Aiding and comforting

David Warren, of Real Clear Politics, writes a piece called 'Doing the Enemy's Work' about the bizarre story of two Fox journalists, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, who were captured and released after their conversion, on videotape, to Islam.

Doing the Enemy's Work

The case of the two Fox News journalists, held hostage in Gaza, is worth dwelling upon. They were released after their captors had made tapes of them dressed as Arabs and announcing they had changed their names and converted to Islam.

Lately I have been looking at the large -- at how the West is proving unable to cope with a threat from a fanatical Islamic movement, that it ought to be able to snuff out with fair ease. But the large is often most visible in the small.

The degree to which our starch is awash is exhibited in the behaviour of so many of our captives, but especially in these two. They were told to convert to Islam under implicit threat (blindfolded and hand-tied, they could not judge what threat), and agreed to make the propaganda broadcasts to guarantee their own safety. That much we can understand, as conventional cowardice. (Understand; not forgive.) But it is obvious from their later statements that they never thought twice; that they could see nothing wrong in serving the enemy, so long as it meant they'd be safe.''

Warren writes about the Italian hostage Fabrizio Quattrocchi, who bravely refused to do his Moslem captors' bidding, and instead, died defiantly, saying 'This is how an Italian dies!' The Moslems who killed him hoped that they could display his humiliation and death to the infidel world, and thus demoralize and terrorize us. Quattrochi deprived them of that opportunity; his death might inspire other Westerners to defy the jihadists. The surviving Italian hostages, who let themselves be degraded and obeyed their captors' commands, inspired no one, in my opinion. While yes, we can understand their desire to survive, is their subservient behavior a good portent for the West's chances in the struggle against Islam? Do we want neighbors and 'leaders' who will fold like cheap tents in the face of Mohammedan threats, just for the sake of physical survival?

There's an oft-quoted saying which is often repeated among Americans. The source is unknown, but the proverb says 'Better to die on your feet than live on your knees' . Our forefathers must certainly have believed that saying, because many of them gave their lives rather than betray their faith, their principles, their country, or their countrymen. Many more were willing to risk their lives and endure terrible hardships and tortures for what they believed in and loved, for their homes, their families, and for their honor.

But how many today have that kind of courage and integrity? Judging by the actions of the Fox journalists, and the public responses to the story, apparently not many. Now it could be said that the Fox newsmen are not typical; after all, most media people are leftist ideologues; many of them are sympathizers with Islam and especially with the 'palestinian people' and cause. Maybe Wiig and Centanni are typical only of journalists, not of Westerners in general. I would accept that, if only the response to this story were not so cynical.

Many of the comments I've encountered on this story were along the lines, of 'oh well, they just did what we all would do if we had a gun to our heads', or 'I would do the same; you gotta do what you gotta do to stay alive'. Anyone who differed with these cynics was answered with phrases like 'anybody who says they would die is lying' or 'you don't know what you would do in their place; stop judging those guys.'
As always, being 'judgmental' is the ultimate crime in our morally flaccid, relativistic society.

Many of the people who defend the 'conversion to Islam' are people who seem to believe that there is no real right or wrong in a situation like this: whatever one needs to do to survive is A-OK. Even converting to a vile cult that wants to destroy or enslave us would be all right, because it would just be a ploy to survive. 'You could just say the words, you wouldn't have to mean what you said.' So, if Centanni and Wiig had their fingers crossed when they 'converted' to Islam then it doesn't count.

I've even heard Christians say that 'God will understand if I had to convert in order to live; he knows I wouldn't mean it.' This kind of thinking from a Christian just stuns me. I expect cynical pragmatism, the mantra of 'whatever works', from an atheist or a liberal or a nihilist, but from a Christian? I suppose in the minds of these 'Christians', the martyrs of old, including the apostles, were fools because they wouldn't just 'say a few words' and pretend to convert to save their lives.

Quite a few Americans, whether they are familiar with their genealogy or not, are descendants of French Huguenots. This is especially true of many Southern families, who have some Huguenot ancestors mixed among their otherwise Anglo-Celtic forebears. Our Huguenot forefathers were driven out of France, where many of them were martyred for their Protestant faith. Even when they came seeking freedom of worship in the New World, some met with death, as in the story of La Caroline, in Florida, where the Spanish beheaded hundreds of Huguenots who would not recant their faith. Jean Ribault, who was the leader of the ill-fated colony, was asked to recant his faith and was slain after saying he would not. Now if Ribault and the other victims had just said 'a few words' -- after all, they didn't have to mean it -- they could have lived, but they were 'fools'.
Such is the thinking of many of today's Westerners.

For a sobering reminder of the difference between today's postmodern Westerners, consider this piece by James S. Robbins, describing Fabrizio Quattrocchi, alongside some examples of bravery in our American past, such as William Logan Crittenden, executed in Havana in 1851.

Crittenden was a West Point graduate, a soldier. Granted, we don't expect journalists to behave with the bravery and discipline of a soldier, but then again, Fabrizio Quattrocchi was 'just' a baker, who was in Iraq as a security guard. Yet he showed extraordinary courage in the face of death.

Many 'conservatives' love to sneer at the French, calling them 'surrender monkeys', but the fact is, we have not a few of those in our country too: the people who believe that saving one's neck is the highest good, even if it means selling out one's principles, sacrificing one's honor, or collaborating with a sworn enemy. Defenders of the journalists (whose journalistic integrity and objectivity are now compromised hopelessly, by the way) will say I am condemning them. I am condemning, rather, the mindset that says there is nothing worth fighting for and yes, even dying for, as Jean Ribault did back in 16th century Florida, and as Fabrizio Quattrocchi did in our time. To the extent that we abandon this stoic attitude, we are easy prey for the jihadists.


David Warren is right: there are willing accomplices of the jihadists: the effete, jaded types who have nothing which they are willing to fight to defend, and nothing they treasure enough to die for.
Is it cowardice? Nihilism? Apathy? Sloth? Loss of faith in God, and in ourselves?

Winston Churchill said, in writing about his own country,

If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told.'

More about Maywood

Here's one more commentary on the Maywood melee, which the MSM have persisted in ignoring, for the most part.
This piece, by 'Mark Andrew Dwyer', quotes a letter from one of the women who was assaulted by the Raza rioters at Maywood.

In some of the internet discussions of this story, I've seen some righteous anger and outrage, but there are, amazingly, still some people who consider the angry comments to be overreaction. 'It's just one incident; these kinds of things happen every day; it's just a lot of rhetoric and tempers flaring.'

This latter kind of response is baffling to me. There are signs aplenty that the Mexican invaders are serious about making this country theirs, and they are quite open in their hostility to us 'gringos' and 'pilgrims' and gavachos.
And yes, I know what the 'nice' people's response to this is: 'It's just a few troublemakers, and every group has those. Most of the Hispanic people I know are hard-working, friendly and church-going.'

Where have we heard this line of thinking before? It does sound strangely familiar. Oh yes, it's just another variation on the old 'moderate Muslim' script. After 9/11 when there was a lot of anger and suspicion expressed towards Moslems, the same 'nice' people said 'Let's not stereotype others; after all, I have Muslim neighbors (or coworkers, or students, or classmates) and they are the nicest, warmest people I know. Most Muslims are not fanatics, it's only a few troublemakers who are causing the problems; just a small minority of extremists.' So, even now, too many Americans are content to tell themselves, and be told by their lying media, that this is the case; the world is full of good neighbors, with just a few bad apples, so let's not be 'negative' and assume the worst.
Meanwhile, the 'Reconquista' proceeds apace, with only a few people, like those in Maywood to raise their voices against it. And Islam continues to work its insidious plans throughout the Western world, aided and abetted by all the 'positive thinking' people in the West.
But some of us are not going gentle into that good night; there might be hope that some of the somnabulists will wake up before it's too late.

Maywood melee

More on Maywood, in this article by Bridget Johnson in the LA Daily News.
Something's wrong with immigration protests

This article is quite a contrast to the standard pro-illegal screeds found in the LA Times.
Johnson writes:

I had gotten wind of a socialist organization calling people out for the demonstration, hence showed up to find the counter-protest to be an eclectic mix of white guys in Che T-shirts and Latinos - wearing shirts ordering people to not call them Latino or Hispanic (too European), but Mexican - denouncing white people.
And if immigration proponents have been trying to pass off reconquista claims - the belief that immigrants want to take back "Aztlan" - as paranoid, these protesters weren't helping. One sign proclaimed "Stolen continent" - yet displayed two continents, North and South America. "White racists this is our continent" read one sign. Another said, "We will never live in peace until we get the European squatters off our lands."

This is as fair an article as you are likely to get in our hopelessly compromised and hostile 'mainstream media,' especially from a paper within 'Los Angeles, Mexico.' But even Bridget Johnson's writing veers perilously close to 'moral equivalency' language, as in this passage:

And if what I witnessed is what the immigration debate has come down to, it's nothing less than vicious and hate-filled. This is where intelligent discourse flies out the window, and people start drawing territorial lines within communities.''

