Monthly Archives: July 2010

Daily Reading

Roger McGrath discusses the reality of illegal aliens and crime.

Pat Buchanan discusses the Obama Regime’s war on Arizona.

Allan Wall notes why Evangelicals are wrong to join the pro-amnesty treason lobby.

Richard Spencer puts into perspective Mel Gibson’s alleged “racism.”

Paul Gottfried discusses the anti-Western musings of Martin Luther King Jr. and why neocons are ridiculous to praise him.

James Fulford writes about small-scale race riots breaking out in California and a larger race riot breaking out in Grenoble, France.

Steve Sailer reminds us that poor whites are the most discriminated against group in college admissions, and Kevin MacDonald looks at the real elite at universities.

George McDaniel discusses Madison Grant and his championing of European Americans.

Classics Corner:

Jean Raspail, “The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic


Daniel McCarthy notes that Joseph Farah admits he was wrong on Iraq and Afghanistan.

A.W. Morgan argues that tea-party activists are wasting their time trying to prove their “anti-racist” bona fides.

Vindicated for Removing Saddam

Those rootin’-tootin’ uber-patriots over at Front Page are at it again! Their latest contribution to DC’s quest for eternal war and bigger government is to claim George W. Bush was right to break the UN Charter and invade Iraq. Below are quotes from the article, with certain phrases highlighted:

- [Saddam] “had the ability to quickly produce weapons of mass destruction, and the will to use both against its enemies.”

- The Duelfer Report, the final assessment of the Iraq Survey Group, states that a former Iraqi intelligence officer testified that the M16 Directorate “had a plan to produce and weaponize nitrogen mustard in rifle grenades and a plan to bottle sarin and sulfur mustard in perfume sprayer and medicine bottles which they would ship to the United States and Europe.” The plot was not launched because of an inability to get the ingredients for the weapons. [Oh, really, killer perfume sprayers? Using cutting-edge weaponry from World War I?]

- The ISG confirmed that dual-use facilities had “assets that could be converted for BW [biological weapons] agent production within 4 to 5 weeks after the decision to do so.” One site had the ability to “provide the core of an alternative break-out capability…perhaps within 2 to 3 weeks.” Furthermore, Iraqi intelligence operated “a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations” and Iraq “intended to develop smallpox and possibly other viral pathogens.”

- The first director of the ISG, David Kay, also raised the point that corruption was extremely high in the Iraqi government, leading to a strong possibility that terrorists could purchase weapons from officials.

That’s right — Saddam could’ve done this and he might’ve done that. It reminds me of an old joke about a pacifist reporter grilling a three-star general who’s training Boy Scouts how to use guns:

Interviewer: “Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?”
LTG Reinwald: “I don’t see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm.”
Interviewer: “But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.”
LTG Reinwald: “Well, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?”

But the last justification for invading Iraq is my favorite:

- These facts bolster the case for removing Saddam Hussein without even mentioning the possibility that WMDs went to Syria.

That’s so mind-numbingly moronic it hurts my head to consider that people actually believed it at the time. Imagine you’re a power-mad dictator who “continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” So what do you do when an army of 466,985 foreign troops sits within firing range in next-door Kuwait ready to invade your country with the expressed aim of deposing you? Why, naturally, you get rid of your only means of stopping them. Of course. Are we supposed to believe Saddam was saving his super-weapons for some special occasion?

How stupid are we?

Stupid enough to believe the same people who now want the overstretched and plain flat broke US to invade Iran. One of the commenters on the Front Page article made this perfectly clear:

“In a post-9/11 world, the threat that Saddam Hussein posed could not be tolerated—and the world should know why.”

Then how could an Iran with nuclear weapons be tolerated in a post 9/11 world?

The answer is it can’t! Iran must be stopped at all cost, and the USA and not Israel must lead the charge. If Saddam represented a threat that couldn’t be tolerated, then Iran represents a far greater threat than Saddam ever could.

Heaven help us.

