Mexican Victory

(From the Federalist)


"The Senate isn't serious about enforcing the nation's immigration laws. It is bad enough that the bill that 39 Democrats and 23 Republicans just voted to pass provides an amnesty to illegal immigrants already here. There might be an argument for doing that if there were any evidence of a commitment to enforce the immigration laws in the future. But the bill actually prohibits local police from enforcing civil violations of immigration laws which in practice, given the byzantine rules distinguishing between civil and criminal violations of those laws, will get local police out of the enforcement business altogether. No serious effort is being made to make the bureaucracy capable of the enforcement tasks that will now be asked of them, such as performing background checks on the illegal population. The bill forbids the federal government to use any information included in an application for amnesty in national-security or criminal investigations. Any federal agent who does use that information would be fined $10,000 which is five times more than an illegal alien would have to pay to get the amnesty... The Senate should stand down in favor of the House's enforcement-first approach, not the other way around. But it would be much better to enact no bill than to enact the Senate bill."

National Review

"It is a truly joyous day, a historic day." Mexican President Vicente Fox on the "triumph" of the Senate immigration bill vote

The Dirt on the Yurt

I have returned from my Yurting, and had a good time (although my wife would certainly have enjoyed the Ritz-Carlton better). The weather was hot, the bugs were biting, and the lake was ice-cold, but I managed to get my wife to go camping, and that makes it all worth while!

We were delayed by endless road construction, and what should have taken 4 hours took 6. The campground was crowded with holiday merrymakers, and our host was a nice guy, although he was stressed and harried by the endless flood of campers arriving. We stayed at a place called Caplinger Woods, which lay on the Sac river just a couple of miles below the dam for Lake Stockton. The river was low and muddy because the Corps of Engineers had to stabilize the water levels on the lake, but it was warm enough to swim-which surprised me, since it is water coming from the bottom of the lake. You couldn`t really swim at our campgrounds; it was just too shallow for anything but wading. There was a small mill dam with a mill-pond upstream, but I didn`t go there because it was too crowded.

The Yurt itself was pretty nice; it was constructed of a wooden frame with a circular lattice wall, and roof rafters which hook to a wire woven into the top of the latticework. The other end of the rafters connect to a round collar at the top of the roof, and a large bubble skylight rests on top of the collar. The Yurt had electricity, and a ceiling fan could be turned on beneath the skylight to bring in fresh air (the skylight opens with a crank.) Windows are sewn into the Yurt`s cover, and they opened and closed with flaps like any other tent. It sat on a wooden deck, so it had a real floor. This, along with a lockable wooden door made the Yurt closer to a cabin then tent.

Inside there was a futon, a double bunk bed, a table and chairs, and a dresser. The owner could easily have installed a window air conditioner had he wanted to-and given the 90* plus afternoons I dearly wish he had! Still, it wasn`t too bad.

Unfortunately, some moths and a junebug got into the Yurt, and my wife had a miserable night (she hates bugs) since the junebug kept buzzing around. I would have slept better had I not been worried about her, but what the heck!

We wound up not spending a lot of time outside the next day; we traveled the area, checking out some of the small, historic communities. I was particularly eager to visit Osceola, which was burned to the ground in 1861 by James Lane`s Kansas Jayhawker. It was odd; we visited the town square and the courthouse had an historical marker on the front lawn, but no mention was made of Lane`s atrocity. I had wanted to see remnants of the town from before the torching, but there were none to be found. We ended up visiting antique shops and a cheese factory, instead.

(The cheese factory was fun; it was stuffed with people who ate the free samples like pigs at a trough!)

Our last night we had to move out of the Yurt (due to guests who booked ahead of us) and into the teepee. The teepee was, well, a rather shabby affair without a drip-cloth inside, and with no electricity. As night fell, my wife became more apprehensive (the open smoke-hole and lack of a door disturbed her, as did the moths fluttering around.) I had brought an inflatable mattress, but she simply couldn`t bring herself to sleep on the ground, so she spent the night in the car. I slept like a baby, since I had the mattress all to myself!

The only problem was that the teepee was the last campsite on the trail to the millpond, and across the millpond was another campground. This camp was full of rowdies, since it had no facilities (except a port-a-pottie) and was probably very cheap, and people from our camp went over to party with this bunch. They all came staggering back to camp about midnight or so, drunk and dazed, and they ALL stumbled through the teepee site. Luckily, nobody messed with any of my gear, but a few of them decided to make a biological pit-stop not far from my camp. I guess that`s to be expected on a holiday weekend.

At any rate, it was a fun time (at least for me!) Blogging may still be a bit light until I get everything put away and recover.

Darwin and the Culture of Death

For some time now I have been planning to write a lengthy piece (for publication) on the connection between Darwinism, Eugenics, and Nazism. Unfortunately, Richard Weikart beat me to it. (Snooze you lose!) Here is a decent review of the arguments made by Weikart, in a piece at the New Oxford Review.

Let me offer you a small sample of the review by Anne Barbeau Gardiner:

From Darwin to Hitler is a fine work about how Darwin's notion of morality virtually supplanted Christian morality in Germany between the 1870s and the 1930s. In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin suggested that morality was the result of biological evolution and that it differed only in degree, not in kind, from the social instincts of animals. While admitting that man, due to his cognitive abilities, had evolved further than animals, Darwin insisted that his social instincts, too, had developed by natural selection in the struggle for existence. Richard Weikart shows that Darwin's materialist account of morality hugely influenced German intellectuals of that era, causing many of them to reject the sanctity of life.

Darwinists such as Bartholomäus von Carneri, Ernst Haeckel, and Georg von Gizycki concluded that evolutionary science had proven free will and man's soul to be illusions. Gizycki rejoiced that evolution had introduced "a this-worldly moral philosophy to replace the prevalent otherworldly conception," while Friedrich Jodl argued that, given its origin, morality had to be "in evolutionary flux." Wilhelm Schallmayer said it plainly: "evolution leads undeniably to the demand for the continued development of ethics in the sense of evolutionary ethics."

Friedrich Hellwald and Alexander Tille saw evolution as doing away with inherent human rights. Once Darwin made the "biological inequality" of humans a matter of science, some individuals began to be labeled as "less valuable" than others. Rudolph Penzig, an advocate of secularization, declared that "biological evolution undermines any religious foundations for morality." In other words, Darwinism was already besieging the walls of the City of God. The feminist Helene Stöcker, who synthesized Nietzsche and Darwin, urged the "overthrow" of Christian morality for the sake of a "Darwinian-inspired eugenics program."


For those of you who are unaware, Darwin turned against Christianity after the death of his non-believing father and brother, calling it ``a damnable doctrine`` because Christian dogma consigned them to hell. He then went on to create a purely mechanistic theory of evolution which could be used as a weapon against the Church. His cousin Francis Galton was one of the founders of the Eugenics movement, a movement which sought to apply Darwinian Evolutionary principles to improve the human breeding stock. Eugenics was the core principle of Nazismsm, and Christian Fundamentalism was born in part as a response to the rise of Eugenics.

Science aside, Darwinism has been at the heart of virtually every evil movement since it`s creation. Nazismsm, Communism (Karl Marx admitted that he applied Darwinian theory to economics, and he wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, who wisely refused permission), abortion, euthanasia, racism, etc. are all ``gifts`` from the philosophy of Darwin.

One must wonder about something which bears such bad fruit.

A Yurting I Will Go

Folks, I`m leaving on my Yurt trip to Stockton Lake, so there shall be no blogging until I get back. See you all in a couple of day!

Green Shoots in the French Desert

Perhaps all hope is not lost for the French after all:


French Catholics Protest The Da Vinci Code by Deal W. Hudson



Paris: "Yes, there is without doubt a Catholic revival going on in France right now." Thus spoke Jean-Paul, one of the seven seminarians I interviewed near the southern coast of France.

"Then why do Catholics in the U.S. view the Church in France as dead?" I asked. Mathieu, an Oratorian from Lyon, answered, "Because it is not a matter of numbers but a renewal of the Catholic mentality -- our sense of Catholic community and identity is becoming stronger in France."

These seminarians, from the diocesan seminary of Frejus-Toulon, see themselves as part of a Catholic revival that started in the early 70's. At the heart of the revival, they explain, are the 100 "charismatic renewal communities" that have been founded in France over the past 30 years. (By "charismatic" the French do not mean communities that speak in tongues, although it is not uncommon.)

Jean-Marie Guenois, religion editor of the Catholic daily La Croix, emphasized the same point during lunch near his office on the Rue de Bayard in Paris. "When the leaders of all the renewal communities met in the Vatican on Pentecost Sunday with the Holy Father, nearly 150 out of the 250 new communities were French!" Guenois added that these movements, which are more scarce in Italy and Spain, are indicative of France's deep spiritual roots.

This point was made more emphatically by Fr. Laurent Sentis, the moral theologian (Thomist!) who heads the academic program at the seminary in Toulon. "This country has been impregnated with the Catholic faith for centuries." The chief cause, he said, of the Church's eclipse was its failure to grapple directly with the founding document of the French Revolution, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man. "It contained no reference to the family or tradition, but instead of arguing back, the Church just put it on the Syllabus and ignored the beginning of modernity."

