Here is Tom Tancredo on the proposed bailout:
In the midst of the turmoil in our financial markets, we should take pause to reflect on the lessons we have learned in the past few years. With the benefits of that wisdom, we can include the prudent provisions that will close loopholes in any potential “bailout” legislation. One such suggestion is to incorporate safeguards to verify the legal residency and identity of potential homebuyers to ensure that illegal aliens are not obtaining federally backed home loans.
I sent a letter to the Secretary of HUD a year ago about this very concern. I also pressed the agency to disclose the extent to which this type of fraud is contributing to volatility in the mortgage markets. I believe this kind of fraud has contributed to the tumult we are seeing in the headlines daily.
I have seen this ugly issue up close, as a Colorado-based mortgage fraud ring in which realtors, loan officers, and sales agents were indicted and arrested for obtaining federally-backed loans for some 250 unqualified buyers by manufacturing false financial information, fraudulent identities, and bogus citizenship documentation. All of the 191 houses involved were purchased with HUD-guaranteed loans. According to one expert, banks in Colorado alone lose upwards of $75 million per year to fraud – so I can only imagine what the numbers are like nationally.
I recognize that any infusion of foreign investment – especially now – is a welcome addition to our capital-starved market. But there is a difference between the wealthy foreign real estate investor or financier of a vacation home, and the inherently unreliable illegal aliens who are prone to fraud and may be forced by circumstances to return to their home nation at any point. Certainly, we should seek to differentiate between these two categories of buyer.
Including a mechanism to make sure that taxpayers are not providing any assistance to illegal aliens, or absorbing any bad debts owed to financial institutions (such as mortgages) by illegal aliens is a “must” for any “bailout” legislation. If such protections are not included in the package, I hope you will join me in opposing its passage.
We need to ensure that the ‘American Dream’ remains within reach of American families – and that means enacting some long overdue safeguards that prevent illegal aliens and their unscrupulous allies in the financial industry from undermining its integrity.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Here is Tom Tancredo on the proposed bailout:
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
I try to shy away from speaking to topics that I do not at least have a cursory understanding of, and this subprime mortgage crisis is a topic that I'd have a difficult time carrying on an intelligent conversation about. I've been, however, reading with interest the discussion on the topic at VFR and elsewhere, trying to learn something.
Hindsight, as they say, is 20-20. And with the benefit of hindsight, and a little background knowledge and a few personal experiences that serve to inform me, the connection that many are making between bad loans given to illegals and the subprime crisis makes a lot of sense to me.
For instance, of the 1.3 million illegal Hispanic aliens that fled the country over the last year, the question comes to mind, how many of them also fled their homes and mortgage payments? With the downturn of the economy and the slow-down in the construction industry (not to mention state and local efforts to remove the insidious presence of illegal aliens from their midst), we can safely assume that this trend is continuing. How many of those that are currently leaving are also abandoning their homes and ballooning mortgage payments? Many are just renters, but the question keeps coming up in the discussion, How Many illegal aliens had secured to themselves an illegitimate subprime loan?
Here and here are a couple of articles that I picked up over at OutragedPatriots.com in which this very question is asked. But I need to forewarn you, don't expect to get an answer. While everyone seems compelled to ask the question, no one, it seems, has the slightest inkling what the answer is, except to say that MANY of these bad loans were given out to illegal aliens.
How many is many?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Here again, I've written numerous times about the E-Verify system and why it is essential to maintain it as a federal clearinghouse for determining employment eligibility of prospective employees.
Below is what I wrote to Senators Inhofe and Coburn this morning on the importance of reauthorizing E-Verify this week:
I'm writing today to ask that you do all in your power to stop Senator Menendez's attempts to force his will on the Senate body and the People at large regarding reauthorization of the E-Verify system.
As a strong advocate for state initiated immigration law, and cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the clean reauthorization of this vital tool for determining the eligibility of prospective emplyees.
Recent Census Bureau reports indicate that our efforts at the state and local level to force attrition on the vast number of illegal immigrants currently in our country are working, but we must do more. The efficacy of Oklahoma's (and Arizona's and Georgia's, etc.) law depends on the existence of E-Verify as a federal clearinghouse for verifying employment eligibility of all new hires.
However, I believe that yielding to Menendez's demands for an additional 550,000 greencards issued to aliens in exchange for his ending his filibuster would send the wrong message and set the wrong kind of precedent. We need to be reducing the number of greencards we're alloting, not increasing them. And we should not allow a rogue Senator from a sanctuary state to determine policy for the entire nation, nor to set such a precedent.
Again, please do all in your power to force a clean reauthorization of E-Verify.
Here is Roy Beck's appeal on the subject.
I've written before about Paul Sperry's book Infiltration, How Muslim Spies and Subversives have infiltrated Washington. Below is an excerpt from the book's Afterword:
Years ago in Philly, the FBI secretly recorded suspected Hamas operatives stating that the United States provides a secure legal base and a perfect haven from which to operate, because they can disguise their activities as religious activities protected by the Constitution and no one will question them because of the politically tolerant culture.
I.e., liberalism. I present to you exhibit A.
Monday, September 22, 2008
See this VFR article to find out what one U.S. Congressman (guess who) is proposing in order to prevent empowered American Muslims from doing what empowered Muslims in Western countries are bound at some point to do.
I agree with Auster that Tancredo's (anyone surprised?) proposal, as it is now, leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and that it seems to assume that we have some way of knowing how to distinguish between Muslims that favor sharia law and Muslims that don't, which we do not. For that matter, we have no way of knowing for certain an apostate Muslim is really an apostate, as Bruce Tefft acknowledged in a comment to an entry I did on the subject some time back.
But here's the thing, Tancredo is retiring from the U.S. House this year, as soon as his term of service is up. He isn't running for re-election, so his seat will be occupied by someone else in 2009. So I don't know who in the U.S. House there is that's going to, or is willing to, or has the basic knowledge of Islam necessary to, carry Tancredo's torch forward. I imagine his proposal, therefore, is simply going to die the death.
What, then, are we to do?...