Evangelical leaders join the pro-amnesty treason lobby

Has the leadership at the National Association of Evangelicals declared war upon traditional America?  Apparently so. The rule of law must mean nothing to these people, as they have decided to support the Obama Regime’s attempt to flood the U.S. with mestizos. Do they not know they are fulfilling the agenda of anti-Western Cultural Marxists? Do they not know that both legal and illegal immigration are driving down the wages of the American poor? Don’t they  have obligations to the American poor?

Are they so warped by a globalist ideology that they would sell out their own compatriots “to fill the pews”? As happened with Roger Mahony, if these mestizos do become Evangelicals, won’t they eventually oust the white leadership to support their own co-ethnics?  Mestizo Evangelism may live, but Western Evangelism will be dead.

Send emails to these leaders demanding that they cease their lunacy (be polite):

Leith Anderson:  president at

Richard Land

Southern Baptist Convention

Other Leaders

Pastors Council (here and here)

And read these articles:

Allan Wall: “Evangelical Leadership’s Betrayal Of Grassroots On Immigration Increasing

Allan Wall: “Southern Baptist Richard Land Campaigns for Amnesty on Capitol Hill

Roy Beck: “Religious Leaders Say Amnesty Morally Necessary

Mark Krikorian: “Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform?

Eww… Those Icky Reconstructionists

The Las Vegas Sun has attempted to link Republican Senate candidate Sharon Angle to Christian Reconstructionism. For anyone with a lick of understanding of Christian theology this link is manifestly false. From reading the article, Sharon Angle seems to have what would be in her conservative Christian circles a rather ordinary “Christian America” understanding. Hardly earth shaking.

That said, the reaction by ordinary conservatives to the link, like their reaction to the charge of racism, is often less than helpful. Can’t they see that “How dare she suggest that Sharon Angle is one of those awful Christian Reconstructionists!” both empowers the enemy and harms your co-belligerents? 

Below is my post on the matter at AmSpec. The first part clears up some imprecision in the Hemingway reaction. The rest gets at the heart of the matter. 

For the record, most Southern Baptists are not Arminian in the strict sense of that term. What most Southern Baptists believe is something of a middle ground between doctrinaire Calvinism and Arminianism. This is debatable, but arguably modern Baptist can more directly trace their lineage to Calvinist origins, and there is a sizable and active effort within the Southern Baptists Convention to return it to what they see as its Calvinist roots. Hemingway is right that Southern Baptists are by and large pre-mil, although that is changing somewhat as well. 

That said, liberals and journalists (sorry I repeat myself) are appallingly ignorant of Christian theology. If Sharon Angle is a practicing Southern Baptist it is almost certain that she is not a Reconstructionist. 

But also, I don’t think Christians running screaming from the Reconstructionist label as if it is some sort of slur is helpful either. It is often inaccurately applied, and if it is this should be pointed out. But Reconstructionism is a precise theological term indicating a precise set of theological beliefs. As such it rises and falls solely on whether or not it is a sound interpretation and application of Scripture. It is not wrong because it has a high PC ick factor or because it is somehow inconsistent with the “American way.” It is either a sound interpretation of the Word of God, or it is not. 

Also, Christian Reconstructionism is not a matter of “hyper-Calvinism” per se, although all Reconstructionist are Calvinists. Reconstructionists do not necessarily hold to the “five points” more strongly than non-Reconstructionist Calvinists. It is a matter of a difference over a particular application of doctrine. 

For the record also, I am neither a Southern Baptist (I am a Baptist), a doctrinaire Calvinist, nor a Reconstructionist. I just hate imprecision, and I hate it when conservatives and Christians dance to the PC tune. “Ewww… I’m not one of those icky kinds of conservatives/Christians.” For Christians, the claims of the Reconstructionists should be supported or countered on the basis of theology alone, not its conformity or lack there of with modernism, the American way, the Constitution or whatever. 

Note also that I have made similar arguments with non-interventionist conservatives about dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not wrong because we don’t like where its proponents have run with it regarding foreign policy and the support of Israel. If it is wrong, it is wrong because it is an inaccurate interpretation and application of Scripture, and it should be countered on a theological basis.