There was little doubt that those roots of which he and Jean-Marie Guenois spoke were blooming once again in the vocations of the seminarians in Toulon. In fact, the city was literally full bloom when I arrived at the seminary to meet the Bishop of Frejus-Toulon, Msgr. Domenica Rey.

The seminary building sits in the midst of an old French estate -- with an active winery -- given by the owners decades ago to the diocese for "the formation and care of priests." The Domain of Castille, as it is called, is worth a visit: A bed and breakfast can be found in the old chateau adjacent to the seminary and winery (yes, the wines are quite good.). The profits from the winery and the B&B go to support the seminarians and the retired priests who live on the property.

Bishop Rey was the first priest from a charismatic renewal movement to be appointed a bishop. A priest and leader of the Emmanuel Movement, Rey had achieved some visibility as parish priest in the heart of Paris.

At dinner, and later over a small glass of Chartreuse in his home, we talked about the evolution of the renewal movements in France. "It is important to see that we have become institutionalized -- we are part of the Church," he said. When asked about the state of the Church in France, he replied with a smile that warmed the entire room, "The Church is not dead; she sleeps, and it is my job to wake her."

Bishop Rey is obviously someone who can rouse the spiritually dead. His vitality and humility are contagious. For example, when I inquired about new French Catholic intellectuals, he mentioned a name, disappeared for a few minutes, and returned with a phone. The Bishop had the scholar on the phone so I could talk to him.



One of the Bishop's favorite themes is identity. The success of the renewal movements, he said, is the "strength of its Catholic identity -- without that everything turns to dust." As a result, the biggest obstacle to renewal is the "secularism inside the Church."

I also asked him about his years in Paris, specifically about the bar in Pigale I read about where he ministered to prostitutes. "Yes, that was run by the Emmanuel Community. It was in an awful part of the city, filled with glaring lights. The prostitutes came into the bar because the light was softer."

It was also a place, he said, where the Community sought "to touch a lot of people by assuming their identity." That is exactly how I felt having spent a long evening with Bishop Rey. Any skepticism I felt toward the seminarians' claim of a Catholic revival was dispelled by the charisma of this remarkable servant of the Church.

The mood of the Catholics I met with in Paris was not so positive. The revival, from their point of view, was making its way north very slowly. But it was in Paris that I witnessed an outbreak of Catholic fervor that corroborated what I had heard in Toulon.

I was standing in line to see The Da Vinci Code on the night it opened in Paris. (I have not read the book.) It was my visit to the actual Church of St. Sulpice that prompted me to see the movie a few blocks away. I had been told that the pastor of St. Sulpice was being pestered by Da Vinci Code readers anxious to see the spot where the priest was slain. So much for the reply made by Ron Howard and Tom Hanks to critics that the movie is obviously "fiction."

As I took my place in line, I heard the sounds of singing and chanting coming up St. Germain des Pres. Then I noticed that there were a number of police cars nearby and found out from one of the policemen that the sounds were coming from a demonstration against the movie. Calling themselves the "young Catholics of France," the demonstrators were chanting the Ave Maria and singing hymns. In a few minutes a phalanx of twenty-something Catholics, mostly young women, appeared smiling and handing out fliers listing the lies of The Da Vinci Code.

I never thought I would be handed a religious tract on the streets of Paris, especially on the West Bank!


The flier prompted some laughter from the young couple behind me, so I turned to ask what they were laughing about. The couple, Antoine and Catherine, believed precisely the claim of Dan Brown's book -- the Church was hiding the fact that Jesus was married and had children. Antoine exclaimed, "His marriage proves he was fully human, and the Church is afraid to admit it."


I don't have room in this article to recount the entire conversation, which lasted over twenty minutes, but here is the final interchange:

"Antoine, are you married to Catherine," I asked. "No," he said nervously glancing at her. "Then," I replied, "according to your own argument, you are not fully human." Catherine erupted in giggles, while Antoine tried to explain how his situation was different from Jesus.

We walked into the theater in good humor, and I waved goodbye to them as I walked out after two-thirds of the film. I have never seen a piece of popular entertainment as blatantly anti-Catholic. In my opinion, Director Ron Howard and actor Tom Hanks should publicly apologize to the Church and to Opus Dei. That they could watch this film and not see the gross injustice of its "fictional" depictions is impossible to understand.

No other religious or ethnic group would ever be treated in such a way without a mighty roar of protest from the mainstream media.

Ron Howard evidently didn't realize that he was dealing with Batman-like caricatures from Dan Brown's novel and should have treated them as such.

Apart from being a terrible film, The Da Vinci Code, reveals the face of our nation's persistent anti-Catholicism in all of its self-deluded ugliness.

I could see in the demonstration against The Da Vinci Code an example of what Bishop Rey said at the end of our evening together. What holds all the renewal communities together, he said, is that "the more we identify with Christ, the more we assume the rupture between faith and unbelief."

Americans often scoff at how the French settle important matters by taking to the streets. This is one time when it was a very good idea

Toxicology

Bruce Bartlett makes good sense:


"Another area where people tend to ignore threshold effects is immigration. A certain amount is absolutely necessary to our economic health. There are many foreigners with skills Americans don't have, and we would all be poorer if we had no immigration at all. Even illegal immigration is benign up to a point... But once a certain threshold is passed, the cost of immigrants starts to rise above their benefits. In a worst-case scenario, they no longer assimilate and become a cancer within the body politic, the way Quebec is in Canada, where the francophone population is deeply alienated from the rest of the country. It would be very bad for the United States if the Spanish-speaking population were to develop in a similar way, isolated from the rest of society, but demanding special privileges and concessions from the English-speaking majority. Thus the question of whether immigration is good or bad for the country depends crucially on its amount. Like salt, a certain amount is necessary, a little more is benign but too much can be cancerous, culturally and politically. Keep the question of thresholds in mind whenever someone declares a policy to be absolutely good or absolutely bad. Whatever their position, such extreme statements are probably wrong."

Bruce Bartlett

(From the Federalist Patriot)

Defending Corruption

Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert are angry that the F.B.I. raided the office of Democratic Congressman William Jefferson. While I applaud a firm stand for the principles of Seperation of Powers, I can`t help but roll my eyes at this; if anything proves that the Republicans in Congress have become Establishment Men, and have lost whatever core principles of decency and integrity they once had, it is this. (I might add, it also makes them look guilty of the corruption of which the Democrats accuse them.)

I`m sorry, but if any member of Congress is taking bribes, the F.B.I. should act. Democrats have long held the title ``party of the corrupt``, and ``comity`` should not stand in the way of investigating any legitimate lawbreaking. I suppose that Frist and Hastert fear the politicization of such investigations, and they are afraid of being painted as hypocrites if they don`t come out here when they have been blasting probes against Delay and Scooter Libby. Unfortunately, this makes them look worse, in my view, since the F.B.I. had solid reasons to believe Jefferson was taking bribes, and had found the bribe money on ice (literally). This is a very different thing than what Delay is accused of; there is no political element to this, and there are no fine legal distinctions involved. If the Republicans want to disprove the allegation that they are corrupt, they should have the good sense to get on board with any reasonable law enforcement effort. As things stand, this makes it appear the Republicans have something to hide.

These Republicans in Congress are as bad at politics as the President; they have become completely disconnected from the American People. They have held their majority (and may continue to hold it) but by the grace of God, since their opponents are in even worse shape. That situation will not last forever, and the Republicans are going to return to minority status sooner rather than later. The Party needs to return to it`s Reaganite roots. The Republicans were the blue blood party, the party of the business elite through most of the Twentieth Century. Ronald Reagan changed that, and the Republicans came in from a 40 year rainstorm to actually accomplish things. They became more than just ``the loyal opposition``. Despite George H.W. Bush`s best efforts to restore the old world order, Newt Gingrich engineered the Republican take-over of Congress on conservative, Reaganite principles. George W. Bush, the blackberry which has proven to have fallen not far from the shrub, has led a successful counter-revolution, and the Reagan wing of the Republicans have found themselves suppressed by the revenge of Gerald Ford.

Moderation was not a winning strategy, and will not be a winning strategy in the future. Nobody has ever charged a hill in politics or war shouting ``co-dependency, comity, and compromise!`` No-one has any enthusiasm for a policy of ``new tone`` where your enemies exhaust themselves punching you in the face. Nobody respects you when you defend corruption in your enemies to avoid looking hypocritical.

Our party has lost any sense of direction.

By the by, I received a survey from the Republican National Committee and Libby Dole (who exemplifies what is wrong with the Party) which amazed me; it was, of course, a thinly veiled attempt to get me to donate money, and it spoke of advancing conservative principles, invoked the name of Reagan, and generally touted the evils of the Democrats. Fine and dandy (although it`s ridiculous to hear Mrs. Dole touting Reaganism). The shocking part was that, when asking for money, they offered one of three options-1.I want to help fight tyrrany and am advancing X amount 2.No, I do not want to fight tyrrany but am still advancing x amount, and 3. I am not participating in the survey, do not want to help in any way, and will send $11 to pay for processing my survey, even though I didn`t fill it out! I understand that the whole point of the survey was to raise funds, but come on! This type of thing may work for flim-flam artists, but what message does it send to people? It suggests to me that their only interest is in collecting whatever money they can. Who is running this medicine show, anyway? (I sent in the survey without sending a donation, and gave them an earful.)

