Apparently there was a celebration recently in Santa Ana in honor of Benito Juarez, the famed Mexican President who was indigenous. He was born on March 21, 1806.
In the picture above, which is courtesy of Miniondas, you can see some of the folks who were at the event, including Santa Ana Mayoral candidate Alfredo Amezcua, who is pictured on the left. He is standing next to Mike Gonzalez, who ran for the SAUSD School Board last year. They are standing near Alejandra Garcia Williams, the new Consul of Mexico, in Santa Ana.
In case you are wondering what they are doing with their hands, that is how Mexicans salute their flag.
Click here to read the rest of this post.
Art, El Presidente was born in 1806.
David,
Thanks! Typo on my part, as usual…
Who wants to bet the Don Papi will use this shot to paint Amezcua as a Reconquista fanatic? DUMB move on Al’s part…
Gustavo,
And Al’s pals in the Usual Suspects won’t be too happy either. In fact I heard last week from a City Hall insider that some of the Usual Suspects are already trying to get back in with Pulido. That didn’t take long. I warned him!
Not a good move on Al’s part.
The usual suspects are cowards! Why don’t they run for mayor or a council seat?
“The usual suspects are cowards! Why don’t they run for mayor or a council seat?”
One of them actually is going to run for Ward 6 in November. Part-time resident/government worker “Tommy Boy” Gordon screamed out last Monday night that he will “wipe the floor” with Sal Tinajero come November.
Poor “Tommy Boy” lives in an echo chamber and does not have a real good grasp on reality. He will get trounced badly by Sal and will then go back to being nothing more than a gadfly disrupting public meetings.
I am the Commander of UMAVA (United Mexican-American Veterans Association); we are all volunteers, and the majority of us served in the US military, and myself I am still learning the proper rules for paying proper respect to our US flag, or also that of another nation for example, in events such as the Olympics or United Nations event etc.
Because just as we want our US citizens, and NON-citizens alike to pay respect to our US Flag, we must and are also expected and it is appropriate to pay respect to another country’s (Our US allies) flag as long as this is done within proper protocol.
Please see below:
“Saluting the flag by citizens, those in uniform, and non-citizens?
According to the Flag Code, Americans should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.
Those who are not U.S. citizens should stand at attention.
Public Law No: 110-181 (Sec. 594) “Allows members and veterans who are present but not in uniform during the hoisting, lowering, or passing of the flag to render the military salute.”
It seems from the above, that just as we require NON-US citizens to stand at attention, that it would be proper TO STAND AT ATTENTION to pay respect to an ally’s flag or anthem.
Alfredo may have UNINTENTIONALLY OVERDONE it, by also placing his hand over his heart but I rather have someone err on the side of safety of honoring an ally rather than disrespecting an ally, especially when this is NOT disrespectful to our US flag.
Like I said myself I am also still learning, and I try to avoid these unintentional mistakes.
To Learn to pay proper respect to our US Flag please see:
http://umava.org/ourfoundationourflag.html
(see bottom of page)
Francisco J. Barragan CPA, CIA
Commander, UMAVA
Served in US Marines (1987-1994)
Served in CA Army National Guard (1994-1997)
Professional Profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/franciscobarragancpacia
Am I the only one reading Amezcua’s body language? He may have attended this event in body, but not in spirit. Take a look at his right arm and hand. Now compare him to the others in the picture.
Art Pedroza says:
March 29, 2010 at 7:13 am
Gustavo,
And Al’s pals in the Usual Suspects won’t be too happy either. In fact I heard last week from a City Hall insider that some of the Usual Suspects are already trying to get back in with Pulido. That didn’t take long. I warned him!
Art,
Is the Mayor going to take them back? Did they ever leave? The warning is irrevelant as the usual suspects have not publicaly endorsed any one that I know.
The Mayor spoke at this weekend’s Cesar Chavez event in Santa Ana. Does this paint the Mayor as a reconquista? Is this a DUMB move the Mayor made? Are the usual suspects happy about this? will they shy away from the Mayor because of this?
What does the city insighter say about this?