Obama’s latest ally: Evangelicals

No good can come of this:

Evangelical groups in recent weeks have become key players in the Obama administration’s efforts to get immigration reform moving in Congress. And while they have largely couched their arguments in moral terms or with references to biblical teachings, top leaders acknowledge another important reason:

Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, represent fertile prospects for proselytizing.

Buried deep in the article is this little land mine:

Another area of potential tension involves the religious conservatives’ steadfast opposition to recognition of same-sex relationships in any immigration reform bill.

What if Obama promises not to touch the (unconstitutional) Defense of Marriage Act in exchange for evangelical support for amnesty? Illegal aliens get citizenship, Obama gets 20 million new Democratic voters, the Federal government gets an endorsement of its political supremacy over the once-sovereign States, evangelicals get new members, and America gets Latinized.

Everybody wins!

The JournoList Scandal

The unfolding JournoList scandal has already claimed one victim, Dave Weigel, but it may be about to claim some more. The contents of some other JournoList conversations have been exposed and show coordinated attempts by liberal “journalists” to suppress news detrimental to Obama and vilify his conservative critics. This is big and could get much bigger.

See the DailyCaller.

See BigJournalism.

HT: Errol Phillips (no relation)

Poor Whites Most Discriminated Against in College Admissions

A new study (by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford) indicates that lower-income European Americans (i.e. poor white people) are the most discriminated against group of people in college admissions. Russell K. Nieli writes of the study:

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

HT:  Steve Sailer

Addendum:  For more discrimination against whites, check out the Bill Gates scholarships.

States’ Rights and Immigration Enforcement

Joseph Baldacchino, at the National Humanities Institute, has penned an excellent piece, “Regulation of Immigration: Historically a State Function,” on the history of immigration enforcement and the role of individual states. He writes:

Besides dealing with a crucial issue of public policy, the controversy over Arizona’s recently adopted law concerning aliens within its borders illustrates a disturbing lack of familiarity with relevant constitutional law and precedent. The controversy offers a striking example of the deterioration of American constitutionalism.

The state law in question, enacted in April, requires police in Arizona to check the legal status of persons whom they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally while forbidding racial profiling. The purpose is to “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” within the state’s borders.

The Justice Department in Washington has asked a federal district court to block Arizona’s enforcement of the law, arguing that “the power to regulate immigration is exclusively vested in the federal government.” In support of its position, the department cites the clauses in article I that give Congress authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” as well as the clause in article II authorizing the President to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

For its part, Arizona does not deny the preeminent authority of the federal government to regulate immigration. Rather, it contends that its law is meant only to enforce already existing federal immigration laws that are not being adequately enforced by the federal government. “The truth is the Arizona law is both reasonable and constitutional,” according to the state’s governor, Janice Brewer. “It mirrors substantially what has been federal law in the United States for many decades. Arizona’s law is designed to complement, not supplant, enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

Yet it is a measure of how much constitutional interpretation has changed over time that at an earlier period of American history it was generally accepted that the regulation of immigration was primarily a state function, and the big question waiting to be settled was whether the federal government had any share in this power. [Continue Reading...]

Addendum: My intention in posting this piece was to support Arizona’s enforcement of immigration laws, not to argue, as some naive libertarians have, that the federal government has no business enforcing immigration law, as this type of reasoning is usually a Trojan Horse proxy for open borders. The Obama Regime’s line that it is unusual or unprecedented for local law authorities to enforce immigration laws is disengenous at best, considering that local law authorities have the authority to enforce immigration law in nearly every country in the world.

I Told You Robert Stacy McCain is a Paleocon

I have taken up for RSM in the past when some criticized him for being too quick to defend mainstream movement conservatives, because I knew an inner paleo lurked beneath all that.

He has now proven my faith in him was justified. Here he disses Jaffa and takes the side of M. E. Bradford in their famous (well famous in our geeky circles) debate on equality. His post gets at the heart of the issue and demonstrates that RSM clearly gets it.

Harrison, how long before Charles Johnson goes after RSM about this?