Well, in my state a group of 21 legislators refused to receive a gift of the Koran from an Islamic advocacy organization in Oklahoma whose chairwoman had been appointed to Governor Brad Henry's falsely named "Ethnic advisory council" on the grounds that the Koran promotes hate and violence against women, and so on. I wrote a letter of approval to the spokesperson for this group of legislators because, first, I agreed with what they were doing, and second, this group was coming under a lot of fiery criticsm from liberals in this state and around the country, as well as from that illegitimate Muslim empowering subversive bullying organization, CAIR.
These are the kinds of legislators that we need to be working to install at the national level. Men who have the strength of character, and the basic knowledge of Islam necessary, to make the connection between Islam and violent and non-violent jihad...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Texas is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants, but have Mexicans finally begun to wear out their welcome in Texas? Might we be seeing in Texas a classic case of "giving them an inch, and their taking a mile"? Here's a story that suggests that at least in some Texas cities, this is the case:
Opponents of a Dallas suburb's ordinance aimed at barring illegal immigrants from renting housing asked a federal judge Monday for a temporary restraining order to block its enforcement. A group of landlords and a former city council member suing Farmers Branch over the ordinance filed for the restraining order.The ordinance would require prospective renters to obtain a city license. The city would then forward information from the license application to the federal government for verification of the person's immigration status.
Anyone who couldn't prove legal U.S. residency would be denied tenants licenses, and the city would penalize landlords who rent to people without a valid license.
Opponents say the city is trying to regulate immigration even though that is the domain of the federal government.
Here again we have the same argument that we've heard over and over from the usual suspects, and for the umteenth time, it is not just the domain of the federal government to regulate immigration. States and local governments have an immediate interest in protecting their own communities. And once again, the city of Farmer's Branch is simply trying to deny illegal immigrants access to housing, legal immigrants would not be denied this access per the new ordinance.
Also, I'd point out that Farmer's Branch is attempting to partner with the federal government in determining the immigration status of prospective renters. Undoubtedly the federal system to which these applications would be forwarded is the E-Verify system which I've written about here before. But what is it that's causing all this confusion in Texas; what is it that pits Texan against Texan, landlords against their own city governments in a state that, as I said before, is notoriously friendly to Mexican immigrants? Part of the answer may be found in this WND story:
While illegal aliens flee strict immigration enforcement policies in several states and settle in Texas, the state's budget is suffering and violent crime, soaring.
News reports indicate a flood of illegal aliens is coming from states such as Arizona and Oklahoma – where immigration crackdowns have made life more difficult for them. In the meantime, Texas' violent crime rates have taken a turn for the worse.
Now, don't get me wrong, I derive no pleasure from learning that our neighbors to the south are beginning to feel the effects of a rapidly growing illegal population which consists largely of cultural incompatibles. Texas is a large state with a large population. But no population of any size has an unlimited capacity for taking on hordes of immigrants, legal or illegal. That my state's law, which I've advocated for since it was first initiated in the Oklahoma HoR, is partially responsible for the current unrest in the state of Texas gives me no pleasure. I simply have the satisfaction of knowing that I've been predicting this very thing, this very outcome all along. I've pleaded with and warned other states before, in very plain spoken language, 'you'd better get your ducks in a row on this immigration situation, because once Oklahoma's law goes into effect our illegals are going to invade your states, causing the same kinds of problems they were causing here.'
At least one state which borders Oklahoma did recognize what was happening very quickly following the enactment of H.B. 1804. Missouri responded by writing and passing its own law which closely resembles that of Oklahoma. But like Oklahoma, Missouri is a small state with a relatively small population by comparison to Texas.
But as I've written so many times before, the preferred direction for these illegals to travel is south. The problem with that for Texas, in the short run, is that Texas, already feeling the effects of an overpopulation of illegal immigrants there, is going to incur even more of these, and all the undesirable things they bring along with them. Whereas it used to be that Texas was simply being used by Hispanics, legal and illegal, to smuggle illegal Hispanics into neighboring states like Oklahoma, the tables now have been turned.
The good news is this, Texas will soon find itself at a crossroads. Indeed, it would greatly surprise me if the Texas legislature is not currently working behind the scenes on its own law in an attempt to alleviate this growing problem before it becomes completely unmanageable. But Texans are quickly learning that there is a limit to how many immigrants they can take on. And let's be frank, most of Oklahoma's illegal Mexican population made its way here from Texas. It's only natural, then, that those who are now seeing the handwriting on the wall would make their way back through that state.
To my friends and relatives living in Texas, my sympathies are with you. My fondest hope is that the Texas legislature will act on this crisis in short order; that Texas will soon join the growing list of states in this union who have already passed, or are in the process of passing their own immigration legislation.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the author of the new book The New Case Against Immigration.
Over at the CIS website, where I've spent a lot of time this morning, is posted the FrontPage July interview with Mark Krikorian concerning his new book. Here is an excerpt from the exchange in which Mark Krikorian says something very familiar to yours truly:
FP: What are some of your policy recommendations for legal immigration and illegal immigration?
Krikorian: I go into some detail in the final chapter of my book about what reform would look like. With regard to illegal immigration, we need to pursue a policy of "attrition through enforcement," steadily and comprehensively applying the law to promote increased self-deportation by illegals so the total illegal population starts shrinking each year instead of continually growing. This isn't a pipe dream -- even the stepped-up enforcement we've seen over the past year seems to have caused a non-trivial drop in the illegal population. Maybe the two most important things to do in this regard are to require electronic verification of Social Security and related information for all new hires (something that's now voluntary) and to fully implement the check-in/check-out system for foreign travelers at our airports and border crossings (it's not even close to done). (emphasis mine)
Respecting the idea of self-deportation which Krikorian alludes to, I've personally always thought that the "we can't round them all up and deport them" argument is a poor one, emotionally based, and really just irrelevant to the issue. As I've said numerous times over at least the last two years, we needn't deport them, they will deport themselves if we'll remove the incentives for their being here. And this is exactly what began to happen -- they began deporting themselves -- when states such as Oklahoma and Arizona and others began to write their own laws denying social benefits and employment to illegals. As Mr. Krikorian says, it's not a pipe dream, it actually works, and we have solid evidence that it works. But of course anyone can see this who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool multicultist liberal.
