Thursday, August 2, 2007

Minnestota and our Infrastructure

The Dems are at it already. In this Politico article Sen. Harry Reid blames the Minneapolis bridge collapse on Bush's neglect of the nation's infrastructure due to the war in Iraq. Is there anything Bush isn't responsible for?
And no doubt the Dems will soon be calling for higher taxes to fix the nation's infrastructure "crisis". Perhaps they'll even throw in a good old fashioned "let's do it for the children" to boot!
I called for higher taxes on gas way back in April in which I advocated a higher tax to fund, among other things, taking care of our nation's infrastructure. Since ALL Americans benefit from bridges, roads, tunnels, airports, etc. a gas tax is the fairest way to ensure we ALL pay. And a gas tax is inherently fair because it's a consumption tax. If you don't want to pay it, don't drive! Or at least not to excess.
I'm sure also that the enviro-whackos will be blaming the bridge collapse on SUVs by the end of Aug claiming that their higher weight and the large number of Americans "abusing" our roads and bridges with SUVs has finally resulted in a catastrophe.
Now is the time for a higher gas tax. Do our politicians have the courage to make the case to the public that we are all in this together. We all benefit, we should all pay.

Monday, July 30, 2007

Chuck and Larry - Propaganda for the Gay Lobby

Friday was my anniversary so after dinner my wife and I went to see Chuck and Larry because it looked funny and I like Adam Sandler. I enjoyed the first half of the movie but somewhere around the middle it took definite propagandist turn. It went from delivering a message of indifferent tolerance to out right support and advocacy for the gay lobby. In the film the few opponents of homosexual behavior were shown to be over zealous, religious bigots shouting about gays 'burning in Hell". There was no honest debate, no respect for real differences of opinion, opponents were simply mean spirited and bigoted. I stopped enjoying the film at this point as the propaganda was just too over the top and obvious but I stuck it out to see how it would end.
As a Conservative I am opposed to gay 'marriage' but have no problem with civil unions that provide the same legal rights regarding survivorship, benefits, etc. I'm opposed to gay adoption. I will never accept a gay lifestyle as just another alternative and will never allow my children to be taught that it is just one of many choices. But I am comfortable working with gays, my former director was, and am generally a live and let live type of person as I believe most Americans are. But the gay lobby simply insists on striving for full acceptance by everyone and full recognition of their relationships as equal to traditional relationships and that turns people like me off. Yet rather than accept this differing point of view they, like all Liberals, resort to name calling to hurt their perceived enemies.
Chuck and Larry should come with a warning label.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Amnesty - 12-20 million or many many more?

Nearly everywhere I go these days I see Hispanics. This is a dramatic change from just a few years ago when I saw almost none so I assume the majority are illegals. One fact that I've not yet seen pointed out is that the vast majority of illegals are men. So just what does this fact mean for the influx of new immigrants if the illegals are given amnesty? Assuming the lower number of 12 million is correct and that just 60% of that figure are men, I'm being conservative with my figures, that means that 7.2 million illegals are men. Now assume that 50% of that number are married and would be able to bring over their spouses. That puts the number at 12 million illegals + 3.6 million spouses, or 15.6 million new immigrants. Now let's assume that 50% of these couples have only one child, again being conservative. That's 1.8 million children. Add that to the 15.6 million and the total rises to 17.4 million new immigrants. If we use the higher figure of 20 million illegals as a base and run the same numbers the total possible influx increases to 20+6 million spouses+3 million children or 29 million new immigrants. My numbers are purposely conservative and the totals in both scenarios is likely to be higher.
So what is the REAL number of expected new "Americans"?

Amid all the posturing and name calling on both sides in this debate I've not heard some very important questions get answered:

1. Who's going to pay for the health care of these new immigrants? Their employers don't. The immigrants themselves likely won't. Will this lead to a bigger push for nationalized medicine funded by a stagnant middle class?
2. Most of these people are poor. Will their children qualify for free school lunches?
3. Will WIC be available to them?
4. Will these low earning illegals be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit in which we the taxpayers give them billions of dollars a year and for which the new citizens pay nothing?
5. We are importing poverty on an unimagined scale. What will this do to the "War on Poverty"?
6. Do we abandon all attempts to measure and improve poverty since this massive influx will distort the statistics heavily to the negative?
7. Who will pay for the new schools required to educate them? MeCHA, LULAC, MALDEF? Taxpayers!

We the People are subsidizing businesses now and will be forever if we let this bill pass. Taxpayers will pay for the savings and profits of employers that use illegal labor. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Amnesty - Shortcut to Socialism?

