Common Sense on Immigration

Lawrence Henry hits the bulls-eye on this whole immigration issue at TAS:

THIS CANNOT HOLD. Not because there's such a split between the two houses of Congress over an immigration bill, not because there's an even sharper split between elite opinion and the people's opinion, but because a country, no more than an individual or a business, cannot hold two opposing moral ideas at the same time. A business cannot run for profit and yet wink at employees stealing 10 percent off the bottom line. Mob-run businesses collapse from the skim. A country may get away with a little bit of illegal foreign labor. But not a lot. (Cf. France.) A country may escape a reckoning for some moral hypocrisy. But not a lot of it.


Start with arresting, punishing, and deporting illegals. I myself wrote some months ago that it would be impossible to deport 11 million people, that America would be scored for "cultural genocide" and worse by the BBC and NPR and the rest of that pack. And maybe we would, but I got brought up short and sharp by a clear-thinking John Derbyshire. Derb pointed out correctly that you don't have to deport 11 million illegals. Just catch, punish, and deport regularly, on a rational basis, and many of the rest will go of their own accord. We don't catch all burglars. It doesn't stop us enforcing the laws against house breaking.


Be sure to read this article in it`s entirety.

The Die is Cast

I have to apologize to Birdblog readers for the meager writing; I have been suffering from a bad case of tendonitis in my hand, called DeQuervains Tenosynovitis which is caused by movement of the thumb causing inflammation of the tendon on the wrist. (Diabetics are prone to this, I`m given to understand.) I have been hoping it would go away with Advil and rest, but it has continued to decline and the Doctor put a cast on my hand yesterday.

Blogging will be light, as I have limited manual dexterity.

I will probably be linking instead of thinking for the next few weeks, although I don`t intend on taking a complete vacation. Still, things may be a bit slow.

Constitutional Musings

Don Bangert has a terrific piece at his site Current Observations on the meaning of the word consent in the Constitution.

A worthy read, as is all of Don`s work!

Crime and Punishment

Here is an interesting article on immigration. It points out that there must be serious punishment, if we are to control this problem.

That`s how you enforce laws, after all. Personally, I advocate exile for repeat offenders; DON`T simply send them across the border to try again-send them to some unpleasant place; Siberia, Baffin Island, New Jersey.

We could use them in the war on terror by sending them to Middle-Eastern hotspots. They need an influx of devote Catholics in the Islamic world!

Rumblings of Revolution

The illegal immigration protests and student walk-outs which have been occurring lately are the warning rumblings of a tsunami which will hit the United States in years to come. I have always made the case that this massive influx of illegals is not assimilatible, and that the new wave of immigrants does not want assimilation. I think the size and scope of these protests should illustrate that point; how many of the students who skipped class were members of MECHa?

I refer you to my post ``Welcome to Aztlan`` for more details.

Most of the arguments (both pro and con) nibble at the edges of the problem; the problem is that we are experiencing an alien invasion, and that, like the Roman Empire which fell within a century from similar circumstances, we cannot survive as a nation. Are we prepared to accept the partitioning of America? I doubt that we have the will to force Aztlan back into the Union.

For more on this, see my American Thinker piece from last June ``Barbarian Invasions``.

Consider this quote:

"We have an aging white America ... They are dying ...We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of the La Raza Unida political party

Consider the fact that most of these protesters were waving Mexican flags, not American ones.

Although these protests were peaceful, they still bear a striking similarity to what we have seen done by Moslems in Europe; in both instances a sizable minority is attempting to intimidate the majority by a show of force. That illegal aliens are criminals, and should expect no rights to be granted to them makes the chutzpah of these demonstrations all the more galling.

There are ways to deal with this issue, but none of our elected leaders has the will. We need to make illegal entry into the country painful and expensive. We need to make it painful and expensive for Mexico to maintain a policy of reannexation. It can be done.

It had better be done, and soon, or we will soon be bidding farewell to America, and receiving a not-so-warm welcome from Aztlan.

Religion Over Political Ideology

Religion trumps politics; we need to understand that if we are to make a lasting change in the Middle-East:


``Since October 2001, approximately three hundred Americans have been killed and another eight hundred have been wounded in Afghanistan. The overthrow of the Taliban was about more than denying a base of operations to al-Qa'ida—it was also about liberating the people of Afghanistan from a brutal theocracy. All of this makes recent news from Kabul all the more ironic—and outrageous. Abdul Rahman is on trial for his life in a Kabul court. His crime? Converting to Christianity... While the Taliban no longer rules the country, conversion from Islam to another religion, called apostasy, is still punishable by death. The prosecutor offered to drop the charges if Rahman converted back to Islam, but Rahman refused... The irony is inescapable: This is the country that we rid of the Taliban because of its religious oppression. This is the country in which we have spent at least $70 billion to establish a free democratic government. This is the country whose freedom cost us three hundred American lives and eight hundred casualties. And this is the country that is preparing to execute a man for becoming a Christian after he witnessed other Christians caring for his countrymen. Is this the fruit of democracy? Is this why we have shed American blood and invested American treasure to set a people free? What have we accomplished for overthrowing the Taliban? This is the kind of thing we would expect from the Taliban, not from President Karzai and his freely elected democratic government."

—Chuck Colson

(Thanks to the Federalist.)

Making Fiends and Influencing Martyrs

Rory, over at Outside the Blogway, has some wonderfully offensive, politically incorrect Moslem jokes.

Enjoy!

Whose Country Is It?

Always On Watch has a great post dealing with this whole sordid immigration mess. Be sure to check out the comments as well; you`ll find some great information.

Dhimmi Danes

Denmark is sliding into Dhimmitude, according to our good friend Aussiegirl.

Democracy and Islam

One of the guiding principles for many in the Bush Administration is the neo-Wilsonian concept of democratization. If we can establish a working democracy in the Middle-East, we can give the people an alternative to Jihad, a stake in their own future, and the chance for lasting peace, the thinking goes. To many, Democracy is the answer.

