The Religion of Peace meets the Religion of PC

Behold the face of Political Correctness: Willie Rae, Chief Constable of the Strathclyde Police.
During his statement, after the Glasgow attack, in which he allowed that the Airport incident 'was terrorism', he proceeded to go into the obligatory song-and-dance about how the authorities would not tolerate any kind of 'harassment' of the local 'minority communities' and that any such behavior would be dealt with.

How typical of our weakling Western authorities now. It's a ritual that whenever any attack is made on citizens, even one in which lives are lost and people are injured and maimed, we have to be subjected to such lectures by our authorities, who obviously think that preserving the feelings of 'minority communities' is their chief mission. What it means is that we would rather see innocent lives sacrificed and people horribly killed and maimed rather than 'offend' any of our 'minority communities.' It's beginning to look as though our authorities, who are ostensibly charged with providing for our safety and security, instead see themselves as charged with protecting 'minority communities' from the rest of us.

I remember that Willie Rae's London counterpart, 'Sir' Ian Blair, made a disgustingly dhimmi-like speech just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. He said something about how the word violence and the word Islam do not belong together, and that terrorism is the work of merely a tiny minority of extremists, etc. etc. You know how the speech goes.

Our Western leaders are saying implicitly that they will see many of their own citizens dead rather than risk being mean to Moslems. So 'profiling' and exclusion of Mohammedans is not even to be discussed or considered or thought. 'Fairness' and tolerance and openness take precedence over life and survival itself.

Is this not the definition of derangement? Or is it just craven cowardice? Or is it ideological tunnel vision?

And as if Willie Rae was not bad enough, here we have Alex Salmond, Scotland's 'first minister' lecturing the Scottish people:

Mr Salmond appealed for calm, following the attack at Glasgow Airport, while stressing that steps were being taken to keep people safe.

He also told BBC Scotland that individuals, not communities, were responsible for their actions.
[...]
"No community in Scotland should feel threatened or under suspicion because of this incident."

Community relations in Scotland, he said, were strong, adding: "They've withstood a number of pressures over recent years and they'll withstand this pressure as well." '

Translation: the multicultural agenda will go on as before, regardless of its cost to human life, to civil liberties, and to the quality of life in Scotland or elsewhere. And the people will have to like it and go along with it, or else. You can be sure that any Scottish or British citizen who offends the protected Moslems will be dealt with much more harshly than any apprehended terror suspects, who will be treated with kid gloves and protected by various liberal organizations like Amnesty International.

And here in our country, it is not much better; whenever any terror plot is uncovered, the media are full of stories about the 'backlash' that never happens, and our elected officials lecture us in the same way that the PC-addled officials in the UK lecture their people. Something is really, seriously wrong with this picture.

The news coverage on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC follow the usual PC template, with inane questions from the anchors and the usual talking heads providing their useless commentary. The British correspondent Simon Marks, when asked about immigration and terror, immediately got up on his high horse and said that the 7/7 attacks were done by British citizens, and that therefore they had nothing to do with immigration.. How obtuse can one get? Of course the bombers
may have been technically 'British nationals', to use the very legalistic term, but in no sense were they part of the historic British nation and the historic British people. The very fact of their alien origins and their alien belief system is the source of their desire to do harm to British people. But this must not be acknowledged; it might offend other such 'British nationals' who nonetheless hate their adopted country and culture.

One side note: Alex Salmond, quoted above, is the leader of the Scottish National Party. Now, traditionally Scottish nationalists (like Irish and Welsh nationalists in their countries) championed their right to be free of English domination. These nationalist parties denounce the wrongs of the Sassenachs dating back hundreds of years. So why on earth do each and all of these parties support multiculturalism and the presence of Moslems and other foreign cultures in their midst? Wasn't the idea for Scotland to be under Scottish control, with a fully Scottish culture and way of life? If not, then what does nationalism mean, or what use is it? The English at their worst could never be as inimical to Scotland (or Ireland or Wales) than the Moslems and other such unassimilable alien peoples.

I noticed that some paleocons have applauded the rise of the SNP and the other nationalist parties, oblivious to the fact that these faux nationalists support the leftist, multicult agenda, and hence are no friends of true nationalism.

A 'nationalism' that stands for political correctness and multicult ideas is not what is needed in any Western country now, in these days of mass immigration, demographic warfare, and jihad.

What is needed, first of all, is a containment of Islam within its own sphere. The adnerents of that cult have proven time and again that they are both unwilling and incapable of living peaceably among non-Moslems.

Chuck Baldwin on the Bush presidency

Chuck Baldwin reflects on The Worst Tragedy Of the Bush Administration.


I expected in this piece to read the obvious criticisms: the Iraq misadventure, the growth in big government, and the border debacle. But the real point of this article, the tragedy referred to in the title, is the damage done to the name of Christianity, and this is something that has recently occurred to me, too.

The worst tragedy of the Bush presidency is the damage he has done to the image and influence of Christianity. It is no hyperbole to say that George W. Bush has done more to demean and mitigate the positive influence of genuine Christianity than any single person in American history. And I do not say that lightly.

Because George W. Bush successfully portrayed himself as the ultimate Christian president, his life and policies are indelibly linked to the very definition of what it means to be a Christian in public office. The Religious Right also share in this perception, as they almost universally and totally gave their allegiance to Bush. Hence, as far as most Americans are concerned, George W. Bush is a Christian, and, therefore, his philosophies and ideas are assumed to be Christian as well. THIS IS A TRAGEDY OF UTMOST PROPORTIONS!''

I suspect some people will think Pastor Baldwin is engaging in some hyperbole here, but I don't think he is. I have heard and read so many disparaging comments from nonbelievers, relating to the President's supposed 'right-wing fundamentalist Christian beliefs'. And granted, fundamentalist Christians, which to nonbelievers includes any Bible-believing Christian, have never been the flavor of the month. That goes with the territory; Christians know that this is part of being a Christian: to be hated and resented. But the current President has been the most visible symbol in public life of Christianity, and he seems to have lowered the world's opinion of Christianity and Christians, judging by the increasing hostility towards Christians. At the very least, if you don't agree that he has brought discredit, he has given a false picture of Christianity. Pastor Baldwin gives the example of the President's repeated statements that 'Christians and Muslims worship the same God', which, as I have said, is not Christian belief at all. It is simply unbiblical.

Yet he has, as Pastor Baldwin says, alienated some people further while at the same time persuading many believers that his brand of Christianity is legitimate, and led them further from traditional Christian belief and doctrine.

...not only do non-Christians look askance at Christianity, many genuine Christians have had their entire philosophy regarding Biblical principles uprooted and redefined. Worse still, many Christians have, either wittingly or unwittingly, chosen to adopt Bush's brand of Christianity, and in so doing, have abandoned genuine Bible Christianity.
[...]
In addition, genuine Christianity respects the Biblical principle of nationhood and national boundaries. It recognizes that any attempt at globalism is nothing more than a devilish attempt to erect a modern-day Tower of Babel. As such, American Christians have historically stood for national sovereignty and independence, and any attempts at providing amnesty for illegal aliens or at blurring our national borders have been met with vehement opposition: for spiritual as well as political and cultural reasons. The Bush presidency has changed all that.''
[emphasis mine]

I think Pastor Baldwin will probably anger some people with this piece, but the truth has a way of doing that. I am sure there will be the usual cries of 'judge not', which is the perennial retort to any kind of criticism or reproof, no matter how well-founded. I am glad that he pointed out the danger of associating the present adminstration's policies with Christianity. It needed to be said. I hope that this article opens the eyes of some to the damage that is being done, and I do hope that people will take to heart what he says about genuine Christianity as opposed to the neoconned brand of Christianity which is on display for the whole world to see.

Those of us who are Christians have to be on guard against letting political loyalties and excessive focus on worldly leaders lead us astray. It surprised me, a few years ago, to see how much anger I drew from Bush fans when I quoted the Scripture 'put not your trust in princes'. In the eyes of the Bush loyalists, I had uttered blasphemy by saying that. But nonbelievers who are observing all this adulation for a President should be aware that cult-like devotion to a political leader is not Biblical; our citizenship is not in this world, so Christians who are excessively infatuated with political leaders are not representing true Christianity.