You have to admire Ted Kennedy for one thing, he has patience. I can't say for sure but I believe Teddy has always dreamt of turning the USA into a socialist state and he has pushed us in that direction over the decades one baby step at a time. But sensing that his life could end before his dream is accomplished he's come up with a way to fast forward the US shift to socialism, amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens.
The mechanism for the acceleration will be health care because who will be paying for the health care of these new millions? Not their employers. Not the illegals themselves, Teddy saw to that when an amendment was defeated that would have required illegals to prove health coverage before they could get their Z-visa. So we're going to give 12-20 million uninsured, barely insurable low income workers the "right" to stay here with the "right" to medical care funded by taxpayers.
Naturally the fact that the vaunted 46 million uninsured will now become 58-66 million uninsured, many of whom are the children of the now legal, the hue and cry for taxpayer funded health care will grow louder. And when these new "citizens" eventually vote, if not sooner, we will find ourselves with nationalized, socialized medicine, the costs of which will be borne by the middle class citizens of the US whose ranks will not have grown. Tax increases are inevitable.
Teddy is a shrewd and patient man and if this catastrophe of a bill is passed he may yet succeed in creating his socialist state.

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Geraldo Rivera - Race Hustler?

I've been keeping up with Geraldo Rivera's positions and comments over the course of the immigration debate because I've always considered him a small time ethnic/race hustler always advocating for the "Latino" community regardless of the impact to larger society, rule of law, etc.

I decided to do a little research on Geraldo when he basically accused Bill O'Reilly of racism the on 6/6 during an immigration debate.

Geraldo said that people like Bill (whites) didn't want to come out of their homes and see people like "my kids" (Geraldo's has four children), implying that Geraldo's kids are "brown" people.

Any sane person looking at Bill and Geraldo side by side could reasonably assume that both men were of European extraction and that Geraldo clearly had more in common physically with Bill than with any of the Mexican (largely poor Aztecs) immigrants up for amnesty. Since Geraldo is of Puerto Rican extraction he obviously has more European, maybe even 100%, in him than most Mexicans.

After a quick read of his bio I quickly learned that Geraldo's mother, Lillian Friedman, is Jewish! So Geraldo is even whiter than he may already have been if he were 100% Puerto Rican.

Now, back to his "brown" kids. None of Geraldo's five wives (4 ex's, one current) is "Latina". This is assumed by looking at their last names , none of which are Spanish. So, this makes his children only 25% Puerto Rican/Hispanic and hardly "brown". So what kind of intellectual honesty is there in a statement by him to Bill about seeing "people like my kids" across the street?

So, just what is Geraldo's angle here? Is he raising his white kids to think of themselves to be "brown"? How many "Hispanics" are actually white, mostly white, or at least half white in the USA? How many of them are aligned against the majority in the immigration debate because of some misplaced sense of ethnic loyalty?

Time for Geraldo to come clean about his "brownness".

Post America America

I'm sure I'm likely to be pilloried for the following but I feel this is a serious issue that must be thoughtfully and seriously considered. Those that dismiss the question are either not seriously considering the answer, like the prospect of the potential outcome, are in denial, or are knee-jerk Liberals controlled by their emotions and a revulsion of the reality of actions having consequences. The question is this, can "America" as we know it from its founding through the present day survive if whites become just another minority or if Latinos become the majority? Yes, the country known as the USA will continue to exist, the form of government won't change, and the borders aren't likely to move. But how can the character of the nation survive?

The character of a nation is a derivative of its people and the character of the USA is predominantly defined, for now, by the culture of its northwestern European founders and earliest immigrants. Later waves of immigrants were assimilated into the WASP culture of the USA and as long as immigration from WASP countries exceeded or matched immigration from other countries or the level of non-WASP immigration was low relative to the US population a balance was maintained. People assimilated and became part of the historical America.

Now we are faced with a situation, started by Ted Kennedy in 1965, that is changing the fundamental character of America threatening to break the future from the past. When Ted Kennedy made the decision to change US immigration law so Europe was no longer favored as the source of immigrants he set in motion the process of creation of post America America. How many problems do we face today because of this dramatic change in policy? A policy by the way that Ted guaranteed would not impact the racial balance of the nation. Did he know in fact that it would? Would we be faced with the swamp of "multiculturalism" and the cult of "diversity" that cost the nations billions in lawsuits every year if not for the '65 legislation? Would we be confronting domestic Islamism with its concomitant threats to freedom and liberty? Would we be debating whether English should be our national language? What would be the current state of Liberalism, the enemy of freedom loving people everywhere, if not infused with ethnic agitators to increase its base and fuel its power?

