Posturing pols

Michael Finnegan, in this article from the Los Angeles Times discusses the uses to which the Internet is put in vetting the crowd of presidential candidates. You Tube has been a source of some clips which show the candidates flip-flopping, and contradicting themselves.

With its marriage of politics and mass technology, the explosion of video sharing on the web poses major risks for presidential candidates: Gaffes and inconsistent statements witnessed by dozens can be e-mailed instantly to millions.

The White House ambitions of Republican George Allen of Virginia were dashed in no small part by a web video that showed him, at a campaign event, calling an Indian American a "macaca." Allen also lost his November bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate.''

Mitt Romney appears in a clip , speaking in South Carolina, saying



I love immigration, I love immigrants, we're all descendants of immigrants... but let's make it legal immigration.
(Applause)

But he has not been consistent over time.

...To get to the right of McCain, he has trumpeted his stand in Massachusetts against gay marriage and reversed his position on abortion.

The issue that many believe Romney will use as a wedge between himself and McCain is immigration. McCain is firmly committed to a comprehensive plan along the lines proposed by President Bush. Romney has flirted with striking a more anti-immigration stance, which would endear him to a good portion of the Republican base and to many House Republicans. But as Sam Youngman reported yesterday in The Hill, Romney remained silent on the issue at a recent conservative summit.

In this article from the American Spectator, Philip Klein writes

In the next year, the leading Republican presidential candidates will do their best to placate the conservative base on the immigration issue. McCain will likely emphasize the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to go through to obtain citizenship under his reform plan. In a speech in New Hampshire a few days before the midterm elections, Giuliani gave a preview of how he may handle criticisms that he was lax on immigration as mayor. He argued that his policies as mayor were based on the fact that he took over a city that already had an estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants and emphasized that many of the same tactics he employed to cut crime in New York could be applied to improving border security (such as increasing law enforcement personnel and making better use of technology). Romney, meanwhile, in one of his last acts as governor, authorized state troopers to detain illegal immigrants -- a move that drew kudos from Pat Buchanan.

But if none of these gestures is enough to satisfy anti-illegal immigration hardliners, Hillary Clinton may be able to return to the White House -- even if most people don't like her.''

Yeah, and it will be on our heads. This is the ever-present threat, the cudgel used to try to batter the 'anti-illegal immigration hardliners', so-called, into submission.

Klein in the above quote mentions Romney's previous feints on the immigration issue: his temporary get-tough stance as governor of Massachusetts, which coincidentally followed the revelation that he had used a landscaping firm which employed illegals.

Then, of course, at the recent 'conservative' summit he was silent on the immigration issue. Now, in the video clip, he is all in favor of immigration -- he loves immigration, just as long as it's legal. And by the way, he isn't in favor of deportation.

What he is saying may pass for tough talk among the metrocons and neocons who make up most of the GOP and the 'conservative' movement in America, but it puts him in the same territory as Giuliani, or Newt Gingrich, or most of the rest of the lackluster candidates.

Here, he says the Gingrich-esque things about 'learning English' and about welcoming educated, skilled immigrants. Um, Mitt, how many educated and skilled Latino immigrants are there out there? And do we have the will and the resources to vet all the millions of would-be immigrants -- presuming, of course, that the would-be immigrants suddenly develop a regard for laws and rules? Considering that ICE is already swamped. backlogged and overwhelmed, I somehow doubt that we have the means to screen those millions. Or the will.
Mitt has said that he would not deport, so Mitt, what would you propose to do with 30 million or so uneducated, unskilled illegals who are already here? Not to mention the many millions who haven't crossed the finish line yet?

I am skeptical that we can welcome immigration from the countries which are now sending most of the immigrants and still have skilled, educated, assimilable immigrants. It's all talk, meant to gull the easily-satisfied voters and to pander to the 'Hispanic vote.'

Personally I am scratching Romney's name from my list of 'candidates to vote for as a last resort.' Faced with a list of wishy-washy, all-things-to-all-people, middle of the road eunuchs, I will sit the election out with a clear conscience. Last time I voted halfheartedly, with great doubts about the choice I made, and I have since regretted it. No more of the 'lesser of two evils' approach. I've been called a 'purist' or a 'hard-liner' and all the rest of it; I've been warned that 'if Hillary gets elected, then it will be on your head' but I'm beyond being swayed by those kinds of chicken-little remarks from the party loyalists.

If we elect yet another Republican candidate who carries out liberal policies, who refuses to do the ultimate conservative thing and preserve our sovereignty, our borders, and our culture, then we further damage conservatism by allowing it to move permanently leftward, while our country slides into oblivion. If we must have liberal policies, let the liberals do the dirty work; let them be seen to be the authors of the destruction of the country, and maybe enough people will wake up and see that we need traditional conservative antidotes, not more of the same liberal poison.

If we have a Democratic president, maybe our Republican congressmen (and women; I'm being inclusive) will start acting like conservatives. I have no doubt that our Republican pols are willing to go along with liberal policies as long as a Republican president initiates them. Maybe a Democrat in the White House would inspire the GOP politicians to start rediscovering conservatism, and to start opposing liberalism instead of embracing it as most of them seem to be doing now.

Sadly, Romney seems to be just another liberal in conservative's clothing. As I've said, one cannot be a real conservative and support mass immigration and the kinds of wholesale changes to our country which are the inevitable result of mass immigration.

One cannot fight a 'war on terror' while welcoming Islam to set up shop in our country. All the rest of the conservative issues take a back seat to the question of whether we maintain our country, our language, our culture, and of course our safety and security within our lawful borders. Any candidate who isn't able or willing to acknowledge the importance of those issues is not a conservative, and no amount of hawkish posturing or penny-pinching fiscal conservative talk, or social conservative rhetoric will change that.

The media, and of course the pandering pols, are doing their best to avoid the thorny subject of immigration and borders. Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul are the only candidates among the whole crowd who are not guilty of equivocating, double-talk, or avoidance of the issue.

Free speech or PC?

Nothing appears more surprising to those who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.'' - David Hume, "Of the First Principles of Government," in Essays, Literary, Moral and Political.

Some further thoughts on Political Correctness:

When Hume wrote the words above some centuries ago, he was obviously not writing about Political Correctness or what some call Cultural Marxism, but the words are very much applicable to our present situation.
The tyrannical opinion of our day is exemplified in what we term Political Correctness.

Political Correctness, of course, is just one aspect of the leftist/liberal conquest of our society. Some conservatives disagree on the importance of 'PC', seeing it as merely a symptom or a secondary enemy.
But Political Correctness, this onerous set of unwritten laws which constrain the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and truths, limits our thoughts as it confines our speech.

When I wrote my post yesterday on PC and Capitulation, my purpose wasn't to promote the use of inflammatory language for the sake of it. Suppose the truth itself is considered 'inflammatory'? In Britain, Nick Griffin of the near-outlaw party BNP, said in a private meeting, that 'Islam is a wicked and vicious faith.' I would suspect that most Moslems would consider that opinion 'inflammatory' or 'hate speech,' and thus would support Mr.Griffin's prosecution and potential imprisonment for uttering those words. We have often heard the saying that free speech does not allow us to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. But as one wry commenter said, suppose there IS a fire in a crowded theatre? And suppose Islam IS a wicked and vicious faith? It surely isn't flattering to say that, but I could cite supporting evidence for the viciousness of Islam, in the form of quotes from the Koran, the Hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed, and from the words and deeds of contemporary practitioners of Islam. So would I be guilty of hate speech if I had truth on my side? And if that truth might alert my hearers to some danger to themselves? Just as crying 'fire' in a crowded building might save some lives, sometimes unpleasant and unflattering truths serve a needed purpose. Yet we prefer to avoid offending rather than speak uncomplimentary words, and in doing so, we are failing to warn those who might suffer harm from a clear and present danger.

I sometimes despair of being able to awaken people from their slumber; we have all, including me, been influenced by this dissimulating spirit of liberalism, in which truth is relative,and in which there is a hierarchy of people about whom truth may or may not be spoken, depending on who they are. This dissimulating spirit will be the death of us in the West, as we close our eyes to impolitic truths, and engage in games of 'let's pretend.' Let's pretend Islam is The Religion of Peace, and pretend there are only a 'tiny minority of extremists' who have 'hijacked a noble religion' and misunderstood it. And let's pretend that our Latino invaders are 'hardworking people who are natural conservatives, good Christians, wanting to do the jobs that lazy Americans won't do.'

Let's pretend that the Latinos will all assimilate and vote GOP. Let's pretend that we can have hundreds of different nationalities,ethnicities, religions, sects, and races in the same space, and that we can all Just Get Along because We Are All The Same Under The Skin. Let's pretend we are a Nation of Immigrants. Let's pretend that women are just as good in combat as men, and that they differ only in plumbing. Let's pretend that little old American ladies are just as likely to be terrorists as young Middle Eastern men.

And let's pretend that the Space Brothers from the Pleiades are going to land and lead us all to an age of harmony. What the heck? It's as plausible as all the other beliefs above. They are all based on wishful thinking or self-deception, and on wanting to avoid difficult choices and conflicts.

