Victor Davis Hanson Makes An Excellent Point

This from Victor Davis Hanson writing at PJM:

Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable, or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.

Having pondered that for a bit, its clear that VDS has articulated an insightful and important point. VDS goes into detail, explaining how radical environmentalism, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, and affirmative action make his point. Do read his entire article. This is a suggestion that all on the right should take to heart. It is decades beyond time for the right to stop ceding the moral high ground to those on the left who are merely posing atop it.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

VDH: The Sacking Of California By The Modern Vandals

This is certainly one of the more depressing posts one can imagine reading - Victor Davis Hanson, writing from his farm in rural California, discusses how the state is descending into anarchy akin to that which marked the start of the Dark Ages.  It is a horrific story that he details:

I am starting to feel as if I am living in a Vandal state, perhaps on the frontier near Carthage around a.d. 530, or in a beleaguered Rome in 455. Here are some updates from the rural area surrounding my farm, taken from about a 30-mile radius. In this take, I am not so much interested in chronicling the flotsam and jetsam as in fathoming whether there is some ideology that drives it.

Last week an ancestral rural school near the Kings River had its large bronze bell stolen. I think it dated from 1911. I have driven by it about 100 times in the 42 years since I got my first license. The bell had endured all those years. Where it is now I don’t know. Does someone just cut up a beautifully crafted bell in some chop yard in rural Fresno County, without a worry about who forged it or why — or why others for a century until now enjoyed its presence?

The city of Fresno is now under siege. Hundreds of street lights are out, their copper wire stripped away. In desperation, workers are now cementing the bases of all the poles — as if the original steel access doors were not necessary to service the wiring. How sad the synergy! Since darkness begets crime, the thieves achieve a twofer: The more copper they steal, the easier under cover of spreading night it is to steal more. Yet do thieves themselves at home with their wives and children not sometimes appreciate light in the darkness? Do they vandalize the street lights in front of their own homes?

In a small town two miles away, the thefts now sound like something out of Edward Gibbon’s bleaker chapters — or maybe George Miller’sRoad Warrior, or the Hughes brothers’ more recent The Book of Eli.Hundreds of bronze commemorative plaques were ripped off my town’s public buildings (and with them all record of our ancestors’ public-spiritedness). I guess that is our version of Trotskyization.

After page after page of chronicling the lawlessness to which rural California is being subjected, Hanson notes that the police in cash-strapped California are far more focused on pinching the middle class - a reliable source of funds - than investigating and arresting the modern Vandals who are destroying all about him.

The state’s reaction to all this is a contorted exercise in blaming the victim, in both the immediate and the abstract senses. Governor Brown wants to raise income taxes on the top two brackets by 1 to 2 percentage points, making them over 11 and 12 percent respectively. That our schools are near dead last in test scores, that many of our main freeways are potholed relics from the 1960s, that we just passed the DREAM Act to extend state financial support for college-age illegal aliens, and that the overtaxed are fleeing the state do not register. Again, those who in theory can pay, should — and should keep quiet about why they must suddenly pay a 12 percent income tax that was not needed, say, in 1991, 1971, or 1961, when test scores were higher, roads better, and communities far safer.

There is, of course, a vague code of silence about who is doing the stealing, although occasionally the most flagrant offenders are caught either by sheriffs or on tape; or, in my typical case, run off only to return successfully at night. In the vast majority of cases, rural central California is being vandalized by gangs of young Mexican nationals or Mexican-Americans — in the latter case, a criminal subset of an otherwise largely successful and increasingly integrated and assimilated near majority of the state’s population. Everyone knows it; everyone keeps quiet about it — even though increasingly the victims are the established local Mexican-American middle class that now runs the city councils of most rural towns and must deal with the costs. . . .

The influx of over 11 million illegal aliens has had a sort of ripple effect that is rarely calibrated. Sixty percent of Hispanic males in California are not graduating from high school. Unemployment in rural California runs about 20 percent. There is less fear now of arrest and incarceration, given the bankruptcy of the state, which, of course, is rarely officially connected even in small part to illegal immigration. Perhaps because illegal immigration poses so many mind-boggling challenges (e.g., probably over $20 billion lost to the state in remittances, the undermining of federal law, the prejudice shown against legal immigration applicants, ethnic favoritism as the engine of amnesty, subterfuge on the part of Mexico, vast costs in entitlements and subsidies), talking about it is futile. So most don’t, in fear of accusations of “racism.” . . .

