Maverick Philosopher

Defensive Gun Use Without a Shot Fired

Texas man defends family from machete-wielding home invader with his 9mm semi-auto.

A quartet of questions.

How would you repel a home invasion?

Would you vote for a political party they leaders of which intend to violate your right to self-defense?

Would you lay money on the proposition that the miscreant depicted in the article is an illegal alien?

Is it wise to vote for a party that stands for open borders?

Related:  An Abuse of Language: 'Gun Buy-Back'

Michael Anton on "Celebration Parallax"

Here:

More tellingly, this charge is an example of something I call the “celebration parallax,” which is explained here. In brief, the celebration parallax holds that the same fact pattern is either true and glorious or false and scurrilous depending on who states it and, crucially, the perceived intent of the speaker.

So if someone says that the U.S. is experiencing levels of immigration that are unprecedented in human history, if it’s presumed or suspected that he might have doubts, then he is an evil racist. But when Bill Clinton or Joe Biden makes exactly the same point, well, that is A-OK! Because they are “good guys” who welcome “an unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop” (Joe Biden’s words). By the way, I leave to readers to intuit the difference between “unrelenting” (Joe’s word) and “ceaseless” (my word) and the reasons why the former is A-OK but the latter is somehow “racist.”

The Intifada Comes to America

Well, what did you expect?

Intifada refers specifically to two separate uprisings of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank over the past four decades, but more broadly, it pertains to the continued resistance of the Palestinians to the existence of Israel. When they shout “Death to Israel,” they mean it. It should be a top priority of Congress now to determine whether they mean it when they shout “Death to America.”

The rise of pro-Palestinian hatred in the United States should not be a surprising development to anyone. Even before President Biden opened the southern border to millions of unvetted “newcomers,” as the global elites like to call the invaders, there has been a reckless U.S. policy going back two decades to resettle Muslim refugees from Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan in the U.S. heartland. And because immigration policy no longer treats assimilation as a worthwhile goal, many of those refugees are loyal to their homeland and their religion much more than to the nation that offered them safety and security.

I suppose that is an inevitable result of the globalist agenda of border dissolution and the merging of disparate populations for the purpose of sharing wealth and assuaging billionaires’ guilt.

But it is only inevitable if the rest of us tolerate it.

Heliophysics and Common Ground

The solar eclipse brought us all together for one day. Well, we do share common ground when, like Thales, our heads are craned upwards in wonder. That common ground is the home planet, spaceship Earth, upon which we stand, bitterly disagree, and slaughter one another when not distracted by an unusual celestial phenomenon.  Clearly, common ground of the terrestrial sort is not enough: we also need ideological common ground to make the world less of an abattoir.

This is something the open-borders types don't want to understand. One of their fundamental errors is to imagine that all-inclusive diversity is compatible with social harmony.   

It is not that diversity is not a value; it plainly is.  Many types of diversity are good. One thinks of culinary diversity, musical diversity, artistic diversity generally. Biodiversity is good, and so is a diversity of opinions, especially insofar as such diversity makes possible a robustly competitive marketplace of ideas wherein the best rise to the top. A diversity of testable hypotheses is conducive to scientific progress. And so on.

But no reasonable person values diversity as such. A maximally diverse neighborhood would include pimps, whores, nuns, drug addicts, Montessori schools cheek-by-jowl with tattoo parlors and liquor stores, Hamas terrorists, outlaw bikers, priests both pedophile and pure, Sufi mystics, bank clerks, insurance salesmen, people who care for their property, people who are big on deferred maintenance . . . .

You get the point. Only some sorts of diversity are valuable. Diversity worth having presupposes a principle of unity that controls the diversity. Diversity must be checked and balanced by the competing value of unity, a value with an equal claim on our respect.

For example, one may value a district which is home to a diversity of restaurants (Turkish, Thai, French. . .), but only if they are all good restaurants. A diversity which includes ptomaine joints, greasy spoons, and high-end establishments is not the sort of diversity one values. Diversity of quality is not a value.  The same goes for diversity of moral decency, diversity of criminality, and so on. Or one may value a philosophy department in which a diversity of courses is on offer, but not one in which the diversity extends to the competence levels of the instructors or the preparedness levels of the students. One wants excellent instruction on a diversity of topics – but that is just to say that the value of diversity must be kept in check by the competing value of unity: the instructors ought not be diverse in respect of their excellence.

