Prayer for the Day

Dear LORD, please forgive our nation its sins. Please pour out Your Holy Spirit upon us and let us repent. Please do not let evil men destroy us. Please raise up heroes to defend our nation from the treasonous rot that envelops us. Please help us to turn to you and please spare us the terrible judgment you are preparing. Help us Father, help us Son, help us Holy Spirit, in Your name God the Son Jesus Christ I pray,

Amen.

A Way to Fight Amnesty for the Religious

Pray to God for mercy on our nation and for this bill to fail, for the evil men who are promoting it to repent, and for those who oppose it weakly to grow strong. Pray for God to send a hero to slay this bill. Repent, and ask that God pours out the Holy Spirit on this nation and ask that we be given another chance to repent and to turn to him, for forgiveness and to avoid the terrible judgment on our nation that this bill would be. Fast for a day, and pray. That is all.

New Ad from NumbersUSA

That is all.

A Request

New England conservative talk radio show host Howie Carr has been attacking the amnesty bill. This is great! However, he despairs over New Englanders doing much about it. When a caller suggested that we "bombard our Senators with calls," he said "but they're all liberal Democrats!" He doesn't seem to think that there is anything that New Englanders can do.

He is rousing up his listeners and getting them angry, but he needs to organize them into doing something useful.

My suggestion:

We need to send him a message:

"Howie? Guess who voted against amnesty in 2007? Bernie Sanders and Susan Collins. Tell your listeners to call their Senators and tell them to oppose S. 744, the amnesty bill, regardless of who they are. Even if you don't change their mind, your opposition is registered and it may frighten other Senators."

You can contact his show five ways:

Text him at 680680 Call his show, weekdays 3pm-7pm (Eastern Standard Time) at 1-877-HOWIECA(RR) (1-877-469-4322) (I don;t know how many people get on, when I call it just keeps ringing, presumably eventually some people get through) FAX: 1-617-779-3467 Leave a recorded voice mail message (Chump Line): 1-617-779-3469 (Some messages are read on air ~5 :15pm). (You may have to call back if the mailbox is full) Online contact: http://howiecarrshow.com/contact/

If you could get everyone on your mailing list to contact him, maybe the message will get through (my thought is that we try to fill the Chump Line with different people speaking the same message).

That is all.

More Chances to Reward Anti-Amnesty Heroes

Representative Steve King (R-IA.) threatens to use procedural moves to stop amnesty in the House.

Donate to his campaign and send a message of thanks to him. This post contains how to do it.

Walter Jones (R-N.C.) joins with law enforcement agencies to oppose amnesty.

Donate to his campaign, and tell him that you did so on his Facebook page.

That is all for now. More to come.

Black Heroes - the Black American Leadership Alliance

Patriotic blacks opposing the S. 744 amnesty bill!

They have a Facebook page, if not a website. Visit it, "Like" it, and sign their petition to the White House!

That is all.

Fighting Amnesty Now by Supporting Amnesty Opponents

This will be kept at the top of the page for a while and new posts posted below.

UPDATE: Added Rep. Pete DeFazio (a Democrat!), Paul Gosar, Steve Fleming, John Fleming, and Steve Stockman; see below.

NOTE:Other ideas here and here.

UPDATE 04/21/2013: Added Rep. Lamar Smith; see below.

UPDATE 04/14/2013: Dana Rohrbacher, Michele Bachmann, and Mo Brooks, have been added to the list; see below.

Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn of the Senate Judiciary Committee are true heroes!

They are demanding more hearings on the immigration bill that the Gang of Eight is trying to ram through the Senate.

They are up for re-election in 2014, so it would not hurt to show their campaigns your financial support as a way to thank them and to send a message to wobbly Senators on the issue. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO LOBBY LEGISLATORS WHO REPRESENT DISTRICTS OTHER THAN YOUR OWN.

Send Sessions' campaign a check at:

Friends of Sessions Senate Committee, Inc.
P.O. Box 4278
Montgomery, AL 36103

And write a note saying something along the lines of:

Dear Senator Sessions:

Thank you so much for standing up against amnesty for illegal aliens! Thank you for demanding that Pat Leahy hold hearings on any immigration legislation.

I am a single-issue voter and a single-issue campaign contributor!

Sincerely,

(Your name)

And send Cornyn's campaign a donation at:

Texans for Senator John Cornyn, Inc.
P.O Box 13026
Austin, Texas 78711

(You can also donate online, but you should call (512) 494-8535 if you want to send a message about why you are contributing)

You can write the same note as for Sessions, just with Cornyn's name.

Also, on Wedenesday, April 10, Congressmen Lou Barletta, Louie Gohmert, and Steve King voiced their opposition to the impending amnesty bill.

You can donate to them online and send a message with the donation:

Louie Gohmert

Steve King

LouBarletta

For Gohmert or Barletta, you can send a longer message:

Dear Representative (Barletta, Gohmert),

Thank you for joining Steve King in voicing your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens on Wednesday, April 10, 2013. I am a single-issue voter and a single-issue campaign contributor, and I want to help anyone who stands up against this nation-destroying amnesty!

Sincerely,

(Your name).

For Steve King, there's only a little room, so send something like: "Thanks for opposing amnesty!" Or, you can leave a message on his Facebook page.

Here are three more names:

Dana Rohrbacher

You can send his campaign money online and then explain why you support him on FaceBook, or you can download a mail form and mail it to him with a note (address is on the form).

Michele Bachmann

Donate at the site above and send a message about why you donated on Facebook.

Or, you could presumably mail a contribution and a note to the address shown on the donation page.

Mo Brooks

It is probably better to send a check to the address on the page in Congressman Brooks' case, as he does not have a Facebook account and there are no comments on his web form, although I suppose you could call the campaign at 256-763-0102 to let them know why you donated.

In all 3 cases, the message could be the same as for Barletta or Gohmert:

Dear Representative (Rohrbacher, Brooks, Bachmann),

Thank you for joining Steve King in voicing your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens on Wednesday, April 10, 2013. I am a single-issue voter and a single-issue campaign contributor, and I want to help anyone who stands up against this nation-destroying amnesty!

Sincerely,

(Your name).

Lamar Smith is also on our side.

Donate here and contact his campaign here.

A message like this would be nice:

Dear Lamar Smith:

Thank you for standing up against the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform bill" proposed by the Gang of Eight. I am a single-issue campaign contributor, and I pledged $25 to your campaign because of your patriotism.

(Your name)

Note, though, that the donation page does not contain a method (e.g. credit card, bank account) so any donations seem to be more like pledges.

Peter Defazio (D-Oregon, 4th district) is a co-sponsor of Lamar Smith's Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772).

Donate to his campaign, then call his campaign at (541) 485-1622 and his office at (202) 225-6416, and say something to the effect of:

I just donated to your campaign. I am happy to see that you co-sponsored Lamar Smith's H.R. 1772, the Legal Workforce Act. I am a single-issue contributor, and I support people who oppose allowing rich megadonors to import more cheap labor. The current so-called immigration reform in the Senate is nothing more than a giveaway of cheap labor to rich donors. I'm glad that you are supporting a different path in the House.

Perhaps the message about the donation should only be given to the campaign; to the office just tell the staffer thank you to Pete DeFazio.

You can also message him on Facebook.

