Mass Immigration Is Their Final Solution

            Mass immigration, at least for some of its influential supporters, is an effective form of ethnic and political cleansing—a demographic “final solution” for their opponents. And it’s not just the case here in America, but throughout the Western world. In Great Britain recently, a top advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair and other leaders of the left-wing Labour Party, openly admitted the strategy of using immigration to take and hold power.

            According to that advisor, Andrew Neather, Labour leaders held “secret meetings” in 2000 where they agreed that “mass immigration into the country” was the best way to secure an unbeatable pro-Labour electorate. This would allow the party to “rub the right’s nose into diversity and render their arguments [against multiculturalism] out of date.” So much for native-born Britains who wanted their country to remain Britain.

            Here in America, our equivalent of Labour, the left-wing Democrats, appear to have a similar agenda. Though the evidence is not so strong as Neather’s admission, it is strong nevertheless. One item of it comes from the prominent Democratic strategist Robert Creamer, who wrote a book entitled How Progressives Can Win while serving a term in prison for fraud.

            In the book, Creamer advocates amnesty for illegal aliens and recruiting them and legal immigrants as Democratic voters. Said Creamer, “If Democrats continue to stand for immigrants’ rights, the issue will define immigrants’ loyalties for a generation. If we’re successful, a gigantic block of progressive [i.e., socialist] voters will enter the electorate over the next 15 years—a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future. . . .”

            As indicated by the health care battle, most Americans aren’t too keen on socialism. But their views won’t matter if Creamer and his ilk can round up enough votes from half-assimilated immigrants to swamp them.

Another bit of evidence comes from a speech given by Executive Vice President Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a pillar of support for the Democrats’ left-wing. Medina observed that amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens would greatly aid “progressives.” Said Medina,“We would be creating a governing coalition for the long-term, not just for an election cycle.”

Still more evidence comes from Mexican diplomat Fredo Arias-King who served his country as a liaison to the U.S. Congress. He got to know many senators and House members and their views on immigration. He revealed that many Democrats see immigration as a means of acquiring a dependent and easily manipulated population to serve their goals. (Arias-King also encountered Republicans, with a similar low estimate of immigrants, who welcomed them as docile cheap labor.)

Supposedly the socialists and unscrupulous capitalists are enemies, but these days they often find common ground on immigration. Proud American citizens who value their freedom and standard of living are an obstacle to them both.      

Media propagandists, speaking for Democrat and Republican elites, tell average Americans that we must show “compassion” toward the unending flow of immigration—which is simply an attempt to manipulate our good nature to serve their evil objectives. If we fail to resist this manipulation, let us be forewarned. As we become marginalized and overwhelmed, we can be sure that the elites and their imported voters will have no compassion on us. 

Don’t Let Them Hook You

Bill Kipp, author of Turning Fear into Power, is an expert in personal self-defense. He conducts training seminars to teach people how to resist intimidation, and, if necessary to defend themselves physically. He maintains that not being intimidated, by itself, can often ward off an attack. Bullies generally prefer people they can easily scare and control.

To prevent intimidation, Kipp recommends one simple principle. No matter what an aggressor says, don’t let him “hook you” with his words. That is, don’t allow insults to make you fearful, sad, or excessively angry. If the aggressor can control your emotions, he will decide he can control you—and then up the ante with more aggression.

One thing that can prevent “hooking” is to understand what the aggressor is doing and the mean and insecure character that inclines him to do it. Another is to appreciate your own worth so that you are not overly moved by other people’s malice.

This analysis has much application to the controversy and debate on immigration. Mass immigration advocates many times practice the crassest verbal bullying. One of their favorite gambits is the cry of “racist.” All too often the unsuspecting immigration restrictionist is immediately hooked, usually by going on the defensive with the plea “I’m not a racist, and here’s why. . . .” When you concede any legitimacy to the bully’s abuse, the bully has you hooked and is ready to reel you in.

Don’t let this happen by ignoring the charge and reframing the debate. For example, state what you are: a responsible American patriot who wants to prevent the racial, cultural and political strife that massive diversity will inflict on our country. Take your stand as a moderate and responsible citizen who supports social peace and harmony.

Then switch to the offensive. Ask your accuser why there are so many organizations on his side like the National Council of La Raza (the Race) which blatantly promote lawlessness and special benefits for their particular group with the transparent goal of giving it political clout over other groups. Ask your accuser if he throws a race card at you to hide the one he is playing himself.

You also might raise the question of who benefits when mass immigration without assimilation increases racial and ethnic tensions. Could it possibly be, for instance, that politically correct radical leftists want a fractured society in order to offer totalitarian government (run by them) as a “solution” to the chaos? They play the race card too, but again, question their motives—and don’t let them hook you.

Another hook immigrationists often use is snobbery.  They like to intimidate by using insults, such as “ignorant red-neck,” “know-nothing” and “bigot,” thereby proclaiming their self-claimed intellectual superiority. Once again, consider the source. If these bullies are indeed such intellectuals, you would think that they might come up occasionally with some thoughtful arguments for immigration instead of their standard fare of personal insults and maudlin sentimentality about huddled masses and nations of immigrants.

Go on the offensive and reply: “Maybe I lack your Poisoned Ivy League degrees, but I do have something most uncommon on your campuses—which is common sense. Now for the record, let’s see clearly the utter stupidity of allowing immigration to turn our country into an overcrowded, balkanized Third World America.”

Readers, please feel free to think up your own anti-bully replies. Use your imagination and have fun. Mockery is a splendid weapon against rhetorical thugs. But whatever you do, don’t let them hook you.                  

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah!

            During this month of December, most Americans will celebrate Christmas. For Christians it commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, God becoming man. Also, for believers and many others, Christmas, as celebrated in America, is also a national tradition—one which profoundly expresses our heritage and culture.

            As a consequence, Christmas has become a target for multicultural bigots who want to erase traditional America, particularly her religious and cultural antecedents, and erect a globalist Babel on the site. These elitists do this under the guise of promoting “tolerance,” but it is plain that they will tolerate no views other than their own. Thus they label any speech they hate as “hate speech,” and express utter contempt for traditional Americans.

 An example of the latter was the statement by Barak Obama, during the last presidential campaign, that people in rural and small town America compensate for their alleged frustration and backwardness by embracing religion, guns and anti-immigration sentiments. On the contrary, one might wonder what elitists are compensating for when they so regularly denigrate their fellow citizens.

 In any case, unfortunately, the campaign against Christmas has scored many successes. Knuckling under to the multi-cultists, quite a number of businesses, schools, and other institutions have replaced all references to what was Christmas with the bland and insipid “Holiday Season.” Even so, many Americans are not about to surrender the public recognition of Christmas. One simple way they stand for their faith and heritage is to ignore multi-cult, politically-correct etiquette and greet friend and stranger alike with “Merry Christmas.” Expressing good will to men, in this fashion, also serves to defy cultural tyranny. And that defiance is certainly a blessing to mankind.  

Aside from Christmas, patriotic Americans may draw inspiration from the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, also celebrated in December. The story behind it is universal in its appeal and message.