Diversity unchecked by the competing value of unity leads to divisiveness. For this reason, one ought not ‘celebrate diversity’ unless on is also willing to ‘celebrate unity.’ And this is precisely what too many leftists and 'woke' folk cannot, or will not, comprehend. They unreasonably emphasize diversity at the expense of unity. 

Liberty and security form another pair of competing values. The only liberty worth wanting is one that can be exercised in a secure environment. The liberty to quit my domicile at any time night or day is worth little or nothing if I am assaulted the minute I step into the street.  On the other hand, the only security worth wanting is one that allows the exercise of liberty. The security of totalitarian lock-down is not a value.

So what is to be done? Job One for all of you is to do your bit to make sure that Joe Biden is sent packing. 

It is not that diversity is not a value; it plainly is.  Many types of diversity are good. One thinks of culinary diversity, musical diversity, artistic diversity generally. Biodiversity is good, and so is a diversity of opinions, especially insofar as such diversity makes possible a robustly competitive marketplace of ideas wherein the best rise to the top. A diversity of testable hypotheses is conducive to scientific progress. And so on.

But no reasonable person values diversity as such. A maximally diverse neighborhood would include pimps, whores, nuns, drug addicts, Montessori schools cheek-by-jowl with tattoo parlors and liquor stores, Hamas terrorists, outlaw bikers, priests both pedophile and pure, Sufi mystics, bank clerks, insurance salesmen, people who care for their property, people who are big on deferred maintenance . . . .

You get the point. Only some sorts of diversity are valuable. Diversity worth having presupposes a principle of unity that controls the diversity. Diversity must be checked and balanced by the competing value of unity, a value with an equal claim on our respect.

For example, one may value a district which is home to a diversity of restaurants (Turkish, Thai, French. . .), but only if they are all good restaurants. A diversity which includes ptomaine joints, greasy spoons, and high-end establishments is not the sort of diversity one values. Diversity of quality is not a value.  The same goes for diversity of moral decency, diversity of criminality, and so on. Or one may value a philosophy department in which a diversity of courses is on offer, but not one in which the diversity extends to the competence levels of the instructors or the preparedness levels of the students. One wants excellent instruction on a diversity of topics – but that is just to say that the value of diversity must be kept in check by the competing value of unity: the instructors ought not be diverse in respect of their excellence.

Diversity unchecked by the competing value of unity leads to divisiveness. For this reason, one ought not ‘celebrate diversity’ unless on is also willing to ‘celebrate unity.’ And this is precisely what too many leftists and 'woke' folk cannot, or will not, comprehend. They unreasonably emphasize diversity at the expense of unity. 

Liberty and security form another pair of competing values. The only liberty worth wanting is one that can be exercised in a secure environment. The liberty to quit my domicile at any time night or day is worth little or nothing if I am assaulted the minute I step into the street.  On the other hand, the only security worth wanting is one that allows the exercise of liberty. The security of totalitarian lock-down is not a value.

So what is to be done? Job One for all of you is to do your bit to make sure that Joe Biden is sent packing. 

Multi-Racial but not Multi-Cultural: Self-Critique of a May 2017 Entry

In May of 2017, I wrote:

The USA cannot help but be a multi-racial society, but if we cannot agree on a common culture for public purposes with English as its official language and the values of the founding documents as its foundation, then the end is in sight. But collapse takes time and those of us in our mid-60s, assuming we don't live too long, should be able to weather the storm without too much stress. 

I am less sanguine now; things are far worse.

One problem is that we lack the collective will to demand the assimilation without which even legal immigration is a recipe for Balkanization.  Any sane person who does not intend the destruction of our republic should be able to see that the values of Sharia are incompatible with American values, and that no Muslims should be allowed to immigrate who are unwilling to accept and honor our values.  There is no right to immigrate, and immigration must be to the benefit of the host country.

But the problem just mentioned is minor compared to the problem that we don't even have the 'logically prior' collective will to enforce reasonable laws and put a stop to illegal immigration and the flouting of Federal immigration law by so-called 'sanctuary' cities and other jurisdictions. First, stop illegal immigration, then worry about assimilation in connection with legal immigration.

This unlikely to happen even if Trump gets a second term.

