Monthly Archives: April 2012

Peter Gemma on the Link Between Immigration and Free Trade

Here is an article from our friend Peter Gemma on the link between immigration and free trade. (Editor’s note: This article was previously misleadingly labeled a book review. It has been corrected to more accurately reflect the content of the article.)

In his book, The Open-Borders Network: How a Web of Ethnic Activists, Journalists, Corporations, Politicians, Lawyers, and Clergy Undermine U.S. Border Security and National Sovereignty, author Kevin Lamb —managing editor of this journal — makes this important observation: “The propaganda in favor of uncontrolled immigration from today’s business leaders echoes the arguments California business magnates made in support of bringing in hundreds of thousands of Chinese coolies to work on the railroads and in agriculture in the 1880s. Yet there is an important difference. Until recently, advocates for American business took care to claim that their demands served the interests of the nation and its people. Today, a growing and significant segment of America’s most important business interests is not only striving for, but openly espouses, the opening of America’s borders and the eclipse of its national sovereignty.”1

The special interests Lamb writes about are what President Dwight Eisenhower dubbed “the military-industrial complex”: a powerful conglomerate consisting of Wall Street moguls, multi-national corporate elites, and naïve politicians, who on this issue, will march under a “free trade” banner in anybody’s parade.

Corporate elites and political globalists are mounting an assault on American immigration restriction laws, job growth policies — and U.S. sovereignty. Their weaponry includes so-called “free trade” treaties, and the establishment of regulatory agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to facilitate them. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an example of a formidable battalion in the open borders army. Its membership includes over 800 chief executives, some 200 government leaders, numerous high-ranking officials from regional and international organizations, and some 300 scientists, artists, and representatives of the media. Major firms from all sectors of business and industry are represented. WEF is part of the establishment who, as Lamb says, advocate tearing down America’s borders, stealing jobs from the working class, and neutralizing U.S. national sovereignty.

See more…

End stigma of cousin marriage

People have long intuitively known that marrying co-ethnics is healthy, as it increases one’s inclusive fitness. Furthermore, the more closely related to the child a parent is, the more the parent is likely to care for the child.

But while co-ethnic marriages have long been praised, cousin marriage has  been criticized for the past century or two on the grounds that it is “unhealthy.”  Looking at genetic research, however, it turns out that these claims are largely mythological.  Alan Bittles has a new book out by Oxford University press, Consanguinity in Context, which shows that the harms of cousin marriage are largely exaggerated and that cousin marriage might have certain genetic benefits, such as increased cooperation.

Local Article on Virgil Goode: Paul, Spending, Immigration

Goode is getting a lot of press in Virginia. This doesn’t sound too bad:

House Republicans are leaving it up to the House committees to decide what to cut and how changes in the tax law would help balance the budget, Goode said. He added that of the Republicans who have sought the party’s nomination for the November race, only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas “has the will to cut” spending.

Goode said he always was at odds with Ryan and the House budget committees. For instance, he wanted to slash foreign aid and funds to rebuild Iraq, but they did not. If illegal immigration stopped and the No Child Left Behind law was repealed, it would save billions, he added.

On Immigration:

“I do not want green card admissions” of immigrants with only a few exceptions, such as if no one else can do a particular job, while Obama favors green card admissions, Goode said. He said that is because many of the immigrants are from Third World countries and when they eventually become citizens, often they are Democrats.

Press Release: Former Congressman Virgil Goode Receives 2012 Constitution Party Presidential Nomination

Of course this isn’t news to CHT readers, but here is the official release of the Constitution Party:

Former Virginia Congressman, Virgil Goode secured the Constitution Party’s nomination for president at the party’s National Convention Saturday, April 21st in Nashville, Tennessee. Goode was one of six candidates vying for the spot. He won on the first ballot.

Goode served 24 years in the Virginia Senate. He was elected to Congress in 1996, succeeding L.F. Payne. Goode left the Democratic Party to become an independent before the 2000 election and then joined the Republican Party ahead of the 2002 election. Goode was unseated in 2008 by Democrat Tom Perriello. Though he undoubtedly could have regained his seat in 2010, Goode opted instead to join the Constitution Party to help provide a real alternative for the average American voter.