But the entire interview is good, and I recommend that you read it. And even though I've not yet purchased my copy of the book (though I certainly plan to), I've read several reviews of the book by several respected authors, and based on what they've written I also recommend that you read the book. (Incidentally, here is a page at the aforementioned site which lists and provides links to numerous reviews of Mr. Krikorian's book if you're interested.)
I've written before about the E-Verify system, how I learned of its existence, its inclusion in the provisions of H.B. 1804, and so on.
To learn more about the E-Verify system -- how it originated, how it has transformed over the years from the Basic Pilot Program to E-Verify, its current accuracy rate, ease and rapidity of use as well as affordability, states which currently require its usage and under what conditions, and etc,... -- read this lengthy and informative CIS report. It is loaded with very useful information concerning all of the above and much more. For instance,...
Did you know that President Bush, in 2007, signed an executive order (EO) requiring all businesses which contract with the federal government to register with E-Verify? That and many many other useful tidbits of information are contained within the piece.
Below is an excerpt from the report concerning the current status of E-Verify as a lawfully established federal clearinghouse for determining the employment eligibility of prospective employees:
E-Verify statutorily sunsets on November 30, 2008. The Basic Pilot Program was authorized for four years under IIRIRA, with a one-year implementation period. In 2002, the pilot was extended for two years, and then for five more years in 2003 under The Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of 2003. 25 In July 2008, the House of Representatives reauthorized the program for another five years, 407-2. 26
The Senate has yet to reauthorize E-Verify. Two reauthorization bills are pending, one by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.) 27 and the other by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). 28 The Specter/Leahy bill is a straightforward five-year reauthorization similar to the measure passed by the House. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has put a hold on the Specter/Leahy bill. If the hold is not lifted, or if the House-passed version can't be voted on, E-Verify will disappear.
Do read the rest of the report, which as I said contains a great deal of useful and interesting information. But it's really no surprise to anyone, is it, that a Senator by the name of Menendez would oppose reauthorization of the E-Verify system, and stand in the way of its re-enactment?
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a couple of letters to write my Senators, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn. I'm sure you know what it's about.
I wrote two days ago about the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law. The part of Arizona's law which had been challenged were the sections dealing with non-compliant employers, those sections intended to remove the incentive for employers to hire illegal (mostly) Mexican labor, and thereby remove the employment incentive for illegals to stay in Arizona. As with Oklahoma's law, as I said in the other post, these sections of the Arizona law are vital to the final achievement of the Bill's intent.
However, it occured to me later that what I'd read in the article about Arizona's law concerning employers of illegal aliens actually made Arizona's law tougher, quite a bit tougher as a matter of fact, than Oklahoma's law when it comes to employer sanctions. According to the article, which is linked in the other post, Arizona employers who are caught violating the law can lose their business licenses. Whereas, as I've explained before, Oklahoma's law does not go that far. In fact, according to the provisions in Oklahoma's law, employers are only required to verify the employment status of their employees if they wish to enter into contract with government organizations. Otherwise, Oklahoma employers are left free to hire illegal aliens, though they remain subject to surprise factory and jobsite raids by local, state, or federal authorities.
So the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Arizona's much tougher restrictions on employers while the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has thus far refused to do so with Oklahoma's comparatively weak employer sanctions -- sections seven and nine of the bill respectively -- saying that Oklahoma's provisions probably violate federal law and are therefore probably unconstitutional. That's pretty interesting, don't ya think?
Well, as I said in the other post, the Ninth Circuit's ruling gives me some hope that Oklahoma's provisions will eventually be upheld in the Tenth Circuit. Additionally, the author of Oklahoma's bill, Rep. Randy Terrill, has stated before that Oklahoma would like to expand on the law, and as I recall (though I could be wrong) part of Terrill's plan involves toughening up our employer sanctions once we've gotten over the initial legal hurdles we're facing at the moment. Hopefully the recent ruling on Arizona's law will help us achieve that as well. I for one am completely and utterly unsympathetic towards employers who would commit treason against their countrymen in this fashion, and fully support the introduction of stricter penalties against such non-compliant businesses and business owners. (Some of you may think the term "treason" is a bit harsh. I don't.)
Friday, September 19, 2008
I was going to write about this yesterday as I had received, over the last several days, a number of anti-Obama emails from a couple of senders who shall remain unnamed, but now I'm glad I saved it for such a time as this.
Regarding the anti-Obama emails, I get these things quite frequently, as I'm sure many of you do, and always interspersed among them are claims about Mr. Obama that in no way can or have been substantiated. In fact, in many cases, most even, these claims have long since been debunked. Look, people, it ain't that hard to check it out with Snopes, and it's a good sign, by the way, that it's very possibly an untruth if in fact it contains no attribution to back it up. Whatever you think of Mr. Obama, let's at very least give him the benefit of stating only those things about him that we know beyond a reasonable doubt to be true, good, bad, or indifferent.
Now that I got that off my chest, here's another case in which one individual is making false claims about another individual, most notably for our purposes here, about this person's profession. Evidently the person making the claim does not recognize the fact that doing so without substantiation discredits him. I just wonder why a writer would do this, discredit himself, when it is such an easy task to avoid it in so many cases?
It puts me in mind of an incident which occured months back on another site and in which I became involved. An individual wrote in a comment of another individual that the latter was married and that his wife had converted him to a particular brand of Christianity. When I interjected, asking where he got his information and explaining that my understanding was that this individual was in fact not married, and never had been married, the individual responded with something to the effect that "well, I may have been wrong about that, but it's irrelevant to my point." But it wasn't irrelevant to his point, it was in fact part of the basis on which he was establishing his point about this individual and the reason he disagreed with and disliked him.
C'mon people! Let's try to get our facts straight about others, though they may be our political enemies, before we go about broadcasting them all over the internet. It's the least we can do. And like I said before, it really just discredits the person, whether he's the originator of the claim or merely an agent who propagates it, who engages the practice of making false claims about others.
As to the person who made the false claim concerning the other's marital status, I've never since been able to read him without reflecting on that incident. Likewise, when I receive these emails from the "usual suspects", whether they're about Mr. Obama or whomever, I'm automatically put on guard. Is this really necessary?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Mohammed Ali, John McCain, George Foreman, Sarah Palin.