I disagree. First off, I would like to point out that what we are referring to is Republicanism, not Democracy. The Founding Fathers all abhorred Democracy as the fastest way to corruption and eventual tyranny. A Republican system put checks on the rule of the mob, thus offering a stake in society to the many while restricting their coarser appetites. Be it duly noted-early America had numerous restrictions on the Will of the People; only male landholders could vote, the President and Senators were not directly elected, but were chosen via the College of Electors, a non-elected Court Sytem was instituted, etc. This is what the advocates of Democracy are calling for (I hope), not true Democracy.

A Democratic Republicanism presupposes a moral people. This was of great concern to the Founders, that America would be able to keep such a system. The People must vote not out of pure self-interest but out of a moral vision, and in the interest of a higher purpose. They must be moral in their personal lives, willing to forgive slights and work with those they may not like. There has to be a certain consensus, a willingness to accept authority and keep the fighting in the realm of political debate.

Our system was perfectly suited to our pluralistic, Judeo-Christian religious system. Our laws were Biblically based, our willingness to accept those laws was based on a Protestant Christian code of conduct (which emphasized the virtue and moral autonomy of the individual) which in itself was based on the Jewish code of conduct. The multiplicity of Christian religions in America meant everyone had to respect the somewhat different values of others. This, more than anything, allowed our Republic to flourish.

At that, we almost lost everything with the Civil War; America could not work out a moral problem peacably, and the Republic was almost torn apart.

Andrew Bostom has a great piece at the American Thinker which, in my view, illustrates why the argument in favor of Democratization is flawed. Islam, that religion of peace, refuses to allow anyone to leave. If you leave, you die; a pluralistic, democratic system cannot be built where such thinking is predominant.

Islam is incompatible with Democracy. The concept of Seperation of Church and State was instituted to avoid one religious sect from dominating another through the exercise of governmental power-precisely the problem in the Middle-East where Islam allows no competitors. In Islamic societies the Rulers are inseperable from the Religious system, and the idea that they be purely secular is unthinkable. Sharia Law cannot accept the equality of Men (and Women); some are always more equal than others! A non-Moslem is, at very best, a second class citizen (and at worst fair game for oppression and murder.) Women are property. Warfare against the infidel is a high command, and the Koran admonishes the individual to use whatever means necessary. You cannot build an American style system on this foundation!

I don`t disagree with replacing Saddam with a Republic, but I believe this will not be the panacea that the many advocates (such as Rich Lowry at National Review) think it will be; you cannot have such a system without a moral populace, and Islam fails to create the proper moral climate. What must occur for Democracy to work is a breaking of the stranglehold of Islam on this region; other faiths must be allowed to coexist peacefully with Islam. Democracy will fail, unless this occurs.

Who Says They Don`t Teach History Anymore?

A rather unusual take on world history!

Holy Ozone

Birdblog reader and poet Tom Graffiano has an hilarious ode to Mama Gaia entitled Holy Ozone. Here`s a taste;


You there...
Pumpin' all that petrol!
You're a Greenhouse Gaseous Goon!
Goddess Gaia's got the vapors...
And she'll vaporize you soon!.

and

She'll see that you get the picture,
She'll demand your rights be cut;
Gaia fumes about your habits...
(And she'll come snuff out your butt.)

and my favorite

This Green-Goddess-Chick is cranky!
She's hot-flashing!
PMS!
Now her Menopausal Minions
Are ticked-off and quite...
Distressed!

Pass the Midol!
Goddess-Idol,
Chicken Little's acting queer!
She's unstable, but still able
To keep Greens in Raptured Fear!


Don`t miss the rest!

The Joys and Sorrows of Polygamy

Polygamy may be great fun for a few, but it leaves many a man cold and alone, and this is at the root of the Jihadi culture in the Islamic World, according to William Tucker. This mirrors my own views on the matter; Islam allows a man to marry 4 women so the wealthy and powerful claim their gluttonous share at the expense of the poor working schlub. Anger at this inequity turns a blue-collar man into a red-collar Jihadist. Why not? He`s angry, has no woman to civilize him, and has nothing to lose.

According to Tucker, there is an increasing acceptance of polygamous relations in Hollywood and the related entertainment media, and this bodes ill for America`s future. This was easily predictable, and I and others did in fact predict this very thing would come out of the gay marriage movement; if we can redefine marriage for homosexuals, we certainly can redefine it for polygamists! Polygamy has a longer, more venerable historical claim, after all. There are still Mormons who practice this (in secret) despite the ban from their Church. Who are we, after all, to judge?

If Tucker is correct (and I believe he is) Polygamy, like other redefinitions of marriage, is ultimately very destructive to society and individual. We are treading on dangerous ground.

Furthermore, when is enough enough? If the same sex can marry, and we can have group marriages, what other things will come to be defined as marriage? Brother and Sister? (Well, maybe in the Ozarks) Shepherd and Sheep? A girl and her corpse (boy, her husband is really a dead-head!) There are plenty of guys who love their cars. This sounds ridiculous now, but the idea of homosexual marriage sounded ridiculous just 20 years ago; give it a few decades, and we may be asking ``who are we to judge?``

Many of our institutions exist because we have, through the course of history, found them to be the best option. Liberals hate anything traditional and venerable, and are sure they are superstitious nonsense. Are they? It never occurs to the lib that some things are there because they WORK and that monkeying with them is a terrible idea. Monogamy is one of these things-look what Polygamy has done to those nations which accept that practice.

Just Another Day

Here is an example of life in Israel. I can`t imagine how hard it must be to deal with this on a regular basis; always having to worry about someone trying to kill you.

The Israelis are brave indeed!

Thanks One Jerusalem!

Fetal Soylent Green

I remember a movie from the `70`s called Soylent Green. In an overpopulated, starving future, an evil corporation (what else?) develops a new food source, a supposedly synthetic food called Soylent Green. In reality, old people are being ground into hamburger to feed the starving masses. The hero discovers the truth, and proclaims ``Soylent Green is people!``. At the time, this was a chilling concept.

Our friend Alnot chronicles a horrific new development, (which dovetails with my abortion argument below); fetal farming. Cloning may be illegal, but the implantation of a clone into a woman`s womb, then ``harvesting`` the fetus for stem cells, tissues, etc. before the child is brought to term is not, and we will be seeing much of this abomination in the near future.