I realize that my readers, even my regular readers who have borne with me since I began this blog, don't necessarily agree with me; I am aware of the fact that my thinking strays outside the established and respectable bounds. So be it; I am compelled to call things as I see them. If I am going to pull my punches, why blog? Life is too short, and our situation here in America and the West overall is so urgent that taking the slow and subtle approach is a luxury that we don't have the time for. And obviously, not all of us agree that such is the case. Not everyone feels the same urgency that I feel. I honestly hope that I am overreacting, and I hope I will be proven wrong, and that our Republic and the West will survive and prevail. I was just talking with someone about this situation, and she said that the country is being lost just gradually enough that most of us will accommodate to it, unwilling to disturb our everyday lives, and so we slouch toward oblivion. I am afraid this is just what will happen, what is happening. I feel sometimes as if I am watching a sleepwalker about to stumble off a cliff, or into oncoming traffic, and that all my efforts to awaken the sleepwalker are useless.

What gives me hope is that I encounter a lot of people who, when in a one-to-one, private conversation, will admit to feeling great trepidations about what is happening to our country; they are disturbed and chagrined, but few people feel free to discuss it. When I introduce the subject people often seem curiously relieved, as if they are glad someone else notices it, and glad that they can speak openly about what is generally ignored. There are people out there who are waiting for a chance to talk about what is happening to our country, and who just don't know how to articulate their dread or uneasiness. That much is a positive sign; many people are aware that the media don't tell them the whole truth, but those who are not internet-savvy don't know where to look for the facts that the MSM don't touch. Word-of-mouth is the only way some people can be reached. In my sleepy little corner of the country, the wave of invaders is only just now beginning to appear, and many people have so far been insulated from the vast changes taking place in our country. Reality, however, won't leave us undisturbed in our idyllic little world forever.

There are signs that the hold of the PC empire is weakening, and that the facade is crumbling. I think the facade needs just a little tremor to bring it down altogether. My feeling is that many people are hungry for some other points of view, because they sense that there is an edifice of lies, like a flimsy Hollywood backdrop, posing as reality.

There is a school of thought that posits that we should always prefer gentle persuasion and reason, attempting to be non-offensive so as to win over as many as possible. If that works, then by all means, be nonconfrontational. Believe it or not, in person I am nonconfrontational, being as mild-mannered as Clark Kent. I am not, despite my strong opinions, a rude or blunt-spoken person.

'For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak.'' II Corinthians 10:10

could have been written about me, although I am not in the same league with the man about whom it was written.

If genteel persuasion works, great. I prefer sweet reason to tussles, either verbal or physical. But sometimes, in my opinion, sweet reason does not move people; sometimes strong words are necessary to stir them, and to reach them on an emotional or visceral level. Yes, conservatives generally rely on reason, unlike liberals and leftists, who appeal primarily to various emotions. But there is a place for appeal to emotion, as long as it is to higher emotions like love of country, or yes, even righteous indignation. Think about Patrick Henry's famous speech, wherein he declaimed 'give me liberty or give me death!' Emotion? Yes. Our Founding Fathers were not averse to appealing to emotion. The great Oriana Fallaci, the strongest voice against the Islamic threat in our generation, spoke and wrote with intense emotion. In an age of postmodern ennui and detachment, she shone like a supernova in the darkness. And she was full of passion, emotion -- and strong language. The weak of heart couldn't endure what she said; she shocked the respectable folk. The same with Ann Coulter, whom the nice 'conservatives' recoil from. (I don't, however, equate Coulter to Fallaci; they are not in the same league.) But I admire Coulter's take-no-prisoners attitude. Does it scare off the 'moderates'? Or does it simply show us who is potentially on our side and who is more concerned with respectability?

Bloodless intellectual arguments almost never stir people to action. I regularly read some conservative blogs where interesting discussions take place, and in the most refined fashion, but the discussion is often too rarefied for me. I come from a long line of orators, men of action, judges, preachers and ministers, warriors, and warriors of words: writers. Discussing abstract ideas means little to me; I want to know how an idea applies to the real, concrete world I live in.

I confess to being impatient; as I said, I think time is short for America and the West. Soon the die will be cast, and we may be beyond the point of no return. So from where I stand, I believe we may have to 'triage'; pick those who are saveable, and focus on them, because we lack the time and resources to try to work on the lost causes. Among the 'lost causes' I count the 'moderate Muslims', who may or may not exist, and the 'mushy middle' moderate Americans who can't get het up about much of anything except American Idol, or their latest toys and gadgets, or even the latest partisan dust-up, which means about as much as a pro-wrestling match. These people often don't care about the country at large, or anything beyond their immediate life. I hold that we have to try to reach those who are halfway to realization: half-awake, not those who are sound asleep, even comatose.

I maintain that if someone is upset by a politically-incorrect word (and no, I am not talking about hardcore fighting words or insults) they will be just as appalled by politically incorrect ideas and thoughts. They can't be helped, unless they help themselves, or unless some experience jolts them out of the PC stupor. If someone can listen to non-PC ideas without getting the vapors or calling the thought-police, then they might be won over. Otherwise I don't waste my breath or my time and their time in trying to woo them. I 'shake the dust off my shoes' and move on. Time is short, from where I sit, and we have to know who is who.

Why disturb people with those troubling Politically Incorrect ideas? Because it is only by rejecting PC that we can see our way out of this impossible situation we are in. The facile slogans and the cant, which some of us laugh at, (Religion of Peace, Nation of Immigrants, Hardworking Folks, and so on) are the very notions that prevent us from seeing the reality of our situation, which keep many people down on the plantation, so to speak. It's easier to mouth platitudes and cant phrases than to examine things that may distress us.

I don't advocate alienating people knowingly; I don't propose insulting or offending anyone purposely, Those who know me in person would find that notion laughable. I treat others civilly, insofar as it's possible to do so.
But I think that as long as we are prisoners of PC, we are on the path to capitulation. A free people must have freedom of speech, and freedom to think and believe what we will, freedom to follow the truth wherever it leads. Freedom and PC can never coexist, and as long as we submit to speech constraints and thought constraints, we are no longer free people. Fear is the main thing which keeps people subservient to PC, or maybe it is more often habit and indifference? Thomas Paine said

The strength and power of despotism consists wholly in the fear of resistance."

And centuries ago, French philosopher Etienne de la Boetie, in the Discourse on Voluntary Servitude said

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."

Our tyrant and Colossus is the PC emperor. And he is only as invincible as we let him be.

Slow capitulation

I read this piece by Henryk M. Broder the other day, It's a very lengthy piece on Europe's apparent surrender or capitulation to Islam, and I've been pondering on it. Meanwhile, I came across a post at this blog, on the subject of the word 'muzzies', and the fact that the word was forbidden at a certain anti-Jihad blog.

Capitulation is not a sudden, one-time event, usually. We get there by degrees, and the first step in capitulation by the West is our willing submission, starting some decades ago, to the first incursions of Political Correctness. Fjordman, in a recent essay (one of his sterling efforts, by the way), traces PC speech codes back to feminism, and their attempts to neuter language. Maybe in Fjordman's part of the world, this was the origin of PC speech codes; his childhood, I infer, was during the time that Norway was homogeneous, inhabited by mostly Norwegians. The joys of mass Third World immigration and 'diversity' had probably not been conferred on Scandinavia as yet. But we, here in the United States, have been dealing with PC speech codes, in their incipient form, at least, since before I was born.

Discussing racial matters is always tantamount to walking across a minefield. The fact that the subject can lead to very emotionally-charged exchanges is very telling. We cannot speak freely about any racial matter.The fact that most of us feel the need to walk gingerly, as on eggshells, when we discuss racial matters. Words are highly dangerous; say the wrong word, and lose your job, your career, your reputation, and in some cases, your freedom. People have been jailed for words. Lawsuits have been brought. People are compelled to enter 'sensitivity training' and to grovel in public, as in the Communist regimes of old, when they had to confess publicly.

When I was a young child, (remember, this was in the Jim Crow era) I was taught by my parents that the word now known as 'the N-word' was a rude word, and that we should not use it. We were taught that the word 'colored' was the polite word. Some years later, the word 'colored' was declared demeaning, although to my knowledge, it was not called a 'racist' word because the word 'racist' was not in the lexicon then. So we adapted to the word 'Negro.' That lasted a decade or so, until the days of black militancy in the late 1960s and we were told we must say 'black' or 'Afro-American.' The latter term faded away, only to re-emerge as the more complicated 'African-American' in the 80s. But from the late 60s onward, black was the most common term.

My point is: we became accustomed to being told that we must watch our terminology, and that we must change our vocabulary in order to accommodate or placate a group of people. The reason? Because they had been victims, and in fact, our ancestors were the victimizers. So we were now obligated to make amends, to right the wrongs which had supposedly been done by our forebears. Submitting to being told what words we may use was the first step. I learned, from a young white woman I knew, that it was 'offensive' to call a black person 'sunshine.' She had addressed a young black man, saying 'good morning, sunshine', and he had responded with great indignation, and told her never, ever to call a black person 'sunshine.'

Why? I don't know. I didn't ask why; I just knew that I had better watch my p's and q's around black people. Around that same time, a furor arose over the word 'boy.' It was declared a 'fighting word' for black people. To address a black boy as 'boy' was demeaning, degrading. It was an affront to his manhood, his personhood. Only a bigot would think of calling a black young man a 'boy.'

