Dear Friend,

The other night, Tom gave the opening remarks at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville. And the controversy was immediate. Not with attendees, let me clarify; they gave Tom three standing ovations.

He was so great! Speaking from his heart, as Tom always does, he spoke of the Founding Fathers and how they were part of a country divided into three groups–the Patriots, the Tories, and those who didn’t care. It is no different today, Tom told the crowd. Today’s Patriots, including the attendees of this convention, are fighting for our Republic, our religion and our civilization.

But those that won this election, Obama and his Democratic cronies in Washington, will bring about the destruction of our Republic if they have their way. And then there are those who don’t want to get involved in the battle.

We can’t worry about those who don’t care, Tom said, we must focus on winning this fight. We can do it, but only if we give it everything we have, and not give up until we have won. The stakes are too high for us to do less. But it can be done, and the great spontaneous uprising that has been spawned by Obama and his left wing policies proves we can win!

Tom called for the US to change the law on who can and can not vote. He said in this past election, people who couldn’t even spell “vote” or say it in English voted in our election and they voted for Obama, a “committed socialist ideologue.” He called for “Civics Literacy” tests for all citizens who want to vote.

It was this paragraph that got most of the press’ attention. The media still can’t abide any reference to Obama as a Socialist and they were laying in wait to characterize the Tea Party as racist and extremist. But there is no denying the fact that President Obama is a “committed socialist ideologue!”

And no matter how radical the Left attempts to portray Tom, the Tea Party or Americans who went to the town hall meetings and rallies and voted to throw out the Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, they can’t change the fact that the revolution has begun. And Tom and Team America is going to do everything we can to keep it rolling, and we will not stop until American Patriots have taken the reins of power from the establishment politicians in both parties…

PS: It seems that the rumors of the death of the National Tea Party Convention were premature. The 600 available tickets allegedly sold out. But it was certainly tainted by all the bad press before the event.

“It really happened! The Saints are in the Super Bowl and hell has frozen over!”

Thanks to Mark for forwarding!

That said, it’s truly bizarre that she would endorse Rand Paul while at the same time campaigning for John McCain’s re-election bid. Bill Kristol expressed his disapproval of her endorsement of Paul, a sign that she has indeed moved off the neocon reservation just a bit. Still, one of the organizers of the Tea Party Convention emphatically stated his opposition to any third-party effort. I have become more and more skeptical of the Tea Party phenomenon and this attachment to the GOP certainly solidifies my skepticism.

If this movement becomes just another arm of the Republican Party, then it will fail miserably. Just look at what happened to similar populist movements in the “Christian Right”–the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, and so forth–all of which were also vehement backers of Israel. They were simply absorbed into the larger Republican fold and soon most of their issues were discarded in the name of “being electable.” Go ahead and toss the Tea Party movement into that heap as well.

Yet the lapel pin caused me to mull another question: is it Sarah Palin’s adherence to interventionist ideology or the particular theological convictions she holds which is the root of her support for Israel? We know that she’s a run-of-the-mill Evangelical and those types of churches foster the type of eschatology (premillennial dispensationalism) which places a heavy emphasis upon supporting the current Israeli state. I guess a better question would be whether she would still support Israel if she weren’t a dispensationalist.

The federal government will be closed on Monday in the Washington area, according to the Office of Personnel Management, as the region continues to plow out of an historic snowstorm.

How can the nation function without the guidance of the Wise Ones in DC? Who will prioritize, organize, and direct our otherwise feeble, blind efforts while ensuring we comply with the latest standards of inclusion, tolerance, and achieving diversity?

I don’t know. I just don’t know.

According to The American “Conservative”, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is as Law Abiding as Mary Poppins

Much like a magician sawing a lady in half, American Conservative Publisher and Writer Ron Unz has created an illusion by making it so we only see a misrepresentative part of what is actually there.

The basic issue with Unz’s “His-Panic” Article, where he tries to convince people that Hispanics are nearly as law abiding as Whites, is that because Hispanics are much more likely to be in the Country Illegally, they are far more likely to have the crimes they commit go to a Federal Court.