How does this differ substantively from Soylent Green? We are creating a twin brother or sister (cloning is merely a mechanism for creating a twin) to a person, then chopping the as-yet unborn child up for body parts. We may not be physically eating them, in that we aren`t chewing and swallowing, but we are certainly consuming them. This is different from transplantation, where a willing transplantee (who has died, or who offers a body part freely) donates a piece of his or her body to help another person. This is the willful destruction of a powerless human being for the benefit and pleasure of another. It is cannibalism of the worst sort!

Soylent Green is People! So are cloned fetuses!

Punish the Innocent

(From the Federalist)


"Abortion has evolved as civil-rights issues often do. What began as a question of conscience for a few has become a concern for many. Legal scholars, including many abortion supporters, now openly acknowledge that Roe v. Wade is hooey grounded in hocus-pocus rather than facts and law. A generation of younger Americans, having been exposed to three-dimensional color sonograms, no longer regard unborn children as lumpy, undifferentiated thing-a-ma-jigs. They think of them as babies. Most importantly, Americans understand that the Supreme Court denied this country the benefit of democratic resolution of the issue. This explains why South Dakota is not alone... If South Dakota has led the way toward a democratic eruption, it also has shaken up the political marketplace by rejecting the popular rape-and-incest exception. The loophole doesn't make moral sense. If life begins at conception, children conceived through rape and incest are human beings. They are innocent of crimes, even if they are the byproduct of horrendous violence against women. So on what basis should we permit their destruction?"

Tony Snow


The rape-and-incest exemption is an interesting exercise in reasoning; one victim is punished (in fact, the ultimate punishment) for the welfare of another victim. Who is at fault here? The rapist and incesteur (if I may coin a phrase). Why should an innocent party (the most innocent party, since an unborn child has never done anything wrong) pay for the crimes of the evildoer?

But, you say, the victimized woman is being forced to pay by carrying the child to term. True, and that is a tragedy, indeed, but two wrongs do not make a right. Should blacks be allowed to hold white people as slaves, because they were enslaved in the past? Do Jews have the right to kill Germans because of the Holocaust? We condemn terrorism, but, by the logic employed in the rape-and-incest exemption, the terrorist should be permitted to redress past grievances in whatever manner is open to them.

It is all a matter of viewpoint, and cuts to the anasthetization of America. Liberals believe in the goodness of everyone; there is not a victimizer who is not also a victim, and so we have no right to judge the rapist and incesteur. (It`s interesting to see how many pro-aborts fight against capital punishment for the evildoers.) At the same time, modern society seeks the pain-free mode of living, and every effort must be made to anesthetize the victim. It will be uncomfortable, and a bit painful to carry a child to term, so the logical thing to do is kill it. That a monstrous injustice is being done to the child is immaterial. The child is very inconvenient, the child brings emotional pain to the mother, so the child receives the punishment due the rapist. Oh, and we`ll give a stern talking to that fellow!

Abortion is a blood sacrament to the left, and they understand that they MUST keep the rape-and-incest exemption established in America`s mind to prevent people from accepting the true horror of what is being done. Abortion will remain if this exemption is considered acceptable. They know that.

Furthermore, they know that-no matter how unwilling a mother-they have placed their mark upon her forever by getting her to rip the unwanted child from her womb and dispose of it in a trash heap. Instead of removing pain from the victimized woman, they have increased it by adding a layer of guilt, the guilt of child immolation. The rapist has raped her again, this time at the behest of those ``concerned`` individuals. Now she must support abortion, or admit that she has done something monstrous. She is doubly victimized by the rape-and-incest exemption-and she has been recruited to their side.

Can a nation treat the innocent in so cavalier a fashion and expect more humane treatment in return? Can we show no mercy in the interest of expediency, and expect mercy in return? The old saying ``what goes around comes around`` (which is an updated version of the Biblical ``as ye sew, so shall ye reap``) applies; whatever your spiritual inclinations, there does seem to be a tendency in the Universe towards a repayment in-kind for deeds. Abortion, no matter the motive, is an act of violence against an innocent human being, and justice demands a redress. Can we complain that terrorists murder our innocent citizens, when we ourselves have murdered our innocent citizens? What, exactly, are they doing differently?

Abortion is a monstrous act of violence, and the rape-and-incest exemption is merely a wolf dressed in fuzzy sheepskin.

Feeding Leviathan

Peggy Noonan (someone I normally don`t care for) makes an important point:

"Money is power, more money for the government is more power for the government. More power for the government will allow it to, among many other things, amuse itself by putting its fingers in a million pies, and stop performing its essential functions well, and get dizzily distracted by nonessentials, and muck up everything. Which is more or less where we are."

The explosive growth of government began with the income tax (one of the planks in the road to communism, according to Karl Marx) and every new tax added has allowed government to become ever more intrusive. (An interesting historical point; taxation was one of the factors leading to the Civil War-the United States imposed tariffs to protect Northern manufacturing, and this hurt the South by inflating the cost of manufactured goods, which they could obtain cheaper from England. The tariff lead to increasingly bad feelings between North and South-and increased the strength of the Federal government which the Southerners would see as oppressive. The first rumblings of secession began when South Carolina instituted the policy of ``nullification`` in which the state legislature simply nullified any Federal laws it did not like within the boundaries of the state. South Carolina nullified the tariffs, leading Andrew Jackson to seek the Force Act, which allowed Jackson to compel that state to comply with Federal law through force of arms. Is it any wonder that South Carolina was the first state to secede?)

Defund the leviathan, and it will shrink back down to a squid. We need an end to the oppression of Income Tax.


(Thanks to the Federalist Patriot)

Fighting to Win

I have been saying for a long time that this whole ``winning hearts and minds`` strategy being employed in the war on terror is a recipe for defeat, and it looks like Jed Babbin agrees with me.

For example:

The only goal of this war, which Lowry and the others lost track of, is to end the threat of radical Islam and the terrorism that is its chosen weapon against us.