Those of us who are Christians are told to pray for our leaders and to obey the laws of the land, as long as those laws don't violate God's laws. But Christianity does not lend itself to cults of personality or blind loyalty to any leader.

Presidential Politics Survey

Here is a fun survey to tell you which candidate you should support, based on the answers you give. (H/T Daily Paul)

If you agree with us that issues matter, then take the following objectively designed short survey to see which of the leading candidates most agree with your position on a wide variety of issues - and also who least agrees with those positions - you may be surprised!''

I took the quiz, and came out with Ron Paul as the leading choice.

The people yes

The Washington Times editorial writers give their post-mortem on the amnesty bill, and declare that it was killed by the American people.

The people killed amnesty

The justifiably furious reaction of the American public, which deluged senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes, forced the Senate to reverse itself yesterday and send the amnesty bill crashing to defeat — a potentially fatal blow. It was a devastating setback for the Bush administration and its Democratic Party allies, in particular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Ted Kennedy.

In addition to being an extraordinary substantive triumph for the American people, it was a huge victory for the conservative movement. Talkers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and many others played an indispensable role in making available the research by the Heritage Foundation and NumbersUSA and analysis from editorial pages such as this one to tens of millions of Americans in a very short period of time. But ironically, by demonstrating in a powerful way its ability to reach and educate the public about the specific problems with the bill, talk radio has also made liberal politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein even more determined to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine (the equal-time policy enforced by the Federal Communications Commission until it was eliminated in 1987 at the urging of President Reagan) in an effort to take away the one part of the mass media that conservatives dominate.''

They are right about the people delivering the coup de grace to the bill, by means of their calls, e-mails, and faxes.

However does talk radio in general deserve as much credit as this op-ed piece gives them? I don't listen to most of the personalities mentioned. Rush Limbaugh, however, I know has been a Johnny-come-lately to the borders issue, having been conspicuous by his absence from the debate until very recently, when he finally deigned to address it. And from what I hear, he was glibly predicting the amnesty bill would 'sail through' the Senate. Rush obviously underestimated the American people. Hannity has covered the border issue on Fox News, but to my knowledge, he is one of those people who makes quite a show of saying that he opposes only illegal immigration. In fact, most of the talk show personalities fit that category. Still, credit should be given where due, even if these talk radio people often play it safe and allow only politically correct criticisms of immigration. For instance, it's pretty much a given that any criticism of legal immigration is not allowed; only illegal immigration is fair game for debate. That is a huge problem that must be dealt with; if the open borders fanatics (and that is what they are) decide to forget amnesty for the time being, and just work on expanding legal immigration, what response will the 'respectables' have to that, since they have committed themselves to opposing only illegal immigration?

Too much of the debate on immigration is confined within the politically correct bounds of what is allowed to be discussed. If talk radio is to be really useful the debate should be broadened to include the full range of conservative opinion. Those who criticize talk radio for being 'too conservative' are clueless; the majority of talk radio hosts personalities are moderate/right-liberal.

But as far as mobilizing people to oppose the amnesty, the blogosphere has been a real force, I think. The old media, including the Washington Times, seem to have a blind spot where the blogging world is concerned. Some are of the belief that only a relative few log onto the Internet for news and discussion. I believe that more people than ever are turning to the Internet for these things, having found the old media to be hopelessly biased when covering political matters, and too focused on junk news when they are not force-feeding us propaganda. The Internet has created a group of very well-informed people, and these people in turn are exerting an influence on their friends and family who may not be Internet-savvy themselves.

VDare, Michelle Malkin, FAIR, and others who focus on the immigration issue have played a big role. The Internet is the only news source where you can access a full range of opinions and commentary. I think for many of us, the Internet expanded our horizons beyond the limited world of spoon-fed politics in the old media, including cable news channels.

So now that the people have killed amnesty, or at least stopped it in its tracks, what next? This should be an occasion for the people to feel their oats, and realize the power that resides in acting as a united group. The American people, as I've said before, are like Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians. We have for too long relinquished our strength, and allowed ourselves to be rendered immobile. There is still considerable power in a united majority.

Historian Will Durant said

'The political machine works because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.''

If the majority in this country only realized the power that inheres in the majority when that majority acts as one, we might be able to rediscover our strength, and break the self-imposed bonds that restrain us.

Expansionism and empire

Dennis Dale at Untethered has a thought-provoking essay titled The Ever-Expanding Expansionist Compact, II, Empire Abroad, Empire at Home.

In it he very effectively ties together the issue of military adventurism of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' and the illegal invasion. Here is just a sample:

This imperial expansion of the American Commons directs inward as well; twelve million or (likely many) more illegal squatters, invited by a willfully negligent government acting in defiance of popular will, now lay claim to certain rights, through the fait accompli of their residency, abetted by the lobbying of their native countries and their alliance with political power groups such as La Raza, through implicit compacts of questionable legality with "haven" cities, industries and even with the Catholic Church, that sees its own salvation through fortifying its ranks with the souls, and liberation theology, cast off from Latin America.

A fatal flaw in democracy is exposed: both political parties, each covetous and fearful of the emerging demographic plurality, can only seek to curry its favor through legislation. In this way legislation is extorted from congress through the mass, illegal migration of a group drawn primarily from one nation--a distinct foreign faction. Calling it an "invasion" is more accurate than even some who use the term know.

This elite-abetted invasion rests on the same notion of individual rights above national sovereignty that brings the disaster of the Iraq war--and just as in that case the moral argument is disingenuous cover for crasser goals. Just as the Iraqi became a quasi-citizen of an expanded American state, so too does the illegal immigrant. Expansion abroad is entirely consistent with expansion inward: our own border is ultimately as meaningless as any other. And just as the same liberal values ostensibly to be brought to the world through military conquest are in fact destroyed by it, they are similarly sacrificed to the inward expansion of the elite's imperium. Democracy will not survive the racial factionalization accelerated and aggravated by the current cycle of passive border enforcement relieved by periodic amnesties.''

It should be read in its entirety. Great piece.

A question answered

The question has been asked, so I suppose the thing to do is to answer it.

The other day, the essayist Fjordman, whom I hold in high esteem, wrote a piece which appeared at Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. In it, he referenced and linked to a piece of mine, and alluded to me by the feminine pronouns, 'she' and 'her.' This somewhat surprised me, because I have tried to maintain my anonymity online. However, it's a simple matter to learn basic things about anyone who posts online: e-mail addies or other such information. I assume that is what Fjordman did, unless he happens to know one of the few people who know both me and this blog.

So to answer the question asked by one of my regular readers and fellow-bloggers, yes, it's true. I am a she. The Vanishing American is a female American.

Maybe some of you will have guessed; I am told that it is easy for an expert to discern, simply from writing style, word choice, and so on, whether the writer is male or female. I think I always assumed it would be evident.

When I began this blog, my intent was strictly to keep my real-life identity separate from the blog; my intent was not to misrepresent myself as a male. The name 'Vanishing American' was chosen for its symbolism, and not for the sake of assuming a male identity. Somehow, though, I suppose by default, it was assumed that I was a 'he', and I was addressed as such, and spoken of in the third person as a 'he'. At first I found this slightly embarrassing and a little amusing; I mentioned it to a relative, one of the few who knows of this blog, and she said it was an understandable mistake, because of my 'masculine' style of expressing myself in writing. I don't know that I think of my writing style as 'masculine', nor have I tried to affect a male style of writing. I do know that I was told in the past that I had a male style of management, and that I needed to work at cultivating the 'feminine' qualities of giving frequent praise and compliments.

(For those who know anything about the personality typing system known as the Myers-Briggs system, I test as an ISTP, introverted sensing thinking perceiving type: most ISTPs are male. So I suppose my style is attributable to that.)