It began a little more than a century and a half before the birth of Christ. During that time, adoption of pagan Greek culture was the mark of sophistication throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. It was the path often chosen by self-promoters with little loyalty to their own countries, people much like our modern globalists.

Backing this adherence to Greek culture with military might was the Greco-Syrian Empire ruled by Antiochus IV. Judea was one of his provinces. To placate Antiochus, the elites of Jewish society cast off their heritage, even abandoning the God of Israel to worship Greek deities. But not everyone in Judea went along. One who stood defiant against the Greco-Syrians and the Jewish elites was a man named Judah, later known for his military exploits as Judah Maccabee (Judah the Hammer).

He was a mere peasant, a man so unsophisticated that he could not appreciate the advantage of betraying his people and the God of his fathers. No doubt his self-presumed Jewish betters looked down on Judah. If the Hebraic language of that time had words equivalent to “hick,” “redneck,” “right-wing extremist” and “hater,” they probably hurled these epithets against him.

            But whatever they may have called him, Judah Maccabee didn’t care. With zeal inspired by love of God and country, he took up arms, organized an army of his countrymen, and went to war. Sometimes outnumbered ten-to-one, he repeatedly defeated the forces of Antiochus and his puppets. With their armies beaten, Judah secured the freedom and independence of his country.

            May patriots everywhere recall the exploits of Judah Maccabee, as globalism rears its ugly malice against God, country and heritage. Merry Christmas and a Happy Hanukkah to all men of good will!   

Buzz off, Fly Guys

            Many immigration enthusiasts seem indifferent to the past and future of our country. And the reason is that quite a few of them are. This is difficult for immigration restrictionists to understand. Most of us, due to temperament and principle, identify with the past of our civilization and country, and we hope, for the sake of our descendants, that those entities and their essential character and values will extend into the future.

            This seems perfectly right and normal—and by all normal appearances it is. But we deceive ourselves if we think that everyone basically thinks as we do. Many immigration enthusiasts have an entirely different mindset. They view themselves as superior beings who have liberated themselves from such backward concerns as piety toward ancestors and duties to our future generations. In their minds, we are ignorant bigots caught up in backward thinking.

            They see themselves as agents for brave new worlds of diversity where past has little connection to future—a future of change for the sake of change with no duties owed to anyone. Somehow they imagine that this journey into what can only become social chaos will bring human fulfillment, and they heartily despise us for resisting it.

            Since they often direct that hostility toward what they see as our character and motives, we have every right to shine the same spotlight on them. What stands out more than anything else is their egotism, which wants liberation from all loyalties. Specifically among the latter are allegiances to God, country, community and family—which for most human beings through history have brought purpose, meaning and happiness.

            No such ties bind our enthusiasts for diversity and change. Their primary loyalty is to personal ambition and the fulfillment that may provide. Sir Walter Scott called such people, with no loyalty to country, “soul[s] so dead” and “wretch[es] concentered all in self.” Edmund Burke likened people, with no ties to past and posterity, to the “flies of summer,” creatures which breed for a season and die, leaving no legacy. Some have suggested that we might refer to them as “summer fly guys,” or “fly guys” for short.

            One thing about fly guys is that selfish ambition often doesn’t seem to fulfill them as much as they would have us believe. Without the life-giving nurture of love and loyalty for things outside themselves, they seem to grow weary of life. Malcolm Muggeridge called the attitude of these sophisticates “the great liberal death wish.” 

Without affection for their societies they seem inclined to fill their inner void with an active hatred of country, and view massive immigration as a battering ram to carry out social destruction.

            Perhaps one reason the fly guy makes such a fetish of “diversity” and multi-cultures is that the resulting upheaval and chaos also diverts his mind from his emotional deadness, and at least gives him some sensation of life. Of course he could end the emptiness by embracing the life-enhancing loyalties, but to do that he would have to concede that the “bigots” and “backward” folks were right—and that his exhalted pride can never accept.

            Average patriotic Americans should not be intimidated by his haughtiness, for in fact it is an empty shell of conceit. When the fly guy offers us his death wish, we should recognize it for what it is. We should shoo him away and let him buzz off to his meaningless end.                    

Kennedy Was a Good Scoundrel

            Mass immigration advocates never cease to inform us of how good and moral they are. Few did more to inflict excessive immigration on our country than the late Senator Ted Kennedy—and few people felt better about themselves for doing so than  Kennedy. Before he died, he sent the Pope an appeal for a blessing. In self-congratulation he declared that “I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I’ve worked to welcome the immigrant [and] fight discrimination. . . .”

            Be that as it may, in terms of personal ethics, Kennedy was a hyper-scoundrel. He was a cheat, an adulterer, a drunkard, and a grossly irresponsible man whose lack of character became legend after the Chappaquiddick scandal. Evidently he was a traitor as well. The opening of Soviet archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union revealed that he contacted Moscow during the Cold War and offered to assist the Soviets in undermining President Reagan’s missile deployment plans.

            His character was certainly on display when he made promises about immigration legislation. Before the infamous 1965 immigration act, he vowed that it would not bring about an immigration policy admitting close to a million people a year and also declared that it would not change the nation’s ethnic makeup. As it turned out, these outcomes were exactly what came about. Either Kennedy was lying, or he was too incompetent as a legislator to know what the truth was. Perhaps distracting him were thoughts of wine and women.

            Prior to passage of the first amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986, Kennedy promised that amnesty would happen only once. Thereafter he led subsequent charges for amnesty bills.

In times past, we tended to evaluate the content of peoples’ character in terms of how they conducted their private lives. Then the assumption was that if people were honorable at the personal level, they would be honorable in public life. Today, the common notion, at least in liberal circles, is that advocacy of “enlightened” policies will cover a multitude of personal sins. Aside from Kennedy, another example is former President Bill Clinton who drew high praise from feminists for his support of abortion and other leftist-agenda items, even though he regularly used and abused women for his pleasure.

Maybe the reason for this inversion of morality is guilt. Failure to perform basic moral duties such as loyalty to family, country and God cause a guilty conscience, despite the best efforts of sophisticates to deny the importance of such duties. Perhaps this was the case with Ted Kennedy, who broke so many of the commandments pertaining to God and man. One of Kennedy’s associates said that the former senator loved to bask in the warm approval of the media and immigrants’ organizations. Their accolades no doubt comforted him with the thought that he was really a good person, despite what the small voice of his conscience may have had to say.

 When you know that you’re moral because you espouse the proper policies (as defined by the lords of the media and other elites), it doesn’t really matter what the consequences of those policies are. Thus Kennedy, a self-styled champion of the poor, opened gains to job loss and wage depression for America’s working poor—while at the same time making it harder for immigrants, given their excessive numbers, to assimilate and prosper.

Did the wealthy and insular Kennedy know or care about their plight? Probably not. And even if he did, there was no problem. His chorus of well-wishers was always on hand to reassure him of his goodness.                 

Immigration Pushes Up Health Care Costs

Health care is a major issue today, and a topic of intense debate. Unfortunately, the debate rarely touches on the very significant impact of immigration, legal and illegal, on our spiraling health costs.