On May 14, Congressmen Steve King, Mo Brooks, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, John Fleming, and Steve Stockman spoke out against amnesty. The donation/contact information for the first three is above. The latter three are below:

Paul Gosar: Contribute to his campaign, and then Contact him to let him know why (or post on Facebook) (You can also send a message with your online donation, as the donation goes through Piryx)

John Fleming: Contribute to his campaign, and then Contact him to let him know why. (You can also send a message with your online donation, as the donation goes through Piryx)

Steve Stockman: Contribute to his campaign, and then tell him why on Facebook.

The message can be something like:

I donated to your campaign today. Thank you for standing up with Congressmen Steve King, Mo Brooks, Louie Gohmert, Paul Gosar, John Fleming, and Steve Stockman [delete whichever one is the one you are sending the message to] against the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill. I am a single-issue voter and a single-issue campaign contributor. We need more Congressmen like you who are true patriots and are not bought off by the cheap labor lobby.

That is all.

Ayotte the Whore Spreads her Legs

Wonder who is her John? Maybe Shelly?

That is all.

We're Almost There!

VDARE needs $3500 in order to unlock their site.

I just gave $125. I've given $635.00 since the beginning of May. That's 2% of what they are looking for for their fundraiser.

Come on, people, someone else donate. Please help keep them open...

That is all.

John Barrow, Democratic Congressman Hero

Democrat John Barrow has introduced H.R. 2124, the Keeping the Promise of IRCA Act. It's an enforcement only immigration reform bill!

This is John Barrow's campaign website if you want to donate to his re-election campaign.

You can leave a message with your donation, so this would be a good opportunity to say something along the lines of "I'm a single-issue voter. Thank you for coming out in support of immigration enforcement by introducing H.R. 2124, Keeping the Promise of IRCA."

Here is his Washington number: (202) 225-2823, if you want to leave a message saying "Thank you for introducing H.R. 2124, Keeping the Promise of IRCA. This is the type of reform we need, not the giveaway to corporate interests that is the Gang of Eight Bill."

Or you can contact him on his webform.

Here is his Facebook page, if you want to comment on his announcement of his bill, or to "like" him or his announcement.

With him and Peter DeFazio, we just need two more Democrats and we can get an "Untouchables of Eight" to counter the "Gang!"

That is all.

NumbersUSA Anti-Amnesty Ad

That is all.

Get Your Radio Talk Show Hosts to Speak Out Against Amnesty!

Have Zuckerberg's ads bribed some radio hosts to clam up? Contact Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and tell them that the Obama scandals are nice, but you want to hear them speak out against the amnesty bill. Tell them that you don't care how much the Zuckerberg ads are paying, their listeners will desert them if they don't speak out against amnesty! And donate to VDARE! That is all.

A Democrat to Support in the Fight Against Amnesty

To find other people to donate to, here is an earlier post.

Peter Defazio (D-Oregon, 4th district) is a co-sponsor of Lamar Smith's Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 1772).

Donate to his campaign, then call his campaign at (541) 485-1622 and his office at (202) 225-6416, and say something to the effect of:

I just donated to your campaign. I am happy to see that you co-sponsored Lamar Smith's H.R. 1772, the Legal Workforce Act. I am a single-issue contributor, and I support people who oppose allowing rich megadonors to import more cheap labor. The current so-called immigration reform in the Senate is nothing more than a giveaway of cheap labor to rich donors. I'm glad that you are supporting a different path in the House.

You can also message him on Facebook.

That is all.

Tell Mark "You Zuck!"

Give generously to VDARE to help defeat this Motherzucker!

Don't make them close the site for a few days!

Come on people, I've been giving so much that it hurts! Someone else needs to step up!

That is all.

Southern Poverty Law Center Good for Something?

Via NumbersUSA, a story about a racial discrimination lawsuit by blacks against illegal-alien hiring businesses in Georgia.

In the second page, Jim Knoepp of the SPLC complains about businesses claiming that Americans won't do work when the real issue is that the businesses won't pay a reasonable wage. His comment "If we need them, why not bring them in and make them legal citizens with real protections?" may be taken as an endorsement of immigration (although it could just be a hypothetical to illustrate a point), but his follow-up statement "The answer is because then they wouldn’t keep working in the fields given the conditions of that work. They would do something else" is also consistent with saying that we don't actually need these immigrants or guest workers. In any case, he understands the destructive influence of the cheap labor lobby on our immigration policy.

Hey - a racial discrimination lawsuit attacking employers who hire illegals - that's a lawsuit I can support! And half a cheer for the SPLC on this one!

That is all.

Tell the State Department We Let in Too Many Refugees (by Wednesday 5 pm)

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to VDARE's Brenda Walker, Refugee Resettlement Watch has a post about what you can do to stop the invasion of the U.S. by "refugees" who threaten to swamp towns like Columbus Junction, Iowa, and Oakland California

That is all.

VDARE Needs Your Help

I was on the phone yesterday today, and I discovered that VDARE.com may have to go through another temporary shutdown fundraising drive in about a week.

Please give generously to prevent this.

That is all.

Another Way to Fight Amnesty

In addition to giving money to the campaigns of friendly legislators, you may have opportunities to contact unfriendly legislators.

Recently I got a mailing from Paul Ryan's campaign, asking me to help him fight Obama's tax and spend policies. Ryan is known to be amnesty-friendly. I sent back the donation paper, unmarked (I'm not giving him a red cent), stapled to this message:

Dear Paul Ryan:

If you really want to fight the Obama agenda, you will join Steve King, Lou Barletta, and Louie Gohmert in opposing the Gang of Eight’s immigration amnesty bill and in pledging not to pass a similar bill in the House.

Given our current lack of jobs and bad economy, the last thing that we need is to increase the supply of workers competing with Americans for scarce jobs.

We need reduced legal immigration levels and better enforcement of our immigration laws. We need to encourage those who are here illegally to return to their countries of origin by making them ineligible for government benefits and by making it impossible for them to find work (e.g. by mandating the us of E-Verify). We also need to reduce the number of people we permit to enter the country, as we have a labor glut and additional workers do nothing but decrease wages and create a larger wealth gap that threatens not only the country, but also the future prospects of the Republican Party.

I know that a lot of powerful donors, such as Sheldon Adelson, Mark Zuckerberg, and Mark Singer want more cheap labor through mass immigration. If you want my support, you will have to stand up to them and say “NO.”

Sincerely,

[My Name]

Looking back at it, I should have mentioned that I donated money to King's, Barletta's, and Gohmert's campaigns, making my refusal to donate to Ryan's even more significant. I also should have stapled the documents I mentioned in the previous post to my letter (if the envelope they send you is pre-paid, and they are a hostile, always add things to bulk up the weight).

It's time to get mean.

That is all.

Time to Talk to Your Senators

Tell them to reject the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill (S. 744).

Here's a list of contact information, including local office addresses. Visit in person if you can.

Here is a good article to print out to give to your legislator's staff.

Here is another one, and it is PDF downloadable with charts. (I print out the first four pages full-size, and the next 18 - the chatrs - 4 pages to a printed page)

Here is NumbersUSA's chart on how many aliens would be let in over the next 10 years under S. 744.

Write a cover letter (Here is mine as an example):

Dear Senator [name]:

I am deeply concerned about the recent immigration legislation moving through the Senate, and its potentially devastating effects on U.S. workers.