As we consider the prospect of legalizing 12-20 million poor, uneducated, non-English speaking, non-whites we need to consider the long term impact on our country, our culture, and our future. I personally look south across the Latin American landscape and dread the future. Were we bordered by China, Egypt, or Zimbabwe the future would be just as dim. There is no history of liberty, freedom, or prosperity in these countries. Culture does matter in spite of what Utopian cultural relativists claim.

Unfortunately race matters too. That is simply undeniable. If it weren't so we wouldn't have the NAACP, LULAC, MECHA, La Raza, the Congressional Black, Hispanic, etc. Caucus, Negro College Fund, et al. I could literally go on for pages. Race matters. Especially to those in the minority. In many cases it is all that matters. People are black, or Hispanic, or Muslim, etc. before they are a man, a woman, an American. Except for fringe white supremacists this can't be said of the white majority and I'm sure that is so because we are the majority. However, the history of whites in places like Nigeria prove the opposite since to my knowledge they didn't form whites only organizations seeking special recognition and preferences.

So, since race matters how is the treatment of US history going to be managed in the future? How do you teach a majority Hispanic class in Texas that Mexico was the enemy at the Alamo? That Santayana was a bad guy? It's human nature for people to identify with their own kind. How many blacks are history professors? Not many, since US history isn't appealing at a personal level to blacks. When viewed through the lens of race, US history isn't about the grand voyages of discovery by the early European explorers, the defeat of Britain to found the nation, the struggle of the civil war in terms of states rights, WWI or WWII. Rather US history is viewed from the perspective of slavery, racial oppression, and the struggles of the civil rights era. Not many people can rise above their race to embrace the history of their nation and be proud of it. People look for heroes in people like themselves. US history offers few heroes that aren't white. At least blacks have been here long enough to have a small group of heroes and great figures, even before MLK, to look up to. Who so for Hispanics? I predict that they will have almost no interest in US history and will instead look south for inspiration and historical continuity. They will seek tighter integration with Latin America while loosening the bonds we now have with Europe, trading the first world for the third.

The US can manage immigration in numbers that don't threaten our existence but the massive numbers we are considering offering amnesty to and the millions upon millions that will follow them do indeed, in my opinion, threaten our national identity and this threat must be addressed honestly and openly. Hispanics, other minority groups, and many white Liberals will of course make any such discussion impossible to have and will berate anyone seeking such a discussion as a "racist". But why should we whites sit back silently while our country is transformed by guilty white Liberals, the ethnic lobby, and Big Business? Those that sit back and have absolute confidence in America to transform this polyglot wave into historically and culturally connected Americans are deluded.

This problem is one of our own making and the bleak future I describe doesn't have to happen if we have the strength and courage to call for an immigration policy that maintains our nations' character. We don't have to transform if we choose not to.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Secession? Revolution? What does the future hold?

Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." and Thomas Paine said, "These are the times that try men's souls."

I hope and fear that with the looming threat of a mass amnesty that patriotic Americans, Americans that still believe in sovereignty, independence from "entangling alliances", the rule of law, and the gift of Western civilization will rise up and say enough is enough. How long must we tolerate a government that works not for the American people but against us? For surely the majority of the American people do not support an amnesty for illegal aliens, nor the massive demographic shift such an amnesty would impose on our nation. How long must we be subjects and not citizens?

It seems that our leaders work not for We the People but rather for the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, La Raza, MECHA, LULAC, et al. These latter groups represent people that are not even citizens of our country and yet they have a seat at the negotiating table for one of the most important decisions we will ever face.

It is obvious that the Democrats long term goal is to create a permanent majority via the importation of a new dependent class, one that will be forever enslaved to government largess. Democrats know that they can never hope to gain a majority of a prosperous middle class so they have to create a new class of voters that will help the Left realize its socialist agenda.

What are patriotic Americans to do? Can we pick a few states and secede from the rest of the nation? We all know a nation run on Liberal policies will collapse under its own weight. I say we pull a John Gault and secede. We leave the non-productive socialists to their own demise.

Another option is armed rebellion to take our government back from the disconnected elite and return it to We the People. Our Founders would be appalled at the current state of this nation wondering where our independent, self sufficient, rebellious spirit has gone.

I don't know if inciting rebellion is illegal but Jefferson's quote seems to imply if such a thing is necessary then carry on! We surely have enough patriots with weapons to mount another revolution.