To understand that impact we should begin by considering that our current policies of legal immigration are admitting people who are, on average, less skilled and educated than native-born Americans. This is even more the case with illegal immigrants. As a consequence, the foreign-born earn less than the native-born, which means that they put a disproportionate burden on public services, including medical care.

According to the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), “34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared with 13 percent of natives.” CIS also found that “Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the uninsured since 1989.” Legal immigrants make use of public health care services such as Medicaid. While illegal aliens themselves are barred from the program, they can receive Medicaid benefits for their U.S. born children.

Illegal aliens also make extensive use of hospital emergency rooms, quite commonly for non-emergency medical services. Being unable or unwilling to pay for those services, they have imposed a heavy enough financial burden on many care centers to push them to—and over—the brink of bankruptcy.

Providing medical care for people who don’t pay their way causes the cost of health care to rise for everyone else, through higher fees and higher insurance premiums. Thus if we were serious about cutting health care costs, a good place to start would be a reduction of legal immigration. After all, we have no legal or moral obligation to keep the floodgates open to the largest sustained wave of immigration in our history. And we have even less reason to allow massive illegal immigration to continue.

Unfortunately, President Obama, a strong supporter of health care reform, is not proposing less legal immigration as a solution. As for illegal immigration, he proposes amnesty (legal status and the pathway to citizenship) for illegal aliens, a policy which is bound to increase illegal immigration by rewarding it.

Obama and leading congressional Democrats, however, have promised that their health care legislation will not allow illegal aliens to participate. Even so, their subsequent words and actions offer little cause for comfort. After saying that illegals should be excluded, Obama indicated that after amnesty illegal aliens would no longer be illegal, and thus they would be eligible for the benefits of the health care program.

Supporters of health care legislation in Congress point to language in the bills barring illegal aliens. But it is clear that many of those supporters don’t want that language to have any teeth. Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered an amendment to the legislation in the House Ways and Means Committee to require screening of applicants to determine their legal status. The amendment was voted down.

As if it mattered those who voted no, a recent Rasmussen Poll found that 70 percent of Americans oppose inclusion of illegal aliens in any health care legislation. Those Americans will have to raise their voices and make their conviction understood in Washington. On immigration in general, our lawmakers need to heed the message that America can’t be the hospital of the entire world.    

Illegal Advocates Obsess on Hate 

            Supporters of illegal immigration seem to have hate on the brain. It’s all they can talk about. One of their tactics is to claim that any criticism of illegal immigration creates a “climate of hate” against illegal aliens, which in turn causes angry Americans to commit “hate crimes” against them.

            Recently, something called the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Fund characterized commentary against illegal immigration as “the dehumanizing, racist stereotypes and bigotry of hate groups” [which] correlates “closely” with an increase of “hate crimes” against Hispanics.

            The media reported this claim uncritically and gave it wide play. The lack of honest analysis in this reporting is breathtaking. From 2003 to 2007, officially tabulated “hate crimes” against Hispanics increased from 426 to 595. As lamentable as this is, the increase is not a significant crime wave when compared with the total crime rate.

Interestingly, if 2001 is selected as the starting point instead of 2003, the trend shows a slight decline, 597 cases in 2001 compared with 595 in 2007. Also bear in mind that simple numbers are meaningless in comparing crime rates. A legitimate comparison requires a comparison of the number of crimes per capita against a population.  Since 2000 the U.S. Hispanic population increased by 25 percent. An honest figure about crime against Hispanics must subtract this growth from any claimed numerical increase of crimes against them.

As for the crimes committed against Hispanics, just what proof do illegal alien advocates have that criticism of illegal aliens is causing them? The only critics of illegal immigration with large national audiences are commentators like CNN anchor Lou Dobbs who disavow racial malice and mainly focus on the illegality of illegal immigration and its various costs to society. This is simply the kind of discussion on public issues that should go on in a free society. But illegal alien advocates will have none of it. According to them, Dobbs and the rest are “haters.”

Many of them no doubt envision the day when they will have legal power to end free expression of views they hate. One reason, most certainly, is that they have no rational arguments against them.

If these illegal advocates wish to claim that a “climate of hate” causes crimes, perhaps they should look at their own rhetoric and its possible consequences. Unlike Dobbs and the others, they exercise little restraint or moderation over what they say. A case in point is the statement of Leadership Conference labeling opponents of illegal immigration racists and bigots.

 Is this hostility to law-abiding Americans, widely spread by the media, responsible for a climate of lawlessness which encourages illegal foreigners to vent

hostility and contempt toward Americans? Numerous reports of crimes by illegals against Americans suggest such possibility. Unfortunately, it is difficult to come by hard statistics on this kind of hate crime. One suspects that there are a number of people in high places who don’t want them known.

In any case, law-abiding patriotic Americans do not advocate censorship of  illegal alien advocates, no matter how hateful their rhetoric. True Americans believe in free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment. In a climate of freedom, patriots can win any debate on illegal immigration.                        

Why Newspapers Are Plunging

            Across the country, big city daily newspapers are in financial trouble. And if you want to know one reason why, look no further than The Charlotte Observer of Charlotte, North Carolina. According to Wikipedia, “Circulation . . . has been declining for many years. The most recent period (Spring 2008) showed a two percent decline in circulation and a four percent decline in revenue compared [with] the prior year.”

            The Observer, like so many other papers, likes to inflict politically correct editorials on its readership. And many sensible readers, accordingly, have dropped their subscriptions. As all good political correctors, the editors of The Observer, have nothing but distain for the South and traditional Southern culture. That certainly isn’t a good way to win friends and influence people in a Southern state like North Carolina.

            Recently, however, at least at first glance, it seemed that an editorial in the paper was taking a different tack by calling on its readers to practice “Southern hospitality.” But the piece soon revealed that The Observer was as tactless as ever toward most of its readers. The piece said hospitality in the state was grossly inadequate toward—illegal aliens.

            And just what outrages have the bigoted North Carolinians inflicted on these poor and deserving lawbreakers? According to The Observer, the transgressions are as follows. The state does not allow illegals to have driver’s licenses, and it forces illegal alien kids to pay out-of-state tuition if they attend college in North Carolina. Of course this what American citizen kids from other states have to do, but that’s just their problem, evidently, as far as The Observer is concerned.

            Next the newspaper cites the inhospitality of illegals having to fear the police. But don’t American lawbreakers have the same fear? Should we be kinder to them too by relieving them of fear of arrest? Lastly the paper castigates North Carolinians for their “hostility” toward illegal aliens as expressed in “letters to the editor, . . . online comments [and] talk at the barbershop.” This, say The Observer pundits, is “hatred.”

            And what might be a source of this “hostility?” The editorial itself gives a good clue. It notes that “At least 80,000 Hispanics live in Charlotte, many illegally. The rapid influx has strained social services, health care providers, and schools.” Is it least conceivable that the benighted yokels might have a legitimate reason for anger with their tax money paying for people who shouldn’t be in this country—especially during a recession when almost all states and localities are having trouble making ends meet? Intoxicated with their hate hype, political correctors seldom can distinguish between appropriate outrage and genuine malice.