I have enclosed a chart that shows just how many new immigrants would gain permanent legal status if S. 744, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” were passed. I have also enclosed articles debunking the myths that there is an technology worker shortage and that we need more immigration because there are jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.

The bill would add up to 33 million new immigrants in the first decade, and 20 million every decade after that. With at least 20 millions Americans unable to find a full-time job, this would put an outrageous strain on our economy. In addition, all of these additional people would put great pressure on our natural resources.

This bill allows way too many people access to permanent legal residence, and its promises of greater security have no “teeth” that would ensure that they are kept.

Please reject S. 744, and demand thorough hearings on any immigration bill that comes before the Senate.

You might also want to consider scheduling town hall meetings prior to any vote on such a bill, to find out how your constituents feel about bringing in more workers to compete with Americans for jobs.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

Tell the staff member that you are concerned about the effect that S. 744 would have on U.S. workers and that S. 744 needs more hearings and discussion. Suggest that your Senator needs to hold a town hall meeting on immigration before any final vote is held. Then give them your articles, preferably in a neat folder.

You might also do the same with your Congressman, although obviously you should mention that you know that the bill is currently in the Senate but that you are worried about similar bills in the House.

And while you are at it, give a folder with the same information to your state or local GOP and tell them that this issue concerns you.

That is all.

WARNING: Do NOT Trust "Remember America's Heritage"

I recently got a mailing from "Remember America's Heritage" lauding Jan Brewer and talking about how we need to combat illegal immigration. The only problem is, the mailing referred to the "Gang of Eight's" comprehensive amnesty bill in neutral terms, and implied that it had positive language that we must make certain Obama does not strip out of the bill. Translation: "Remember America's Heritage" is trying to make the Gang of Eight's amnesty out to be the pro-enforcement alternative to some theoretically worse Obama position. Do not trust them, do not send them money, DO NOT SEND THEIR PETITION. That is all.

Gun Owners of America Comes Out Against Amnesty!

Will the Amnesty Bill Lead to Gun Confiscation in 2035?

I figured that their coffers must be drained from the recent fight against registration, so I donated $125.00 as soon as I saw this.

Please donate as generously to Gun Owners of America (GOA) as you can (if you use PayPal, click here).

Also, contact the NRA-ILA (the lobbying branch of the NRA) and tell them what GOA is doing and tell them they need to do the same.

It would not hurt if in your contacting of them, you let them know that you donated to GOA and might donate to them as well.

That is all.

24 Ahead dot Com Added to Blog List

It's a good site that compiles lots of news about individuals who support amnesty.

Visit it, and spread the stories.

Sample story: Ted Poe (TX-R) is going soft on amnesty. If you live in his district, contact him. Otherwise, post this information on your blog or in relevant comments.

Also, 24ahead himself has some suggestions of his own on how to expose Poe and shame him into returning to the anti-amnesty fold (I think it involves Twitter, which I do not use). Check the post out.

That is all.

Nicholas Stix on Modesty

The always interesting Nicholas Stix reviews Wendy Shalit's A Return to Modesty That is all.

Senator Graham Shows His True Priorities

The only thing that would get to re-think amnesty would be if it didn't drive down wages. In a sane country, this man would be tried for treason. That is all.

Thought for the Day

If someone were ever to do an all-black recreation of Newhart (the one in Vermont), Tim Meadows should play Dick Loudon (Newharts' character).

That is all.

Requiescat in Pace Lawrence Auster

JANUARY 26, 1949 - MARCH 29, 2013 .

That is all.

Wow - a Good CNBC Piece on Immigration

Pointing out that it's the fatcats who are trying to get amnesty to get cheap labor.

That is all.

Immigration Restriction Crucial for Gun Rights

Please, if you belong to the NRA or GOA, contact them (you can do so from their website or get phone contact information from there) and let them know that they need to take a position against any sort of amnesty for illegal aliens, on the basis that those who are amnestied will almost certainly be overwhelmingly hostile to gun rights.

The amnesty fight is about to gear up and we need as many allies as we can get.

That is all.

STEM Worker Shortage a Myth

An excellent article by Mark Thies inThe Greenville News explodes the "Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Worker Shortage" myth.

Read it and share it with friends.

That is all.

Thought on Same-Sex "Marriage" Supposedly Being a Conservative Position

Any time someone says that supporting same-sex marriage is a conservative position, what they really mean is "I have figured out a conservative-sounding rationalization for a profoundly liberal position."

That is all.

Voter Fraud in Ohio

From Blazing Cat Fur (thanx and a tip o' the hat to Nicholas Stix. Of course, trying to prevent this is like Jim Crow (probably even noticing it is racist). That is all.

Adolescent Car Thieves Drown

The 6 teenagers killed (and 2 survivors) in that SUV car crash were car thieves.

Most of the media attention towards them (warning: video) seems to elide over, or at least to minimize, this fact.

That is all.

Ways to Fight Amnesty

Donate to NumbersUSA so that they can run more ads like this.

If you haven't already, please donate to VDARE today. We cannot have them shut down while the amnesty fight heats up. Better yet, give an automatic monthly donation so that they will have a guaranteed revenue stream.

Be sure to thank the American Legion for standing against amnesty.

That is all for now.

More on the Republican National Committee

If you are a Republican, and want to tell the RNC that the leadership needs to get its act together and join the American people to oppose amnesty, you may not want to wait for a fundraising appeal from the committee to act.

You may contact them in one of three ways:

On the net.

By mail:

Republican National Committee
310 First Street,
SE Washington, DC 20003

By phone

202-863-8500

I suggest a message similar to:

I have long been a Republican and I am all for electing more Republicans.

However, the actions taken by McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Flake in creating the “Gang of Eight” immigration amnesty plan make we wary of helping the Republican Party per se. We don’t need another amnesty.

So much of the establishment, and of the leadership, including Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner, have given in and are pursuing an amnesty for illegal immigrants. This is, of course, due to the funding of the cheap labor lobby and the donations of fatcats such as Sheldon Adelson.

This is unacceptable. We must stand like a stone wall against amnesty, and we must stand for deporting those who are here illegally, securing our borders, and reducing legal immigration to something manageable. We must support mandatory E-Verify, an end to chain migration, and an end to birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Until I see some evidence of the GOP establishment moving in this direction, I will only be giving to particular candidates who share my views, and to immigration restrictionist organizations like FAIR, VDARE, and NumbersUSA.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[Name]

That is all.

A New Idea for Fighting Amnesty

Dear Readers:

Here is an idea for readers who are Republicans who wish to fight amnesty.

Occasionally you are likely to get mail and/or phone calls from the Republican National Committee. When you do, explain the following to them:

Thank you for calling. I am all for electing more Republicans.

However, the actions taken by McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Flake in creating the “Gang of Eight” immigration amnesty plan make we wary of helping the Republican Party per se. We don’t need another amnesty.

So much of the establishment, and of the leadership, including Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner, have given in and are pursuing an amnesty for illegal immigrants. This is, of course, due to the funding of the cheap labor lobby and the donations of fatcats such as Sheldon Adelson.