And this applies even for those of their crimes that aren’t immigration related.

After all, most often an Illegal Immigrant will only be taken into custody by the Feds because he committed a Violent or Drug Related Crime, as opposed to being taken in by the Feds just because he was in the Country illegally.

So guess what Unz does in his study?

He deliberately excludes people incarcerated for Crimes they were convicted of in Federal Court, instead only looking at people incarcerated for Crimes they were convicted of in State Courts.

Thus he rejects the far more valid technique used in The Color of Crime, which involved combining those convicted in State Court with those convicted in Federal Court to get a comprehensive and unbiased sample.

For this reason the American Conservative Article can be described as nothing more than a damned lie, carefully designed to dupe the gullible and weak minded.

[Remainder of article]

Republicans already counting the seats they will pick up this fall should keep in mind Obama has a big card yet to play.

Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran’s nuclear program and impose the “crippling” sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war.

And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate.

If you’re president of the United States — or a calculating monster concerned only about keeping his grip on power (yes, I’m repeating myself again) — war is the perfect solution. The leftists will cheer on the overthrow of a regime that denies civil rights to women and homosexuals. Andrew Sullivan, who’s almost as obsessed with regime change in Iran as he is with Sarah Palin, will break out the rainbow flag beside Old Glory, and will once again cheer on the Pentagon’s crusade for homosexual liberation.

Imagine pro-war, any war Sarah Palin standing arm-in-arm with Andrew Sullivan as both salute the troops. War does that with former foes.

And of course the chickenhawk Neocons will giggle in anticipation of mass mayhem prepared just the way they like it, far away, and against much weaker Muslim victims. As Buchanan notes in the same article:

Daniel Pipes in a National Review Online piece featured by the Jerusalem Post – “How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran” – urges Obama to make a “dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue” by ordering the U.S. military to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Citing six polls, Pipes says Americans support an attack today and will “presumably rally around the flag” when the bombs fall.

Pipes is right, of course. Already, I can hear Rahm Emanuel whispering in his boss’ ear, “Wag that dog, Obama.”

Over the last 60 years researchers have shown that about 4% of all SI covers have portrayed women.

When females are featured on the cover of SI, they are more likely than not to be in sexualized poses and not in action–and the most recent Vonn cover is no exception.

However there aren’t many Billie Jean Kings (29 yr. old woman defeated 55 yr. old man); few women can compete with men athletically. We watch in part because they’re lovely. Take Anna Kournikova: she was tremendously popular because of her beauty.

I might agree were Women Talk Sports complaining that Vonn is treated as a sex object and not as a lovely lady. But the core of the issue seems to instead be self-hating women at WTS who wish women were men.

E. R. Eddison’s myth, written in 1944, perfectly reveals the value of feminine beauty:

Love moreover is reciprocal: on each side it has an active aspect and a passive: a masculine and a feminine. These are wed, and therefore intermingled: neither the masculine nor the feminine is ever pure. Nevertheless, in Him Power predominates (which is active and masculine), and, in Her, Beauty, (which is passive and feminine). There is God and Goddess. The Goddess I call Aphrodite, who is of Herself Beauty, both spiritual and physical.

…

There is a magic circle, so to speak, a Worm Ouroboros, in this divine loving: Eternal and omnipotent Love tastes delight directly caused by Her. He recognizes in the instrument of this delight (that is to say, in His Mistress) supreme Beauty. He realizes in one and the same moment that He is powerful over Her and holds Her at His mercy and by a violent antinomy, that His very power, the power of Omnipotence, is enslaved by this strengthless Beauty. In this double and paradoxical realization, He worships Her and Beauty in Her.