            The Observer, to say the least, has a strange notion of what constitutes hospitality. To most people it means people showing consideration and kindness to others, usually for a limited period of time. It also implies respect and gratitude from the recipients. No sane version of hospitality requires a host to keep offering it to people who respond by taking advantage of him, overstaying their welcome, and damaging the premises.

            These sorts of things are what many illegal aliens show the citizens of North Carolina, and it is a contempt The Observer obviously shares, as it attacks the character and motives of citizens for the benefit of those foreign lawbreakers. Papers like The Observer seem determined to follow this course, no matter what, seeing it as a mandate of their politically correct dogmas and creeds. As offended readers cancel subscriptions in droves, these papers eventually may face bankruptcy. A demise more well-deserved is hard to imagine.   

A New King George Seeks to Reign

Patriotic Americans recently held “tea parties” around the country to protest the policies of political and economic elites. As their revolutionary forebears who dumped tea into Boston Harbor to protest arrogant and arbitrary rulers, these patriots carried on a proud tradition.

In colonial times, Britian’s King George III upheld a mercantile policy which aimed to keep Americans in economic bondage, low-wage vassals producing raw materials and little else. Today the spirit of that foreign king lives on in another man named George, George Soros to be exact.

Soros is an immigrant from Hungary, a naturalized U.S. citizen. As such he is a poster child for the dangers posed by unassimilated immigrants. Soros is a multi-billionaire, with most of his fortune derived from that variety of legalized gambling known as currency speculation. Productive enterprise, alas, does not appear to be one of his interests.

A little more than a decade ago Soros’ gaming threw a financial monkey wrench into the economies of several Southeast Asian countries. Malaysian Foreign Minister Mahathir Mohamad liked his activities to those of “rogues, robbers, anarchists and brigands.”

Just recently Soros picked up another cool billion by positioning himself to take advantage of the recession and stock market crash in this country and abroad. As middle class Americans were losing their retirement accounts, Soros boasted, “I’m having a very good crisis,” one which he described as “stimulating.”

Rather than be called a speculator, Soros like to portray himself as a “philanthropist” who gives his questionably gotten gains to worthy causes—or at least ones he thinks are worthy. Some of those causes are euthanasia, abortion, and gun control. But undoubtedly his greatest passion is trying to destroy the sovereignty of nations—presumably so that he will have more freedom to wheel and deal across borders.

One of his leading projects in the United States is promoting mass immigration, and he doesn’t seem to be too particular as to whether it’s legal or illegal. He funds the Latino supremacist National Council of La Raza, a group that battles every effective proposal to control our borders, while striving to reward illegal aliens with rights and benefits, including amnesty. Soros also funds, at least indirectly, a leftist propaganda mill called Media Matters, which smears immigration restrictionists.

In March The Los Angeles Times reported that Soros, along with other illegal immigration supporters, had allocated $18 million for a “media and grassroots campaign [scheduled] for the fall.”

Like King George III, Soros is pretty much indifferent to the lives and well-being of American commoners. But in defense of that British ruler it may be said that he was at least loyal to the motherland that he ruled. Soros, with his passionate allegiance to ambition and profit is loyal to no land.

The money and power of King George Soros are intimidating to be sure, but certainly no less so than the resources that King George III had to deploy against the American colonists. Perhaps out latter-day George will discover what his predecessor did, namely that love of country by commoners can prove mightier than mere pomp and wealth.

It is certainly no coincidence that Americans, once again, are starting to have tea parties. And if the arrogance of our present King George increases we are likely to have more and more of them. Americans, despite their many faults, are a people who love freedom and the independence of their nation. If King George Soros were really an American, he would understand that. But most definitely he isn’t a true American and never will be.                         

Will the Real Bigots Please Stand Up?

            Along with “racist,” one of the common insults immigrationists hurl at restrictionists is “bigot.” In their view, it seems, any criticism of the status quo of mass immigration and lax border control reveals bigotry. To assess the truth of this claim, let’s refer to Webster’s New World Dictionary, which defines a bigot as “a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular, creed, opinion, etc.”

            From this definition we can deduce that bigotry is a moral failing because it can prevent the kind of thinking and questioning needed to move us from falsehood to truth. With this understanding we might ask who the real bigots are.

            Quite often restrictionists question the status quo. They ask if we still need an immigration policy in the 21^st century which may have made sense in the horse-and- buggy America of the 1800s when we had a relatively small population and an abundance of wide open spaces where people could settle and prosper.

            They also wonder if our country can keep its harmony and freedom with unchecked diversity—fueled by mass immigration—pulling us apart. Will racial and ethnic hatred and intolerance increase or decrease as we splinter into a profusion of balkanized enclaves? At that point, can anything short of a repressive government hold us together? They also wonder if we can remain a middle class society if mass immigration, without let-up from poor countries, continues to pull down our wage level and living standards. And finally they ask if America can remain America the Beautiful as our environment strains to accommodate an ever soaring population.

            In response to these queries and speculations, immigrationists rarely reply with reasoned arguments. Instead, they usually raise their voices and intone the sacred mantras of their faith: “We are a nation of immigrants” and “Diversity is our strength.” If that doesn’t work to silence opponents, then they follow up with the often-flung anathemas, invectives and curses of their creed: “racist” . . . “xenophobe” . . . “hater” . . . and, yes indeed, “bigot.”

            Some immigrationists are so stressed by questions and contrary views that they don’t even want to hear them at all. To silence speech they hate, they have taken to calling it “hate speech.” Not too long ago a representative of the National Council of La Raza (The Race) berated CNN anchor Lou Dobbs for his commentary against illegal immigration. She suggested that Dobbs’ bosses should silence his “hate speech.”

            Many in our country seem inclined to make so-called “hate speech” a “hate crime,” using the force of the state to censor and prosecute unwanted expression about immigration and other issues. No doubt they draw inspiration from the speech control regimes of Europe and Canada. In that later country, our neighbor to the north, tribunals ironically named “human rights commissions” hold a legal stick over Canadians who say politically incorrect things about immigrants and other protected groups.

            Some time ago, Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, had this to say about these bodies, “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society. . . . It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this very scary stuff.”    

            Now again, let’s consider the definition of a bigot: “a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular, creed, opinion.” If we may paraphrase a question from an old television show: Will the real bigots please stand up? 

Progressives Progress to Power  

            To camouflage and conceal their discredited agendas, radical liberals and leftists today have taken to calling themselves “progressives.” The word has an impressive ring because just about everyone thinks that “progress” is good. But this notion is quite mistaken, as only a moment’s reflection will reveal. Whether progress is good or bad depends entirely on its ultimate goal. Progress toward heaven is one thing; progress toward hell is something else entirely.

            The progress progressives envision is movement toward a small elite (themselves) micromanaging all of society to make everyone—they deem beneath them—equal. They claim their cause is “social justice,” but what they really mean is rule of society by “just us socialists.”

