Monthly Archives: April 2015

Does Scott Walker Support Restricting Legal Immigration?

If so, then this is a hopeful development. Note that Walker says he has been learning from Sen. Jeff Sessions on the issue.

The problem with Republicans focusing on illegal immigration as if it is only a law and order issue, rather than a existential issue for the GOP, is that it has taken focus off the arguably more important issue of the massive levels of legal immigration. At least illegal immigrants can’t vote so we’ll postpone Republican national irrelevance a generation until their birthright citizen children can vote. Legal immigrants can potentially become citizens and vote for Democrats this generation, thus consigning the GOP to national irrelevance even sooner.

I’m not going to support Walker, but I’m inclined to be less hostile to him now.

Germans March Against Globalism: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

On April 18th, thousands of Germans marched against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)*. A recent YouGov poll found 43% of Germans believing TTIP would be bad for Germany, versus 26% who believed it good.

The German Social Democrats (SPD), who are Chancellor Merkel’s coalition partners, appear especially split over the trade deal. From Deutsche Welle:

“Whoever whispers, lies,” and “No secret negotiations, stop TTIP,” reads a large banner stretched across a replica of the Trojan horse several meters high. The horse reflects their fear that the agreement would primarily serve the interests of industry and thus would seal the end of European consumer and environmental protection standards.

“Don’t be fooled when they tell you they could make TTIP more beautiful, socially conscious, environmentally friendly or democratic,” read a flyer that one protester pressed into the hand of everyone who passed him on the way to the SPD conference.

The most odious aspect of the TTIP is how supranational tribunals could actually enable a business to sue a national government, similar to what we already see with NAFTA. It is hoped that as an alternative to globalism, the sovereign state is again considered, with rulers who are not distant strangers of the ruled.

*Attac, which might have organised the march, seems to want alternative globalisation, not an alternative to globalisation. Nevertheless, any opposition might be welcome.

Ain’t That America?

Here’s a headline and a news story you could only see in a corrupt and degenerate empire in its dying throes:

Two TSA officers fired for scheme to grope hot men at Denver Airport

Two Transportation Security Administration employees have been fired and two others reassigned after they allegedly set up a system to allow a male screener to pat down attractive men going through security at Denver International Airport, authorities said.

The employees were not identified, and there will be no criminal charges because no victims have come forward, according to a police report.

Denver Police got involved in March, after a tipster brought it to the attention of the TSA in November, which conducted an investigation and contacted police.

The male screener would give a signal to a female employee when a male passenger arrived that he thought was attractive, and she would falsely enter the sex of the passenger as female, so the machine would report an anomaly that triggered a pat down of a passenger’s groin, police said in a report.

She told the TSA investigators she did this for the other officer at least 10 times in the past, according to the report.

That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? You’ve got a police state that ignores the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. You have an all-powerful Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security — heck, the name alone should give you the creeps. Government power is ALWAYS abused, so it’s no surprise that power is placed at the service of a sicko who gets his kicks kneading the genitals of helpless, unsuspecting victims.

Pardon me while I throw up. And pardon me if I do not pledge allegiance to such a sick regime.

Don’t insult me by objecting that these are just two bad apples. The TSA — which used to stand for Totalitarian Search Administration, but could now stand for Total Sex Abuse — is an agency of the federal government created by that great conservative George W. Bush. The agency’s purpose is to violate the privacy rights of Americans. And there’s no escape from it, as this official gloated:

“TSA teams are increasingly conducting searches and screenings at train stations, subways, ferry terminals and other mass-transit locations around the country,” the Los Angeles Times reported. Ray Dineen, the air marshal in charge of the TSA office in Charlotte, N.C., told the paper, “We are not the Airport Security Administration. We take that transportation part seriously.”

And the peculiar sexual tastes that screener indulged now have the official stamp of approval of the same federal government, whether the people of the once-sovereign States like it or not. The only reason the Denver Deviant got in trouble is because he didn’t get informed consent from the hot men he fondled.

So take it away, John Cougar Mellencamp:

Ain’t that America for you and me
Ain’t that America hey somethin’ to see baby
Ain’t that America oh home of the free
Ooh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

Potential Candidates for the Constitution Party’s Presidential Nomination

Since we are on the subject of a draft Steve Stockman effort, here is a post from Trent Hill at Independent Political Report on some potential Constitution Party prospects. Darrell Castle is solid on the issues, but isn’t well known outside CP circles. Steve Stockman may be solid enough on the issues, but I need to explore his foreign policy some more. Dennis Michael Lynch has an intense fan base on Facebook, but appears to be wrong on foreign policy. (See my comment at IPR on DML’s mixed message on foreign policy.) I suspect Stockman could get the nomination if he decides to seek it. Otherwise, I think Castle is the most likely nominee at this point.

Steve Stockman on the Issues

As I reported below, an effort to draft Steve Stockman to run for President, likely as the Constitution Party nominee, has sprung up on Facebook. Here is a brief look at some info I have found on Stockman on the issues that matter, meaning the issues that would distinguish him from the rest of the conservative pack.