Aphrodite tastes the same delight as His, directly caused by Him. She recognizes in the instrument of this delight (that is to say, in Her lover) supreme power. She realizes in one and the same moment that Her Beauty compels worship from Him (that is to say, from Omnipotent Love), so that She experineces directly in Herself the experience of queening it over Omnipotence and by a violent antinomy, that this very Omnipotence is the eternal and only safeguard of Beauty and so of Her. In this double paradoxical realization, She gives Herself to Him, to that power in Him which She recognizes as divine. And, She finally realizes that Eternal and Omnipotent Love tastes the same delight as Hers, directly caused by Her. (And so on: the Worm’s tail into the Worm’s mouth)

There’s no need for steroids or Amazonian mutilation for women to acquire equality with male athletic ability. It is partly through superior beauty that women achieve “equality”, and thus refusal to acknowledge this beauty is sexist and should be offensive to women.

H/T: Yahoo News.

-

Btw, Eddison was inspired by the Homeric “Hymn to Aphrodite“.

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they: Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian Pacific Islander American or Hispanic American…..

What ethnic groups comprise Asian Pacific Islander Americans?

Asian Pacific Islander Americans include persons having origin from Asia and/or the Pacific Islands. Asian includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. Pacific Islander includes persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawai’i, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Citizens of the republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are also eligible to be nominated.

So, basically, almost anyone can apply — anyone except a white person.

As Rob Sanchez points out, this should be no surprise:

Theodore Cross, writer at the The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, wrote a paper in 1999 that discusses the history of the Bill Gates scholarship: “Bill Gates’ Gift to Racial Preferences in Higher Education“. Make no mistake, Cross thinks it’s a darn good idea that Gates discriminates against whites, and he isn’t very subtle about it either:

“Racial conservatives are correct. The huge billion-dollar Gates Millennium Scholarship program is racially discriminatory. The terms could not be cleaner. Whites may not apply!”

Here, though, the story deviates from the script, for the farmers refused to roll over and die…

The Roman Catholic Church has rejected Hispanics and Hispanics are now becoming the cornerstone of a new church breaking away from the Roman Catholic Church to join other churches.

Countless appeals have been made to the bishop resulting in no action by the bishop. It is because of this neglect, action is being considered to have Phoenix Hispanic Catholics break away from the Diocese of Phoenix and form a new church — The American Catholic Church.

Wikipedia on the new church:

The American Catholic Church in the United States (ACCUS) is a small Independent Catholic denomination originating from the Old Catholic Christian denomination. The ACCUS holds similar theological beliefs and practices to the Roman Catholic Church. However, like Orthodox churches, it is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church or under Papal jurisdiction.

Continuing from the Hispanic News article:

To date, Hispanic News CEO, Jon Garrido, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Phoenix attorney Michael C. Manning have written the United States Justice Department to investigate allegations Sheriff Joe Arpaio is in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A Federal Grand Jury is currently investigating Joe Arpaio but it is the electorate who keeps Arpaio in office.

Joe Arpaio’s voting constituency is primarily American seniors migrated from the mid and upper mid west with conservative Republican values not sensitive to the plight of Hispanics residing in Arizona.

This is creating two different and distinct Catholic populations each at polar positions to the other giving birth to a clash of two civilizations within the Catholic Church.

There is some commonality between these two civilizations with the primary commonality — both groups are Catholic.

It is this opportunity to build one Catholic community from two that only can be achieved by the Bishop of Phoenix. Yet, Bishop Olmsted has chosen not to be visible since his installation as Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix on December 20, 2003. This is nearly seven years of neglect of his flock.

Countless appeals have been made to the bishop resulting in no action by the bishop. It is because of this neglect, action is being considered to have Phoenix Hispanic Catholics break away from the Diocese of Phoenix and form a new church — The American Catholic Church.

As profound as this step is, the alternative is to do nothing and observe hundreds of thousands of Phoenix Hispanic Catholics turn away from the Roman Catholic Church in Phoenix and become Pentecostals. New Pentecostal churches are sprouting up practically on every neighborhood corner in the Phoenix area. There are now more than 1,000 Pentecostal churches in the Phoenix area. The Catholic Church in Phoenix is hemorrhaging and the Catholic Church can do nothing to prevent it.

