Conservative Heritage Times

I am not a “birther” if birther means I think Obama was born in Africa. I have always been skeptical of this claim. First, why would a pampered and privileged young white female go to Africa near her due date? And then the logistics of getting back to America with a new baby by the time the birth was officially registered in Hawaii would be difficult to pull off to say the least. That said, I am very much an anti-anti-birther. It is entirely legitimate for people to want to see the “long form” birth certificate, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO legitimate reason why Obama shouldn’t release it.

But that said, I have been interested in Obama’s rather murky background, and his refusal to release other important documents. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the reason he has been unwilling to release so many of his records is because he is hiding something. Did he self identify as Muslim at some point in the past? Did he self identify as a citizen of Indonesia? Were his grade so poor that it would reveal his admission to Harvard Law to be a clear cut case of Affirmative Action?

Whatever the case, the liberal media is definitely covering for the guy. One thing that has intrigued me is the growing evidence that his first book, Dreams From my Father, was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. You know, that guy Obama said he barely knew.

Here is a good article from the neo-con but widely read American Thinker by a literary critic who is analyzing one of Obama’s alleged undergraduate poems. He addresses many of the issues above.

I too had wondered if Barack Sr. was really Obama’s father. They look nothing alike. And I had read before the speculation that Frank Marshall Davis might be his father. But Obama does look very much like his alleged African half brother, so I do think Obama Sr. was probably his real father, although he played almost no role in his life.

Via Christopher Manion at LewRock.

Addendum: Here is a link to all of Jack Cashill’s American Thinker articles. He has done some good work on Obama’s murky origins, and they deserve review.

16 Comments »

From the BBC:

Spain’s existing law, dating from 1985, allows abortion in cases of rape and when there are signs of foetal abnormality.

Currently, Spanish women can also end a pregnancy if their physical or psychological health is at risk. In practice, the last category has been used to justify the vast majority of abortions – of which there were 112,000 in 2007.

I know “pro-life” Americans who hold a similar stance on abortion to what’s already in Spain, and yet it looks like a psychological health loophole is abused there. With the loophole’s closing, I’d like to believe the number of abortions would be greatly reduced.

Continue Reading »

7 Comments »

Here is my reply to Ron Unz. It is currently in moderation. Hopefully it will make the cut. Note: My comment has made the cut, and is now up.

That we are having this debate on Hispanic crime is all well and good, but Hispanic crime is ultimately a secondary issue. Mr. Unz, have you ever looked into how hard it is to immigrate to Japan? To become a Japanese citizen? Why is it so difficult? Because the Japanese people want to keep Japan Japanese. This is clearly a conservative sentiment. Likewise, immigration restrictionism among Americans is clearly the conservative sentiment. It seeks to conserve. Support for “liberal” immigration policies is clearly a liberal sentiment. Immigration transforms, it does not conserve. The massive immigration rates (both LEGAL and illegal) that we are currently absorbing which are unprecedented in our history, are not just liberal, they are radical. It would be hard to imagine a more radical transformative policy than demographic replacement in the span of less than 100 years. (Dating from the Immigration Act of 1965 to 2050.) A magazine called The American CONSERVATIVE can not support liberal immigration policies without ceasing to be conservative in any meaningful sense. An authentically conservative magazine must be restrictionist on immigration because this is the inherently conservative position.

2 Comments »

Although  Debra Median did not come close to winning the Republican primary for governor in the state of Texas, amidst her 19 percent showing were many smaller victories for the freedom movement.

1). Her presence drove up turnout to the highest it’s ever been for a mid-term GOP primary.

2). She DID NOT go back to 4% in the polls despite Glenn Beck’s attempts to smear her as 9-11 “Truther” at the behest of his corporate bosses and good-old boy friends. The interview may very well have stopped her momentum from surging past Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson into a run-off with incumbent governor “Slick” Rick Perry. Republican voters that might have been interested in her stuck with Perry.

3). Even so, with little money and name recognition, battling an incumbent governor and U.S. Senator, she rose from nothing to 19 percent in the polls, over 200,000 votes statewide and wins in several counties. Her coattails helped elect a Ron Paul supporter to the state legislature and drew many such supporters to becoming delegates and precinct captains in statewide party caucuses that traditionally take place on primary day in Texas.

4). Such a showing means she’s still a viable candidate to run for public office in the future, whether for Rep. Paul’s seat at some point or maybe the Senate in this year or 2012. By contrast, Kay Bailey Hutchinson has pretty much hit that proverbial glass ceiling.