Without "rope-a-dope" and "rumble in the jungle," these people probably have no commonalities. But with these taken into consideration, will history record that John McCain, in Mohammed Ali rope-a-dope fashion, saved himself and his campaign for the final rounds of the fight when he would unleash his "knockout punch," otherwise known as Sarah Palin, onto a worn out and expended Barack Hussein Obama?
History, I suppose, will tell.
When we talk about the immigration situation in this country rarely do we speak in terms of exact numbers of immigrants who are granted citizenship. I've often cited the words of Noah Webster on the subject who wrote:
I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. Numbers of them who have recently arrived in this city come with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.
Another founder I've cited on the subject before is George Washington. While this particular advice of Washington's has nothing to do with immigrants per se, it is logically derived from his statements that Washington, like his contemporary Noah Webster, took a very cautious approach to the admittance of foreigners to the rights of citizenship.
It is with indescribable regret that I have seen the youth of the United States migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition ... Although it would be injustice to many to pronounce the certainty of their imbibing maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by sending abroad among other political systems those who have not well learned the value of their own.
And although it may be injustice to some to pronounce the certainty of their bringing with them to America maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by bringing to these shores and naturalizing hundreds of thousands of foreigners every year who have not well shaken off the anti-Republican principles that they learned and practiced in their countries of origin.
So how many foreigners does the United States naturalize on an annual basis? Read this New York Times AP story to find out. It looks like we're headed for a banner year in 2008. And if the actual numbers do not alarm you, I doubt that you and I have anything more to talk about.
There are, this post included, eight separate entries at Webster's for this date, Sept. 18, 2008. Every single entry posted on this date shows a time of 1:12am, and a couple of the entries are out of order of their original posting.
Obviously I couldn't have posted every one of these entries at the exact same time unless I had them already prepared for posting prior to actually posting them, which is not the case by a longshot. Additionally, the entries which appear out of order, I simply have no explanation for. So something is amiss with blogger, and you'll have to bear with me while I try to figure it out. I'm not a "nuts-and-bolts" man when it comes to this internet guff (I have someone else for that), so it may take a while to get it all straightened out.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Good news today out of Arizona. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, Sept. 17th, upheld the provisions in Arizona's immigration law which requires employers to verify the employments status of all new hires, and penalizes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens:
PHOENIX (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejected a challenge by business and civil-rights groups that contend the law infringes on federal immigration powers.
The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenses when they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.
While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.
This is very good news for people like myself who advocate for state and local immigration control.
Oklahoma has similar provisions in its law, H.B. 1804, which are currently under federal suspension pending further hearings in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. These provisions (sections seven and nine) are vital to the efficacy of Oklahoma's law. Let us hope that the 9th Circuit's ruling will help to effect a similar outcome in Oklahoma's case so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand; the business that should have begun on July 1st of this year.
David Horowitz, editor of FrontPage magazine, is predicting at his blog, based on the trends he's seeing right now, a McCain-Palin landslide victory in November:
Not being a pollster I have little to lose by predicting the race, and of course there's a lot of water yet to pass under the bridge -- events, debates, revised strategies etc. But right now I don't see this as a close race. If the present trend holds, McCain-Palin will win 331 electoral votes to 203 for Obama-Biden.
Well, I don't know about all that, but I like Horowitz's style. I've already predicted a McCain-Palin win at this blog, though I'm not nearly as confident as Horowitz appears to be that McCain will win by a landslide. Of course he is careful to qualify his prediction with the remark "if current trends hold," which they rarely do.
My thinking is that Palin's popularity among social conservatives will carry McCain to victory, probably a narrow victory, but a victory nonetheless. Sure, a lot can happen between now and then which might affect the outcome the other way, but I'm betting that Palin's popularity, particularly among social conservatives, can withstand virtually anything Obama and leftists have to throw at her. But ya never know.
It remains to be seen whether I'm closer to right or Horowitz is closer to right, or, of course, whether both of us is dead wrong.
According to this report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the website of which I found simply by Googling the search words "states with immigration legislation", there has been a dramatic upward trend among the various states in this Union, over the last several years, in tackling the immigration situation at the state and local level.
It's not, by any means, and from an immigration restrictionist standpoint, all good news, but it is, overall, good news I think.
Certainly go to the site and read the entire report. But here's a couple of snippits:
We're witnessing a trend of states willing to take the lead in responding to immigration challenges when Congress will not," said William T. Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). "States are looking at creative solutions to law enforcement and work-site enforcement as well as considering the needs and contributions of legal immigrants to the United States.
State laws related to immigration have increased dramatically in recent years:
- In 2005, 300 bills were introduced and 38 laws were enacted.
- In 2006, activity doubled: 570 bills were introduced and 84 laws were enacted.
- In 2007, activity tripled: 1,562 bills were introduced and 240 laws were enacted.
Of course the concluding remarks in Mr. Pound's statement is a bone of contention with me. If it's legal then it's automatically good, right Mr. Pound? Because we all know that legal equals good, which is why the neocons are all for legal immigration and only oppose illegal immigration, which of course creates its own set of problems, as I and others have said so many times before.
The needs and contributions of legal immigrants -- and like I said, if it's legal it's automatically good, therefore we're working under the assumption that the contributions of legal immigrants is altogether positive, and that their needs are paramount -- is the specific language that offends me.
But like I said, the report is interesting and the site is interesting, and I'm sure I'll be referring to them again. And I hope you'll get some use from them too.
There's a movement afoot to undermine the efforts of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and here's what ICE spokeswoman Kelly Nantel recently had to say about it:
The work of advocacy groups is very important and while we appreciate their right to do so, we believe their efforts would better serve the public if they encouraged individuals to comply with the law rather than impede our efforts to enforce it.
Huh??? Who vetted this imposter?
The AP article I linked to in the previous entry contains the following quote by Arizona Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, a statement which deserves a post to itself:
Locals are just as responsible for the crisis in America in this invasion (of illegal immigrants) as the federal government.
Indeed, as I've said numerous times before. In fact, I'm not sure we're not more responsible...
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
When President Bush said of the 9/11 hijackers that they had "hijacked a great religion," he probably didn't realize how his false statement might lead to other similar false statements concerning other inherently radical movements.