Nice try at spinning Al’s lack of respect for the United States into some kind sign of good will towards other nations. You can pull off the foreign salute if you live in any country BUT the U.S. but for Americans no es bueno! As Americans we don’t dip our flag when passing in front of foreign kings and presidents and we certainly don’t do any funky straight armed salutes during foreign national anthems. These photos will be in every Republican mailbox and Democrat over a certain age and will give Mayor Pulido an ever greater margin of victory.
Dr. Lomeli,
Please don’t be coy. Al was seen sitting with the Usual Suspects in public at a Council meeting. They also infiltrated his SACRED organization.
We warned him and he did not listen. Now they are calling Pulido and trying to get back with him. Just as we predicted.
Yes, Pulido spoke at the Chavez event. I truly doubt that he saluted any Mexican flags while he was there. Pulido is a lot of things but he isn’t stupid.
Al was sitting next to Gallegos I believe. You are angry because who some one sits next to? How petty.
If so infiltration does not mean support.
So you believe showing respect to another nation is stupid? I believe not doing so is stupid
Mayor Pulido has saluted the Mexican flag at the Mexican independance celebration in downtown Santa Ana. Do you believe he is stupid?
In the past you have called Pulido many negative things I am surprised you have not called him stupid till now
Hey #10:
The Santa Ana City Council voted 7-0 to recognize the Vietnamese American “freedom flag” on February 2, 2009.
A RECOGNITION of an ANOTHER FLAG is an HONOR to THAT FLAG. Mayor Pulido voted for that recognition and “honor”.
By YOUR LOGIC Mayor Pulido was DISRESPECTING the US FLAG BY RECOGNIZING THE FLAG OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.
See City Council Minutes of Feb 2, 2009 (page 2):
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/coc/documents/02-02-2009Regular.pdf
In prior blogs, the argument was raised also that Democracy did NOT really exist in Vietnam, because of iron-fisted rule there. Remember the Buddhist Monk that burned himself to death in protest.
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/02/there-never-was-a-real-democracy-in-south-vietnam/
The Vietnamese-American community are rightfully entitled to have their culture and heritage respected and appreciated, but it seems that this was PANDERING by Mayor Pulido, and again by your logic, a DISRESPECT of the US flag.
Gosh this was a good Post and Comments and I missed this- chux!
Mr. Barragan,
Your post is good- in a perfect world. I agree with your intent to highlight the importance of paying respect to a nation’s flag- period.
But patriotism has suffered greatly. The good old, “one’s rights end when another’s begin” is not applied in our country because there are no limitations on our Bill of Rights (1st Amendment rights) when it comes to things as sacred as national symbols. When U.S citizens burn our own U.S flag in protest, my rights are infringed upon, and I am terribly infuriated and offended—where are my rights?
The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006.
The need for a flag desecration of any form amendment is expedient.
exerpt from Wikipedia:
Judicial and legislative history
The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War.[10] Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5-4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression.
After the Johnson decision, Congress quickly passed a new Flag Protection Act, which was also struck down by the Supreme Court the following year by the same 5-4 majority in the case United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). The Court decided that expression through flag burning was constitutionally protected.
The decisions were very controversial and have prompted Congress to consider the only remaining legal avenue to enact flag protection statutes—a constitutional amendment. Each Congress since the Johnson decision has considered creating a flag desecration amendment. From 1995 to 2005, beginning with the 104th Congress, the proposed amendment was approved biennially by the two-thirds majority necessary in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it consistently failed to achieve the same constitutionally-required super-majority vote in the U.S. Senate (during some sessions, the proposed amendment did not even come to a vote in the Senate before the expiration of the Congress’ term).
Several local governments and civic organizations have sent non-binding petitions to Congress asking that this amendment be proposed for ratification. However, some local governments oppose the amendment, and have sent their own petitions to Congress.
In both the Johnson and Eichman decisions, the statutes were struck down by a bloc composed of Justices William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. The dissenters in both cases were Chief Justice William Rehnquist , and Justices John Paul Stevens, Byron White and Sandra Day O’Connor.