If we don't now demand a return to our core principles then when war does come it will be a civil war and the dissolution of the nation into ethnic nations will be the result.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Illegal Immigration Emergency

Now that it appears as though a compromose (sell out) has been reached on immigration it is URGENT that we act to get an amendment proposed and passed that denies citizenship to the children of "guest" workers. It is ridiculous to not address this critical issue. If not addressed it will become a stealth approach to gaining citizenship for the parents of such children. Dems always tell us how we should emulate Europe and in this case I agree, Europe doesn't have birthright citizenship for the children of illegals.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

The Touble with Somalis

A lot of stories regarding Somali Muslims have been in the news lately:
Somali Muslim cab drivers refusing certain passengers in Minnesota
Somali Muslim students offended by a ham sandwich in Maine
Somali Muslim cabbie tries to run down college students in Tennessee
and now Somali Muslims in TN demanding, and receiving, special prayer breaks and accommodations by Dell in an assembly plant. Thanks to the Gates of Vienna, 'The Submission Train" for this one.

So this begs the question, why are all these Somalis here? The answer is, Catholic Charities and the US Government. Thanks to them we now have hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't be more different than the people of the US. We are not only importing poverty we are now importing religious tension.

For some history on the Somali resettlement projects see this story on V-Dare.

We need to demand that our government stop resettlement into our country of those that are virtually unassimilable so we can possibly put a stop to the growth of the cancer of Islam in our country.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Illegal Immigration and Mexican Governmental Corruption

There are many many reasons to oppose illegal immigration and I've heard almost all of them except one: what role does illegal immigration play in the ongoing corruption of the Mexican government?
By not enforcing our borders we are contributing to the continued corruption within the Mexican government. We do this by allowing Mexico to export the people that, if forced to remain home, would demand change and thus force Mexico to open its economy, root out corruption, and stop the addiction to remittances from the US that result in Mexico actually assisting illegal immigrants in their trek across our border.
Instead we act as a relief valve to the social pressures that would, and should, form in Mexico.
We do a disservice to Mexico and ourselves by not forcing them to confront their problems. If we don't force Mexico to reform how long will it be before all 100 MILLION Mexicans are in the US demanding "rights" and citizenship?

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Those Wacky Environmentalists

I had a good laugh, perhaps out of ignorance, when I read this story today about an Australian scientist saying cremation contributes to global warming, "Short said the cremation of the average male in Australia, during which the body is heated to 850 degrees Celsius (1,562 degrees Fahrenheit) for 90 minutes, produced more than 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of carbon dioxide."

Now when I was in school I learned that the human body is ~90% water which would make me, at 180 lbs, about 162 lbs of water or 18 lbs of solids. How does one get 110 lbs of CO2 from 18 lbs of solids? Just for clarification the article goes on to say, "And that doesn't include the carbon cost of fuel, or the cost of the emissions released during the production and burning of the wooden casket." So the 110 of CO2 is strictly from the cremated body.

I'm sure I produce much more than 110 lbs of CO2 per year just from breathing so perhaps we should do the planet a favor and all just die.

This lunacy has to stop!

Monday, April 9, 2007

Defeating Defeat

Perhaps I'm an alarmist but I genuinely believe that the end of the West is a distinct possibility within the next 100 years and that it is primarily caused by dearly held Western values taken to the extreme. Values such as tolerance, open mindedness, acceptance, accomodation, free speech, et al.
We in the West have become so politically correct in our response to everything that we are literally afraid to defend ourselves and are far too eager to jettison our own values and culture for fear of offense. Our values and culture that have made Western culture the greatest success story in the world and we not only are afraid to defend them but in some cases are only too eager to assist in their degradation. Witness the UK schools afraid to teach the truth about the Holocaust because Muslim students might be offended, may have learned something else in the mosque, or who may be incited to anti-semitism. It's an outrageous capitulation and a staggering admission of our weakness. What will our enemies make of our fear to communicate the truth in spite of the consequences? WHY is Liberalism so weak?
I'm always searching for root causes and in this case I believe the root cause of this weakness is public education. Where else are children taught the valuless nonsense of multiculturalism, diversity, moral and cultural relativism, and atheism?
We are on a path to destruction and seem helpless to stop it. we may have a strong external appearance and make much ado about our democratic freedoms to debate but this is merely masking the truth of our decay. Witness the Democrats weakness in the face of our enemies. They won't even call our war with Islamic terrorists by its accurate name instead choosing ideologially detached names such as "the war in X-region".
I just don't understand Liberalism. It seems to defy human nature and all rational thought. When your enemies are seeking to kill you and end your way of life, why not meet them with force? Why do Leftists instead join our enemies against us? Why?
I'm not particularly religious but I believe the only thing that will save the West is a vigorous Christianity coupled with renewed and extensive education about Western culture and a rebirth in patriotism and love of country.
Liberalism is truly a sickness that must be met head on and defeated with truth.