Goode said he plans to attract voters such as Democrats who are dissatisfied with President Barack Obama and Republicans who don’t align with presumptive nominee Mitt Romney’s policy positions. “Romney’s and Obama’s positions are not all that different. There’s not much distinction,” Goode said. “My position would be significantly different from either of them.”

Continue reading

More on Marco Rubio’s Foreign Policy Speech

I don’t mean to step on Walter’s post below, but Rubio’s speech is creating quite the Internet buzz, and I wanted to direct our readers attention to some reactions to it.

Rubio is obnoxiously interventionist. His speech was a caricature of deluded interventionism. In addition to the dozy of a quote Walter gives us below, check out this beauty:

And I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at all. Who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go “abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”.

This quote can be found in this interventionist apologia by John Tabin at American Spectator.

Jack Hunter hammers Rubio here.

Pat Buchanan’s biographer discusses the speech here.

Michael Brendan Dougherty calls Rubio out here.

And Daniel Larson is hammering him repeatedly. (Here, here, here, here, here,  & here)

Update: Robert Kagan wrote Rubio’s speech.

Update II: Here is Reid Smith’s humorous take.

Neocon Marco Rubio is an interventionist on steroids

Neoconservative Marco Rubio is an interventionist on steroids.  From his speech yesterday:

I always start by reminding people that what happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of our lives is directly impacted by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Our cost of living, the safety of our food , and the value of the things we invent, make and sell are just a few examples of everyday aspects of our lives that are directly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here are home.

Yes, let’s spend a trillion dollars nation building in Somalia so that they can have cable TV and everyone of them can buy (from all the aid we give them) a pair of Nike Air Jordans!  With unrealistic objectives like Rubio outlines it will only be a short matter of time before the US collapses from its invade-the-world/invite-the-world debt.

Nullify the NDAA!

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) grants the president as commander-in-chief to use the military forces to indefinitely detain Americans who are suspected of aiding terror groups.

Yes, you read that right – you can be jailed on mere suspicion.

What happened to the 5th and 6th amendments?

They’re still in place, argues Dr. Brian Phillips. Even more important, the 9th and 10th amendments are still valid as well, giving the people of the sovereign States the right to nullify illegal acts of a runaway central government. That was the purpose of Virginia H.B. 1160, which will prevent any “Virginia law enforcement agency from cooperating with the indefinite detention of Americans.”

It was the reserved powers of the States that formed the basis of resistance to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Virginia and Kentucky famously opposed in 1798, thanks to resolutions drawn up by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Now that Arizona has joined Virginia in standing up to the illegal NDAA, nullification is back in the political arena. Jefferson and Madison would be proud.

My Thoughts on Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party on Hold Until After the Election

I have apparently upset some people with my criticism of the Virgil Goode nomination.

I had concerns about the nomination of Goode before the Convention which I expressed openly but not in the frantic manner I did about Alan Keyes, because, as I expressed in the link above, Alan Keyes brought with him a lot of ideological baggage that would have tainted the party in a way that Goode’s nomination doesn’t.  I also didn’t get the sense that there was enough dissatisfaction with Goode to rally anyway. In hindsight, I probably should have been more vocal in my criticisms because there apparently was some dissatisfaction with him as evidenced by the fact that he only won the nomination on the first ballot by one vote.

But what’s done is done and my after the fact criticism of the Goode nomination is being questioned. After some consideration, I have decided that it would be best if I hold off on my criticism of the Goode nomination and what I see as the message problem of the Constitution Party until after the election.

I have written often in my defenses of third party voting about how I try to consider what message my vote sends. Likewise, as far as the big picture message sent by the voters collectively is concerned, I ultimately don’t want to deny Goode votes.  More votes for Goode is better than less votes for Goode.

With this in mind, and also realizing that I don’t do my own influence (such as it may be) any good by making myself persona non grata with the Constitution Party, I will withold my criticisms until after the election.

My concern has always been the advancement of what I feel to be authentic conservatism and my desire for the Constitution Party to serve as one vehichle for that. The nature of my concerns about the message of the Constitution Party may be overly philosophical and inside baseballish, but I don’t think they are mysterious. My “motives” are as out there as they can possibly be.