Progressives vary in the intensity of their zeal, but all of them favor the progressive reduction of most people’s freedoms and liberties. In America they have made many gains, but they are still far from their goals. Standing in the path of their progress is an almost immovable object of Middle Americans who cherish their constitutional rights and their heritage as a free people.

Unable to change Middle Americans by persuasion, the progressives, borrowing a strategy from a certain German leader, have decided on a “final solution” for their Middle America problem. That solution is mass immigration to replace and dilute Middle Americans with peoples who have no heritage of freedom and little understanding of the principles necessary to maintain liberty. The newcomers, indebted to the progressives for letting them in, will likely show gratitude by voting as a block for “just us socialists.”

One who openly espouses this strategy is Robert Creamer, a leading “progressive” strategist in the Democrat Party. In his recent book, Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win (p.555) Creamer states:

“[T]he immigration battle is important . . . because it will have an enormous impact on the battle for power between the progressive and conservative forces in American society. As of 2007, there are 12 million undocumented [i.e. illegal] immigrants in the United States. If they are placed on an earned pathway to citizenship [i.e. amnesty], they will be eligible for citizenship and voting rights by 2012 and 2016.”

Creamer then speculates on the possibilities of organizing millions of legal immigrants who “could apply today for citizenship” and immigrants who are already citizens who could be registered to vote.

The he states, “If Democrats continue to stand firmly for immigrant rights, the issue will define immigrants’ loyalties for a generation. If we are successful, a gigantic block of progressive voters will enter the electorate over the next 15 years—a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future. . . .”

Thus the progressives plan an end-run around democratic government, rewarding lawbreaking and diluting our citizenship. Creamer and “just us socialists” like him evidently feel that they have the right to break rules and impose their will because they, as advocates of equality, are morally superior to common folk. Quite moral indeed is Mr. Creamer, notwithstanding his recent term in prison for fraud.

When progressives launch their next assault for amnesty, they and their allies in the media will proclaim their cause as one of “compassion”—as if they care about illegal immigrants as anything other than political cannon fodder. All their talk about “social justice,” is smokescreen for seizing power.                           

Control Immigration for a Good and Just Society

True immigration reform means ending mass immigration. This is not a negative agenda. Reformers advocate immigration control as a positive endeavor, the means of   pursuing and maintaining a good and just society. Limiting immigration to reasonable levels reflects maturity, responsibility and genuine compassion. The following are the benefits that a sensible immigration policy offers to our country: harmony, freedom, general prosperity and sustainability   

            Harmony is a great blessing to any society. It means that people can live and work together without constant hostility and strife. For this to happen, a common culture with common values is essential. Mass immigration, and the multiculturalism that inevitably follows in its wake, make harmony impossible.

            To hide this obvious reality, immigrationists parrot the Big Lie that “diversity is our strength.” In truth, it is only the strength of those who push this propagandistic slogan on the rest of us. It is the strength of profiteers seeking cheap labor; the strength of political and ethnic interests who want more numerical clout for their respective groups; and the strength of radicals who want to overturn American society for their evil purposes.

            One promoter of diversity is Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam, this in spite of the fact that all of his research shows that diversity is destroying the cohesion of communities across the country. You can have harmony, or you can have multicultural diversity, but you can’t have them both.

            Freedom, as our Founding Fathers understood, depends on a society united by common values, particularly those values necessary for the maintenance of liberty such as personal responsibility and respect for the rule of law. Today, thanks to mass immigration, we have a large and growing number of people from countries where our concept of freedom is little understood. And as more keep coming, the less likely it is that they will assimilate to our viewpoints.

Furthermore, the influx increases the division and divisiveness that undermines our unity. As voluntary cooperation among people becomes more difficult, government will see the need—and opportunity—to step in as referee. As government grows more powerful to keep all the “diversity” from coming apart, freedom will decrease.

General prosperity, or our middle-class American economy, is one of our country’s greatest achievements. Unlike many countries in the world, we have not had extremes of wealth and poverty. Our “American Dream” has offered hope of a decent living to the majority of our citizens.

But today mass immigration is undercutting our general prosperity by driving down wage levels, particularly for lower-income Americans. At the same time, cheap labor profiteers grow more wealthy. Slowly but surely, we are becoming a have and have-not society with a dwindling middle. What we should be aiming for is a high-wage society by limiting the labor supply. Reducing immigration is essential to that aim.

Sustainability is maintaining our quality of life from generation to generation. To have a sustainable society, we must learn to live within our limits. If immigration continues as it is today, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, our population of 305 million today will increase to 433 million by 2050, just 41 years from now. Of the projected increase of 128 million, 82 percent of it, according to the Pew Research Center, will come from immigrants and their children.

In a report published in January, researcher Edwin Rubenstein concluded that such a high rate of population growth will outstrip our ability to maintain our infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, roads and highways, mass transit, electrical grids, and waste disposal. Also we face limits of natural resources, one example being water. Today water shortages are a looming problem in our southwest. As population skyrockets, this problem can only get worse.

Limiting immigration is common sense; it is patriotic and morally right. It is the only option if we truly want a country that is superior in liberty and livability to the countries sending us most of our immigrants.     

Are the Race-Baiters Traitors?

            Illegal alien advocates regularly fling the word “racist” at advocates of immigration law enforcement. Some claim that if all illegal aliens were blond blue-eyed Swedes, illegal immigration would not be an issue. That probably is true, but not for the reason they suggest. If all illegals were Swedes, we would have no trouble seeing the problems they cause and unceremoniously kick them out of the country. In this situation, no one could play the “racism” card because Swedes aren’t a protected class in the hierarchy of politically-correct victimology.

            Mexicans and other Latin Americans, however, are very much members of this class. Thus any attitude or action deemed not to be in their interests is presumed to be racism. This is so much the case that U.S. groups working on their behalf, with clear racial agendas, are deemed not to be racist, but opponents of racism. A prime case in point is the National Council of La Raza (The Race).

            The Race works tirelessly to keep our borders open and provide amnesty and other benefits for illegal aliens. It tries to pressure networks and advertisers to silence media critics of illegal immigration such as Lou Dobbs. Also, it has given money to a Latino separatist outfit called MEChA, which sports the slogan, “For those inside The Race, everything; for those outside The Race, nothing.” 

            The Race claims that it is a civil rights group, in the tradition of the black civil rights movement during the sixties. Interestingly, that movement stressed the importance of citizenship and the rule of law, i.e. all citizens have rights under the law. So how does rewarding foreigners who break our laws by giving them citizenship show any respect for citizenship or law? And if The Race has little concern about these key pillars of our country—even as it strives to build Hispanic political clout at the expense of other groups—then what is its real agenda? The answer isn’t hard to figure.

            Support for open borders, of course, is not just confined to The Race and similar ethnic/racial advocacy groups. Many other interests, including business, labor and radicals, have the same aim. And they too are quick to label anyone who disagrees with them as a “racist.” Since they are so keen to attack others’supposed motives, it is not improper to speculate on what their motives might be.

            Their low regard for the significance of American citizenship is as plain as that of The Race, and so is their indifference to our laws. All of the open border advocates refer to illegal aliens as the “undocumented.” The clear suggestion is that their lawbreaking is just something so insignificant as not having papers in order—as if their problems with documents had nothing to do with the violation of our immigration laws.

