roll, who is the chief federal judge in Arizona, said both he and his wife were given a protection detail for about a month.

“It was unnerving and invasive. . . . By its nature it has to be,” Roll said, adding that they were encouraged to live their lives as normally as possible. “It was handled very professionally by the Marshals Service.”

At the end of the month, Roll said four key men had been identified as threat makers.

The Marshals Service left to him the decision to press charges but recommended against it. Roll said he had no qualms about following their advice.

The recommendation was based on the intent of those making the threats.

“I have a very strong belief that there is nothing wrong with criticizing a judicial decision,” he said. “But when it comes to threats, that is an entirely different matter.”

Wow.  A Democrat and a Bush appointee.

Meanwhile, one of those killed was a young child, as per the hospital’s press conference, which is happening right now.

UPDATE III:  More information is now coming out about the accused shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, via Ben Smith at Politico:

The police have named a suspect in the shooting of Gabriel Giffords, Jared Loughner. A person under that name has a YouTube account that includes suggestions of anti-government political views.

“”You don’t have to accept hte federalist laws,” the video above says; it also insists on the gold and silver standard, talks of revolution, and suggests that the government is imposing “mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.”

His linked MySpace page, no longer available, included statements about the gold standard and about SWAT teams paying for their equipment with illegal currency.

Among his long list of favorite books in his YouTube profile is Mein Kampf.

As Matt Yglesias just said on Twitter, “Loughner YouTube indicates the thin line between utter insanity and gold standard advocates.”

Indeed.  If you watch the videos on his YouTube, you definitely see the marks of a right-wing anti-government extremist.

UPDATE IV:  Something that may need to be clarified…

Whenever tragedies like this strike, especially when it becomes clear that the event was perpetuated by a person from one side of the ideological spectrum, others who share similar ideologies, yet who are not likely to open fire on a crowd, take offense and grow defensive, so we should be clear about a couple of things:

1.  No one is suggesting that most Republicans, most conservatives, most Glenn Beck-ite Gold Standard wingnuts, are actually a threat to people’s safety.

2.  However, there are certain ideologies that attract their fair share of crazies, and it’s incumbent upon their mentally stable cohorts to acknowledge that, rather than growing defensive.  It is a fact that right-wing extremism is on the rise in the United States.  David Neiwert has been chronicling this for years, and has indeed spoken today on the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy.  What it comes down to is rhetoric, specifically eliminationist rhetoric, which a hallmark of many corners of the Right these days.  While to some it might just Feel Damn Good to talk all violent-like about them damn lib’ruls, there are indeed crazies in the movement who will take that rhetoric to its extreme.  David:

There will be a lot of hand-wringing in the coming days over the shooting of Rep. Giffords this morning at a constituent event — some of it, almost certainly, from the folks at Fox, who will wonder aloud how this kind of thing could happen.

It can happen, in fact, because conservatives so thoughtlessly and readily use violent eliminationist rhetoric when talking about “liberals” (to wit: anyone who is not a conservative). They will adamantly deny it, of course, but the cold reality is that this kind of talk creates permission for angry and violent people to act it out.

Example A: This summer, Pima County Republicans held a “target shoot” event in support of her teabagging opponent, as David Safier at Blogs for Arizona noted at the time:

There’s nothing wrong with having a gun-themed event, if that’s what you want to do. Count me out, but if you want to meet at a shooting range instead of a bowling alley or a baseball stadium, that’s your right and your privilege.

There’s also nothing wrong with having a “Help remove Gabrielle Giffords” event. That’s what the R candidates in CD-8 are trying to do.

But to put it all together, starting with “Get on Target,” moving to “remove Gabrielle Giffords,” then finishing with “Shoot a fully automatic M16″ . . .

That goes way beyond cute and clever and moves into a frightening linkage between shooting guns and removing Giffords.

Giffords, as she explained in the video above, was also target in March by vandals.

And Logan warned that it was just a matter of time before we saw this kind of violence last spring, when a gun was found after a Gifford event.

We don’t yet know why the shooter — identified as a 22-year-old man named Jared Laughner — shot Giffords and a number of other people; we’ll learn more as the day progresses. But it’s impossible to survey the events so far and not come to the preliminary conclusion that this was yet another awful act inspired by right-wing hate rhetoric.

Read his whole piece please.

Eliminationist rhetoric is one of the only places where “trickle-down” really works in practice. It starts with people in power [for instance, in the rabid anti-gay movement], who use language to engender fear and anger in their supporters. Most of those who are susceptible to eliminationist rhetoric will never be a danger to anyone. [Indeed, the type of person who is susceptible to that sort of rhetoric tends to be extremely insecure and fearful.] But then, there will be a few who are just unhinged enough to do something about it. This is why Sarah Palin’s name is being thrown around today, because, of all our political figures, she has probably been THE single most irresponsible troll when it comes to the language she uses with her base when referring to her ideological opponents.

But then somehow, when something tragic like this happens, we’re supposed to Be Nice and refrain from pointing out the obvious connections between the rhetoric being employed and the people who actually do things like this.  Absolutely not.  It must be pointed out, because the people who are employing the rhetoric are responsible for their words.

Focus on the Family today misinformed its readers about legal background to the Ninth Circuit ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger against Proposition 8.

Instead of citing the actual ruling, Focus lawyer Bruce Hausknecht parroted ProtectMarriage.org’s hasty rationale for a stay. Hausknecht is most interested in the stay request’s reference to Adams v. Howerton, a 1982 immigration case involving a same-sex couple that was based not upon federal family law, but upon a 1952 immigration law’s definition of foreign spouse.