Congressional votes
During each term of Congress from 1995 to 2005, the proposed amendment was passed by the House of Representatives, but not the Senate, falling four votes short on two occasions in the upper body. As approved by the House of Representatives each time, the joint resolutions called for ratification by state legislatures—of which a minimum of 38 state legislative approvals would be required (three-fourths of the 50 states) within a period of seven years following its proposal by both houses of Congress. As can be seen by the votes in the House of Representatives, support for the amendment appears to be slipping with only 286 yes votes during the 109th Congress in 2005.
If all of this bickering and senseless chatter would manifest itself as energy toward something more productive such as contacting your legislators regarding the need for the protection via a Constitutional Amendment that would protect our nation’s integrity and identity by including the protection of national symbols, and offering a direct immunity against weighing this importance against 1st amendment rights; then and only then, will our country and we as U.S citizens be worthy of passing judgment of the more patriotic and respectful nations of the globe that do in fact implement a national confidence and protection to their country and any symbol representing the identity and integrity of that respective country.
Ironically, Mexico is one of those countries that have a law in place. Mexico is above any type of low and despicable acts that would desecrate any national symbol including the Mexican Flag. In fact, the pride and respect is so inherent, that when a foreign leader is being hosted, Mexican Officials and Military stand at attention and offer reverance and respect- it is called professional courtesy, and if people thought like you,
“Alfredo may have UNINTENTIONALLY OVERDONE it, by also placing his hand over his heart but I rather have someone err on the side of safety of honoring an ally rather than disrespecting an ally, especially when this is NOT disrespectful to our US flag.”
Just in time,
I think Alfredo is just desperate for attention, but he didn’t think this one through very well. And take a look at my post about the Cesar Chavez Celebration. There he is again, this time holding the United Farm Worker’s flag. How is he going to keep his Usual Suspects support if he looks like a rabid pro-union, pro-Mexico politician?
He should have just written off the Usual Suspects like I advised him to. Pulido already has.
Giving a salute to Mexico is in itself ridiculous – they are an oil producing country and they make billions from oil – yet their people are uneducated, lack basic services, are victims of corruption and violence and the government views its people as exports to be use as slaves..
And you dare call them an ally!
I swear, either Mexican activists/advocates are as thick as bricks, or have no respect for life!
“Giving a salute to Mexico is in itself ridiculous”
Ms. Quinn,
Would you say the same goes for non-American’s in regards to our nation and our flag? What is ridiculous is people who would disrespect another nations flag and anthem. It demonstrates a complete lack of class on the part of those showing the disrespect.
Gosh this was a good Post and Comments and I missed this- chux!
Mr. Barragan,
Your post is good- in a perfect world. I agree with your intent to highlight the importance of paying respect to a nation’s flag- period.
But patriotism has suffered greatly. The good old, “one’s rights end when another’s begin” is not applied in our country because there are no limitations on our Bill of Rights (1st Amendment rights) when it comes to things as sacred as national symbols. When U.S citizens burn our own U.S flag in protest, my rights are infringed upon, and I am terribly infuriated and offended—where are my rights?
The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment failed in the United States Senate by one vote on June 27, 2006.
The need for a flag desecration of any form amendment is expedient.
exerpt from Wikipedia:
Judicial and legislative history
The first federal Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1968 in response to protest burnings of the flag at demonstrations against the Vietnam War.[10] Over time, 48 of the 50 U.S. states also enacted similar flag protection laws. All of these statutes were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States by a 5-4 vote in the case Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) as unconstitutional restrictions of public expression.
After the Johnson decision, Congress quickly passed a new Flag Protection Act, which was also struck down by the Supreme Court the following year by the same 5-4 majority in the case United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990). The Court decided that expression through flag burning was constitutionally protected.
The decisions were very controversial and have prompted Congress to consider the only remaining legal avenue to enact flag protection statutes—a constitutional amendment. Each Congress since the Johnson decision has considered creating a flag desecration amendment. From 1995 to 2005, beginning with the 104th Congress, the proposed amendment was approved biennially by the two-thirds majority necessary in the U.S. House of Representatives, but it consistently failed to achieve the same constitutionally-required super-majority vote in the U.S. Senate (during some sessions, the proposed amendment did not even come to a vote in the Senate before the expiration of the Congress’ term).