Friday, April 6, 2007

The Case for a Higher Gas Tax

I'm usually not one to advocate for higher tax rates but at this moment in history it seems like the right time to raise taxes on gasoline and imported oil. Tax policy is often used as both carrot and stick to cause certain behavior by both businesses and consumers and can take the form of higher or lower rates of taxation or tax credits.
Nearly everyone agrees, publicly anyway, that the US needs to lower its consumption of oil, especially imported oil, for any number of reasons; reduce CO2 emissions, reduce dependence on 3rd world despots, promote energy independence, etc. What better way to achieve these multiple goals than to increase the price of the commodity at the root of these problems?
Given the run up in the price of fuel these last few years with virtually no negative effect on the economy it's obvious that Americans are capable of paying the higher rates. Even the sale of gas guzzling trucks and SUV's weren't too negatively impacted.
A higher gas tax should be something all politicians should be able to agree on. The Democrats will get us to reduce our consumption and accompanying emissions of CO2 as well as a new revenue stream. Republicans can get a revenue source for subsidizing the search for alternative fuels and both parties will benefit by reducing our reliance on foreign sources, especially those from unfriendly regimes. The most severe blow we can deal to our oil revenue fed enemies is cut off the flow of petrodollars.
What will this compromise require from Dems? Allowing the US to develop domestic supplies while we transition to alternative fuels. That means getting enough backbone to fend off the environmentalist whackos that would have us all living in caves. What will this mean for Republicans? Agreeing to higher taxes. Not all taxation is bad and in this all American should agree that the goals are worthy of the cost.
If we had a real leader in the White House he would issue a Kennedyesque challenge to America that calls for shared sacrifice and a common goal of energy independence. Unfortunately most politicians are too cowardly and lack principles, reelection being their only motivation.
For example, instead of raising fuel taxes and letting the market cause automakers to raise fuel standards and produce more fuel efficient cars Congress takes the heavy handed approach of raising CAFE standards. And we Americans still drive gas guzzlers. Why? Because we can afford to.
The major downside to this plan is that we can't trust government with our tax dollars. Instead of funneling the tax revenue to energy research and transportation infrastructure they will likely blow it on pet projects and other pork.
The recent troubles in the ME ought to be a wake up call that we can't expose so much of our economy to the happenings in the most unstable part of the world and spend precious dollars preserving the stability there to ensure the flow of oil.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

The Flying Imams and US Immigration Policy

While reading about the Target fiasco where the Muslim immigrant refused to scan a package of bacon I read that there were "tens of thousands" of Somali Muslims in Minnesota. I had never known that little fact until recently. I was however aware of similar Somali resettlements in Maine from a friend living there.
These resettlements raise several interesting questions such as why settle nomadic, desert Africans in northern US states and not in the South? Were MN and ME deemed too white by social engineers in the Clinton Admin and in need of a little "diversity"? Why are they being resettled in the US in the first place? I don't recall voters being asked about the issue of "humanitarian" resettlement. How many millions or billions would qualify for such generous treatment? Did the Feds consider what impact settling tens of thousands of black, African, Muslims might have on MN and US culture, schools, social services, etc?

In any case the current problems ongoing in MN from the Flying Imams to the Target cashier can be laid squarely at the feet of the US government and the Clinton Administration in particular since the MN resettlements were started in 1995. Was any thought given to how disruptive the clash of cultures would be? What demands these newcomers would make on US culture to adapt to them instead of their adapting to us?

As the sensible among us demand accountability and responsibility in our immigration system the demands need to be expanded to include these poorly thought out resettlement policies.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Islam's Gift to the West