            The late Harvard historian Samuel Huntington observed that many in America’s elite classes have no fundamental loyalty to their country. He called them “transnationals,” and noted their strong preference for a borderless world. Transnational is a pleasant sounding word, but what it suggests might better be described by another word with far uglier connotations. That word is treason.

            It may be that open border advocates can explain how one can be indifferent to American citizenship and laws and still be a loyal American. But the burden of proof is on them, and until they provide it, they properly merit the suspicion of disloyalty. If they wish to keep on screaming “racism” and similar abuse, it’s high time to consider that “traitor” might be an appropriate reply

The Hate-Hype Chorus Sings Again

One of the most despicable propaganda tactics of open border advocates is to label any criticism of illegal immigration as “hate speech” which then creates a “climate of hate” which in turn prompts crimes of violence against illegal aliens. The strategy isn’t hard to figure. Its perpetrators want to link speech they hate with “hate crime” in order to criminalize their opponents’ views. People with this mindset in Europe and Canada have successfully curtailed free speech in their lands, and their American counterparts are aiming to do the same thing here.

A particularly egregious example of hate-to-crime hype was The New York Times’ November 14th editorial berating Steve Levy, the Suffolk (New York) County executive. For the record, Levy is an elected official who has listened to the concerns of his constituents about illegal immigration and has worked within the law to bring about reforms.

But according to Times’ superheated editorialists, Levy was somehow linked to the murder of an illegal alien from Ecuador, allegedly by a group of drunken teenagers. Failing to make any rational connection between Levy’s stand for law and order and the murder, the Times’ opinionists fumed that the country executive “parroted extremist talking points. . . . He denounces racist hatred, yet his works make him a hero in pockets of Long Island where veins of racism run deep.”

One might reply that it is places like the Times’ editorial offices where contempt for ordinary Americans runs deep. To illustrate, such dens of elitism seldom show concern when illegal aliens commit heinous crimes against Americans. What did these hate-hype artists have to say last summer, for instance, when an illegal alien from El Salvador heartlessly gunned down an American father and his two sons in San Francisco? Was this killer motivated by racial hated or anti-Americanism? Alas, such questions rarely arise in the polite company of our media Mandarins.

For the record, violence and murder are wrong, no matter who commits them and no matter who the victims are. Immigration restrictionists, as upholders of the rule of law, are strongly inclined to condemn illegal acts. They have every right, however, to feel anger toward foreigners in their midst who show contempt for our country and its rules. And it is the height of dishonesty to confuse their justified outrage with malicious hatred. Under our system they have to express that outrage by working legally to change the system.

Acts of violence against illegal aliens should be punished, as any other crimes. And racial slurs and other truly abusive language against them should be condemned and discouraged. But reprehensible as well are the people who use these unfortunate occurrences of crime and malice to advance their own bigoted agenda of silencing dissent.       

If The New York Times and its ilk are truly concerned about violence breaking out, they should stop promoting a climate of anarchy with respect to immigration law. When the rule law goes down in any area, the probability of violence of all kinds goes up. With its irresponsible rhetoric, the Times is abusing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

This irresponsibility, however, should never become a crime. The remedy for the abuse of free speech is more free speech to set the record straight. Opponents of immigration anarchy must speak out all the more about their just grievances, and not yield to the hate-hype chorus.

Don’t Fall for the “Indian First” Line

                                                By John Vinson

A rhetorical cheap shot that mass immigration advocates and other anti-Americans love to fling is that “only American Indians have the right to control immigration.” This line derives from their notion that America has no moral standing because it is a “land stolen from the Indians.”

The snappy punch of this claim hides its lack of substance. To illustrate, if immigrationists truly believe that all American land today is rightfully Indian land, then they should cease advocating immigration. After all, more people coming here will increase the number of “thieves” who are stealing Indian land! More immigrants certainly will reduce the percentage of Indians in our population even more. And growing numbers of people from countries with no connection to American Indians will erode the present esteem and sympathy that most modern Americans have for Indians.

Also, if the cheap shot immigrations are really sincere, the non-Indians among should sell all of their property here, give the proceeds to Indians, and move back to Europe, or wherever their ancestors came from. As few if any have ever done so, their sincerity is certainly suspect. In truth, their professed love for Indians seems more like a ploy to hide their deep and abiding hatred of America.

These points aside, the charge that America was “stolen” ignores historical complexity. In many cases, European settlers occupied land not controlled by anyone on a vast continent thinly populated by Indian tribes. In many instances, Indians ceded and sold land they controlled to the settlers.

Stating these facts is not to suggest that thefts and injustices did not take place. They did. But this is scarcely an argument to deny the legitimacy of the modern American state, and the right of her citizens (Indians included) to set immigration policy as they so choose. That denial does nothing to right historic wrongs, but certainly it will promote future wrongs by courting anarchy and chaos as we lose faith in our laws and institutions.

A final, and significant, point to consider is whether the Indians were—in fact— the first settlers in what is now the United States. Since the 1990s, a growing body of research suggests that in many parts of the country, people of European extraction may have arrived first. Skeletal remains, such as the “Kennewick man” found in Washington state, have Caucasian features and appear to pre-date Indian settlement. Arrowheads found at various North American sites bear an uncanny resemblance to those of the pre-historic Solutrean people who lived in what is now France and Spain. Genetic research also has detected DNA from Europe among some groups of Indians pre-dating the arrival of Columbus.

“The evidence is mounting,” said forensic anthropologist James C. Chatters, “that the earliest North Americans were a distinct people, or perhaps several distinct peoples, who cannot easily be linked to modern American Indians.” A fascinating summary these findings is the video production, Ice Age Columbus, which was aired on the Discovery Channel. With actors, it depicts how parties of Solutreans might have crossed the North Atlantic, less wide than it is today, and settle on this continent. For information to order this video, go to Google on the Internet and type in “Ice Age Columbus.”

Immigrationists will keep using their “Indian first” cheap shot as long as public ignorance allows them to get away with it. Until then, a proper reply to it might be: “Yes, Indians have the right to set immigration policy, along with the rest of their fellow American citizens.                

Resist the Clones of Jones

                                                By John Vinson

British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge called it “the great liberal death wish,” the tendency of Western liberal elites to steer their societies toward destruction—all in the name of creating a better world. A perfect example today is the establishmentarians’ mania for mass immigration to promote “multi-cultural diversity.”

It is obvious to anyone with the slightest common sense that this kind of diversity can only lead to endless conflict and the destruction of America as a united and free society. But to our self-professed intellectual and social superiors “diversity” is the pathway to the global kingdom of heaven, a utopia where all men will live in multicultural bliss.

Muggeridge observed such delusional posturing when he was a correspondent in Stalin’s Soviet Union during the 1930s. There he witnessed troops of Western intellectuals coming to pay homage to Comrade Stalin and the “success” of Soviet Communism, while ignoring abundant evidence of the system’s crushing oppression and mass murder.