This is unacceptable. We must stand like a stone wall against amnesty, and we must stand for deporting those who are here illegally, securing our borders, and reducing legal immigration to something manageable. We must support mandatory E-Verify, an end to chain migration, and an end to birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Until I see some evidence of the GOP establishment moving in this direction, I will only be giving to particular candidates who share my views, and to immigration restrictionist organizations like FAIR, VDARE, and NumbersUSA.

Thank you for your time.

For mail, you can print this out and mail it back in lieu of a donation. For a phone call, have this printed out or memorized and explain it after letting the caller give their spiel.

One important thing is always to make certain you have a statement prepared ahead of time, and make certain that you make it clear that you are against amnesty, against the Rubio-Graham-McCain-Flake plan, and are for E-Verify and border enforcement. Talking about the cheap-labor lobby and Sheldon Adelson is good, but the caller might not know what this means and might not understand what side you are on.

That is all.

We Haven't Lost Yet

I don't like the negativity we are seeing in the amnesty debate, in particular, the charge that the anti-amnesty side has simply stopped fighting. I don't think that's the case at all.

Rather, all of the current attempts at passing an amnesty are at early stages, and no bill has gotten off of the ground yet. I think that as soon as things actually start moving, more attention will be paid and the anti-amnesty forces will start to rally. What those who oppose amnesty need to do now is not to get discouraged, but to read NumbersUSA and to join its Action Buffet, start reading and donating to VDARE, and in general lay the groundwork for the huge fight that is going to come if amnesty gets off the ground at all.

That is all.

Clark Coleman on Why Amnesty is a Stupid Idea for Republicans to Support

A great piece on Lawrence Auster's View from the Right. That is all.

Shut Up, Fred Reed

Patrick Cleburne at VDARE has a good response to Fred's Reed execrable surrender on amnesty. I would only hasten to add that it is simply not true that those who are here illegally cannot be removed, that the numbers of people already here who cannot be removed can still be more easily assimilated, etc., if we stop the flow of illegal aliens, and that yes, having a huge marginalized underground population of illegals is definitely preferable to the new immigration explosion that would follow an amnesty. As for the idea that we have to accept these illegals because otherwise we promote hostility and the division of the country - if we do not get immigration under control, then we will either have division of the surrender of whites to the Latinos and our forced assimilation into Latino culture. I would rather have division than lose our culture, and I would rather the division happen sooner than later, while we still outnumber them greatly. That is all.

A Beautifully Explained Sentiment

"Immigration reform is not about semantics" says Dan Stein on the Hill's Congress blog.

I think that this says it all.

One of the most annoying things I find from the cheap labor lobby within the GOP is the claim that "We don't support amnesty, because we want them to go to the back of the line and pay a fine," etc.

This ignores several things; for one thing, allowing illegal aliens to stay in this country legally is amnesty; the pathway to citizenship is over and above amnesty - the idea that it is only amnesty if they get citizenship - or only amnesty if they get immediate citizenship, is ridiculous. Going to the back of the line is not about leaving the country; they are not in the back of the line for legal status. It is about going to the back of the line for getting citizenship, which is not the most important thing for most of the illegal alines. Moreover, there is this implication that what restrictionists object to is simply the lack of a penalty. As long as we get a pound of flesh, it's not amnesty. The Boston Herald in a recent editorial (which I cannot find at the moment) claimed that "amnesty" means "an overlooking" and that if illegal aliens were subject to a fine, that certainly would not be an amnesty.

But that misses the point; we don't want them punished, per se, we want them deported. It is not about getting our pound of flesh, it is about protecting our borders.

This particular point is not what he brings up, but it is of a piece with his blog post. Read the post.

That is all.

Obama No Longer Enforcing Immigration Laws

An excellent post by Brenda Walker on VDARE.

Show this to anyone who brings up the bogus claims about Obama's record deportations and his super-strong enforcement of our immigration laws.

That is all.

Good Posts from VDARE

The latest on the despicable Sheldon Adelson, who wants to buy cheap labor for his casions and who holds no loyalty to the U.S..

The perfidy of Marco Rubio, lying about welfare and immigration.

The heroic Lou Barletta scoffs at amnesty as a GOP vote-getter.

That is all - for now.

Tell Sean Hannity and Mark Levin "No Amnesty!"

Update: You will need to contact Rush as well, and tell him not to give in to Rubio.

Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have recently gone soft on immigration; Hannity is "evolving" on the issue and Mark Levin agrees with Marco Rubio that we already have de facto amnesty, so why not make it official?

Obviously, this is unacceptable.

Please contact the Sean Hannity and Mark Levin shows and tell them that (a) anything that allows illegal aliens to stay here legally is amnesty, regardless of what labels they put on it, (b) amnestying illegal aliens will not significantly increase the GOP share of the Latino vote, and (c) we need to fight to end the non-enforcement of current laws, not to give in to it.

That is all.

Save the Filibuster

Glaivester readers, be sure to call your Senators and tell them not to agree to any "filibuster reform" that gives Harry Reid the power to ram through legislation with minimal room for amendments and time for debate.

That is all.

Liberalism and Gun Ownership

Via Baloo, I found an excellent article summarizing the liberal attitude toward guns.

Money quotes:

"Nonetheless, Leftists oppose guns at a primal level because they provide a way for citizens to exercise power without going through their managerial state."

"Make no mistake – the horror stories from Britain of robbers suing homeowners for attacking them is not a system out of control. It’s a system operating precisely as it was designed to."

"Therefore, the only freedoms that are allowed are ones that further “enjoyment.” There’s a reason why Prohibition of alcohol has become unthinkable even as prohibition of guns is now debated."

That is all.

The March of Sexual Liberation

Update: More on this from Rush Limbaugh and National Review.

In this article about how to deal with pedophilia (or, in English, paedophilia), there are some suggestions that make sense (e.g. trying to help people with pedophilic desires not act on them).

However, also mentioned in the article is the people who are arguing for pedophilia's normalization. And really, in a modern sexually liberated society, why not? The entire concept of sexual morality for a liberal revolves around consent. Not that I am saying that consent is not necessary for sex to be licit. However, the sexual liberal also argues that consent is sufficient, and that consensual sexual relations can never be immoral.

That is the entirety of the liberal test for whether or not sex is licit. This means that any sex they feel uncomfortable with they simply define as non-consensual in order to justify their sudden bout of atypical puritanism. It gives them cover for the unprincipled exceptions they make to their liberation. This covers pedophilic sex, bestiality, and to some extent any moral issues they may have with adultery (essentially adultery is bad because it lacks a third party consent, that is, it violates the agreement made with the spouse - of course, I don't think that most liberals argue from this that adultery needs to have any practical legal consequences, e.g. in the terms of a divorce or custody settlement; and of course, if the adultery is agreed upon, e.g. swinging, it is fine).

Still, ultimately, other than forcible rape, I don't see how this can stand. Condemning bestiality on the grounds of consent is ludicrous when we do not require consent for forcible breeding of livestock or for killing and eating them. Without conservative concepts that make bestiality wrong because it is a total perversion of the purposes and practice of sex, it must now be accepted as another form of pleasure-seeking condoned by the primacy of hedonism.

Even for pedophilia, denying children the autonomy to make sexual decisions flies in the face of liberal doctrine regarding sexuality. Unless you look at sex as something that is dangerous, and that if not used correctly becomes incredibly socially corrosive, the concept that we must protect people who are not old enough to appreciate their decision from getting sexually involved is rather ridiculous. It is the position that would be labeled "sex-negative" by sexual liberationists in any other context.