But for whatever reason, mostly because I preferred to keep my anonymity, I didn't correct commenters who addressed me as a male, or those who referred to me as such. There was never an intent to deceive, but simply to avoid disclosing too much about myself. I am a private person in real life. And I do blog about issues that many people feel very strongly about, controversial issues. There are people in my life who might be embarrassed by my un-PC opinions and the stands I take here. I choose not to embarrass them, or to force them to defend me and my views. Everybody in my personal life knows me to be an opinionated person, so I am not living a double life as a liberal in public or anything of that nature. However, for many reasons, we can't always be as outspoken in real life, for various reasons, personal and professional, without paying a considerable price.

I have noticed that many if not most female bloggers tend to indicate their femaleness either through the name of their blogging persona or the theme of the blog. My intent here was to be a 'type' or a symbol, rather than to represent myself, as one small individual. As I've said, this blog has never been about me, although at times I have alluded to my personal experiences and family background. Still, I've preferred to write about the urgent issues and questions of the day and not about me. And if I had chosen to disclose my femininity, I perhaps thought that I would be pigeonholed as a woman blogger, not just a blogger. I did not want to be thought of as offering the 'woman's point of view', just the traditional American point of view.

Whatever information I have disclosed about my life experiences or my personal history and family history is all accurate; all my thoughts and sentiments and opinions as expressed here are sincere and true. I hope that is what counts, for my readers, and not my x-chromosome.

In a way, I'm glad the question was asked; I am an honest person, and it was uncomfortable for me to allow an incorrect impression of who I was. My preference is always to be who I am, while still keeping my personal life separate from this blog. So in a sense, it will be freeing to be known as a female, because that is the reality. I do hope that my readers will forgive any wrong impression that I allowed to go uncorrected; it was not my intent to mislead anyone. So I hope this will set the record straight.

And I appreciate my readers; I hope you will continue to read and offer your thoughts here on this blog.

The 'religion of peace' (almost) strikes again

...backlash feared by Muslim community.''

The 'backlash fear' stories will come next; trust me.

I thought things had been a little too quiet lately on the terror front.
By now we have all heard about the latest thwarted bomb plot in London. I noticed that on this afternoon's reports on the cable news channels, they were carefully avoiding any mention of Moslems and the Religion of Peace.
Police avert car bomb carnage


.

..Scotland Yard, Assistant Commissioner Tarique Ghaffur urged people to be "alert and vigilant" and to
report any suspicions to the police.
Disruption would be kept to a minimum, he said, although the police were reviewing the safety of a number of big public events set to take place in the capital over the weekend.

"I want to reassure Londoners that we are doing everything possible to make them safe," he added.''

Tariq Ghaffur? So now the Scotland Yard assistant commissioner is himself a Moslem?

Meanwhile, in our country, the President spoke at a rededication ceremony at the Islamic Center of Washington, which was celebrating its 50th anniversary. In his remarks, he included the usual twaddle about militants not representing true Islam.

In this account of the event, we learn that Bush will appoint a special envoy to the Moslem world:

President George W. Bush announced Wednesday he will establish an envoy to a coalition of Muslim countries, with hopes of bolstering ties to the Islamic world and improving the image of the United States.
[...]
"Our special envoy will listen to and learn from representatives from Muslim states, and will share with them America's views and values," Bush said in a ceremony honoring the 50th anniversary of the Islamic Center, a mosque and cultural center in Washington.

"This is an opportunity for Americans to demonstrate to Muslim communities our interest in respectful dialogue and continued friendship," Bush said.
[...]
Those attending Wednesday's ceremony, including Bush, took off their shoes as they entered. Bush listened as a verse from the Quran was read.

"We live in a time when there are questions about America and her intentions. For those who seek a true understanding of our country, they need to look no farther than here," Bush said.

"This Muslim center sits quietly down the road from a synagogue, a Lutheran church, a Catholic parish, a Greek Orthodox chapel, a Buddhist temple - each with faithful followers who practice their deeply held beliefs and live side by side in peace," he said.

Bush singled out Iran and Syria and accused them of religious and political repression.

"Millions seek a path to the future where they can say what they think, travel where they wish and worship as they choose," he said. "They plead in silence for their liberty and they hope someone, somewhere will answer.

"So today in this place of free worship, in a heart of a free nation, we say to those who yearn for freedom from Damascus to Tehran: you are not bound forever by your misery. Plead in silence no longer. The free world hears you. You're not alone. America offers you its hand in friendship. We work for the day when we can welcome you into the family of free nations."

This story is yet one more bit of evidence that the President is not the fundamentalist 'right-wing Christian' he is represented as; his actions (such as observing Moslem rituals such as taking off his shoes and listening to the Koran reading) would not be acceptable to a Bible-believing Christian. And no, being 'president of all the people' does not mean taking part in Mohammedan rituals and ceremonials. If it does, then no believing Christian can be President.

But the most troubling thing to me is not the President's fellowshipping with those of a false religion, and a religion which teaches violence and world domination, but his willful attempt to disarm us as a nation. And yes, despite our use of military force to bring 'liberty' to Iraq, we are disarmed in that we are compelled by our diversity-crazed elites to live side-by-side with hostile peoples, and we are conditioned to believe that it's only a small minority who pose a threat.
Fostering that kind of detachment from reality amounts to disarming us.

The President speaks in saccharine, smarmy platitudes about all faiths, Christian, Buddhist, Moslem, living 'side by side in peace', but if you want to see the reality of this forced coziness among disparate peoples and 'belief systems', take a look at what is happening in London. That is the reality; not the kumbaya liberal nonsense the President is peddling. And as long as we are forced to accept a murderous cult into our midst, there will be the hard reality of terror plots and bombs. And next time, the attacks may be carried out, and not fortuitously thwarted beforehand. Our luck cannot hold out forever, not as long as we keep on rolling the dice and living dangerously with diversity.

The growing Ron Paul phenomenon

Did you know that there is a French blog for Ron Paul?

Ron Paul France

There is also a Belgian blog, and a Brazilian one. Ron Paul is evidently drawing interest and attention around the globe.

Michael Nystrom, editor of the Daily Paul blog, says

For the first time ever, last week the site passed 4,000 visitors in one day, and not two days later passed 5,000. Yesterday, thanks in part to the bump from the Wired News article that mentioned the site, we hit an all time high of 5236 visitors in one day. This is 100% growth since the end of May, and tremendous growth from back in February, when Ron Paul's grandson Matt Pyeatt started blogging on the site. Back then, 400 visitors was a good day!

Of course these figures are just reflecting the larger trend moving through society. There is a hunger for truth that is not being fulfilled by MSM and the current political leadership. Ron Paul just passed 18,000 YouTube subscribers. This is tops, by far, of any of the candidates. ''

I think Nystrom is correct that there IS a hunger for truth, and the old media and our current crop of discredited and corrupt politicians cannot provide what this country needs. We need a complete change, and I think the Paul phenomenon is a manifestation of that genuine searching for truth and for a desperately needed alternative to the failed status quo.

The GOP loyalists who have been so disparaging of Ron Paul and his supporters are fooling themselves if they write this phenomenon off as just a few zealots spamming online polls, and hyping their numbers. Clearly the traffic to the Paul blog is one indicator of the interest that is out there.

I know that in my own site statistics, there seem to be many people googling Ron Paul's name, looking for news and commentary about Ron Paul. The Republicans are whistling in the dark by pretending that Ron Paul has just a few fanatical supporters. They only wish that there was as much interest in their stale candidates as there is in Ron Paul.

Tom Tancredo could and should be distinguishing himself from the rest of the herd of candidates, but for whatever reason, he has not been very visible in this campaign so far. (Oh, and by the way, stop by Tancredo's website and sign his Save America petition. Even though the amnesty bill is officially dead, it will reappear in some other form.)

I do wish Ron Paul would speak out on the border issue, since it is crystal-clear, after this amnesty debacle, that the people are highly incensed over our sieve-like borders, and the ongoing invasion. But so far, Paul has not addressed that red-hot issue, choosing to concentrate on the war in Iraq. Maybe this is because the media prefer to highlight the fact that a Republican candidate has dared to defy the party line on Iraq.