Reconstructed conservatism

I’ve laughed before at Andrew Sullivan’s claim to be a conservative (see here, for example). In addition to supporting Open Borders, he calls for same-sex “marriage” as part of his new and improved version of conservatism. He supported the Neocon Wars as wars of homosexual liberation.

David Frum, who accused paleoconservatives of being “unpatriotic conservatives” because of their opposition to the Neocon Wars, has been guest-blogging for Sullivan this week. While there, he decided to help Sullivan re-define conservatism. Here’s his first draft:

A reality-based, culturally modern, socially inclusive and environmentally responsible politics that supports free markets, limited government and a peaceful American-led world order.

We can guess what Frum means by “socially inclusive.” And that last part, by the way, endorses empire — as big as big government can get. Now we can see just how alien, un-American, and anti-conservative these people really are.

On the Anti-Occidental Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal

Paul Gottfried and Sam Francis often pointed out how leftists use the banner of “conservatism” to promote left-wing causes. For instance,  neoconservatives (who are really neo-Trotskyites) have used the banner of conservatism to promote nation building throughout the Middle East, universal human rights, egalitarianism, propositionalism, suicidal free trade policies, mass Third World immigration into the West, etc.

A more recent example of this phenomenon is the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal, an anti-Western organization promoting the destruction of the West under the banner of Edmund Burke. Under their programs page (which was recently mocked on a conservative email list and which I first thought was a satire on neoconservatism), here’s a taste from the NeoMarxist menu:

New Feminism: This program is designed to show how conservative principles affirm the fundamental rights, values and liberties of women; there is no contradiction between conservatism and feminism.

Yes, feminism is inherent in traditional modes of life ranging from Ancient Greece to Medieval Europe.

African Americans and Traditional Values: We seek to place the issues dear to African Americans at the forefront of political debate. This program will find solutions that are based on empowerment, independence and entrepreneurship. We celebrate the history and culture of African Americans and affirm their contributions to American society.

In other words, this will be another anti-white race racket demanding more handouts, affirmative action, etc., while ignoring African Americans’ glaring failings?

Hispanics and the Conservative Movement: We will integrate Hispanics within the conservative movement. There are millions of diligent and talented Hispanics in America who have a Christian heritage, hold dear to traditions which exalt the family and the community, and who are determined to improve their economic standing.

Truly comical. Hasn’t this already been miserably tried? And why use the word ‘Hispanic’? These people are not Spanish. They’re mestizos from Mexico and Central America. They are not Western, notwithstanding the “Christianity fallacy” (i.e. open-borders neocons wrongly conflate Christian and Western imputing that the former is a sufficient condition for the later, when there are non-Western forms of Christianity and, as Philip Jenkins points out, many mainstream forms of Catholicism and Protestantism are becoming anti-Western).   Instead of the failed McCain 2008 strategy, European Americans need the Sailer strategy.

The American Dream for Minorities: We are committed to giving minorities the tools they need to achieve the American Dream–that is, prosperity for every family.

How so? Income redistribution? More scholarships for minorities (which adversely affect European Americans)?

America in the World: …accepting America’s global responsibilities and working multilaterally whenever possible, but unilaterally if necessary.

In other words, let’s spend billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in a quixotic attempt at nation building in the Middle East.

The Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal fosters a type of conservatism that Leon Trotsky would be proud to call his own.  One thing about which the Edmund Burke Institute is correct, however, is that conservatism does not presuppose what must be conserved.  Traditions and people differ. Clearly people who are not European American (white) can have their own conservative traditions.   There are African conservative traditions, Arabic/Persian/Semitic conservative traditions, Asian conservative traditions, Mestizo/Amerindian/”Hispanic” conservative traditions, Indo-Dravidian conservative traditions, etc.  We shouldn’t begrudge these people for following their own ancestral traditions – I don’t – but they are not our own; they are not Western.  Whatever the Edmund Burke Institute is promoting for the U.S. is antithetical to the interests of European Americans.  It is in this sense they’re the heirs of Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky.