The only explanation I have heard is that it has associations with slavery. Supposedly slave-owners addressed their slaves as 'boy'.

Then, several years later, the 'women's liberation movement' arose, and they, too, began to issue ultimatums and demands to society at large. Echoing the black objection to the word 'boy', the women's libbers (as they were called back then) took great offense at the term 'girl' or 'gal.' To call a young woman a girl or gal was demeaning, disrespectful. Woe to any man who called a young woman a 'girl' or a 'gal', or, worst of all, a 'chick.' Those were all 'male chauvinist' words. Notice how the PC language had not yet been refined to its present state: women's liberationists began to object loudly to the name 'women's libber', saying it insulted them, so they began to insist on 'feminist'. That term stuck. And they dropped terms like 'male chauvinist pig' or 'MCP' for short, in favor of the term 'sexist', modeled (of course!) on the word 'racist', which began to be bandied about in those days.

So every victim group followed in the steps of the black militants, using the same tactics, similar speech codes, and the same rhetoric. Next were the homosexuals, who banned words like 'queer' and 'fag' and other such slang terms, and insisted on the term 'gay.'

I maintain that all this offense-taking is feigned; no one is really 'offended' or humiliated or hurt; it's calculated to show who has the power. It must go to one's head, to be able to make someone apologize and grovel and plead for forgiveness, especially if the one brought to heel is supposedly the powerful one. It must satisfy a need for revenge or payback. It's a show of strength. It's making the accused say 'uncle'. It's a flexing of muscles. It's a contest of wills, and the majority always loses, because we are quick to back down and give in.

By degrees, the majority became accustomed to having the victim group du jour telling us what words we may and may not use. And the stakes were raised; transgressing the speech codes, using a forbidden word, gradually became viewed as a sign of true bigotry, and harsher penalties both via laws and social sanctions were instituted. In a very real sense, all of us became less free, and more inhibited in our language. We all learned to self-censor, and some people became self-designated censors of others' speech; these are the PC scolds I referred to in earlier posts, those prigs and prudes who inform on others, or scold others for failing to tailor their speech to Politically Correct dictates. The PC scolds are all the more reprehensible to me because they side against their own; there's something repugnant about self-hatred.

Now as all Western societies are essentially under leftist domination, and as we are all being subjected to a vast social engineering experiment, with the whole world thrown together in our countries. we are obliged to cater to innumerable groups with grievances. The other day I posted a link to a story about Hmongs from Southeast Asia, who are demanding respect and credit in American History books. Now we have a massive Latino population, growing as I write this, and of course the aforementioned Moslems, who are now making loud demands of their own in every Western country. They've coined a new term of abuse: 'Islamophobic', meaning anyone who criticizes them or their religion, or who rightfully suspects them of hostile intent.

Now, on the very web forums and blogs which are thought to be at the forefront of defending the West, PC sensibilities are present just as they are everywhere else. For example, the term 'wetback' is verboten on the supposedly hard-line forums where illegal immigration is denounced. Even the most 'tough' right-wing forums PC-foot around, banning individuals who transgress the speech codes. Why? Why do these people spontaneously and preemptively censor people, when we have plenty of leftists waiting to do the same thing? Why are voluntarily they doing the dirty work of those scolding, moralistic leftists?

The official explanation is usually along these lines: 'We don't want to give the other side any ammunition. Our enemies can use it against us if we use slurs; they will call us racists, and it will discredit us with the average people, the ones we want to win over.''

So the groups we are counting on to lead the opposition to the takeover of our countries are fearful of being called a name, or of driving away the 'middle-of-the-road' people who are supposedly the answer to everything.
If we are as PC-whipped as that, then we are easy prey for the Moslems or the Latino invaders and their Reconquista, or anybody else who wants to waltz into our country and intimidate us.

I continue to say that no matter what, all who oppose illegal immigration, and who want to resist Islamization, will be called names like 'xenophobes', 'bigots', Islamophobes, and yes, the big 'r-word', racist. Do we really delude ourselves that if we just follow Miss Manners etiquette and never use any of those bad non-PC words that our adversaries will suddenly respect us, or stop calling us names? Do we really think that we can perhaps win the enemy over if we just talk nice to them?

In no previous war has our country ever been hamstrung by these crippling notions of 'niceness.' If our parents and grandparents had been obsessed with not offending our enemies during WWII, they would have been defeated from the git-go. We are paralyzed by PC. If we are so afraid of words and names, we haven't got a prayer.

Has it ever occurred to all the nervous Nellies and the obsessively 'nice' people that maybe it's necessary to psych ourselves up for self-defense by blunt, tough talk? Remember all those wartime cartoons many of us saw on TV as kids, where the enemy was stereotyped? Those cartoons are now being pulled from circulation lest they 'offend' some sensitive soul. But those cartoons served a purpose. We needed to psych ourselves up, steel ourselves against an enemy that would have killed or conquerered us. Our dads and granddads knew that; they were realists in a way that most people today aren't. If they had wrung their hands and fretted over offending some enemy, or worried that the 'moderates' in enemy countries might be on our side, if we just reached out to them...the Axis powers would have obliterated us as we dithered and hesitated. There is a time and place to be 'sensitive' and conciliatory, but that time is NOT while our survival is threatened, or our freedom is on the line.

If we are so delicate and so timid and so careful that we not 'offend' how on earth can we stand against an enemy, any enemy? We are making it known to the whole world that we have lost our nerve, lost our will to resist, lost our survival instinct. We appear to the whole world as a race of wavering, dithering, weaklings, with our fussing over words and our desire to please, to avoid angering anyone.

The majority of people at any given time, in any given place, are easily swayed, or apathetic. The truth is that it is generally a minority of highly motivated people who bring about change. The Moslems are highly motivated. Are we? The Latinos who are invading are highly motivated and determined. Are we?

We may never, despite our politeness and niceness, win over the majority to our cause of defending our country and our way of life. The majority are content to sit things out, and let others do the hard work. So being nice and non-offensive in hopes of winning over the apathetic or feckless masses is foolish. Hoping that we can win over those 'moderate Moslems' or 'conservative Latinos' or anybody else by being Politically Correct is also a misguided and vain hope. If there are moderate Moslems, or conservative Latinos, they will automatically be drawn to our side; if not then they can never be wooed and won over. The old saying 'flattery will get you nowhere' is apt here. What is Political Correctness if not a kind of flattery? So Political Correctness will get us nowhere. It won't buy the friendship of enemies; it won't shield us from those dreaded names that our adversaries call us. It won't win over the wishy-washy people who are too lazy to pick a side. PC will get us nowhere. We've got to toughen up and stop fearing words and names. There are more important things to deal with. We can't be sidetracked with all this fussing over words.

Shame on those who, claiming to be 'conservatives', are part of this PC legalism. There's no excuse for it.
And as we all know by now, PC kills. PC is the first step to capitulation.

Ramos and Compean: Information vs. spin

Homeland Security won't release papers on border agents' case

Sara A. Carter, of the Inland Daily Bulletin in California, deserves credit for doing yeoman's work on border issues and immigration. She does consistently good work on these issues; it's a shame that she doesn't receive wider attention. Truth and honesty on the borders/immigration issue are in short supply, as the media drones just crank out endless sob stories and template stories on the poor fearful immigrants.

I post the article linked above not just because I admire Sara Carter's writing, but because she is putting some facts out there which need to be read.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the Daily Bulletin on Wednesday that Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner has refused to deliver documents confirming his office's claims that Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean admitted they "were out to shoot Mexicans," and knowingly shot Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a drug smuggler, in a border incident nearly two years ago.

McCaul and three other House members met with Skinner on Sept. 26, 2006, to discuss the agents' case.

The Daily Bulletin obtained a confidential Office of Inspector General memo from an interview Compean gave to investigators on March 18, 2005.

The memo, dated April 4, 2005, supports the agent's claim that he believed his life was in danger when he tried to apprehend the Mexican drug smuggler on Feb. 17, 2005.'' [Emphasis mine]

The article notes that McCaul and his colleagues are demanding the documents supporting the Homeland Security department's version of events.

I want to weigh the facts and the evidence in this case," McCaul said. "Either it is total arrogance or gross incompetence on the part of the Inspector General's office. If what (the DHS) told us was a lie, or if they misrepresented the facts on this case to members of Congress, we are going to hold them accountable."

Full transcripts from Ramos and Compean's trial last spring still have not been made available to Congress or the public. According to McCaul, repeated requests for the transcripts since November have been answered with excuses.
[...]According to the memorandum, seven other agents were on the scene at the time of the shooting, including two supervisors whom Ramos and Compean both stated knew about the incident.

No other agents at the scene that day were prosecuted, and some were given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean.

Agents and supervisors are required to file a written report if they participate in or know of an incident, according to TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents nearly 11,000 Border Patrol agents.

"The steadfast refusal of the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to provide relevant information to Congress and the public about why Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos were prosecuted causes people to wonder what they are trying to hide," Bonner said. ''

If the official version of what happened is true, then why the stonewalling and the reluctance to cooperate with the House members who are investigating? These are questions I would like to see answered by the legions of GOP loyalists on the internet forums and blogs, who are trashing Ramos and Compean, and defending the administration's actions.