In the article, one comment is telling:

"The reason a child cannot give informed consent is that a child cannot know what is being asked of them. They cannot fully understand the nature of a sex act, not its possible consequences, nor its social significance. "

What a sex-negative attitude!

On the other hand, how true - but can sexual liberationists argue this truth much longer, or will the weight of their philosophy crush it?

That is all.

What to Do About School Shootings

How about not much? There are so few school shootings and so few people killed this way that I question the need to create any large-scale proposals in order to stop the killing. I think that allowing some teachers to be armed would not be a bad thing, but ultimately, policies should not be determined by vanishingly rare events, unless they would produce a societal catastrophe (e.g. something along the lines of a major city getting destroyed by a bomb). That is all.

Dreaming of a White Christmas Tree

Here's a picture of my Christmas tree, in the light and in the dark. If you had asked me when I was little, I could not have imagined other than a green Christmas tree. Then, in 2006, I saw a white tree with blue lights and it caught my eye. So I bought one, covered it with blue and silver, and wrapped a number of boxes to use as fake presents for decoration (I lived on my own but celebrated Christmas at my parents' house, so there would be no real presents under my tree). I have used it on and off since then. So here it is. That is all.

Thoughts on Susan Rice

Ultimately, from a policy standpoint, it doesn't matter much. But I am glad that she dropped out, because for her to be nominated after the Ben-Ghazi incident would basically cement that this administration can get away with absolutely anything, and that being black and female insulates you from any mistakes. In short, it isn't much of a victory, but it is the avoidance of an intolerable loss. What do I think about Kerry for Secretary of State? He would not be my choice, but I don't know that we could get much better under Obama, and I doubt that the GOP has anything to gain, either policy-wise or politics-wise, by opposing him. He isn't a completely offensive choice in the way that Susan "Cover-Up" Rice is. That is all.

Join NUMBERSUSA to Defeat Amnesty

I encourage any Glaivester reader who has not done so to go to NumbersUSA and to sign up for Action Alerts. NumbersUSA is an immigration restriction allows you to use your computer to send pre-written faxes to your legislators, and gives you alerts to make phone calls or take other actions to fight unrestricted immigration.

With a big amnesty battle brewing next year, everyone against amnesty needs to get involved!

That is all.

Thoughts on Jovan Belcher

I sort of like the animated series The Boondocks (I never read the comic strip much, so I am primarily qualified only to comment on the series). It shows a high level of self-awareness as to the problems of today's black culture, and is surprisingly less mean-spirited toward whites than one might expect (and in many cases, whites are satirized largely as SWPLs or as shallow rather than as racist).

I thought that this clip from the show probably offers actual insight into the process that likely fueled Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide.

I suppose one could be offended by dealing with a stupid, senseless murder like this using humor, but I think that some of the best humor comes from a sense of bitterness and anger at things that are just wrong; and the humor used in this piece is, I think, very appropriate to the situation. That is all.

An Interesting Article on the "Fast and Furious" Operation

According to this, the Obama Administration leaked information to the press blaming gun dealers involved in the "Fast and Furious" operation for selling guns that went south of the border.

This certainly lends credence to the theory that "Fast and Furious" was an attempt to create a justification for more gun control.

But of course, we are supposed to think that this is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory.

That is all.

A Discrimination Lawsuit I Can Get Behind

Four black women get $1.3 million from company that discriminated against them in favor or illegal aliens.

That is all.

Incompetence and "Racism"

Jim Clyburn thinks that "incompetent" is a racially charged code word when applied to Susan Rice.

The proper response to this is to tell Mr. Clyburn:

"Regarding my feelings toward you and Mrs. Rice, let me say that my comments are not in any way racist.  And to prove my lack of racism, let me quote a famous black poet in regards to how I feel about these accusations."

That is all.

A Quote for Our Times

If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

-Ryan W. McMacken

That is all.

Name-Calling and Assassination are Equivalent

In the grand tradition of the Michael Richards fiasco*, we get this headline:

Woman fired for Obama racial slur on Facebook.

The article goes on to say:

TURLOCK, Calif. (AP) — A California woman has been fired and reported to the Secret Service for her President Barack Obama racial slur and assassination comment on Facebook.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were writing the story, I would have led with the "assassination" part, but calling him a bad name is... uh... wrong too.

That is all.

*The fiasco is that everyone concentrated on the fact he said the "n"-word rather than the fact that he referenced lynching favorably.

Nicholas Stix, Are You Okay?

Update:  Peter Brimelow has posted that Stix is okay.

Does anyone know if Nicholas Stix is okay?  He hasn't posted on his blog for a week.  I hope he is getting through Sandy and the aftermath okay.

That is all.

Maine Approves Same-Sex "Marriage"

At this time, I am starting to suspect that the storms that are coming the way of the Northeast may be God's judgment on this country. 

Perhaps, like ancient Israel, we have fallen and now it is time to face the consequences.

That is all.

Commenting at The American Conservative

UPDATE:

It appears to be a technical issue. 

For the past week, none of my comments at The American Conservative have gotten through.  I have emailed both Rod Dreher (whose blog I comment on most often, to see if he banned me or something) and the Webmaster.  No one has gotten back to me.  Is anyone else having this problem?

That is all.

Don't Be a Condescending Twit

From Lawrence Auster's recent post on how to write when commenting on his blog:

Mathematical symbols should also be avoided. For example, many people today will write “30+” instead of “more than 30.” This is not desirable. Our medium of communication is the English language.

My advice:

People take more kindly to explanations of the rules when you don't do it in a way that makes you look like a condescending twit.

In fact, that is the biggest problem I have with Mr. Auster.  He has a lot of good ideas, but he gets a particular bee in his bonnet (like the split infinitive) and starts acting as if anyone who does not share his preferences is somehow subhuman or an illiterate.

By the way, there is no actual rule against the split infinitive, and the reason people don't like splitting it is because in many languages it is a single word.  Yet, I have never seen people argue that "I am not going" is a bad construction (as compared to "I am going not") because it splits a present construction that is a single word in many languages.  I really would not be annoyed if not for his statement (in one of his first posts on the subject, one I cannot find at the moment) that if there is no way to avoid splitting the infinitive without being ambiguous, that you should just jettison the adverb altogether, meaning that obeying a non-rule guideline is more important that expressing your precise meaning.

That is all.

Barack Obama is Partly Responsible for the 2008 Crash

What, you think he only started tearing down the country after becoming president?

Nicholas Stix explains Obama's involvement in the mortgage shakedown that led to the mortgage meltdown.

That is all.

New Ad from NumbersUSA

I like it.

That is all.

All Good Things

About 10-12 years ago, I was in a Dollar Tree store when I heard a song (barely) playing on the intercom.  I remembered the tune, but I did not know what the song was or who sang it.  It reminded me a little of "True" by Spandau Ballet, but I knew that was not it.

I sort of forgot about the song and thought eventually that I had probably misremembered the exact tune and would not recognize it again.  Then about six months ago, I heard it in Applebee's.  Unfortunately, I  was not in a position to listen carefully enough to find out more about it.  But I realized that I would likely hear it again, and maybe in another few years I would finally be able to hear it so that I could identify it.