Establishing the American Catholic Church as a beacon of social and civil rights from a church borrowing from the Catholic Church is the only viable alternative. The American Catholic Church being formulated will be a hybrid of the Roman Catholic Church with all of the sacraments specially Eucharist (Masses celebrated by former Catholic priests. There are many in the Phoenix area as well as in most major American cities.), dogma, traditions, the intercession of the Virgin of Guadalupe and the Charismatic movement being the foundation of the new American Catholic Church but the American Catholic Church will also include the Pentecostal movement of community, family, music, and advocacy for social and civil rights will become major threads woven into the fabric of the new American Catholic Church.

The shepherd of the new American Catholic Church will become a prime advocate for the rights of all Hispanics in the Phoenix area.

-

The vast majority of Hispanic Protestants consider themselves to be evangelical or “born again” — that is, they report to have had a “personal conversion experience related to Jesus Christ,” Espinosa said.

Hispanics often substitute the term evangelical for Protestant, because many Hispanics feel Protestant is too closely associated with Anglo-American culture.

Pentecostals are the largest subset of Hispanic Protestants. Pentecostals believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit exist in the present time. Pentecostals believe their bodies can be inhabited by the Holy Spirit, which can involve speaking in tongues, miraculous healings and divinely inspired prophecies.

“Aggressive proselytizing, intense worship experience, healing, emphasis on conversion, transformation, and increased leadership opportunities in the ministry have all contributed to the trend of “Pentecostalization” of the Hispanic church,” Espinosa said. The emphasis on youth ministry and popular culture is another important draw to Hispanic Protestant churches.

I won’t pretend to understand Catholic politics. Schism, maybe?

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: “We The People. . . .”

Some experts allege the document chartered something called a “republic” with “limited powers,” something that modern political scientists agree would only prevent the government from doing good things.

“This was clearly written by backward, unsophisticated people,” said one noted scholar of government.

“ATLANTA (Reuters) – Shares of major U.S. defense contractors rose on Monday after the Obama administration unveiled a defense budget for fiscal 2011 that seeks a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon’s base budget and $159 million to fund missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” ~ Reuters

The “anti-war Obama” is yet again increasing our military budget? I suppose he has no choice if he’s going to engage in nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, and probably Darfur. As we already noted here at CHT, Obama is in many respects “Bush on steroids,” but don’t hold your breath for any denunciations by the MSM.

Regardless, given that Obama’s first term will probably prove to be a complete disaster, much like Bush’s eight years, it’s unsurprising that people are now speculating Obama will not seek a second term, something I predicted months ago (in private conversations). He’s unqualified for the job and, at the end of the day, probably would prefer to jive Oprah about how interesting his life is than pretend to govern.

Did Palin’s neocon advisers have any input on this? What are their thoughts? Inquiring minds want to know.

And why is Rand Paul able to attract support from movement cons, while his dad evoked hysteria in some movement con circles? I have a few ideas on why this might be, but I would like to hear some other people’s thoughts on this.

Hat Tip: American Spectator

While it is true that both Martinez and Crist have supported mass amnesty and Rubio has stated he would have opposed the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, Rubio otherwise seems to be intentionally vague on the issue of immigration.

Washington Watcher at VDare notes that prima facie Rubio does indeed seem an improvement over Mel Martinez on immigration:

[Rubio's] platform states:

“Legal immigration has been a great source of strength and prosperity for America, but I believe illegal immigration threatens the foundation of this system. If I had been in the Senate at the time, I would have opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill. I believe we must fix our immigration system by first securing the border, fixing the visa and entry process and opposing amnesty in any reform.”

But “fixing the visa and entry process” could mean a lot of things—including massively increasing legal immigration. Remember how Bush tried to portray amnesty as “immigration reform”.

And Rubio gave a disturbing hint of what this meant in a convoluted interview with the website Red County. He absurdly accused Democrats and labor unions of being against legal immigration, while Republicans (he asserted) support it.