The Republicans had better wake up, and soon, or they will find themselves in the ashbin of history.

More Shrinkage

More on worldwide depopulation. This piece includes population statistics for numerous countries, illustrating the slow demise of the West.


Hat tip: Always on Watch

Buying Time

As I have pointed out, the Russian people are disappearing at an alarming rate. In what is clearly an act of desperation, the Russian government is going to start paying women to have more children:


President Vladimir Putin last week defined the crisis as Russia's most acute problem, and promised to spend some of the country's oil profits on efforts to relieve it. He ordered parliament to more than double monthly child support payments to 1,500 rubles (about $55) and added that women who choose to have a second baby will receive 250,000 rubles ($9,200), a staggering sum in a country where average monthly incomes hover close to $330.

On Monday, young women at the Family Planning Youth Center, a nongovernmental clinic for northwest Moscow, said they liked the sound of more money, but suggested that Mr. Putin has no concept of their lives. "A child is not an easy project, and in this world a woman is expected to get an education, find a job, and make a career," says Svetlana Romanicheva, a student who says she won't consider babies for at least five years. She hopes to have one child, but says a second would depend on her life "working out very well." As for Putin's offer, she says "it won't change anything."

Russia's birthrate, falling for decades, has plunged in post-Soviet times, to just 1.17 in 2004 from 2.08 babies per woman in 1990 - far below the 2.4 children required to maintain the population - according to the Federal State Statistics Service. The average rate from 2000-05 in the US, by contrast, was 2.0, according to UN figures, while Mexico, for example, weighed in at 2.4 and Italy at 1.3.

Russia also has one of the world's highest abortion rates. In addition, the death rate has climbed to levels seldom seen in peacetime, to 16.3 in 2002 from 10.7 per thousand people in 1988. The result is a population that is shrinking by an average of 700,000 people each year - and aging. A UN report last year predicted that Russia's population, around 145 million in 2002, could fall by one-third by 2050.

Experts foretell the grim prospect of a Russia that can no longer man its factories, field a decent hockey team, or defend its borders. "I think Putin's main concern is a lack of future soldiers," says Yury Levada, head of the Levada Center, an independent polling agency. "That's a narrow perspective, but one that resonates politically."


Hat Tip;
Aussiegirl

McPain Attack

Is it the pain and swelling of hemmoroidal tissue, or the heartbreak of psoriasis?

(Thanks, BobG of Sweet Spirits of Ammonia.)

Shame and Honor

In another terrific piece at Ultima Thule, Aussiegirl explains the differences between the Western and Islamic (and Latin) cultures, and shows why we can`t win the war on terror if we don`t understand the Islamic concepts of honor and shame-concepts we in the West have long since discarded.

A profound piece.

Shortchanging Conservative Paradigms and Liberal Quarter

Steven Warshawsky is one of my favorite contributors to the American Thinker, and he has written this letter to the Editor at the American Spectator Online:



WHAT CONSERVATIVE PROGRESS?
Re: Jeffrey Lord's The Conservative Victory in 2006:

In his recent article, "The Conservative Victory in 2006," Jeffrey Lord makes a compelling historical case that the dominant liberal paradigm that arose under FDR continued to thrive under Truman, despite the Republican takeover of Congress in 1946. He makes a far less compelling case that there is a dominant conservative paradigm in existence today, or that it will survive the much-feared (but probably exaggerated) Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006.

Interestingly, what does Mr. Lord identify as the major elements of the previous liberal paradigm? "[A] massive housing program, aid to education, health care, support for farmers, an increase in the minimum wage, and more civil rights legislation." Does any of this sound familiar? It should, because it still reflects the heart of the domestic political agenda: public housing programs and massive government subsidies of the private housing industry, an ever-increasing federal role in primary and secondary education, the ever-expanding reach of Medicare and related health insurance programs (steadily moving towards socialized medicine), continued wasteful agricultural subsidies and special-interest legislation of all types (recall the "bridge to nowhere"), a constant push to raise the minimum incomes of lower wage earners (whether through minimum wage laws or tax subsidies), and, always, more and more "rights" and "affirmative action" for women, racial and ethnic minorities, and now sexual minorities (see recent Supreme Court decisions on homosexual sodomy and affirmative action in college admissions).

All this despite the so-called "conservative" revolution of 1980.

For all intents and purposes, in 25 years conservatism has accomplished only two goals, albeit extremely important ones: reducing tax rates and strengthening the military. These gains largely were achieved by Ronald Reagan, and have been maintained, more or less, by succeeding Republican presidents. But that's it.

We have achieved no meaningful successes in the "culture wars." Abortion on demand is still the law of the land. Scofflaws like Ward Churchill still dominate our universities. Our artistic culture continues to be characterized by immaturity, smut, violence, and cheap anti-American propaganda. Personal responsibility in matters sexual, familial, and financial is still appalling low. Religion (or rather, traditional, Christian religion) is on the defensive in this country, indeed more so than ever.

We have achieved no significant liberalization of the economy. Federal, state, and local regulations continue to pile up, choking entrepreneurship, innovation, and even greater wealth creation. Our domestic energy industry is completely stagnant. A proliferation of labor and employment laws makes the workplace increasingly acrimonious and inflexible. Outrageous tort laws (especially in the areas of products liability and medical malpractice) routinely punish industries that employ thousands of workers and generate billions of dollars, all for the enrichment of a handful of lawyers. The hysteria over global warming and "the environment" continues to build, and will provide a ready justification for even more regulations in the future.

We have not significantly slowed the post-1960s multicultural juggernaut that is eroding American culture and fragmenting the nation into separate groups, regions, and peoples. One symptom of the paramountcy of multiculturalism is the unwillingness of our elected leaders to secure our borders and impose reasonable controls on immigration, despite the backing of the majority of the country for such measures. The recent, and ongoing, demonstrations by illegal immigrants and their supporters does not portend a positive future for this country. Bush's immigration plan promises only more of the same.

And the list goes on and on.

So where is this "conservative paradigm" of which Mr. Lord speaks? While we have some conservative-oriented politicians, who occasionally pass some conservative-oriented legislation, the truth is that on the truly big issues, America is still in the grip of the liberal paradigm that came into existence under FDR. Unless and until conservatives, and Republicans, start fighting for their country and culture with the same unyielding vehemence that the Left has pushed for its agenda for the past 40 years, America will continue down the same liberal path leading to socialism at home, weakness abroad, and the end of both the American Dream and the American Century.
-- Steven M. Warshawsky
New York, New York


(strong)UPDATE(/strong):

Mr. Warshawsky has turned this letter into a piece at the American Thinker. It~s great work; don`t miss it!

Monkey Business (Take a Bawa)

Mankind`s ancestors may have interbred with Chimpanzees, according to a report in Livescience. This kind of thing gives the expression ``monkeying around`` a whole new meaning!

Maybe they have it backwards; maybe humans are hybrids of Chimps and Popo Bawa. I suspect the Democrats are human/Popo Bawa hybrids, since they both like to violate us around election time! (Eat your heart out, Barney Frank!)

Online Petition Against Partition

The Center for Individual Freedom is a group circulating an invasion reform petition. Although I don`t know much about this group, I agree with the words of the petition, and their web page looks good. They are making our point, so everyone should sign!

Bush`s Banal Blather

The Ever Acerbic Ann (Coulter) eviscerates the President`s dunder-headed dialogue on alien invasion:


Instead of choosing immigrants based on the longevity of their lawbreaking, another idea is to choose the immigrants we want, for example, those who speak English or have special skills. (And by "special skills" I don't mean giving birth to an anchor baby in a border-town emergency room.)

Why not use immigration the way sports teams use the draft -- to upgrade our roster? We could take our pick of the world's engineers, doctors, scientists, u ... Smoking-hot Latin guys who stand around not wearing shirts between workouts. Or, you know, whatever ...

As Peter Bromley says in his book "Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster," why not choose immigrants who are better than us?

Bush thinks it's not fair to favor people with special skills -- a policy evidenced by his Harriet mires pick.

How about this: It's not fair to want to go out with someone just because that person is attractive and has a good personality because it discriminates against people who are ugly with bad social skills! That's our immigration policy.

Thanks and all praise on the brilliant and wise Aussiegirl.

Horns of a Dilemma

This comment illustrates the dilemma disgusted conservatives face:



"[C]ome the November elections, the Republican Party may get exactly what it deserves from disgusted voters—namely, a swift kick in the pants. Whereas, on [the other] hand, it is necessary to ask whether the voters deserve what they'd get by giving the Republicans what they deserve."

—William Murchison

The Second Mexican War

Our old friend Alnot made an interesting point:

Let's use those guardmen to invade Mexico and kick out their corrupt government. It works out much better.

To which I replied:

Al, you make more sense than anyone else out there (it`s too bad nobody will take your advice on this.)

After Sam Houston captured Santa Ana, the tinhorn dictator agreed to Texas independence. He and the Mexican government reneged, and there was constant border violations by the Mexican government (it was part of why the Texas Rangers were founded.) The United States did not play that game, and they went in and deposed the Mexican government. The problem stopped.

In the final analysis, this IS a hostile act by a foreign government. If we truly mean to stop the invasion, we have to deal with the Mexican government!

