Monday, December 6, 2010

Why do the open-border crowd lie so much?

IN WATCHING A recent  House committee hearing on illegal immigration I am amazed at the open-border crowd’s (i.e., mostly Democrats) steadfast, complete commitment to deceptive terms of debate.

Imagine this conversation:

YOU: I think it’s terrible how lax the police and courts are about enforcing our laws against rape. Women are being victimized every day, but rarely is any perpetrator prosecuted. They seem to have the policy of giving accused perps the benefit of the doubt. If a guy says “well she was asking for it” or “she was wearing a tight skirt,” they drop the charges. We need to make them enforce the law and prosecute these people!

OTHER GUY: Why are you anti-sex? Sex is a wonderful expression of love between people who care about each other.

YOU: Huh? I was talking about rape. 

OTHER GUY: This anti-sex, anti-male bigotry must stop. Sex is what built our nation. It is a built-in, natural human drive. Men are people too. Why do you hate men?

YOU: Have you even heard a single word I’ve said? I am not talking about consensual sex. I am talking about rape -- criminal sexual assault. It is against the law.

OTHER GUY: It is unrealistic to stop people from having sex. Sex is what America is all about! My grandparents had sex – that’s why I’m here.

YOU: Sigh.

The above is an exact analog of the liberal debating tactic about illegal immigration: Always shift the subject to *legal* immigrants, particularly those in the days of yore. Evoke images of Ellis Island and Lady Liberty. Which of course has nothing to do with the subject of uncontrolled, unknown millions--including potentially thousands of violent criminals-- stealing across the border illegally.

I've concluded the leading folks on that side of the debate have no intention whatever of arguing honestly. It is impossible to hold a civil discourse with parties whose first and last words on the matter are lies and smears.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

War: the national religion

TODAY WAS THE Autumn War Festival, which saw America suffused in the only religious worship allowed in public nowadays: the familiar round of parades and ceremonies and salutes and misty-eyed sentimentalism and flag-waving trumpeting War as the force that gives us Meaning, that makes us a Great Nation.

The observances pander especially to the Greatest Generation, who -- as we of the Lesser Generations are incessantly reminded -- saved us all in World War II.

We are told that it's America's endless war-making that "give us the freedom to celebrate all the other holidays." People circulate chain emails such as the following:
It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.
(Sen. Zell Miller, D-GA, at the Republican National Convention in 2004)

Miller's words are't entirely untrue. The freedom of the united States of America was secured by soldiers -- in 1781, with the surrender of Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown, and again in 1814 with the follow-up victory against Britain.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Mad at the world

THE CRAZIES ARE AT IT again, standing on the street corner muttering threats to imaginary enemies who, they say, are "defying the world." Reaching in their pants and waving their missiles around in public.

The mental patients who have taken over the asylum wish to convince us normal peace-loving folk that we are the ones with the problem.

Thursday, September 30, 2010

I'm cookin up some new flavas

YEAH, I KNOW it's been quiet around here. Not for lack of ideas--just for lack of time. It's just the usual thing, spreading myself too thin.

Monday, July 26, 2010

Bob Herbert column on Shirley Sherrod issue offers stunning picture of racial hypocrisy

NEW YORK TIMES columnist Bob Herbert's comments on the Shirley Sherrod flap are enlightening, if only to illustrate the depths of hypocrisy in the racialist agenda of Herbert, the NAALCP, and the rest of the liberal black establishment.

Pronounced Herbert:

"While racial discrimination is overwhelmingly directed against black people in the U.S., much of the nation and the media are poised to go berserk over the most specious allegations of racism against whites."

Perhaps in some other solar system — but on planet Earth, allegations of racism against  whites by blacks or other minorities rarely receive significant mainstream media coverage, if any.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Skip Gates controversy

OBAMA WAS RIGHT: This cop was stupid. How do you get to be a sergeant and you can't tell the difference between a homeowner and a burglar? Even after he presents a picture ID?

Second, what kind of policing is it to arrest someone simply because he wants to be left alone in his own home -- whether or not he says something rude to you? Being annoying or rude is not against any law. You can't use "disorderly conduct" as a catchall to arrest people simply because somebody looked at you crosseyed. After ID was produced, this officer had no case. He shoulda shut up, turned around and locomoted himself in the opposite direction. However, by then it seemed it became a cop ego thing and he had to show the man who was boss. (Actually sarge, Professor Gates, as a taxpayer, is your boss.) This is where it turned from cop-investigating-possible-crime to asshole-with-badge-harrassing-citizen.

Even in the radio call, which has been released, the cop acknowledged he'd seen ID from Gates but requested dispatch to "keep the cars coming" because Gates was "uncooperative." In other words, Gates didn't lie down and give the officer a shoe-shine with his tongue?