Rubio must be either completely ignorant of the sellout of union workers by Big Labor, or he is promoting a guest worker program—the only aspect of legal immigration that labor unions oppose.

Even more ominously, Rubio blamed the Republican’s “tone” on immigration for alienating Hispanic voters.

Even Rubio’s record on illegal immigration is dubious. In 2008, patriotic Florida state legislators proposed over a dozen bills to crack down on illegal immigration, but as Speaker Rubio stalled them in the House:

“Florida lawmakers looking to pass bills targeted at curbing illegal immigration faced one major hurdle this session—convincing South Florida legislators, who hold key leadership positions in the House and Senate, to support their cause.

“Without the backing of House Speaker Marco Rubio, the first Cuban-American to hold the position, the bills failed to get any major play in their committees. Six weeks into the session, a three-hour workshop was held on the six House bills, but even that failed to produce its desired intent of combining the bills into one larger committee bill.

“‘Speaker Rubio outlined the priorities of the session and this didn’t fall under that list,’ said Rivera, one of Rubio’s lieutenants.”

[Miami-Dade lawmakers stymie immigration bills, by Laura Figueroa, Miami Herald, April 17, 2008]

Finally, Rubio was the object of a fawning National Review cover story recently which even worse, was written by the unspeakable John J. Miller—a very bad sign indeed. [Rubio Rising |The Florida GOP has a new star, Sept 7, 2009(Free link)]

Rubio is not the only anti-establishment candidate in the race. Former New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith, who has since moved to Florida, is also running. Unlike Rubio, he is making stopping illegal immigration a top priority. According to the Jacksonville Observer

“During a recent appearance on the Jacksonville Observer Radio Show, Smith made it clear that he was not pulling punches against Crist or Rubio. He noted that his campaign is going to include a significant focus on dealing with illegal immigration. On the issue of so-called amnesty, Smith replies: ‘No, no, and hell no!’” [Rubio and Smith to Participate in Senate Candidate Forum, by Austin Cassidy, The Jacksonville Observer, October 19, 2009]

That said, Smith’s record on immigration in the Senate in the 1980s and early 1990s leaves much to be desired. But it is clear that he is currently the only candidate in the race who is making stopping mass immigration a series issue.

“Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., told Barbara Walters he supports Roe v. Wade and believes that states should decide the issue of gay marriage, not the federal government, during an interview that aired today on ABC’s This Week.” ~ On Politics

Contrary to popular belief, overturning Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion but only return the issue to the states.  Why does Brown think that states should decide the issue of gay marriage but not abortion?  Are Brown’s positions at all consistent? I’m sure it’s just a matter of political expediency, but it illustrates how lopsided popular appeals to states’ rights are.

Don’t tell Unz, but last week there was a mestizo gang sweep in Riverside area. The LA Times writes:

“Some 650 officers representing 34 agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, took part in the raids, designed to decapitate East Side Riva, or ESR, a gang with a 20-year history of wreaking havoc in Riverside County and beyond.”

“The gang’s territory sits between downtown and the edges of UC Riverside. According to the Riverside County district attorney’s office, the gang has about 820 members and maintains long-standing ties with the Mexican Mafia, which protects ESR members in prison in exchange for “taxes” on the gang’s illegal drug sales.”

Regarding the percentage of mestizos in gangs, the blogger Inductivist pulls up two recent studies on gang membership across the country belying the dubious claims of Unz. These studies demonstrate that mestizos are twice as likely as whites to be in gangs.

Inductivist comments:

Gang membership prevalence among Hispanic males approaches that of blacks, and is roughly double that of whites…. Affiliation with a gang ranges all the way from a wannabe to a hardcore thug, and these surveys certainly include plenty of the former. But they are consistent with media and criminal justice depictions of violent gangs–both on the streets and in the prisons–being dominated by blacks and Hispanics. It is not imaginary.

Take a look at the first three immigration module courses at the new Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Online University.