The more I considered Al`s point, the more I realized that he is right; we have been going at this whole invasion business with the same lackadaisical attitude we`ve been employing in the War. We`ve settled down comfortably in Iraq, waiting for the Iraqis to build a democratic system and foregoing the offensive while the Syrians and Iranians have been aggressively promoting our enemies. This harkens back to Vietnam, where we fought a politically sensitive war, a war in which we were unwilling to chase the enemy inside of Laos and Cambodia. We lost Vietnam because of this, and Iraq has not been coming together for the same reason. George Patton once called fixed fortifications a monument to stupidity. He`s right; in modern warfare, the aggressor generally wins in an even fight.

This whole immigration business can be likened to a war. Why not? Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo has made it clear that the Reconquista is their policy. This is an act of war. There really is nothing else to call it. Imagine, if you will, a former U.S. President announcing that it is our national policy to take Baja California away from Mexico-and we began sending our poor and criminals across the border to Ensenada. The Media would blow a headgasket, the United Nations would impose sanctions, and Mexico would round up and shoot every last American on their soil. What do we do when the situation is reversed? Our hearts bleed for the poor Mexican migrants, we argue for amnesty, and we do nothing.

I agree with the President, we have got to change the tone of this debate-it has to become more heated. We have allowed this to be framed as an argument over ``illegal immigrants``, ``migrants``, ``undocumented workers``, and ``laborers``. This conjures visions of our forefathers leaving Ireland during the famine, or Russia as a result of a pogram. This does not describe reality. We`ve lost the propaganda battle when we accept such terms. These are invaders, brigands, trespassers, and thieves. They have invaded our country, broken numerous of our laws, violated our private and collective property, and stolen social services for which they have not paid. How many of the invaders are criminals? How many carrying drugs? How much has been stolen-especially from farmers and ranchers along the border, and from grocers and gas stations on the migrant highways? How much damage have they caused? How many Americans are unemployed because their job was stolen by an illegal alien?

Often this debate is between either stopping them at the border, or enforcement in the interior. There is a third option, perhaps the most viable-stop them inside of Mexico. If they never get here, they won`t be a problem! What is driving them? Mexican policy, that`s what. Mexico`s government has advocated policies which have kept the nation so poor that leaving is the only option. The Mexican government realizes this, so encourages their poor to do just that rather than change their policies. The real problem here is the Mexican government. They actively promote the invasion for a variety of reasons; to outsource their unemployment problem, exile their criminals, to bring American dollars into their country, and for the Reconquista. We would not have so many Mexicans here were it not for the Mexican government.

I reiterate; this policy is an act of war. We should respond to it as such. I`m not advocating a Mexican War type invasion, but I think we should put real pressure on Mexico in diplomatic and economic terms. Mexico NEEDS us! We have the means of manipulating change, if we would decide to do so. Mexico owes us a lot of money, money lent to them for economic development (which was never used for that purpose.) We need to squeeze them.

The CIA has nothing better to do than run ops on our President these days-Valerie Plame comes to mind. Why don`t we use them to run some ops on Fox and friends. Why don`t they institute regime change in Mexico?

There are numerous options for dealing with this, but our President and his business supporters don`t want to enact any of them. They are happy with the flow of cheap labor. They are happy with Plantation America. The plantation system destroyed the antebellum South; why do we think a repackaged version will work here?

It took us over 20 years to realize that Islamic Fundamentalism was at war with us; we ignored attack after attack. Mexico has been conducting a similar campaign of aggression at least as long, and we are still pretending they are our friends. Both have the potential of destroying our country-one with bullets the other with babies. Isn`t it about time we woke up to that fact?

Mexican Flu

Over at National Review, Jonah Goldberg compares the illegal alien flap with the War on Drugs.

Although he makes some good points, his comparison is ultimately incorrect; drugs are a commodity, desired by a segment of the population. They don`t hang around and reproduce. When they are gone they have to be replenished, or the user has to do without. It`s much more accurate to compare illegals to undesirable organisms; nobody has a problem with the government trying to stop the importation of cattle infected with mad cow disease, or live chickens with Avian flu. Why? Because, unlike other commodities, the microorganisms infecting these creatures don`t just disappear. They can infect others, and perhaps destroy an entire industry. Would anyone resist a quarantine if the Avian flu turned into a human pandemic?

That is, unfortunately, what illegal immigration will become-a pandemic of humans. It is an alien culture overruning our own. It will lead to the demise of our society and way of life if it continues unabated. Fortunately, people are easiier to deal with than microorganisms in some ways; they can be seen, they can be reasoned with, etc. Stopping the flow of aliens into the country is possible if we simply decide to do it. If America would just say no.

Too many have bought into the rhetoric that we cannot stop this, when in fact we haven`t tried. I don`t think Mr. Goldberg`s analogy is helpful, either, since there are many who have seen the failure of the war on drugs. Again, drugs are not people. They are easy to conceal, easy to transport, do not require food and water, do not directly consume social services, do not require employment, etc. There are a great many threads which bind a person to the surrounding world-threads which can be followed. Stopping the flow of illegal drugs into America bears only a superficial resemblence to stopping illegal aliens. They both come out of Mexico, and both are beneficial to Mexico at our expense.

We all should Just Say No.

Two in the Bush

A few points to ponder about the President`s Invasion reform proposals:

1.I don`t know what putting 6,000 National Guardsmen on the border will accomplish. Let us consider this; according to Wickipedia, the U.S./Mexican border is 1,950 miles long. That means that we can assign 3.26 Guardsmen per mile of border. However, we can`t work these guys 24 hours, so if we divide them into three 8 hour shifts we get, essentially, one guy per MILE of border! I`m not sure how valuable one guy per mile will be.

Furthermore, it doesn`t matter if we have 5,000 Guardsmen per mile if they aren`t going to aggressively prevent crossings. Will the Administration take the risk of a Guardsmen shooting an invader? What will happen if they have to get rough with old Pedro? Will they turn back a pregnant woman seeking an anchor?

There is the gist of the matter; they won`t be for actual enforcement. The President made it clear that their role will be for technical support, intelligence, etc. to aid the Border Patrol. What does that mean? If what we heard was true, the government was giving Mexico intelligence to avoid the Minutemen. Is THAT going to be the Guard`s role? Are they going to help shaft those who are trying to enforce the law? The Border Guards have, according to the President, caught and sent back millions of illegals last year. It doesn`t seem that the problem lies in support; they need more men to make arrests.

2.Of course, the problem is that there is no punishment the invaders fear, because the government has not lifted a finger to stop the onslaught. When caught by INS, they are returned to a spot in Mexico near where they crossed. They move to a different spot and cross over again. Can you imagine if other laws were enforced in this manner? It is as if drunk drivers were taken to the station for a breathalyzer test, then driven back to their cars (with their keys) and left on the side of the road. OF COURSE they`ll drive drunk again! There must be something unpleasant done for punishment, or these people will continue to break the law.

I advocate community service. Anyone caught illegally in the United States should have to forfeit any money or possessions they have and be lodged in a halfway house, where they should be employed during the day doing ``work Americans won`t do``. Have them clean the highways, cut grass in parks, dig ditches and whatnot. Their pay should be used to cover their living expenses while in the halfway house. Make them do this for 6 months or so. If they lose all of the money they would have made working in Mexico, they will think twice about coming here. The 11 million invaders (actually, I suspect there are quite a few more than the PEW Hispanic Center claims) will hot-foot it out of this country!

3.I do not believe that most employers of illegal aliens aren`t aware of what they are doing. The penalty must be severe for employing these people. Bush and his blue blood friends fear this, because they all make out nicely using immigrant labor to clean their toilets and cut their grass. Think about how many scandals we`ve had over the years involving government figures employing illegals. Washington is full of alien maids, gardeners, nannies, etc. The powers that be don`t want to end the gravy train and be forced to pay for labor like a commoner.

Which brings us to the matter of biometric I.D. cards. Now if anybody would care to consider the ramifications of a guest-invader program with Biometric I.D. they would understand immediately that it won`t work; too many illegals will simply claim to have legal status, and you won`t be able to prove otherwise. What this means is that, first, legal aliens will have to have these cards, then we`ll be forced to impose this on citizens, so that we can distinguish between legal and non-legals. In short, this proposal means the end of liberty in America; we will all have a card by which our every action is monitored by the government. (And the Democrats are upset about ``domestic spying`` on Al-Quada?!) We will be forced to carry ``our papers`` like a citizen of the old Soviet Union, and present them wherever and whenever demanded.

We already have allowed our liberty to be circumscribed by our government in ways many and varied; we give all kinds of information to the IRS, we have to have a driver`s license, a social security card, etc. Still, this I.D. card will be the ultimate in government authority over the citizen. It`s not a price I`m willing to pay for 40 cent lettuce and $10 lawn service. No guest worker program means no I.D. card for us all-a small price to pay for liberty!

4.By allowing half of Mexico to work here in these soon-to-be Disunited States we prevent any chance of our Southern neighbor from reforming. Why should Mexico make a decent life for her citizens when America will do the job for them? Mexico already owes us huge amounts of money, which we have lent to them for economic development. Why haven`t they developed? The corrupt regime has pocketed our cash, and pawned their problem off on us-and President Arbusto has been happy to oblige! There is no kindness in what we are doing. This is the same problem we faced with welfare; we are making Mexico and Mexicans dependent on Uncle Sugar.

