Trivia time

Question: What is, stacked vertically, taller than the Empire State Building and the Washington Monument combined, growing exponentially, is pink in color, the demand for which has once already exhausted the nation's pink paper supply, and is the brainchild of World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah?

That's right:

Read More

A wee bit more parenting could go a long, long way. But then, where would that leave the totalitarians?

The Baron has posted an excellent article by GoV's Swedish correspondent LN, called "Why do Swedes behave like Swedes?". The topic of the article, which I've given away in the title of this entry, is one that is certainly near and dear to my heart, as well, I know, as some of my readers. Below I've excerpted a couple of paragraphs from the article which had me going "Amen!" as I read. Without further ado,

LN writes:

Dr. Gordon Neufeld is a clinical psychologist from Canada with a reputation for penetrating to the heart of complex parenting issues, and the author of the internationally recognized book Hold On to Your Kids — why parents need to matter more than peers. Dr. Neufeld’s message was that the younger generation’s lack of adult contacts in the Western world is one of the most disturbing and misunderstood trends of our time — peers replacing parents in the lives of our children. Dr. Neufeld has dubbed this phenomenon peer orientation [jämnårigorientering], which refers to the tendency of children and youth to look to their peers for direction: for a sense of right and wrong, for values, identity and codes of behaviour.

But peer orientation undermines family cohesion, poisons the school atmosphere, and fosters an aggressively hostile and sexualized youth culture. It provides a powerful explanation for conformism, aggression, schoolyard bullying, and youth violence; its effects are painfully evident in the context of teenage gangs and criminal activity. It is an escalating trend that has never been adequately described or contested until Hold On to Your Kids. Once understood, it becomes self-evident — as perhaps do the solutions.

Pardon me while I say, once more, Amen!.

I'm reminded that it was Horace Mann who first introduced a series of changes into the Massachusetts schools way back in the 1840's which would eventually lead to full-fledged John Dewey style, mind numbing progressive education in America's public schools. Hence Mann is affectionately known by his modern acolytes as "The Father of Public Education" in America, not so affectionately by those of us who clearly see the error and eventuality of his ways having come to full fruition in our public schools and the half brain-dead members of our society that the public schools are largely responsible for producing today.

I have in my possession a facimile edition of Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. Published in the front of the edition, in a series of "green pages" as they're called (which aren't included in the online editions that I've seen), is a reference to Mann's destructive influence on America's education system. Elsewhere we find that the implementation of Mann's plan for public education in America, under which the state, via the creation of a powerful state "Board of Education" which Mann himself was selected to head (imagine that), at first received strong resistance and righteous indignation from a select but precious few respected educators of the era who could see and actually predicted where Mann's state-run progressive education would eventually take us in America. Too bad that Mr. Mann's plan eventually won out over a more commonsensical, American approach to education. The importation of foreign ideologies and ideologues has ever been a bane on our society. But I guess that's a subject for a whole 'nother post.

Read More

Great article today at Loyal to Liberty

Here again I jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to create a direct link to Dr. Keyes's excellent article. In this case I think it's worth the extra effort.

(BTW, the reason I don't generally like doing this is because it creates a scenario in which a failure to establish the link is more likely. Which, of course, means that in the event of a failure, then it has to be done all over again. I.e., a simple waste of time and effort. And I can be very impatient about things like that. But I really should be taking this up with Dr. Keyes, shouldn't I?)

Read More

What is America's moral responsibility to the rest of the world?

If you're not a regular follower of Dr. Keyes's blog Loyal to Liberty as I am, you may be interested in his entry The USA- A special nation with special responsibilities and the discussion that ensues.

I think Dr. Keyes is more-or-less arguing for the "proposition nation" theory of America (i.e., America is an idea), a theory of America that I personally do not wholly reject, but one which I think can very easily be taken too far as it tends to set aside or dismiss certain aspects of historic Americanism that are unique to America and its founding, namely the original overwhelming WASP majority.

I'm by no means an expert on this, nor do I claim to be (how's that for unnecessary repitition?), but I think that simple common sense will teach us that there has to be a connection between the loss of freedom in America and the dilution of that majority. Perhaps I personally make too much of it, or, perhaps not. You be the judge.

To be clear, Dr. Keyes is one of my favorite, most respected provocateurs of American idealism, but the favoritism and respect I personally afford him has little to do with my larger respect for the American Idea of Nation-making.