Seeing a flimsy opportunity for profit, Focus breathlessly concludes:

Apparently, the 9th Circuit has already decided as a matter of law that there is a “rational basis” for a duly-enacted law that favors heterosexual marriage over homosexual marriage.

In short, Hausknecht parrots a false precedent from a sister political organization’s distortion of an unrelated field of law, and presents the antiquated distortion of history as if it were accepted case law.

Hausknecht then insinuates that Judge Vaughn Walker has recklessly ignored immigration rulings that Focus incompetently claims are “binding” upon U.S. citizens — and that may well be found unconstitutional, as U.S. society has become less bigoted against citizen women, blacks, religious minorities, and legal immigrants since 1952.

Focus on the Family clearly wishes it were still 1952, when all people were equal — but only if they were white, male, Christian, and of European descent. Maybe if they close their eyes, open their wallets, pray in “tongues,” and shout such irrational pseudo-legal babble loud enough, then a miracle will happen, their wallets will fill up, and it will be 1952 when they open their eyes.

Crazier things have happened.

Oh. Wait. No, they haven’t.

Ha ha ha.

So, this lady, Marylou Barry, wrote this awfully racist piece on Wing Nut Daily, an open letter to immigrants, where she lays down Marylou Barry’s rules for immigrant conduct. Yes, you read that right, because we live in a country where certain people think it’s appropriate to write open letters to brown people to teach them how to act right.

So, in her opening graf of rules and regulations, entitled “You cannot own people here,” she makes a hilarious concession to the side of equality and fairness. Everybody, pay attention to Marylou!

You cannot own people here. This includes domestic servants and family members. You cannot beat or mutilate your children. You cannot force, threaten, or sell them into arranged marriages. You cannot keep adult relatives from marrying the people they choose, getting jobs, or moving out of your house. You cannot hold your employees captive, beat or rape them, or refuse to pay agreed-upon wages. It took us 200 years to get rid of institutionalized slavery, and we are not about to reinstate it because one of your holy men thinks it’s acceptable behavior.

That’s right! No owning slaves or mutilating children or raping employees or any of that funny business, and dammit, adults have the right to marry the person they love!

Amen, Marylou!

Let’s have a look at what else Marylou wants to teach Muslims, I mean “immigrants”:

You cannot kill people here. Not your wife. Not your children. Not your grandchildren. Not people who question your honor or hurt your feelings. Not people who quit your religion. Not people of other faiths or ethnicities whom you regard as apes, pigs, monkeys, or dogs.

That’s right, no killin’! This Marylou is a common sense conservative! Killin’ is only okay if it’s the death penalty and we think you might have committed a crime, or maybe you just look funny.

You cannot take over our lawful institutions and subvert them to you own purposes. If you are a communist and want to overthrow our government, we don’t want you. We have enough of our own, so try Cuba or China. If you are a Nazi sympathizer we don’t want you either; a Middle Eastern country may be more to your liking anyway. If you are coming here to convert us to any ideology that abrogates our dignity or freedom, don’t even get off the plane. We don’t care what it says in your holy book; we are not here for you to colonize.

Aw hell, she just went off the rails. It takes a fierce commitment to perpetual wingnut terror to believe that we are threatened by hordes of Nazi or Communist sympathizers who are trying to colonize the United States. Let’s talk about marriage equality again.

You get only one wife. If that’s not enough, it’s called bigamy — and you would be subject to state laws regarding that particular felony. Some states also have laws against cohabitation, which is the legal definition of what you would be doing. Also, please note that the rest of us do not intend to support any surplus “spouses” with our tax money through entitlement programs.

Wait, what states enforce laws against cohabitation? Anyway, but there you go, you immigrant people. Marylou says you only get one spouse, but she does not apparently care whether your spouse is of the opposite sex or the same sex, because she is committed to EQUALITY.

Next up, Marylou has some words for Southern White Men:

A woman’s outfit or hairstyle does not “make” you rape her. Maybe your mommy never told you this, but keep your hands off other people. The vast majority of men in most cultures — America’s included — manage this successfully all the time. So if you find yourself standing in front of a judge someday explaining that you just “couldn’t” control yourself, don’t be too surprised if he doesn’t buy your story.

Oh, wait, she was still talking to the brown people? MY BAD! Anyway, she’s right. You can’t get all rapey and then blame it on what the woman was wearing. I think Marylou is a feminist, but she doesn’t know!

Still want to come here after knowing these things? As you may have heard, right now we are full up. If, however, someday we manage to elect a government with the intestinal fortitude to find and deport an estimated 10-20 million illegal intruders and overstayers, and if we determine that the loyalty and skills you have to offer could benefit our already great nation, then there might be a place for you here.

Oh, so that’s her angle. “Maybe if I tell the dark people a buncha stuff they don’t like, they’ll read it when they sign on to the computer and they won’t come here.” It’s funny, though, that she says that we’re “full.” I mean…there’s a whole swath of flyover country that’s pretty much devoid of people. And if we put all the Marylous in one of those states, like maybe Nebraska, then we’d have even more room!

Anyway, all of this is just to say, thank you Marylou Barry, for your obviously fervent support for marriage equality for LGBT people, even if they’re foreign. You might want to consult with Jesus about the racism, though. It’s sorta gross.