Then I heard it today on the radio coming home from work.  I tried to memorize one line in order to look it up in Yahoo! at home.

"Now as the rain beats down."

Well, I found the song.  "Walk Away Renee" by Left Banke (I'm pretty certain that the first time I was listening to the Four Tops cover).

That is all.

Blog Appearance Change

Dear Readers:

JS-Kit/Echo (formerly Haloscan) is closing, so I reverted to Blogger comments, which unfortunately required me to upgrade my template.

When I have both the time and inclination, I'll try to customize my blog more.  I have some old copies of my old template, so I can start to add back in things that I had before looking at the html (eventually).

In the meantime, while I have downloaded my old JS-Kit comments, they appear to have disappeared from my blog.  Those that remain appear to have been added through the Blogger comment interface, even though I have no idea how that is possible when I did not have any link to add comments through Blogger.

In any case, comments have been mostly wiped, but I doubt that anyone who reads this blog is doing so to look at two-year-old comment threads.  New comments should be working for all who wish.  I will worry about moderation settings when I get enough comments to worry about them.

So I doubt that the user experience will suffer much.

That is all.

Will Pedophilia Be Normalized?

(Note: just to be clear, I object strongly to pedophilia, child molestation, etc. This post is not promoting the normalization, just pointing out that only [socially] conservative principles offer a consistent reason to be against it).

 It has occurred to me recently that if liberal sexual mores are applied consistently, pedophilia will eventually, inevitably, become normalized.

Despite all of the protests about how this is so different than sex between consenting adults, ultimately anti-pedophilia is simply another unprincipled exception that is required in order for liberals to be accepted by society.

Now that the gay rights battle has victory on the horizon, with it soon becoming scandalous even to disapprove of people having sex with someone of the same sex (note how "tolerance" and other live and let live slogans were taken down as soon as the gays sensed that they had the power to dominate), people are starting to attack "slut-shaming," that is, the idea that one should disapprove of promiscuity. The next goal is to make it scandalous even to disapprove of someone going home with a different partner every night. This is supposedly "sex-positive," whereas disapproving of any act between consenting adults is "Sex-negative," as if there are no negative consequences to society from one's sexual behavior.

In such a milieu, I do not see how a principled opposition to adult-child sex can really be held. The response is always something along the lines of "all sex is good, but it has to be consensual, and children cannot consent," but ultimately that is utter B.S.

The fact of the matter is that except for infants and those who are too young or mentally defective to understand sentences, children can consent. It is just that we as a society have determined (correctly, don't misunderstand me here) that their consent doesn't count.

If we are truly "sex-positive," though, on what basis does someone have to "qualify" for being able to consent? Why can't a ten-year-old, if his parents allow him to order what he wants at a restaurant, decide what he wants to do sexually, unless sex is somehow special and delicate, and dare I say, dangerous? Certainly it is all three of those things, yet of course to say so is "sex negative."

What sexual liberationists fail to understand is that the concept of "age of consent" is ultimately a legal fiction, and the seemingly invulnerable barrier to normalizing adult-child relations is ultimately a social construct, one that is in opposition to the attitude toward sex that the liberationists wish to impose.

Ultimately, what we have here is another "unprincipled exception," which I would define as "fighting the logical conclusion of one's ideas."

That is all.

Police Officer Told He Must Attend Muslim Proselytizing Event

Nicholas Stix posts this interesting story.

Considering other stories about governments trying to force exposure to Islam, I have to question my previous statements that governments are trying to establish secular humanism as the official state religion, and wonder if they are just trying to privilege everything that is not Christianity.

That is all.

Egalitarian Fundamentalism Hurting Freedom in Britain

John Derbyshire at VDARE (the link is not working currently due to the pledge drive) directs readers to this story of a politician convicted for making politically incorrect statements.

I wonder where all of the people who defended that Russian rock band named after female genitalia are?

That is all.

No Voter Fraud so No Voter ID Needed?

Yeah, right.

Thanx and a tip o' the hat to VDARE in two cases.

That is all.

Great Quote from Steve Sailer

"Modern coed guest worker programs and the anchor baby interpretation of the 14th Amendment don't mix, to say the least."

Or as I put it, "Unless we can get rid of birthright citizenship, an essential part of any alien guest-worker program is a massive spaying/neutering campaign."

That is all.

Obama Charged with Falsifying Deportation Numbers

NumbersUSA has the goods.

Previously on this topic:

Apprehensions Down to Lowest Since 1972


Obama's Immigration "Enforcement" is Mostly Lies

That is all.

Jacqueline Woodhouse vs.

This recent post by John Derbyshire made me think:

Why is P*ssy Riot getting so much more recognition and support than Jacqueline Woodhouse? Why are people castigating Putin but not the Brits?

"Who, whom?" indeed.

That is all.

Project Prevention

After much soul-searching, I have decided to start donating to Project Prevention. It pays drug addicts to get either sterilized or put on long-term birth control.

If we are going to save this country, we have to stop the things that are leading us toward Idiocracy.

That is all.

Jim Snow for U.S. Classrooms

Obama backs equal discipline outcomes for blacks and whites in U.S. schools, regardless of behavior. This is an outrage, and should be considered another of the policies of Jim Snow, as Nicholas Stix calls policies that are intended to create double standards that work against whites. That is all.

Illegal Immigration: Apprehensions Down to Lowest Since 1972

Brenda Walker has the goods.

That is all.

Obama's Immigration "Enforcement" is Mostly Lies

When talking to a group of Hispanic journalists, Obama admits to using fuzzy math to increase his deportation numbers. (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Brenda Walker).

Also, the claim that the is targeting criminals and therefore selectively getting the worst illegal immigrants out is also false. (Thanx and a tip o' the hat to VDARE again).

That is all.

Obama Retaliates Against Arizona - Someone Needs to Bring Impeachment Charges

Obama is going to refuse to deport those illegal aliens whom Arizona idnetifies under the 287(g) program. That means that the one thing that the Supreme Court allows Arizona to do - check immigration status - the President is going to stop from having any effect.

This is outrageous. The President is acting as a law unto himselfg. Someone fgile articles of impeachment, NOW.

That is all.

Charity v. Welfare

While not all of his conclusions necessarily square with mine (government-sponsored contraception could be a much-needed attempt to stop non-productive parts of society from breeding) Thomas Fleming has an interesting posting on why government welfare should not be considered a method of fulfilling our Christian charitable obligations, and indeed works against them.

This is contra all of the claims that being against the welfare state makes a person one of the "goats" in the Olivet discourse (of course this doesn't even take into account the popular premillennialist interpretation that this is regarding which of the living, non-glorified Gentiles are to be allowed into the millennium, not about the Final judgment, and that the issue is the treatment of Jews during the tribulation rather than being about general charitableness to the poor, in which case the "sheep vs. goats" distinction does not have anything to do with welfare or charity at all).

That is all.

King David Real After All?

New evidence supports the existence of an non-idolatrous, kosher-eating religion in Israel around 1000 BC, as well as fortified cities.

This suggests that the current fad for minimizing the significance of Israeli civilization or of Israeli monotheism as an important norm prior to the exile has been wrong all this time.

That is all.