5.The President and the Republicans have failed to lead on this issue for decades; why should we believe they are serious now? I find it incredible that we are going to make any effort to stop the flow of invaders. We won`t be able to if we legalize the current crop because we`ll need new bottom-tier laborers. President Bush has used up his right to our trust, if you ask me.

6.We will need an agency to keep track of the millions of ``guest-workers``. This behemoth will have to be far larger and more intrusive than the IRS. Do we really want to create such a monster? Are we prepared to fund it? No, and no. We`ll create it, but it will never be funded properly, so the ``guest-workers`` will wander about unsupervised, and we will have the same problems in the future we are having now-with a much larger group of aliens who have no intention of assimilating.

7.The President hemmed and hawed about what we will do, but he did not authorize a border-fence. Furthermore, he argued that we cannot repatriate the invaders. Uh, that`s your job, isn`t it Mr. President? We can`t catch all drug dealers, but we try anyway, don`t we?

8.I also did not hear any suggestion that we change the law to end ``anchor babies``. If the President were serious about protecting our borders, he would have called for legal reform in that area. Why should a child born in a Laredo truck stop be given citizenship-and keep the entire family in the country?

This is an appalling policy advocated by our President, one which, when future historians discuss what brought about the fall of the United States, will stand in the forefront of history`s terrible blunders. How those charged with protecting and defending the United States could stumble about so blindly is beyond me. The illegal immigration issue is evey bit as dangerous to the survival of the Republic as Islamic Jihad. One kills us with bullets, the other with babies. In the end, they both can destroy our nation.

Something must be done to stop this!

Maniacal Modernists and Loopy Liberals

James Hitchcock is a professor of history at St. Louis University, and he has written a tremendous piece on Liberalism and Modernism which explains much of the dementia which infects modern thinking.

He has this to say about Modernism:

Modernism began with the French Revolution, whose maniacal urge to destroy the past even went to the point of abolishing the calendar and attempting to begin history entirely anew. Artists now became conscious of themselves as an “avant-garde” (previously a military term) and defined creativity as requiring a radical break with the art of the past. The new “bohemian” social type carried this ideal into society, defining free and authentic human existence as necessarily at odds with accepted beliefs and behavior. With Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx, atheism for the first time became intellectually respectable, even as “theologians” like Bruno Bauer and David Strauss reinterpreted Christianity so as to require an outright denial of what Christians had believed for 1,800 years.

As Friedrich Nietzsche foresaw, the desire to destroy the past and begin history anew would require, as modernism’s final stage, the “transvaluation of values,” in which everything once thought to be virtuous—piety, family loyalty, personal uprightness, patriotism, self-reliance—would be turned into vices. Throughout history, human values have primarily been centered in family, religion, and country, and those institutions had to be destroyed if a “new humanity” were to be created.

This piece fits nicely with many of my own themes; Be sure to read it in it`s entirety.

Blame Where Blame Belongs

Once again, President Bush has fumbled the ball. His repeated, indefensible call for amnesty (although he won`t call it that) and guest-invader status for aliens has split the blue-blood Republicans from the base, and he may have cost his party the Congress in the next election. I was going to launch into a scathing rant on the President`s infuriating refusal to enforce the law and protect our borders, but our old friend BobG, writing from the front lines in Arizona at Sweet Spirits of Ammonia, has beaten me to it!

He places blame where it belongs:


To say that we must "begin by recognizing the problems with our immigration system" is most disingenuous. Once again, who is responsible for that system? It would be you, Mr. President. And trying to share the blame that should fall to you, directly, with all of the American people is truly an act of cowardice.

If you knew that for "decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders", why did you wait another half of a decade to address this vital issue? You knew, Mr. President because even in this speech you stated, " I was the governor of a state that has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. So I know how difficult it is to enforce the border, and how important it is." So, the truth is you knew this was a problem when you took office, you knew, certainly after 9/11, it was a critical issue, and you did nothing.

I am sick of you trying to portray people who have broken our nation's laws as living "in the shadows of our society". That is what happens when you break the law, you have to avoid the limelight. What part of that do you fail to understand? These people are not victims, so stop trying to portray them as such. If they have been victimized at all it is by their own country and your amigo El Zorro. The fact that they are, as you say, "beyond the reach and protection of American law" is because the law has not been enforced. Once again, who has failed to do that job? Can you say, the president? I knew you could!

The very next part of your speech says, " We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws." Don't make me ask again whose job that is and who has not been doing that job!

Those of you who are upset by the failures of the present Administration can`t afford to miss the rest of this.

Don`t Fear the Reaper

Once again, America is entering the summer of her discontent, and the opening of another election season is upon us. Once again we are being told how important it is to keep OUR GUY in office, and that, for a small donation, we can be assured to prevent the sky from falling and the nexus of all evil from seizing power. Talk radio is ramping up, and the Mainstream Media is up to their usual dirty tricks. It`s time for old Tim to get with the program, to get out there and fight. I`ve always voted, and I`ve always been a strong advocate for fighting the good fight against the Left and their lackeys in the Democrat Party and the Media. I`ve always been a good soldier.

That said, I have to admit that I`m finding it hard to get worked up over these upcoming midterms. The Republicans in both houses of Congress have been such a bitter disappointment (as has the President) that I find it hard to care aboutl their political fortunes. It`s really quite incredible that THESE were the people who stormed Capitol Hill in `94, wrenching control from the Democrats (after 40 years) and implementing the Contract With America! These guys appear to be more at home with a Jim Wright or Tip O`Neil than with a Newt Gingrich. Twelve years of complete control of government have morphed them into the very people they railed against! If you look at their voting records, and the ideas they espouse, without being told who is who, you can`t tell to which party most of the Congressmen belong. They`re all Democrats these days.

Which brings me to my central point; while I don`t advocate laying down for the sake of punishing the Republicans, I do think the loss of the House of Representatives may actually be favorable in the long run to the Party.

I know, I know; we`ve heard this sort of thing before. The idea is that, the shock of losing control will force our party to take a good, hard look at itself. It`s generally a bad idea, because once you have lost power it is hard to reacquire it and it is easy to get in a habit of losing. (Look at the Republicans from the time of Roosevelt onward!) I am not advocating that we throw the election, but I am trying to point out that we need not fear the Reaper-especially if the Democrats take the House.

Here`s the deal-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will make a total ass of herself during her two year tenure. She will undoubtedly launch an impeachment against the President, and will use her bully pulpit to do the very thing which will hand the Republicans the next election lock, stock, and barrel. Impeaching the President would be politically suicidal, because the People of this fine Republic understand that Bush, whatever his faults, did nothing to deserve this-it will be obvious that his impeachment is purely politically motivated, and is in retaliation for the impeachment of Clinton and the election of 2000. If Nan and her homies were smart they would avoid this trap-but a scorpion stings because it is a scorpion, and her gang of thugs would be unable to keep from plucking such a succulent piece of fruit.

I realize that we are at war, and there is danger in allowing the appeasers to run part of the government. I also remember that Ronald Wilson Reagan won the Cold War without EVER controlling the House of Representatives, and he lost the Senate during his term of office. Granted, there were still some reasonable Democrats then, but they still fought him for every inch of ground. This laid the groundwork for the Republican ascendancy which would follow. There is no reason why the President cannot conduct the war without the House. Even Pelosi and company aren`t that crazy...

What of Judges? If the Senate remains in (nominal) Republican hands it won`t really matter-and Specter and the gang of 14 have seen to it that current nominations languish in committee. Two years will probably make no difference.

I really don`t care if the President gets his programs implemented at this point, since most of his programs are abominations which I oppose vigorously; guest-invader programs, sailor in port spending, etc. I like it when there is gridlock in government.

The ultimate good news from a loss of the House is that a Pelosi trainwreck will definitely hurt Hillary`s chances to become President, and will strengthen the Republican candidate`s hand. I believe Pelosi will push for impeachment of the President-and I further believe that will cause a serious voter backlash. I believe that the American People will be disgusted by the incompetence of a Pelosi Speakership, and will not be so inclined to conduct another experiment in ``women firsts``. One of the assets Hillary is relying on is the novelty of being the First Woman President. This will draw her a number of votes which she may not get if we would have a disastrous First Woman Speaker. People won`t want to make the same mistake twice.

In short, a temporary defeat can often lead to a greater victory, and we need not fear the loss of one branch of Congress-particularly the House. It could well discipline and reinvigorate the Republicans, could hurt the Democrats politically, and could stop Hillary`s ``I Am Woman`` bandwagon. It may be the very thing we need. Now, I would never advocate this as policy, mind you, but I want to suggest that it is not necessarily a bad thing. George Washington had some of his greatest success when in retreat during the Revolution; perhaps a temporary setback will lead us to greater victory?

We needn`t fear the Reaper.

Good for What Ales You

I`m back from the beer tasting festival, whole and hallow and unhungover. The brusque May air and unusually large crowd helped to keep everyone perky and feeling well, and made for an enjoyable time.