Do read VDH's whole column at NRO. Reading this, I feel as if I am reading a dispatch from a spy across the front lines and in enemy territory. It certainly doesn't sound like someplace in the U.S. Indeed, even in third world countries where I have lived, there was nothing like that described by Dr. Hanson. How does one even contemplate righting such a state, where the asylum has been in the hands of the inmates for fifty years?

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Past His Shelf Life

Johns Hopkins Prof. Fouad Ajami has a scathing critique of Obama in the WSJ, pronouncing him obsolete. Here are a few snippets:

. . . [Obama's] fall from political grace has been as swift as his rise a handful of years ago. He had been hot political property in 2006 and, of course, in 2008. But now he will campaign for his party's 2010 candidates from afar, holding fund raisers but not hitting the campaign trail in most of the contested races. Those mass rallies of Obama frenzy are surely of the past.

The vaunted Obama economic stimulus, at $862 billion, has failed. The "progressives" want to double down, and were they to have their way, would have pushed for a bigger stimulus still. But the American people are in open rebellion against an economic strategy of public debt, higher taxes and unending deficits. We're not all Keynesians, it turns out. The panic that propelled Mr. Obama to the presidency has waned. There is deep concern, to be sure. But the Obama strategy has lost the consent of the governed.

. . . There was no hesitation in the monumental changes Mr. Obama had in mind. The logic was Jacobin, the authority deriving from a perceived mandate to recast time-honored practices. It was veritably rule by emergency decrees. If public opinion displayed no enthusiasm for the overhaul of the nation's health-care system, the administration would push on. The public would adjust in due time.

The nation may be ill at ease with an immigration reform bill that would provide some 12 million illegal immigrants a path toward citizenship, but the administration would still insist on the primacy of its own judgment. It would take Arizona to court, even though the public let it be known that it understood Arizona's immigration law as an expression of that state's frustration with the federal government's abdication of its responsibility over border security. . . .

. . . The country has had its fill with a scapegoating that knows no end from a president who had vowed to break with recriminations and partisanship. The magic of 2008 can't be recreated, and good riddance to it. Slowly, the nation has recovered its poise. There is a widespread sense of unstated embarrassment that a political majority, if only for a moment, fell for the promise of an untested redeemer—a belief alien to the temperament of this so practical and sober a nation.

I share the professor's diagnosis, though I am less sure of his long-term prognosis. People are spitting blood today, but 2012 is still too far away to judge the likely public mood. I look upon this as the ultimate test of Lincoln's hypothesis, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.

Read More...

Summary only...

You Have Got To Be Kidding - Arizona's Law Gutted By Federal Judge

Federal judge Susan Bolton has accepted the Obama DOJ argument that Arizona's law regarding illegal aliens is preempted by federal law. She has, for all practical purposes, wholly gutted the Arizona law with respect to illegal aliens. (You can view the Court's Order here) And in doing so, the judge has realized my worst fears. When I analyzed the federal law suit several weeks ago, I wrote:

Invoking preemption in the present context is a dangerous game indeed. It is critically important to note that the Arizona law is little more than a codification of federal law as regards illegal aliens, . . . Thus the DOJ's argument must be that any state laws predicated on the status of an individual as a citizen or an illegal alien are preempted by federal law.

Think about that for a moment. If the DOJ wins this lawsuit, only the federal government will be able to enforce laws based on illegal aliens. We will become, in essence, a sanctuary country with states, for all intents and purposes, constitutionally prevented from inquiring into the citizenship status of people within their states. As a nation, our ability to address the problems of illegal aliens, already bad now, would be compounded exponentially.

That is now where we stand today. This from Legal Insurrection confirms my assessment:

States have been left helpless to deal with the anarchy created by the failure of the federal government to enforce border security. Whereas yesterday it was unclear how far states (such as Rhode Island) could go, today states are powerless.

The inability of a state to implement a policy of checking the immigration status even of people already under arrest for some other crime is remarkable.

We are in serious trouble. True, what the judge issued today was a Temporary Restraining Order and not a final judgment. But based on the Judge's reasoning, I see no reason to suspect that she will rule otherwise after a full hearing. Let's get that over with and get this thing up to the Supreme Court.