The Obama Regime’s War upon European America

As many commentators have noted, the Obama Regime is playing a dangerous game. Having lost the European-American (white) vote that put Obama over the edge in 2008, Obama has decided to make up the difference by flooding the U.S. with non-whites (Haitians, Indians, Mestizos, etc.).  First, Obama plans a mass amnesty for mestizos and others in the U.S. He plans to increase legal immigration quotas from the Third World, fully aware that both legal and illegal immigration are driving down the wages of Americans. And finally he just flatly refuses to enforce immigration laws. Second, in the case of Arizona, Obama attempts to prohibit a state from enforcing immigration laws. Has there ever  before been a president so full of hatred of America’s historical European population?

Fortunately, Obama’s dangerous game is not going unnoticed. Even Ed Koch, former Democratic mayor of NYC who supported Obama in 2008, is now lambasting The Great One. Koch writes:

President Obama does not believe that our borders can be protected against illegal entry.  He also does not believe that efforts by Arizona to clamp down on illegal immigration are proper.  As reported in Politico on July 2nd, President Obama said in a speech he gave at The American University in Washington, “…it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive — although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate.  Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable.  It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets.”

The President went on to say, “These laws also have the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.”

The President appears to be telling the American public that the U.S. government can’t keep our borders safe from illegal entry.  But if the feds really wanted to prevent illegal entry, they would send the National Guard to the borders with the mission of preventing illegals from entering, which is what most Americans believe they could and should do.  How do other countries protect their borders?  Mexico does not open its southern border to illegals from Central and South America.  It arrests, detains and sends them back to their home countries, as President Felipe Calderon admitted in a recent interview on CNN.  Is the U.S.A. less competent than Mexico in the matter of border security?

President Obama says the Arizona law has “the potential of violating the rights [of the immigrants] …because of what they look like or how they sound.”  Is the President saying because the illegals crossing the Mexican-American border are brown skinned and speak Spanish, they have a right to cross? Doesn’t the Arizona police force have a right to arrest someone committing both a federal and state crime?  Mexican illegal immigrants are economic refugees.  Is the President saying that we now are obliged to accept economic refugees in addition to political refugees who fear for their lives?  Is he saying to the citizens of Haiti, most of whom would qualify as economic refugees, that we will accord them refugee status and take them in?   Continue reading

Life of the Party

I wanted to comment on the Kevin Thompson’s leaving the CP and Red Phillips response to it. Like Red, I too believe non-major parties can be useful if they are used in the right manner and organized in the right way.

I have written about such uses for non-major parties and I agree such parties should not just use ideology as their sole building block. American political parties have alwasy been building blocks for various communities of interest. The weakest parties, you will find, are those only based on dogma and ideology. Every left-wing and right-wing splinter group can attest to that.

Actually, why leave the party at all? What law says you can’t be a member of two parties? Hmm? I am not a full member of the CP, but I affiliate with it. I also do the same with the LP and the GOP. I’m like old Raymond Burr in those Independent insurance business commercials, I don’t represent one party, I represent many.  Kevin Thompson can do so too. No one is stopping him.

Without the CP or the LP around, there’s nothing stopping the GOP from going fully neocon. The Ron Paul Movement has made extraordinary progress within the GOP since it first started in December 2006 but it still has a long way to go and there is no guarantee it will get to where its going. 

Using activists from small parties to influence a bigger one way non-major parties can be used effectively. Winning local elections, especially for non-partisan offices is another.  Influence local communities so that policy is changed from the ground up should be the main goal for non-major parties.

Too many people in this country talk about political parties in the same manner that socialists do. They hold them sacred. The Founding Fathers would have said nonsense. Non-major parties keep our political system open and fluid. Without them, we would be at the mercy of a highly centralized duopoly. For the sake of our Republic alone, we need more than two choices. Whether or not Chuck Baldwin would have made a good President, your work and my work to get him on the ballot and have him as a choice for those not wishing to hold their nose and waste a vote on McCain, was very important.

David Vitter Draws the Wrath of Anti-Birther Hysterics

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) has said something mildly supportive of birthers and now the anti-birther hysterics are doing what they do best, feigning hysteria and outrage.