We mean to win this war by destroying the regimes that provide terrorists with weapons, funds, people, and sanctuary. We mean to defeat the radical Islamist ideology (for that is what it is, not a religion) as we defeated the Soviet communist ideology. I and those who agree with me aren't "to hell with them hawks": we are Endgame Conservatives.

We understand that Islamic terrorism cannot threaten us significantly without the support of nations. We are impatient with Mr. Bush's neo-Wilsonianism because it allows the enemy and its apologists to control the pace and direction of the war. We are unwilling to allow the prosecution of this war against the terrorist nations to be delayed for however long it takes for Iraqis to sort themselves out. It is impossible for them to do so while neighboring nations -- Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia -- actively interfere. Endgame conservatives don't want to caught in the web of failed nostrums of Vietnam. We won't wait for Islam to be reformed or to win the hearts and minds of the mullahs in Tehran. We don't consider Islam unreformable; but we understand that it is unreformable by non-Muslims. And we understand that the only way to spur Muslims to accomplish that reformation is to break the hold radical Islam has over a growing number of nations.

Lowry says that the global war on terror is most like a counterinsurgency, and that it can only be won by persuading radical Islamists to either lay down their arms or not take them up at all. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the war we're in, and what our goals must be to defeat the enemy. Like Vietnam, this war is not only a counterinsurgency. First, it is a war against nations that has to be fought both diplomatically and on the battlefields, both conventionally and otherwise. Second, it is an ideological war that can't be won with soft words and euphemisms. And third -- in Iraq, the Philippines, and much of the Horn of Africa -- it is both a counterinsurgency and war for ascendancy among tribes and religious sects.

We don't, like Lowry, completely mistake Vietnam. Lowry accuses us of missing the point that we only began to win in Vietnam when we "started to fashion a true counterinsurgency strategy focusing on hearts and minds, on holding territory and on training Vietnamese security forces." Endgame conservatives understand the principal lesson of Vietnam is something else entirely: if you fail to prosecute a war in the manner that will produce victory decisively, you will lose it inevitably. Iraq, by the President's and Lowry's formulation, is a self-imposed quagmire. They believe that unless and until we establish democracy there we cannot prosecute the war against the other national sponsors of terrorism.

Americans have always been naive as to the differences between themselves and others. We frequently see other peoples as Americans with funny accents, and we always want to believe the best about them. The sad fact is that not all peoples think the same way; there are, for example, people who want war, who love war and battle. (The idea that everyone wants peace stems from OUR desire for peace, which is derived from our Biblical, Christian roots. Throughout history most cultures have revered warriors.) Islam produces such a culture, and the concepts of strength (as opposed to power) and will are very important to that society. What we see as ``winning hearts and minds``, as charity and kindness, they often perceive as weakness and cowardice. We have to win first, make them know we have won, then we can go about winning those hearts and minds.

Our current efforts at kindness appear, I believe, as Dhimmitude and bribery for peace to the Islamic world, and do not have the intended effect. If we continue on this course we will face more and more enemies as a weak and vacillating America engenders their contempt. Babbin is right.

It`s the endgame that`s important. We need to start fighting to win!

Bush to Nuke America

I can see no difference between this insane piece in Pravda and what is coming from the Democrats. At least Pravda doesn`t hide their bias!

Happy fallout!

The Great Fall of TJ Willms

It is with a heavy heart that I am forced to bring you, my dear friends and loyal readers, this tragic news; the once-brilliant friend of Birdblog, TJ Willms (of Twisted Steel fame), has turned to the dark side! He has apparently been blinded by spin and propaganda coming from the nefarious lefties who dominate our modern culture, and has been tricked into believing that Dogs hold conservative principles, while he evinces disdain for the (clearly) right-thinking members of the feline species. It is a sad, sad day!

What could drive a man to such confusion (or dare I say madness?) How could a giant of reason and moral clarity fall so tragically? Where lies the fatal flaw which has brought our hero so low? Were Shakespeare alive today, or the Greek playwrites, Mr. Willms would surely be the subject of their finest works of tragedy. What a pity!

What is needed is an intervention; we, Mr. Willms good friends, must act to confront him about his destructive views! Perhaps, with our gentle but firm exhortations, our friend will realize the error of his ways, admit that cats are better than dogs, and return freely to that happy state he once enjoyed but from which he has fallen so tragically! Go, go to his website! Reprove him for his erroneous views! His fate is in our hands!

And let him not forget; ``Cats rule and dogs drool!``

St. Patrick RIP

Much as it pained me, I was forced to remove my post on St. Patrick because it was screwing up my blog format. I tried several different ways to fix the problem, but to no avail so I have to delete it. If anyone would like me to e-mail it to you, I would be happy to do that.

Apologies to Scribe and Dave.

Conservative Baby Boom

Our friend Mattias Caro shows that demographics are helping conservatives here in the United States.

Be sure to check out the rest of Icarus Fallen while you are there; it`s a tremendous website, and well worth your time!

Compromise and Pyrrhic Victories

Recently Fred Barnes launched a rather harsh attack on ``paleocons`` who refuse to follow Party and President blindly. (It appears a paleocon is anyone who doesn`t drink Bush kool-aid.) Steven Warshawski fires back in the American Spectator.

For the record, I don`t agree with Pat Buchanan in many areas; I don`t like his protectionist views, his pro-union policies, his anti-war stand. He clearly does not speak for my brand of conservativism, yet Barnes is placing me squarely in his camp. It is true, I`ve always seen myself as paleo rather than neo, but I`m hardly a ``take my ball and go home`` type. I DO believe in free trade, in competition, in the need for America to take the lead in world events (since there are no other ``white hat`` nations willing to step up.) This, some would say, makes me a neo. So what am I, neo or paleo? These terms are less than well defined, and to use neo or paleo as epithets is less than useful.

I`ve said it before and I`ll say it again; the party is for our pleasure, we are not for the pleasure of the party. If the Republicans abandon our principles we must call them on the carpet. If they leave us completely we must look elsewhere. It`s that simple. The party is a means, and not an end.