In case I haven't posted this before, here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, where you may read articles by Dr. Paul on a number of issues. Read what he has to say on other issues such as hate crimes, the stem cell debate, economic issues, the United Nations, and neocons.

I can't find much to disagree with in his thinking; he is sound on all the important things, and sadly, I can't say that about most of the candidates.

Self defense against 'smuggers'

Over at Conservative Heritage Times, 'Harrison Bergeron' has posted
Some Words to Punch Out Smuggers

If you don't know what a smugger is, read on. 'Harrison Bergeron' writes this introduction to a piece by John Vinson:

John Vinson has put together a “self-defense manual” for immigration-control activists and conservatives. It’s clever, deadly accurate, and more useful than a Swiss army knife. ( I forsee such gems as “ethno-masochist” and “tolerance taliban” quickly entering the general vocabulary.) Read, enjoy, and once you’ve memorized these handly phrases, lock and load and fire at will. MCT
[...]
''Those who attack us physically we call muggers. To help people deal with them, there are self-defense manuals which recommend various kicks, punches and chops to fight back. Emotional attacks can be quite painful too, as many immigration reformers can testify. Often they must cope with “smuggers,” assailants who project in word and gesture their smug sense of moral, social, and intellectual superiority.

To deal with both muggers and smuggers, it is good to be aware of your surroundings. Muggers often dwell in run-down sections of town. Smuggers often thrive in universities, media outlets and other ghettos of political correctness. When passing the haunts of muggers and smuggers, it’s a good idea to project an air of confidence.

Nevertheless, you shouldn’t always treat them the same. It is dangerous, for example, to throw ridicule at a mugger. That’s likely to make him more violent. But words of derision can often punch out the smugger’s pomposity. We may not like using such words, but it’s the only language that bullies, like smuggers, understand. Maybe if hit enough, they will become sufficiently civil to engage in reasonable debate.

I encourage you to read the list of 'verbal punches' to throw at the 'smuggers.' The list is a good way to fight fire with fire; the left has a handy lexicon of insults and labels to use against us, and some of Vinson's labels are clever and catchy. For instance, I like 'Tolerance Taliban' and 'PC Poodle' -- both of which are self-explanatory. Some of these have already caught on, like 'globaloney', 'multicultist', 'treason lobby'.

'Race card shark' is a good one; 'neo-com' has a certain ring to it:

A neo-communist. A follower of the mutated communism (political correctness) derived from the Frankfurt School.''

And the word 'xenophile' fills a need for a word to describe people with 'an excessive love for foreigners.'
I use the word xenophiliac also; I like that the suffix '-philiac' somehow has associations with perversion, which is fitting; loving strangers in preference to your own kin is not natural.

It's a fun list, and it makes us think about how language is often used by the left to discredit views they disagree with; why not use their own tactics against them?

I'm back -- I hope

Here's hoping my computer problems and connection woes are solved for now; trouble comes in threes, so the old saying has it, so two computers and a router makes three. So I hope I am back to my normal posting routine.

By the way, while I'm here, I want to mention a new blog, called Open City and Its Natural Enemies.
The description below the header says:

The Titular Piece being an Article on the Valuing of Openness, Questioning the Validity of such an Ideal...Found by Scrolling Down Past the New Postings, Which are on Related Issues; Diversity, Immigration, the Politics of Openness to Diversity, and More, but Subjected to Logic, with Little or no Mercy

The blogger is none other than the redoubtable John S. Bolton, who many of you are probably familiar with for his cogent comments on various blogs. I think Open City will be an interesting blog to watch.

Be right back, I hope...

Hey all, good news on the amnesty bill.
Way to go, all of you who called and did your part to help stop the amnesty.

This may be my only post for this evening unless my internet connection is back up soon; using dial-up is impossibly slow and frustrating.

Hope to be back posting soon.

'But if they mean to have war...

...let it begin here.'

The words, which you see on the Minuteman monument, are those of Captain John Parker at Lexington, before the battle there.

For some reason, those words came to mind today as I was reading some of the day's news regarding the amnesty bill.
It seems that some of our Senators have declared war on us, as witness these words of Pennsylvania's Sen. Arlen Specter.

We are in trench warfare and it's going to be rough,'' said Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, a chief sponsor of the legislation. ``But we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.''

The quote is here, in this article.
I mean, how much more clear can it be, from Specter's words?

The first part of the statement, where Specter says they are in 'trench warfare' is bad enough; who are the enemies they are fighting? Us, seemingly. Who else? But please read the second part of the quote, wherein Specter says 'we are going to see the will of the Senate work one way or another.'

What's wrong with this picture? They, our Senators and Congressmen are supposed to represent us and to serve us, in accordance with the Constitution. They are not there to work their own will, or the President's will, or Wall Street's will, or the World Council of Churches' will, or La Raza's will, or anybody's will but ours. We, the people, (remember us, Senator Specter?) are the repositories of any legitimate power you have, and you hold it only at our pleasure. We lend you any power that you have, we, the people, as the rightful possessors of it. To the extent that you represent something other than the majority will of your constituents, you have no legitimacy. You are a rogue politician, you and all of your treasonous colleagues in the Senate.

And if my readers aren't properly incensed over the arrogance and ignorance expressed by Specter and his ilk, I offer this brazen piece from (where else?) that other seat of arrogant elitism, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Our moral betters at the WSJ are lecturing us that we had better get with the program in order to save the future of the Grand Old Party. And the future is Hispanic, whether we like it or not, according to the WSJ.

Immigration and the GOP

Immigration reform stayed alive in the Senate yesterday, albeit not without continuing rancor among Republicans. Restrictionists seem to believe the issue will harm the GOP if it succeeds, but we think the political reality is closer to the opposite: The greater danger for Republicans is if it fails.

We've written often about the merits of immigration reform, and we have our own problems with parts of the Senate bill. But it's worth spending some time on the larger politics of the issue, especially for Republicans. They're caught between a passionate minority of their party--who oppose any reform that allows illegals a path to citizenship--and the larger electorate, which is more moderate and wants to solve the problem. Like Democrats on national security, this is a classic case in which pandering to the base will harm the GOP overall.

That's true most immediately for Presidential hopefuls like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who continue to assail the bill as "amnesty." No doubt this gets applause in some Republican precincts. But in the near term, meaning through 2008, Republicans would be far better off helping President Bush and John McCain pass something that takes immigration off the table. If the issue remains central to the 2008 debate, it will divide the GOP and the media will play up the split. Given the passions that immigration evokes on the right in particular, the issue could easily drown out other domestic policy messages the candidates would prefer to run on.

The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can't be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.

[...]
By the way, the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. The GOP should be competing for these voters rather than driving them away with a barely concealed message of "Mexicans, go home."

Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership. If GOP candidates can't support Mr. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl on immigration, they should at least avoid the kind of demagoguery that will hurt their party for years to come.''

Just how out-of-touch are those guys at the WSJ? Do they suppose that we out here in the hinterlands really care most about a political party or somebody's profit margins, or do we care more about the Republic? I hope the answer is the latter, but we will shortly find out. We will find out, as our backs are to the wall, how many real friends this Republic has. But we can be sure our political classes and the media, especially the WSJ, are not among them.

First, the WSJ op-ed writers disingenuously state that restrictionists are merely a loud minority, much as Linda Chavez, Hispanic loyalist extraordinaire, says, and further, they say that the majority of American citizens are in favor of a 'path to citizenship'.

This is false, and any polls which indicate such preferences are deceptively and manipulatively crafted to show a desired result. The majority does not favor amnesty, no matter which smarmy euphemism the elites attach to it.

And secondly, ask me, WSJ, if I care whether the GOP becomes a 'minority party.' The sun neither rises nor sets on the Republican Party. If the party no longer represents the citizenry of this country, it deserves to die the death. If the party is willing to sell us out and to purposely transform this country with a new citizenry, they are no party of mine. This Republic will not stand or fall based on any political party.