Three of the five St. Louis Microbreweries were in attendance (Schlafly-owned by the nephew of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly, The O`Fallon Brewery, and the new Square One), as well as old favorities such as Chicago-based Goose Island, Kansas City`s Boulevard, A-B`s pet micro Redhook, Burghoff, etc. A number of interesting, smaller breweries-such as the New Albanian Brewery from Louisville-showed to ply their wares as well. It`s good to see such a collection of small-time breweries; it illustrates how the beer industry is finally starting to recover from Prohibition and the consolidations of the 1960`s and `70`s. Good beer is back!

Unfortunately, good beer is struggling here in what used to be ``America`s Beer Capital``; St. Louis was home to over 100 breweries before Prohibition, and had numerous successful breweries after. St. Louis was home to Alpen Brau, Greentree, Hyde Park,Griesedick, Lemp, Falstaff, Anheuser Bush, etc. Across the river in Illinois was Stag country for decades. What is now the Boston Beer Company-brewers of Samual Adams-is the reincarnation of the Koch Brewery of St. Louis, Missouri (owner James Koch began The Boston Brewing Company with his family`s signiature beer.) Unfortunately, we are down to a mere five plus the Giant. It`s sad to think of the great tradition of brewing that has been lost to mass marketing. Anheuser Bush has destroyed the beer industry.

Actually, A-B can`t be blamed for it all; Falstaff started the scramble for consolidation with predatory business practices in the `60`s. Owned by members of the Griesedick family (who also owned, well, Griesedick), Falstaff decided to grow by targeting small, family owned breweries throughout the Nation. They would insert themselves in a traditional market, sell below cost to steal the local brewery`s customers, buy the plant cheaply, and close it. Other large breweries, realizing the danger of allowing Falstaff to corner the market, followed suit, and the old craft breweries disappeared. Falstaff would acquire such luminaries as Pabst, Olympia, Strohs, and Ballantine before their final demise.

As the Bible says ``He who lives by the sword shall surely perish by it``, and Falstaff was no exception; a series of lawsuits and poor business decisions left Falstaff vulnerable to a raid, and brewery baron Paul Kalmanovitz of General Brewing seized control of the company. He would ring Falstaff dry before closing the last remaining brewery in 1990.

The clash between the big bruisers wiped out the industry here in St. Louis. St. Louis has, among other names, been called the Cave City because it is honeycombed with caverns. This, along with it`s proximity to America`s central waterway, made it an ideal place to brew beer. Beer-especially the bottom-fermented Lager beer which became popular in the 19th century, needs to be kept at cool, stable temperatures. Before the introduction of refrigeration that meant it either had to be kept in an icehouse or in a cave. There is an enormous cavern under St. Louis called Cherokee Cavern, and a large number of breweries used portions of this cave for lagering chambers. (A-B, although being right over Cherokee Cave, could never get legal access, so always used ice or refrigeration. This actually helped them in the long run by ultimately making their beer more mobile.) Cherokee Cavern was also a tourist destination for visitors to the Gateway City, with tours being given and a restaurant and tavern running out of the cave! (That was VERY popular before air-conditioning!) The Lemp family owned a large section of the cave, and their mansion had a private section down below-complete with a year-round swimming pool and a theatre!

(The Lemps were something out of a Grimm`s Fairy Tale; three generations of Lemps committed suicide in their mansion. The Lemp Mansion is said to be haunted, and is now run as a restaurant and bed-and-breakfast inn. I stayed there with my wife after attending the ``Phantom of the Opera`` a few years back, but I didn`t see any ghosts.)

In typical St. Louis fashion, the caves were closed for safety reasons in the 1970`s (and perhaps from pressure by A-B?)

The behemoth on Arsenal street has fought tooth-and-nail to prevent micro-breweries from opening, and has gone so far as to buy some of them out then close them. The question is often asked, ``why are they doing this? These little breweries aren`t even competing for the same market!`` That is the whole point; A-B doesn`t want an alternate market. They want America`s taste to continue to trend toward ``drinkability``-code word for flavorless. A microbrewery may be no danger to them in terms of cutting into their market share, but that microbrewery helps change America`s taste in beer, and that simply cannot be permitted! A-B uses far less malt, less hops, less everything to make Budweiser (or Bud Lite, or what have you) and therefore makes a much higher profit from selling massive quantities of this tasteless stuff. Their plants are not configured to make craft beer, and they would have to build new ones to accomodate the changing style. In the long run, this would be a disaster for them. They need to convince people that the thin swill they brew is ``real beer``.

So A-B has fought the micro trend here and throughout the country. Our first brewpub (Schlafly`s) had a devil of a time opening, and were only authorized as part of the new winery laws which had just passed; they STILL have to brew at least one keg of barley wine to remain in business! (You have to be bonded as a winery to run a brewery in Missouri, unless your production is comparable to A-B.)

As a result, craft brewing is only now returning to the St. Louis metro area. Places such as Kansas City, Chicago, and California are way ahead of us on that score, which makes me sad since we were the Kings once. Now we have a pretender King of Beers on the throne, a tyrannt who had to steal his name from a small brewery in Bavaria. It`s such a pity.

Anyway, I had a terrific time at the festival! I hope my little discussion of the brewing industry didn`t bore you too much.

Blogging to be Backseated to Beer

Blogging will be light this weekend; I am attending a beer tasting festival today with my buddy 7lb. Dave, and will be occupied with family on Mother`s Day.

The annual festival is always fun, although the high temperature will be in the 50`s, so I`m liable to freeze my yeaster off, as it is being held in Forest Park. They have approximately 150 beers to try so, even though they give maybe two swallows per sample, I doubt my writing skills will be functional when I return home.

At any rate, I should be back in the saddle on Monday, if I don`t pop a little something up tomorrow.

Cheers!

p.s. I don`t believe any of the Kennedy family will be in attendance.

Floyd Patterson RIP

Former heavyweight boxing champion Floyd Patterson has passed away. Born in 1935, he was the first heavyweight to regain his title after losing it. Let us all take a moment to remember him.

Patterson was a mild, modest man who didn`t like fame and who shied away from adulation. He was a good champion, although not great, and he was one of the last real athlete role-models, devoting his later life to helping underpriveleged kids and teaching boxing. He was a class act.

Patterson had the misfortune of being wedged between two golden ages; he became champion by defeating light-heavyweight legend Archie Moore to fill the vacant spot left by the retirement of Rocky Marciano. Marciano was the first heavyweight champion to retire without a single loss (49-0), and he knocked out the very same Archie Moore in the 9th round of his final bout. His were big shoes to fill, and the golden age begun by ``the Brown Bomber``- Joe Louis-could be said to have ended with Marciano`s retirement. (After Patterson`s conqueror-Sonny Liston- came Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali and Joe Frazier who would begin another such era.)Shy, retiring Patterson fought his way to the top in a tournament to crown a new king, and won the title in a 5th round KO of ``the old mongoose``-Moore.

Patterson first came to prominence by winning the middleweight title in the 1952 Olympics. He began his pro career as a light-heavyweight, and suffered his first loss to former champ Joey Maxim in a controversial decision. Patterson then moved up to heavyweight, and earned the right to fight for the title against Moore.

Patterson would defend his title 4 times before being KO`d by a beefy Swede named Ingemar Johanssen. Johanssen was a brawler with a tremendous right hand punch dubbed ``the Hammer of Thor``. (He also liked women and champaign more than training.) He knocked Patterson out in the third round (after knocking him down 7 times) to claim the title, only to be ko`d himself in their rematch, making Patterson the first heavyweight in history to reclaim the crown! Patterson knocked Johanssen out in a wild rubber match (in which he was knocked down 9 times and Johanssen twice before putting the big Swede away) in 1961 to retain his title.

Patterson would lose his title to dark, brooding Sonny Liston in 1964, who would himself lose to Cassius Clay. (Liston started boxing in prison, and it has often been speculated that the title fight was fixed. The Liston-Clay rematch was even worse, with the ``phantom punch``, a quick little tap from Ali which sent Liston down for the count!)

Patterson would retire after his KO by Muhammed Ali in 1972.

Floyd Patterson was a special type of man; plagued by fears and emotionally vulnerable, he nevertheless went against the meanest, toughest men of his era. If Courage is not defined by lack of fear, but by facing ones fear and overcoming it, then Floyd Patterson was one of the bravest fighters who ever lived! He faced men stronger, larger, and meaner than himself, he faced his own fear and self-doubt, and fought like a champion. He may not have been the greatest boxer who ever lived, but he most certainly was one of history`s great fighters! His was truly the heart of a champion!


Gather round, I'm bettin' even money folks
There's a bell soundin' way up high
And the champ is climbin' through the golden ropes
Of the Big Ring up in the sky

Death by Ennui

In a profoundly brilliant piece, our friend Aussiegirl explains what is wrong with Western civilization.

If the West believes in nothing -- no wonder it fails to defend itself. One truth is as good as another. You (Muslim) believe in your truth more strongly than I do mine (because, really, if I think about it, what DO I believe?), then I suppose you might as well have your way, because now that I think about it, the only thing I really believe in is YOUR right to believe and do what you want. I don't really much care WHAT I do, as long as I'm tolerant and enlightened while I'm doing it. But then -- why am I so bored? Why am I so angry? Why am I so discontent?