Jared Taylor on Miscegenation

I have to say that I think that Jared Taylor makes some very good points. And realize, I say that as someone with two half-Puerto Rican neplings, a half-Korean nephew, and a half-black first cousin once removed (and another 25%+ black adopted first cousin once removed).

I suppose my position is that some degree of miscegenation is okay, provided that there are enough non-miscegenating people to keep a "purebred" line going. To make an analogy with dogs, it's fine to have some cross-breeds, but I would not want to lose poodles, bulldogs, shar-peis, collies, etc. in the process.

Know what I mean?

That is all.

So-Called Civil Rights Cannot Co-Exist with the First Amendment

Federale points out National Review was right the FIRST time about the "Civil Rights Act of 1964," and that the punishment of photographers who wish not to get involved in a same-sex "wedding" is a natural consequence of the egalitarian fundamentalist religion that is now being imposed upon the populace.

And let us be clear. There are lots of leftists out there today who, given the choice, would not pass the First Amendment today. Of course, they would still support the religious freedom of those who belong to religious minorities, but more on the basis of protection "the other" than on protecting religious freedom. But they would be against anything giving Christians the right to oppose liberalism.

That is all.

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW

Obama has just shown himself and his administration to be filled with tyrants and traitors.

There is only one solution. Obama and Napolitano need to be impeached on a charge of treason and dereliction of duty. I think we can throw in Eric Holder as well, but that is another post.

That is all.

The Love That Won't Shut Up

Does anyone else find this cartoon a little squicky?

Notice that the woman in the backseat knows that bringing up her sexuality makes the man in the front passenger seat uncomfortable, and yet she brings it up anyway, and does so gratuitously. Moreover, when he is obviously flustered, instead of changing the subject, she reaffirms that, by God, she will shove it in his face.

And there is no sense here that she was rude, or impolite, or anything.  No, mentioning your sexuality at every opportunity is de rigeur and only a bigot would be offended.

It's not a situation in which this came up naturally, and she is simply not hiding her sexuality.  No, she has to confront him with the fact she is gay even when there is no reason to do so. It's like saying, "Hi, I'm your friend's father. By the way, did I mention how much I love Asian porn?"

This is the nature of modern homosexuality. Brazen and assaultive.

That is all.

Voting Fraud More Real than We've Been Told?

According to "Federale" at VDARE, yes, yes it is.

That is all.

On Homosexuality

Jim Goad goads Dan Savage.

Steve Sailer on the seamier side of homosexuality in the entertainment industry. Going back to an old column he wrote (links in linked article), he questions whether or not the ultimate goals of the gay rights movement are as "live and let live" as we are constantly told.

In particular, I find some of the comments in the article on Steve's blog to be thought-provoking in terms of what is coming next.

That is all.

Pet Peeve of Mine

Does anyone else find it annoying when people use "BTU" as a unit of power instead of the proper term, BTU/h?

That is all.

A Few Interesting Links

Thomas Sowell on the folly of assuming that "disparate impact" equates to "intentional discrimination."

Thomas Sowell explains that we are a nationa of cowards, but not in the way that Eric Holder meant.

WND on media hypocrisy on race.

I don't mean to make this blog entirely about race, but I've had some of these tabs open for a while and I wanted to post on them, even though I don't feel like adding any of my own commentary at this time.

I'll try to find a non-racial issue to blog about soon.

That is all.

Thoughts on George Zimmerman

I think it is pretty clear that at worst, this was an accident; meaning that George Zimmerman did not have the intent to kill someone when he went out that night, or when he followed Trayvon Martin. As Martin's mother said on the Today show, things got out of control.

That does not mean that Zimmerman is not guilty of unjustifiable homicide, although I can't see any reasonable charge greater than manslaughter.

The real question here is whether Zimmerman is culpable and to what degree for the fight he had with Martin. If Martin attacked him on his way back to his vehicle, then he is innocent. If he accosted Martin and Martin responded by hitting him, then he is responsible - it should be pointed out that it is possible that Martin acted in an inappropriate, or even criminal way without Zimmerman being entirely innocent; if Zimmerman escalated the encounter and then Martin escalated it further, neither would be completely non-culpable (at least as I reckon it, I don't know enough about the relevant law to offer a good legal opinion, but I assume that two people can get into a fight without either being considered innocent).

It seems to me that the people on both sides of this (as a political issue, I am not talking about people directly involved with the case) are taking positions somewhat based more on fear and resentment rather than on trying to determine the truth.

Those who insist that Zimmerman was just a hothead and that Martin was a choirboy are, I think, terrified of being accosted by a non-cop and not knowing how to respond; should they run in case it's a mugger, or should they stand still for fear that the police will side with the accoster? And I suppose some blacks are genuinely scared that we are going to see legitimized lynchings by overzealous neighborhood watches.

On the other hand, those who want to completely trash Martin are scared ultimately that if Zimmerman is not acquitted, that it will send the signal that it is unacceptable to defend one's self. The great fear is that people under attack by thugs (and let's be honest, in particular black thugs) are now going to hesitate to defend themselves and get killed, or are going to be sent to prison for self-defense. Moreover, thugs will be aware of this and use it to intimidate people.

I personally think that the best thing to do in this case is to try to find the truth, regardless of what narrative it fits.

That is all.

A Little Good Friday Ritual

Yesterday I ate a meal with my mother (my father passed away on October 5 of last year) for Good Friday - I tried to make a little bit of a ritual out of it, looking at the transition from Passover to the Passion.

For the first course, we said grace, then I read Leviticus 23:4-8 and then Mom and I ate matzo balls with soup.

After that, we brought out some lamb (shoulder blade, I think) which I had baked in the oven in glass with aluminum foil over it, an approximation of a Passover Lamb. Then I read Exodus 12:1-16, after which I poured a little pomegranate juice into two cups, and took some and dabbed it with my fingers on the side of my plate and had Mom do the same (to represent the Passover Lamb's blood). Then we ate the lamb.

Afterwards, I read I Corinthians 5:6-8 and Hebrews 11:24-28, which compare Christ to the Passover lamb.

Then I read Matthew 26:26-29 and Mom and I drank some more pomegranate juice (we should have had some bread as well, but this was the first time doing this, so it wasn't perfect).

Then we took out the second course, which was ham. I read Acts 10:9-16, 10:27-28, and 10:34-43, poured some pomegranate juice on my mother's ham and my own, quoted 10:15 again, and then we ate the ham.

Anyone else have a new tradition they are trying to start or an old one they are trying to continue to celebrate Good Friday or Passover?

That is all.

Gabrielle Giffords v. Allen Coon: Does Rhetoric Lead to Violence?

Any conservative who had to put up with the constant refrain that the Tea Party was responsible for the Giffords shooting, or that small-government types were responsible for the "murder" (later determined a suicide) of census worker Bill Sparkman, might want to read this piece by Selwyn Duke on The American Thinker on the role that "anti-racism" might have played in the setting on fire of white 13-year-old Allen Coon by two black teenagers.

Of course, don't expect this to be part of the media narrative even if this story ever gets mainstream coverage.

That is all.

Wikipedia

Nicholas Stix suggests that on issues touching on race, Wikipedia is a leftist propaganda outfit.

Wikipedia can often be useful as a source for finding out general, non-controversial information. But it is fair to note that it will be biased on any issue where there is room for bias, and that bias is usually left-wing.

