Monthly Archives: November 2007

Civil Liberties Death Spiral update

In the tradition of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the even creepier Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, our protectors have now launched their most intrusive and tyrannical (at least, to date) measure ever to quash dissent:

It was revealed last week that firefighters are being trained to not only keep an eye out for illegal materials in the course of their duties, but even to report back any expression of discontent with the government.

A year ago, Homeland Security gave security clearances to nine New York City fire chiefs and began sharing intelligence with them. Even before that, fire department personnel were being taught “to identify material or behavior that may indicate terrorist activities” and were also “told to be alert for a person who is hostile, uncooperative or expressing hate or discontent with the United States.”

Continue reading

Camp of the Saints in France

Lawrence Auster delivers an appropriate quip regarding the liberal media’s persistent labeling of the protesters in France as “teenagers,” when in fact we all know they are African Muslims. (Shhhh, don’t tell anyone.)

“[E]ven if the French themselves no longer care, I am still very grateful to Charles Martel for turning back that youth invasion of France in 732. If they had won, they would have forced all the French to become teenagers.”

Profile of Immigrants in the United States

The Center for Immigration Studies has released its long-awaited new report today, “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population

Here are some of its findings: 

• The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
• Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.  Continue reading

“Southern” Scalawag Fred Thompson Goes PC on the Confederate Flag

I only caught the end of the debate, but I got to see the question on the Confederate Battle Flag. Mitt Romney was the first to answer, and he was pathetically PC. He was clearly hostile to the flag. Sen. Thompson  had the follow-up. He groveled as well. Hopefully the video will get posted on YouTube, but he basically said that the Battle Flag should not be flown publicly/officially.

And this PC butt-kisser is trying to use his “Southerness” to his advantage. It might help him if his “Southerness” actually affected how he thinks.

Feel free to post any other debate commentary below.

Did Robertson’s Endorsement of Giuliani Backfire?

This article suggests it did.

The backlash against Robertson started even as the first reports surfaced that he was backing a candidate at odds with core evangelical beliefs.

The blogs lit up.

“Pat Robertson has sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver,” said one blogger. “Shame on Pat Robertson,” wrote another.

The Web site blasted Robertson for sacrificing “many of the issues he claimed to fight for in his attempt to, once again, bask in the public limelight. Robertson seems willing to overlook all of these ‘flaws’ within the former New York Mayor’s political character, in order to do what?”

Robertson insisted his endorsement was aimed at a movement among some evangelicals to support a third-party candidate if Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. But that rationale only deepened the ire of many.

Did Robertson insist his endorsement was aimed at evangelicals threatening a third party or is that just the author’s interpretation? I haven’t read that he said that in so many words. It seemed to me a straight forward endorsement of Giuliani as someone who will vigorously prosecute “the war on terror,” and be able to beat Hillary.

I am not sure which is worse, a straight forward endorsement of Rudy or an attempt to subvert fellow Christians.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Empire

They’re at it again.  The latest Neocon who thinks he can pull the wool over our eyes is one Jonah Goldberg, the baby-faced, tough-talkin’ advocate for unlimited Executive Power (always capitalized), endless war, and boundless Federal authority over the nation’s resources – all in the name of “national greatness” and global do-goodism.  His reasoning is that since America is uniquely good and noble, any quaint notions of limiting its power only constrain the good it can do. 

Continue reading

Rudolph Giuliani on Immigration

“Rudy Giuliani can play a little rough at times, but there are some moments when an inner light turns on and he turns downright idealistic. One of those moments came on Oct. 10, 1996, as he stepped on the podium at the Kennedy School of Government to deliver a speech on immigration. “I’m pleased to be with you this evening to talk about the anti-immigrant movement in America,” he said, “and why I believe this movement endangers the single most important reason for American greatness, namely, the renewal, reformation and reawakening that’s provided by the continuous flow of immigrants.” …Giuliani continued: “I believe the anti-immigrant movement in America is one of our most serious public problems.”” ~ David Brooks

I generally cannot stomach to read David Brooks, the man who has claimed that “real conservatism” concerns universal human rights and other such Jacobin cliches. Brooks is a Trotskyite in sheep’s clothing. And this op-ed, which ends on the note of condemning real patriots, is despicable, but at least, I suppose, it does let discriminating readers know the truth about Giuliani (i.e. the politically correct, globalist fraud that he truly is — like David Brooks himself).