And then came Sarah Palin, representative of the greatness of the feminist movement...
Sunday, September 14, 2008
I used to have an associate -- a so-called "friend" -- who, by all appearances, was a good and decent guy, a young family man with two young daughters who seemed to be devoted to them and to their long term welfare. I later came to learn that my associate was, in fact, none of the above; that he was simply putting on a good show, as certain individuals seem to have a particular talent for doing.
The first evidence came when we were engaged in a business discussion and he, all of a sudden and for no particular reason, unveiled a number of photographs which he and others had taken at his friend's bachelor party. I immediately objected, saying I wasn't interested in seeing what was in the photos. When he asked why, I asked how he would feel if one day someone was showing such photographs which involved his wife or his daughters, or one of his sisters. He responded that he "wouldn't like it," to which I replied "indeed, nor would I like it; these women in these photos do have fathers, and grandfathers, uncles and brothers. Have you not thought about that?" Of course, that isn't the only reason I objected, but it was my argument to him because I wanted to get down to where he lived. As goofed up as he was (and still is, by the way), he was sincere when he said he would not like it if the photos involved one of his female family members.
I was over at another blog, which I won't link to, earlier this morning. The author had written a post about Sarah Palin in which he was more or less sympathetic towards her, and hostile towards some of her critics. At one point in the entry the author announces that if he could he would say the following to Bristol Palin's boyfriend, "good job m'boy, now go marry her and produce four more." He's of course applauding the fact that Bristol and her boyfriend are both white, and that they've reproduced, and he encourages their making it legal and doing more of the same. I'm happy that Bristol evidently prefers to stay within her own race -- not that she has a whole lot of choice in Alaska -- but I wonder whether the author of the post would be so encouraging towards the young man were he to have impregnated his own daughter rather than Todd Palin's? I should certainly hope not. I personally would have put the fear of God in him early on in the relationship, as I've said elsewhere, but that's just me. But under no circumstances would I insult Bristol's father by congratulating the young man that impregnated her out of wedlock.
I think it just shows the lack of character in the blogger that wrote the post that he would be so flippant and nonchalant about the Palin family situation. Or maybe he just doesn't have a family of his own, and daughters of his own, and therefore somehow wouldn't understand the nature and depth of his insult. In which case he should learn to exercise a little self-restraint and keep his disrespectful trap shut.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
You'll have to pardon my getting pleasure from this, but I simply cannot help it. I mentioned in the previous post that I'd visited several leftist sites, one in particular, concerning the Palin interview. Well, I've gone back to the site -- which consists of a bunch of radical leftist female Barack Obama supporters -- and here is part of what I found there in a separate entry:
Open Letter to Barack Obama
Dear Senator Obama,
For 19+ months you've tried to run a positive campaign. You've focused on change. You've inspired millions with your message of hope. You've focused on the issues. Now, all of a sudden, with the introduction of Sarah Palin as Republican Vice Presidential candidate, the game has changed.
The Republicans cannot go head-to-head with you on the issues because they know if they try they'll lose. THey have been. They're trying to co-opt your message of change and it's back-firing. They're offering more of the same and they know it. So suddenly it's not about issues anymore, it's about personalities: The grizzled POW and the pert PTA mom.
Here's what I want you to do:
I want you to fight. back. I am giving you permission to get. angry. I want to hear you say, "Enough is enough!" every time you speak. I want you to take on their cynical, half-truth-ridden, insulting-to-all-American-citizens campaign and wrestle it to the ground.
And the author goes on and on and on, building anger and momentum as she goes, about how she's giving Obama permission to go on the attack against the evil, hate-filled, perverted, lying, manipulating, everyone-offending, etc., fundamentalist Christian team of McCain-Palin. Apparently the author is too angry to have noticed that Obama has been on the offensive sticking his foot in his mouth every time he turns around lately, saying stupid things like McCain doesn't know how to send an email and whatnot.
I understand that the introduction of Sarah Palin into the mix put the fear of God into the left which had been just cruising along virtually unopposed, without a care in the world except arrogantly pronouncing how badly they were going to defeat McCain (apparently they don't understand the meaning of the phrase "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), but doesn't the author realize how desperate she's become, in a matter of a couple of weeks no less, and how desperate and potentially harmful are her recommendations to the mild-mannered Barack Obama? And by the way, if the Republicans' tactic, according to this author, of "co-opting" Barack's message of change, is truly backfiring on them, as she further asserts, then what's to worry about, why get so passionate and angry about it; if it's backfiring, that means it's working against the Republicans, right? Call me crazy. LOL
Friday, September 12, 2008
There's a good discussion today at VFR over Charles Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night, specifically Gibson's tactics, i.e., wrenching her statements out of context. I've looked around the leftist blogosphere a bit to see what the lefties are saying about it, and of course they're lining up behind Gibson, albeit some of them are complaining that Gibson let 'er off the hook when he conceded her point that her words had been inspired by president Lincoln.
I'm not interested in drawing leftists to my blog, so I won't link to any of these sites. You can find them and read them easily enough by using the search words "Palin: America on a mission from God," if that is your desire. But at one such site the author questions Gibson's conceding Sarah's point on the basis that her answer invoking Lincoln is illegitimate, then quotes Lincoln's exact statement in support of her claim. But here's the pickle, why would Sarah even have thought to invoke Lincoln unless Lincoln's words had actually inspired her? But it's easy enough to see the connection between Sarah Palin's quote and the Lincoln quote, unless one operates in the darkness that is leftism.
But as I said in a comment to the VFR article linked above, "a text taken out of context is a pretext." Charles Gibson takes Sarah Palin's words out of context twice in succession in the interview, thus establishing malice on his part.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
If you follow a biblical-Christian worldview then you're very likely a complementarian. To what extent you're a complementarian may be in question, but you're a complementarian to some extent, no doubt. To what extent you're a complementarian, though, is ultimately the determining factor in how you view the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's vice-presidential running mate. But if you're not a pure complementarian are you in danger of slipping into Christian egalitarianism?