For too long, many sincerely patriotic people have linked the fate of this country to the fate of the GOP, thinking that the GOP must be the savior of traditional America. However, it is only the sheer awfulness of the Democrat party that has given the Republicans an unearned reputation as the 'patriotic' party. It is only the extreme leftist tilt of the Democrat Party that has made the Republicans appear 'right-wing.' It's all an optical illusion.

What more evidence do we need, after reading the words of Senator Specter, and after seeing the machinations of Senators of both parties, that the GOP is not acting in our interests, that too many of the party, with a few individual exceptions, are interested only in their own self-aggrandizement and power, and that they no longer honor the principles on which our Republic was founded?

Enough is enough. Time to repudiate those who have repudiated us.

And as for the WSJ's arrogant assertion that

the growth in the Hispanic population will continue regardless of what happens with immigration from now on. The number of Hispanics who already hold green cards guarantees that their share of the electorate will increase over time even if Congress could seal the Southern border tomorrow. ''

I am afraid that they may be right. I am not sure where that leaves those of us who do not want to live in a Spanish-speaking banana republic, but I see little to inspire loyalty in the country the WSJ and the Senate elitists are preparing for us.
And it looks like they have declared war on us, by their own words and actions.

The President's love affair with Mexico

There has been longstanding speculation among many people, who don't understand George W. Bush's fondness for Mexico and illegal immigration, on just why he holds his rather obsessive views.

So recently, over at VDare, I read with interest the Patrick Cleburne piece on George W. Bush's memories of growing up in Midland, Texas, and how his experiences gave him an understanding of and appreciation for Hispanics.

At the time, I viewed the President's account of life in Midland with considerable skepticism; it simply didn't jibe with my experience of West Texas. Now, I have never lived in Midland, but I have lived in West Texas, and the President and I are near the same age, so we both grew up in the same era.

So it was interesting to read this letter from a reader, posted at VDare, which challenged the President's account of life in Midland during the 50s and 60s:

A Native Of Midland Wonders About Dubya's Midland Memories

From: A Native Of Midland…And America

I was born in Midland, and lived there 3 different times—leaving for the last time at the age of 12 in 1966. My parents later went back for a 4th time.

My father was a petroleum engineer who was sent back to Midland during booms.

I simply don’t remember ever running into Hispanic people in Midland during the times I lived there. I do remember the Mexican migrants coming through to pick cotton when I lived in Winters, Texas (a few years before going back to Midland for the last time in 1963). I think that they were part of the Bracero program. They were pretty pitiful and the Anglo families did what they could to make sure that when the migrant kids came to school—they had enough to eat. (This was a little before that free lunch program came about)
[...]
Quite frankly, I don’t see how Bush, Jr. got much exposure to Hispanics in Midland. I don’t think there were enough of them to account for any significant interactions. Ditto for Houston. Oil took my daddy there during my High School days. I don’t remember knowing any in the overwhelmingly white suburbs of Houston.

My daddy was out on oil wells for 30 days at a time. From what I remember, the roughnecks were all white boys—the Scots-Irish version (which is why I doubt that part in the story which talks about Hispanics being in the Bush oil fields back then.)
[...]
I think that you are on to something about the Mexican oligarchs being the primary influence of Bush’s affinity for Hispanics—because it sure wasn’t that he went to elementary school with them. They weren’t in the white elementary schools in Midland—and I seriously doubt they were in that fancy school he went to in Houston.''

The anonymous reader's account tends to coincide with my own recollections of West Texas at that time.
I lived in a town in West Texas for a relatively brief period. Like the letter-writer, my father's work took us to West Texas. There were some Mexican kids in the schools I attended there, but they were, as this letter writer says, from migrant families who came and went. There were parallel societies, as I've said elsewhere on this blog: the Hispanic kids I went to school with tended to prefer the company of their own nationality. They were clannish. There was not really open hostility, but not much interaction on a social basis.

My own childhood experiences with Hispanics did not result in an infatuation with them and their culture, as the President's apparently did, but neither did my experience cause me to hate Hispanics. They were part of life in Texas, but they interacted rather minimally with the rest of us. My present feelings of ire are based on the fact that we are now being inundated and taken advantage of. And it is not easy to maintain friendly feelings or even neutral feelings towards people who display contempt for me and mine, and for this country, as many Hispanics now apparently feel emboldened to do.

It's always puzzling to note the different accounts of the same time and place as given by different people. I suppose no two individuals will have identical experiences, but sometimes you wonder how people can give such different accounts. Can it be that the President has rosy recollections of Hispanic people because of his family's live-in housekeeper/nanny? I suppose having a live-in domestic servant would give one greater familiarity with Hispanics than the experiences of people without live-in domestics. Most people in the Texas I grew up in did not have domestic servants, especially live-in ones.

I once read a quote from George W. Bush (which I can't find a link to) in which he said he was not a Southerner, but a Southwesterner. That is interesting; I don't know many people from Texas who would disavow their Southern identity. Some people claim that Texas is part of the 'Southwest' and I suppose it could be -- if you consider the Mississippi the dividing line between east and west. I don't. And historically and culturally, Texas is part of the South. Texas was part of the Confederate States of America, and the culture of Texas, the dialect, the folkways, the food, the Bible Belt influence -- are all Southern. Texas is part of Dixie. Most of us with roots in the state have Confederate ancestors, and a tradition of honoring the symbols of the Confederacy. Texas is Southern. Or at least it was until the demographics started to shift during recent decades. If George W. Bush has his way, Texas will again be an outpost of Mexico.

I've said before that the Bush family are not truly Texan. I think I shocked one of my readers when I called the family carpetbaggers, and I'm far from the first person to use that term. The Bushes have no historic ties to Texas or the South, and seemingly no allegiance thereto. The Bush family was not in Texas during the historic wars with Mexico; they have no family history of fallen kin at the Alamo or Goliad as some of us do. It's easy for New England transplants with no roots in Texas to have romanticized pictures of Mexican culture.

So Bush considers himself a 'Southwesterner' instead of a Southerner. What is the Southwest? Does it comprise California, Arizona, New Mexico? Utah? Nevada? All those states have a very different culture and outlook and history than Texas. The Southwestern states, to my mind, have much more historic Hispanic influence than Texas.

There is a revisionist tendency these days to imply that Texas has always been a half-Hispanic state, in terms of population and culture and cuisine. There is a popular and Politically Correct tendency to speak as if the Hispanic population of Texas is very intertwined with the 'Anglo'. People speak of 'Tex-Mex' music and cuisine, but these are fairly recent developments. There is also a popular misconception that Texas was once a full-fledged part of Mexico, with a flourishing Mexican population when the American settlers arrived there to colonize. This is false; the Mexican population of Texas was very small when the Americans arrived; the state was mostly populated by Indian tribes who had proved resistant to Mexican subjugation, and the American colonists were the only ones who succeeded in establishing lasting settlements there. So there was not a large Mexican population when my ancestors settled there. Even in my childhood, there was a much smaller Hispanic population in Texas than there is today, by far. Yet I suspect that many people, even in Texas, are beginning to accept the revisionist version of Texas history, and they believe that Mexicans have always been a big part of the population in Texas, if not the majority.

Maybe George W. Bush has glowing memories of Hispanic people based on his family's servants, and maybe he has convinced himself that he had many Hispanic classmates. Or maybe he is just telling nice PC fairytales in order to further his Hispanicizing agenda.

It was heartening, however, to read in Cleburne's article the reactions of actual residents of today's Midland, who in general don't agree with the President's love-in with Mexico, and his fondness for illegal immigrants.