Until November then.

My Thoughts on the Constitution Party’s Nomination of Virgil Goode

As I said in the comments to the Goode post below, I held my fire on Goode leading up to the Convention because I don’t want to get a reputation as the purist naysayer who balks at every big name candidate the CP tries to recruit. Plus I didn’t sense that there was enough anti-Goode sentiment to muster anyway or an acceptable non-Goode candidate around which to rally even if there was. I let it be known that I had concerns about Goode, but didn’t go on the war path the way I did about Keyes. I don’t think Goode’s nomination is the disaster that Keyes’ would have been because Keyes brought with him a whole system of ideological baggage that Goode does not.

That said, had I sensed that there was a sufficient well of opposition to Goode and a better candidate to rally around, I probably would have said more publicly. I don’t want to appear to overestimate my influence, which is minimal, but I would have felt better if I had tried.

I’m glad Castle stepped up and at least gave the delegates an option, but I think the “purist” faction, for lack of a better term, is partially to blame here as well. The candidates have been known, by and large, for a while. If they thought Goode was less than ideal but didn’t think Wells was an acceptable alternative, then it demonstrates a lack of organization and planning on their part that they didn’t come up with a candidate to rally around sooner. Had Castle been approached earlier and declined?

I do not demand perfection from candidates, and it is not Goode’s votes that concern me as much as his unwillingness to walk back from them. (Any ex-elected Congressman is going to have votes that are problematic from a constitutionalist standpoint, but are they willing to embrace constitutionalism now?) Apparently he was pretty clear in his Convention speech about his Patriot Act vote, but he seemed to me to be deliberately dodging the foreign policy issue prior to the Convention. I suspect he doesn’t want to alienate disaffected Republicans who refuse to vote for Romney but would be turned off by full-blown Paul style non-interventionism. I also suspect he is trying to keep open the potential for getting the AIP ballot line in California and embracing full-throated non-interventionism would jeopardize that.

Here is the problem with the Goode nomination as I see it. The CP already has a serious identity problem. This is a problem of the perception of people on the outside, but also a real problem of identity on the inside. Is the Constitution Party the party of mainstream “three-legs-of-the-stool” conservatism just more so than the insufficiently so Republican Party, or does it represent a fundamentally different understanding of what it means to be a conservative? In other words, is it simply a party that is more conservative by degree, or is it different in kind? I hope it is the latter. I think in many ways it is the latter. (See my reply to Savrola for more details on my sense of what the CP coalition is.) But it has historically done a lousy job of making this distinction, and the nomination of Virgil Goode contributes to this lack of clarity.

Update: See my post above.

Birds of a feather

In reaction to the New York Times story on Obama further expanding the Bush-Cheney power grabs, two pro-war, any war sites have chimed in FAVORING Obama’s actions.

American Power admits, “Personally, I have no problems with the the model of strong executive power (unitary executive theory).”

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs praises Obama in a post entitled, Obama Using Executive Power to Get Around Obstructionist GOP.

Despite their childish bickering, both big-government, pro-interventionist pundits are still singing the same tune.

Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats on marriage amendment

The problem with leftist ideology is that it cherry-picks various ideas from different cultural norms and blends them into an unworkable, abstract ideal based on nothing that actually exists, or could. Without a foundation in reality, leftism must command unlimited, unnatural power to prop itself up. It couldn’t exist otherwise.

No wonder liberals ALWAYS take the side of the all-powerful, unitary state, and oppose dispersed power and individual liberty. That’s why communism can only arise in a totalitarian state – it is such an anti-human monstrosity that it can only exist in a regime based on fraud and force.

Egalitarianism, a crucial component of Marxist ideology, has a seductive appeal in very limited circumstances. But when people grasp its implications, they run from it, and rightly so.

While the call to “equality” might pick up a few supporters for race hustlers demanding reparations and affirmative action, it falls flat when it’s taken to its logical conclusion to require an imagined right to same-sex “marriage.” So it’s amusing to see the leftist agenda so thoroughly denounced by those who are SUPPOSED to support it without thinking. Unfortunately for the left, black Christians think, and they think poorly of this latest far-left edict:

Bishop Phillip Davis had not planned to talk about marriage and politics, but five minutes into his sermon at Nations Ford Community Church in Charlotte he changed his mind.