Below is the reply I posted in the AmSpecthread. My thoughts on the matter will be familiar to many of our readers, but there is an element to the Vitter case that deserves attention. Basically all he said was that he supports legal efforts in the courts to get at the truth.

I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya, so I guess I am not technically a “birther,” but I am definitely an anti-anti-birther. (I do believe Obama is hiding something in all his unreleased documents.) The sort of preening, grandstanding feigned hysteria “Oh my! David Vitter is a birther! The shame! The horror!” represented by this post disgusts me.

There is a type of centrist mainstream “conservative” who is more interested in proving how thoughtful and reasonable he is and that he is not like “those other conservatives” that he throws his fellow conservatives under the bus in the name of polishing up his own “I’m oh so reasonable” bona fides. I call these people “taint phobics” (of which “conspiracy phobics” are a subgroup) because they are more interested in distancing themselves from any perceived “taint” on the right than they are in fighting the left.

Let’s look at what Vitter said. He said he supports lawsuits attempting to get at the truth. This is a PERFECTLY REASONABLE position. Frequently the argument of the anti-birther “conspiracy phobic” hysterics is that if the birthers don’t think Obama is eligible they should prove it in court or STHU and cite the fact that most of these lawsuits haven’t gotten very far as proof that there is nothing to the birthers’ claims. Well you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say prove it in court and then ridicule someone for bringing a case or in Vitter’s case supporting the legal efforts. So which is it going to be? Prove it in court or you’re a clown for supporting a legal effort?

Of course the anti-birther hysterics really do want it both ways. What they are really saying to the birthers is “just shut up and go away.”

Here is what I think. I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya. The logistics of that have never made much sense to me. But I do think it is entirely reasonable, since the issue has come up, for someone to want to see the long form birth certificate. In fact, this sort of curiosity is the intuitive, natural response and has to be actively suppressed by conspiracy phobia. Why would someone not want to see the long form? And there is no legitimate reason why Obama shouldn’t just happily authorize the release of the long form, if for no other reason than to shut people up. Since he hasn’t, it is perfectly reasonable for people to be curious as to why he won’t just release it.

Addendum:There is another thing that I posted in a second reply that I think needs reiterating. I believe it is extremely naive to think that this will all be sorted out by the courts. Judges are likely to come up with any reason they can not to hear the case because none of them want to deal with this hot potato. It is the job of journalists to get to the truth here, and their “incuriousness” (see John – TMF on 7/14/10 @ 11:03AM) suggests they are actively suppressing their native curiosity either because they support Obama or they just don’t want (like the judges) this hot potato either. The media failed miserably (and deliberately) in vetting this candidate.

Obama the Liar on Free Trade

Remember when Obama was campaigning and sounded tough on free trade? Remember his promise to renegotiate NAFTA? Well, people with any sense knew he was a liar. And now he has taken his anti-American economic policy even further:

In a speech this week, President Obama urged Congress to ratify the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement “as soon as possible.” He also urged action on stalled trade deals with South Korea and Panama. These words represent an amazing turnabout for President Obama. As a candidate, Obama excoriated all three trade deals, U.S.-Colombia most of all.

With the Obama Regime’s war on Arizona and now its anti-American free trade deals, what will be the next move of the anti-Western Obama Regime? Don’t worry. Obama has the anti-Western, Israel-Firster David Frum’s blessing.

If You Don’t Like the Ol’ Time Religion Just Change It

Apparently all those stuffy old rules in that little Book God wrote are dragging down the oh so modern and inclusive members of the “Presbyterian” “Church,” USA, so they just voted to change them. I guess they couldn’t let those prohibitions the Creator of the Universe (who is He to tell us what to do anyway?) laid out get in the way of proving their PC bona fides.

When commenting on wayward Methodists I have often lamented the way they are dragging the good name of a Christian stalwart like John Wesley through the mud. I should also note that these “Presbyterians”* are dragging poor ol’ John Calvin’s name through the mud as well, lest I be accused of taking a side on the whole free-will/predestination debate.

*The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which broke from the PCUSA, remains orthodox.