As I wrote in a comment to Dr. Keyes's entry:

Dr. Keyes wrote:

Those who talk about the "American" idea of freedom" have already abandoned it.

I don't think that's necessarily true, although it's probably true as a general rule. People sometimes (hesitantly) use descriptives like this in an attempt to make a finer point. But of course "freedom" is expressed and exercised differently in America than it is in other parts of the world where it exists or has existed. Taken as a whole I'm not sure that America represents no-holds-barred Randian libertarianism, although there seems to be that (growing) element.

I certainly agree that any genuine notion of liberty begins with a belief in the Sovereign God of the universe and his will for His moral creatures. But then again, that's what I would personally call the "American idea of liberty" since this nation is unique among nations in that vein. After all,

"...is it not that in the chain of human events the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior of the World?..."

In any event I think this is an important discussion to have, and I look forward to your next edition in the series.

And the next for that matter. In any event I'll be closely monitoring Dr. Keyes's follow-on entries. I don't particularly give two hoots about black or white Americanism, only about Americanism, black or white. On the other hand, I've opened myself up to all manner of criticism. So be it.

Read More

The antithesis of liberty -- the anti-liberty 'Obamacare' opposition

Dr. Keyes has written an article for WorldNetDaily called "Unhealthy for Liberty" from which I excerpt the following passage:

Though even some of the critics of the Obama faction's health sector proposals speak as if the problem with it lies in the fact that they are reaching for too much too quickly, this criticism begs the most important question: What are they reaching for?

Thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out, it is a vital point to make.

From my point of view there is at least some advantage to our side due to the administration's aggressive, radical 'overreaching' (and I use the term very loosely here), but it does nothing to change the facts that what they're reaching for, at its very roots, is dictatorial totalitarian government, which is altogether unAmerican and must be stopped -- not merely resisted, stopped!

Dr. Keyes puts it in very simple terms:

The problem isn't that they are overreaching.

Again, thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out. It is precisely correct. Indeed, as I've intimated above, that they're aggressively 'overreaching' works more to our side's advantage than theirs. And as I've said before here and elsewhere, I do not believe that they have the mental (or moral) capacity necessary to recognize that they need to scale it back IF they are to have any hope of advancing their agenda, ummm, peacefully. Not that advancing their agenda peacefully is necessarily their goal. Nonetheless, Keyes is right to point out that the perception which attributes to them the sin of 'overreaching' is mired in a false premise, namely that it's not what they're reaching for that is wrong, but the breakneck speed and wreckless driving in pursuit of the what that is wrong. This is, I believe, a great example of what Lawrence Auster has denominated the unprincipled exception. In the event that you're not familiar with the term, read Auster's explanation here.

Dr. Keyes continues:

It is quite simply that what they are reaching for is wrong – wrong for the quality of health care, wrong for the individual liberties of Americans, wrong for the preservation of constitutional government that secures the liberty of the American people.

Amen! A right principled position if there ever was one -- as opposed to taking an unprincipled opposing position wherein the best (albeit flawed) argument one can articulate 'against' government takeover of the healthcare industry (among others) is that we're not quite ready for a complete government takeover of xyz industry just yet. In this case there's no higher principle on which one founds his opposition to a given thing. No; he isn't necessarily opposed to government-run anything per se, he just thinks everyone is better served if totalitarianism continues to be implimented bits-and-pieces at a time, or, that the rate of speed at which it is advanced should be increased by slight yet steady increments. Because, you see, he thinks that that is the American way.

Read More

When all things are seen as on a par

Here's the beginnings of a discussion that may or may not prove to be fruitful. We shall see in time.

Someone named Dale Caruso posted the poem by Martin Neimoeller which I'm sure you've all heard some version of at one time or the other. Here is the text of the poem Caruso posted at the Tenth Amendment Center with Mr. Caruso's preparatory comments added:

There was a poem was written by Martin Niemoeller in 1946. It has been varied over the years to apply to different causes … but the original message carries a powerful moral impact;

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me–
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Yes, yes, by the time they got around to getting me they'd already long since disposed of everyone else. You know, the communists, the socialists, the Jews and trade unionists, etc. There I stood alone, with no one there to back me up -- you know, the communists and the socialists, friends I never knew I had.