I've noticed that in discussing the Ramos-Compean story lately, many people are spreading the DOJ's version of events, which paints Ramos and Compean as rogue agents who broke rules and laws and then covered up their wrongdoing. I am dismayed that so many people, especially Republicans, are eager to buy into the spin. Of course, given that many Republicans are blind party loyalists who think that their leaders can absolutely do no wrong, and given that many of these faux conservatives are open-borders partisans, it isn't so surprising. For some people, their party loyalty and their loyalty to the administration is very much on the level of religious faith; it's an unquestioning, blind, passive faith, and they are angered by anyone who commits the heresy of criticizing anything 'their guy' does.

The blogosphere can play a part in getting both sides of the story out there, since the national media have not given this case the scrutiny it demands.

For a detailed account, here's a link to a letter by Joe Loya, father-in-law of Ignacio Ramos. He gives a detailed account of what happened, from Ramos' point of view. It's worth reading.

Let's not let the spinmeisters and party hacks dominate the discussion on this story.

Brazenness on the border

Today's immigration outrages come from the Lou Dobbs Tonight show on CNN. The first story has to do with pro-illegal agitators demanding that our government stop enforcing our immigration laws. If that demand did not show such incredible effrontery, it would be laughable, because ICE seems to enforce the laws only in the most desultory way possible. For the most part, they ignore the law and give illegals free rein in this country, with the blessing of those higher up. Still, the widespread freedom illegals are given in this country is not enough for the illegals and their American-born collaborators, as you will see in the transcript. They are asking for the whole enchilada: no more enforcement, no more deportations.

Notice that these spokesmen for the illegals are implying that only 'criminal' illegals, that is, those who have committed other crimes besides being here illegally, should be deported. As if being 'workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers' should have the run of this country, gives them license to break the country's laws with impunity. Actually they have that right in practice, because of the do-nothing approach of our government. But the illegals and their enablers want to rewrite the laws of this country over the heads of the American people. If that is not absolute proof of their hostility to democratic principles, I don't know what is. Maybe in benighted, corrupt Latin America, they do things that way, by agitation and rioting, but that is assuredly not the American way.

The second story is about the hearings involving the National Guard's rules of engagement on the border, and the recent troubling incidents there.

Excerpts from the transcripts are below. I have bolded certain phrases for emphasis.

PILGRIM: Pro-illegal alien groups today demanding federal agents stop enforcing our nation's immigration laws. Now, the groups say they want all deportations to stop until Congress passes an amnesty bill for illegal aliens.

Casey Wian reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LUIS CARRILLO, ATTORNEY: Let's take a vote. Who says English first?

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A sign of the times, a news conference starting with a vote on whether to begin in English or Spanish.

CARRILLO: This young woman here was a victim of the recent ICE raids.

WIAN: Last week, ICE arrested more than 750 Los Angeles-area illegal aliens, one of the biggest sweeps of criminal foreign nationals in U.S. history. Now illegal alien advocacy groups claim ICE is using racial profiling to also target otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens, such as this 20-year-old mother of three.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ICE said that I was illegal. And the agent proceeded to arrest me.

CARRILLO: ICE has given the impression to the public that they're only going after persons with criminal backgrounds, when the truth is that they're picking up workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers. ICE has a historic custom and practice of engaging in racial profiling, stopping only Latinos.

WIAN: The facts prove otherwise. ICE deported illegal aliens from 189 nations last year, including 1,364 Jamaicans, 624 Canadians, 489 Chinese. 431 Filipinos, and 405 Indians.

The majority of deportations, both criminal and otherwise, do involve Latin American citizens. But ICE says that's only because those are the home countries of the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens. ICE says its recent raids only targeted illegal aliens already ordered deported by a judge. However, ICE says there were collateral arrests.

Now a growing number of illegal alien advocates are demanding the federal government stop enforcing immigration law.

JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, MARCH 25 COALITION: We demand, we demand a moratorium against deportations. On deportations and the raids.

WIAN: The same groups behind last year's pro-amnesty street demonstrations are threatening more protests and marches this spring.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: All this an effort to pressure Congress to grant amnesty to the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in the United States -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Casey, is there any reaction from federal authorities on this protest?

WIAN: These demands, federal authorities say, are absolutely ridiculous. I mean, could you just imagine what would happen at the border if ICE and the Border Patrol decided to stop deporting illegal aliens in anticipation of Congress passing some sort of a guest worker or amnesty bill? The borders would be absolutely flood. They would be overwhelmed, even more so than they are now -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much.

Casey Wian.

[...]Well, let's turn to our border security crisis. There are currently more than 6,000 National Guardsmen patrolling our border with Mexico. But just what are the guard's rules of engagement?

An Arizona National Guards spokesman said, "We don't apprehend. We don't detain. We don't transport." Arizona legislators also want to know just what the Guard's role is. And today they held a hearing on the National Guard's border role.

And joining me now is Warde Nichols, Arizona's homeland security chairman. And thanks for being with us.

WARDE NICHOLS, ARIZONA'S HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

PILGRIM: Part of the hearing today was to sort out exactly happened. What did we establish at today's hearing on what happened?

NICHOLS: Well, unfortunately, what we established today is that the National Guard are there on the border as basically window dressing. They can't do anything. They -- all they do is radio in positions of illegals when they're coming across the border. They can't engage. They can't, you know, apprehend, detain. I mean they're there basically to just radio in -- radio in positions.

PILGRIM: Now, you have said that the gunmen who cross over from the Mexico side of the border appear to be testing the resolve of the National Guard. Explain a little bit what you -- what you mean by that.

NICHOLS: Yes, based off the stories that we got from General Ratochek (ph) today an exact account of the story. I believe that these were paramilitary personnel in Kevlar, vests carrying automatic weapons coming in to test the resolve of what the National Guard are going to do in these situations. Test -- test to see what their response is when they come across the border in these type of situations.

And we found out today that with rules of engagement in the type of things they have to adhere to, that our National Guard men and women on the border are, in my opinion, terrible risk. Their rules of engagement are terrible. Their hands are tied.

PILGRIM: The rules of engagement are what? They must retreat, correct, and cannot engage?

NICHOLS: Basically, yes. They have to -- there's three or four different things that they have to do in process. And basically, in a nutshell, they cannot do anything until fired upon.

PILGRIM: Now this area, tell us a little bit about this area, and what kind of people might be coming across.

NICHOLS: Well, in this type of area, it's out near Sasabe and in this area there's a lot of coyote, human smuggling going on. There's drugs that are coming across the border and now in this particular situation, we believe it was some type of paramilitary personnel.

PILGRIM: And -- and there was no engagement whatsoever?

NICHOLS: Well, again from General Ratochek's report, one the armed gunman got within about 30 feet of one of our guardsman. And they were standing there, looking at each other, rifles in hand, and at that point that's what our National Guardsman went a different position in a defensive position.

PILGRIM: They withdrew and called in...

NICHOLS: Yes, they called in the border guard. And that's another thing that we learned in the hearing today, that our border guard, our Border Patrol, are there basically taking care of our National Guard. I think it's a little reversed. Our National Guard men and women are trained military personnel. Yet they have to call the border guard, the Border Patrol in order to be able to do anything.

PILGRIM: Now this National Guard operation is called "Operation Jump Start". It's $760 million so far. Do you think that that's a waste of money or do you think that's effectively spent?

NICHOLS: You know, I can't say it's a complete waste of money, because we have gotten reports that they have been able to help Border Patrol apprehend and detain these people.

But again I would venture to say that if we use that money more wisely and we are able to put them there in a primary role, able to do the duties of the Border Patrol, we would have much more success in securing our borders.

PILGRIM: Now this particular group of National Guard troops were commended for their action. Do you think that that's something that should have been done? They were commended not only by the National Guard but Arizona's governor's office for their actions.

NICHOLS: Yes, I wouldn't want to belittle what the soldiers did in any shape, way or form. They were following out their directives and their orders. But that's what we were looking at today. What are their directives and what are their orders and what are their rules of engagement? And I would venture to say that they -- that their rules of engagement and their directives must be changed.

PILGRIM: Now, this is a state hearing. But what would you like to see happen?

NICHOLS: I would like to see more awareness about this issue brought forward. That people understand that our men and women on the border are at risk every day because of the directives of the federal government and the directives of the governors that they have signed on to in order to have the National Guard at the border. And they're putting their lives on line, and we've got to untie their hands.

PILGRIM: This is not just a state issue, because this border stretches across many states. Is there any thinking that perhaps a few states could get together and start to reexamine the rules of engagement?

NICHOLS: I would love the four border states to get together and, you know, look at the rules of engagement and look at what Border Patrol's doing on the border.

We know the governor of Texas, just in last week, signed a decree basically putting another 600 plus Texas National Guard on the border to act more in a primary role there and to be able to ride along with Border Patrol and assist. And that may be partially the way to go, but I don't think it goes far enough yet.

PILGRIM: In this hearing today, any input from Washington? And you are happy with the support you're getting from Washington?

NICHOLS: No, we didn't get any input from Washington. And quite frankly, unfortunately, Washington in their federal policies, immigration policies, border security policies, have failed us miserably here in Arizona, and we've got to do something about it.

PILGRIM: Any next steps decided on today?