Coaltion of the Wilting gets teenier

First there’s Poland, where the winner in the Prime Minister race campaigned on a platform promising to pull his country’s combat troops out of Iraq:

Tusk said that, by the end of next year, Poland would withdraw its 900 troops from Iraq, where it leads an international contingent of about 2,000 soldiers from 10 nations in the south-central part of the country. …

Tusk’s call for a pullout came as no surprise. He campaigned on promises to end the unpopular mission, clashing on the issue with his opponent, then-incumbent Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who argued that withdrawing would amount to desertion.

But it looks like deserting the US is what Polish voters wanted.  Meanwhile, down under on the other side of the world:

Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and withdraw Australia’s combat troops from Iraq.

Labor Party head Kevin Rudd’s pledges on global warming and Iraq move Australia sharply away from policies that had made Howard one of President Bush’s staunchest allies.

What stinks in all this is that voters had to vote for leftists and environmentalists to pry their countrymen out of the Iraq insanity.  But that’s one of the consequences of Bush’s and Rove’s political strategy of packaging pro-war interventionism and creeping authoritarianism as “conservative.” So, thanks, Neocons—you’ve given us real conservatives a bad name.  Our punishment will be American voters looking to the ugh! Democrats to restore sanity.  What a cruel joke—but that’s what’s happened to us.

The Official Gatekeepers of all That is Good and Proper Have Decided that Ron Paul’s “15 Minutes” Should be Up

A blogger at Foreign Policy has decided that he has heard enough from Ron Paul so the rest of us peons need to move on. What bugs me about these types of articles is the shear arrogance. How dare some unanointed candidate question the wisdom of the foreign policy establishment? Who does he think he is?

This is why non-interventionists need to be clear that we are not the same as foreign policy “realists” who have also opposed the wild-eyed neocons at times. The baseline assumptions of the realists are still internationalism and interventionism. They are just more willing to use diplomacy and more skeptical of the benefits of force.

We are out to turn these baseline assumptions of the foreign policy establishment on their head.

Hat tip to our friend Dr. Douglas.

Ron Paul’s Communications Director Responds to Mona Charen’s Smear

This letter is from Jesse Benton, Ron Paul’s Communications Director, but I suspect it represents the sentiments of the campaign. Here is the reply to one of Charen’s charges – “isolationism.”

If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

Initially, I think most “mainstream” Republicans disliked Paul primarily because of the War and foreign policy. Now I think they dislike him just as much because he represents a threat to the current Regime. Mainstream pundits may pretend to be against the system at times, esp. when the system is being run by Democrats, but they are actually very comfortable with and defensive of the system. In the recent past, those who represent a real threat to the system have not been able to generate the kind of support Ron Paul has, and they have been easily marginalized. But the hysterics of the mainstreamers aren’t working against Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has these sad defenders of the Regime running scared. Let’s keep ‘em on the run.

Buddy Witherspoon Is No Buddy of Senator Grahamnesty

Conservatism Incarnate Besieges Open-Borders Citadel

Dr. Walter “Buddy” Witherspoon is challenging scalawag Senator Lindsey Graham’s seat in the 2008 GOP primary. Witherspoon was elected South Carolina’s committeeman in 1996 and has long been active in South Carolina politics. Though unknown among most voters, he is well connected within South Carolina and is considered the lead challenger to the unpopular incumbent Senator Graham.

The Shot says of Witherspoon: “If he were elected, he would be the farthest right member of the South Carolina delegation and possibly the entire U.S. Senate.” Judging by Witherspoon’s immigration platform, that isn’t difficult to believe:

Open borders … weaken our common culture and national identity. … We should welcome legal immigrants, but there are billions of people in the world who would like to come to this country and we cannot accept them all. Accordingly, our policy must be based on what is in the interest of American citizens.

Add to that Witherspoon’s pro-life, pro-second amendment, anti-spending, and pro-values stances as well as his claim of being “a strict constructionist,” and you’ve got a man who’d make Jim DeMint, South Carolina’s conservative Senator, blush. Continue reading

Rick Flair endorses Huckabee

The already blurry lines between fantasy entertainment and fantasy politics just got blurrier:

Former Arkansas Governor and Republican Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee announced today the endorsement of professional wrestling legend “Nature Boy” Ric Flair, the former 16-time World Heavyweight Champion known worldwide for his “stylin’ and profilin’” personality and his signature “Whooooooo” with which he ends interviews.

Looks like there’s a real affinity between this fake conservative and scripted tough guys.

Any second now, someone will huff that Flair’s won the WWE championship 16 times – so he’s the real thing.  Sure—just as Huckabee is.