About the university:

This new “gateway” offers facts, figures, and historical perspectives on how the immigration issue has affected the United States’ political, social, and economical realms over the past 150 years.  It also begins to offer solutions to bring about true immigration reform that serves the national interests of the United States.

FAIR has created this educational curriculum, beginning with three initial modules, and will continue to add new modules over the coming months. Once you’ve completed the three initial courses you will be prompted to download your own copy of the FAIR Online University certificate of completion.

We hope you enjoy the Online University and that you will share the information you find here with your friends and colleagues.

But I’m sure Conservative INC. will still enjoy the stay at the luxury hotel.

Almost all the current “solutions” to the problem in Haiti result in (1) the long-term occupation of the country, (2) a Camp of the Saints mass immigration of Haitians into the U.S., or most often (3) both 1 and 2. These “solutions,” however, largely address the symptoms, not the cause, of the problem.

From every report I’ve read, most of the problems in contemporary Haiti revolve around the fact that Haiti is overpopulated. There are too many people and too few resources. In a state of nature, this imbalance would quickly correct itself. But years of foreign aid to Haiti have allowed this imbalance to grow. Haitians continue to have children but possess not the resources to care for them. (And now they are asking us to adopt the children for whom they are unable to provide?) If we continue to give aid, this situation will only worsen.

What to do? As I see it, there are only two realistic options that actually address the cause of the problem:

(1) Do nothing for Haiti (no aid, no occupation, nothing), allow Haitians to fend for themselves, and allow nature to take its course. To protect ourselves, we should patrol the coasts of Florida so that Haitians are unable to invade the U.S.

or

(2) Give the Haitians some aid but have strings attached to it. Charity is optional, and it often comes with stipulations. They need not take it, nor must we give it. But if they are to accept foreign aid, make it a condition that the practice of birth control (Depo Provera, IUDs, vasectomies, etc.) becomes widespread and mandatory across the country. Clearly, they are unable to care for the children they already have. Also stipulated by the aid, Haitians should be prohibited from immigrating to the U.S., and those here should return to Haiti.

Although some religious conservatives may find objections to option #2, I ask, do they prefer option #1? Or what better solution do they offer?

Chuck Baldwin’s “The Truth About Abortion” and “What’s Really Going On in Haiti”

Ron Holland’s “Is Nationalization of your Retirement Plan in your Future?”

Pat Buchanan’s “Saving Professor Bernanke”

“The Politics of Ingratitude” and “The Lost Decade” are both good ones from John Medallie from Front Porch Republic.

Also at FPR, Jeff Taylor’s “The Lost Children of Roe.”

And my own at Etherzone.com

For the first time, the Second Vermont Republic will be sponsoring candidates for this year’s election in Vermont. Here are their videos.

Where I would come down on the interventionist side concerns both location and the lack of good options available. Haiti, unlike Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and Kosovo, is not thousands of miles away from the U.S. it’s sits just 200-300 miles from Florida. The U.S. is the only nearby entity available that has both the equipment, the infrastructure and the lift to be able to facilitate large amounts of aid to in a mass casualty disaster, like it or not. Doing  nothing while those in Haiti beg for our assistance is grossly un-Christian and to criticize the military’s involvement reminds one of an old Onion headline: “Libertarian reluctantly calls Fire Department to put out fire in home”

However, Justin is right to point out that the U.S. tragedy in Somalia started out as a “humanitarian mission,” we were going to feed starving people. The problem was the people of Somalia were not starving just because of bad weather, they were starving because clan-based warlords were using food as a weapon in their struggle to control the country. Feeding people would inevitably require a political solution and trying to do so put U.S. troops at risk, unnecessarily as it turned out. One can also justify our presence in Afghanistan or Iraq or intervention in Kosovo as “humanitarian” as well.

What I feel makes Haiti different is both location and the suddenness and shock of what happened. It may very well be that shoddy construction practices contributed to thousands of deaths but this is also an area where earthquakes are more rare than hurricanes, one takes priority over the other. An earthquake is also not a political act or something cause by man. It has to be fixed by man.