NICHOLS: You know, I did tell the general in the hearing today that we would like to have him back at some point. As we let some of the thoughts simmer and understand what was said. And we hope to get more answers as we continue to mow through this process and be able to, again, make good policy decisions that we can bring awareness of the issue to the forefront.

PILGRIM: In the interim, would more National Guard troops help the situation?

NICHOLS: You know, we asked the general that. And he didn't really quite have an answer for us that issue. He said that he's apolitical. He's not going to get into the policies and the politics of it and that he's just there carrying out orders.

PILGRIM: Well, sometimes politics has to be practical.

NICHOLS: Yes, yes.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much for joining us this evening and explaining it.

NICHOLS: Thank you, Kitty.''

More on that mythical Superhighway

Macquarie Media Group of Australia is buying a chain of small weekly and daily newspapers in Texas. Coincidentally Macquarie is investing in buying up roads in the United States, and is involved in the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor. Of all the possible newspapers they might buy, why these small papers in Texas? Couldn't have anything to do with trying to control the flow of information on the TTC project, or the media coverage and commentary, could it?

But wait: the neocons and their media 'right-wing' lapdogs have been telling us that there is no Superhighway project, and no North American Union in the works. So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
However, for those who prefer to be aware rather than to be lulled to sleep by their Trusted Authority Figures like talk-radio hosts and various flacks and hacks, it might be worth checking out some of the links below.

Here is the Sydney Morning Herald's account of the story

But here is a more to-the-point report.

Australian toll road giant Macquarie agreed Wednesday to purchase forty local newspapers, primarily in Texas and Oklahoma, for $80 million. Macquarie Bank is Australia's largest capital raising firm and has invested billions in purchasing roads in the US, Canada and UK. Most recently the company joined with Cintra Concesiones of Spain in a controversial 75-year lease of the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road.

Sal Costello, the leading opponent of toll road projects as head of the Texas Toll Party, says the move is directly related to a 4000-mile toll road project known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.'
[...]"The newspapers are the main communication tool for many of the rural Texan communities, with many citizens at risk of losing their homes and farms through eminent domain," Costello wrote.


Many of the small papers purchased, most have a circulation of 5000 or less, have been critical of the Trans-Texas Corridor. An article in the Bonham Journal for example, states, "The toll roads will be under control of foreign investors, which more than frustrates Texans." [Emphasis mine]

Here is Sal Costello's report of the story from his own blog.

And for lots of links to information and commentary on the TTC, the Trans-Texas Corridor blog.

Ramos-Compean update

Just a quick update on the Ramos-Compean story; we haven't forgotten about these men.


Velvethammer at the Ironic Surrealism blog informs us about the "Free Ramos and Compean" Campaign, which is apparently a nationwide effort:

You are invited to actively participate in our ''Free Ramos and Compean'' campaign.

We are all determined to continue the fight to free Nacho Ramos and Jose Compean and the American Freedom Riders feel strongly that our noise level should remain high and constant. It is important that we convince the Justice Department and George Bush that the opposition to the imprisonment of these agents will continue to increase in volume rather than subside

The implications of this fight go far beyond the treatment of agents Ramos and Compean. At stake here is the ability of all border Patrol agents to effectively enforce our immigration laws without fear of prosecution.

Please check out the details here.


And see this article:
Ballistics data don't support charge against border agents
by Jerome R. Corsi

Ballistics reports, used in the trial of Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos, one of two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting fleeing drug dealer Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, do not support the prosecution's claim the bullet was fired from Ramos' gun, according to documents provided to WND from Andy Ramirez, Chairman of the Friends of the Border Patrol.

The rest of the article can be read here.


There is a lot of spin out there, attempting to justify the case against Ramos and Compean, so we need to be aware of the facts so as to appropriately judge the spin that is presented.

Who do we believe?

There has been some controversy lately over the religious background of Democrat candidate Barack Obama. A story appeared, claiming that he had been educated in a madrassa in Indonesia, and was thus raised a Moslem. The story, when it first appeared, was attributed to someone in Hillary Clinton's camp, but as the MSM scurried to denounce the story as a hoax and a lie, they declared that it came from a 'right-wing' source and that it was shamelessly spread by Fox News.

The sheer number of the debunking stories is staggering; it looks as though the MSM mobilized to counter the story almost as soon as it hit the wires. One of the first denials cited, as a rebuttal, Obama's own autobiography. Now how is that an independent, objective source? Obama defenders on the Internet have cited Snopes.com as their source for disproving the story. I see a lot of blind faith in Snopes.com as the ultimate authority on the truth of any story or rumor. I have read and consulted Snopes, and it can be informative and entertaining, but hardly infallible. To my knowledge, it's just a husband-and-wife team, and they consult mostly the same sources as you and I do to get their information, so I recommend taking them with a grain of salt. A number of people have raised questions about the bias of Snopes.com.

The Snopes.com folks are human beings with the same fallibility and unconscious biases as any of us. However they do present themselves as authoritative, and are given excessive credence in many cases. My point is not that they are not to be believed, but that they should be cross-checked, and that they should not be blindly trusted as all-knowing.

So was Obama educated in a full-blown madrassa, or just in a Moslem-run school in Indonesia? This is basically what the dispute comes down to. In his own autobiography he says that he went to a Moslem school for a couple of years, and a Catholic school. Indisputably, his first name, Barack, and middle name, Hussein, are Arab/Moslem names, so there will always be that question about his roots and his loyalties. I am surprised he or his defenders have not played the 'Islamophobia' card yet, but maybe because he asserts that he is a Christian now, they have chosen to ignore the Moslem connection.

As for Obama's denial of the Islamic connection, the question should be, would he have a reason to deny or whitewash any such connection? Given the present conflict with the Islamic world, it would hardly be politically wise for any Presidential candidate to embrace Moslem roots at this point.

Here is a piece you likely won't find in the MSM, about the church which Obama apparently attends.


My intent isn't to disparage anyone's choice of churches, but strictly from a conservative perspective, a very liberal church tends to be involved deeply in liberal politics. In Christian terms, the social gospel, very much tied in with political leftism, is the hallmark of liberal Christianity. Certainly in our society Obama's religious beliefs should not disqualify him, but on the other hand, we as voters are within our rights to take religious affiliations and loyalties into account. In a world in which militant Islam is on the march, announcing its intention of establishing a worldwide caliphate and Sharia law, we are wise to consider carefully the Moslem connection of any elected official.

Here is another article that won't be likely to appear in the American media, regarding Obama's background.


Obama's candidacy will probably not be adequately scrutinized by the supine media in our country, and the GOP will tend to tread lightly with him because of his double minority background: black, with Moslem connections. The GOP risks being accused of 'racism' and Islamophobia if it makes much of his background. I've heard Republicans saying that 'Hillary will go after him', since he is her chief rival, and they seem to believe the madrassa story was her doing. They are counting on her to demolish his candidacy, but I think even Hillary will have to be careful in her criticism of Obama, since she risks offending her ultra-PC base by going after him. They may end up being running mates; it would go over well with their multicultist base.

But there should be some scrutiny of Obama because of his Moslem connections, and we can't rely on the dishonest, PC media to do the necessary examining.

Multicultural education, circa 1956

The United States has been called the 'melting pot of the world.' The peoples who make up its population have come from all nations. They have proved without question that peoples of all colors, religions, and national origins can live together peacefully and happily. The American melting pot has been a success, but not a perfect success. In the United States there has been a certain amount of friction between white people and Negroes [sic], and among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.''

Before I continue, a disclaimer: the politically incorrect language in the last sentence above is a verbatim quote from the source, and not my own choice of words.The paragraph is from a half-century old World Book encyclopedia entry on ''Intercultural Education.''
I read it while browsing in this set of 1956-vintage encyclopedias recently, and was reminded of it when I read this
story from the UK Daily Mail, announcing a multicultural curriculum, which will encompass all subjects in schools:

Children will be taught race relations and multiculturalism with every subject they study -from Spanish to science - under controversial changes to the school curriculum announced by the Government.

In music and art, they could have to learn Indian and Chinese songs and instruments, and West African drumming .''

I used to believe that this kind of news story was unique to our own degenerate times, but reading the old 1956 encyclopedia, I found that the PC agenda has been around for decades, albeit under slightly different names, and with a less heavy-handed approach.
The British school plan is not that different from the approach in many schools in our own country, where multiculturalism and 'inclusion' are injected into every subject. Example: multicultural math.


More from the old encyclopedia:

The growth of large cities has brought troubles about housing . The growth of industry and business has caused more intense competition between groups. The Communist Party teaches its members who live in democracies to stir up race hatred in an attempt to make democracy appear ineffective.''
[emphasis mine]

Note: the article writers were correct in pointing out the role of the Communist Party in dividing people along racial and ethnic lines; divide and conquer, divide and rule, is a precept that has been used forever. Marx believed and taught that blacks would be part of the 'vanguard' of the revolution in our country and in Africa. When our home-grown leftists saw that our 'proletariat' was not revolutionary, as the working class became too comfortable and middle-class, the Left began to look to blacks as the revolutionary force in America, and worked at stirring up strife towards this end. Add that to the natural group frictions, and you have today's balkanized America, but further complicated by many, many new ethnic groups.