Don`t misunderstand; I`m not advocating an inflexible approach where we surrender any hope of viability in the interest of ideological purity. There IS a brand of conservativism willing to do just that-and they are hopelessly foolish. They accomplish nothing, except to feed their sense of self-righteousness. The greater their failure to actually influence events, the higher their self-admiration rises! This has been the path many liberals have taken for decades, and we conservatives have laughed at them for this. This is the Move-On, Michael Moore, moonbat approach. There are some conservatives willing to follow in their footsteps.

What use is a movement if victory is not the ultimate goal? This requires some compromise and a willingness to take the small win, or even the tie, when necessary. (Look at Hockey; you take the ties on the road and plan on winning at home.)

But compromise should not be surrender, and this Kool-aid drinking mentality-anything to advance the party-is just wrong. We cannot allow ourselves to compromise everything for political success. The old country clubbers in the Republican Party were like that; they were happy to compromise anything to maintain their position. This is a loser`s strategy. Too much compromise means no effort is being made at winning, and it means that there are no other goals except capturing more ballots.

We are conservatives! We have a vision, an agenda, and a purpose. We have things we believe in, and things we want for America. We want to restore the good that has been lost to the advances of liberalism, we want our optimism, our vision of freedom and opportunity to be the guiding principles employed when facing new and possibly dangerous situations. If we sacrifice our principles for expediency we will become, well, Democrats. That is why the kook fringe has taken over the party of Truman; the Dems sacrificed principle for dominance for so long that they became bereft of leadership. The Kooks were the only principled members of the party remaining, so they have taken control. But, of course, the Kooks are precisely that...

The old guard of the Republicans were the same way, and Reagan easily swept them aside. They have nurtured a grudge, and want their party back. They would love to regain control of ``their`` party, and a return to the ease and comforts of loyal opposition status. (They have been making inroads with this current Administration.) They would love to pull control of the Republicans out of conservative hands, and it is necessary for us to assert ourselves on occasion. If we believe the President is compromising too much, we have to make our opinions clear; we have to remind him who it was who put him there, and for what purpose. President Bush is supposed to be our man, not the country clubbers, and not the Democrats. Ours.

Sometimes there are more important issues at stake. Mr. Barnes doesn`t seem to understand that there are battles, and there is the war. We need to remember what we are fighting for!

Culture and the World Economic Order

An insightful article in Human Events puts the opposition to the Port Deal in perspective:

This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct—economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better.

But the problem is that all nations are more than just economic systems. They are each somebody’s home. And each has a culture, and a language, and a set of common ideals that they want protected—even more than they want another 0.3% added to next year’s GDP. Some things matter more than the economic opportunity cost we pay for having them. The American Revolution, for example, was bad for the economy while it was under way. But that was not really the point of the whole thing, was it?

The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power—both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the “inevitable” rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, “Stop!

They’re saying “OK, we’ve tried it your way and it never seems to end. No amount of globalization, tolerance, equalization, outsourcing, internationalism, interventionism, human smuggling, and security risk is ever enough. There is always a push for more—even before the last round has proven itself wise or foolish. Treaty piles upon treaty, migration upon migration, integration upon integration. Now people want a break and a reassessment. They’re not sure they are against it all. They’re just no longer sure they’re still for it.

This is a valid point; the opposition to this deal may well stem from the same root as opposition to illegal immigration; a desire to protect our culture from the forces of globalization and internationalism. An Arab-owned, international corporation managing a key component of America`s infrastructure smacks of ``New World Orderism``, and is especially onerous while we are at war with radical Islam. It is the same sort of reasoning which President Bush employs with his guest-worker program initiative; economic factors are the only ones to be taken into account. I oppose the President on immigration because I believe we have a right and, in fact, duty to preserve our unique cultural heritage. This view was absolutely unquestionable in times past, and has only recently come into the national consciousness as a result of the modern liberal concept of multiculturalism. Now we are told we have no right to maintain our culture, but must go quietly into that good night if need be. The port deal seemed more of the same; we have no right to impose limits within our own country. That view appears to have chaffed many.

Be sure to read the entire article.

A Call for Courage

Our friend Scribe has posted a poignant call for courage at Ultima Thule.

What Won`t Americans Do?

President Bush claims America needs a guest-worker program to give legal status to illegal immigrants because ``there are jobs Americans won`t do.`` Rich Lowery strongly disagrees in a piece at National Review.

Demodogs, Liberal Squirrels, and Republicats

Regular readers of Birdblog are aware that I have two cats; a young Bombay named Blackberry and a 10 year old butterscotch tabby named Goccia. These little fellows have radically different personalities, and came out of very different backgrounds. I found Blackberry outside a duplex my employer manages; he had been abandoned by his owner when she was evicted. He was hungry, cold, thirsty, and attached himself immediately to me. I was going to take him to the Humane Society, but quickly changed my mind, and he has been with us ever since. We adopted Goccia from the Humane Society. He had been dropped off by the family of an elderly widow (or so the counselor at the HS believed) who had gone into a nursing home. When we first saw him he looked like he had lost his only friend (which, indeed, he had). We had wanted to get a young female cat so Blackberry wouldn`t be alone all of the time; we ended up bringing this older male home instead.

The battle for dominance between the two boys was long and painful, and it took Goccia a long time to warm to us. (He just wanted to go home.) He`s a great member of our family now.

The problem is, Goccia is a Democat! He hates George Bush, and leaves the room if Bush comes on the television. In fact, he gets rather peevish with ME when I speak about politics. He is sweet but requires considerable assistance; he won`t drink water from a bowl, but requires me to give it to him from the faucet, or he goes thirsty (sounds like a pure Democat to me!) He is very clingy and dependent, which is cute in a cat (but not so cute in a grown adult human.) He has an appalling lack of gratitude, with an entitlement mentality.

Blackberry, on the other hand, is a solid conservative; we received a mailing from John Kerry prior to the `04 election with a picture of Lurch enclosed, and Blackberry shredded it! He rubbs up against me whenever I discuss politics, and he is a self-reliant, proud, independent cat. He lives with us by choice, and he pulls his own weight! If I ask him to guard the house he will patrol every couple of hours to make sure all is well. He keeps a watchful eye on Goccia, to make sure he doesn`t get out of line. He wakes my wife if she sleeps too late. He always helps me whenever I`m engaged in a project, being careful to observe any mistakes. In short, he`s a terrific business manager. He earns his keep.