9/11 is a day, like Dec. 7 1941, that will live in infamy as one of the worst attacks on the US ever in history. In spite of this horrific attack is it possible that it could have been a blessing, an expensive one in terms of lives, in the long run?
What has been revealed since 9/11? That Islam has been conducting a decades long slow stealth march through the West that has gone virtually unnoticed until Al Queda brutally exposed the Islamic Agenda on 9/11.
Europeans, who realistically may lose their continent to Islam this century, seems to finally be awakening to the danger in their midst and is mobilizing to save themselves.
We Americans have become more vigilant and suspicious of attempts by Muslims to garner exceptions to US law based on their freedom of religion.
Note the recent attention given to the "flying Imams", the Somali Muslim invaders that masquerade as cabbies who refuse to carry seeing-eye dogs and passengers with alcohol, the Muslim in Target that refused to check out bacon and countless little cuts to our Western culture.
When the 1st amendment was written it was written from a Western, Christian perspective. That is an undeniable fact. However, this fact seems to be ignored when dealing with non-Western religions. Will Muslims soon begin demanding that they be allowed to have multiple wives because it is for them a religious practice? What about keeping their wives in subservient positions? Honor killings? Female circumcision? Refusing to serve pork to paying customers?
Will Muslims be allowed to openly discriminate against non-Muslims because Islam calls for Muslims to treat ALL non-Muslims as second class citizens? Our founders couldn't have known they would have had to someday address these issues.
Islam will use our own laws and freedoms against us to advance their own agenda. In this battle we are unarmed.
All these questions are now being asked, stealth organizations such as CAIR that support terrorists are being watched, and the duplicitous nature of Islam is now being watched thanks to 9/11.
In spite of the unforgivable loss of life on 9/11 I want to thank Islam for waking us up to the danger in our midst.

Safeguarding our Freedoms

A lot that I've read lately leads me to believe that the only way to safeguard or freedoms is to demand school choice. The public schools have become the indoctrination centers for the Left. Every advocacy group in this country knows that if they want to advance their agenda all they need to do is enlist the support of the NEA. From gay rights to acceptance of Sharia Law the public schools are the channel.
I believe there is no greater threat to the future of our nation than public education. The self-described function of public education has transformed from educating our children to indoctrinating them on a host of Liberal causes to to ensure our children don't "discriminate". In the name of preventing "ism's" our children will learn to keep their thoughts to themselves, to not speak out against threats to the US, to feel ashamed to be white, Western, Christian, male, heterosexual or any non-member of a protected class. We desperately need school choice to ensure our children learn what they need to compete in a global economy but more importantly because only through breaking the Liberal monopoly on education will our children learn about our Founders, what it means to be an American, and take their duty to protect our country as a sacred one. It is through ignorance that the Liberal agenda is advanced. It is ignorance that is at the root of the erosion of our freedoms, our culture, and our identity.

The President and the Polls

Much ado is made of the President's poll numbers and the MSM is only too eager to report that the President's numbers are swirling the bowl because of the war in Iraq. If that were really the case would the Dems be having such a hard time passing their resolutions to retreat from Iraq? The truth is probably closer to the fact that the President has abandoned Conservative principles and has thus lost the support of much of the Conservative base.
How high would his numbers rebound to if he actually sided with the American people on immigration reform?
How would he be doing if he hadn't tried to buy the AARP vote with his expansion of Medicare and resulting ballooning of the federal budget?
And how much Reagan Democrat support would he have if he would, for once, support pro-American trade policies and address American's unease with globalization?

If the President had listened to his base his support level would be much higher, the GOP would probably have held Congress, and he wouldn't be currently fending off frustration driven attacks from angry Democrats.

We can only hope that he and the rest of the GOP will learn from this experience and return to the Reagan and Gingrich principles that secure GOP domination for so long.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Recommended Blog

If you care about the massive influx of Muslims into Europe and are concerned about the implications of a "Eurabia" you have to subscribe to this blog:
It gives me hope that there are still Europeans that care about their countries, their cultures, and their futures.

Friday, March 16, 2007

History, Multiculturalism, and the end of the West

As Western countries are increasingly flooded with immigrants from non-Western countries when will it cease to be possible to teach the history of the host country from the host's perspective? Are Mexican-American students likely to understand the American side of the story of the Alamo or will their ethnic "pride", loyalty, or identity supersede their American identity? Will they proclaim an American viewpoint of the Alamo as somehow racist? Will all history have to be taught from the perspective of the aggrieved and defeated to be valid? Witness how the history of the westward expansion of whites is now commonly portrayed as a criminal act because of how the Indians were treated.

To get an idea of the future take a look at the Iranian reaction to the film '300'. The Iranians don't like the way the Persians were portrayed and are more than a little upset about it. How do the Iranians think the enemies of the Greeks should have been portrayed? IN the eyes of the Spartans and other Greeks the Persians WERE invading, cruel, brutal, and a force to be feared. They weren't friendly neighbors coming over to borrow a cup of sugar.