This November, we have occasion to mark the 30^th anniversary of a tragic event involving Americans, an event superbly illustrating the malevolent power of the great liberal death wish. This was the mass suicide of more than 900 Americans in Guyana under the direction of cult leader Jim Jones.

Jones gained fame as a preacher, while he admitted in private that he was an atheist and a communist. A multiculturalist before his time, he built up a multi-racial, multicultural congregation called the Peoples Temple. Espousing a social gospel, Jones drew great acclaim. As Wikipedia notes, “Jones enjoyed public support and contact with some of the highest level politicians in the United States.” Among the latter were San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, vice presidential candidate Walter Mondale, and California Gov. Jerry Brown. Jones also met personally on several occasions with First Lady Rosalynn Carter.

In 1977, Jones moved his flock to Guyana in South America, where he established a settlement and named it Jonestown, after himself. He denounced America and proposed to establish a society of “pure communism.” But in short order his delusions ran out of control. Imagining plots against him, Jones on November 18, 1978, ordered his entire congregation to commit suicide by drinking Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. A total of 909 people perished.

This is not to suggest that all our utopian intellectuals are as crazed as Jim Jones. In truth, few are. Nevertheless, the difference is often in degree rather than kind. Men lose common sense when they lose the common loyalties of life. These loyalties, specifically to God, country and family, are sources of life and meaning. Elites take great pride in “liberating” themselves from these supposedly backward attachments, as well as the mundane ties of reality itself. But the price of their pride is the nihilism of the death wish.

Muggeridge was not the only one who saw this elitist yen for self destruction. Another was American writer James Burnham who, like Muggeridge, abandoned radical liberalism when he saw its implications. Burnham described this kind of liberalism as “the ideology of Western suicide.”

And indeed it is. In America and Europe, elites clamor for immigration that will destroy all semblance of their historic societies. The prospect of chaos and dissolution seems to enliven their otherwise dead souls, thus inclining them to prattle about the “vibrancy” and “energy” of the invasion. Liberated from traditional values, and any true reason to live, they—like Jones—want everyone to share their death wish. Thus they dispense their multi-cult Kool-Aid, a poisonous brew flavored with the tastes of tolerance, compassion and enlightenment. Patriots who love life and nation must see these deceivers, clones of Jim Jones, for the destroyers they truly are.      

Hold It on the Sympathy

                                                By John Vinson

With the federal government now making at least a slight effort to enforce immigration laws, illegal alien advocates are straining with all their powers to stop it. They and their friends in the media are manipulating as much sympathy as possible for illegals who have suffered the gross indignity of actually paying a penalty for breaking the laws of our land. True to their skills as propagandists, these advocates cherry-pick the most heart-rending stories of illegal residents being rounded up and deported.

            And indeed some of these stories are pitiful. But before we bite the sympathy bait, let’s do some reality checks. To begin with, just what is the alternative to enforcing our laws? With no enforcement we send the message to the peoples of the world that our country is theirs for the taking. One recent study indicates that half-a-billion folks worldwide might like to come here. And if we give them the green light, and they come, what pitiful stories will our grandchildren tell about their lives in a balkanized, overcrowded, impoverished America? Let’s consider both sides of the compassion ledger before we dole out our charitable sentiments too quickly.

            Also, let’s be aware that the down-and-out foreigner might not be so sympathetic if he had the upper hand. Just two years ago hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens pridefully marched through our cities demanding legal status and other benefits. Fortunately, their arrogance triggered a backlash among Americans which culminated in defeats of the amnesty bills of 2006 and 2007. After those stinging setbacks, the illegals and their supporters retreated to lick their wounds.

            But if we let up on the pressure, their sadness will turn to arrogance once again. By refusing to enforce our laws and affirm the worth of our citizenship we simply invite their contempt. And we also invite more of them to come here. In time, especially if amnesties are granted, those numbers will translate into social and political power—the power to dominate. To illustrate this point, consider the experience of Americans over and over again when illegal aliens begin arriving in U.S. communities. At first the newcomers are quite pleasant, as humble and docile as can be, but when their numbers reach a critical mass, the humility fades, and swagger and demands soon follow.

            Another reason we should not be too quick to extend our typically American sympathy for the perceived underdogs in this case is that while they may seem lowly, they are not alone. They are key and integral players on a powerful team which certainly makes underdogs of average Americans. Behind the rank-and-file of illegals is the vast wealth and influence of foundations, corporations, political interests, ethnic supremacy groups, and foreign governments. There is no way to defeat these kings and queens, who mean no good for our country, if we do not capture and deport their pawns.

             It is not as if we Americans have been ungenerous to foreigners. For decades we have been generous to a fault, allowing the highest sustained legal immigration levels in our history and granting successive amnesties to millions of illegal aliens. We cannot continue this misguided “compassion” indefinitely. Even those who value immigration above all else might reflect that immigrants will gain nothing from coming here if their massive numbers simply recreate what they ran away from.

            In any case, it is not the interests of immigrants that should come first for Americans. It is a total inversion of morality to say that parents should put the interests of other peoples’ children before the interests of their own children. The same applies to esteeming foreigners more than one’s own countrymen.            

Restrictionists Own the Moral High Ground

                                                 By John Vinson                      

Mass immigrationists claim that they have an unshakable claim to superior goodness and virtue. One is Janet Murguia, CEO of the National Council of La Raza (The Race). She strongly suggests that all opposition to her viewpoint is “hate,” an accusation most commonly flung from her side. Stung by such “righteous” hostility, immigration restrictionists sometimes recoil and allow their opponents to seize the moral high ground in debate. They shouldn’t, and here’s why:

People have many different ideas of right and wrong, but most can agree that the following, properly defined, are virtues: loyalty, moderation, honesty, and responsibility.

Let’s consider loyalty. It’s not always a good thing, especially to a bad person or a bad cause. But most agree that a special affection for the land of one’s birth, patriotism as called by many, is a virtue. If love doesn’t begin at home, for home, it is not likely to develop and extend anywhere else. In the absence of patriotism, selfish ambition usually fills the vacuum.

Are open-border advocates loyal Americans? To answer, let’s consider two other questions. How can you have a country without a secure border and meaningful citizenship? And, if you can’t, can anyone who is at best indifferent to secure borders and citizenship honestly call himself a loyal American? Maybe the open-border people can come up with some explanation as to how they are not disloyal, but the burden of proof is on them. And until they offer it, they merit the suspicion of treason.

Next is moderation. It is not always a virtue either, especially in pursuit of justice and truth. Even so, more often than not, it is a necessary restraint on extreme and destructive radicalism. Extreme and radical are perfect descriptions of our immigration policy for the past forty years. That policy has given us unprecedented numbers and unprecedented diversity. It threatens to rip us from our past and carry us to some overcrowded, balkanized, Third World future.

Are the architects of this radical scheme balanced and honorable men? Or are they people pursuing twisted agendas for personal gain and power with no regard for the wishes of their countrymen? If they are not scoundrels, the burden of proof is on them to show it.