Which is why a piece by Shawn Macomber brought a smile to my face; Shawn had reviewed a faux childrens book some time back, in which a cat named Russell was a Republican while his dog friend Benny was solidly a Democrat. This was, of course, very much tongue-in-cheek, and it infuriated the left! (The author stated clearly that it was intended for adults.) Now, a moonbat Democrat has written a real childrens book designed to advance wacky liberal ideology.

For example, Shawn states:

Much time has been spent (rightly, in my opinion) mocking the new children's book, Why Mommy is a Democrat, about a single mom squirrel teaching her little baby squirrels liberal orthodoxy. Sample: "Mommy makes sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does."


So, what`s the point? This illustrates that: 1.Democrats are crybabies. (The Democrats on the bus go wha wha wha!) 2.Some people will politicize anything. 3.Cats rule and dogs drool!

Which are unfair characterizations; I have a Democat and a Republicat. Dogs do indeed drool, and may all be Democats, and cats do indeed rule (anyone who has owned one knows who is boss!) but there is clearly a sharp political divide among cats!

Oh, and bear in mind, cats often eat squirrels!

Minorities Prosper Under Bush

Our old friend Gindy has posted up unemployment statistics broken down by race comparing 1998 and today. The results are interesting; minorities are doing much better under the Bush Administration than under Clinton.

I was especially interested in the numbers for Latinos; if what George Bush and the Media tell us is true, Latinos should have the lowest unemployment rates in America, since they are here for economic reasons and are willing to do jobs that Americans are unwilling to do. Their relatively high unemployment shoots that theory into the drink.

Pay the Piper

Chief Justice John Roberts shows good sense in upholding Congressional authority to compel law schools to allow military recruitment on campus. If you want to dance you have to pay the piper; these schools are eager to accept taxpayer funds but don`t want to allow the military to seek volunteers because of the ``don`t ask, don`t tell`` policy towards homosexuals.

This should be a lesson to everyone; government money comes with strings attached. By what right does government boss everyone around? By right of finance. Taxpayer dollars are funding everything these days, and, as a result, government is micromanaging our lives. This will continue until we kick the government addiction. If you want to be free, you cannot take government largesse.

Oh, I know; it ultimately is OUR money we are getting back. Still, we have built a leviathan, and have accepted the yoke imposed by that leviathan because of our own greedy desire to get into somebody else`s back pocket. Don`t want to save for retirement? Create Social Security and make someone else pay for it. Don`t want to buy your own health-care? How about creating Medicare, or a single-payer (socialized) system. Don`t want to pay for your own education? Create a government grant program. Americans have bought into this idea, the concept of a free lunch. Nothing is free in this life, and every penny accepted from the government will be payed back in other, often devious ways. College tuition aid has given us ridiculously priced higher education (by artificially increasing demand) and leftist education (because educrats, to be successful, have to advocate Big Government to continue feeding at the trough.) Social Security has destroyed the idea of financing your own retirement in many people`s minds; why have I been paying for SSN all these years if I have to save for my own retirement? Of course, the elderly all advocate Big Government, because they want that check to keep coming. They have to kneel at the alter, or go hungry. Government owns them. Ditto Medicare.

That`s why I find this ruling an example of eminent good sense; it applies the standard set by those same law professors who created it for OTHERS. Liberals hate it when the rules they set are applied to them. They believe that they-the anointed-should be exempt because of their superior intelligence and wisdom. Roberts just reminded them who is boss. They chose to create that boss, and now they are crying foul.

Furthermore, I find more soldiers far preferable to more lawyers; I think the wrong guys are getting shot at! (Sorry, Jack)

Roberts makes it plain to the plaintiffs that they are free to bar recruiters provided they stop taking money from the government. These are words of wisdom for us all.

The Changing Face of the Abortion Debate

Richard John Neuhaus discusses the changing face of the abortion debate at First Things:


What we do know for sure is that there are now almost no defenders of Roe’s legal or medical coherence, and that the abortion license it imposed by judicial fiat has not been legitimated by public acceptance. In whatever form after Roe presents itself, we can expect broad political support for the goal of becoming a society in which every unborn child is protected in law and welcomed in life. There will always be some abortions, as there will always be some rapes, robberies, and other forms of unjustified killing. Some states will probably permit abortion-inducing contraceptives, and others may make exceptions for the commonly-mentioned cases of rape, incest, and direct threat to the life of the mother.

But it would be a great mistake to underestimate the resurgence of moral reason and common sense in the aftermath of the demise of the Roe regime. The claim advanced by Justice Ruth Ginsberg and others that Roe simply (and recklessly) accelerated the movement of public sentiment in favor of abortion is false. As Joseph Bottum noted in yesterday’s posting, Russell Hittinger documented in Abortion Before Roe in the October 1994 issue of FIRST THINGS, that Americans were, in the years and months prior to Roe, moving in the direction of greater legal protection of the unborn.


As the late Justice Byron White said at the time, Roe was an act of raw judicial power that wiped off the books of all fifty states existing protections of the unborn. In the breadth and brutality of its sweep, it is worth remembering, the Roe decision greatly surprised also those who were pressing for liberalized abortion law. Before January 22, 1973, the position mandated by Roe was generally viewed as extremist.

Father Neuhaus dissects the issue brilliantly. Be sure to read the entire piece.

Any Port in a Storm

John Tabin weighs in on the Ports fiasco in which he (rightly) lays blame for the bungle on all parties concerned.

To Oil and Trouble?

Will a reduction in oil consumption help us in the War on Terror? Nope, according to National Review Online.

Good News from Iraq

In an American Thinker article, John Dwyer brings us the good news from Iraq.

Empty Cathedral

The inimitable Thomas Sowell puts his finger on the problem in the West:


"We are...living in a free society without the faith that built that society—and without the conviction and dedication needed to sustain it... We still have the cathedral of freedom but how long will it last without the faith?"