But she does point a finger at the pro-illegal mobs:

Maywood, regardless of its demographics, is still within the United States of America, and still falls under the laws of this country. Lobby against those laws if you feel they're unfair; that's the beauty of our system.

But when you have virulent protests that include a pre-teen boy yelling "f- that white b-" at a passing fair-skinned woman - me - something is seriously wrong. Especially when it comes from the side holding a banner that proclaimed "Say NO to racism." '

Johnson could have made it more explicit as to which side was fomenting the vitriol and hate: the pro-illegal, leftist protesters. When she refers to the contingents only as 'protesters' (the Save Our State contingent) and 'counter-protesters,' (the pro-illegal mob) it may be confusing to the casual reader who is not clear on who is who in this little clash. But in all, as I said, this is the most honesty that can be hoped for.

Now how much clearer can it be to the pollyannas and the multicultural utopians and the 'can't-we-all-just-get-along' crowd? This conflict is escalating, and there's no wishing it away.

The mainstream media will keep on minimizing these stories, because the facts can't easily fit into the PC template. They can't avoid covering it forever, although there has been very little media attention paid to this incident. There will be more such clashes to come, if not in Maywood then in other places: maybe Farmers Branch, Texas, Riverside, New Jersey, Hazleton, Pennsylvania -- or Yourtown, Mytown, Everytown, and in middle America, not just in the border states.
Now will our media cover it, spin it, lie about it, or just ignore it?
Whatever they do, we, the people, can't ignore it; it's in our backyard, soon to be at our doorstep.

Our Towns, revisited: Maywood and Farmer's Branch

Won't you be my neighbor?

- Fred Rogers

Here is one story, from the Los Angeles Times, about a recent skirmish in our new Mexican-American war:

Give the devil his due: the Los Angeles Times is usually openly leftist and pro-illegal immigrant, but this article was not as nakedly biased as most of their 'journalistic' efforts.
The protest in Maywood revolves around the city's de facto sanctuary policy, in which city officials refuse to enforce immigration laws, giving free rein to illegal immigrants.

Maywood has an official population of 28,000. But local officeholders say that about 45,000 people live there when illegal immigrants are fully counted."

Protesters from the Save Our State group were confronted by counter-protesters, about 200 of them to the SOS group's 'few dozen' marchers. Police failed to arrest anyone,even though the counter-protesters' behavior crossed the line, and during the course of the event. a Mexican flag was hoisted over the Maywood post office, after the American flag was pulled down and disrespected.

This thread, from the Save Our State forums, contains some first-person accounts of what happened.
(Warning: the thread may load slowly, due to large graphics)

And here is Lonewacko's account of the Maywood incident and the coverage thereof, as well as FreedomFolks

Some of the signs seen in the photos of the protest: the predictable 'This is our continent, not yours', which has been appearing since the April invaders' riots across our country, and a 'new' one,with an old and familiar message 'Workers of the world, Unite' with the Spanish translation. 'Obreros del mundo unidos.' (Actually I think the translation is a less than accurate one, reading something like 'workers of the world, united' Rather than ending with the exhortation, 'unite!' But no matter; the illegals it was aimed at are likely illiterate anyway.)

Here is a video of the protest via CNN's Lou Dobbs show.
Here's what jumps out at me: the two Hispanic people, the woman who says she is there 'supporting our Hispanic culture and heritage' and the man who says European 'racists' should go back to Europe where'they will be happier and better off' -- these people are American citizens. I would bet money on that.
At one point, the SOS contingent says to the pro-invader mob: 'leave and come back legally' or similar words. The reconquista mob shouts back 'we are legal.' Well, guess what, many of them probably are. Judging by the colloquial English they were speaking, they are likely American-born, and certainly American-bred. So can we please stop deluding ourselves that most Hispanics who are born here are really all red-white-and-blue Yanqui-doodle-dandies who oppose illegal immigration 'just as much as the rest of us do'? Folks, that is a PC urban legend. I would not bet my life savings on that being true. I say this not out of 'bigotry' but based on real-life experience. Maybe in the past this statement was true; I grew up alongside Mexicans in Texas, as did 5 generations of my family. But times have changed. When this country truly does reach a demographic point of no return (and it may already have reached that point) can we be certain that American-born Hispanics will side with us, or will they side with their hermanos from south of what used to be the Border? I think there will be a lot of vacillating there. I'm a believer that blood is thicker than water, and certainly thicker than this vague American 'creed' that the multicultists claim 'makes us American.'

Meanwhile, on another front in the new Mexican-American war, this time in Farmers Branch Texas:
This news story says that the Hispanic leftist group LULAC is buying up homes in the town of Farmers Branch so as to establish more Mexican families there.
A spokesman for LULAC says

We are going to motivate people to move into Farmers Branch because we cannot afford to let anyone scare us out of any city."
[...]Members of LULAC and the Latino Real Estate and Mortgage Professionals are joining together to encourage Hispanic home ownership in the city. They want to sell the available homes to Hispanic families -- including council member O'Hare's home.

And true to form, a local American resident parrots the PC mantra: 'They're good neighbors, we're good neighbors.' The woman who said this obviously grew up watching Mister Rogers, and forms her worldview based on his philosophy: won't you be my neighbor?
But this looks like another 'Riverside' story: remember the recent clash in Riverside, NJ, where the Hispanic boast was 'Riverside is going to be ours'?
But Hector Flores of LULAC has no neighborly words for the 'Anglo' enemy in Farmers Branch.

Farmers Branch now is going to be a city of hate,'' he said. ''I’m sure the Statue of Liberty must be crying right now, knowing some of our subjects in this great democracy of ours are conjuring up to make life more miserable for those who are here trying to eke out a living, contributing to our great country through their sweat and tears, only looking for what our forefathers were looking for when they came here.''

I would also bet my last dollar that Hector Flores is an American-born citizen, and judging by his rhetoric ('our forefathers') his family has possibly been in Texas for a couple of generations or more. Yet his allegiance is to his 'raza', his 'gente', and the Anglo [sic] is the enemy, like the two pro-illegal demonstrators who spoke to the news crews at the Maywood protest.

We Americans have got to face the hard realities: there are many legal Hispanic immigrants and American-born Hispanic citizens who are NOT on our side. So we have the brainwashed European-Americans, our ethnic brothers and sisters, who hate America; these people are always a contingent at all these pro-illegal demos. And in the April-May cycle of protests, we saw immigrants from many countries (some illegal and some not) marching in support of the Mexican illegals, demanding 'rights' for their ethnicity and people. Meanwhile, we American of the unhyphenated tribe console ourselves with PC fairytales like: 'most Hispanic Americans are on our side' and 'it's only the illegals who are the problem; I have no problem with the legal immigrants, no matter where they come from.'

Please: can we think about that last one? Remember the moment in the video when the mob of Mexican protesters surrounded the white man, jeering 'huero!' or whatever. If all of those people were legal, with the blessing of our government, do they belong in our country? Are they good for America? Is this the America we want for our descendants, to live their lives surrounded, as that man was, by hostile invaders? If so, then let's just keep on doing just what we are doing: let's continue to imagine that we only need to write more strongly-worded letters to our congressmen or sign more petitions, or that we just need to have more understanding and build more bridges and befriend our enemies. And let's just pretend that 'illegal immigration' is the only problem, not mass immigration per se.
Let's go on believing that 'they are just hard-working people who want a better life', or that 'this is a nation of immigrants after all', and that 'at least the Mexicans are good Christians, not Muslims' and that 'everybody assimilates eventually'.
Let's go on thinking that it's more important to fight each other, to try to be more politically correct than the next guy, more careful, more sensitive, so that the enemy will stop calling us 'racists' and vigilantes. Let's keep on imagining that PC purity is the be-all and the end-all; let's hold onto the myth that if we mince our words carefully and avoid offending, then they will stop calling us the 'r-word.'
Like the nice lady in Farmers Branch, with her 'we're good neighbors, they're good neighbors' mantra, we are at a huge disadvantage against our Reconquista adversaries.

But if we want to keep America, we have to acknowledge cold, hard reality; we have to recognize that the need to take off the gloves, enforce our laws, stand our ground, and stop being hobbled by our desire to be nice guys, good neighbors, inoffensive all-tolerant paragons of PC virtue. Nice guys, as a famous American Leo Durocher once said, finish last.
The Reconquista crowd, as we are seeing time and again, have no intention of being 'nice guys'.

American Idolatry

This piece by the columnist 'Spengler' came to my attention today. I had an immediate and strong reaction to it: his observations come across as condescending, arrogant, and ignorant.

Who is this guy, Spengler, anyway? Here is a thread from Gene Expression which asks that question.
Whoever he is, my impression is that, first, he is (contrary to some of the posters in the above thread) not American, given his lack of knowledge of real America, and, second, he considers himself the intellectual, with the usual contempt for the hoi polloi.

Most of us Americans, that is, red-state true Americans, have a natural aversion to that type, so I admit to having a bias there.

So, I read a few more columns by Spengler, on the subject of America, in which he opines and pontificates about us.