As Europe becomes increasingly Muslim will it be possible to tell the history of the Battle of Tours in which Charles "the Hammer" Martel defeated the invading Muslim army and saved Europe from Islam? How can it be told without "offending" Muslims? This was one of the most historically important battles in European history but can it be told? What about the Reconquista in Spain when the Moors were finally expelled and Spain reclaimed for the Spanish Christians?

Will European history as it relates to European relations with Islam be deemed too racist, imperialist, colonialist, et al to be told from an honest Western perspective?

Will Europe be forced to give up its Christian symbols as some prison guards in London were forced to do because their St. George lapel pins might "upset" some Muslim prisoners and guards? Must Europe now deny its Christian roots?

What connection do these new imigrants have to their hosts? They obviously have little interest in integrating or assimilating and the Liberal West has little interest in making them do so. What kind of connection to the Tower of London does a Pakistani immigrant to England have? A Moroccan to the art in the Louvre? A Nigerian to the Colosseum in Rome? A Muslim Somali in Minnesota to Paul Bunyan? None!

The West has simply lost its will to survive and is only now making progress because of centuries of cultural inertia and that inertia is quickly running out. Multiculturalism is a disease of the guilt ridden Liberal Left and will be the end of Western culture.

Islam will eventually win because it has the will to win and isn't afraid to exploit Western guilt and Western law in its slow march through the West.

Thursday, March 8, 2007

Environmentalist Cowards

With the possibility of amnesty for upwards of 20 million illegals looming large why do we hear nothing from environmental groups that rarely miss an opportunity how we humans are destroying the planet? Is it because the overwhelming growth in US population is coming from immigrants, illegal and legal, who hail from 3rd world countries and to oppose immigration risks being accused of racism?

Here is the Sierra Club's policy ca. 1969 "The Sierra Club urges the people of the United States to abandon population growth as a pattern and goal; to commit themselves to limit the total population of the United States in order to achieve balance between population and resources; and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990."

And ca. 2003 when it was by then obvious where US population growth was coming from: "...The Sierra Club supports the decision of the Board of Directors to take no position on U.S. immigration levels and policies."

The dramatic shift in their position is a result of their cowardice. If they truly believed in their agenda of sustainability they would confront illegal and even legal immigration head on. After all human population growth is the root cause of all the evils the Sierra Club et al regularly warn us about, overcrowding, resource depletion, viable ecosystems, environmentally responsible consumption, etc.

Instead taking a "pro Earth" position on immigration the Sierra Club and the rest of the cowardly Left take the easy way out and go after big business as if it, and not the consumers it serves, were the root of all evil.

Liberalism will, one can hope, eventually have to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and conflicting interests. In the mean time the rest of us have to suffer the consequences of their moral cowardice and inaction.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Ted Kennedy and the end of the UNITED States

Perhaps the title is a bit dramatic but only time will tell. Ted Kennedy, an embarrassment to the US Senate but curiously reelected time and again by the good people of Mass, has it in for our country. How else to explain his hard push for "comprehensive" immigration reform? Didn't he, or we, learn any lessons from the 1965 overhaul of US immigration policy which in defense of the overhaul Ted stated, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Second, the ethnic mix will not be upset."
We all know that that is precisely what happened. And in spite of the changes to US immigration policy that weren't agreed to by the American people and which have contributed to the balkanization of the country and the growth of ethnic politics Teddy boy is at it again. Why? What form of Liberal white guilt drives this man to want to continually alter the make-up of the country? What does he hope to gain from am influx of Hispanics? Perhaps he hopes to capitalize on the ignorance of the poor uneducated peasants that stream across our southern border day in and day out and translate his generosity into Democratic votes. The plan may well succeed which makes it all the more frustrating that the Wall St. Journal wing of the GOP also supports the Kennedy approach. They may regret their success.
Unlike Old World countries that are united by ethnicity, centuries of common culture and history, all that unites us is the English language, American culture, and our government and its laws. Massive immigration on the scale that would result from the Kennedy-McCain plan would alter forever our country and increase the rate of Balkanization. We are already subjected to having to choose English in commercial transactions.
One thing that was learned from the 1986 Reagan amnesty was that not many of the illegals actually wanted to be citizens but rather just wanted to work, save, and then go home. So why the need to offer the 12-20 MILLION ILLEGALS citizenship? Has anyone even asked them if that's what they want? Evidence suggests that if the illegals were offered the chance to move freely between the US and Mexico for work that most of them would leave on their own. Instead they are trapped here. Once they've managed to get across the border why take the chance of not getting back in by going home?
To prevent the demographic time bomb opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans it is necessary to support a guest worker program that: denies citizenship to illegals, insists they return at regular intervals to renew their guest status, denies citizenship to the children of illegals and guests, denies any form of US taxpayer benefit, mandates that the employers of guests provide medical coverage for their employees (else the burden is on taxpayers) for on the job injuries, mandates strict employer verification, and punishes employers that knowingly violate the law.
The lessons to be learned from the fall of Rome are too numerous to list.