Several local governments and civic organizations have sent non-binding petitions to Congress asking that this amendment be proposed for ratification. However, some local governments oppose the amendment, and have sent their own petitions to Congress.
In both the Johnson and Eichman decisions, the statutes were struck down by a bloc composed of Justices William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. The dissenters in both cases were Chief Justice William Rehnquist , and Justices John Paul Stevens, Byron White and Sandra Day O’Connor.
Congressional votes
During each term of Congress from 1995 to 2005, the proposed amendment was passed by the House of Representatives, but not the Senate, falling four votes short on two occasions in the upper body. As approved by the House of Representatives each time, the joint resolutions called for ratification by state legislatures—of which a minimum of 38 state legislative approvals would be required (three-fourths of the 50 states) within a period of seven years following its proposal by both houses of Congress. As can be seen by the votes in the House of Representatives, support for the amendment appears to be slipping with only 286 yes votes during the 109th Congress in 2005.
If all of this bickering and senseless chatter would manifest itself as energy toward something more productive such as contacting your legislators regarding the need for the protection via a Constitutional Amendment that would protect our nation’s integrity and identity by including the protection of national symbols, and offering a direct immunity against weighing this importance against 1st amendment rights; then and only then, will our country and we as U.S citizens be worthy of passing judgment of the more patriotic and respectful nations of the globe that do in fact implement a national confidence and protection to their country and any symbol representing the identity and integrity of that respective country.
Ironically, Mexico is one of those countries that have a law in place. Mexico is above any type of low and despicable acts that would desecrate any national symbol including the Mexican Flag. In fact, the pride and respect is so inherent, that when a foreign leader is being hosted, Mexican Officials and Military stand at attention and offer reverance and respect- it is called professional courtesy, and if people thought like you,
10
“Al When Will You learn? says:
March 29, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Nice try at spinning Al’s lack of respect for the United States into some kind sign of good will towards other nations. You can pull off the foreign salute if you live in any country BUT the U.S. but for Americans no es bueno! As Americans we don’t dip our flag when passing in front of foreign kings and presidents and we certainly don’t do any funky straight armed salutes during foreign national anthems. These photos will be in every Republican mailbox and Democrat over a certain age and will give Mayor Pulido an ever greater margin of victory.”
if ppl were as ignorant as you #10, as a world obliged to deal with anarchy in a global environment, progress as the League of Nations, The United Nations, and any other sort of commaraderie and alliances in the global arena would not exist.
Now as for Alfredo Amezcua’s actions, so who are the qualified who feel they can denounce his actions in this case. Earth to you, dual citizenship is legal — do you happen to be aware of this man’s status. What if he were smart enough to have applied for dual citizenship! Oscar de La Hoya did a couple of years ago, and a lot of us will follow! Al Amezcua, if you have not, I suggest you do!
I most definitely will as soon as I stop procratinating on it! Al would be in his every right to pledge allegiance to both flags indeed.
People, patriotism is in your heart- Mexican-Americans and Mexican legal residents have held up arms in favor of the U.S/our great nation. This is exactly what makes our nation great! Take for instance “The Pacific” by the way Tom Hanks kicks ath with this one——Basilone a national hero
(USMC oorah, Barrigan) they are not going to tell you he was Mexican and that his ancestors were named Basilone because he was an “indio pata rajada” and he was a prancster, a jokester and he had a good sense of humor—look up the word “Basilon” —BUT—- go back to The Pacific episode 1 or 2- where a mexican marine or mexican-american Marine we don’t know if he was a legal resident or a U.S citizen (citizenship is not required to be enlisted)- Manny Rodriguez tells our great Basilone, “do you feel like we’re being singled out?” Now why are they being singled out–because they are mexican—-now why would the truth be told? They have the dark green marines, the light marines, etc.-
Now why this senseless chatter with no substance.
Pulido was born in Mexico– and read his Wikipedia- which he has never bothered to have corrected—it says, “the first mayor of Mexican descent” Can you believe that! Read it for yourself! Please don’t give me nonsense as it is an oversight – B.S- At this point in his career he needs to be vigilant of all that is said about him.