But the latest column, 'American Idolatry' was the most obnoxious, from my perspective.
Spengler, up on his high horse (which is his usual perch, by the way) denounces American popular culture as a 'culture of resentment'; he says that Americans shun 'high culture' and elevate mediocrity. He implies that we choose and prefer dumbed-down entertainment like country music, which he disparages as self-pity and dismisses country folk as complaining losers, unworthy of their depiction in 'high art' like Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.

Some country-music fanciers no doubt will find this callous, and I want to disclose that I do not care one way or another whether their wife left them, their dog died, or their truck broke down.

And Spengler reserves special scorn and ridicule for Hank Williams, which further diminishes his opinions, for me at least.

Oddly, Spengler seems to imply that rock music is a degraded offspring of what he considers trashy country music. I say this is odd, because he seems to revere black music (singling out black gospel music as a great art form) but doesn't see rock music as black-derived as most critics insist. But I agree with him; rock has its roots in country music much more than black music.
Still, Spengler's distaste for poor country folks just drips from his writing.

He bemoans the fact that, as he sees it, Americans have rejected authority 'from on high'; they prefer music made in their own self-image instead of the sublime works like Handel's 'Messiah'. He cites this rebellion as tantamount to the rebellion of Adam and Eve, and other such primal sins. I call this a rather bathetic bit of hyperbole, myself, comparing a preference for country music to the fall of Man in Eden.
And incidentally, Spengler, that 'African-American' spiritual music you adore so much is said to have its origins in Scotland, according to this article from last year.

Spengler is fond of saying that American culture is an oxymoron, and he further says in this piece that Americans not only can't laugh at our own culture, but we in fact have no culture, no collective character, no defining traits.
He goes on at some length, to support this idea of America as simply a Babel of conflicting and disparate cultures, by mentioning many writers such as Saul Bellow, Gertrude Stein, et al, as exemplars of the 'melting pot' ethos in America. He quotes Stein's famous line about Oakland, California: 'There's no there there', and says this phrase describes America. If there is, truly, no 'there' there, it's because there is and has been an all-out assault on our heritage, our traditions, and our national character. What better way to dismantle a country than to introduce millions upon millions of strangers from utterly alien cultures, who have contempt for our history and at best, indifference to our way of life, or who in fact want to transform this country into a replica of their foundering homelands?

So sadly, there is some truth in what he is saying. America is losing the qualities which made it recognizably American. As one of the dwindling number who still holds to traditional America, America as it was before the cultural Marxists and the melting-pot ideologues and the revisionist 'historians' from the Ministry of Truth had their way, it pains me to say that there is a grain of truth to what he is saying.
Too many of our younger generations, those who have no first-hand knowledge of America in the B.P.C (before Political Correctness) era, believe that America is just this characterless crazyquilt, made up of many clashing, dissonant bits and pieces of secondhand cultures. Just check the comments by this blogger, in response to Spengler's article:

The US is anything but homogeneous: we are the natural home of every race, ethnic group and religion on the face of the earth, so we embody not just a few but every cultural trait. We're kinda like the first citizens of the world, so to speak.''

Sad. Sad, sad. What would our Founding Fathers say to such assertions? Did our forefathers struggle to create this country, to establish it, and did our dads and grandfathers fight WWII so that America can be the 'home of every race, ethnic group, and religion on the face of the earth?' I guarantee you, they did not. They risked their lives, and many lost their lives, to preserve this land as the country they grew up in and loved, an America which was not 'all things to all people' but an America with a distinctive English-speaking culture. Our Founding Fathers created this country for themselves and their posterity. Some Americans don't seem to know what 'posterity' means. It does not mean everybody in the world.

So thanks to those who have spread the idea that this nation is everybody's and nobody's, just a multicultural gumbo with no dominant flavor, just a derelict old house to be inhabited by squatters, America is losing the distinctiveness it once had. In fact, if Spengler ever gets around enough to visit all the Western countries, he will see the same process at work. Is England still English? I understand it's Politically Incorrect to be English now, because it isn't 'inclusive' enough; after all, it's absurd to think that a Pakistani can ever become 'English'; an Englishman is white and European, after all.

I have not been to London in some years, and from what I have heard, I would not want to return; the old London is no more, apparently. I hear that Ireland is changing too, via immigration from the Third World. And everywhere this process is happening, the national identity is under assault. To preserve traditional European cultures is being made a 'hate crime' it seems. Where is Spengler on all this? This is the real war that is going on, not that sideshow in the Middle East. The real war is within Western countries, and the first casualty is our national identity and our traditions.
And in the name of 'multiculturalism' and 'inclusion' and non-offense, we will be deprived of our freedom of speech and freedom of the press and freedom of association.

So yes, Spengler is in a sense right, hence my choice of the name 'vanishing American.'

Once upon a time, though, back at the inception of our country, there was no doubt that there was a distinct American character. See Edmund Burke's comments in a speech he made in 1775:

In the American character, a love of freedom is the predominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole.
'This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the English colonies [of America] than in any other people of the earth.'

So Spengler, in decrying the American rejection of 'authority' is acknowledging the same distinguishing trait noted by Burke some 231 years ago, when this country was an English colony.

But as so many disparate groups of people, with differing traits and traditions were introduced into our country, this national identity began to dissolve. The 'melting pot' has done its corrosive work on the American character. Less and less are we collectively displaying the traits that so distinguished our colonist ancestors. Maybe that is partly because so few of us in America today are in fact of the same blood as those doughty colonists. And for many that old-stock heritage has been attenuated by many generations of admixture with differing people. We are in a sense not the people we were back in 1775.
Despite what the Politically Correct wishful thinkers say, there is a genetic component to character, personality, and temperament. We are decidedly not 'blank slates' which can take on, chameleon-like, the color of our surroundings. We are our fathers' children.
And if there is any hope for reversing the destruction of our country, I think it will be up to us, the descendants of the original old-stock Americans, the sons and daughters of those Englishmen with their fierce spirit of liberty, to turn the tide. The mettle of our ancestors, and their love for liberty, was tried and proven through the centuries, and it's up to us to pick up where they left off.
If that's not diverse and inclusive enough, so be it.

Guard the Borders Blogburst 8/28/06

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.
-Arnold Toynbee

Wide open and unguarded stand our gates, and through them passes a wild motley throng.
-Thomas Bailey Aldrich, ''Unguarded Gates,'' 1895

You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups. America does not consist of groups. A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American.
-Woodrow Wilson, Address to New Citizens, 1915

Those who favor unrestricted immigration care nothing for the people.
-Sam Gompers, founding president, AFL, 1921

Why was the border guard so thin? Did the Romans not notice…that their way of life was changing forever?
-Thomas Cahill, 1995

No society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many are poor and unskilled.
-Robert Samuelson, economist and Newsweek columnist, 2005

We can’t protect our own borders.
-Donald Rumsfeld, November 29, 2005

*******

The following excerpts are all from a new book, State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. Many people may not read it because of the political baggage of the author, but I’ve read the book, despite my disagreement with the author on other issues, and it is entirely right on the money when it comes to the invasion of our country by foreigners. It occurred to me that many people may miss out on the common sense found within its pages so I’m excerpting a little bit of it here for those who may never read the words otherwise.

On November 28, 2005, President Bush, speaking in Tucson, conceded that in five years 4.5 million aliens had been caught attempting to break into the United States. Among that 4.5 million, Bush admitted, were "more than 350,000 with criminal records." One in every twelve illegal aliens the U.S. Border Patrol had apprehended was a criminal.

That is 70,000 felons apprehended each year, 200 felons every single day for five years, trying to break into our country to rob, rape, and murder Americans. Of the millions who succeeded on Bush’s watch, how many came for just such purposes? How many Americans have been robbed, assaulted, or murdered because the President failed in his duty to defend the borders of the United States?

Nearly 8 million foreigners did enter during those five years, 3.7 million of them illegally. If one in twelve was a criminal, 300,000 felons slipped in during Bush’s tenure. This is an historic dereliction of presidential duty.

There are today 36 million foreign-born in the United States, almost three times as many people as the 13.5 million hear at the peak of the Great Wave in 1910. And it is among these tens of millions of foreign-born that illegal aliens find sanctuary. As James Edwards of the Hudson Institute writes, legal and illegal immigration are two sides of the same coin. If we fail to control the one, we cannot control the other. As a rule, he notes, when legal immigration rises, illegal immigration soars.
[…]
Our foreign-born population today is almost equal to the 42 million who came over three and a half centuries from 1607 to 19965. The Border Patrol catches as many illegal immigrants every month as all the legal immigrants who came to America in the 1820s. Today’s numbers are of a different order of magnitude.

No nation has ever attempted to assimilate 36 million foreigners in a generation. Yet, each year, 1.5 million more are added to the number, half of the illegals, 90 percent of them from Third World countries whose people have never before been assimilated into our population.
[…]
''The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities,'' said Theodore Roosevelt. We are becoming what T.R. warned against: a multi-lingual, multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural Tower of Babel. To the delight of anti-Americans everywhere and the indifference of our elites, we are risking the Balkanization and breakup of the nation.
[…]
How many spies and saboteurs have been sent into our country as sleeper agents? How many Al Qaeda are here awaiting orders to bomb subways and malls or assassinate our leaders? We have no idea. Neither does the Department of Homeland Security. Border security is homeland security. But America has lost control of her borders and, as Ronald Reagan said, a country that can’t control its borders isn’t really a country anymore.