“You know, we got this amendment on the ballot,” Davis said, walking to the back of the church stage, then throwing his arm around a member of the men’s choir as laughter grew. …

Thirty-one states – in 31 tries – have approved amendments to block gay unions. Based on the polls, North Carolina is a good bet to extend the streak May 8, due in part to African-American congregations like Nations Ford.

The Achilles heel of leftist ideology is leftist ideology.

NEWS FLASH: Darrell Castle to Seek Constitution Party Presidential Nomination

This just in from my man on the inside at the Constitution Party Convention. Darrell Castle of Tennessee will be seeking the Constitution Party Presidential Nomination. This is a surprise, but a VERY positive development in my opinion. Castle was generally considered the fallback candidate if a “big name” didn’t get in. Once Goode declared, discussion of Castle faded. I had assumed that Castle was on board with Goode as most of the party leadership seemed to be on board with Goode.

Castle is not a “big name,” but I can comfortably support him. He represents what I have previously called, and bemoaned that none was available, the “modal” CP candidate.

Update: I apparently misread my source’s email. Howard Phillips DID NOT speak on behalf of Castle. Phillips spoke on behalf of Goode. (You could call it pronoun confusion.) Castle said in his speech that he was approached by several delegates about running.

Healthy Skepticism of Virgil Goode

Last weekend I had the opportunity to meet with Virgil Goode, the presumptive nominee of the Constitution Party. This week is the CP National Convention in Nashville. Unfortunately I’m not able to make the convention this time around, but I sincerely hope that my fellow Constitutionalists will scrutinize Goode to the hilt. In 2008 we rightly rejected Alan Keyes because he’s a neocon. Goode’s neocon leanings, especially with respect to foreign policy, ought to be top on the list of concerns for the delegates at the 2012 convention.

I’m not going to bore readers with a list of mistakes from Goode’s congressional voting record. Suffice to say he’s voted for some ridiculous things as a member of Congress, but the top two concerns for us Constitutionalists ought to be his votes on the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. I asked Goode about both of these issues and I really wasn’t impressed with his answers. He’s a nice fellow and all, but I don’t think he’s a fit for our Party and certainly shouldn’t be our presidential nominee.

When asked about the Iraq War, Goode never walked that back at all. If anything, he gave me a muddled answer which didn’t really address my original question. He talked about how he wants to end foreign aid, bring our troops home from overseas, and that Congress ought to make a declaration of war before going to war–all good things, to be sure–but this wasn’t a real answer. Not once did he come close to saying that the war itself was a mistake. But I’m honestly not surprised given Goode’s previous promotion of our intervention into Iraq.

Regarding the Patriot Act, Goode did say that it was a mistake to subject American citizens to the Patriot Act. But he voted for it–twice. Once for the original legislation and again to make it permanent. He said that he was fine with applying the Patriot Act to non-citizens. Okay. I’m not sure if this can be considered a walking back on this particular issue, but at least his answer on this was more straightforward than when I asked him about the war. Even so, for someone who claims to uphold the Constitution, voting “no” on the Patriot Act should have been a no-brainer.

At any rate, I sincerely hope and pray that the Constitution Party does not wholeheartedly embrace Virgil Goode–unless he publicly repudiates the aforementioned votes. Delegates, now is the opportunity to make yourselves heard. Now is not the time to shrink back and sacrifice our Party’s principles in the name of having a “big name” on the ballot. Whatever happened to “principle above party”? We already have one Republican Party and we certainly don’t need another.

How Conservative INC. grows and multiplies

This article from Dave Weigel in Slate shows a perfect example of how Conservative INC. grows and multiples like buckthorn to crowd out the native plants. Here is Herman Cain unveiling his new role as political activist in front of another poorly attended national Tea Party gathering in Washington D.C:

“…Herman Cain is becoming the man of the moment, as far as the Tea Party’s concerned,” says Judson Phillips. “What’s his role in the movement now? I’d call him a strategic planner without a portfolio.”