Earlier today frequent VFR commenter and complementarian Laura W. sent to VFR a link to a site called "Doug's blog" where is posted this excellent essay by Bill Einwechter in which Einwechter discusses Sarah Palin and the Complementarian Compromise. I'm posting the introductory paragraph below. You may read the entirety of the essay here.
Sarah Palin’s selection by John McCain to be his running mate in his bid for the presidency of the United States is not only a surprise political move, it also carries with it implications of historic proportions. If Senator McCain is successful in his candidacy, Mrs. Palin will become the first woman to fill the office of vice president of this country and be in place to assume the presidency, if necessary. She will also be in line to take up the Republican nomination for president in the future. If John McCain becomes president and chooses to serve only one term, it is quite possible that the next presidential election (2012) will be between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But Palin’s nomination to the vice presidency is not only an historic occasion for our country, it is also a watershed moment for evangelical Christians, particularly those who claim to be complementarian in their views of men and women (i.e., those who believe that men and women have different but complementary roles according to the revealed will of God).
I think you'll enjoy the rest of the essay irrespective of how pure a complementarian you are. So be sure to read it. I know I certainly needed a bit of a refresher.
Monday, September 8, 2008
The_editrix -- someone we've recently come to know and respect here for her thoughtful, lucid, and eloquent comments -- writes from Germany:
I am sure I don't "get" some details in their right context because I am not American and I don't want to make my criticism of Sarah Palin, who seems to be a nice woman, sound too personal and judgmental. But one thing she isn't: a conservative. I'd like to refer to the discussion at VFR. At one point Lawrence Auster said that Palin "represents something that has replaced conservatism" for which he hadn't yet a name. I replied that there is no name for it because what she is can't be defined as a political stance. All she is, is "unconventional". So she chose not to abort her child, so she has no hangups about shooting, and she happens to be still married to the same man. Is that enough to be be labelled "conservative"? What a toil is that "unconventional" marriage and family life for her husband?
Being conservative is, as I put it at VFR, not a patchwork of non-politically correct items, it is a lifetime concept, a worldview.
The discussion about the pornographic site somebody recently recommended at VFR shows that it is enough to spite just one politically correct issue (in this case feminism) to pass as a "conservative". More cases in point: Those "Islam critics" who happen to be Muslims and, somewhat naturally, tackle Islam first, but would like to abolish religion generally. Hirsi Ali or Irshad Manji come to mind.
I'm not going to pull anyone's chain here, I put Nora's comments in a separate post because I am hoping that she (and anyone else who wants to give it go) will elaborate more on what it is that constitutes "conservatism" to her mind. I agree with Nora when she says conservatism, genuine conservatism, is a worldview. As I've said so many times at this blog and elsewhere "Worldview is everything". Which is to say, for me, conservative is everything, liberal -- which Auster has described as "the political expression of evil -- is nothing; the void. Beyond that conservatism is hard to put in concrete terms. It is a worldview, a system or a body of deeply held inner convictions, is that right? I mean, most of us identify ourselves as conservatives because we disagree with just about everything liberals and liberalism stands for, thus we are conservatives. But is this enough?
A person calling himself by the name "conservative" may be more inclined to support gun rights, or to think that abortion is morally wrong, or to believe that marriage is a lifelong committment between a man and a woman, but do these things, in and and of themselves, make one a conservative? Or is it the totality of all these beliefs which makes him a conservative?
To add some perspective to this question about what constitutes a genuine conservatism, and since this whole issue (on this particular occasion) surrounds the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice president on the Republican ticket, let's take a look at what Wasilla resident Mrs. Scottie Kania recently wrote about the Palins at VFR.
Mrs. Kania writes:
...but Sarah and Todd are far better parents than you may believe and I can assure you, they are far more heartbroken over their daughter than you will ever know.
Now, I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative here, no matter how it might appear to some. I respect Mrs. Kania's position, and I do not doubt her sincerity. But I do have an issue with Mrs. Kania's statements.
While Bristol Palin's out of wedlock pregnancy should be a private matter, and while we should all do our best to respect Bristol's and the Palin family's privacy on the matter, the matter became public by virtue of Sarah Palin's acceptance of her nomination to the vice presidency. In other words, it became impossible to keep the matter private at the very moment that Sarah decided on accepting her nomination to the vice presidency. Or to put it another way, the responsibility for this falls squarely on Sarah Palin's shoulders.
At the moment Sarah Palin determined to accept her nomination to the vice presidency, by virtue of her decision she was forced to cast a false image of herself to the general public, that of a professional and family woman who, far from being "heartbroken" over the fact of her 17 year old daughter's illegitimate pregnancy, through her indomitable inner strength and frontier woman toughness had long since conquered the emotionalism of heartbrokenness and had moved forward with her life and her career. It's either that, or, contrary to what Mrs. Kania says, she's not heartbroken over Bristol's pregnancy at all. She can't be heartbroken and not heartbroken at the same time.
And this is the problem isn't it? A woman who is truly heartbroken over her minor daughter's pregnancy is not qualified to serve in a high government position like the vice presidency. If she remains heartbroken, therefore, as Mrs. Kania suggests, she can't let anyone know it. So it's all either a show, or she's not heartbroken at all. Which is it?
To me this gets right to the heart of the matter of what Nora said in her comments quoted above: "One thing she isn't: a conservative." As was said before, conservatism is a world and life view; a lifestyle if you will, something that you strive to live out day in and day out. It informs every decision that one makes, if he is truly conservative. A genuine conservative does not lie for the sake of political expediency, nor does he put his country and his family at risk to advance his political career. And isn't this exactly what Sarah Palin is doing, if in fact she truly is heartbroken over Bristol's pregnancy? And if she's not heartbroken over Bristol's pregnancy, where's her conservatism?
I understand that we put things behind us and life goes on, it must. But I also understand that, generally speaking, these kinds of things do not just go away in a matter of a couple of months. And in case someone wants to try it, I'm not the one claiming that Sarah Palin is heartbroken over Bristol's pregnancy, I'm simply commenting on what a Wasilla resident and friend and neighbor of the Palin family is saying.
On the other hand I think Mrs. Kania may be trying to say that Sarah, by serving the greater good is the better person for it. Consider what she writes:
If anything, since Bristol attends public school, I think this problem may be a testament to Sarah's belief that explicit sex education shouldn't be taught in public school, which is the case up here.