Educators in the United States have recognized the growth of friction between people of different groups. They have realized that the best way to stop friction is to educate children in the ways of tolerance, brotherhood, and interdependence. So they have introduced training in intercultural relations into the schools.
What Is Taught.
The Declaration of Independence gave the basic rule of intercultural relations. It declared ''All men are created free and equal.'' [sic] The United States Constitution gave equal rights and freedom to all citizens.
It is the purpose of intercultural education to fix in the minds of school children a belief in the American creed of freedom and equality. Anothere objective of intercultural education is to show how this creed must be practiced in daily life. Students are taught that "people are people", and that no man should be denied any rights because he is a Negro [sic], a Jew, an Italian, a Catholic, or a Japanese.
Teaching Methods
Some schools which were the first to teach intercultural education taught the subject as a separate course. The system was not very successful. Teachers soon found that much better results could be gained by including the subject in all courses on which it had bearing. One of the main aims of intercultural education is to show pupils how much their own group owes to others. This can be shown in many subjects. The study of English can show how the language has come from French, German, and Latin.
[...]Art and music teachers can point out that there have been masters in all nations and of all races and religions -- Da Vinci of Italy, Tschaikovsky of Russia, Beethoven of Germany, Chopin of Poland, Marian Anderson the Negro [sic], Mendelssohn the Jew, Rembrandt of the Netherlands, and El Greco, a Greek who lived in Spain. [Wow, a twofer with El Greco.]
Science teachers can show what inventions we have received from the Chinese, such as the making of paper and explosives. They can tell of the wonders perfomed by the Negro [sic] chemistry genius, George Washington Carver.
[...]All teachers can find frequent occasions to explode popular misbeliefs about various groups by presenting the facts.''

Yes, I can recognize much of this agenda in what I was taught in school back in the 1950s, although perhaps the agenda was less zealously pushed in the South, where the True Believers in the educational field were not as numerous back then.

Intercultural education goes beyond the classroom. On the playground, children of the various races and creeds can be taught to play together and show respect for each other.
In 1939 the public schools of Springfield, Mass., started such a program of intercultural education. The program was worked into all subjects and all activities of the school. Some Negro [sic] teachers were hired to teach classes of both white and Negro [sic] children. The sponsors of the plan have reported considerable success.
Outside The Schools.
Intercultural education is not limited entirely to the schools. It has been made part of the programs of churches, young people's clubs, and other organizations. One church in a New England town invited a group of Negro children from New York City to visit the town and live with white families. Later some of the New England children visited their New York friends in their Harlem homes.
Newspapers and magazines have done much to aid intercultural education.
[...] During World War II, most newspapers were quick to tell of the patriotism and loyalty of Japanese-American members of the armed forces. National Brotherhood Week is celebrated each year in the United states. Newspapers, radio, television, and motion pictures give special publicity to questions of group tolerance at this time.''

And the media have become even more gung-ho for political correctness in the intervening decades. But this encyclopedia article does show us that some of these ideas have been around in American society since at least the 1930s, when the Springfield, MA schools instituted the 'intercultural education' agenda. I truly think that leftists have been insinuating themselves into crucial positions in the media, education, and politics for many decades. That was their announced intention and plan, and yet some people still doubt that such is the case.

So much of the leftist agenda has been absorbed into our culture that it has become second nature to many people. Many people don't even realize the source of many of the pervasive ideas in our culture, like the obsession with egalitarianism which the intercultural education proponents cited so often in the excerpts above. Of course it sounds good and noble to say that 'all men are created equal', which Thomas Jefferson wrote, but did he intend for that phrase to be interpreted as justification for multiculturalism and a complete leveling of society? A thorough reading of his written works shows that he did not believe in the idea of erasing distinctions between people, and he did not propose that all cultures were equal, which is the basis of multiculturalism. So much of the leftist agenda is only a twisting and perverting of sound ideas into something else. 'All men are created equal' has been twisted to support Communism and various more benign-sounding leftist theories, as well as multiculturalism and open borders. 'All men are created equal' is also being used to justify things like 'No Child Left Behind', affirmative action, and racial quotas. After all, if all men are created equal, why should they not all have equal outcomes in life?

It all sounds benign and well-intentioned when we read the excerpts from the encyclopedia; who could object to phrases like 'people are people'? Who could object to people treating each other fairly and civilly? Who would favor unkindness or unfairness? The problem is not with that simple intention, but the lengths to which it has been taken, some 51 years later. Now, we not only have schools teaching children about the talented people of various nations or races, with credit given where due, but we have reached the point of absurdity, as in this:

The teachings are sheer fantasy, unsubstantiated by any credible evidence: ancient Egyptians mastered flight with gliders, which they used for both recreation and travel. They invented electric batteries and mastered electroplating, discovered the principles of quantum mechanics and anticipated Darwin's theories of evolution. Furthermore, all Egyptians were black, and their abundance of the dark skin pigment, melanin, not only made them more humane and superior to lighter-skinned people in body and mind but also provided such paranormal powers as ESP and psychokinesis.

Incredible as it may seem, these fallacies are being included in public school multicultural courses in a growing number of U.S. cities and espoused in black-studies departments on some college campuses.''

Afrocentric theory is the basis of such nonsense, but to dispute it is to open oneself to the inevitable charges of 'racism.' I actually had a black professor in college in the 70s who insisted that Beethoven was black. 'Just look at his hair in the pictures', she said, by way of 'proving' her assertion. Not only was Beethoven black, but so were Socrates, Pushkin, (he apparently did have some African descent) and other luminaries. Now we have people claiming that Edward 'the Black Prince' of England, was actually black.
This school web page says coyly,

His nickname probably was derived from the color of his armor, but nobody knows for sure.''

Right. So we leave the door open to the possibility that Edward was actually black, as in African.
If we ask skeptically why this fact was not known in the past, I am sure we would find somebody who would say 'they kept it quiet because of racism', just as my professor said about the cover-up of Beethoven's race.

Such is the arrant nonsense that we have opened the door to, in the name of making everybody feel good about themselves. If the goal of bringing about 'tolerance and brotherhood' and nowadays, boosting that sacred self-esteem, is noble enough, then that makes it permissible to lie and concoct fantasies about the past. If there aren't enough accomplishments by every race and nation, why not make them up? After all, it's in a good cause. But the truth is, achievement, on an individual level or on a national and racial level, is not equally distributed. Yet the truth is not acceptable, because it doesn't support the egalitarian agenda. So let's discard the truth and make up some flattering lies and fairy tales, like Egyptians flying around among the pyramids, and a black prince in England in the 14th century.

I suppose, being generous, we might excuse this as silliness for the sake of putting a good face on things; white lies of a sort. But then there is the darker side of this kind of revisionism for the sake of leveling: the depiction of Europeans and people of European descent as being arch-villains, committers of 'genocide' against the noble savages; this kind of thing is the stock-in-trade of the Aztlan crowd, with their stories of Columbus killing 30 million people, and of their mythical 'Aztlan' being stolen from them. This kind of belief system, irrational as it is, is a danger to us, because it may motivate those who would usurp our country.

In the UK, the sinister elites there seem intent on convincing people that Britain has always been multiracial and multicultural. Is it a coincidence that there has been a spate of stories like this one attempting to establish that there are long-standing African genes among the English? Notice how the article uses scare quotes around the word 'indigenous', as much as to question whether the English people are the 'real' indigenous people. It's all motivated by the multicultural agenda, it seems. Even science is being used for political ends.

The result of all this deceptively benign-sounding 'intercultural education', after decades, is a decidedly less benevolent one. The majority populations of all Western countries are demoralized after generations of being told that they and their ancestors are guilty, and intrinsically 'racist', and that they have no right to take pride in who they are, no right to consider their own interests as a group, while every other group and ethnicity has that right. 'Intercultural education', whether it was intended to do so or not, has had the effect of softening up the West for invasion and submission. The seeming capitulation of much of Europe to Islam seems mostly attributable to this pernicious doctrine of 'tolerance' inculcated in us for decades. When you have one group of people who are heavily indoctrinated to be all-accepting, open, tolerant, and self-blaming, while their competitors are aggressive, hyperconfident, and without restraint, the outcome is sadly predictable.

I see promising signs that people are now aware of some of these things, and awareness is the first step to shaking off the chains of our decades of leftist conditioning.

And to all thinking people with school-age children, home-schooling is an option to be considered.

Fat theocrats

''By their cheese grits shall ye know them?'

On 'fair and balanced' Fox News I heard a little of a news story about a Purdue University study, claiming that Christians, as a group, are fatter than people of other faiths, and that, surprise, surprise, Baptists were the most likely to be overweight.

My first reaction was: why was such a study done? To what end? And who funds such studies? I suspect that ultimately they are taxpayer-funded. But why did Fox News find this bit of snarky junk-science newsworthy, especially with so many real news events going unreported?

So I googled the subject, and came up with this

Saving souls is serious business for Annandale, Va., pastor Steve Reynolds. So is losing weight.

Which is why he stepped out from behind the lectern during a service one recent weekend to deliver a blunt message to those crowded into the pews below.

"About 40 percent of you need to lose weight," he told his congregation at Capital Baptist Church. "When you love potluck more than God, it's serious."

And with that, the preacher, who has lost 70 pounds by relying on God and low carbs, launched a mission to lead his followers into the burgeoning world of religious dieting.
[...]Several recent studies have found that Christians are fatter than those of other faiths.