An intervention that leads a joint U.S.-UN protectorate over the country to get it back on its feet (with the U.S. leaving shortly thereafter) would be the best of a lot of bad solutions. To do nothing could very well lead to a Camp of the Saints situation with Haitians by the millions either leaving Hispaniola by boat or flooding into the Dominican Republic putting that nation in grave danger. This would destabilize the entire Caribbean region and not to mention send millions of poor souls to travel by leaky boat through shark infested waters to get to the U.S. And do you think the first black, or at least half-black president, president is going to keep desperate Haitians from entering the U.S.? Neither did I. Of course we could declare Haiti the 51st state or a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. But given the fact such status would still lead to mass migration, this time legalized mass migration, it’s also not a long-term solution either. Interventionism to help the Haitian people from this disaster may be the only way to prevent bigger calamities from taking place.

Again, non-interventionism is not nor should be an ideology with set guidelines and little red books. Sometimes you’ve got to be flexible in extreme circumstances, especially if there are bigger problems that non-interventionism cannot solve.

CHT was once hacked.  It’s a shame when people seek to silence others through vandalism.

Does anyone know any details?

What’s happening in Haiti is very sad.  But the images coming from there are utterly predictable. The outpouring of global charity at most is treating the symptoms; the causes remain, and this mass death will be repeated elsewhere in similar countries for similar reasons.  Let’s face it:  Haiti’s chief problem is that it’s filled with Hatians.  The mass death toll from this event is a consequence chiefly of that fact.  Its government, economy, construction practices, and every single aspect of society is hellish, not so different from what prevails in Somalia or Afghanistan, and it’s been that way pretty much forever. If Haiti were filled with Swiss or Americans, very few people would have died.  But whenever a big disaster hits the Third World it’s followed by mass extermination.  By contrast, the 7.1 earthquake in San Francisco in 1989 killed about 60 people.  These facts are not coincidences.  When these horrible things happen, I tend to think: one more super unlucky consequence of living in the Third World, none of which will be changing any time soon, because the foundation of those societies, their people, are not changing any time soon.

In addition to understandable sympathy and charity in the short term, is the question of what to do with our own little corner of the globe.  If the Third World is the way it is not because of a lack of resources, but rather its people, as well as institutions that reflect the values, prejudices, and shortcomings of such people, why do we want millions and millions of such people to come to our country, which is run very differently and does not have Third World problems, until fairly recently?   This is a purposeful policy choice by our leaders who are either short-sighted or devilish themselves.

Other informative recent posts on Haiti:

MORE Haitian-import advocacy from the Washington Post!, by Patrick Cleburne

Haiti: 9/11-Type Opportunity for the Open Borders Crowd?, by Patrick Cleburne

Rasmussen:70 Per Cent Of American Blacks Favor Haitian Immigration, Whites Not So Much, by James Fulford

Krikorian On Haiti And National Origins Quotas, by James Fulford

Import Haitians! They keep on trying…, by Patrick Cleburne

More On Elliot Abrams:Invade The World, Invite The World In Action, by Steve Sailer

“Neocon’s Neocon” trading Haitian deluge here for Israeli favors?, by Patrick Cleburne

Suspiciously, Unz’s piece conveniently overlooks many findings, such as:

“In total, blacks had the highest incarceration rate at 7.2 times the [nonHispanic] white rate, followed by Hispanics, at 2.9 times the white rate. [American] Indians and Pacific Islanders were imprisoned at about twice the white rate….”

Or crime rates in Los Angeles:

Blacks make up about 11% of the city’s population but account for 38% of all homicide victims and 29% of suspects, according to the statistics. By contrast, whites make up 30% of the population but account for just 6% of homicide victims and 2% of suspects. Latinos make up 47% of the population and constitute 50% of homicide victims and 66% of suspects.

Unz also dismisses the phenomenon of mestizo gangs, for which there is overwhelming evidence.