More 'lighthouses in a foggy world'

If the quote which is the title of this post is not recognizable to my readers, it's from the dialogue in the Frank Capra film classic, 'Meet John Doe.' In one memorable scene, 'Connell', as played by James Gleason, says these words to the 'John Doe' character:

Connell: Yessir. I'm a sucker for this country. I'm a sucker for the Star Spangled Banner—and I'm a sucker for this country.
I like what we got here! I like it! A guy can say what he wants -- and do what he wants -- without having a bayonet shoved through his belly.
Now that's all right, isn't it?
You betcha. All right. And we don't want anybody coming around and changing it, do we?
...No sir. No sir. And when they do, I get mad! I get b-boiling mad. And right now, John, I'm sizzling!
...I get mad for a lot of other guys besides myself--I get mad for a guy named Washington! And a guy named Jefferson--and Lincoln. Lighthouses, John! Lighthouses in a foggy world! You know what I mean?''

I suppose these words are always meaningful to me, because, like Connell, I am a sucker for this country, and like Connell, I get mad -- boiling mad -- at the idea of anybody changing it. Right now, of course, people are trying to change this country in various ways, and they are doing so without the consent of the people of this country.

And like Connell, I, too, get mad for a lot of other guys, for those Founding Fathers, and all the generations who went before us. But the Founding Fathers and all the good and great men who preceded us are 'lighthouses' in a fogbound world, beacons to those lost and adrift.

I hope there are some words here that ring true to some of my readers, or which provide some food for thought or some illumination.

"[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." - 'Candidus', (Benjamin Austin) in the Boston Gazette, January 20, 1772

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."- Thomas Jefferson

"It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no Law, no Court can save it...Where do you stand Citizen?” - Judge Learned Hand (1961)

''People crushed by law have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those, who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous, more or less.'' Edmund Burke

“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”
- Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

''What has commonly been called rebellion has more often been nothing but a manly and glorious struggle in opposition to the power of kings and princes.'' - Samuel Adams

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reform and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable." - Thomas Jefferson

"There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men and become the instruments of their own undoing." - Daniel Webster

"In spite of failures which I lament, of errors which I now see and acknowledge, or of the present aspect of affairs, do I despair the future? The truth is this: the march of Providence is so slow, our desires so impatient, the work of progress is so immense, and our means of aiding it so feeble, the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope." - Robert E. Lee

I like to end on a note of hope, so I will conclude with Lee's encouraging phrases.

First, the bad news...

Well, the first cloture vote is over, and from the perspective of what's best for Americans, it did not go well.

FAIR, The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in their statement, uses the term 'tragedy' in referring to the amnesty bill.

This proposal -- if enacted -- will totally and utterly destroy the integrity of US immigration system for a generation. It will alter irrevocably what it means for our children and grandchildren to live in America. It reflects a total disconnect between the immigration enthusiasts in Congress and its impact on the average American community.''

The one comfort we have is that there is another cloture vote coming up on Thursday, and 60 votes are needed to pass it. So if five Senators change their votes, that would make the difference. (The vote was 64-35 today). So it ain't over till it's over. Still, the discouraging news is that some who voted 'yes' today had previously voted no.

In another encouraging sign, House GOP rebukes Senate bill:

House Republicans yesterday unveiled a resolution expressing their disapproval of the Senate immigration bill. It was offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and simply read: “resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill.”

The move puts the House Republican Conference at odds with President Bush, who has endorsed the Senate bill. Hoekstra said that while he preferred not to break with the president, the language and content of the Senate bill compelled him to vocalize his opposition.'

[...]
“There’s growing momentum on the House side to have our voices registered on the Senate immigration bill,” Hoekstra said during a press conference yesterday.

Hoekstra said the amnesty provision, no matter how strict the language, was a deal-breaker for most House Republicans.

“That’s why the fundamental bill has no credibility, and basically what we are saying today is it is dead on arrival in the House, we can’t have secret deals, this has to go through committee, it has to go in pieces,” echoed Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). “A comprehensive bill will not pass the House.”

Over at NRO's The Corner, Stanley Kurtz speaks of the Bad Vibe:

Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.

Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
[...]
Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America’s divisions. I fear it’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.''

I second what Kurtz says. The bill may pass the Senate, and then die in the House, at least if the House is truly more responsive to the will of the majority than the elitists and sellouts in the Senate. But regardless of what the ultimate outcome of this particular bill is, I am troubled by what it is telling us about our system and about the prospects for our Republic.

Thomas Jefferson, in his first Inaugural address in 1801, said

Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

At Conservative Heritage Times, Michael Hill says

...But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They don’t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.

As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supports now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.

Who stands to lose by this devil’s bargain? The descendants of America’s founding stock will be the losers. Our ancestors bequeathed us a republican society based on Christian moral principles, the English language, racial (and some degree of ethnic) homogeneity, and British legal and political institutions. All this will be gone with the wind when we throw open the golden door to unlimited immigration.

Only the South, as reflected in the votes of most of its Senators, opposed this radical transformation. Some 80% of Southerners oppose amnesty. It is not surprising, then, that of the 35 “no” votes, 17 came from the South. That’s almost half of the total opposition to S. 1639. Only 11 Southern Senators (including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Trent “NAACP” Lott of Mississippi) voted for the Amnesty Bill.

Perhaps Americans in other regions outside the South are quite happy with the idea of giving the country away to Third World illegals. But if the rest of the country is determined to go straight to hell, is the South obliged to go along for the ride just so “democracy” can be upheld?
[...]
If, in the cause of furthering America’s democratic institutions, you place your future in the hands of those who have already betrayed you, then you and your children will ultimately be dispossessed of life, liberty, and property in the name of democracy (and other dubious ideologies). You will have meekly acquiesced to the whim of a temporary majority because you did not have the nerve to walk away from the holy ground upon which you were commanded to kneel and worship the idol.''

Hill's conclusion is that secession may ultimately be necessary for those who can't or won't go where our elites are forcibly taking us. Some will call me unrealistic or extreme, but I agree with him. Maybe the fact that my forefathers chose secession once before makes it more thinkable to me.

We can only hope that the amnesty does not become law, but I am sorry to say that even if it does not, even if it goes down in flames in the House if not the Senate, it is not needed in order to utterly transform this country. The status quo, with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants and refugees placed here at the whim of the United Nations, plus uncontrolled borders, will be enough to drive a stake through the heart of traditional America. The status quo is all that is needed for Bush and the rest of the Open Borders fanatics to have their wish of an America which is a multicultural banana republic. So, if we can trust our few honest Senators and Congressmen to do what is right, and to carry out the will of the people, yet we fail to close our borders and curb our promiscuous immigration policies, the result will be the same as if we had passed the amnesty; it might simply happen a little more slowly.

And again, the immigration issue is an ominous one not only for the transformation it portends, but it shows us clearly that our political classes are no longer responsive to us.

The status quo is unacceptable. Any politician who represents the status quo, or who won't actively oppose the status quo is unacceptable. The present crop of presidential candidates, with a few exceptions, notably Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo, represent the failed status quo, and are unacceptable.

I will go further: anybody who claims to care about the future of America, especially anyone who claims to oppose open borders and multiculturalism, yet who supports any of the mainstream candidates, is not being honest with us or perhaps with himself.

No doubt there is a streak in human beings that wishes not to rock the boat, to keep things as they are. Many people naturally distrust change, and that, in the right circumstances, is a good, honest, conservative trait, which serves society well. But in a situation like the present one, in which our elected officials are actively working against us, and essentially striking at the very foundations of our Republic, there is not much left of our country to preserve, so change is imperative. There are times when a change of course is absolutely required, as when we are in a vehicle with no brakes heading for a cliff. Sometimes we have to put the thing in reverse.

We have to face the unpleasant fact that these are the times our Founding Fathers alluded to, as in this passage from Thomas Jefferson:

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."

There is a systematic plan evident, and a series of oppresssions. Folks, this time it's not just a matter of electing the other party. Both parties are complicit in this; neither party is properly responsive to the will of the people. There are a few individual exceptions but for the most part, both parties are culpable and a real housecleaning is in order.

Blogs for Borders Video Blogburst 06/26/07

From Jake Jacobsen at Freedom Folks:

Domestic terrorism in California!

Arson on the border!

100% Preventable!



I know how sick I am of saying it, so I can only imagine how sick you are of hearing it but, please take the time out of your busy schedule to call your congresscritters! NumbersUSA gots the good stuff.