Monday, March 5, 2007

Race and Politics - Who is What and Why?

Barack Obama is equal parts white and black yet every media mention of the junior senator labels him an African American. Why? Would it not be just as accurate to label him white? Given his background he is probably closer to Liberal white thought than that of African Americans. After all, what does his father, a Kenyan, or his mother, a white woman from Kansas, know of the plight of African Americans? It seems any person can be labeled a 'person of color' as long as that person has a smidgen of non-white ancestry and can somehow be seen to positively represent the community that they claim or that claims them. Take Gov. Bill Richardson as another example. He's labeled a 'Hispanic'. Why? Because his mother was Mexican? So. He still has a good chance of being 100% white if his mother came from upper class Mexican society. And unless his mother was 100% Aztec, Mayan or some other Native American of Mexico, most Mexicans are of mixed heritage, he's more white than anything else. Yet he gains political advantage from being something other than white. The list goes on. Halle Berry, Lenny Kravitz, Tiger Woods, et al. We won't ever be able to move beyond race because Liberals don't want to. The race card is too advantageous to them in the game of politics.

Friday, March 2, 2007

Will Europe Go Gently into the Goodnight?

In Oct. of 732 Charles 'The Hammer' Martel defeated a Muslim army at Tours in modern day France halting the aggressive spread of Islam into Europe for seven centuries until Byzantium fell to the Turks in 1453. Soon after the fall of Byzantium Spain finally expelled the Muslims and set off four hundred plus years of European expansion, discovery, enlightenment, and domination of almost the entire globe. Once, Europe was strong, proud, confident, and unafraid to assert itself. Europe gave birth to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, movements that generated tremendous advances in art, science, civil liberties, and the rights of the individual and eventually birthed the United States of America.
Today, Europe is weak, mired in a political correctness malaise that will ultimately prove to be its end.
In 2006 Muhammar Khadaffi said, "We have four million Muslims in Albania. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe – without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. Europe is in a predicament, and so is America. They should agree to become Islamic in the course of time, or else declare war on the Muslims."
Given the rate of Muslim immigration into Europe, the high Muslim birth rates, and the head in the sand attitude of most Europeans it seems, in time, Khadaffi will be proved right because Europe won't take Khadaffi's advice and "declare war on the Muslims".
Europe, weak, ineffective, cowardly, unsure, won't be able to prevent its own end, even as it has become obvious, because it is paralyzed by cultural guilt and an inexplicable pacifism that will prevent them from ever raising a hand in defense of themselves, their homes, their countries and their culture. Europe has either forgotten its past or has willfully rejected it.
When the Notre Dame in Paris is converted to a Mosque, as was the beautiful Hagia Sofia in Byzantium, will the Europeans finally act? Or will it be too late and we will all wake up to find that Europe, the foundation of Western culture, has indeed gone gently into the goodnight.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

In Defense of Western Civilization

I'm starting this blog because I've not seen enough articles written in defense of Western civilization. To the contrary, almost daily I read attacks, either direct or subversive and indirect, on our culture and frankly I've wearied of it and feel it is my duty as a beneficiary of those that laid the foundations for our freedoms, our democracy, and our very way of life to rise in defense of all that we should hold dear. I shall try to back up my positions with quotes from Western culture's greatest thinkers and invite others to support or oppose my positions also with reference to the great minds or great books of the West.
As a Conservative I'll also be using the same sources to refute Liberalism and it's parasitic ideology.

I'm currently reading 'The Annals of Imperial Rome' by Tacitus and came across this great quote of Tiberius chiding a senator who was seeking an annual stipend from the state, "Hortalus: the divine Augustus gave you money but he did so spontaneously - and with no guarantee of a permanent supply. For permanent concessions would mean an end of all effort and all enterprise, because their incentives, fear and ambition, would be gone. Everyone would look irresponsibly elsewhere for relief, without lifting a finger for himself - a dead weight on the community."

It seems even the ancient Romans understood what socialists and Liberals today cannot understand, a handout becomes an addiction that destroys a man's will to provide for himself, thus robbing of him of his dignity, self respect, and motivation to improve his material condition.

Do Liberals really not understand this or do they not only understand it but seek to maintain it in order to have their "subjects" dependent on them for favors?