In his address in Tucson, President Bush made a startling admission. For decades, he said, the United States has had a separate policy in dealing with non-Mexicans breaking in through the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, a policy of ''catch-and-release'': ''about four of every five non-Mexican illegal immigrants we catch are released in society and asked to return for a court date. When the date arrives, about 75% of those released don’t show up at court.* As a result, last year [2004], only 30,000 of the 160,000 non-Mexicans caught coming across our southwest border were sent home.''

''This practice of catch and release has been the government’s policy for decades,'' said Bush. ''It is an unwise policy and we’re going to end it.''

Is this not an astonishing admission? …How can the president say our homeland is secure?

Further on in his Tucson speech, Bush conceded that our government and laws have been frozen in a pre-9/11 world:

Under current law, the federal government is required to release people caught crossing our border illegally if their home countries do not take them back in a set period of times…Those we were forced to release have included murderess, rapists, child molesters, and other violent criminals.

''This undermines our border security'' and the work ''these good folks'' of the Borders are doing, added the president.

Again, is this not astounding? President Bush was talking about releasing ''murderers, rapists, child molesters, and other violent criminals'' into our society, because ''current law'' commands it and the nations whence the criminals come refuse to take them back.

The question begs itself: With Bush and his party in power, why had they not changed ''current law''? Why had President Bush not picked up a phone and told the leaders of these ''home countries'' that there will not be another visa issued to their country until they take back every one of their criminal felons who has broken into ours?

What is the matter with President Bush? What is the matter with us?

What explains the paralysis of the present White House?

George Bush has taken an oath to see to it that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. The immigration laws are clear. Businesses that hire illegal aliens break U.S. law and are subject to sanctions. Yet, as the columnist John O’Sullivan writes, ''in the Clinton years 1995, 1996, and 1997 there were between 10,000 and 18,000 work-site arrests of illegals annually. In the same years about 1,000 employers were served notices of fines for employing them. Under the Bush administration, work-site arrests fell to 159 in 2004 where there was also the princely total of three notices of intent to fine served on employers.''

''In this dramatic relaxation of internal enforcement'' under George W. Bush, O’Sullivan concludes, ''is the explanation of the rapidly rising estimate of immigrants living and working illegally in this country.''

Can anyone say that, with this record, President Bush has faithfully executed the immigration laws of the United States?

Twice, President Bush took an oath to ''preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Article IV, Section 4, reads: ''The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.''

Yet, with perhaps 4 million illegal aliens having broken in during Bush’s five and a half years in office, and our border states daily breached by thousands more, can anyone say President Bush has protected the states of this Union against that invasion? In an earlier America, this dereliction of constitutional duty would have called forth articles of impeachment.
[…]
America’s leaders claim she is the most powerful country on earth. But American has a government too morally flabby to act as decisively as Ike did** to remove from our national home those who have broken in and had no right to be here. How many America women must be assaulted, how many children molested, how many citizens must die at the hands of criminal aliens and foreign terrorists before our government does its duty?
[…]
If present projections of the U.S. Census Bureau prove accurate, the American our grandchildren will live in will be another country, a nation unrecognizable to our parents.

By 2050, it is now estimated that there will be almost 2.5 times as many people here as in 1960: 420 million. The share of the population of European descent will be a minority, as it is today in California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. And that minority will be aging, shrinking, and dying. There will be as many Hispanics here - 102 million - as there are Mexicans today in Mexico. …By 2050, they will be 24 percent of a nation of 420 million. By nation of origin of our people, America will be a Third World Country.

Our great cities will all look like Los Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of the Southwest will look like Juarez and Tijuana. Though we were never consulted about this transformation, never voted for it, and have protested against it in every poll and referendum, this is the future the elites have prepared for our children.

I'll close the excerpt with this warning:

This is not immigration as America knew it, when men and women made a conscious choice to turn their backs on their native lands and cross the ocean to become Americans. This is an invasion, the greatest invasion in history. Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened in so short a time.

Against the will of a vast majority of Americans, America is becoming transformed. As our elites nervously avert their gaze or welcome the invasion, we are witness to one of the great tragedies in human history. From Gibbon to Spengler to Toynbee and the Durants, the symptoms of a dying civilization are well known: the death of faith, the degeneration of morals, contempt for the old values, collapse of the culture, paralysis of the will. But the two certain signs that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted.

Here in America, the self-delusion about what is happening and the paralysis in the face of the crises have no precedent. What can be said for a man who would allow his home to be invaded by strangers who demanded they be fed, clothed, housed, and granted the rights of the firstborn? What can be said for a ruling elite that permits this to be done to the nation, and that celebrates it as a milestone of moral progress?

We are witnessing how nations perish. We are entered upon the final act of our civilization. The last scene is the destruction of the nations. The penultimate scene, now well underway, is the invasion unresisted.

_____________________________

*According to Congressional testimony on August 16th, the Border Patrol reported that actually only 90% of released illegals report back for their court date.

**In 1954, when Eisenhower discovered a million Mexicans here who did not belong, without apology he ordered them sent home in "Operation Wetback." They went.

__________________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It is syndicated by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration in our country, join the Blogburst! Send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

Conversion by coercion

Like most Americans, I was relieved and glad to hear that the Fox News journalists, Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, were released by their Moslem captors, albeit after they were shown in a videotape making a conversion to Islam.
But some aspects of this story are troubling. Now I suppose it's understandable that, at the point of a gun, someone might be willing to say whatever one is told to say, in hopes of staying alive. But it seems that Centanni's comments

I hope that this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover the story because the Palestinian people are very beautiful and kind hearted," Centanni told reporters. "The world needs to know more about them. Don't be discouraged."
[...]My biggest concern really is that as a result of what happened to us, foreign journalists will be discouraged from coming to tell the story and that would be a great tragedy for the people of Palestine," he said. "You guys need us on the streets, and you need people to be aware of the story."

seem a little much for someone who was coerced into a 'conversion to Islam. Yes, I know about 'Stockholm Syndrome' and about the psychological pressures hostages are subject to. I suppose I see these men as emblematic of all of us in the West. In a sense, since we have recklessly welcomed mass numbers of Mohammedans into our midst, and our leaders are insistent on their presence among us, we are all hostages to the Moslem terrorists. We have governments in the West which tell us, point-blank, that there WILL be terror attacks. They are in effect saying 'sorry, don't look to us for protection; it's too politically risky, you're on your own.' If these trends continue, as Moslems grow in numbers and in influence in the West, we will be under the sentence of conversion or death, as the Fox journos were. Will we have the strength to stand up, or will we meekly accept our defeat?

And it's worth remembering that the multicultural ideology, on which the Moslem presence in our countries depends, is also a belief system that requires coercion and force to prevail.
And it's worth remembering that no true belief system has to be forced on people, as liberalism and Islam do.

This just in: 'Islam poses a threat to the West'

Ya think?

In this article from the London Daily Telegraph, the obvious is acknowledged.

The alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners and last year's terrorist attacks on London have made more people fear Islam as a religion, not merely its extremist elements, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.

A growing number of people fear that the country faces "a Muslim problem" and more than half of the respondents to the YouGov survey said that Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy. That compares with less than a third after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America five years ago.

The findings were revealed as Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, conceded that the multi-culturalist approach encouraged by the Left for two decades had probably been a mistake and could have contributed to the alienation that many young Muslims said they felt and experienced.'

[...]Miss Kelly said that diversity had been "a huge asset" but she acknowledged that the wave of immigration, the highest in British history, had brought fresh challenges.

[..]After years when many on the Left have either shut down the debate on cultural diversity or sought to avoid it, Miss Kelly said, "We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues." [Italics mine]

Obviously Miss Kelly is part of the problem, I mean, anybody who can say diversity is 'a huge asset' with a straight face is delusional or a pathological liar.

How, exactly, is this 'diversity' I hear so much about a 'huge asset'? And while you're at it, tell me how, precisely (and I need specifics) diversity is supposedly 'our strength'? Out of all the people who have parroted that imbecilic phrase, I have never heard one of them specify how diversity strengthens us, or why it is such a boon to us that we sacrifice the lives of our citizens in order to create it. And diversity, however much we have of it, is never enough, it seems. There are always cries for 'more', no matter how much diversity we have had inflicted on us in the West. It appears, just as the famous saying 'you can never be too rich or too thin' also applies to diversity; you can never be too diverse.

Diversity is the reason why we are balkanized and fragmented in the West; the reason why we have countless squabbling ethnic/racial/religious groups, all of them with a grievance and a grudge against the majority, all of them victims, all with chips on their shoulders, all with a list of demands on the rest of us. All of them require special concessions and special 'outreach programs' which cost money (taxpayers' money, of course) and all of them are ultra-sensitive and must be handled with kid gloves.