Update: Several people have weighed in with good legal analyses of the Judge's order, and I can't improve upon them. See Andrew McCarthy, Peter Kirsanow, and Mark Levin.

Take Away Question: Why the hell is our federal government siding with illegal aliens?

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Lawsuit Against Arizona (Updated)

Obama's Department of Justice (DOJ) is set to file its lawsuit against Arizona, seeking to have Arizona's recently enacted state law dealing with illegal aliens held unconstitutional. According to the Washington Post, the DOJ's argument will be two-fold, that the Arizona law is "preempted" by federal law and that "the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners." It is enough to make one's skin crawl.

The "harassment" claim is a non-starter. To win on this challenge, DOJ must show that there is no possible way the Arizona law could be lawfully applied. But, as William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has previously pointed out, the Arizona law "does not authorize unlawful stops, but only permits verification of immigration status once a lawful stop has been made. . . . Nothing in the law authorizes stopping people because of their skin color. The law simply provides guidelines as to what is permissible in accordance with federal law, and the procedures that should be used." Clearly there is nothing on the face of the Arizona law that would make it amenable to a challenge on equal protection grounds. The fact that the law might be misapplied does not come anywhere near the standard a Court would need to find in order to hold the Arizona law facially unconstitutional.

But then there is the DOJ's other grounds - the legal theory of "preemption." That theory derives from the Art. VI of the Constitution, wherein it provides that federal law shall be the "supreme Law of the Land." Thus, state laws are preempted and held unconstitutional when there is a conflict between state and federal law or when the federal law in a particular area is all-encompassing and was intended, expressly or by implication, to supplant all state laws on the topic.

Invoking preemption in the present context is a dangerous game indeed. It is critically important to note that the Arizona law is nothing more than a codification of federal law as regards illegal aliens, with the only addition being instructions on when the police can pursue suspicions that a person may be an illegal alien. Thus the DOJ's argument must be that any state laws predicated on the status of an individual as a citizen or an illegal alien are preempted by federal law.

Think about that for a moment. If the DOJ wins this lawsuit, only the federal government will be able to enforce laws based on illegal aliens. We will become, in essence, a sanctuary country with states, for all intents and purposes, constitutionally prevented from inquiring into the citizenship status of people within their states. As a nation, our ability to address the problems of illegal aliens, already bad now, would be compounded exponentially.

And all for what? To protect the rights of Americans? Hardly. Michael Ramierez, in his cartoon at the top of the page, hits the nail on the head. It is so the left can gain more votes.

But Obama is not courting the entire Hispanic population for votes. He is courting the "La Raza" element of the Hispanics - radical separatists who, on the basis of race, would like to see the U.S. deconstructed. It is they who are vociferously challenging the enforcement of our immigration laws. Of course, they are aided and abetted by their far left allies, Obama and the ACLU chief among them. No surprise really. The same thing has been going on in Europe for decades as the borders have been thrown open to immigration from Muslim countries for the purpose of increasing the far left's voter base. The fact that this process is changing the fundamental nature of many European countries, Britain in particular, matters not a wit to the Euro-left. It is clear that our far left is equally unconcerned with similar problems in America.

We have seen the far left prioritize their raw desire for political power over our country's national security as they attempted, between 2006 and 2009, to legislate Iraq into a defeat for our military, winning for al Qaeda and Iran what neither could win on the battlefield. The ramifications, had our far left succeeded, would have been devastating. And now we see the far left pursuing a course as to illegal aliens that has nearly as much potential for adverse long term consequences to our nation. God help us but 2012 can't come quick enough.

Update: The law suit has been filed. You can find the Complaint here. Interestingly, it is, for all practical purposes, entirely predicated on the preemption argument. The Obama DOJ has omitted any argument that the Arizona law is facially unconstitutional on equal protection grounds - i.e., the "harassment" / civil rights argument. That is not exactly a surprise. They would have been laughed out of Court on that one.