Again: Cops don't have the right to respond to hurt feelings with force and arrest.

Even if Gates did verbally overreact, it is a citizen's right. For a cop to return a verbal insult is unprofessional. But when a cop in addition uses force and arrest to respond to a mere verbal insult he has moved from unprofessional to oppressive and illegal.

Yes, policing is a tough job. But if you're the type to cry and stamp your feet because someone yelled at you, you belong in a nursery school, not on a police force.

A flashback to bash hacks

SINCE IT'S ABOUT TIME for another Bilderberg meeting, I thought I'd include this oldie that I wrote back in late 2008, but was too busy to actually post on a blog.

YEAH -- citizen journalism unnerves the establishment.

I'm watching a New York University panel discussion about the future of the media. Sitting on the panel are luminaries such as New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson and former "CBS Evening News" anchor Dan Rather, as well as journalism professor Jay Rosen.

In the Q&A session, a young college-age guy comes up and asks Rather about an on-air remark he made on September 11, 2001, that the collapsing World Trade Center 7 looked like it had been deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."

"Do you still hold the belief ... that there were bombs in the building ... [that they were]  in your words, taken down by 'well-placed dynamite'?" the guy asked.

Let's trap the libertarian with an irrelevant question about Civil Rights-era legislation.

WHY DIDN'T NPR ALSO ask Rand Paul, "so when did you stop beating your wife?" just to show where they were really coming from?

For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that this issue really were relevant in the year 2010. Let's imagine the Civil Rights Act were actually up for debate. Let’s imagine the Congress somehow were to repeal it. Who actually believes that in the year 2010, we would revert to Jim Crow? Who actually believes (especially in these hard times) that white businesses would voluntarily drive away customers--both blacks and whites--by reinstating segregation?

I don't, because I'm not a paranoid.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

"Frame" is the name of the game

Note: the links in the article are old; find most of the links in updated form at the end. 

A FEDERAL JUDGE last week ordered nine members of the Hutaree militia released on bond until their trial, on the grounds that they were neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk.

This, despite the highly publicized April arrest and indictment in which the government claimed the Hutaree were fomenting a dire plot to assassinate cops and judges and bring down the government with weapons of mass destruction.

Evidently U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts did not share the fears of the FBI and federal prosecutors who brought the case. Is the judge crazy? Suicidal? (Remember, these Hutarees allegedly were going to kill judges.) Or is it simply that the prosecution had no actual evidence for their lurid charges?

As Bu$hbama is exposed,
what's its next move?

THE DAYS OF the global kleptocrats fostering totalitarian oligarchy through using Democrats for a few years, then switching to Republicans for a few years, and then back again, are over. People are onto that game.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Dems re-igniting the Culture War

IN PROTESTING THE Obama Health Kontrol regime that descended upon America March 21 -- as well as the tacky culture-and-race-war the Obama forces are fomenting to distract from the real issues -- Mark Steyn, guesting for Rush Limbaugh on April 30, got it right when he diagnosed the Democratic/"progressive" modus operandi.

"'You can do what you want with all your bodily parts and stick 'em anwhere you want to stick 'em, and that way you won't notice all the other rights we're rolling back on everything else."

Monday, March 22, 2010



Well at least that's how the Establishment frames the debate. "At last, Congress has given us health." "Obama has signed reform into law."

RIDICULOUS. This bill is about neither health nor reform. It is further centralization of power and wealth within the already-cartelized medical-pharmaceutical-industrial-governmental complex. It is a triumph of the Privilege Sector, which is Big Government fused with Big Business. In reality, it is corporatism: the corporate state.

Oh, and that reminds me of something the kindly Mr. Mussonlini once said. "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Patriot is the new hip

KUDOS TO SPIN for finally taking notice of a real grassroots movement. No, I don't mean the Republican party hacks who have glommed onto the Tea Party idea because they recognize one last opportunity to keep the sheep from bolting the Republican pen. I mean the artists and activist types referred to in the Spin piece, the types who were there pre-Fox,  the original Ron Paul Tea Partyers, the real heart and soul of the freedom movement. Liberty is hip again and the mainstream just caught on. The original American Revolution was, after all, led by the young men and women.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The whole schmizole: Massa outs
bipartisan corruption in Washington

AS IF READING FROM ONE script, the punditoblogocracy wants to skewer Eric Massa. We’re used to pundits and talk show hosts – and even supposed straight news reportage – condemning the accused without the benefit of trial, or without any evidence at all. We’re used to comedians seizing on any goofy story for yuks. It amuses us to see some public figure caught in some version or another of "so when did you stop beating your wife?" But why the seeming unanimous viciousness against the former Congressman accused of sexually harrassing a male staffer? How are people who weren’t anywhere near the situation so sure that the accusation of an ex-staffer must be true?