5). She forced the incumbent governor to take positions and say things he probably would not have if she weren’t in the race. Granted Perry is a scheming little opportunist (he certainly wasn’t anti-Washington when Bush II was in power) like any politician but it also means he knows which way the wind blows and to stick with it (so long as it doesn’t mess up his hair).

So Debra Medina did make an impact despite her third place finish in the primary. Politics can be a funny game when such defeats can lead to little victories. But ultimately they can add up to big ones.

Of course, Ron Paul had a big win himself, garnering 80 percent of the vote against a bunch of neocon nobodies.

2 Comments »

We’ve got a backlog of submission that needs to be taken care of:

From Rev. Chuck Baldwin:

“Hooray for Starbucks”

“Is America Becoming a Police State?”

“Remembering the Alamo”

“I Wish Joe Stack Hadn’t Killed Himself”

“Spiritual Wickedness in High Places”

From Pat Buchanan:

“Hoax of the Century”

“Obama’s Problems and Ours”

“Is This How Democracy Ends?”

And J.J. Jackson gives use these submission:

“Five Unthinkable Options”

No Comments »

I know that pointing out that the SPLC is foaming at the mouth again is like pointing out that the sky is blue, but this foam is even frothier than usual.

It seems that the SPLC is all worked up over the rise in right-wing extremism. You know, that is those crazy unhinged folks who think the Feds should actually follow the Constitution.

Even the normally PC cosmotarians at Reason Magazine recognize this SPLC fearmongering for what it is.

2 Comments »

Ron Unz, the neoliberal publisher of The American Conservative since the departure of  Patrick J. Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos, wrote an article in the March issue of TAC entitled “His-Panic” (copying the title of Geraldo Rivera’s recent pro-immigration book).   Unz argues that conservatives have “accepted the myth that Hispanic immigrants and their children have high crime rates” and even goes so far as to put the word ‘gang’ in scare quotes when discussing Hispanic gangs.

The initial reaction to his article was predictable.  Many on the open-borders left championed Unz’s article, noting that it was published in a “conservative magazine,” implicitly bolstering the case for continued mass immigration into the United States.  More sober minds were not so optimistic.

Here’s an overview of some recent responses:

Roger McGrath, at Chronicles, writes a response, noting that Unz manipulates the data to produce desired results.  McGrath adds:

Please, Ron, you’re torturing me with the most convoluted arguments imaginable; simply admit that you love the cheap labor that illegal aliens provide to employers—but costs taxpayers billions of dollars.  Let me also guess that you love the H-1B visa program.  This piece by Unz is nothing new.  I’ve seen various versions of his theme—that despite all appearances to the contrary illegal aliens are actually a benefit to us—for the last 35 years in California.  Forty or fifty years ago, for example, the San Fernando Valley was a paradise for the middle-class white family.  Houses were relatively inexpensive, schools were good, and crime was so low that cops stationed at one or the other of the valley divisions called it retirement on the job.  Today, most whites have fled the valley floor and live on the foothill fringes.  The schools are abysmal, trash and graffiti mark most neighborhoods, and Mexican and Salvadorian gangs roam the streets.  The blessings of an illegal-alien invasion!

Steve Burton and I write a two-part piece a Chronicles, “Unzism, A Dangerous Doctrine.”  The first part demonstrates that Unz largely cherry picks data to minimize the phenomenon of Hispanic Crime.  The second part discusses the ideology of “Unzism”: Unz’s support of mass immigration into the United States and the motivation for his opposition to bilingual education.  We write:

[Unz’s] real reason for opposing affirmative action, as well as bilingual education, seems to be so that “opposition to immigration among Republicans dwindles to insignificance.”  In other words, Unz is a mass-immigration addict, and he sees bilingual education and affirmative action as obstacles to even more immigration.

Continue Reading »

No Comments »

Steve Burton, at his blog, has replied to Unz’s response.

No Comments »

Our friends at Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) sent this, and I think it is worth passing along. (For the record, as an immigration restrictionist I am against both illegal and legal immigration.) I think they have a point. Groups like Freedomworks that have been funding some TEA Party activities do seem to have been downplaying immigration. Armey has come a long way toward our side on non-interventionism, and for this he deserves credit. But like so many libertarianish ideologues he reduces immigration to a free flow of labor issue. A lot of good that will do him when all these potential citizens he grants amnesty to return the favor by voting for liberal Dems and dooms Armey style “conservatism” to perpetual demographic irrelevance.

Dick Armey of Freedomworks (The group trying to take control of the Tea Party Movement) supports AMNESTY for illegal aliens and Armey says the Tea Party movement is about “Free Markets” aka NAFTA and CAFTA.