This statement stood out for me because (1) I used to live in Alaska and can confirm that this is indeed the case, and (2) because Mrs. Kania seems to be defending Sarah's absentee momism on the basis that she's serving the greater good by virtue thereof.
As to the first point, it was around 1991 that there was a big stink raised about this issue of explicit sex education in the Alaska public school system. And I do mean explicit sex education taught to children as early as the third grade with homosexual acts interspersed throughout. I won't go into the particularities, you can use your imaginations, but you can rest assured that I exaggerate nothing here, as God and Mrs. Kania are my witnesses. At precisely the same moment in time the homosexual lobby in Anchorage had managed to get a majority of pro-gay leftists elected to the Anchorage city council and there was a big push to add the words "sexual orientation" to Anchorage's very liberal anti-discrimination laws. I was on the ground fighting all of this with everything a 26 or 27 year old military member and young family man could possibly muster. It didn't amount to much in retrospect, but it was the best I could do at the time. Yes; I attended the Anchorage city council meetings held on the issue, and, yes, I got into heated verbal confrontations with the opposition on the ground. I have literally never seen a more hatefilled, confrontational, provoking bunch in my life. Anyone who entertains any notion that the homosexual lobby is moderate, or that it's peaceful and non-confrontational, is living in a fantasy world. But what does all of this have to do with anything, you may be asking...
Well, it establishes a little background for starters. But more importantly, it gets to this question of whether Mrs. Palin was/is justified in abandoning a life of devoted motherhood for a political life to serve the greater good. I think this is what Mrs. Kania is essentially saying, that since Sarah Palin is opposed to explicit sex education in Alaska's public schools -- a fact which affects all Alaska children, not just Sarah's children -- her opposition to it as a high profile and popular influential political figure in Alaska who is serving a cause greater than her immediate family interests justifies her decision to serve the bigger cause.
I can't go along with that for various reasons. But to sum it up let me say that a decision to have and raise a family is a committment that cannot be abandoned in midst of it for any reason. Further to the point, the whole is never greater than the sum of its parts, it is exactly equal to the sum of its parts. In other words, there is a very real possibility that Mrs. Palin, by virtue of abandoning her family life in pursuit of a political career, has actually caused more damage than she's done good, her fight on the side of conservative issues notwithstanding.
I've had a lot of critical things to say about Sarah Palin, mainly in comments over at VFR but at a couple of other places as well, including this blog. But today I had something of an epiphany.
No; I'm not taking any of it back. I think I've been fair to Sarah Palin while expressing certain legitimate concerns and criticisms. But I did have something of a revelation today that I'd like to share.
My revelation is that none of my criticisms or Auster's criticisms, or anyone's criticisms for that matter, are likely to make any difference at this point. Not that we shouldn't continue to criticize her when criticism is called for, but that it's not going to make any difference one way or the other.
When Sarah Palin's absolutely adorable six year old daughter Piper was caught on camera during her mom's speech at the RNC swiping her palm across her tongue for the purpose of laying her brother Trig's hair down, at that point the Palin family won the hearts of average Americans for once and for all. For those that didn't see it live, they heard about it and they've seen it now.
I watched it live and I even got a lump in my throat as I witnessed the scene. But don't tell my wife whose instinctive reaction was to let out a gasp and utter "Oh my God!" Then we both began to laugh joyfully together. This little perfectly innocent gesture of love toward her baby brother, this little non-scripted event involving this little girl acting the role of good little mother, which no amount of noise in the auditorium would turn her undivided attention from, captured our hearts. This was powerful, powerful stuff. The kind of stuff words cannot explain. It just is what it is. That's all.
A few minutes ago I found the You-tube video and watched it again. And this event still elicits very positive emotions in me. I can't help it. And I'm betting a lot of other Americans can't help it either. There's something almost magical about it. The shot starts out on Piper's mom giving her speech. This woman is easy to look at. And it's not just her physical beauty, though she's obviously very pretty, but you can see in her eyes almost a sincerity and goodness, maybe even a degree of naivete or uncorruptedness. But in addition you see her youth, the brightness in her face and her eyes, a very positive and outgoing attitude, and you just sense that Sarah Palin is a good and decent person, albeit one to be reckoned with. Then suddenly, without warning yet very naturally, the shot is on Sarah's youngest daughter Piper caring for her little brother. She's sweet and gentle, but not so cautious with him as to make you feel as though she thinks she's going to break him. You get the feeling this little six year old girl has already been trained very well; that she's a capable motherly caregiver with abilities well beyond her years, and that the Palins are well justified in placing a great deal of confidence in her ability to maintain perfect undivided focus, under virtually all conditions and circumstances, on her task of taking care of Trig. No amount of noise or commotion in the auditorium can divert Piper's attention from the duties at hand. She has a job to do; she can't be distracted by the insignificant goings on around her inside the auditorium. Relative to her job of taking care of Trig, this is all meaninglessness; a bunch of noise and racket that she simply can't be bothered with.
What a powerful testament; what a powerful scene! How could Obama ever touch it? How could he ever come close to touching it? Barack Obama doesn't have the stuff it takes to match this scene, let alone top it, even if he tried.
So as I said in the title to this entry, if Sarah Palin isn't McCain's ticket to the White House, Piper Palin is. But of course, you don't get Sarah without Piper or vice versa, they come as a matching set. With almost sixty days left until the general election and several debates to come, I'd bet my last dollar on it. Not that I'm particularly happy about it, or that I'll vote McCain, but I'll wager a McCain victory with anyone that cares to. And Piper Palin is a big reason why.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Below is a list of emails I've received to my inbox from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink organization on McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate (Note: Links are provided here where they are provided in the emails.):
-Aug. 29: Dr. James Dobson: McCain's Choice of Palin 'Outstanding'
-Sept. 2: Dr. Dobson Prays for Palin Family
-Sept. 3: Palin Draws Dr. Dobson Toward McCain
-Sept. 4: Special Alert: Palin Adds to Euphoria over Strength of GOP Platform
These are the CitizenLink emails I've received to my inbox since Palin's selection as McCain's running mate was announced. Very interestingly to yours truly is the fact that Don Wildmon's AFA (American Family Association) has been strangely silent on the Palin selection. I haven't personally received a single email from AFA concerning the Palin selection, and this seems strange to me. Don Wildmon and Dr. Dobson are generally in complete agreement on these political questions, and yet not a word from Wildmon's AFA? It just seems strange.