Unz’s article, however, is unsurprising, as Unz has a long history of supporting mass immigration. Steve Sailer wrote back in 2000 of “Unzism – the (new) doctrine of American Decline,” underscoring Unz’s support of two policies:

(1) “a strong and forthright stand” in favor of mass immigration

and

(2) ending bilingual education.

Unz’s career reflects this bifurcated tendency. In 1994, Unz opposed California Proposition 187 to deny legal services to illegal immigrants, and in 1998, he sponsored California Proposition 227, which aimed to change the state’s bilingual education.

For patriots of the West, however, Unzism is the exact opposite of the course we should chart.

(1) We should seek to end all immigration from the Third World, which is driving down American wages and changing the historic (European) character of the United States.

and

(2) We should do everything in our power to discourage illegal immigrants from learning English. A cursory historical survey will show that anytime large groups of uneducated foreigners speak a new language, they will simplify and degrade the adopted language. The mestizo populations of Central and South America already have debased Spanish. Do we really want these people to transform the language of Beowulf, Chaucer and Shakespeare into a mestizo Spanglish?

Go sign up now to become a fan.

Philip Jenkins thinks so. He writes:

The population shift is even more marked in the specifically Catholic world, where Euro-Americans are already in the minority. Africa had about 16 million Catholics in the early 1950s; it has 120 million today, and is expected to have 228 million by 2025. The World Christian Encyclopedia suggests that by 2025 almost three quarters of all Catholics will be found in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The likely map of twenty-first-century Catholicism represents an unmistakable legacy of the Counter-Reformation and its global missionary ventures.

These figures actually understate the Southern predominance within Catholicism, and within world Christianity more generally, because they fail to take account of Southern emigrants to Europe and North America. Even as this migration continues, established white communities in Europe are declining demographically, and their religious beliefs and practices are moving further away rom traditional Christian roots. The result is that skins of other hues are increasingly evident in European churches; half of all London churchgoers are now black. African and West Indian churches in Britain are reaching out to whites, though members complain that their religion is often seen as “a black thing” rather than “a God thing.”

In the United States a growing proportion of Roman Catholics are Latinos, who should represent a quarter of the nation by 2050 or so. Asian communities in the United States have sizable Catholic populations. Current trends suggest that the religious values of Catholics with a Southern ethnic and cultural heritage will long remain quite distinct from those of other U.S. populations. In terms of liturgy and worship Latino Catholics are strikingly different from Anglo believers, not least in maintaining a fervent devotion to the Virgin Mary and the saints.

European and Euro-American Catholics will within a few decades be a saller and smaller fragment of a worldwide Church. Of the 18 million Catholic baptisms recorded in 1998, eight million took place in Central and South America, three million in Africa, and just under three million in Asia. (In other words, these three regions already account for more than three quarters of all Catholic baptisms.) The annual baptism total for the Philippines is higher than the totals for Italy, France, Spain, and Poland combined. The number of Filipino Catholics could grow to 90 million by 2025, and perhaps to 130 million by 2050.

…

The changing demographic balance between North and South helps to explain the current shape of world Catholicism, including the fact that the Church has been headed by Pope John Paul II. In the papal election of 1978 the Polish candidate won the support of Latin American cardinals, who were not prepared to accep yet another Western European. In turn, John Paul has recognized the growing Southern presence in the Church. Last year he elevated forty-four new cardinals, of whom eleven were Latin American, two Indian, and three African. The next time a papal election takes place, fifty-seven of the 135 cardinals eligible to vote, or more than 40 percent, will be from Southern nations. Early this century they will constitute a majority.

Will islands of Western Christianity survive in this vast sea of Third World Christendom?

That said, I do have some concerns. I don’t buy the idea that corporations are people. (If you drive a corporation out of business are you guilty of murder? ) Nor do I buy the idea entirely that money is speech, but what the money buys such as TV ads is speech. Also, since I reject the incorporation doctrine, States are free to regulate campaign finance however they see fit within the limits of their own State constitutions.

Discuss.