Now Pulido may be smart enough to hold dual citizenship as well. We don’t know. I am sure he has held his hand up to his heart just like Amezcua when it comes to showing respect for Mexico that is a “die hard” U.S neighbor and ally. This country is a melting pot and everyone should be loyal to their roots, all Latinos, Europeans, Asian- and of course “Country First” the United States of America our nation that embraces its mix of U.S Citizens, both natural born and naturalized.
Bottom line- both candidates share their heritage in common- one being a native of Mexico in spite of his Wikipedia cover, and the other being a Mex-amer. man who wants to challenge the mayor because he has a right to do so. Now Pulido also has a right to improve with heartfelt repentance and ACTIONS- for disappointing those that yesterday offered their shoulders as a stepping stone for him, and today have the courage to tell him enough is enough- you haven’t been playing clean and straight with us!
In a nutshell,
Just in Time respects both candidates as humanbeings.
Do they fit my definition of what I’d like for Santa Ana-
The status quo speaks for itself- both have been involved and plainly speaking- this city needs new energy and new direction.
I am one of the many that hopes for change, but it all looks the same.
I wish Sarmiento were neutral on this race, I’d once again take off my hat for him. He and his wife are a good team. I wish they would sit down and make a conscientious decision to retract and remain neutral on this race. It does not help or hurt neither Amezcua nor Pulido. It only disappoints those who admire and respect Sarmiento.
Sarmiento is intelligent enough to look at Santa Ana objectively – in private- and admit that something doesn’t square out.
“Your seat is safe for the next eight years, Vince-
run for Mayor!!!!!!!” Mrs. Sarmiento, who’s the boss in your house-PUSH HIM!
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY… Just In Time
America is a land that takes in the uneducated and poor and gives them a life, not just an existence.
It is a lack of class to salute a country who’s people are in exile from their friends and family because they had no choice but to leave to feed their family..
“Would you say the same goes for non-American’s in regards to our nation and our flag?”
MQ says
It is an honor to salute a country who’s people not only give more than any other nation, but are willing to die in another nation so they might just experience what they have.
You Sean neither appreciate what you have, and i am guessing you would rather salute a country who’s people are victimized by their government than the flag of your own country!
You and your like are the reason the Mexican government will continue to victimize their people!
“America is a land that takes in the uneducated”
You are definately living proof of that statement Ms. Quinn.
Bottom line- both candidates share their heritage in common- one being a native of Mexico in spite of his Wikipedia cover ( under the Santa Ana Wikipedia- seems like his own has now been editted, and both have been editted to reflect “Latino” rather than “Mexican”) LOL, and the other being a Mex-amer. man who wants to challenge the mayor because he has a right to do so. Now Pulido also has a right to improve with heartfelt repentance and ACTIONS- for disappointing those that yesterday offered their shoulders as a stepping stone for him, and today have the courage to tell him enough is enough- you haven’t been playing clean and straight with us!
In a nutshell,
Just in Time respects both candidates as humanbeings.
Do they fit my definition of what I’d like for Santa Ana-
The status quo speaks for itself- both have been involved and plainly speaking- this city needs new energy and new direction.
I am one of the many that hopes for change, but it all looks the same.
I wish Sarmiento were neutral on this race, I’d once again take off my hat for him. He and his wife are a good team. I wish they would sit down and make a conscientious decision to retract and remain neutral on this race. It does not help or hurt neither Amezcua nor Pulido. It only disappoints those who admire and respect Sarmiento.
Sarmiento is intelligent enough to look at Santa Ana objectively – in private- and admit that something doesn’t square out.
“Your seat is safe for the next eight years, Vince-
run for Mayor!!!!!!!” Mrs. Sarmiento, who’s the boss in your house-PUSH HIM!
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY… Just In Time
#20 Sean Mill,
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes i am Mr. Sean and the great thing is that i have a very good life- thanks to my work ethic, common sense and the American flag!
Being educated does not = intelligence and your living proof of that Mr.Sean..But i suppose we can not all be great -don’t worry though, you don’t live in Mexico you live in the greatest country in the world and you too can make it!
🙂