The odd thing, however, was that the Purdue Study, cited in these stories, is from 1996! So why is it back in the news now?

Weighty matter: Is religion making us fat?
Cathleen Falsani - Chicago Sun-Times

Chicago, USA - Back in the decadent early 1980s, New Wave rocker Adam Ant mocked clean living in his maddeningly catchy song, "Goody Two Shoes."

"Don't drink, don't smoke, what do ya do?" Ant taunted.

A new Purdue University study may hold the answer to Ant's question.

If they don't drink and don't smoke, what do they do?

Eat, apparently.

"America is becoming known as a nation of gluttony and obesity, and churches are a feeding ground for this problem," says Ken Ferraro, a Purdue sociology professor who studied more than 2,500 adults over a span of eight years ...'
[...]Exhibit A: The Rev. Jerry Falwell, Baptist king of the Christian right. Falwell has been accused (rightly) of being many things.

Chubby, for instance.

He may not drink or smoke, or think lusty liberal thoughts, but it looks like the good reverend has never met a plate of cheese grits he didn't love. And it may have cost him. Falwell, 73, was hospitalized last year for acute congestive heart failure. His hefty weight, doctors said at the time, wasn't helping matters.
[...]Ferraro's study also found that about 20 percent of "Fundamentalist Protestants," (Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God and Church of God); about 18 percent of "Pietistic Protestants," (Methodist, Christian Church and African Methodist Episcopal), and about 17 percent of Catholics were obese.

By contrast, about 1 percent of the Jewish population and less than 1 percent of other non-Christians, including Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others), were tipping the scales with commensurate gusto.''

And get the comments about Rev. Falwell. Now I am not a Baptist nor a particular fan of Jerry Falwell, but I notice he is one of the favorite whipping boys of the anti-Christian liberals of both parties. But why single him out for derision, such as the comment about cheese grits? And what's wrong with cheese grits, by the way?

Lately, Christians have been taking a pummeling from the media. I know; what else is new? But the anti-Christians have been in a frenzy lately, with Nancy Pelosi's daughter on a tear against Christians,and I have noticed that Fox News has devoted quite a bit of coverage to that movie of hers. Fair and balanced?

Then there's Kevin Phillips and his 'American Theocracy.' And who knows how many other such books. On the 'right', so-called, we have Andy Sullivan, with his constant ravings about 'Christianists.' which I assume is supposed to make us think of 'Islamists', because, as these people say, Christian fundamentalists are just as bad as Moslem fundamentalists.

So maybe in this atmosphere of everybody piling on the Christians, dredging up some old study about Christians being fatties is relatively trivial, but it seems, shall I say it? Mean-spirited. Maybe the 'theocrat' slur wasn't getting enough traction; not enough Americans know or care about theocrats, but everybody has a disdain of fat. And it seems to confirm the stereotype of the liberal media that 'right-wing Christians' are trailer-trash rednecks, since obesity is also part of the lower-class image they love to ascribe to Christian conservatives.

And what about the writer's snide comparison to non-Christian groups? They, of course, are all svelte and slim and healthy, while only the cheese-grits-eating fundies are singled out for disapproval.

Trivial this story may be, but I still have to wonder why it was important enough to be covered on Fox, while more important things are ignored.

More border incidents

...that we won't hear about on Fox News or the other major media:

Three more border agents assaulted

One Border Patrol agent was nearly struck with a vehicle and two more nearly drowned within the past 10 days.

Yuma sector spokesman Chris Van Wagenen said these types of incidents are something the Border Patrol expects. He said those who profit from illegal activity are not going to give up control of the border without a fight.

"They're hoping to win through intimidation and violence.''
[...] The number of illegal aliens crossing the border has gone down, thanks to increased enforcement and the presence of the National Guard. But as the Border Patrol has predicted for some time, the amount of violence has gone up.

The record number of Border Patrol agent assaults for one fiscal year is 119. In 2006-07, there have already been 90 after only about four months, according to Van Wagenen.

"It's a 60 percent increase on last year," he said.'

Meanwhile, our major media makes sure we know all the latest celebrity news and gossip. 'Pay no attention to the ongoing border war' seems to be the attitude.

Multicult ideology in our schools

Hmongs want respect for role in Vietnam

Several Democrat lawmakers are reintroducing the Hmong Migration Education Act. Principle author Donna Seidel (D-Wausau) says she wants Wisconsin school districts to be required to teach our kids about how and why the Hmong population came here. She hopes to create an environment in our state of mutual respect and tolerance. "Our hope is that this legislation will create a better understanding of the Hmong's heroic role and enormous sacrifice in support of America's military during the Vietnam Era."

ChaSong Yang, Executive Director of the Sheboygan Hmong Mutual Association, says Hmong children in the US often question their parents about whether the Hmong really helped the US government during the Vietnam War, because it's not mentioned in the US History books.''

For those who don't remember this incident from a few years ago, this indicates some of the problems between Hmong and the majority local population:
Hmong Hunter Charged With 6 Murders Is Said to be a Shaman

Before the crime above happened, Joe Guzzardi at VDare wrote this piece, and James Fulford wrote this piece, after the killings:
'From our ''We Told You So'' Department -- A Hmong Hmedley

And here is Roy Beck's thorough explication of what happened with the growth of the Hmong settlement in Wisconsin.
It's worth reading; the situation in Wausau since the arrival of the immigrants/refugees is a microcosm of what is happening across America, with one town, formerly homogeneous, being overwhelmed by immigrants from a drastically different, essentially stone-age culture. There have been gang problems, the inevitable strain on social services, and the divisions among the locals that the presence of the immigrant 'community' brought.

And then recently, a Hmong was killed, further complicating the tensions.


I encounter so many Americans who are caught up in the romanticized American vision of immigration as portrayed in gauzy Hollywood images and the sentimentally rosy pictures of some history books. Today's immigrants, it can't be said often enough, are not the equivalent of the immigrants of the old days, so glowingly represented in our collective memory.

There are a lot of Vietnam vets who cling to their own sentimental ideas that we must, that is MUST provide a refuge and a home for the Hmong 'because they helped us out in Nam'. If they did help us, and I am assuming they actually did, they did so because it was in their own self-interest. They merely joined forces with us against their hereditary enemies. An analogy would be the American Indian tribes who sometimes made alliances with the white settlers and colonists against enemy tribes, or against other whites. They did not do so because they loved us but for reasons of their own, for the most part, because it suited their purposes, it was expedient for them to help us.

And if it's necessary to give the Hmong a perpetual place at our table, then we must bring all our allies or helpers from the troubled Middle East, also, to America, and probably drop them down in some nice quiet Midwestern town, if such a place still remains. That is always the way these resettlement programs work; there must be an official government policy to that effect: refugees and exotic immigrant groups are required to be resettled in a quiet, homogeneous small town. Always. Can't have homogeneity; diversity is good, ergo homogeneity is doubleplusungood.

But if the Hmong did help us in Viet Nam, how long does our obligation to them last? Why is America now the designated savior of the entire world? Can we resolve all the age-old conflicts in the world? Are we so problem-free, so wealthy, and so secure in our land that we can now take on the problems of the whole world? Apparently a sizeable portion of our population thinks so, as they are hellbent on our being the servant of humanity, at our own expense.

It looks as though the conflicts the Hmong left behind in Southeast Asia are now being replaced by conflicts in our own country. American citizens are being killed, and life in many of these Midwestern towns will never be the same, all thanks to our do-goodism run amok.


And if we follow this policy of rescuing everybody, we will be seeing a huge increase in immigration from Iraq; we will be compelled to give visas to everybody that has been an ostensible ally or helper to us over there. But what happens when the various factions of Iraqis end up next door to their enemies from back home, as has been happening in Detroit? And what about the possibility of fraud and taqiyya? Can we be sure that potential refugees are who and what they claim to be? Might there not be some terrorists or would-be terrorists among them?

Terrorism is not the only concern, as the stories about the Hmong demanding 'respect' in our history books. Every new ethnic group we introduce to our country becomes another part of an unworkable puzzle, whose pieces don't fit together. They become 'victims' which is all part of post-Civil Rights era America: claim victimhood and discrimination, demand 'respect' and deference, and you win the lottery. And America loses; it's a one-sided deal in which we lose every roll of the dice, because those dice are loaded. We can never do right, only wrong. If there is a difference of opinion, we have to apologize, we have to bend, we have to make concessions and amends. We have to rewrite history to include mea culpas, to make ourselves the sole villains and authors of every injustice. We have to give up pieces of our history and heritage and common memory so as to avoid offending some victim group. When is enough enough?

I am still waiting for the day when not just a lone voice or two, but masses of people stand up and say that the multicultural emperor has no clothes.

English = assimilation?

Chapter II in the 'shape up or....?' story begins with Newt Gingrich, who was on Fox News today, selling his dandy new '5-step Assimilation Plan' for immigrants. Now I confess that I didn't have time to catch the whole segment, and I saw only the beginning, where he began with the obligatory disclaimer, you know, the bit where the smarmy politician says 'I'm all in favor of legal immigration...' , so as to ward off the racism charges. Now that phrase usually causes me to reach for the remote, because I know that what follows will be some kind of half-hearted, serpent-tongued denunciation of illegal immigration, while still being immigrant-friendly.