—Thomas Sowell


(Thanks to the Federalist)

Beerblog, Sleepy Old Bear, and The Reform Club

My friend 7lb.Dave has started a new blog dedicated to the important thing in life-beer! For those of you interested in the products of barley malt, water, and hops, this is the site for you! Dave has a tremendous knowledge of and love for the craft of John Barleycorn (I know, I`ve assisted him in his research over the years), and his site is for the dedicated drinker of fine craft-brewed beer.

Writing from the great white north, DGM brings you Sleepy Old Bear. This is an excellent blog from a conservative Canadian who is leading the charge against the unbearable left. Don`t miss it!

Finally, I`ve been negligent in my failure to blogroll The Reform Club. This is a terrific site featuring some of the best and brightest conservative writers around. Be sure to check it out!

Deconstruction

Reader PatrickMead left me a thoughtful comment on my last Global Warming post (Barnum Science), and this spurred a new rant...




PatrickMead said...
I was recently in Canada when a strong snowstorm came through dumping 4 feet on us in two days. The weatherman said it was caused by -- you guessed it -- global warming. I shook my head. If you call everything brown, then nothing is brown because, as a word, "brown" has lost its meaning. If global warming causes everything, it causes nothing. As a term, it has become meaningless other than as a club with which to beat conservatives.


Hi Patrickmead!

You have hit the nail on the head; the Left has always engaged in deconstruction which means, essentially, to alter the meaning of words through inappropriate use or overuse. What do we think of when we hear the words discrimination, or gay, for example? These words have changed from their original meaning. So too, overuse of a word deconstructs it. Consider the word racist; it has become a term of derision (generally reserved for conservatives) which used to be filled by other, more sexual invectives. (Those invectives have been deconstructed to be merely in poor taste-some of them used to be unspeakable.)

The whole purpose of deconstruction is to change the meaning of language and thereby change the way people think. This is what George Orwell meant by ``newspeak``; the deconstruction of language to make non-leftist thinking difficult (or impossible). Deconstructionism was codified by Jacques Derrida, but has a venerable history going back to the 19th century, as Orwell`s newspeak illustrates. Change the meaning of words, and you change the thought behind words.

Consider the very clinical nature of language used by abortion proponents; they speak of trimesters, fetal tissue, embryos, etc. This is to avoid speaking of pregnancy, human flesh, and unborn children.

Consider the way the Left and the media has misused terms in the current war; instead of terrorists we have insurgents, instead of murderers we have militants. These are all efforts at deconstruction. They are attempts to anesthetize the acts of the enemy (der fiend) so as to anesthetize the public outrage at their behavior.

Consider rap ``music``; the hip-hop culture has deconstructed words on a massive scale, making rape, murder, sexual perversion, and mayhem into acceptable topics for musical appreciation. The point of rap is to make these abominable things cool. (Cool can be said to be a deconstructed word, in a way!) By eroding the words the rap culture has eroded the natural antipathy towards the acts, and teenagers are blasting away at each-other or shagging like lynx.

Bill Clinton was the master of deconstructionism. Remember ``it depends on what the meaning of is is``? Remember his definition of fellatio as not being a sex act?

Words have meanings, and deconstruction has consequences. America was treated to a plague of oral sex as a result of Wild Bill`s deconstruction. (He did cause the coinage of the word Lewinsky to mean, well, you know...)

I was arguing with a liberal at the Reform Club about Global Warming, and he invariably launched into a diatribe against Exxon and Haliburton when I pointed out that over 1500 scientists have signed an anti-Kyoto petition. See, Big Oil and Military Industrial Complex have become synonyms for EVIL to those on the left thanks to deconstruction, and to tie anyone or anything to anybody in this class is to prove they are evil and inauthentic.

Why should we believe this? Because the left has deconstructed their names and those words to mean ``evil corporatism``. Global Warming is more of the same; instead of being merely a theory on climate, it has become a leviathan tied to greedy white dudes in America, to evil oil companies, to those who want to rape the planet in search of their own profit and aggrandizement while gleefully enslaving the poor. GW has become the cause of ever bad thing. If it rains or if there is draught, if there are storms, hurricanes, earthquakes Tsunamis (remember THAT one!) or if things are exactly according to the norm, Global Warming is at fault. That means WE are at fault for our hatred, racism, and avarice!

The left has had this power because of their control of the dissemination of information. They have long held the Universities and education, as well as controlled the print media and then television. Hollywood has been theirs for quite some time, and Madison Avenue has seen to it that liberal messages are advanced in advertising. By controlling the images and symbols we see, as well as the usage of words, they have been able to subtly change the language to advance their cause.

New technology has allowed us to fight back against this hijacking of our words and thoughts, but it is an uphill battle. But wage it we must, or lose at the end of the day.

Barnum Science

An article in the American Thinker today casts aspersions on the ``hockey stick`` graph much touted by enthusiasts of man-made Global Warming.

He makes the argument:


At the root of the argument for Kyoto are a series of reconstructions hat claim to model what earth’s temperature probably was before human activity caused the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels. But these reconstructions of paleoclimate by Mann, Bradley and Hughes [MBH98], and various confirmatory studies, such as Briffa et al [Briffa01]. all depend on proxies various observable things believed to correlate with temperature, like the width of tree rings. These proxies are needed because our ancestors foolishly didn’t invent the thermometer until around 1600, and didn’t start keeping good temperature records until much later.

These reconstructions then depend on mathematical or statistical models to convert the real data, say tree ring widths, into proxy temperature data. Combined with the much smaller collection of real temperature data, the assumption is that we can reconstruct the ancient climate and give an approximate graph of the Earth’s temperature.

Most non-specialists assume you just plug a set of numbers into a computer and get a nice graph. But real statistical data is “dirty” and needs to be cleaned or “conditioned” in order to analyze it. Outlying data, measurement errors, and equipment failures, all have to be dealt with.

The problem is that this process of conditioning can have the effect of throwing away any data that doesn’t fit the original hypothesis. The study which casts doubt on the hockey stick graphs has tested the conditioning practices of one of the major studies.


Don`t miss the rest of this piece!