You can chortle at the empty chairs and uneaten catering at the Renaissance Hotel, but put it in perspective: The inspiration is a guy who dropped out of the presidential race before any of the primaries. He had to drop out because middle-aged women kept materializing in TV studios and describing grabby encounters with the former National Restaurant Association boss. As he was quitting, he spent more than $300,000 on legal bills.

And yet here he is, still beloved by the movement that briefly made him a legit threat to Mitt Romney. Here’s Mark Block, Cain’s chief of staff, still Internet-famous for the campaign video that featured him free-associating about Cain’s “campaign like no other” and smoking a cigarette in front of a brick wall.

“How many candidates dropped out of the race?” he asks, rhetorically. “Herman didn’t go away. Here’s a joke among staff that we love. He took ‘three days of vacation’ after the announcement, okay? Two and a half days of that, he was working, setting up Cain Solutions.”

Quitting the presidential race worked out brilliantly for Cain. Contrast his life with that of Newt Gingrich, still technically running for president. Cain now heads three organizations, with loosely defined goals—Cain Connections, Cain Solutions, and the Herman Cain Foundation. At this reception, he will announce a video channel called CTV. Its flagship show, confusingly enough will be called Cain TV. A short preview shows the host, a beefy joke writer named Rodney Lee Conover, mocking the life and loves of Sandra Fluke as a cartoon of the birth-control advocate sprawls lazily and lustily on a dorm room bed.

Continue reading

Leftist goons acting badly

Here’s one of those stories you laugh at when you first read it, then start worrying about:

Police say a mob of 25 anarchists fought with officers and tried to use eight-foot-long metal pipes to smash windows of a Starbucks in the East Village on Saturday.

The incident happened around 8:45 p.m. at the Starbucks on the corner of Astor Place and Lafayette Street. Customers were sent diving under tables during the attack.

The mob was unable to smash the thick protective plexiglass windows and there ended up being no damage to the store.

Police arrested Eric Marchese, 24, Alexander Penley, 41 and Nicholas Thommen, 30. All three men face multiple charges. Two officers sustained minor injuries in the melee.

As laughable as this is – black-garbed anarchists whacking away unsuccessfully at Starbucks windows – it also reveals that these characters are committed to violence. The Three Stooges yearn to be Three Who Made a Revolution. This report gives a clearer picture of what happened:

Coffee drinkers hid under tables during the fracas, cops said. The group had just left the sixth annual anarchist book fair being held at a church off Washington Square Park.

They then took to the streets marching against traffic chanting, “F— the NYPD!” “Cops are murderers!” and “All pigs must die!” authorities said.

In other words, they were acting out their own violent rhetoric.

We need to remember that the Occupy movement isn’t finished, and at least one of the anarchists who threatened the police and attacked Starbucks is an Occupy protester. Even more disturbing, Alexander Penley, one of the coffee-hating anarchists the police arrested, claims he stands “strong with antifa,” who are our very own Red Guard in our very own Cultural Revolution.

The upcoming Democratic National Convention promises to be a lively event. Several leftist groups from all over the country have banded together to revive the Occupy movement by protesting in Charlotte, which they call “The Wall Street of the South.” And check out the remarks of this gentleman, as quoted in the Charlotte Observer:

“We won’t tolerate any effort to stop us from exercising our constitutional rights to protest,” said Larry Holmes, with Occupy 4 Jobs in New York. “If they have to arrest 10,000 of us, if we have to fill the jails, … we will be here.”

Does that sound ominous to you? I took Holmes’s statement as a threat, and decided to learn more about him. Turns out Larry Holmes is the First Secretary of the Stalinist Workers World Party. I don’t know about you, but membership in a party that celebrates mass murderers and violent revolution STRONGLY SUGGESTS Holmes and his friends intend to make real trouble during the DNC this summer. And the hostile attitude both anarchists and antifa have toward police warrants serious concern.

But how typical of the Observer, which always tries to pretty up the public image of leftist groups. In January, it failed to mention that two of the Occupy Charlotte protesters who burned the US flag were members of the thuggish Anti-Racist Action network.

However, I have to consider that it’s not liberal bias at work in the Observer’s coverage gaps. Could be the paper has never heard of Google. It’s possible.