Well, the poem did receive a couple of approving comments in the thread, to wit:

Michael Boldin writes:

The pastor Martin Niemoeller commentary is as relevant today as it ever was. We can’t just turn our heads because “they” are coming for someone we don’t like. Every time the government takes more power and violates another person’s rights is another step closer to you.

Jeff Matthews adds:

Exactly! That’s why I hate to see “enlightened” people submit so easily to laws that target the “unenlightened,” such as smokers and drinkers.

Huh?! I'm reminded here of the passage "...and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." (Can yo believe I had to look that one up? That's ok, I knew exactly where to find it. ;-))

Well, you know, with the approval rating of the poem quickly growing, I thought I might as well enter the fray.

TM writes:

Smokers and drinkers? Well sure. Certainly many of the same folks that support imposing “sin taxes” on personal practices and habits they don’t particularly care for as individuals, or that are not currently in vogue, engage themselves in practices and habits equally repulsive and self-destructive which they would never support the imposition of excessive taxation on. But Communism; Socialism? These are totalitarian philosophies of government which are completely and utterly antithetical to American Representative Republicanism. And the Constitution does, afterall, guarantee to each state in this union a Republican form of Government.

Apples and oranges you’re comparing here.

Jeff Matthews replies:

Not apples and oranges at all. Take the new bill that just passed into law by Congress submitting jurisdiction over tobacco to the FDA. Now, the FDA will have all sorts of fun running a tobacco-related political agenda.

The point I made above was that this is Unconstitutional, but the majority does not care because they support such usurpations against the minority. Divide and conquer.

It is directly on point to Michael’s comment that, “We can’t just turn our heads because “they” are coming for someone we don’t like. Every time the government takes more power and violates another person’s rights is another step closer to you.”

Okay, I'm a little bit confused now. Let's see what the following will yield:

TM:

So you’re saying the government has no more legitimate interest (neither authority) in preventing the spread of an ideology antithetical to itself within its jurisdiction, than it has tampering with the personal choices of individuals which can in virtually no conceivable way present it with an existential threat and has no ideological preferences one way or the other? Are we losing something in translation here? I’m a little confused.

Stay tuned. Or, of course, you can jump in there anytime. Because, you see, before they elicited a non-approving response out of me, they'd already scared away everyone else. You know, the Christians and the conservatives, the non-egalitarians, etc. ;-)

Read More

The soft bigotry of low expectations

President Bush's phrase came to mind this morning while I was making my rounds at my regular stopping places ... blog-wise. Several bloggers in my blogroll have mentioned Hussein Obama's recent statements claiming that America is a Muslim country. The phrase in the post title I think applies to all of those Obamaites out there who have been saying, essentially, that Hussein's intimate connections with Islam will not affect the way he governs. Thus, if these people are being honest with us, then they are (soft) bigots of the first order.

Now, I personally do not give a hoot whether Hussein is a Muslim in truth or not. He's as dangerous to this nation as a non-Muslim (or closet-Muslim, as it were) as he is, or ever could be, as a Muslim. And I've said this since way back when (way before his candidacy was made official). But like I said a while back, when he debased himself, the Presidency, and the United States of America before the King of Saudi Arabia, any question that lingered in my mind concerning his politico-religious allegiances at once vanished. Notwithstanding anything he has ever said, or will ever say in the future, concerning his personal faith.

I have also mentioned several times before the now prophetic words of our founding fathers who wrote in the fullest explication of the U.S. Constitution in existence -- the Federalist Papers -- that among the reasons chosen for the Constitutional mode of selecting our president, chief among them was to prevent foreign powers from "raising a creature of their own to the chief executive magistracy of the union." This, of course, makes perfect political sense to anyone who retains the slightest sense of patriotism and loyalty to his own country. But if the late election is any indication, modern Americans are loyal, not to their fellow countrymen, not to the constitution, and, no, not even to an ideal. They are indeed loyal, first and foremost, to the basest of human instincts; they're all about no. 1.

The fate of such societies is already written.

Read More

Just can't make the connection

In the comment section of the previous entry to this blog, Chiu Chunling and I have been discussing this mind-boggling phenomenon which seems to indicate that people are ill-prepared, or simply incapable of making the connection between American exceptionalism and the ingredients which created that exceptionalism.