Matt Lewis On Coulter vs. Kristol

Here is a good take on the Coulter vs. Kristol flap that Harrison posted on below.

It is possible that non-interventionists, grasping for any good news, have over interpreted what Coulter wrote. I came to her defense based on reading the excerpts, but the actual column as a whole is a mess, full of boilerplate defenses of the invasion of Iraq. (Reading the column first before opining is always helpful.) But there are at least some seeds of truth and movement in her column that are encouraging. At least one encouraging aspect is that she recognizes that she as an interventionist conservative is not identical to a neoconservative who she clearly identifies as something else.

Any grand “schism” is not going to have Coulter on one side and Kristol on the other, at least not yet, but it may have Joe Scarborough on one side and Kristol on the other, with Coulter having ignited perhaps more than she bargained for.

“USA” is downsizing to the letter “U”

It’s the trend. Kentucky Fried Chicken is now KFC, the YMCA is now the Y, and today, Robert Gibbs, the Obama administration’s press secretary, announced today the USA is out, and the U is in.

“It’s more welcoming, more open, and easier name to remember,” said Gibbs. When asked to elaborate, Gibbs pointed out that the former United States of America was originally 13 independent States, all of which had practised slavery. “Worse,” said Gibbs, “only white males could vote or hold office. Many people believe the letter “S” only brings back hurtful memories of that unenlightened age.”

“And with the kind of job the public schools are doing these days, kids will find it easier to remember just one letter instead of three,” Gibbs added.

There’s other historical baggage being left behind with the new name, and Gibbs stressed this was a major objective of the name change. “The Obama administration is all about unifying people, and going forward. When you remind people this country is composed of what were independent States, that only reinforces the discredited theory of States’ Rights. And our agenda, from health care, to the takeover of entire industries, and to amnesty for illegal aliens, depends upon gutting what’s left of States’ Rights and increasing the power of the Federal government.”

One reporter asked what the problem was with the letter “A.”

“Lots!” said Gibbs. “Think about it. ‘America’ is the name European colonists gave to this continent. Think how degrading that is to the Sioux, the Cherokee, and the Inca peoples. By erasing that reminder of this nation’s tragic history, we proclaim our tolerance, our openness to other cultures, and our intention to disavow this country’s Western, Christian traditions.”

But when a reporter pointed out that Mexico is composed of states, and the “A” could stand for Aztlan, Gibbs suspended the press conference. “Let me get back to you on that.”

Coulter vs. Kristol

You’d have to be barking mad not to realize the Empire is going to lose in Afghanistan. Either that, or you’re so blinded by an other-worldly ideology that defeat in the global democratic revolution is beyond your range of comprehension.

Enter Bill Kristol. He published a demand for Michael Steele to resign for his comments on the hopelessness of a military win in Afghanistan. And here’s how he ended the demand:

There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they’re certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn’t be the chairman of the Republican party.

Which prompted Ann Coulter to respond with this backhand to Kristol’s face:

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.

What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?

Chalk up another defector from the Legion of Super War Supporters.

The Liberal Media’s (Second) Public Lynching of Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson has taken much heat for his recent comment to Oksana Grigorieva. Criticizing her for wearing “slutty clothing” around bad elements, Gibson allegedly said: “You look like a f—ing pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of niggers, it will be your fault.” Although such words might not be the most endearing thing to say to a girlfriend, many in the liberal media are in full force denouncing Gibson as a “racist” and dismissing as a “racist stereotype” the threat of white women being raped by black men.

Yet, in 2005, the Department of Justice conducted a study that confirms this stereotype:

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

With statistics like these, leftist propaganda ministers will have their work cut out to promote their desired (albeit artificial) gestalt: endlessly denouncing Gibsons and promoting more white-on-black faux-rape cases.

Addendum:  My point in posting this is to point out the hypocrisy of the media in promoting stories like this one (or this one) while ignoring stories like this one, this one, or this one. The logic of the media’s assault seems to be there there is absolutely no crime worse than European Americans (whites) committing “racism,” which apparently tops even rape or murder.