There is a major gang war brewing in southern CA between the African American gangs and the ‘Mexican Mafia’, which has begun a systematic program of ‘ethnic cleansing’ against Blacks.  Of all the Hispanic organizations this is the most dangerous.  They are the ones promoting La Raza, etc.   This comes from the SPLC most recent report.

 “…The Mexican Mafia derives inspiration and ethnic pride from the concept of La Raza (Spanish, in this context, for "The Race"), as well as from the Aztec, Aztlan movement. And this goes way back. There was a Mexican Mafia shot caller back in the 1970s named Rudolph Cheyenne Cardena, and before he was killed by rival Mexican gang members in 1978 or 1977, Cardena saw the Mexican Mafia the way George Jackson [a prominent member of the original Black Panther Party who founded the Black Guerilla Family] saw the black prison movement. He wanted to change the Mexican Mafia into a political, socially active movement, and what he used for inspiration was the Aztec culture. He taught himself Nahuatl [the ancient language of the Aztecs], started teaching it to all the other homies. In fact, to this day they still use Nahuatl to send coded messages to one another -- these kinds of three level-coded messages. You have to know the code, and then Nahuatl and so on. And one of the symbols of the Mexican Mafia is the Aztec worship [symbol]. ...They've brought in the Aztec heritage as part of their philosophical inspiration, and there are no black people in the Aztec culture. La Raza comes first to these guys. They see themselves as a race unto themselves, and there's really not too much room for anybody else….”

 

EVANS-NOVAK Political Report email for today:

 

“Troop Surge: President Bush's attempt to sell the new Iraq policy to the nation backfired -- the public's disapproval of the idea of a troop surge is higher now than it was before President Bush tried to sell the policy.

 

A sense of impending political doom clutches Republican hearts. It is exacerbated by the alarming intelligence brought back from Baghdad by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.) and passed around Capitol Hill. In a pre-Christmas visit to Iraq, Coleman and Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida met with Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi government's national security adviser. Coleman described their astounding encounter in a December 19 blog post: "Dr. Rubaie maintains that the major challenge facing Iraq is not a sectarian conflict but rather al Qaeda and disgruntled Baathists seeking to regain power. Both Sen. Nelson and I react with incredulity to that assessment. Rubaie cautions against more troops in Baghdad."

 

In other words, the Iraqi government is denying the obvious reality of sectarian violence on the ground, acting as though nothing has changed about the Iraq insurgency since it began. The reason is that despite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's lip service to cracking down on Shiite militants, his government's political support is inextricably tied to their military leader, Moqtada al-Sadr. Maliki's failure even to show up for a scheduled press conference to comment on Bush's new strategy, and his continued silence, underscore this fact..

 

This hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating situation as soon as possible. Iraq, one of Bush's top political advisers now notes, is a black hole for the Republican Party. A nationally prominent Republican pollster reported confidentially on Capitol Hill after the President's speech that if U.S. boots are still on the ground in Iraq and U.S. blood is still being spilled there at the end of the year, the GOP disaster in 2008 will eclipse 2006.

 

Many Republican congressmen have tied their hopes to Bush's pledge that Iraqi forces will take over local security by September. But they do not know how that victory can be achieved if the Iraqi government is tied to the Shiite militia, a political problem in Iraq that no increase in U.S. troops can solve. They can only hope that the Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and her sidekick, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), overplay their hands by cutting off funds to U.S. troops in the field. It is a slim hope for now.

 

House and/or Senate passage of a resolution condemning a troop surge would be damaging to President Bush. It doesn't quite rise to the level of repudiation suffered by President Woodrow Wilson when Congress rejected the League of Nations, but it is definitely an official vote of no confidence in the President's foreign policy.

 

Former Sen. John Edwards' admonition that "silence" among Democrats in Congress in the face of the Bush plan amounts to "betrayal" apparently hit home with Sen. Clinton. Although Edwards did not mention Clinton by name, her handlers felt threatened enough by such language coming from the left that she released a counterattacking statement. As Democrats mull over just how strongly they want to oppose President Bush's plan -- whether, for example, they want to go so far as to support de-funding part of the war effort -- the leading contenders for their 2008 nomination will be positioned for the war debate.