YCT Immigrant Hunt

An email is going around that describes an 'Illegal Immigrant Hunt' to be held at the University of North Texas by a group called the Young Conservatives of Texas:

"Well, the YCT (Young Conservatives of Texas) are at it again. This time they've organized a so-called "Immigrant Hunt" for this Wednesday, March 2nd on the West Mall on campus-- they have reserved the space from 11:00am-1:00pm. They recently organized a similar event at the University of North Texas and appear to be emboldened by the post-9-11 anti-immigrant climate. They plan to wear color-coded anti-immigrant shirts and "hunt for immigrants" who will be YCT-ers dressed in brown for Latina/os, yellow for Asians, etc. and offer rewards."

This email appears to be a mixture of fact and fiction. From what I can piece together, the YCT did hold a controversial rally about a month ago which
"featured Young Conservatives members wearing bright orange shirts that read "Illegal Immigrant" on the front and "Catch me if U can" on the back. Passersby were encouraged to track down the mock "illegal aliens" around campus to win a prize." So the original rally seems bad enough. However, they don't seem to be hosting a follow-up event in which they'll actually play the 'immigrant hunt' game. An email, supposedly from the Chairman of the YCT, denying involvement in this event is now going around:

Here's an update on the reported illegal immigrant hunt: The information you received is false. Somebody made this shit up, and I'm extremely pissed off. We're having a friggin' Texas Independence Day Celebration tomorrow....AND THAT'S IT!!! Cakes and Cookies and Lemonade!!! I got a hold of the original email that I'm guessing you received, and it was all lies. Email whoever sent you your information, and ask them to  research their information before they sent it ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES!!!
Lauren E.Conner
Young Conservatives of Texas - UT Austin

Hate Crimes/Terror Politics

Posted on Wed Mar 02, 2005


Anyone else familiar with the technical term "Black Propaganda" here? For those who are not familiar with the term, it has been around for at least 60 years and the concept much longer, it refers to propaganda which is presented by group A pretending to be from group B and is used to discredit group B. "White Propaganda" in contrast is honest propaganda from group A presenting an argument in favor of group A. Liberals say they are in favor of tolerance, accepting of divergent points of view, refusing to lump people into groups, etc. Given the comments by Electra and so forth, wich comes closest to describing those comments? If they are indeed liberals, why are they being so counter-productive and acting so contrary to their stated beliefs? If they was to use the free speech argument, which they seem to want to deny me, then I suggest they stop acting like spoiled 2-year-olds and start acting in a way to advance the liberal cause.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Sat Mar 05, 2005  at  11:54 AM
Chrisotopher Cole, you are really blowing this crazily out of proportion. I don't want to turn Museum of Hoaxes into a place for this but you have posted about this 3 X now. Let it go. And if you can't let it go, leave my name out of it. I will hopefully explain myself to you once again. According to you, I have misused 'Liberal'. I will officially retract it if it makes you shut up about 'Black Proganda' and the like, because it's getting really hard to follow your line of reasoning.
I'm not going to argue about the exact definition of liberal. I am an artist, activist, rabid recycler, devout vegetarian, advocate for the elderly and disadvantaged. All I know is that some people call people like me & my friends liberals and I am not offended by that terminology. That's it. If you go to sights like liberalhearts.com they 'unite animal lovers, environmentalists, Greens, Dems, etc.' So I retract 'liberal' from that post. Who cares? That word doesn't change who I am either way.
I wasn't lambasting YCT out of the blue, I was LAMBASTING BACK. They stand for rascist intolerance - something I can't stand. (See, they are even classified in Museum of Hoaxes under 'hate crimes.') I would never replace 'YCT' with 'Muslim' in my parody letter because that wouldn't make any sense! I was specifically lambasting the YCT for their hatred and intolerence. I actually really am sorry that you lost many relatives to hate. That is terrible. But stop personalizing this towards me. I 'demean the discourse' of groups like the YCT, because that is my opinion. Just like hatred is their's. According to you it's counter-productive to demean the discourse but me & my immigrant family & immigrant neghborhood find it really offensive so I shot back at them. That's all.
Posted by Electra  on  Sat Mar 05, 2005  at  06:32 PM
Christopher Cole was in the military, based on what he's said on other threads. Which means he can't think for himself--he's been brainwashed to support the fascist Republicans no matter how wrong they are.