Always be careful of your sources.

That is all.

Quick Disclosure

Dear Readers,

I may be doing a little advertising on this blog in the future. So if some links take you to services rather than to other articles, do not be alarmed. Also recognize that I am scrutinizing the links personally, so I will only put in links that I feel comfortable with.

That is all.

Infanticide

This is an interesting issue. Whether it was a real suggestion or just a through-provoking thought experiment, it still brings up the main arguments for abortion, and raises the question of to what extent convenience and utilitarianism are the proper basis for morality.

I, of course, think that infanticide is horrible, and that there is a reason why it gets such a visceral response, and that we need to listen to that response rather than try to reason ourselves away from the aversion. Put another way, that this type of thing still shocks us is a good sign. This may not always be the case. What liberals today scoff at as a straw man position of the right may be the liberals' actual position tomorrow.

That is all.

Soft-Pedaling Black Hate Crimes

Nicholas Stix has the low-down on the double-standard prevalent in our society.

That is all.

Morality is Evil, Say the Feminists

Does anyone else find the feminist-discovered sin of "slut-shaming" to be a ridiculous label for people exercising normal moral discernment? Apparently, behavior that used to be called "sin," and that used to be considered unacceptable, even amongst those who argued for non-discriminatory sex (i.e. homosexuality), is now considered a protected class, if it is not absolutely lauded.

It is in this vein that Emily Roiphe criticizes liberals for not being far enough on the sexual liberation bandwagon.

Fortunately enough, Cassy Fiano at Pajamas Media actually puts up a defense of slut-shaming, pointing out the various problems that sexual promiscuity causes.

Of course, there are less immediately obvious problems that Cassy did not touch on, but are important to note, so that the liberals and feminists do not simply bleat "condoms, vaccines, and cures will solve all of our woes so that we no longer need self-restraint!" Most obviously, there is the fact that the rise of the slut also presages the rise of the pick-up artist. Those who hate Roissy had better be aware that if sluthood is the future of women, the cad is the future of men.

Sluts dislike this, of course, because those who would embrace sluthood would probably rather that the non-desirable men simply disappear and die, or else turn gay. Unfortunately for their desires, men will not roll over and play dead so easily.

Either way, though, the reason we slut-shame is that female promiscuity leads to sub-Saharan Africa. And no one, no matter what they say, actually wants that.

That is all.

Lynching

A kid gets set on fire.

That is all.

Separation of Church and State or Official Church of Secular Humanism?

Alberta decides to make homeschoolers more politically correct.

That is all.

Joseph Farah on Religious Freedom

I agree with this.

That is all.

On Abu Ghraib

I forgot where I was referred to this, but I think it is interesting.

It's an article about Abu Ghraib, the attempts to shift blame there, and the little slimeball Lindsey Graham.

That is all.

The Debate About Syria

The thing that worries me the most in this debate about Syria is that none of those advocating that we try to help the opposition overthrow Assad are asking what will replace him. Do they really think that those who are fighting Assad would be more friendly to our interests than he is?

And what about the Syrian Christians? Do they think that they would survive whoever replaces Assad? Or do they not care if they get slaughtered? Someone should ask that.

The general idea seems to be "Assad is bad. He is an ally of Iran. Therefore, whoever opposes him is necessarily good." This replaces serious thought about what the consequences of actions will be. Now, of course, there is the old saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but when, individually, both of these would be your enemy, the question becomes, "which enemy is the enemy and which is the enemy of the enemy?"

In other words, in situations like World War II, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" could be used either to support Stalin against Hitler, or Hitler against Stalin. You actually need to evaluate which enemy is more dangerous to you and your interests.

I wish that Ron Paul had pointed that out in his response.

That is all.

Why People Oppose Anti-Bullying

I think that Lawrence Auster makes an important point about the Dharun Ravi case:

As USA Today explains it (via John Derbyshire), the prosecutors’ case is weak, but they are going ahead with the trial anyway, because Ravi has been found guilty of Clementi’s death in the court of public opinion (led by loudmouth Gov. Christie whom some mindless conservatives still consider a conservative). If found guilty on all counts, Ravi could be sentenced to ten years in prison, basically for videotaping his roommate in the room they shared. As lawyer/observers point out, if Clementi had kissed a girl, there would be no case, no trial. The trial is an expression of the rising power of the homosexualist lobby. We should add that the power of the homosexualist lobby is indistinguishable from the tyranny of the homosexualist lobby.

There is a fear that anti-bullying legislation, and the like, are ultimately going to be used to make any criticism of homosexuality a punishable offense, and to make it so that crimes that would be considered minor when committed against heterosexuals will become serious felonies if the victim is gay. In other words, creating a privileged class.

This is troublesome.

And Auster also makes a good point that the sexual revolution as a whole must be fought in order to fight the individual elements of it.

That is all.

We Waited in World War II - Good For Us!

Much has been made over these statements by Rick Santorum:

But remember, the Greatest Generation, for a year and a half, sat on the sidelines while Europe was under darkness, where our closest ally, Britain, was being bombed and leveled, while Japan was spreading its cancer all throughout Southeast Asia. America sat from 1940, when France fell, to December of ’41, and did almost nothing.

Why? Because we’re a hopeful people... after a while, you found out things about this guy over in Europe, and he’s not so good of a guy after all. But you know what? Why do we need to be involved? We’ll just take care of our own problems. Just get our families off to work and our kids off to school, and we’ll be okay.

I'm not interested in discussing the portion I elided, because to be frank, I don't think anyone thought that Hitler was a nice guy, or that such an assertion needs a point-by-point refutation.

What I do wish to comment on, however, is the implicit point he is making that we were wrong to wait as long as we did to get into World War II, and that our waiting made things worse.

Actually, it was a great thing that we waited as long as we did. First, let's be clear. Any claim that we (that is, the U.S.) could have and should have stopped Hitler early on (say 1937 or 1938, before he invaded Poland) is ludicrous. The fact of the matter is that Britain and France were unwilling to do anything overt to stop him, and there is no way for us to get involved before Britain and France.

So what we are really discussing is whether we should have gone to war after the invasion of Poland, when Britain and France had already declared war.

It should be noted here that by the time Britain and France declared War on Nazi Germany, the Germans were already fairly powerful, powerful enough to conquer the latter and to neutralize any threat posed by the former. Germany was a formidable opponent.

However, Germany made one mistake. In 1941, after neutralizing the threat from the west, Germany turned its sights east and invaded the Soviet Union. A tremendous portion of its army was bogged down there.

This means that when we finally did declare war, Germany was overextended and we were able to let our "frenemy" the U.S.S.R., do all of the heavy lifting. I would imagine that if we had joined in the war effort in, say, late 1940 to early 1941, Hitler might have decided to put off the Russian invasion and the U.S. would have suffered three to four times the number of casualties that it did (remember, the vast majority of Germans killed in World War II were killed in the Eastern Front).

To argue that we should have declared war sooner is based either on the premise that Germany's strength had increased enough from August 1939-December 1941 so as to offset the drain the Soviets placed on them, or that Germany would have invaded the U.S.S.R. regardless of when we declared war on them.

While it may seem gauche to say so, the U.S. did well to wait as long as it did to declare war, because we got in late to face a severely weakened enemy.

That is all.