As a result of all this enriching, strengthening diversity, Western countries are instituting coercive laws to ensure that nobody is offended, slurred, discriminated against, or disrespected. People like Miss Rita Kelly are appointed to positions like Communities Secretary to cater to and make obeisance to the 'diverse communities', and to properly indoctrinate the recalcitrant majority who stubbornly refuse to get with the PC program. And when Miss Kelly says disingenuously ''We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues.'' -- surely she does not expect to be believed. Of course there is not and cannot be anything resembling honest discussion, which is not censored by Political Correctness, either in the UK or here in America. Any discussion or 'debate' which is allowed in our countries is heavily censored and rigged in favor of the 'victim' groups, and the Moslems are skilled at making themselves out to be victims, even as they commit terror acts the world over.

And because of our seeming insatiable need for 'diversity' and all its enrichments, we allow millions of these Mohammedans, an unknown number of whom are estimated to be members of terrorist 'sleeper' cells and jihad movements, to enter our countries and live among us. To question their presence is heresy. So on and on it goes; the recent spate of terror scares on several airlines illustrate the madness of our policies, and yet no one in authority dares criticize the presence of the Mohammedans among us. Granted, our politicians are now widely regarded as sellouts and traitors by many of their constituents; we have very low expectations of them. And even most of the more 'conservative' pundits will not even hint at the possibility of removing Moslems from our midst. What will it take to break the PC spell?

One of the few commentators who has consistently been saying that we need to curb Moslem immigration and repatriate some of them is Lawrence Auster, and he says this again in a recent post, dealing with the recent terror scares:

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: this is our future, FOREVER, so long as significant numbers of Muslims reside and travel freely in the West.

Look at it this way. Would Charles Martel, after defeating the Arab-Moorish army at the battle of Tours and then driving it forever out of Gaul at the battle of Narbonne a few years later, have then commenced admitting “peaceful” and “moderate” Muslim immigrants and tourists into Gaul? We say we’re waging a war against a certain group, but never question the mass presence of that group among us.

And again, another voice of truth in the blogosphere is the redoubtable Fjordman, writing from Norway.
Here is a sample of Fjordman's comments, in his recent lengthy essay:

In Norway, it is probably unprecedented in the thousand years since the city of Oslo was founded at the end of the Viking Age that the indigenous population is being attacked on such a large and random scale. And the government is doing… well, pretty much nothing really, except for hiding the problem as much as possible and continuing Muslim immigration. This isn't good enough.

We are tired of hearing nonsense about "Islamophobia" while our children live in fear of Islamic terrorism. The purpose of the state is to uphold law and order and maintain the nation's borders and territorial integrity. Western European governments are doing neither, yet are busy with political censorship and interfering with details of our private lives where they have no business. It's time they are reminded that they are our servants, not our rulers.

Time for a few brave souls to step up and speak the unspeakable: maybe when enough people break the taboo, the timid among us, who need 'permission' to think and say these things, will find their voice.
But as I always say, time is short. The clock is running.

Survival of the Fittest?

OK.
I've refrained from commenting on this story, firstly because I do not watch these reality shows. I generally avoid most mass popular culture. It has nothing to say to me, and most of today's 'entertainment' is too full of heavy-handed PC propaganda and badly-hidden 'messages.'
Add to that the generally crass and crude nature of virtually everything on primetime TV, and that's my incentive to shun it like the plague.
But there's no escaping this story; it's being discussed everywhere.
NYC officials want to stop segregated 'Survivor'
This AP article describes the effort by a group of New York City elected officials, mostly from various minority caucuses, to stop CBS' planned upcoming season of the 'Survivor' series. They object to the series because they see it as racially divisive. The scenario includes the dividing of the participants into four teams, based on race: Asian, black, Latino, and white.

Of course, per the AP article, CBS is defending its idea. I am sure part of the plan was to gin up a lot of controversy; as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. All publicity is good, and controversy is a big draw. So I am sure there was an intent to get people stirred up and to get the buzz started. So far, so good; they've succeeded.

I don't doubt that people will flock to the series, if it goes on as planned.
But I don't see what the brouhaha is all about. The fact is, this 'race vs. race, ethnicity vs. ethnicity' theme is just a microcosm of our Western society. The very same people who are clamoring to stop this show, the racial divisionmongers, are the ones who push racial and ethnic division every single day of their lives. For these ethnic elected officials, you can bet that they owe their position and influence and livelihood to fomenting and playing to racial division. They exploit it and milk it to the max. They live on it. It is their bread and butter. It is their oxygen. So why are they now wailing about 'promoting divisiveness'? If they were opposed to divisiveness, they would simply be Americans, and not people whose ethnicity is their whole purpose in living.

The fact is, as a society we are divided by race and ethnicity. Only we of the majority are forbidden to assert our own. We are browbeaten and scolded and admonished to be 'colorblind' and inclusive. We are told that 'race is a social construct', that 'it's just about skin color, and race is only skin deep.' Meanwhile, while we are busy being inclusive and diverse, everybody else is forming their own exclusive, non-diverse little ethnic societies. They can loudly assert their own self-interest with impunity, while we of the majority are not allowed that right. Any such self-interest displayed by the majority is 'racism' and hate and it's unfaaaair.

So if this series does go ahead as planned (and I suspect it will), be sure that the same rules will apply there, as in the larger world: the 'underdog' minorities will be allowed to practice naked ethnic aggression and will be accorded privilege, while the 'heavies', the white participants, will have to constantly prove their 'fairness' and lack of racism.

Be sure it will turn into a PC morality play, just like all our 'entertainment' these days.
Now if we could have an honest competition, gloves off, let the best man win, with no 'affirmative action' preferences or concessions made, I would be all for it.
Only if it truly was 'survival of the fittest' would it be worth watching.
But that would never be allowed in our PC-controlled media.

'Prophets Without Honor'

'A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.' Mark 6:4

In this article, 'Prophets Without Honor' Pat Buchanan writes about two prophetic voices who, several decades ago, foresaw mass immigration from the Third World into the West, and warned about it.

The first was British statesman Enoch Powell, with his famous (or infamous, depending on your political orientation) speech:

Powell warned that if stern action were not taken to stem the tide, by 2000, 5 million to 7 million Third World people would be there.

"It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre," Powell thundered. Then he spoke the words that ended his brilliant career: "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'"

As Buchanan notes, Powell's speech spelled an end to his political career; his party called his speech 'racialist' and 'liable to exacerbate racial tensions.'

But as events of recent years have shown, Powell was accurate in his misgivings about the mass influx of Third Worlders to the UK. Buchanan then writes about French author Jean Raspail, who wrote 'Camp of the Saints', which told the story of the 'Last Chance Armada', a ragtag fleet which brought masses of Third World beggars to Europe. Predictably, the book was controversial, and denounced by the usual suspects as 'racist', but no one can deny that it was eerily prophetic.

Of course, Buchanan is writing this piece to plug his book, 'State of Emergency', but he asks at the end of the piece, pointedly, whether these two men, Powell and Raspail. were false prophets, or simply 'prophets without honor' in their own countries?

The answer is obvious except to the willfully blind: recent events have proven both men right; there is no doubt that the West of today is drastically changed in the days since Powell made his fateful speech and Raspail wrote his 'fictional' story. And recent news stories, such as the terror plot uncovered in England, as well as the 7/7 bombings, the French riots, and the Van Gogh murder in Holland, have borne out Powell's warnings about bloodshed. But even those events have not been sufficient to convince some people, especially the ideologically blinded among us, that the demographic tidal wave is destructive to the West. Amazingly there are still diehards who will not acknowledge the truth of what Buchanan is saying. People who echo Buchanan's warnings in Europe are subject to prosecution under leftist 'hate speech' laws. Bloggers in many EU countries are subject to harassment and surveillance for their Politically Incorrect views.

So it's evident that Powell and Raspail were far from being false prophets. And what about Pat Buchanan himself?

As I posted recently, I laud Buchanan for speaking the truth and sounding the alarm, but I wonder if his message will be received as widely as it should be. Just check out the negative reactions in the blogosphere to his book. Just google his name, and you get epithets like 'hysterical' 'disgusting paleocon', Nazi', 'racist' and on and on. Yet the book is apparently selling well.

In reading many of the blogger comments on Buchanan, I notice that some of the 'respectable conservatives' are as vitriolic towards him as the lefties are. The mere mention of his name inspires bitter comments from many 'middle-of-the-road' establishment conservatives.
As I've said, I am no particular fan of Pat's but the reaction to him from certain quarters is over the top. I am at a loss to explain it, except to say that the 'respectable' conservatives, the country club set, the WSJ-type conservatives are really not conservative in any meaningful sense, and they feel embarrassed by the more populist, nativist conservatives, the ones who actually embody much of the older America. They are anxious lest any of their liberal friends and social set associate them with the rednecks and yahoos who actually believe in borders and traditions and all those déclassé ideas.

There are many self-described 'conservatives' in the Republican party who are engaged in a 'more-PC-than-thou' contest with the left-liberals, and who eagerly join in a kind of ritualistic denunciation of people like Buchanan and Tom Tancredo. There is an amazing amount of sycophantic Political Correctness in some segments of the GOP, and the party would do well to lose that attitude. Instead, it seems more likely that the party will fracture because the PC crowd within the GOP would love to purge the Tancredo wing. I suspect that the Mehlmans and the WSJ types will do all they can to alienate the 'nativist' element (which includes more Republicans than they are willing to admit) and will try to court the chimerical 'Hispanic vote' to make up for the unwashed rednecks they want to purge.