It is Western love of tolerance that has led us astray to a large extent. Western intellectuals and liberals are inconsistent in not expecting the same respect for their own culture that they give so willingly to other cultures. In that sense, they are hopeless elitists, for they condescend to the Muslim and immigrant populations, by assuming that they are so benighted and brainwashed by their environment and class and culture that they are incapable of being tolerant and respectful of western ideas. They imply that it is only because they (liberals) are so superior and enlightened that they can rise above the brainwashing of their own culture, and see that this is all foolishness. But the modern liberal is prepared to let the Muslim indulge his own little delusional fantasy and version of truth. In other words -- Muslims are deluded and Europeans are not, although how Europeans managed to rise up above the brainwashing of culture and to determine this "truth" (which according to their philosophy does not objectively exist) is not explained.

So, one wonders what is the liberal version of truth? That there is none? Well, obviously, that's a form of nihilism, and that way lies madness -- which is what we are seeing. It just goes to show that once you abandon the concept of God, and ultimate truth and reality, you become unhinged from reality itself. And here is where the 20th century went horribly wrong. As Dostoevsky once wrote: "Without God, anything is permissible."

In the twin evil ideologies of Nazism and Marxism (which proceeded from an Enlightenment emphasis on reason that went wrong as early as the French Revolution), man untethered himself from God and from any sense of an overarching right and wrong, freed as he thought he was by the advance in science and the power of his own mind and reason. He thought he could explain everything through objective reason and science, and ended up using that same reason to deny reason itself. If nothing can be objectively determined to be true-- then how can you even say that deconstruction is true? It seems to me these philosophers cut off the branch from under their own theory. They claim to have arrived at their theories through reason, yet they tell us that reason alone is inadequate and cannot teach us anything or arrive at the truth.

Don`t miss the rest of this!

Business as Usual

Robert Novak outs John Negroponte as the culprit behind the demise of Porter Goss` reformation:

(From the Evans-Novak Report):

CIA Resignations: The abrupt sacking and replacement of Porter Goss as CIA director obscured congressional dissatisfaction with the official behind the change.

1) Ambassador John Negroponte, the first Director of National Intelligence (DNI), effectively made the call that Goss had to go. His replacement by Negroponte's deputy, Gen. Michael Hayden, may mean further "militarization" of the U.S. intelligence and a return to business as usual at the CIA.

2) Negroponte wanted Goss out, and the former Republican congressman did not resist ending his short, unhappy tenure at Langley. While getting no help from Negroponte in cleaning up a dysfunctional CIA that seemed aligned against the President, Goss had found himself losing control over both analytical and intelligence-gathering operations in the agency. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, an experienced bureaucratic infighter, was expanding the Pentagon's creeping intelligence mission.

3) That was not what the Bush Administration and Congress appeared to have in mind in creating a new intelligence system headed by the DNI in reaction to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was supposed to have restrained the Defense Department under the strong guiding hand of one official. But sacking Goss will not achieve that goal.

4) In the view of members of Congress responsible intelligence oversight, Negroponte is the problem. When he served as U.S. envoy in Iraq, critics said he was too smooth in protecting himself from criticism. That is the criticism made by congressional overseers of his performance as DNI. They contend that he has been interested mostly in avoiding criticism, not really addressing the shortcomings in the intelligence community.

5) Goss had the thankless and daunting task of rooting out malcontents in an election year from an agency where criticism of George W. Bush and support for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) was rampant. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) urged Goss to clean house, and he tried. But he found an entrenched bureaucracy mobilized against him, as CIA staffers savaged him in leaks to friendly journalists, particularly at the Washington Post. Negroponte was no help to Goss. Although bizarre reasons for Goss' resignation have been floated on the Internet, sources say Negroponte suggested it was time for him to go.

6) Congressional discontent with Gen. Hayden to head the CIA, coming not just from Democrats but also from Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) and Intelligence Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) stems partly from unhappiness by House members over the way their old comrade was treated in being booted out. An expert in communications intelligence as director of the National Security Agency, Hayden does not seem suited to correct the CIA's deficiencies in human intelligence. He is expected to salute and follow orders as Negroponte's deputy and a military man.

7) With CIA careerist Stephen Kappes returning as deputy CIA director, the days of shaking up the agency seem at an end. McCain said that he wants to make sure that the return of Kappes, forced out by Goss in November 2004, "does not mean a return to business as usual." The White House would not welcome an airing of these issues, but McCain wants public hearings on the Hayden and Kappes nominations to disclose what is really happening.

Coreless

"[President Bush's] compassionate conservatism [involves] a core faith that not only can the government love you, but it should spend money to prove its love. Beyond that, there seems to be no core set of principles that define Bush's approach."

—Jonah Goldberg


AMEN!

(Hat tip-the Federalist)

Working in Mexico

Much of this whole debate on illegal aliens has centered on fairness. Proponents of illegal immigration argue that it is unfair to prevent willing people from working here in the United States, or preventing employers from employing that labor. Well, what is fair? It seems fairness only goes one way with our neighbor to the south.

Our friend, the Southern Agrarian had this to say about working in Mexico:


The following is an outline of what it would cost you and your family in time, money and rights to become a legal worker in Mexico. Contrast this process with the ‘down-trodden’ illegal worker in America.

I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval. During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country.
My wife was the same except she could NOT get a permit to work.

To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies):
Birth certificates for my wife and I;
Marriage certificate;
High school transcripts and proof of graduation;
College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation;
Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year;
A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing;" and
Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it, "I am the greatest person on earth letter. It was fun to write.
All of the above had to be submitted in English which then had to be translated into Spanish and certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

Once this paper work was completed, my wife and I spent about five hours, accompanied by a Mexican attorney, touring Mexican government office locations. We had to be photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location (and we remember at least four locations), we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences.

We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony.

We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods.

There were extensive fees involved here that my company had to pay.

We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

We were required to get a Mexican driver’s license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, we were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six-dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road.

Our only instruction was to never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The company’s Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. It was about twenty legal size pages annually.

The FM3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees. Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

It was a real adventure and if any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at the President’s residence or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy.

The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress. During most protests the Mexican military surrounds the block, standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the US Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV.

There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting.
Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.

To Be or Not to Be

Lisa Fabrizio argues in favor of the Moussaoui verdict at TAS this morning.

In many ways I agree with her, and the thought of this guy being buried alive to die in ignominity as opposed to martyrdom is appealing. These Jihadists all want their 72 virgins and a mule, and by denying them their coveted spot on the Islamic all-star team, we may discourage others. Also, from a purely Christian standpoint, perhaps this jackass will, with a long contemplation of eternity and the loss of his sexual paradise, find true repentence and thus save his soul. Maybe. At any rate, there is something to be said about this approach.

The problem is, we can`t lock up every two-bit Jihadist in an underground bunker, and the ACLU will undoubtedly fight tooth-and-nail to protect the rights of those who would deny ALL rights to Americans. The problem is, much like the argument against repatriating illegal aliens, one of logistics; we can`t build enough secure prisons, and can`t manage those prisons properly, to effectively deal with this problem. We certainly don`t want to let these guys continue to harm us from the inside, and Islam has been very successful at recruiting criminals in the penal system, so we cannot rely on ``honor among thieves`` to deal with the problem.

I`m afraid that we have to execute these guys-publicly. After all, the Jihadists have been executing OUR people on camera, and these are often innocent people who have done nothing to deserve such a fate. This becomes a matter of will; what we perceive as intelligent justice, the enemy perceives as weakness. They are encouraged because America has, once again, shown herself weak-a paper tiger. We don`t have the will to fight, as they see it, and our ``mercy`` is a symbol of our lack of will.

But what to do about that whole 72 virgins and a mule business? Too many young Moslem men gladly kill innocent people in return for the joys of the flesh to follow. These executions must 1.prove the futility of action against us and 2.offer no hope for personal profit either in this life or the next. We need to study Islamic law to find a way to scare these stupid young punks away from suicide bombing and the like. If they are to sleep, they perchance should unsettled dream.

I have heard that many Moslems believe that a dead body wrapped in pigskin will prevent the former owner (of the body, not the pigskin) from attaining paradise. Perhaps we should bury a guy like Moussaoui in a porcine jacket? This would show our committment, and make the enemy realize that they have a great deal more than their lives to lose.

Of course, the ACLU and the rest of the Hate America First crowd would blow a headgasket-not to mention the cries of indignation from PETA for using real pigs! Maybe the Jihadists are right, after all, and we lack the will to fight the kind of war the enemy has forced upon us?

Furthermore, America has slipped back into the peaceful slumber of the `90`s, with few realizing the gravity of what we are engaged in. Sentencing Moussaoui (and others of his ilk) like a common criminal makes the whole matter appear to be just another matter for law enforcement. America watches with jaded interest, yawns, and falls back asleep, while the enemy continues their campaign of extermination against us. The death penalty is the final act, the most serious act a State can take. If we start executing Jihadist monsters, perhaps America will take notice. SOMETHING needs to wake this nation!

We are fighting one of the most ruthless bands of thugs ever to walk the Earth, and we continue to pretend we are engaged in some kind of war game. This is deadly serious; it`s about time we realized that!