On immigration he’s rock solid. He’s anti-amnesty and anti-negotiations on “comprehensive immigration reform.” He has taken a position on the birthright citizenship issue which not every tough on immigration conservative is willing to do. He calls for a constitutional amendment which I don’t think is necessary, since birthright citizenship is a misreading of the 14th amendment anyway, but it’s a start. I don’t see anything at the link on restricting legal immigration, which is imperative for the future prospects of anything remotely resembling the conservative agenda. I suspect he is good on this, but I would like to see a statement.

On trade he’s rock solid also. He opposes NAFTA, GATT and the WTO. Unfortunately he opposes lifting the embargo on Cuba and is for making civil rights a factor in trade. The embargo on Cuba is not really about trade. It is an interventionist foreign policy position that is a relic of the Cold War. As far as human rights, trade is an economic issue. Making human rights a factor in trade is turning trade into an instrument of a meddlesome interventionist foreign policy.

On foreign policy, he’s promising. He supports foreign aid only for defense purposes. I believe we should abolish foreign aid entirely, but this is a start. Unfortunately he opposes diplomatic relations with Cuba. Again, our relationship with Cuba is a Cold War relic and should be normalized. From the link Stockman believes “The US should use military force only when the US border or territories are attacked or American citizens are in danger.” The way it reads, I believe this is indicating how he answered a survey question.

The overall sense I get is of someone who is inclined to oppose and naysay things. This would explain not wanting to change the status of our current relationship with Cuba and opposition to “most favored nation” status for China. This makes for some potential inconsistency, but it is much better than an inclination to yes man everything.

Draft Steve Stockman for President?

Steve Stockman has been rumored to be a potential Constitution Party candidate for President. Now there is a Facebook page promoting his candidacy. It not clear whether the site is promoting a GOP primary run and/or a CP run.

I don’t know if Stockman is a non-interventionist on foreign policy. This has come up in the past and at the time I seem to recall that he was not a dogmatic non-interventionist, but my recollection is vague. I’ll do do some research and see what I can find out.

Why the Confederacy Lives

The very existence of opposition gnaws at radical leftists. They particularly despise Southerners because the South’s resilient culture is a major impediment to their agenda. Culture is an organic and tireless organizing force, and therefore a threat to far-left schemes that would dismantle society and put the left in charge. Just look at how traditional culture overthrew the Soviet bloc in the 1990s, and how it’s challenging overgrown governments around the world today.

So it’s no surprise to see yet another slam against the South by the tag team of Euan Hague, Heidi Beirich, and Ed Sebesta. Their latest hit piece, entitled “Why the Confederacy Lives,” neatly and blindly dismisses Southern heritage, the rise of self-government, and growing distrust of social reengineering as — drum roll, please — racist.

What, again?

Yes, again. It’s an entirely predictable article. As Hague and company see it, there is no reason for distrusting big government other than blind, irrational racial hatred. Here’s just one example they cite:

In more public venues, the SCV’s dog-whistle politics come into play. Casting an eye over recent events in Ferguson and elsewhere, although never explicitly stating this, SCV deputy commander-in-chief Thomas V. Strain Jr. recently decried the “young men with no guidance attacking law-abiding citizens and law enforcement officers,” officers who, when they “remedy the situation and protect the innocent … are called murderers.”

Of course, it’s not just “neo-Confederates,” as Hague & Co. call their various targets, who now realize that government welfare and other programs have undermined traditional family formation and unleashed a mostly black underclass of rootless, anti-social young people. Just last month, Nicholas Kristof, hardly a pro-Southern pundit, said this of failed federal programs that have done more harm than good:

Fifty years ago this month, Democrats made a historic mistake.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, at the time a federal official, wrote a famous report in March 1965 on family breakdown among African-Americans. He argued presciently and powerfully that the rise of single-parent households would make poverty more intractable.

“The fundamental problem,” Moynihan wrote, is family breakdown. In a follow-up, he explained: “From the wild Irish slums of the 19th-century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history: a community that allows large numbers of young men to grow up in broken families … never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos.”

Liberals brutally denounced Moynihan as a racist.

Kristof concluded that tossing the word “racist” at every study of black dysfunction is counter-productive:

Growing up with just one biological parent reduces the chance that a child will graduate from high school by 40 percent, according to an essay by Sara McLanahan of Princeton and Christopher Jencks of Harvard. They point to the likely mechanism: “A father’s absence increases antisocial behavior, such as aggression, rule-breaking, delinquency and illegal drug use.” These effects are greater on boys than on girls.

Read the Hague hit piece and you’ll see no mention of how the resurgence of smaller, more responsive political units are in direct response to the horrendous history of big governments. Post-Lincoln America has a bloody record of launching wars of aggression, and will continue its policy of perpetual war as long as it exists. The central government in DC is the greatest threat to our safety and liberty. That’s not hype — that’s fact. Yet, Hague sees what he calls “Confederate ideology” as the real problem.

If you’re looking for dangerous ideologies, look no further than Mr. Hague himself. He’s a Marxist, an adherent of the most anti-human, murderous ideology the world has ever seen. Hague’s Marxist allegiance is documented here and at the World Socialist Web Site.

This isn’t the first time the SPLC has played footsie with Marxists. And seeing as how communism has re-branded itself as “anti-racism,” it probably won’t be the last.

Thanks to Gail for the heads-up!