Monthly Archives: January 2010

On Marco Rubio and Immigration

I keep receiving emails from various conservative email lists advertising that Marco Rubio is a “real conservative” – versus Charlie Crist, “a liberal in disguise.” (If you haven’t been following, Rubio is a Cuban-American vying with Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican primary for Mel Martinez’s U.S. Senate seat.) What never is discussed in these emails, however, is Rubio’s ambiguous record on immigration.

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.

Continue reading

Scott Brown Disconnect

“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.

The New FAIR Online University

How much do you know about immigration?

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.

If no one shows up at the convention, can one call it a convention?

Our calls here at CHT to skip the so-called “Tea Party Convention”  next month seems to be having an effect. Today it was announced both Congresswomen Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn) are pulling out from their speaking gigs.  Now Sarah Palin is the only draw to this event and if she decides to say thanks but no thanks (and turn down an easy 100 grand), well then, it’s not going to be much of a convention.

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

Haiti, State of Nature, and Birth Control

Regarding the current debate about Haiti (here, here, and here), I would like to add a few comments.

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?

Some articles for your consideration

J.J. Jackson’s latest: “Praise for Scott Brown Reserved”

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.

Haiti and the non-interventionist dilemma

I wanted to post this debate last week from Antiwar.com about interventionism/non-interventionism in the wake of the Haitian earthquake. I can see the points that both Eric Margolis and Justin Raimondo are making.

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.

The Unpleasant Truth about Haiti

Christopher Roach hits the nail on the head regarding Haiti:

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

Will Christianity soon be a non-Western religion?

Will Christianity soon be largely a non-Western religion?

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?

Let’s Discuss the Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance

In general I support the decision, and I opposed McCain/Feingold because I thought it was unconstitutional and bad policy. If the First Amendment was meant to protect anything at all, it was meant to protect political speech. It wasn’t meant to protect porn and nude dancing contrary to what the ACLU would have you believe, but it was intended to protect political speech.

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.

Edwards is the Baby Daddy

Last night when I was watching the news about John Edwards admitting what everyone already knew, that he is in fact the baby daddy, I had a thought. What if Edwards had won the election, and there was a group of conservatives carrying on about rumored affairs, illegitimate children, financial shenanigans to conceal it all, etc. The liberals and “respectable” conservatives would be all in an uproar calling them conspiracy theorist and might even label them something like babyers. I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’.

Update: CFL now welcomed at Tea Party Convention

Here’s the link on this. It could have very well been garbled communication or it could be enough of a stink was raised.

Either way, individual persons still should not attend this convention. Tea Partiers should organize themselves locally, or state wide like they did in Massachusetts. There SHOULD NOT be a national organization at all. That will only make it vulnerable to co-opting.

Has Obama Lost White America?

Right and left read the same writing on the wall from Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts, and draw conflicting conclusions. Both Pat Buchanan and Thomas B. Edsall of The New Republic see Obama’s agenda as slanted toward minorities — but each views that agenda in a starkly different light.

Here’s Pat Buchanan:

So what have Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi been doing for a year? Crafting a federal takeover of health care with a vast plan that provides coverage for the uninsured—most of whom are minorities—while sticking it to Medicare recipients, 80 percent to 90 percent of whom are white.

Immigrants are 21 percent of the uninsured, but only 7 percent of the population. This means white folks on Medicare or headed there will see benefits curtailed, while new arrivals from the Third World, whence almost all immigrants come, get taxpayer-subsidized health insurance. Any wonder why all those Tea Party and town-hall protests seem to be made up of angry white folks?

Buchanan sees an opportunity for Republicans to reverse their 2008 loss if they stake out positions that will attract white voters:

An end to affirmative action and ethnic preferences, an end to bailouts of Wall Street bankers, a moratorium on immigration until unemployment falls to 6 percent, an industrial policy that creates jobs here and stops shipping them to China appear a winning hand in 2012.

I’d vote for that.
Continue reading

Bernanke nomination in trouble

Apparently liberal Dems in the Senate are as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. They’re saying no to voting to renominate Ben Bernanke. If a significant bloc  of liberals votes against him then Bernanke is toast. He would need a good chunk of Republicans to vote for him and I say than GOPer that does should be Tea Partied and primaried, along with being tarred and feathered.

If there’s one thing the Brown victory showed it’s the still potent power of populism, something I plan to write about later. And if it is still potent, then it’s enough to attract Senators wishing to ride the wave the way a light attracts moths.

Just imagine it…From Man of the Year 2009 to Chump of the Year 2010. I can’t wait! Go Liberals Go! Down with Centrists! Vote your hearts, not the Washington Post editorial page.

End the Fed! This is just the beginning…

The President on Immigration

“The situation is more grave, given the danger of terrorists and infiltrators, than I originally thought….”

“We must reinforce the border and it will be possible to minimize the infiltration of terrorists, drug dealers, and illegal workers….”

“This issue of infiltration has become a total industry… The borders of the state cannot be porous and this is a threat on a national level….”

Spot on, right?

Unfortunately, this was uttered not by our “leader” but by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.  Wouldn’t it be great if we had such patriotic leadership?

HT: Patrick Cleburne

Update:  Netenyahu pledges to keep Third World immigrants from driving down Israeli wages.