But there's no doubt that Pat Buchanan is a polarizing figure. Unfortunately his controversial image will prevent many of the 'respectables' from listening to his message. They prefer to jeer at 'Pitchfork Pat' and stop their ears rather than listen to what he is saying. Will this attitude change as our country slips further into demographic disaster, with the American populace being essentially overthrown? Time will tell, but even Powell and Raspail are not given their due except among the more awake and aware. The majority of people in America and in the rest of the besieged West still remain in a PC stupor.
Until that changes, Buchanan, like Powell and Raspail, will remain a 'prophet without honor in his own country and among his own kin.'

'Our Towns'

'Our Town' no more
Dimitri Vassilaros writes in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Illegal aliens are spreading throughout America after skipping across the border with Mexico. And because of that, every town in this republic could be a border town. Except in Hawaii.

[note: see this article; even Hawaii isn't exempt.Nor Alaska.]

And Vassilaros goes on:

The absolute lawlessness encouraged by President George W. Bush is the magnet that draws the illegal aliens. But what happens when a municipality is inundated with illegals? Tom Fitton is spreading the word that someday soon, every town could be Los Angeles."

Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch, a group which promotes the rule of law and fights government corruption. He and his group are attempting via a lawsuit of overturn Los Angeles's 'sanctuary' law, Special Rule 40, which makes it illegal for local law enforcement officials to inquire about the immigration status of individuals, and even forbids police officers to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Many municipalities have a similar rule protecting illegals.

According to this article

It cannot be denied that Special Order 40 and the policies, practices, and procedures arising thereunder violate both the letter and spirit of [federal law],'' Judicial Watch argued in a legal memorandum filed with the court on July 14. ''The LAPD has adopted what is in effect a 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' policy with respect to immigration status.''

Vassilaros points out in his Tribune-Review piece that just about any town in the United States might be a target in the invasion. There are countless stories out there of small towns being overwhelmed by a surge of illegals (and legal immigrants too, often 'refugees' transplanted there by do-gooder Church organizations, such as those who have imported Hmongs and Somalis, as in the case of Lewiston, Maine.)
Vassilaros' evocation of the 'Our Town' setting, which was the fictitious small town of Grover's Corners, NH, brings the further irony that the real-life counterpart of Grover's Corners is probably now being targeted by the 'diversity' pushers. This piece from the New Hampshire Bar Journal details the story of the settlement of thousands of refugees in New Hampshire in recent years.
Of course to the writers of this article, this is an unmixed good, with the following telling sentence:

Immigrants and refugees find an overall atmosphere of welcome and interest in diversifying what is nearly an all-white culture. [Emphasis mine]

Ah, here's the crux of it: New Hampshire is too white. Our rulers on high have decided that every area is to enjoy the wonderful benefits of 'diversity', especially the 'diversity' which is of Third World origin, and the more exotic and alien, the better. Homogeneity, bad; diversity, good.
White, bad; multiracial, good.
This article from 2001 describes the efforts of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack to 'diversify' Iowa. Now no doubt Vilsack was just carrying out the policies dictated from those faceless 'diversicrats' who seem to decide things behind closed doors, but nevertheless this kind of policy is an affront to American citizens. At the bottom of it is the unmistakable idea that Iowa as it existed was somehow deficient, as was 'nearly all-white' New Hampshire. Some of the arguments from the liberal diversicrats in Iowa described Iowa as 'sterile', apparently meaning too homogeneous. So traditional America is 'sterile' without a grab-bag of multicultural, multilingual 'diversity.'

There's little room for doubt that all this diversity-mongering is a deliberate policy to alter America forever, without the consent of the governed. without the consent of the American citizenry, And that is so profoundly un-American, because it is diametrically opposed to the principles set forth for this country in our founding documents. And still, too many of us are disengaged, passive, indifferent to what is happening to our country. A small number of others are very engaged -- in transforming our country, in marginalizing and neutralizing the American majority. Still, a few more are awakening to the danger, and getting irate enough to stand up and object to what is being done.

As Vassilaros' article points out, we are none of us immune from the effects of the nationwide transformation of our country. It used to be true that urban areas were most likely to be colonized by third-world immigrants, but now obviously small-town America is being transformed, too. This is tragic, because much of the best of American life belongs to the small towns.

The town of Hazelton, PA, for example, has recently been in the news for its 'Illegal Immigration Relief Act', which is a heroic effort to preserve the town against illegal invaders.

Hazelton and its mayor, Lou Barletta, have been under attack by the pro-open borders legions, with headlines calling them 'xenophobes' and the usual mindless insults. Kudos to Mayor Barletta for his efforts, and I hope he and the town of Hazelton continue to defend against the illegal onslaught. I think every time someone like Mayor Barletta and Tom Fitton and others make a stand against the destruction of our way of life, it encourages and emboldens others to do the same. We need this spirit to spread throughout the country.

It's easy to lose heart, when the MSM barrage us with pro-illegal, pro-open borders agitprop. It discourages us and promotes resignation and fatalism when only one side of the issue is allowed to be heard. And that, I think, is the purpose of much of the media coverage. But here and there, some hopeful signs break through.

Maybe the 'Our Town' atmosphere of Wilder's fictional Grover's Corners is gone forever; after all, it depicts a time and place which have been changed irrevocably, even without an invasion from the Third World. But the message of Wilder's play was timeless. I remember being very moved by it when I first saw it; the message was about the sweetness of the familiar; about living to the fullest the small moments, cherishing the people and the places and the mundane events of our everyday lives. It's about the preciousness of the things we often take for granted, or undervalue in this age: home, family, tradition, stability. All the things that our 'postmodern' world diminishes. Those of us who truly love our towns and our countries should be doing what we can to preserve what the good, to protect the uniqueness of the places we know and love, and to try to stave off the rapid changes which imperil everything familiar and comforting. Certainly no one who considers himself a patriotic American, much less a conservative, should acquiesce in the theft of our country and our heritage. If those of us who claim to be conservative fall asleep on our watch, and fail to protect all that is familiar and all that is home, who will preserve those things? It's up to us to hold onto the legacy passed on to us, before it is just a dim memory. Maybe our task is first to awaken the sleepwalkers among us, and help people to break free of the Politically Correct conditioning which is paralyzing or numbing so many of us. But the hour is late, and there's a lot to be done.

And we are the only ones to do it.

Guard the Borders Blogburst 8/21/06

***A podcast of this week's Blogburst is now available.***

By Heidi at Euphoric Reality

There are only a few hours left to have some impact on the case of two Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, who are being sentenced tomorrow for attempting to apprehend a drug smuggler who was fleeing across the border illegally. The charges against the Border Patrol agents were serious bodily injury; assault with a deadly weapon; discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence; and a civil rights violation. Compean and Ramos also were convicted of four counts and two counts, respectively, of obstruction of justice for not reporting that their weapons had been fired. The Texas jury acquitted both men of assault with intent to commit murder, but found them guilty on all other charges. The recommended sentencing is 20 years in prison.

You can read the entire account of the case in this Daily Bulletin article written by Sara Carter, but there are a few things you need to know up front:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, who prosecuted this travesty of justice against the two BP agents, has successfully contended that BP agents are NOT SUPPOSED to apprehend or pursue illegals.

"It is a violation of Border Patrol regulations to go after someone who is fleeing," she said. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy prohibits the pursuit of someone."

Two weeks after the incident, a Homeland Security agent tracked down the drug smuggler in Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the two Texas Border Patrol agents. They found the drug smuggler based upon a tip from another BP agent in Arizona! The connection between the Arizona BP agent and the drug smuggler is murky, though the prosecutor gets upset at any one who dares to question the unsavory connection.

The drug smuggler was treated to free tax-payer funded medical care in El Paso in addition to his full immunity to testify against the BP agents.

The drug smuggler changed his story, but the fact that he lied was never disclosed to the jury.

According to the memo, Aldrete-Davila told investigators the agents shot him in the buttocks when he was trying to enter the country illegally from Mexico. But according to Aldrete-Davila's later testimony and that of the agents, he was shot after trying to evade the agents upon his re-entry into Mexico.

The memo never was disclosed to the jury.

The drug smuggler is now suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for violating his civil rights.

Also, Ramos' extensive training and accomplishments in drug interdiction, which would be directly relevant to the actions he took during the incident with the drug smuggler, was deemed not admissible during his trial.

As a Border Patrol agent, Ramos has been involved in the capture of nearly 100 drug smugglers and the seizure of untold thousands of pounds of narcotics. He also was nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year in March 2005, though the nomination was withdrawn after details of the Aldrete-Davila incident came out.

Ramos also had drug interdiction training from the Drug Enforcement Agency and qualified as a Task Force Officer with the Border Patrol. But Ramos' training in narcotics -- as well as the numerous credentials he had received for taking Border Patrol field training classes -- was not admissible during the trial, he said.