I wrote at VFR the following concerning Dr. Dobson's immediate and continued support for Sarah Palin:
When one makes the leap--as Dr. Dobson did with both feet almost immediately after her selection was announced--onto the bandwagon of some relatively unknown political figure such as Sarah Palin, no amount of religion nor conservatism will suffice, it seems, to convince one that one has made an error.
Conservatism is about being level headed about these things, is it not? Why didn't Dobson recognize his initial joy at hearing of the Palin selection as based in passion, not in clear-headed reason?
It's hard to criticize a figure like Dr. Dobson -- someone who has for years done outstanding work in my opinion on family issues -- without looking (and feeling) like you're being overly-critical of him. But in this case Dr. Dobson needs to be criticized for hurling himself and his entire organization onto the Sarah Palin bandwagon before he knew anything of substance about Sarah Palin and her "family values". As a respected leader of the "religious right", I think the least required of Dr. Dobson is to take a second look at his support for Sarah Palin and to reconsider his position. And I hereby call on him to do so.
You disagree? Why?
Also, some of you may be interested in the contents of the following email (not posted at VFR) that I sent to Auster on the Palin situation and Dobson's blind support of her:
TM writes to LA:
I just want to point out, too, that as Dobson defends Sarah Palin's "family values" and effectively says that we can't question the fact of her "absentee momism" as having anything to do with the Bristol situation, he's effectively leaving her younger children (and all American children by extension) hanging out to dry.
Dobson says that being Christian does not mean you or your children are perfect. Fine. The Palin's are not perfect, they make mistakes like everyone else, and their children make mistakes like everyone else, who is saying otherwise? But then he says that there's forgiveness and restoration for those who confess their sins to the Lord. Well, first of all, does Mrs. Palin feel any sense of personal failure or sinfulness related to Bristol's condition? And if she does then why the hell is she going to continue to be an absentee mom when she still has young children at home who need the influence that only she, as their mother, can provide?
This is nothing less than the sacrificing of our children on the alter of liberalism; it is in one sense worse than abortion for rather than killing their bodies, it is killing their souls. As you've pointed out, this is not just about Sarah Palin. It is about our larger society and the influence that the Sarah Palins of our society have upon it.
I've never been more discouraged about our future.
Here's Paul Sperry in a FrontPageMag article from June 25, giving us another example of, by and with the aid of CAIR, Muslim subversives infiltrating key agencies in America and preventing us from protecting ourselves against terrorists and their plots to destroy us.
(Incidentally, I wrote on July 15th of a similar case involving CAIR's muscling of law enforcement agencies around the nation, including our ports of entry, and the result of making them ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks on America.)
Here's an excerpt from Sperry's FrontPage article:
Last month, Taliban fighters claimed to have killed a "female U.S. spy" for helping American forces in Afghanistan. Once all the evidence against the alleged spy was gathered, they slit her throat with a knife.
Compare that with the kid glove treatment of Sgt. Muhammad Weiss Rasool, a Muslim cop in the nation's capital who tipped off the target of an FBI terrorism investigation into a pro-Taliban mosque.
Despite his arrest, confession and recent conviction in federal court, Rasool, an Afghan immigrant, will do no jail time and will continue to collect a paycheck from taxpayers pending the results of an internal-affairs probe by the Fairfax County Police Department outside Washington.
Rasool took an oath to protect this country several years ago when he joined the FCPD, which is the largest force in Virginia and a key partner with the FBI in investigating major terror cases in the Washington area, including the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.
But Rasool put his religion ahead of his adopted country when he alerted a fellow member of his mosque that he was under federal surveillance. At his Muslim brother's request, he searched a police database and confirmed that FBI agents were tailing him.
When agents went to arrest the target early one morning, they found him and his family already dressed and destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole and worked back through the system to find Rasool.
By all means read the rest of the article to learn what investigators learned about Rasool. But I would just like to point out that all devout Muslims put their religion ahead of their (adopted) country because this is what their Koran teaches them to do. It also teaches them to destroy and/or subjugate infidels and unbelievers. All Rasool was doing is what his religion commands him to do, just as it commands every other Muslim in every other sensitive position in America to subvert all known attempts to prevent terrorist plots against America. And just like it commands CAIR to use its power, its money and influence, to muscle law enforcement agencies and the legal system into submitting to its demands, thus resulting in known Muslim terrorists and terrorist sympathizers literally walking our streets. Modern Americans must be the dumbest, most self destructive people on earth.
I'll say it again, this is what happens when you allow Muslims to become empowered in your country. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition ain't got nothin' on this bunch.
Monday, September 1, 2008
(Note: Be sure to read Nora's excellent comments to this entry where she lays out a few of her own theories on why modern women advocate abortion, and why men do nothing about it. Also that feminism is more responsible for our decline than all the other destructive isms.)
With all that's been said across the traditionalist blogosphere about Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate, one point of view is particularly bothersome.
Over at VA's some of the (presumably "Traditionalist") commenters to her entry The Shameless Left are saying that it's a woman's choice (you know, "a woman's right to choose" applied selectively) whether or not to allow a Down's baby to live. Commenter Rollory even goes so far as to assert that based on the fact that the parents of Down's children "created" the child, then they should have power over such baby's life. This, my friends, is the antithesis of traditionalist American conservatism. I have to wonder from whence these people (originally) hail.
I for one hope beyond hope that Mrs. Palin never considered it her choice to terminate her pregnancy. As mere human beings who have no power to "create" life, we definately have no power to extinguish it on a presumed right of choice. A human baby is not a physical structure that we've "created" with our own hands, for goodness sakes! If you want to exercise your choice to destroy such a structure, none of the rest of us has any say in the matter. But engaging in sexual intercourse is not the same thing as creating life. If you believe it is then your worldview is definitely not traditionalist.
This idea about the sacredness of life is one of the fundamentals of genuine traditionalism.