BFBVB member ThunderPig sent me video of an Pro-legal immigration (Im tired of calling patriotic Americans who are against ILLEGAL immigration anti anything) rally in his neck of the woods (North Carolina) after the show had already been put to bed. Video post here, he will be updating so check back and bookmark him!

You can see all of Immigration Watchdogs of the Ted Hayes rally...here. W/links to pix and first hand accounts of the day, welcome to the blogosphere baby this is how we do things!

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you'd like to join find out how right here.

Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, amnesty, arson, drunk driving, 100% preventable, mexico, criminal aliens, shamnesty, ted hayes, los angeles, joycelyn gardiner, idaho,

Amnesty vote looming

The latest I can find on the amnesty bill, S1639, is this piece from the editors at NRO.

Later today, the Senate will vote on whether to proceed on the bill. To revive the once-stalled bill will require 60 votes, which means that if the senators who vote no and the senators who don’t vote add up to 41, the bill is dead. The best vote count now has 33 no votes plus the non-vote of the ill Sen. Tim Johnson. Assuming this count is accurate, only seven more are needed to stop amnesty.''

They then look individually at the seven senators who supposedly have the power to stop this amnesty, and examine their positions. Some of these senators have been equivocal in their positions and thus might go either way.

The Washington Times has this report on the upcoming vote.

To pass the Senate, the bill must earn 60 votes today, survive a series of amendments, earn 60 votes in a follow-up vote likely to come Thursday, and then pass with majority support — all difficult tests on an issue that deeply divides both parties, and American voters.

"Our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters yesterday as President Bush and his administration make a final push for the bill's passage.
[...]
Mr. Bush has made phone calls to senators, and two Cabinet secretaries have been such frequent lobbyists on Capitol Hill for the bill that Mr. Kaplan joked "they've basically been tenants up there for the last two or three months."

That's led to charges of arm-twisting and deals being cut.

"The American people have been working day in and day out to make the Senate understand they do not want this bill, and the administration is up on Capitol Hill trying to buy votes from senators," said Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for NumbersUSA. "When we see the final vote count, we'll know where to look for favors."

This thing looks like being close, too close for comfort. We will soon see.

The old future and the new future

The picture is from the blog Paleo-Future. It's from a 1982 book by Neil Ardley, 'Fact or Fantasy, (World of Tomorrow)', and it depicts the 'domed city of the future,' which will be necessitated by the coming 'savage cold,' so the author told us.

The Paleo-Future blog has an interesting theme; it's about the future as seen by people in the past. It's amusing and sometimes fascinating to see how past eras foresaw the future, and it's enlightening and comforting sometimes to see just how wrong the prognosticators were.

I blogged about this phenomenon in an oblique way a while back, in a post about the apparent loss of American optimism. Many of the posts at the Paleo-Future blog hark back to the 1950s, an era which I recall as having been especially focused on the future. There was an optimism which now seems naive, in retrospect, but at the time it seemed a healthy attitude, which somehow believed that the future would be better than the present, and that technology would lead to endless improvement in the physical world and in the human condition. Of course from our present perspective, we see that our optimism may have been wishful thinking in many cases, and our faith in technology to remake the world and human nature was often misplaced. But it is interesting to see pictures from old books and newspapers, with glowing forecasts about the far-off future, the 21st century. All of us who were alive in the 50s and 60s remember the popular science fiction of that era, which always pictured a 21st century world in which everybody had a personal helicopter or other such aircraft, a la the Jetsons, and of course there would be domed cities which were climate-controlled, and we would take our meals in pill form.

Paleo-Future is full of pictures of such imagined future utopias, so it's a fun read.

The post from which the picture above is taken is called The Coming Ice Age, which reminds us that back in 1982, there was still a common belief among prognosticators that we were heading into a 'new Ice Age.' As I recall, this popular idea started in the late 60s and persisted throughout the 70s, and judging by the book which Matt quotes from, it persisted into the 80s. I wonder at what point the experts decided we were not cooling down, but headed for a world inferno based on global warming, or 'the Greenhouse Effect', as it used to be called?

If Matt at Paleo-Future is still blogging a decade or two from now, I suppose by then it will be evident whether the 'global warming' hysteria has been proven correct, or whether the future generations will look at the global warming fears with amusement, much as we chuckle over the 'new Ice Age' predictions from today's vantage point.

Reading Paleo-Future is a corrective for the belief that the 'experts' can see into a crystal ball and foretell the future. Much of what passes for solid forecasting is educated guesswork, and is not infallible. It would be wise to remember that fact. The fears of a coming 'ice age' were apparently based on a cooling trend during the late 60s and early 70s, which some scientists took as indicative of long-term trends. It's a temptation that is easy to succumb to, not only in climatological matters, but in other areas of life too. We can't see or know all the influences at work in any given situation, and what we see as a near-certainty at one point may prove nowhere near the truth in the long term.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars, as the poet Clough said.

Why mass immigration?

I blog a great deal here about the issue of immigration and the transformation of our country. And over the last few years I have given a lot of thought to just why this process is taking place not only here, but all over the Western world. The fact that it is happening, not just because poor people are looking for a 'better life' as popular wisdom has it, but that they are being encouraged and given every incentive by the governments and the elites of the West is the real story behind the story.

A few decades ago, I don't think any of us would have imagined this happening, and on such a scale. And for us to imagine that our government, seemingly, would be orchestrating and encouraging the transformation of our country would really have been incredible.

So what is the story behind this mass immigration? Why is it being deliberately introduced in every Western country? Why are our elected officials, who supposedly represent us, apparently siding with the illegal immigrants, and why are they determined to aid and abet the invasion?

The most obvious motive, which is the one most readily acknowledged and cited, is the economic motive. Business, big and small, wants plentiful cheap labor. A surplus of cheap labor will push wages down and keep them down; supply and demand. Businesses also want new consumers, new markets. Bringing the Third World here to join in our consumer culture is an easy way to expand markets, and to guarantee increasing demands for more 'stuff' and more services by American businesses.

Another obvious explanation for importing millions of immigrants is to gain new voters. Both political parties are courting the Hispanic vote in particular, and we are seeing a push for non-citizens to be allowed to vote, as they already can, in certain localities and certain elections. The Republican Party in particular has been very openly courting the 'Hispanic vote', and there is an implication that if they have to throw their base overboard in pursuit of the Hispanic vote, they are willing to do so.

In the past, I posted a link to a piece by Fredo Arias-King, who was an aide to Mexican ex-President Vicente Fox. In that piece, called 'Immigration and Usurpation', he described the attitudes of many of our politicians, congressmen and Senators, and spoke of how they gleefully high-fived him at the prospect of a Hispanic majority. They spoke of their disdain for their 'redneck' constituents, and longed to have a more, shall we say, agreeable constituency.

While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself.''

The impression given was that Americans are too fractious and too demanding a people, and our politicians would prefer a subservient, malleable population with whom they might play the role of the grandee. The arrogance displayed by our Senate in their recent amnesty push has corroborated what Arias-King wrote in his article.

So there are decidedly political motives for our elected officials to choose to change the demographics of America, and the same process is probably at work in Europe, as the native people of those countries are seeing their countries drastically changed against their will, too.

In addition to the obvious economic and political motives for mass immigration, Ted Kennedy the other day also alluded to immigration as a 'civil rights issue.' I found this very telling; it indicates that mass immigration is seen as a social project, as something that is being done to us by our moral betters in high places, and it is being done ostensibly for our good, at least as the powers that be see it.

So there is a social purpose for mass immigration. The idea seems to be to blend people together, and by enforced association to smooth out the conflicts and differences between groups. Familiarity is believed to be a way to decrease 'prejudice' and division; our politically correct 'betters' constantly say that 'xenophobia' comes from 'ignorance and fear.' So they think familiarity will dissolve any division. And to some extent this strategy has worked: it is amazing how quickly people tend to accept the presence of potentially hostile peoples among us. Despite the fact that terror cells are known to have operated in our country, and are still operating presumably, most Americans have come to believe that the 'majority of Moslems are moderate, and that they are just like us deep down'.