Global Warming has always been a statistical shell game based on inconclusive data. Considering the dire predictions generated by this junk science (remember the 10 years left predictions made 30 years ago?) and the disregard for competing data (there is evidence that the Earth may actually be moving into a cooling pattern, Mars is warming also, the Medieval Warming Period, etc.) one must suspect that more is involved than just climatology. Could there be a hidden agenda?

One hundred years from now schoolchildren will smile when they learn of this quaint, fashionable, silly theory which gripped the hearts and minds of so many at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first centuries. It will be reminiscent of the end-of-the-world tent revivals of the 19th century where the traveling parson preached hellfire and brimstone coming next week (and passed the collection plate-certainly the GW fanatics have done enough of that!) and the local yokels sold their worldly goods and sat on mountaintops awaiting the end.

As P.T. Barnum pointed out, ``there`s a sucker born every minute.`` Barnum would have been proud of this bunch.

Dubious Dilligence on Dubai

Michael Reagan illustrates the ineptitude of the Bush Administration regarding the Dubai deal:

"The way the Bush people have handled this [Dubai Ports] matter from the very beginning is simply appalling... Because it was done behind closed doors, with nary a word to the leadership on Capitol Hill, it comes out looking like a bumbled attempt to put one over on the American people... It may well be that the arrangement has great merit and could prove beneficial to the U.S., but as a political matter it is an unmitigated disaster—and one which could cost the GOP dearly in both the 2006 and 2008 elections. Here we have an issue—national security—that is uppermost in the minds of the American people, largely because the president has hammered away at it and used it brilliantly to portray the Democrats as weak-kneed in the war on terror and on matters involving national security. In one fell swoop the president throws it away, and even worse allows the Democrats to appear stronger in defending the American people than he and the Republicans have been. It's worse than stupid—it's suicidal."

—Michael Reagan

Thanks to the Federalist

Friendly Affairs

Barbera Lerner makes some interesting points about the Dubai port deal at National Review Online.

On friendliness:

Not to worry, proponents of the deal tell us: the UAE is a friendly country, and besides, in today's global economy, this is a perfectly ordinary commercial transaction — a business deal, not a political one. As Daniel Henninger put it: "Presumably they are in the port management business for the money."

It would be comforting if either of these claims were true. Alas, available evidence raises serious doubts about both.

Zogby International pollsters asked a representative sampling of citizens of the UAE if their overall impression of the U.S. was favorable or unfavorable in 2002, after 9/11 had demonstrated our vulnerability to the world. Only 11 percent responded that their impression was favorable; 87 percent responded that it was unfavorable.

On fair business practice:

Americans who worry that this is somehow "unfair" should realize that, with the limited exception of the Jebal Ali manufacturing complex in Dubai, the UAE requires at least 51 percent Emirati ownership of all businesses operating in their country.

On the theory that the government is friendly but the people are not:

Still, some Americans will doubtless object that, after all, DPW is not owned by the people of the UAE but by its government, and it is unfair to blame a government for the hostility of its people. There may be some truth to that in countries with multiple parties and a free press, but the UAE is not one of those countries. There has never been an election there, all political parties are illegal, and the press is not free. If the UAE government objected to the anti-American propaganda that fills the Emirati press, that would be the end of that. A journalist who flouted the government's well-known unwritten rules wouldn't last five minutes.

Be sure to read the rest of the article!

Quiet Fishing

There`s not much to tell about the fishing trip; the fish just weren`t biting. The Army Corps of Engineers was maintaining the water at a very low level, and the river became impassable in spots-especially in the afternoon. They would let water out of the dam at night, but would cut it off by late morning. Any boats which failed to head back up river would get stuck. At one point we had to get out and drag it sans waders (which is not very entertaining in a trout river; the water temperature couldn`t have been much over 40 degrees!) I had one fair day and the rest were abyssmal. Fortunately, someone from our group managed to catch enough to eat each day, so we didn`t go hungry-we just didn`t have any to bring home.

Despite that, it was nice. The weather was a little chilly, but not cold, and it didn`t rain on us. My face got sunburned, and I managed to relax a bit, so I would call the trip a success. (There is no such thing as an unsuccessful fishing trip, provided no-one dies.)

Still, it`s good to be back!

He-Man Fishing Trip

I`m heading down to Arkansas to trout fish on the North Fork river for a few days, so there won`t be anything posted until monday. (Not only will I get some much-needed rest, but I`ll be able to let my tendonitis heal.) I love these trips; if it ain`t fried, we don`t eat it, and any beverage consumed had better contain the products of fermentation. This is a trip where men are men, and women are glad of it! (Well, mostly they`re glad we`re gone.) Hopefully, I`ll have a few good yarns to spin for you when I get back!

If I find the Rose Law Firm billing records anywhere along the river, you`ll be the first to know!

Chinese Proliferation in America

A Chinese company smuggled weapons into the United States aboard a government-owned ship in 1996, and this same company was granted control of the port of Long Beach in `98, according to a story in Newsmax.

This confirms a couple of things I have always suspected; that the Chinese are actively proliferating weapons and assisting our enemies, and that too many Americans have never had the good sense to believe in a threat to our security.

These weapons, according to the story, were slated to be sold to L.A. street gangs, and the smugglers said they were preparing to bring in surface-to-air missiles along with other goodies to give to the enemies of civilization.

If China was actively selling weapons to criminals in the United States, what have they been giving our terrorist friends? I`ve always believed that the Chinese have actively supported terrorism, at least through financing and technical aid.

Why, then, did the Clinton Administration give this same Chinese company management of the Port of Long Beach? (Campaign contributions, maybe?) This was the policy of ``engagement``, the idea that blue jeans and Kentucky Fried Chicken would open China to the World. This moronic idea happily assumes that the Chinese people will benefit from commerce engaged in by their government, and that they will demand a free society when they realize we don`t mean them harm. It`s hardly surprising that Clinton`s administration would accept this crazy idea, considering the Loral Aerospace deal, in which Loral taught the Chinese how to fix their satellite launches-and their ICBM`s. It`s obvious the Clinton Klan never saw a national security threat they took seriously (except, of course, talk radio and the American Spectator.)

Perhaps we need to evaluate what the Chinese have been doing with the ports they manage before going off half-cocked on this Dubai deal.