Do read the Complaint - and in particular, paragraph number 4, which states the bases upon which the DOJ claims that Arizona's law conflicts with federal law. These bases are breathtaking in part for their arrogance, in part for their frivolousness. The bases include:

1. The DOJ states that it does not want to have to deal with illegal aliens as a group since the federal government is focused on those "aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety." So illegal immigration laws under the Obama administration are superfulous as, absent something more, the DOJ claims that enforcing those laws will be a misuse of their time and will detract from their 'focused' efforts. It is a ludicrous argument on multiple levels. For one, the federal government has a duty to enforce the laws - not to pick and choose which laws to enforce and when. Two, nothing that the Arizona police do to arrest, investigate and hold an individual for being an illegal alien implicates in the slightest any federal resources. Three, perhaps the simplest of all criminal matters is to determine whether a person is in America legally. Our government controls all of the relevant databases. Four, how does the federal government identify an illegal alien as a high priority? If a foreign national slips into the U.S. illegally, they are by definition below the radar and no one is looking for them specifically. If they come up on the radar for national security or public safety concerns, then it is not federal immigration searching for them, but the police and FBI, just as with any criminal suspect. I eagerly await to see what facts the DOJ dreams up to support this red herring.

2. The DOJ asserts that the Arizona law will result in people being arrested simply for failing to carry their documentation. The law requiring people in the U.S. on a passport or a green card to carry their "papers" with them at all time is federal law. Arizona's law merely mirrors the federal law. In other words, the DOJ is now arguing that a federal law is prima facie of no effect and should be ignored. This argument is jaw dropping.

3. The DOJ claims that enforcing the Arizona law will conflict with federal law regarding "the registration, smuggling and employment" of aliens. They do so without a hint of explanation. Given that Arizona's law is a codification of federal law, it is tough to tease a logical argument out of this contention, let alone a legally valid one.

4. DOJ claims that Arizona, in enforcing their law, will "ignore humanitarian concerns . . ." The DOJ cites to the case of an individual who is seeking asylum on the grounds that they are threatened with harm by their home government for political reasons. This is ridiculous. Any illegal can make a claim for asylum on this basis after arrest and prior to deportation, thus making this argument a nullity in any case. That aside, the DOJ argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that we should no longer arrest illegal aliens, as we should presume that they all have valid arguments for asylum.

5. The DOJ claims that enforcement of Arizona's laws "will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States' relationship with Mexico and other countries." How much is wrong with that claim? We can't control our border or it will upset Mexico? We can't enforce our own immigration laws - ones that are far less draconian than Mexico's - for fear of upsetting Mexico? Is Obama's DOJ actually making the argument that Mexico has a valid foreign policy interest in the U.S. maintaining an open border? This is beyond belief. Does anyone in the Obama administration put America and its citizenry first in any of their calculations?

Bottom line, if this is all the DOJ has, they should be tossed out of Court for failing to state a case and the DOJ sanctioned for filing a frivolous law suit.

Read More...

Summary only...

Picking & Choosing When To Enforce The Law

This from John Morton, Obama's head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

Echoing comments by President Barack Obama and others in the administration, Morton said that Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration is not "good government." The law makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and requires police to check suspects for immigration paperwork.

Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton said.

This administration is nothing if not a thugocracy. This is also ripe for a law suit requiring Morton to perform his job - but how screwed up does this administration have to be for it possibly come down to that. The other option is to let Morton release just one illegal alien referred by Arizona and then have him or her involved in the murder of Americans, then let's watch what happens. I don't think even the MSM, in full Obama lust, could spin or repress that one, not when a significant majority of Americans support the Arizona law.

Read More...

Summary only...

Arizona, Mexico, Two Presidents & A Race Card

Under Arizona's new law, if you are stopped for reasonable suspicion of breaking a law, you can be asked for your identification. In the rest of the United States, if you are stopped for reasonable suspicion of breaking a law, you will inevitably be asked for your identification. The only modification Arizona's law makes in practice is to give its law enforcement agencies the authority to then pursue further whether the individual is also in compliance with federal laws on illegal immigration. That is subsumed in asking for one's identificaiton.

Yet the La Raza crowd who advocate sesesion, the Democrats who see them as a special interest group to be seduced, and the Mexican government who benefit from illegal immigration to their north are all busting at the seems over Arizona's attempt to address the influx of illegal aliens that are severely hurting their state. And yesterday we were treated to President's Obama and Mexico's President Felipe Calderon jointly

First from Obama:

. . . I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We're examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant or a visitor or tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.