So a great percentage of Americans is willing to believe that there are no enemy nations or peoples; the problem can only be a few extremists and troublemakers. Anybody who is not trying to kill us outright is accepted as friendly. This is a shortsighted view, and it will come back and bite us again in the future. Remember that many people thought Mohammed Atta and his cohorts were 'nice, quiet people.' The same thing is repeated about every terror suspect when he is arrested: he was a nice, quiet, well-mannered neighbor. And people are willing to take the chance of trusting everybody who is not openly and obviously hostile. So the effort to disarm us psychologically by placing so much 'diversity' in our midst has been successful, from the elites' point of view. Never mind that it leaves us as vulnerable as sheep with wolves in the fold, the idea is that if a few of us sheep are lost to the wolves, then c'est la vie. It's the price we must pay for that wonderful diversity and trust.

Nevertheless, it is also true of familiarity that it can sometimes breed contempt, as the old proverb says. Many of us, myself included, only learned wary attitudes by having negative experiences. I started out as one of those seekers of the strange and exotic; I sought out 'multicultural' experiences and only thereby did I learn to appreciate my own culture and my own people much more keenly. For some people, 'diversity' acts as an inoculation against xenophilia. So it can backfire on the elites; misunderstanding, division, and open conflict can result. It does not always result in a multicultural love-in.

Some might say that the social motivations behind the multiculturalization experiment are really subsidiary to the economic motives. Blending us all together will supposedly reduce the differences between the haves and the have-nots, and theoretically reduce antagonism and envy based on economic status. It will bring about 'social justice' and the levelling which the leftist do-gooders want, and it satisfies business interests because the 'have-nots' will then be able to participate in the culture of consumerism and debt.

But the other social 'benefit', at least as seen by the social justice zealots is that the presence of so many competing and exotic cultures will neutralize the American majority culture, and ultimately submerge it if not destroy it. Why is this desirable? Because majority American culture is too 'exclusive'. American history has to be revised and rewritten to downplay that exclusiveness. The idea is to play up the role of minority peoples and cultures, and to exaggerate their contributions, even falsifying them, so as to exalt their importance. Dishonest? Sure, but it's all in a good cause, so it is justified to those who are doing this revising. Unfortunately, the American people, the majority Americans, get the short end of the stick. Our ancestors have to be symbolically hauled before the PC tribunals and tried for their social 'crimes.' We see this agenda at work with the constant moralizing about the Founding Fathers and their slave-owning ways. We see the names of schools and localities changed to expunge the disgraced names of the old Americans. Thomas Jefferson's name has been removed from any number of schools, and usually some politically correct hero or heroine has replaced Jefferson as honoree.

The idea of group guilt, or generational guilt, is not an idea that is compatible with American ideals. It seems intended to further demoralize and weaken the majority, and to discredit the historic nation called America, to prove America unworthy of respect -- and maybe unworthy of continuing as a nation. Likewise, America is always called guilty of 'stealing' this land from the Indians, and of committing 'genocide' against the Indians. This accusation is always resorted to by the open borders zealots: "Your ancestors stole this country and committed genocide. What right do you have to keep anybody out?" The illogic of condemning modern-day Americans for wanting to keep this country while defending the Indians who used violence against the colonists is noticeable, but liberals never see the contradiction. But no matter; they succeed in silencing a lot of immigration restrictionists by their accusations, so the tactic works for them most of the time.

All these historical issues like the 'theft' of land from the Indians, the evils of slavery, the need for reparations for slave descendants -- they all serve to demoralize and divide majority America. And the presence of the illegals divides America, with some of us opposing illegal immigration and some pleading for leniency and sympathy and 'fairness' toward the invaders. Americans are a too-easily divided people these days; we no longer have that feeling of solidarity and kinship that was common in past eras.

With my Southern roots, I am very aware that this country has been sorely divided in the past, and that the North/South divide is still not healed. But the fact is, America at most times in its history was less fractured than it is now. For a brief time after 9/11, it looked as though Americans might become more unified, but the opposite has happened.

It is meant to be this way; I believe that the old maxim of divide and rule is at work.

This brings me to another possible goal of the diversifiers: the need for a stronger, authoritarian government to manage the inevitable conflicts which might grow into open clashes. We've seen the violence happening in Europe, especially France, with the Moslem riots, and the response is never to crack down on the source of the trouble, but on everybody in general. The result has not been harsher policies toward Moslems, or a curtailing of Moslem immigration, but a series of draconian laws against 'hate', and more oppressive measures toward the public at large. In our country, instead of deportations and closed borders after 9/11 to minimize the risks of a repeat, we got the Patriot Act, and various intrusive 'security' and surveillance measures directed against all of us.

So it may be that the breaking-up of old Western nations and the creation of new 'diverse' nations in their stead is part of a drive to more authoritarian government. No doubt there are many intertwined motives at work, but we can be sure it is not just a simple matter of 'poor people seeking a better life.' That may be part of it, but our rulers are manipulating immigration for their own self-serving motives, and our interests are the least of their concerns.

Just in case

Just to let my readers know, in case I am offline for a day or two, it will be because of computer problems.

What are the odds of two computers crashing on the same day? My old desktop and the newish laptop both decided to go south at once. After hours of stress and vexation trying to get both or either of them working, I finally managed to get the old computer to boot in safe mode, and now it is working -- for the time being at least.
But if I fail to post over the next day or two, it will be because of computer woes.

However I hope to be here as usual, and hope my readers will be here, too.

More Ron Paul buzz

Just a few Ron Paul links:

I don't know if my readers have heard about this yet, but Rep. Paul has proposed a Constitutional amendment which would end birthright citizenship.

H.J. Res. 46: Ron Paul's proposed amendment to the Constitution

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.''

This is an issue that gets too little attention from our politicians and the crowd of candidates. Kudos to Ron Paul for addressing it.

And here,
Stupid Party

Kara Hopkins writes about the reaction of the GOP to Ron Paul's candidacy -- didn't I predict it? Much of the vituperation is coming from the Republican side:

It was a dangerous night in South Carolina: the ten candidates for the Republican nomination gathered, and a debate broke out. Damage control was swift. Party elders rushed to excommunicate the instigator. Pundits howled, bloggers convulsed: “moonbat on Kool Aid,” “crackpot,” “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.”

But for all that pious fury, a candidate few Americans had heard of owned the next day’s headlines. Ron Paul had committed the sin of truth—and the reaction revealed much about the party that shunned him.
[...] It’s come to this. The party once known for its sobriety wants to be lulled with stories about evil forces and immaculate heroes. Prudence yields to utopianism, intellectual combat to blind thuggery. Gone are the wisemen who cast long shadows and wrote great books. Lost too is the Right’s old default that distrusted power and those who want it, replaced by a vision of the irreproachable state.''

And James Ostrowski gives us the Ron Paul Revolution Halftime Report

...I said that the Ron Paul campaign could be a political earthquake. The clues are all there: young people and people previously not politically active are forming the core of his support; he is drawing support from the left and the right; Democrats for Paul groups are starting up; crowds are building and lies and smears are bouncing harmlessly off Ron Paul like so many bullets off Superman’s chest. In his recent media appearances, Ron is in what great athletes call "the zone."

What makes an earthquake is pent-up energy suddenly unleashed with tremendous force. A lot of problems that can only be addressed in a Jeffersonian framework of peace and freedom have been festering for too long in Hamiltonian America. A lot of people have been waiting a long time for a Jeffersonian to run for president and they’re going to make the most of it.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures."

Mike Tuggle weighs in on
What Ron Paul's run means

...Ron Paul has aired a revolutionary message which has sparked the imaginatons of the American people, a message that the powers that be cannot stuff back into the bottle. Paul’s ideas may well spark new interest in the real meaning of the nation’s founding documents and principles—and who knows where that will lead? ''

And finally,
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ron Paul

All the above links are worth reading in their entirety.