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, just addressed the Congressional hearings here in Houston on August 16th, where this case was of great concern among all the law enforcement officials.

He said the Border Patrol's official pursuit policy handcuffs agents in the field. He also sees the prosecution of Ramos and Compean as part of a larger effort by the federal government.

"The pursuit policy has negatively affected the Border Patrol's mission as well as public safety. Part of that mission is to stop terrorists and drug smugglers," Bonner said. "They could be smuggling Osama bin Laden, drugs, illegal aliens, or it could have been just some drunk teenager out on a joyride. You don't know until you stop them."

"The administration is trying to intimidate front-line agents from doing their job," he added. "If they can't do it administratively, they'll do it with trumped-up criminal charges.

"Moreover, the specter of improprieties in the prosecution of this case raises serious concerns that demand an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation."

Ramos and Compean and their young families have been living under threats of retaliation from criminals in the drug underworld.

The El Paso Sheriff's Department has met with the Ramos family to discuss continued threats against them from people they believe to be associated with Aldrete-Davila. The sheriff's department also has increased patrols around the family's home.

The only other organization that has responded to the Ramoses thus far, Monica Ramos said, is the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol, chaired by Andy Ramirez.

"This is the greatest miscarriage of justice I have ever seen," Ramirez said. "This drug smuggler has fully contributed to the destruction of two brave agents and their families and has sent a very loud message to the other Border Patrol agents: If you confront a smuggler, this is what will happen to you."

This case has been virtually ignored by the press, which is why the American public only found out about it after the conviction of the two BP agents. But now that we know, we must take action. If, as TJ Bonner has said, this case is a dirty attempt by our government to intimidate law enforcement officers into leaving the borders wide open and unguarded, then the American people must speak out immediately.

You can do so by signing a petition that will be delivered to the President - but you must do so TODAY, it's the last day. The men will be sentenced tomorrow.

The goal is to collect 100,000 signatures asking President Bush to pardon these two men. So far, 97,589 people have signed the petition and there is no doubt in my mind that Guard the Borders readers can fill in the remaining numbers needed. The petition, to which you may add your own comment reads as follows:

To: President George W. Bush,

As a citizen of the United States I am outraged to learn that two U.S. Border Agents are facing twenty-year prison terms for doing their jobs-- pursuing illegal aliens who cross our border, and I’m calling on you to officially pardon them for their actions.

I am even more outraged to learn that this illegal alien (who was attempting to smuggle about 800 pounds of marijuana into our country), was tracked down by a Department of Homeland Security Investigator and granted immunity for his testimony against these two agents!

This is a terrible injustice, and I urge you to use your considerable authority and power to pardon these two agents and right this obvious wrong!

In addition to rallying your friends and family to take action with you, I would also ask that you call the White House Comments line, and leave a message on behalf of these agents. White House Comments line: 202-456-6213

Please do not hesitate to take this small action on behalf of men whose lives have been destroyed by a drug smuggler and corrupt government agents and prosecutors. It's the very least we can do for them - I wish there was more.

What if this was you? What will happen to these two men? What will be the fallout from such a miscarriage of justice?

"My husband is a good man, a loving father, and his devotion to his country and his job is undeniable," Monica Ramos said. "Prosecutors treated the drug smuggler like an innocent victim, refusing to allow testimony that would have helped my husband. The smuggler was given immunity. My husband is facing a life in prison.

"It's so frightening, it doesn't seem real."

COUNTING THE DAYS

About a week ago, feeling little hope, Joe Loya, Monica Ramos' father, took the family on what will be Ignacio Ramos' last fishing trip with his sons before he is sentenced.

"What kind of justice is this?" Loya asked. "What kind of nation do we live in when the word of a smuggler means more than the word of a just man?"

Monica Ramos says her hardest day is yet to come -- the day the authorities take her husband away.

"We just guard (our children's) hearts right now," Monica Ramos said. "I think about the last time he'll hug them as children, and maybe not get the chance to hug them again until they are grown men."

The sons are between 6 and 13 years old.

Ignacio Ramos was, if anything, even more emotional.

"Less than a month left with my family," he said, his voice choking, as though the air had been pulled from his lungs. "My sons," he whispered. Then silence.

It took several minutes for Ramos to summon more words. "All I think about at night is the day I have to leave my family. I can't sleep. I've always been with them."

Then he talked about the memories he would never have, "their first dates, high school graduation, sports," and the tears falling from his eyes were mirrored only by those of his wife, who took his hand into hers.

Families destroyed. A drug smuggler on the loose to threaten the lives of others and on the scam for $5 million dollars. And a government who won't do anything about either - unless we force it to.

The only ones left who can help are the American people themselves. That means you.

__________________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It is syndicated by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as we're going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration in our country, join the Blogburst! Send an email with your blog name and url to euphoricrealitynet at gmail dot com.

Whose America? Revisited

'Riverside is going to be ours'
so says Miguel Rivera in an article from the Cherry Hill, NJ Courier Post.

For every immigrant who feels afraid and leaves Riverside, we are going to find an immigrant to volunteer to come live in Riverside," the Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders, said Friday.

[...]Rivera's remarks, today's rally and a lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Newark challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance were the result of the township committee enacting last month a measure that seeks to punish landlords who rent to or employers who hire illegal immigrants.


[...]Mayor Charles Hilton estimates the number of illegal immigrants in his town, many if not most of them from Brazil, at anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500.

I am stunned by the arrogance of Miguel Rivera and his ilk; every time I think they have topped themselves in arrogance and sheer gall, something like this comes along.
But to my amazement, the town of Riverside seems to be stirring itself and standing up to the invaders and would-be Reconquistadores. It seems that as many as 500 townspeople protested against a few hundred illegals and sympathizers yesterday.

If true, as it seems to be, this may be a watershed moment. There have been so many disheartening instances of illegals, emboldened by the lack of resistance to their aggressions, intimidating and shouting down American citizens, of thousands of illegals taking to our streets with only a handful of Americans to oppose them. So I can only say bravo to the people of Riverside; you stood your ground, and I hope your boldness will show others that they need not continue to be PC-whipped and silenced, especially by people like Rivera, demagogues and illegals who are brazenly flouting our laws.

Rivera is, (surprise, surprise) a Methodist minister, it seems the Methodists are among the most pro-illegal religious denominations, judging by the recent news stories of these meddling ministers. Someone needs to remind them of the great liberal principle of 'separation of church and state.' Where is the ACLU? They are usually all over any perceived violations of that 'separation.' But they get very quiet whenever the 'violators' are liberal church people, agitating for the leftist agenda.
Of course the obligatory accusations of 'racism' were hurled at the citizens. It seems these illegal advocates cannot make their point in a civilized, reasonable fashion but have to resort to name-calling. But I suppose we can't blame them, really; if we keep rewarding anybody who plays the race card. If we continue to fold every time somebody throws that 'r-word' at us, we will get more of the same, endlessly. Our freedoms will erode, and our hold on this country will be steadily weakened if we are cowed by these people.



Predictably, this very biased article from the Philly Inquirer contains the usual allusions to hate and racism, including a reference to the Confederate Flag, as if that symbol itself incriminates the citizens who were exercising their rights.

After an hour of prayers and speeches, Rivera and the protesters headed up Scott Street, the Burlington County town's main drag, as hundreds on both sides of the street cursed, spit and shouted at them to leave and never come back.

Some in the crowd were intoxicated. Some waved Confederate flags, while others thrust their right arms up to resemble a Nazi salute. Dozens had signs calling for tighter border control.

Well, Joel Bewley and Nancy Petersen, nice job of slandering your fellow citizens there. I am sure your pro-illegal sentiments will win you a lot of kudos from your leftist peers in the media. Keep it up; you are doing a bang-up job of proving the existence of bias in the media. Now it may be that some of the protesting citizens behaved badly; but I know the bias of the media so therefore I'm bound to distrust what you tell me about those citizens. And besides, aren't you journalists always preachifying about 'stereotyping' people, about tarring everybody with the same brush? Yet that is what you are doing.
Actually, though, the Inquirer and the 'reporters' should be ashamed; tell me again how the media are supposed to be 'objective' and impartial, telling readers only 'who, what, why, where'.

The good news is, however, this incident in Riverside shows that there are still some citizens of this country who have not bowed the knee to the gods of Political Correctness, despite the fact that the media, as exemplified by the Philly Inquirer, and our politicians, and many of our churches are taking the side of the illegals.

How much plainer can it be that these 'immigrants', so-called, are not friendly towards us? They have shown us time and time again that they have an agenda to take this country from us. 'Riverside is going to be ours', says the pious Rivera. How much plainer can they make it for us?

Still I am thrilled to see that there is still some of the legendary American spirit still alive; I can only hope that this is the beginning of a turning of the tide.

But if and when scenes like this turn to outright clashes (as they have in a few small-scale incidents, as in Baldwin Park, CA some months ago) I have a fear that American citizens will be blamed; articles like the Inquirer piece clearly paint citizens as drunks, as spitting, ignorant hatemongers. You can bet that any violence will be blamed on Americans, no matter what the real story may be. The media have chosen their side, and sadly many of our sellout politicians have chosen a side too, and it ain't ours.