Okay, what are the first clues that a person might be an illegal alien - its what they look like. That is reality that no amount of wishful thinking will change. And given that we have between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in this country, of course the fact that a person looks Mexican of South American and speeks accented English raises enough supicion to follow up. But what the Arizona law does not allow for are stops simply based on that suspicion. Obama, if he has read the law, of course realizes this. But why allow reality to stand in the way of demagougery aimed at placating a special interest voting block.

And then Obama stands by while President Calderon chides Arizona and America for having the temerity of taking a stand against illegal immigration from Mexico.

In Mexico, we are and will continue being respectful of the internal policies of the United States and its legitimate right to establish, in accordance to its Constitution, whatever laws it approves. But we will retain our firm rejection to criminalize migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation will be treated as criminals. And we oppose firmly the S.B. 1070 Arizona law given unfair principles that are partial and discriminatory.

For one, the hypocrisy displayed by Calderon is breathtaking. Mexico's treatment of illegal aliens is far more draconian than that of the U.S., including up to ten years in jail for multiple violations of its immigration law. Two, what Calderon is arguing for is that the U.S. explicitly adopt an open boder with Mexico. This is insanity. One of the most basic functions of government is to control its border. Three, there is nothing discriminatory about enforcing the border. Having a foreign official come to the U.S. and play the race card is a bit too much to stomach. That Obama stood by, listening to this, and in essence, seconded it is utterly outrageous.

Update: From Hot Air: Democrats give Mexican president standing ovation for dumping on Arizona.

Read More...

Summary only...

Misplaced Presidential Humor

Arizona's Governor has a message for President Obama:



(H/T Instapundit)

Well said, Governor.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Folds On Immigration As Polls Sharply Support Arizona Law

AP is reporting that Obama has announced that immigration reform is off the table for 2010. For all the hyperventelating about the Arizona immigration reform bill in the left wing MSM, it would appear that the majority of people see things differently:

Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can't prove they're in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona's new immigration law
indicated. . . .

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they'd support requiring their own police to determine people's U.S. status if there was "reasonable suspicion" the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn't prove they were legally in the United States.

Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found. . .

And as Instapundit observes, apparently the Democrats "own polls must have showed something similar. And with blue-collar dems facing layoffs and recession, and black dems not so hot on amnesty, there wasn’t any percentage in bucking the sentiment, I guess, even in terms of shoring up their own base."

Read More...

Summary only...

Illegal Immigration, Arizona & The Constitution

There are two very good essays on the Constitutionality of the recently passed Arizona law aimed at illegal aliens. The first, from, an attorney who helped to draft the law, Kris Kobach, writing in the NYT:

. . . The arguments we’ve heard against [the Arizona law] either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. . . .

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. . . .

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. . . .

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans. . .

The second is from Prof. Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection, adding a bit of the nuance to the argument:

There is a fundamental disconnect in the arguments being mounted against the Arizona immigration law. What many of the critics want to say, but do not, is that they view all immigration laws as inherently racist because most illegal immigrants are non-white.

There are some legitimate civil liberties concerns regarding the standard by which police can require someone to produce identification or other information. These concerns are not unique to the Arizona immigration law. Much of the history of our criminal laws is an attempt by the courts to set forth standards for police conduct regarding searches and seizures, and questioning of suspects.

But a point I have made before is that a law which may end up being tossed by the courts on civil liberties grounds does not make the law racist. Issues such as random DWI checkpoints have posed serious legal issues for reasons completely unrelated to race.

That a racially neutral law may be enforced in a racially discriminatory manner also does not make the law, or supporters of the law, racist. Our traffic laws are a prime example.

Police often are accused of singling out minorities for traffic stops based on race, but that does not mean we stop enforcing traffic laws altogether, or accuse proponents of speed limits and stop signs of being racist. Rather, we implement policies which prohibit racial profiling and do our best to enforce such policies.

I realize that this may be too nuanced for some. But the distinction is important because of all the hyperventilated charges that Arizona now is a Nazi, Communist and Apartheid state (quite a combination). . . .