Now let’s go to honesty, almost always a virtue except in some cases when not tempered by compassion. And from the immigrationists what we see is endless dishonesty. Before passage of the pivotal 1965 immigration act, they promised that it would not lead to massive numbers and ethnic and cultural transformation. But it happened anyway. Before the first amnesty of illegal aliens in 1986, they promised no more amnesties and strict border control. Neither promise was kept.

Today they keep repeating the Big Lie that “diversity is our strength.” Interestingly, one partisan of diversity is Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam—this despite the fact that his own research shows that diversity is a disaster for social cohesion and loyalty. Let the immigrationists try to explain the inconsistencies. Most likely their  forked tongues will betray them. They can hiss about “hate” all they like. Moral superiority is not theirs to claim.

Finally let’s consider responsibility, a virtue like honesty which may need some tempering with compassion (when holding people responsible). It is compassion, indeed, that immigrationists claim as their primary virtue, one that entitles them to high moral status. But, we must note, if responsibility without compassion is a problem, compassion without regard for consequences (irresponsibility) is an utter disaster, the pathway to anarchy. Do immigrationists, as they revel in their “compassion,” care about what it does to the cohesion of our country, the rule of law, or the wages and job prospects of poor Americans? Does it occur to them that endless immigration eventually will pull down immigrants (so beloved by the immigrationists) to the level of squalor they fled?

Such “compassion” seems suspiciously similar to the self-indulgence of drug addicts—those who care nothing about the consequences to their future, families and communities when, with the stab of a needle, they can enjoy the warm inner glow of a passing high.

Patriotism, moderation, honesty and responsibility give immigration restrictionists  title deed to the moral high ground. People who are disloyal, extreme, dishonest, and irresponsible have no ground to stand on at all.   

Conspiracy Theories Aren’t Just for Kooks

                                                      By John Vinson

The masters of the media condition us to believe that it’s a “conspiracy theory” to think that the elites of our county or elsewhere are working for global government. And they make clear that those who believe in “conspiracies” are kooks and cranks and nuts.

            Certainly there are many nutty conspiracy theories, such as those involving space aliens and the like. Nevertheless, it is childish and naive to think that conspiracies among earthly elites never happen. To believe this you have to believe that all of our politicians, corporate CEOs, and financial moguls are so pure, public spirited and moral that they would never covertly advance any selfish common agendas against average citizens. Anyone thinking that needs to graduate from naivete to the real world.

            Thus there are good conspiracy theories, as well as bad ones. A good one, we might conjecture, is one that fits with the facts that all can see. Further, it would gain added credibility from revealing statements made by those who seem to be involved in the alleged plots.

            As for the apparent facts, if our elites are not pushing globalism, it certainly looks as if they are. For years, we’ve had an uncontrolled Mexican border and official indifference to the issue of national sovereignty that our broken border raises. Then we’ve had the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) with Mexico and Canada which appears to move us toward some kind of a North American Union, perhaps patterned after the sovereignty-destroying European Union (EU).

            At about the same time the SPP came about, the website of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a lengthy paper advocating integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico. What the CFR says carries clout because, as its website boasts, its members are key people in American government, business, media, and education.

            Now for some statements. One is by David Rockefeller, a prominent banker, a former chairman of the board of the CFR, and its current honorary chairman. In his autobiography Memoirs, page 405, Rockefeller said, “Some even believe we [Rockefellers] are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United states, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I’m proud of it.”

            Below Rockefeller in the elitist hierarchy, but still a significant voice, is Jim Hoagland, the former foreign editor of The Washington Post. In a recent article in the Post (6/1/08), he stated, “The United States should apply to relations with hemispheric neighbors many of the lessons of the European Union and its half-century of economic and political integration. A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty is a goal worth introducing.” Putting our sovereignty in a pool sounds like a good way to dissolve it.

            And just what is the European Union all about? Consider the words of Gordon Brown, prime minister of EU member Great Britain (posted at www.britainusa.com).   The time has come, said Brown, speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy Center in April, to accept “new global rules,” and “new global institutions.” Proclaiming that “we’re all internationalists now,” he affirmed that his goals were to “transcend states,” “transcend borders,” and “build the architecture of a global society.” Brown claimed that globalism will advance democracy around the world. Significantly, however, he refuses to allow his countrymen the opportunity to vote on whether they want to surrender even more of Britain’s self-government to the EU.

            A growing body of “conspiracy theorists” believe that globalism is just a scheme to destroy nations and popular rule so that the wealthy and powerful will have free reign to become even more wealthy and powerful. These theorists haven’t yet proved their case, but the weight of evidence is on their side.

Learn the Wisdom of Our Betters

                                                By John Vinson

            While hustling support from elite leftist folks in San Francisco, Barak Obama decided to appeal to the sentiments of his audience. Obama stated that small town Midwesterners are bitter, ignorant bumpkins who cling to God, guns, and anti-immigration sentiments “as a way to cope with their frustrations.”

            Sad to say, it is true that most average Americans bear thoughts and notions that offend their betters. To avoid giving this offense, we Middle Americans need to meditate on our betters’ wisdom so that we can repent of our bitterness and accept our unimportant and frustrated lives. The following is some of that wisdom:

            First of all, forget the God stuff. As our betters know well to be true, there is no such thing as truth, or a God who authors it. All is relative. What may be “true” and right for some people may be wrong for others.

            Consequently, we must tolerate all viewpoints because all of them are equal, with none being better than any other. That being the case, society cannot tolerate intolerance, i.e., viewpoints that contradict our betters’ wisdom. People with such viewpoints are evil and must be suppressed. Usually they are motivated by “hate.” The ultimate goal of society is to eliminate hate by making it a “hate crime.” Hatred of haters is an act of love.

            Second, we must accept the truth that all human beings are innately equal. The reason that they don’t generally seem equal is that evil men and ideas have corrupted society with status, distinctions, and false perceptions that talents differ. Since most people are mired in these delusions of inequality, the task of making everyone equal must be entrusted to superior people i.e., our betters. Obviously, in this situation, the bitter and frustrated inferiors must not have guns, lest, in their pathetic ignorance, they pick up their weapons and resist.

            With the elites completely in charge, the wonders of equality will never cease. The lion will eat grass with the lamb; 80-year-old grannies will be linebackers for the Chicago Bears, and men will give birth to babies.

            Once we understand that all people and ideas are equal, no one can have any objection to mass immigration. All cultures are equal and are equally enriching. This means that when people leave the failures of their cultures to seek a “better life” in America, they “enrich” us by making our culture better. As we homogenize with these equals, we will become more diverse—a good thing because diversity is our strength.

Unfortunately, there are far too many bitter and frustrated Americans who resist the bright new world ahead of us. Some even have the gall to suggest that our betters’ wisdom isn’t wisdom at all, but a mishmash of absurdities and logical contradictions. Such people are obviously are haters and bigots (a bigot being someone who, according to Webster’s, is unwilling to entertain any opinion other than his own.)

Certainly, we can trust the wisdom of our betters because they have no doubt whatsoever about their superior intelligence and decency. They are also quite proud, and properly so, of their kindness and humility. And if they have no doubt about their superiority, neither should we. Superior people don’t shade the truth, even if they don’t believe in truth.