Chiu wrote to me:

Even leaving God aside...how can Americans view the enormous disparity between their prosperity and that of any other nation and not understand that it has something to do with the principles of personal freedom and responsibility? The mind boggles, or at least mine does. Do Americans think, like cargo cultists, that this wealth simply fell out of the sky because of our brightly colored flags?

And I reply.

Relatedly, there's a discussion ongoing in a new thread at Loyal To Liberty -- Dr. Alan Keyes's site -- in which a commenter called "moniquemonicat" writes:

New World Order Prince Obama can put 10 Hispanics in his cabinet, Hispanics will still hate him.

I replied to this assertion in this manner:

"New World Order Prince Obama can put 10 Hispanics in his cabinet, Hispanics will still hate him."

Yeah, to the tune of about 67% that voted for him. If Hispanics hate Hussein Obama, they sure have an interesting way of showing it.

He ought to install ten Muslims in his cabinet. Then Muslims can (still) hate him to the tune of about 90% that voted for him. And etc...

Another commenter named Angelopeter answers my comment about the Hussein Obama-Islam connection in this manner:

[T]here are some muslims that believe that Obama is indeed their awaited saviour, "imam," that will force the world to submit to islam. Because one of the signs written of in the koran, is that this "imam," will captivate the youth through his words, and shall give to the poor (wealth redistribution).

Yes, you read it right, "some" (generally the term, so used, indicates a relatively small number, or a minority).

Sure, I was being ironic, as well as a little facetious in my comments, but I was dead serious about the main point. My numbers are also accurate to the man. Why can't people (Christian-Americans in particular) make such simple connections? The question still stands, and it, as Chiu iterates in the other thread, boggles the mind.

Read More

Know thine (domestic) enemies

(Note: this entry has been edited and expanded)

If you've ever had any warm fuzzy feelings about the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center - which should be renamed as Lawrence Auster suggests - or its (remote) dedication to preserving Western civilization counting it as some kind of ally in our cause. Or, if you've simply not known much about the SPLC and what it's up to at all, then you need to read this and put your hopes and expectations firmly and finally to rest.

If that isn't enough, then I suggest you take the time to explore the site, which boasts in its headline that it is "keeping an eye on the radical right" (what about the radical left, and who exactly decides what constitutes radicalism on either side of political neutrality?), further.

Here's a snippit:

Seventy people, including a few well-known mainstream academics, joined prominent white nationalists and academic racists gathered in the Four Points Sheraton at the Baltimore/Washington International airport last month for the first-ever “Preserving Western Civilization Conference.” Its aim: to defend “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and European identity.” But not much civilized was said there. Rather, the discussion centered around claims that blacks are not as intelligent as whites, immigrants are destroying America, and Islam is no religion of peace — it’s expansionist, intolerant, militant, and seeks to destroy.

In other words, to claim that a given non-white race is less intelligent as a whole than the white race, that mass third-world immigration to America is a threat to America's existence as we've always known it due in part to the intelligence gap, and that Muslim immigration to America in particular, or otherwise friendly relations with Muslim nations and peoples because of the hatred of Western civilization inherent to Islam, presents us with an existential threat if not quickly curtailed is, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, uncivilized speech. And if it's uncivilized speech, then what ultimately must be done about it? I'll be generous and give you three tries at the answer. Better still...

Let's have a little fun with this question and make it a multiple choice. The question restated is as follows:

What must ultimately be done about people interested in preserving Western civilization, or, "defending America's Judeo-Christian Heritage and European identity," it being inherently racist, bigoted, hateful and altogether uncivilized to engage in such pursuits?

a) Nothing, they're entitled to their hate-filled, racist, bigoted opinions.

b) They must be sought out, rounded up, and placed in re-education camps.

c) They must be imprisoned for life; such people cannot be reformed.

d) It's not feasible to put them all in re-education camps, nor to imprison them all, economically or otherwise. We must, therefore, deprive them of their so-called "unalienable" constitutionally secured rights, and implant them with electronic satellite tracking devices capable of tracking their every movement and every (attempted) purchase.

e) None of the above.

Note: The answers I've given are not meant to be exhaustive of all the possibilities. Certainly I could have come up with several others, as well as being more detailed about what each scenario might involve by necessity of its nature. But if you feel like you have better answers than those I've offered, then by all means feel free to post them.