Having reviewed the Arizona law, I will be surprised if it is overturned. The radical left and that portion of the Latino community that quite literally wants to secede are coupling with Democrats seeking the Latino vote to wholly misrepresent both the Arizona law and its purpose. Race cards are flying - and as usual, with no basis in fact.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pro-Illegal Immigration Rally

John Hawkins at RightWingNews has posted twelve of the most offensive signs from the "pro-illegal immigration" protests. I wonder why these signs haven't gotten anywhere near as much media play (actually, they have gotten zero media plas) as, well, pick any sign at one of those racist hated filled tea party protests. Here are a few of the signs:







Does anyone catch the cognitive dissonance - the Latino protestors speak . . . Spanish - a European language. Not surprising, since the majority of Mexicans are in fact a mix of SPANISH and Indian lineage.

Moreover, this smearing of "Europeans" is, like most racist screed, historically ignorant in the extreme. Many tribes in South and Central America were far more warlike and savage than any European nation thought of being. Unfortunately, they committed one cardinal sin. They never developed to the point that they could successfully defend that which they had conquered. Too bad that. Then there is the lunacy of illegals coming north to work in, well, a functional country, yet pining to reunite parts of the U.S. with Mexico. Somehow, the cognitive dissonance seems lost on them.

Do see RightWingNews for the rest of the pictures. And do see this from Victor Davis Hanson as he tries to put all of this in context.

Read More...

Summary only...

Some Interesting Reads

Newt Gingrich has a good op-ed piece in the Washington Post documenting why he has referred to the Obama Administration as a "secular socialist machine:"

An April 14 op-ed by Norman J. Ornstein, "The great 'socialist' smear," argued that to those "outside the partisan and ideological wars," it is "bizarre" to accuse the Obama administration of "radicalism, socialism, retreat and surrender." I was among those he cited, for having called Barack Obama "the most radical president in American history" and describing the goals of the left and its methods of operation as a "secular-socialist machine."

In fact, Ornstein has it exactly backward. It is only from the perspective of the cultural elite that the left-wing governing of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid team could be seen as moderate. . . .

Do read the entire article. As I inevitably find with Gingrich, he makes perfect sense.

The second article is by someone I have never recommended before in this blog - Pat Buchanan. I parted ideological ways with Buchanan years ago. That said, his most recent peice on the left's melodramatic response to Arizona's new immigration law is spot on. This from Mr. Buchanan:

With the support of 70 percent of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there.

Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as "misguided." He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona's sheriffs and police do not violate anyone's civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.

How's that for Andrew Jackson-style leadership? . . .

Do read the whole article.

Read More...

Summary only...

Flotsam & Jetsam In The News

.
Thousands of public sector union employees rallied at the Illinois state capital to demand that the state raise income taxes on all Illinois residents in order to fund their jobs and pensions - all of which vastly outstrip the private sector average.



This is exactly in line with what I have written about public sector unions previously.

From across the pond, with elections but a few weeks away, Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats - committed socialists all - claimed that "the British people have a 'more insidious cross to bear' than Germany over World War II" and that Brits "suffered 'delusions of grandeur' and a 'misplaced sense of superiority' over having defeated the horrors of Nazism." What a complete ass. This is precisely what I was writing about when addressing the insanity of Britian's socialists here.

During his campaign for President, Obama made a central plank of his election the promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class.



Apparently, what he meant to say was no new INCOME taxes - the teleprompter had it wrong. As for an incredibly regressive VAT tax that will completely screw the middle class and the poor, well, that doesn't sound so bad to him.

The Mexican government is mad because Arizona has passed a tough new law that allows them to arrest illegal immigrants. They really can go pound sand. We need the an Infantry Division on the border, preferably one with ties to Gen. Pershing.

The eunuchs at Comedy Central will now not even let South Park use the word "Mohammed" after receiving a threat reminding them of what happened to Theo Van Goh. So Comedy Central will allow comedy aimed at Christianity but Islam - well, that is now verbotten. My disdain for these people could not be any greater.

A rapper addressed school children as part of a sanctioned school event in Henry County, Ga. Parents found out after the fact and complained to the principal, believing the rapper not to be an appropriate role model and asking in the future to be appraised of any such speakers so they could keep their children home that day. The principal responded: "I thought about asking a guy who snorted cocaine and got arrested for DUI when he was 30 to come and speak to our kids, but President George W. Bush was not available." This ass should be fired so fast his head should spin.