Ignorance is Bliss

One of my pet peeves is the politically correct alteration of traditional things-especially stories and songs. I scowl when I hear Church hymns changed, for example, from ``let me walk with my brother`` to ``let us walk with each-other`` or ``Men`` to ``We`` or ``All``. This is a bowing of the knee to post-modernism by what should be a traditional institution. Changing to ``more inclusive`` lyrics or wordings really makes me angry, because it means Liberalism has won the hearts and minds, has succeeded in altering our way of thinking. Semantics are important; they subtly determine our manner of thought, and Liberals have always won arguments by changing the usage and meaning of words. It is one of their more powerful techniques.

For example, they have changed the meaning of ``moral`` from following the virtuous religious tenants in a personally responsible way to holding the proper policy beliefs. As a result, Liberals were able to defend Bill Clinton as a moral man, despite his sexual piccadillos and blatantly immoral behavior, because he believed in ``moral`` positions i.e. universal health care, feminism, abortion, etc. The Left has deconstructed the word moral, changing it to mean something it clearly did not.

Another example is the way the Left has flipped the term ``choice`` from meaning deciding between options to meaning the ``right`` to an abortion (another deconstruction, that). Recently they have altered the term ``activist`` to mean, rather than an aggressive proponent of the radical agenda, an original constuctionist.

Patrick O`Hannigan, in a great piece at the American Spectator, points out that the bleeding heart libs have been doing this to our children, also, by changing nursery rhymes and songs. Much of this is done to protect the tender sensibilities of the Children (they worry about the old gray goose being dead, but not about Heather`s two mommies, or the fact that most 8 year olds know more about sex than their grandparents thanks to a sex and violence drenched culture.) But we mustn`t scar their fragile sensibilities; the children must be protected-from such unpleasantries as death and from the past.

Patrick states;

By shielding our children too much -- sealing them off from the ecotones in ourselves and in our culture, or acting as though begrimed splendor is all there is -- we raise journalists who write blithely about "immigration rights" without ever using the word "illegal," nationalists who see no problem with remixing an iconic anthem so that its opening line could be styled "Jose, can you see?" pundits whose friends all vote the way they do, historians who mythologize the "noble savage," priests who never preach on sin, and policy makers who confess themselves puzzled when crime rates go down as incarceration rates go up.

He`s right; only the very naive become Liberals or Democrats, and so it is important to keep these children naive and ignorant. After all, ignorance is bliss!

The End Draws Near for Al Quada in Iraq

Today Captain`s Quarters is reporting on an intercepted Al-Quada correspondence which makes it plain that the Insurgents are dejected and close to defeat. We`ve won-if the Media and Democrats don`t manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

If the Republicans stay in power in `06 the Insurgency may be finished. If the Democrats win, they`ll hang on, knowing that they too will win shortly.

Everything hinges on the next couple of election cycles.

Freud Killing Europe

Over at the American Thinker, Christopher Chantrill explains how the falling birth rate and the cultural ennui of the Europeans stem from embracing the theories of Sigmund Freud. This is a sharp analysis, and a great piece.

Weekend at The Ozark Hilton

I must apologize for the lighter-than-normal blogging; I have been bored with the news of late and have really felt like getting away from it all. I had investigated a trip to the Falklands, but at $7000 airfare (you have to fly to Santiago, Chile, or Montevideo, Uruguay first, then catch a mail-carrier to Port Stanley) I decided on a more reasonable getaway, so I spent the weekend at my famous 5 star accomodation in the Ozarks.

For those of you who are new to Birdblog, I have constructed a tarpaper shack from scraps of lumber I had dug out of back alleys. The Garwood Ritz sits on a ridge of hardwood forest in the middle of no-where, with coyotes, possum, possibly wildcats, mice, squirrels, wasps, yellow jackets,and all of God`s creatures trying to make a reservation to stay in my fashionable pad. It is ``somewhat secluded`` as we say; it lies on a dirt trail I wacked out of the forest. There is no toilet (except a couple of cinder-blocks and a seat), no running water, no electricity, no squat. Tarps cover the rafters to keep out the rain (sometimes) and I heat with a fireplace made from cinder blocks and an old barrel which, unfortunately, puts more smoke into the cabin than through the stovepipe chimney. I light the place with kerosene lanterns-if you fire up fifteen of them you might have enough light to read by! (Actually, my in-laws bought me a gas lantern, which does a nice job of lighting the place now.) I do have a nice Weber grill I found in a dumpster to cook on.

Still, I love the crazy place, in spite of being attacked by yellow jackets, getting chiggers and ticks on a regular basis, having animals settle in the cabin uninvited, etc. (I recently got a pet wasp. I chased him around the cabin, and couldn`t catch the little booger, so after a while I left him alone and he came and sat down next to me on the futon; I realized he wasn`t going to sting, so I just left him. We pall around now-my wasp and me!) Let`s not forget the squirrel who decided to move her family into the tarp roof! They are always kicking leaves on me when I sleep.

I decided enough is enough, so I constructed a new shelter to house my worldly goods until I can actually finish the cabin. When I first settled my land, I had build a teepee-like structure from saplings and old tarps. The teepee worked well the first year; it kept me dry even in pouring rain (despite the smoke hole) and I could build a fire inside of it. That open smokehole was a real problem, however, and water running down the poles caused them to sag, which made the teepee leak more, which made the poles sag more. (Wasps settled inside the structure, also.) I eventually took it down, and found I had families of mice and even a possum family living inside! I felt like a heel kicking them out of their home, but what the heck...

At any rate, I decided to build another traditional woodland Indian structure-a wigwam. A wigwam is build by taking small, green saplings, charring them on the ends so they don`t rot in the ground, then arranging them in a circle and bending them over. You tie them into a series of arches and then tie cross-members to secure them. It`s a lot like building a dome-shaped arbor. Being the goofball that I am, I didn`t tie with string or rope, but instead used duct-tape to secure the saplings (it seems to be working fairly well) and covered the structure with carpet remnants I scrounged up. I intend to put tar-paper over that, then plastic wrap it, then more tar paper. I temporarily covered the structure with the old tarps from the teepee.

Unfortunately, those tarps have worn thin, and the wigwam leaks. I learned that the hard way Saturday, since the weatherman lied his silly toupee off and said slight chance of sprinkles, when in fact it rained steadily all day. The wigwam stayed fairly dry, but I am going to have to deal with the problem there asap. I wasted my day sitting inside this structure, reading a book and watching a rat (or large brown mouse, I`m not sure) run laps through my new digs. I accomplished very little.

Which is a pity, because I wanted to try to drag somebody down for the Memorial Day weekend. I needed to get things cleaned up and ready to go, but I couldn`t with that drumbeat of rain. This means I can only have a few people, at best (who will be dragged kicking and screaming, no doubt!) My wife foolishly volunteered to come, and boy is she going to regret it!

She actually may have figured a way out for herself; she found a place in western Missouri which rents yurts, and so we are going to spend a night in a Yurt. This will be, of course, far more civilized than the cabin or the wigwam, and she`ll have a reasonable excuse for ducking out on the Garwood Hilton.

(A yurt is a round Mongolian tent, with lattice walls, a skylight in the center, and roof rafters. They are supposed to be very comfortable, and have become trendy in recent years. My wife was thinking about buying one for me for my birthday, but when she saw the prices of those things...)

So, I`ll be off to summer in a yurt for Memorial Day, and I may succeed in dragging an involuntary guest or two down my hip pad. I`m thinking of bringing my cat Blackberry, who enjoyed it when we went last time although he was carsick on the ride down. I`ve heard you can give your cat dramamine, and I may try that; he would LOVE for it to be just the two of us down there! I`ll leave grumpy old Goccia at home-he pouted the entire trip last time.

At any rate, I haven`t much been in the mood to blog, and I`ve had to dig for things to write about. Everyone enjoys my tales of brokedown resort, so I thought I`d regale you with a few more.

New Blogs on the Honor Roll

We have some new friends to welcome to the Birdblog honor roll.

First we have Brooke from Neo Con Control Center, a gentle blog with the mission of promoting peace and brotherhood with Islam and America`s other enemies through mutual understanding, sharing of feelings, and singing verses of ``give peace a chance`` or ``Kumbaya``. If that doesn`t work, she strongly advocates blasting `em! Great site!

Next we have Brandon with his site Enemies Foreign and Domestic. Brandon is a very sharp young man, and is a definite rising star.

Finally, we have William from Theory=Dogma, a site which will definitely give Liberals upset stomachs. Be sure to check it out!

These are three great sites, and well worth your time. Be sure to read the other sites on the blogroll as well; I`m always amazed at the intellectual firepower of the bloggers I`ve had the honor to become acquainted with. They are all my friends, as are all of you, my loyal readers. I want to thank you all!

The Global Warming Bandwagon and Sport Utility Vehicle

The old Global Warming grift keeps motoring along. Our friend Aussiegirl over at Ultima Thule has a nice piece to flatten the GW bandwagon tires. Check it out!

Catholic Hookers and Gay Bishops

A Catholic Women`s group in Germany has found a great new cause to champion-prostitution! Seems they want to make the world safe for the oldest profession.

Closer to home, Episcopalians in the Bay area are poised to elect an openly homosexual Archbishop. Their choices are between two male homosexuals and a lesbian; now THAT`S what I call a committment to diversity!

Maybe the Bishop can get together with the German group, and start a gay hook-shop in Frisco? He certainly could swell the Church coffers!