Obviously he believes in free labor and consumer markets across OPEN BORDERS.

Do you agree with Dick Armey of Freedomworks? Does this explain why the DC insiders are trying to keep the illegal immigration issue out of the Tea Party movement?

Leave your comments beneath this video where Dick Armey calls for ‘liberty’ for illegal aliens and claims Americans that oppose illegal immigration are “mean spirited”

VIDEO: Dick Armey wants Freedom for illegal aliens in America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaqd1qY1KsM

4 Comments »

I. The Eagle of the Ninth

An adaptation of Rosemary Sutcliff’s novel, the film takes place in Britain, 125 AD.

A young centurion is on a quest for the missing eagle standard of the Ninth Legion, which had been destroyed at the hands of Boudica.

II. Centurion

Britain 117 AD.

A young centurion marches with the Ninth Legion on its mission to wipe out the Picts.

III. Liberator directed by Merlin Miller of Americana pictures

Germany 9 AD.

Arminius defeats 3 legions and frees Germany; he seeks to unite the tribes but is assassinated. Continue Reading »

6 Comments »

545 People Responsible for All of America’s Woes

A classic by Charley Reese written in 1985:

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 235 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

Continued at Lew Rockwell.

5 Comments »

From Peter Brimelow:

Our friend Richard Spencer, until recently editor of Takimag, has launched his new webzine, Alternative Right. It features an excellent essay by Richard Hoste on the need for an “Alternative Right” here. You can donate to Alternative Right here. Alternative Right is currently a project of the VDARE Foundation and donations are tax-deductible.

11 Comments »

I’m shocked, just shocked, that someone at neocon First Things doesn’t like Ron Paul.

The Ron Paul Tantrum

P.S. For what its worth, Goldman is the formerly pseudonymous “Spengler” who was outed by some of his critics. Spengler had some admirers among paleos because of his willingness to discuss demographics and his less than PC attitudes about Islam.

19 Comments »

Here are the details which are (I suspect deliberately) sparse. I don’t know where it ended up taking place or how organized it was.

No Comments »

The following quotes are taken from First Person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait which was published in 2000.

Blowback:

Q: It seems as though Russia criticized NATO because we weren’t allowed into the Yugoslavia resolution process as full-fledged partners. But what if we had been allowed in?

Putin: Well, that’s just the point. If we had been allowed in, that decision never would have been made. We never would have agreed to that type of interference in the internal affairs of another country. That sort of behavior simply cannot be justified, even for so-called humanitarian reasons. I believe that the operation itself was a major mistake in international law.

Q: And the invasion of Hungary by Warsaw Pact troops in 1956, and of Czechoslovakia in 1968? Were they mistakes?

Putin: You forget that we used force in Germany in 1953, too. In my view, these were major mistakes. And the Russophobia that we see in Eastern Europe today is the fruit of those mistakes.

pg. 178
Continue Reading »

No Comments »

“Experts” are now saying whales, like all animals, serve as a carbon reserve.:

A century of whaling may have released more than 100 million tonnes – or a large forest’s worth – of carbon into the atmosphere, scientists say.

Whales store carbon within their huge bodies and when they are killed, much of this carbon can be released.

But don’t cows serve this same purpose? Feed a cow properly, and it releases less methane. Perhaps carbon credits should be going to American cattle ranchers. Continue Reading »

2 Comments »

As usual, [T]Reason Magazine can not let Ron Paul get any positive publicity without responding with a hit piece. Poor little Beltway/cosmo libertarians are getting outshined. How can that be? They are supposed to be the serious ones.

The article can be summed up simply: Ron Paul is not a serious thinker because … well because the author, David Harsanyi, says so. But the intellectual incoherence of this line takes the cake.

Paul isn’t a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades.

So Ron Paul isn’t a traditional conservative because he is “obsessed” with long decided policies? Um … actually Ron Paul is a traditional conservative precisely because he concerns himself with historical questions that have been “decided” wrongly.

But of course it is Ron Paul who isn’t a serious thinker. David Harsanyi, you’re an idiot.

1 Comment »

Before I go into another work-imposed exile from posting for a couple of weeks, I wanted to comment on Ron Paul’s win in the CPAC straw poll.

The powers that be tend to dismiss in significance what they don’t like and vise-versa on what they do like. No doubt if Ron Paul ever won the White House, Bill Kristol will probably say the Presidency doesn’t mean much either. That’s how they operate. The problem is, if CPAC is insignifacnt, why were all those Fox News reporters there? Why were their events given such attention and coverage? They want to crawl out after they crawled in. Sorry, too late.