I liked Michael Steele when he was a candidate for Congress in Maryland. As the RNC Chairman, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But he is doing more to hurt Republican's with black voters than all the Democrats put together. A few weeks ago, he played the race card against those on the right critical of his stewardship of the RNC. And the latest:

Why should an African-American vote Republican?

"You really don't have a reason to, to be honest -- we haven't done a very good job of really giving you one. True? True," Republican National Chairman Michael Steele told 200 DePaul University students Tuesday night.

I can think of a thousand reasons why blacks should be supporting Republicans rather than Democrats. If this clown can't think of one, he has to go. Now. Today. Send him to the DNC and let him screw them up.

Nicholas Kristoff, one of the NYT's stable of left wing columnists, has some very harsh criticism of the Obama's weak foreign policy, particularly as regards Sudan:

Until he reached the White House, Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that the United States apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere.

Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. . . .

Actually, Mr. Kristoff, they are laughing from Tehran to Moscow and all points in between. Well, all except Israel.

And lastly, a recent U.S. military report speculated that we could reach peak oil by 2015, after which demand will forever outstrip supply. Well, perhaps there might be something we could DO ABOUT THAT . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Borders Out Of Control - In The EU

The EU has set up an insane immigration system that is an invitation nearly uncontrolled third world immigration. Ireland, being one of the few sane countries across the pond, passed a law to stop some of the worst abuses. Their law provided that non-EU spouses of EU citizens were deportable. No longer, per the highest Court in the EU.

EU law currently provides a backdoor for mass third world immigration, and the highest Court in the EU just opened the door much wider. Current EU law, actually dating back to the Treaty of Rome, provides that once a person lawfully becomes an EU citizen, they can automatically bring over their entire family. The way this works in Britain is that the socialist Labour Party is allowing large scale immigration from Pakistan that then itself gets significantly augmented. Once in Britain, a large number of the Pakistanis are importing wives from Pakistan. You can figure out the math from there. It has created an immigration/emigration nightmare in Britain.

Ireland tried to put the squelch on this occurring in their country. But today, their law was overturned, thus exposing Ireland to the same inability to control their borders as enjoyed by all the other provinces of that great experiment in socialism, the EU. But this decision of the EU even went farther, in essence giving illegal aliens the right to EU citizenship so long as they marry an EU citizen before being physically deported. As Hibernia Girl states:

This is not just some little loophole that failed asylum seekers will now be able to exploit -- this is a GAPING hole in the EU's immigration population replacement policy that is obviously being forced on all Europeans whether we like it or not.

Read the whole post. And see the detailed explanation of the EU ruling and its ramifications at EU Referendum.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting News From Around The Web

After the Sudan kerfufle, Mattel decides to delay release of its new line of “Tickle Me Mohammed” dolls. ““We really thought it would help soften the image of Muslims,” said the unnamed Mattel source, “and help to bring about the peaceful world order which they have been fighting for almost non-stop over the past 1,400 years.”

Party identification has an independent correlation with mental health. A recent study has found that Republicans are more mentally stable than those who identify themselves as Democrats or Independents.

The anatomy of a hate crime at QandO. Hate crime legislation is pandering of the worst sort and has no business in the statutes on either side of the pond.

Crusader Rabbit detects a possible correlation between nine years of socialist government and slowed economic growth in New Zealand. Could the bushy tailed one be on to something?

MK down under points out what promises to be a major case as regards illegal immigration into the U.S. A federal judge yesterday threw out a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Prince William County’s (Va.) new ordinance denying services to illegal aliens.

Dinah Lord asks whether violence is integral to Islam? The answer is yes, at least as to the orthodox interpretations of the Koran.

Classical values considers some existential questions of multiculturalism.

Hillary “Catch Me If You Can” Clinton . . . . a woman who does not want to subject herself to possible criticism and analysis by answering any questions. I mean, its not like she’s running for public office.

Cheat Seaking Missles has a good analysis of the incompetent, if not intentionally deceptive CNN Youtube debate.

"But such is the political oportunism of today's Democratic leadership. They believe in nothing (except power for its own sake); they stand for nothing; and having decided to live by the polls and, as Hanson points out, 'mortgage lasting principle to transient popularity, then you become enslaved by them as well.'" So sayeth Dr. Sanity.

Read More...

Summary only...