I guess when you earn your college money by killing babies with an assault rifle, you believe whatever you need to believe to let yourself sleep at night.
Posted by Barghest  on  Mon Mar 07, 2005  at  08:08 PM
Barghest, do you have any data to sup0port your lie that all the military support Republicans? While on active duty I knew about as many Democrats as Republicans with a fair smattering of other parties/apolitical. Since I deduce you have never been on active duty your supposition is based upon sheer bigotry. I have been discriminated against, shot at, spat at and I habve had death threats both day and night, I have had people pull their children away from me while I was walking down the street; co-workers and fellow students were killed, as well as all of the above and more. It never made any difference what their politics were, they were the targets of hate-mongers like you. And, I still put my body between you and the enimies of this country, and will continue to do so until I am dead. I was a liberal probably long before you were born, I started my political life supporting LBJ. But I doubt you would give a used tinker's dam about anything or anyone that doesn't march in goose-step with you.

Christopher Cole, TSgt USAF, Ret
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  04:21 PM
And also, Barghest, review the legal concept of fighting words. You will discover why your little rant probably would not qualify as free speech.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  04:38 PM
Hey Chris, more power to ya, but... people don't have to serve in the military to be able to express themselves. It's a God-given right, and our thanks for protecting that.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  04:59 PM
Plus, the whole "Them's fightin' words" mentality is what this is all about: Outrage at a hoax that may reflect Miltant Supremacist Texan midsets (present company excepted)
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  05:02 PM
Is this the same guy with the sister "Allegra?"

Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  05:23 PM
Allegra? No... my sister's name is Hairiet.
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  05:55 PM
Go back and take another look at that thread, I said it was a bad joke.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  06:09 PM
Harry Houdini, you are welcome. The concept of fighting words goes back to a Supreme Court decision, to quote THE OXFORD GUIDE TO UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS it is "Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), argued 5 Feb. 1942, decided 9 Mar. 1942 by vote of 9 to 0; Murpht for the court." This decision is the foundation for all Hate Crime legislation.

On a side note, while hunting this down, I ran across something that should make Barghest very happy if Barghest is a male over the age of 17 with certain other qualifiers. He is in hte military as defined by 10 USC Chapter 13, paragraphs 311 and 312. Not on active duty, but the militia.
Posted by Christopher Cole  in  Tucson, AZ  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  08:49 PM
Barghest, I'm not quite sure what's provoked you so much, but you need to stay civil. That means if you disagree with Christopher do so without becoming abusive or threatening. I deleted your last post because it crossed way over the line.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Tue Mar 08, 2005  at  10:18 PM
why do progressives lie?

i was hoping that this category would be more complete with he accountings of hate crime hoaxes. instead there's only a couple. probably better than nine in ten reported hate crimes are hoaxes.

here, there is no mention of alicia hardin who faked racist letters and posted them on the dorm doors of interracial couples in order to scare her parents into pulling her out of school. when the smoke cleared, jesse jackson, who had encamped himself at the university, said something like, "its terrible that there is so much racism that this would've seemed like a genuine incident!"

fake but accurate. progressives lie, but no one calls them liars. they slander campus conservatives, but when the slander is exposed, the slander sticks and the perpetrators remain lionized victims of "political repression." you see, by the formulation of "fake but accurate," any attempt to correct a lie told by a progressive is slapped down as an attack against the speaking of "larger truths." but how can a "larger truth" be composed of component lies?

Posted by jummy  on  Fri Mar 17, 2006  at  12:18 PM
Comments: Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
Commenting is no longer available in this channel entry.