Ron Paul won a lot of straw polls, online and in real time during his run for the presidency. What makes this one different is three ago, the Paulites had a miniscule presence at CPAC. Now it has grown considerably. And because of this, look who else was at CPAC too: Thomas Wood, people from Antiwar.com and Lew Rockwell.com, the Campaign for Liberty, the John Birch Society. They held and led pannel discussion and gave speeches. Paul’s was the most attended. Three years ago, they probably wouldn’t be able to get into the parking lot, let alone the front door.

I’ve criticized David Keene of the American Conservative Union, which sponsors the event, before for being just another Washington hack, but I have to give him credit for letting the dissenters in this time and giving their views a hearing. Yes CPAC is filled with all those Blue Blazered mafiosi looking to make a living for Conservative INC. They didn’t give cheers to Dick Cheney or booed Ron for nothing.  But at the same time, Ron Paul packed the house and got the most votes in a straw poll of those registered. His support fell among the youngest and as anyone will tell you, they rather be with the future than the past. That is the essence of Paul’s appeal and the strength of his support.

Whether this means Paul will run in 2012 is still up in the air, but its another step in the process, along with getting Carol Paul approval (absolutely crucial). I think if Rand wins the Senate seat in Kentucky, RP overwhelmingly wins re-election in Texas and another RP candidates wins a major office, than you can see the forces in place pushing Paul towards another run.

2 Comments »

“A confidential blueprint for David Cameron’s controversial bid to impose more women, gays and ethnic candidates on reluctant party activists has come to light. The explosive six-page document proposes the use of subterfuge to end the white, male and middle-class image of the Conservative Party…. The document suggests using ’stealth’ and stresses the importance of keeping ‘quiet’ over the plans to ensure more women, ethnic and gay candidates…. Suggesting a degree of subterfuge, the document goes on: ‘There are several reasons why the Party should not publicly proclaim the new methodology.’ ‘The more that the profusion of women, black, Asian or gay candidates appears to be the result of spontaneous open-mindedness on the part of grassroot activists the greater will be the accolades.’ The authors also admit white men will feel disadvantaged, stating: ‘The handling of white males should be done with sensitivity. They should not be made to feel second class and must be assured that the party wants them in Parliament.’” ~ Daily Mail

Geez, and people wonder why so many  English conservatives are now voting BNP. Go figure.

6 Comments »

From Roy Beck:

Most of the spotlighted conservative leaders at the giant CPAC convention this weekend showed that they are far more interested in the feelings of Republican Party major donors than in offering help for 25 million Americans who can’t find a full-time job.

Americans might have hoped that finally at this meeting there would be a sign of true leadership in stopping the massive importation of new foreign workers during a jobs depression. But on that topic, hope was as scarce as at the Obama White House.

But reports from those at the convention (I wasn’t there) indicated that the thousands of (mostly young) conservative attendees seemed to have a much better grasp of what the country needs on immigration.  They exploded into a standing ovation when a freshman congressman [Jason Chaffetz - R-Utah] on Saturday finally broke the taboo and stated emphatically:

“We need to lock down the border and enforce visas, reject amnesty and enforce our current laws, get rid of our rewards and incentives to be here illegally, mandate E-Verify . . . .”

Tom Tancredo witnessed the same:

The best example of how CPAC 2010 has failed the conservative movement is CPAC’s attempt to redefine (sabotage would be a more accurate term) the potent issues of illegal immigration and border security. Whereas grass-roots conservatives and millions of 912 patriots – along with 80 percent of the American people – understand the need for border security as a precondition for immigration reform, CPAC board member Grover Norquist is busy launching a new project in support of the Obama administration’s plan to grant another amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens. Neither border control nor immigration enforcement was included as a topic for any of the CPAC general sessions.

It is exceedingly odd that at the very moment everyone else is declaring the Democrats’ amnesty plan dead in the water, CPAC leader Grover Norquist and a handful of Republican lobbyists are conspiring to resuscitate it. It’s as though the pilots of an airplane headed to Houston decided instead to take the aircraft to Havana. But instead of a hijacking, conservatism’s Beltway Politburo calls it a strategic partnership with Latino activists.

What all this tells us is that it is not only the Republican Party that is suffering an identity crisis. So is conservatism.

In reality, the Republicans are just slitting their own throats. For example, without some sort of immigration moratorium, the GOP will not even hold Texas much longer. There is an odd disconnect among Republicans – even among the more libertarian Ron Paul supporters.  If Texas  turns into Mexico, it’s highly unlikely the new “Texans” would vote for a candidate like Ron Paul or anyone else wanting to cut back entitlements.

1 Comment »