Read More

Mark it down on your calendars

Date: Wednesday, April 15th (Tax Day), 2009. Time: Time of individual gatherings varies from late morning to late afternoon. Place: A city or town near you. Event: "Tea Party" - protesting the tax-and-spend socialist policies of the Obama administration and the Socialist-Democrat Congress.

Unlike the last Tea Party gatherings, this event is planned a month in advance which should be ample time for most of us to make plans and arrangements to attend the event to be held nearest us. My family and I will likely be attending the Tea Party in Tulsa on this date. Please let me know in a comment to the entry whether you intend to attend the Tea Party gathering on this date nearest you.

Note also that some organizations have planned Tea Parties on other significant dates such as July 4th. A great day to have one. I can't think of anything better, or more American, to do on Independence Day than to shun the detested policies of a government consisting of leftist ideologues whose opposing colleagues are generally way more about show than they are about go.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Read More

Tea Party, anyone?

It's coming this Friday to a city or town near you.

Read More

Driving a stake into the heart of Republican government

Alan Keyes joins the rank of Senator Coburn (arguably the most consistently conservative member of the U.S. Senate; the U.S. Senate's consummate Okie from Muskogee), both of whom have been declared by certain personalities on the left to be insane because they recognize the communistic radicalism of our leftist president and the leftist-socialist Congress, and they dare to wield their influence, publicly pronouncing their opposition to it.

Dr. Keyes writes:

Until a friend sent me an email about it on Friday, I hadn't read Senator Coburn's speech. But on Thursday evening in Hastings, Nebraska, when asked about Obama's policies, I said that he is a radical communist, and that if Americans who care about liberty (i.e., who don't want to put a stake in its heart?) do nothing to stop him he'll bring about the destruction of the United States.

I just have a couple of things to say about this: whenever the left declares a person to be insane, that person is probably on the right track. Saying that someone is insane because he strongly opposes the policies of a president and a Congress which will destroy all remaining vestiges of Republican liberty is itself a form of insanity, or at least of self-delusion. In any event, it's not insanity to oppose a policy initiative if you believe, and publicly pronounce your belief, that it presents your country with an existential threat. That's like saying someone who establishes and adheres to rules for the better ordering of his home and family, and who pronounces the reasons for which other forms of family government are incompatible with the safety and happiness and the perpetuation of his family, is somehow insane. Which is basically what leftists believe about family autonomy.

Read More

Webster's

A good discussion on what constitutes "Americanism" and/or "American Patriotism" may be had here.

Read More

Quote of the day; maybe of the year:

And it comes from none other than Lawrence Auster of VFR. (Ladies: Before you get all fired up and in a tizzy, please consider the truth of what he's saying.)

LA:

Of course this also has a lot to do with feminism. When, in the name of equality, you introduce women into institutions and areas of life that have always been male dominated, you inevitably alter the character of those institutions.

And no; I'm not planning a "quote of the day" for Webster's. So I've made an exception in this case.

Read More

Anti-Americanism

I've been meaning to post an entry dealing with the image you see to the left for several weeks now. I first saw the image while visiting Dad's little shop in my hometown several months back. Dad had, prominently displayed on a wall of his shop, a T-shirt with this image on it. Does this image elicit in you the same level of anti-anti-American sentiment that it does me? And why?

BTW, my dad is one of the most "American" people I know. Indeed, it would take a book's worth of illustrations to account for all the pro-American principles I was taught as a child. So the question is, why would Dad display such an image proudly as he does? (Dad: you're free to answer the question yourself.)

Read More

My Indian opponent finally comes clean

Jason A., a.k.a. jdogg, finally comes clean with me about his attitude concerning his Indianness and how it trumps his Americanness, among other things.

Jason's revelations, of course, are no surprise to me. I've been stating repeatedly in our discussion in this thread that this is the case; that anyone (not just Indians, but certainly Indians too) having dual citizenship must, by virtue of that dual citizenship, divide his loyalties between the two competing entities. And anytime this happens, one of the two is going to take precedence over the other. For Jason, he's an Indian first, and an American ... somewhere down the line.

Jason writes:

You are American, I am Native first, then American. What you argue for makes you basically my enemy. It's against the best interests of my people.