We Americans may be down, but not out yet. Our illegal 'neighbors' think they have the advantage, and in many ways they do; but they are overplaying their hand, becoming more and more arrogant and reckless every day. They truly seem to be tone-deaf, like this Rivera character, to the fact that they are provoking mild-mannered citizens, and ticking people off. We are a tolerant and patient people, we Americans, but we are just about down to zero on the tolerance meter when it comes to people brazenly announcing their intentions to take our towns and our country.
Our officials and leaders have to step up and do their designated job, which is to enforce the laws of this country; the fact that they are allowing tens ot millions (and not 11 million, as this article foolishly says) of illegal invaders to have the run of our country is unconscionable. The fact that they are letting these people ride roughshod over Americans is even worse. If they did their job, this whole over-the-top situation would not exist. If and when things spiral out of control, it will be because our 'leaders' and officials have refused to do their jobs, and have turned our country over to the barbarians.

Changing America

One more sign of a changing America: this article about the demise of a country music station:

On Thursday, the city lost its last country music broadcaster when KZLA-FM (93.9), self-billed as "America's most listened-to country station," changed its format for the first time in 25 years — to a pop format focusing on beat-heavy R&B and dance tunes.

The Burbank-based station's shift is part of a national trend. Although country fans have long been well-served in Texas, Indiana and other landlocked states, over the past decade stations have completely disappeared in New York, San Francisco and half a dozen other coastal markets.

The shift demonstrates how America's changing ethnicity is remaking media, especially in big cities. Because of their size and loyalty, minority audiences are becoming more coveted by radio companies than white listeners — at least in ethnically diverse metropolitan areas. Once-essential genres such as country, rock and classical music are increasingly being replaced by formats such as pop, hip-hop and talk radio.'' [Italics mine]

This story represents another facet of the passing of traditional America. I can't say I am especially fond of modern country music; it is a far cry from the old-time music from which it is derived, but it is a true American music. Its roots go back to the original colonists from the British Isles. I have noticed that country music has many fans in all parts of the Anglosphere, including Australia; some of the most avid fans I've known have been acquaintances from Down Under and England. It seems that country music resonates more with those of British Isles/ Western European origins. So I suppose that seals the doom of country music in an increasingly non-Anglo-Saxon America. Out with the old, in with the new.

I notice also that the country music moguls in Nashville are attempting to create a new hybrid kind of 'country' which is more 'diverse and inclusive.', for example: 'Big & Rich,' or Tim McGraw's collaboration with rapper Nelly. All this is oh-so-PC, and maybe it's being dictated by those on high in the business, but whatever it is, it ain't country.
Just like everything else these days, 'diversity and inclusion' trump authenticity and tradition.

I also notice, with dismay, that on my cable digital music lineup, there are now more than a dozen Hispanic music channels, and only two (2) country music channels. How does it work, that 13% of the population (and an even smaller percentage of cable subscribers) are catered to at the expense of the majority? Such is America in these topsy-turvy PC times. Politically and culturally, being the majority seems to be meaningless now.

As the above article points out, all the genuinely American musical forms are losing out to 'ethnic' music: urban/hip-hop, rap, and now Mexican music. Even rock music, which we think of as having near-universal popularity, is losing out.

[As a side note, it's widely held that rock music has its roots primarily in Africa, while to me it is obvious that rock has common roots with old-time country and bluegrass music, which is of British Isles origin, although this Wikipedia article claims partly African roots even for old-time music. But the burden of proof should be on those who insist on the African roots of rock or old-time music; where in Africa, past or present, is there a similar or demonstrably related kind of music? Why is rock music not popular in Africa, if it is an essentially African genre? If there is any similarity, which is doubtful, it could be explained by influence in the opposite direction: the slaves picked up British Isles music here in America. Rock music, like country, is most popular in Western countries, as well as Japan, but to my knowledge, rock has very few fans in Africa, and I know of no African rock bands. So I am a doubter on the subject of the 'African roots' of American music. To me, the idea is simply more 'Afrocentrism', an attempt to rewrite history.]

As the country is transformed demographically, we will feel more and more like strangers in our own lands.
So goes vanishing America.

British passengers 'mutiny': Is there hope for the West?

There may be some hope for our British cousins after all, based on this story out of the London Daily Mail:
Mutiny on Flight 613
by Christopher Leake, Andrew Chapman

British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.

The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave

[...]It also raised fears that more travellers will take the law into their own hands - effectively conducting their own 'passenger profiles'.

[...]Patrick Mercer, the Tory Homeland Security spokesman, said last night: "This is a victory for terrorists. These people on the flight have been terrorised into behaving irrationally.

"For those unfortunate two men to be victimised because of the colour of their skin is just nonsense."

Bravo to the 'mutinous' passengers, and shame on the British authorities, with their Politically Correct responses.
So now, according to the writers, this incident 'raised fears' that travelers "will take the law into their own hands - effectively conducting their own 'passenger profiles'."

And this is bad -- how? Whose ' fears' have been raised? The airlines, fearful of their bottom line being jeopardized, or fearful of a backlash from the perpetually angry 'Muslim community'? Or the craven authorities, afraid of their precious agenda being thwarted? Or the Moslem terrorists, fearful that they won't have a docile bunch of lambs going to the slaughter when they try to carry out their next terrorist act?

And you know what, I really don't care if the two questionable passengers, referred to in the article by the neutral, deceptive term 'Asian', were offended. It will likely be announced that they were just innocent victims, with 'no known ties to terror organizations', as the predictable statement goes. Many terrorists have had 'no known ties with terror organizations' until they carry out their deadly 'mission'. The fact is, Middle Eastern people, given the record of Islamic-inspired mayhem, should know to expect 'profiling' or suspicion. If they are so offended by this, they are more than free to go back to their home countries, or their ancestral countries; where they will not be 'persecuted' with dirty looks or profiling. There are, after all, no less than 52 Moslem majority countries. Why choose to live with us inferior infidels, unless you are here for conquest or terrorism?

Shame, I say, on Patrick Mercer, the 'Tory Homeland Security' spokesman. Now the scary thing is, the Tories are the nearest approximation to a 'conservative' political party that exists in the UK. This shows how dire the situation is there. The Labour government shamelessly pushes the 'multicultural' PC open borders agenda, and the supposed 'conservatives' are represented by this toady representing 'Homeland Security.' Sad.

For the pathetic officials in the UK to disapprove of the citizens 'taking the law into their own hands' and daring to 'profile' is disgraceful. The fact is, the UK government and in fact all Western governments have made it clear that they have washed their hands of responsibility for the safety and security of their citizenry. So-called 'Homeland Security' officials in the UK and in our own country have stated countless times since 9/11 and 7/7 that terrorist attacks are 'inevitable.' They have in effect thrown their hands up and said there are known terror plots being hatched, and thousands of likely sleeper agents, but they can't do anything (or won't do anything) to protect their citizens. This, to me, is gross dereliction of duty, if not de facto collusion with terrorists. The primary purpose of government is to defend and protect the lives of citizens. Our governments in the West have announced to us that they will not do so, if it means 'profiling' or offending any members of protected groups. They have more or less told us that we are on our own, so how can they be surprised when their fed-up citizens do what their feckless, useless governments are too craven to do?

But now please, can we put paid, once and for all, to that fatuous line about how 'the terrorists will have won' if we take any pro-active moves to protect our lives and safety. Who started this bit of Orwellian pretzel logic? So many otherwise sane people have repeated this ridiculous mantra since 9/11, saying things like 'but, but if we change our lives at all, the terrorists will have won.' The idea seems to be ''we'll sacrifice our own lives just so the terrorists 'won't have won.' ''
It's insane. The only way the 'terrorists will have won' is if we continue to go meekly like lambs to the slaughter, and let them continue to kill us. They want us dead, or converted to their cult. The only we can guarantee that the terrorists won't have won is if we display some backbone, like these mutinous Brits, and refuse to go quietly. That is the ONLY way we can deny the terrorists their victory: by surviving, and by preserving the countries and the way of life that our forefathers in Europe won for us long ago, when they defeated the Moslems at Tours in 732, and in Spain in 1492.

I hope this pro-active mood takes hold in the West; at some point we have to start standing up for ourselves and refusing to be sitting ducks for the terrorists or potential terrorists who have been given the run of our countries.
And we have to start holding our leaders accountable and responsible; they are grossly derelict in their duties. In America, at least, our system of government is based on the sovereignty of the people; Thomas Jefferson said ''the will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government.'' And our governments in all the Western countries are openly flouting the will of the people with their insane open borders/multicultural experiments.
I think the cognitive dissonance is starting to catch up with many people in Western countries; Orwellian slogans about 'tolerance and inclusion' cannot forever override people's survival instinct. People cannot and should not risk their own lives and safety and those of their loved ones just to spare someone's feelings.

''Nothing will ruin the country if the people themselves will undertake its safety; and nothing can save it if they leave that safety in any hands but their own.'' - Daniel Webster