However, I caught enough of Newt to hear him say that he favors legal immigration, and he believes that most immigrants come here because they want to be Americans, but they need to learn English. So we need to have a program for teaching them English, so that they assimilate.

Just as with John Howard's plea for immigrants to Australia to learn English and assimilate, as far as it goes, that idea is fine, but is it enough? Does speaking English guarantee assimilation? Yes, it is a part of assimilating, but does learning the language in and of itself lead inevitably to assimilating, and is it a proof of assimilation?

Learning English is the bare minimum of what we must expect of would-be immigrants. In fact if they are determined to come to this country, common sense would suggest that they ought to know some English even before they make the trip here. American culture is a worldwide thing these days, (to the chagrin of many people); so those who want to learn English can even learn a fair bit from movies or TV programs. Enterprising immigrants of the past have learned English in that fashion. However, as we know, there are many outwardly-acculturated immigrants and even children of immigrants who are not assimilated. Yesterday I mentioned the Lackawanna Six, the terror plotters who had grown up in an American suburb, but who were conspiring towards some act of terror towards 'fellow' Americans. The 7/7 bombers in the UK are another example of outwardly assimilated Moslems who were so full of hatred towards those whose country had nurtured and educated them that they were willing to kill others, strangers, and even themselves for their twisted ideals. Speaking fluent English, using the latest youth slang, made none of these young people part of the countries they lived in. They were in the country but not of it. The 'we' they identified with was not Britain, or the United States, but the Islamic 'we.' Just as many of our Latino immigrants, and even native-born Hispanics, identify with their Raza, their 'gente', and fly the Mexican flag or the Dominican flag or whatever, pledging their allegiance to their blood kin, not to Americans.

So Gingrich is peddling facile, cheap answers, and in doing so, is furthering the multicultural agenda. If he can lull the easily-pleased among us into thinking that we can solve the difficult problems of mass immigration by his '5-step program', then he is part of the problem. He is promoting, by implication, the idea that we are all really the same, and interchangeable, if only we all learn a common language and participate in a common, lowest common denominator mass culture.

Evidently Newt is one of those who believes that everybody is potentially an American, but the evidence of reality and common sense tells us that not everybody is equally assimilable, and further, that maybe some are not assimilable in any real sense at all. But admitting this is denying the liberal presuppositions of egalitarianism, and the core liberal idea that we all self-create, and that the key is to make immigrants want to be American. We just have to get them to want to re-invent themselves as Americans, and the way to do that is to have a 5-step program, or reach out to them, and so on; just the kind of thing the neoconservatives in the GOP have been pushing.

Why are some immigrants seemingly impervious to assimilation, or Americanization, as it used to be called? The real ideologues among us would deny that such is the case. They will continue to insist that everybody is the same, despite surface differences. But history indicates otherwise. In the past, most of our immigrants came from European cultures, and the process of acculturation and assimilation were relatively easy, although some groups have been much slower to assimilate. We might argue that some groups have resisted assimilation, and this is true to the extent that their cultures were dissimilar to the core Anglo-Saxon Protestant American culture. But eventually most European immigrants did assimilate. However with our current predominantly non-Western immigrants, legal and illegal, their cultures are at odds with our own to a considerable extent; their mores, their habits, their ways, are distant from our own. Add to this the fact that most of our immigrants of today come from cultures in which Westerners, especially Americans, are viewed negatively. Americans in particular may be envied by many but they are also greatly resented. Many people in Third World countries view Americans as obscenely rich, and expect handouts from Americans as their due. I learned this first-hand, when my home address was made known in a publication, and I began to receive begging -- and demanding -- letters from strangers in African countries. They assumed that all Americans were fabulously rich and that they need only ask, and receive money or gifts. I suppose the 'Nigerian e-mail scam' had not been thought of yet, but the same phenomenon is at work there. Americans are seen, at best, as rich, gullible, and there for the fleecing. At worst, we are pictured as exploiters, oppressors, usurpers of their territory, in the case of our Latino neighbors. Now what can be expected when we import these attitudes en masse to our country? And can a few English lessons, or even fluency in English hope to counter all of that? In fact, when the immigrants are fluent enough in English to watch American TV and read English-language newspapers, they will simply be exposed to even more anti-American propaganda, as served up by our leftist entertainment media and news media. Our educational system, too, is riddled with disparaging messages about American history and American society.

Assimilation worked, in the past, for several reasons: we were selective about who we admitted to this country. They came from compatible countries, and we limited the numbers. We never admitted immigrants indiscriminately as we are doing now with our de facto open borders. Large numbers of immigrants, and the establishment of immigrant enclaves were never part of the plan.

We were able to assimilate immigrants in part, too, because ours was a confident, assertive culture, and we did not adopt a weak, appeasing attitude to newcomers.

There was no large-scale support for foreign-language communities in old America; they were expected to learn English, and most of them did so willingly. Few or none of our past immigrants came here with a grudge against America for some perceived past wrong or injustice. Few or none came here with the intent of doing harm to Americans or of subverting American society, or reclaiming it in the name of their native country.
Now, we are recklessly opening the doors to people who may well have a subversive agenda, as at least some of our Hispanic immigrants, or they may even desire to actually kill and destroy, as the 9/11 hijackers did.

Another complicating factor in our policies of admitting mostly third-world, minority immigrants is our current, ongoing racial issues. America, since the 1960s especially, has been embroiled in the mainstreaming of black Americans into our society. As a result, the more extreme black leaders perpetuate racial conflict and a whole industry built on the guilt feelings of the American majority. We are still trying to negotiate our way beyond that impasse, and now, into the middle of an already difficult situation, we import millions of non-white immigrants who are now adding their voices to the chorus of grievances against majority America. We now have preferential policies like 'Affirmative Action', supposedly in the name of making restitution for past discrimination (two wrongs apparently do make a right, according to some), and now the newly-arrived minorities, who have absolutely no claim to having been 'historic victims of discrimination' in America, are now entitled to all the benefits of AA, as well as many other social entitlements based on skin color or ethnicity. Now, thanks to mass third-world immigration, majority Americans have millions of new claimants to special considerations, and eligible for benefits. How will this all play out when the American majority is the new minority? How will the descendants of majority Americans, as an outnumbered minority, still be expected to make amends and restitution to an aggrieved collection of former minorities?

None of those who have concocted this present insane immigration policy has ever addressed any of these questions. Instead they pretend that things can go on just as they are, even when the demographics of this country are absolutely turned on their head, with today's majority reduced to a minority. But considerations like this don't enter the minds of the social engineers. And I consider Newt to be as much a part of the problem as any of the rest of the immigration enthusiasts.

Newt, how many is too many? Does this country have a carrying capacity? Or do we just keep on packing them in until we reach India-style population density? And by the way, Mr. Arch-conservative Newt, what about the economic burden all this immigration creates? Aren't conservatives supposed to be the small government guys, the ones who crunch the numbers and see that we aren't living beyond our means? Where's the fiscal responsibility?

On a much smaller scale, I wonder what the costs of Newt's little 'assimilation program' would be? Our government already spends, big-time, on 'Hispanic outreach', interpreters, counselors, special studies of the Hispanic population and their needs, educational programs, subsidized tuition for illegal students, Hispanic health programs, special small-business programs, and so on. We are not even talking about the other costs, such as the bankrupt hospitals, overcrowded jails, overloaded courts, crimes by immigrants and the resultant expenses, lives lost via immigrant crime, costs of monitoring possible Moslem terror activities -- I could go on, but we all know. Yet we have to spend even more money to spoon-feed reluctant immigrants the English language? Just take away all the bilingual documents and teachers, take away Univision and Telemundo and all the rest of the bilingual catering, and they might just have to learn English.

But even if they all learn fluent English, that will not be a solution to the problem, which is that we have too many immigrants, too fast, and at too high a cost to our society in cultural terms as well as financial terms. The levels of immigration we have now are unprecedented in American history, I think the same can be said for many Western countries, like Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. Something hitherto unknown is being carried out in the West, and nobody, not our politicians or academics or media, none of them know where it it leading us, or what the end result will be. Those of us who are not woolly-minded academics or loopy leftist utopians know that the result will not be a utopia. We do know, based on demographic projections, that we majority Western peoples will be on the outside looking in, dispossessed in our own countries, and with nowhere to go. To believe, as some people are content to say they do, that all the problems will work themselves out, and people will just learn to get along, is highly unrealistic. That kind of faith, at least in human beings, is something I don't have; it's a huge leap in the dark.

The only hope our country has is for a resurgence of real, genuine conservatism, which in true conservative fashion, is willing to take a hard-eyed look at where we are, on the edge of a precipice, and to speak the truth about the situation. From there, we need to try to find a way to step back from the precipice, if we want to preserve our countries as we have known them, and to preserve a way of life which it took our ancestors many generations of toil and blood to achieve. If 'conservatives' are willing to throw all that away, gambling on some bizarre exercise in social engineering on a global scale, then that is proof that they are not conservatives in any real sense at all. Any conservative, falsely so-called, who promotes mass immigration, or unending immigration, is deceived or deceiving us.

At this moment in our history, the primary concern should be preserving our country, our people, our way of life, our heritage. Everything else is a secondary consideration.

Everything.