If I had it my way a statement like that would automatically disqualify such person making the statement from being a U.S. citizen. But we ain't there yet.

Well, Jason thinks that what I'm advocating is against the best interests of his people. But as I've been pointing out all along, in that thread and elsewhere, it can never be in the best interest of his people nor in the best interest of my people for his people or my people, or any people for that matter, to have dual citizenship in two distinctive political entities with two distinctive sets of interests. This is clearly and simply an impossibility. And what more evidence of the fact do we need than Jason's own hostile admission?

Another of my positions that Jason complains about is my perfectly reasonable position that dead men should have no power to rule over the living, whether they be dead Indians or dead whites, or in this particular case both. (I brought this out with Yeagley earlier in the discussion, at which point he abandoned the conversation. But can you blame him? I mean, think about it, what would it mean either way he answered the question?)

In other words, there is no law or treaty or constitution, nor any contract negotiated between men that can ever have the oppressive force of being sacredly and inviolably binding on future generations who do not willingly give their consent to it. Indeed, as the Declaration of Independence states "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no truth more evident to my mind (no truth more self-evident) than that "the governed" of which Mr. Jefferson speaks are in fact "the living."

Most of you are also aware (though I wonder about Jason) that the DoI also states "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it." Again, we're talking about the living here, which means, people alive at this particular moment in history; me and you. For how can dead men alter or abolish anything in the here and now? But let us turn our attentions to the word "alter" in the foregoing statement for just a moment.

Jason seems to believe that if we decide to alter any point in any treaty made between dead whites and dead Indians, to his peoples' perceived disadvantage, then whites have once again broken the terms of an agreement that he believes is written in stone for all eternity. Meanwhile, Jason, in what he perceives to be the interests of his people the Indians, is going to do all he can to build upon, to add to what was originally agreed to in the treaties made between Indians and whites. I don't know about you, but I'm not inclined to be a slave to anyone, living or dead. But I'm telling you folks, I know a lot of Indians of one degree or another, and this is the general attitude among those that I know. I'm not saying all Indians share this view, I'm simply saying that this is the general attitude among Indians I know personally.

But Jason's attitude makes me wonder whether the main point of contention between Indians and whites, which is now commonly understood to be the fault of whites because they/we broke the terms of the bargain, is in fact this very point of a difference in governmental philosophy? For is it not so that a Paternal attitude toward the government of men is in direct conflict with that form of government which our founding fathers established on this continent? We know that our founding fathers borrowed much from Mr. Locke who, in his treatise on Government thoroughly dispenses with the idea of Paternal authority as a ruling principle among free men.

Anyway, I don't want to delve into it in this particular post, but I think it can be shown that the fourteenth amendment, the establishment of a U.S. citizenship, and all the things we've discussed before which derive therefrom, relates very closely to this whole issue of dual citizenship. Perhaps I'll take that up in a future entry. Stay tuned.

(Incidentally, the image I've posted above is titled, of all things, Founding Fathers. Am I seeing a problem or six here?)

Read More

Warning: Politically Incorrect language used in this post

If you have a problem with it, give me your mailing address and I'll send you a dime which you can put a quarter with and call someone who cares.

VA has a good post up this morning where she cites an article written by one Mr. Max Boot, senior hombre' at the Council on Foreign Invasion, and a contributing idiot to, well, here's Maxy-baby's credentials, for what they're worth:

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to Opinion and the author of "War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World.

Whoa! I'm awed ... by Max's utter lack of any credentials which qualify him to speak to the topic of immigration from other than an unAmerican perspective. That's right, I said it, Max's tone is unAmerican, which is to say not-American. So Max is unAmerican and an idiot t'boot, which his article makes perfectly clear. A resident citizen idiot armed with a vote and a pen and an axe to grind against the xenophiles and islamophobes, and etc. Seems like we have a lot of those running around this country these days. I wonder how they got here?

Go read VA's post where she deals with the likes of Maxy-baby pretty effectively. The only thing she leaves out is saying explicitly that Max and his ilk are unAmerican, which is why I said it here. We can be nice and call him a neocon, or a right-liberal, or whatever (how about neo-American?), but the bottom line is that Max advocates the destruction of America via mass immigration and amnesty for illegals with no baggage check, political or otherwise. And that, my friends, is by definition "unAmerican." Look it up.

Read More