Once more: improper entry into the country is already a violation of the criminal code. When the mayor of a great city, New York, refuses to deport illegal aliens who commit such serious felonies as driving while intoxicated, then you know that there is precious little common ground left.

We cannot agree on this? Then what can we agree on?

We conservatives can blame ourselves to some extent. We lost ourselves in our private lives while the destructive Left had its way.  

Paradoxically, our appreciation that the political is a limited sphere has left us at a disadvantage over against leftists for whom the political is the only sphere. 

This is an ingredient in what I call The Conservative Disadvantage.

Creative Play with the Race Card

This takes the cake!

Update 4/2:  The latest example. Routine, not creative.

No Person is Illegal!

That's true. No person is illegal. But who ever said that any person was?

'Woke' knuckleheads  of the sort who  recently criticized Joey B's SOTU reference to Lincoln Laken Riley's murderer as 'an illegal'  regularly give something like the following lame argument:

1) No person is illegal.

2) If any person is justifiably labelled an 'illegal alien,' then some persons are illegal.

Therefore

3) No person is justifiably labelled an 'illegal alien.'

Therefore

4) The expression 'illegal alien' and such related expressions as 'illegal immigrant' must be banned.

There is no need to concern ourselves with the inferential move from (3) to (4).  The argument is unsound because (2) is plainly false.  

To see that it is false you have to be able to distinguish between agent and action, between doer and deed.  'Illegals' are so-called because of their illegal action, namely their illegal entry into the country, and not because they themselves, as agents, are illegal.  

Of course, an appeal to sweet reason will get you nowhere with a leftist; what they understand is the hard fist of unreason.  

As I have said many times, it is unreasonable to expect that all disputes can be settled reasonably.

And yet we have to have reasons at the ready for the reasonable.   

That is why I wrote the above. Besides, I'm a natural-born scribbler who just loves to write, and loves to read what he has written. The life of the mind is its own reward. 

A 'Deplorable' Straight from Central Casting . . .

. . . 'calls out' the lying leftist scumbag mayor of Athens, Georgia. James Lee takes on Kelly Gertz.  Was this staged? No, but it certainly looks that way. One of Hillary's 'deplorables' with a redneck hat, poor English, and missing a tooth rightly attacks a mendacious SOB whose first name is 'Kelly.' 

What's Wrong with Illegal Immigration?

I present a number of arguments, some 'liberal,' atop the Stack.

I am well aware of the infirmity of reason, and of the stupidity and suggestibility of people, especially in this Age of Feeling and Xed-out attention spans.  And so I am well aware of just how little is accomplished by calm and careful argumentation in these dark times. But we need to have arguments at the ready for those fence-sitters, many of them decent young people, who are open to reason and have not yet been hopelessly corrupted by our decadent culture.

Reason is for the reasonable, just as civility is for the civil.

But it is not reasonable to be reasonable in all things or in relation to all persons. We live among enemies. The enemy needs sometimes to experience the hard fist of unreason, the brute rejection, the blind refusal, the lethal blow. Or at least he must be made to fear this response, and you must be capable of making it. 

The good are not the weak, but those capable of  violence while remaining the masters of its exercise.

Otherwise, are you fit for this world?

On the other hand, it might be better not to be fit for this world. What sort of world is it in which the good must be brutal to preserve the reign of the Good?

More grist for the mill. We blog on.

Open Borders?

I'm not totally opposed . . . 

Top o' the Stack.

I strive for one Substack upload per day, no more. Why only one? Out of consideration for my readers. In these hyper-kinetic and hyper-connected times, an excess of 'incoming' can be annoying.

The Greatest Risk We are Taking

Pat Buchanan warned us six years ago.

Substack latest.

Suicide by Illegal Immigration

Such suicide is what the leaders of the present-day Democrat Party promote. They are out to destroy the United States of America. It is perfectly plain that diversity is not our strength despite their asinine and oft-repeated asseverations to the contrary. Diversity sans unity = decline, downfall, disaster. 'Asinine' is exactly the right word, deriving as it does from the Latin asinus meaning donkey, the jackass being the symbol of the Democrat Party, a party once respectable, now despicable. The CPUSA couldn't win under the hammer and sickle, but are now winning in their successor incarnation under the sign of the jackass upon which is mounted the demented puppet Joey B. 

As for the useful idiots who follow the leaders, they are an ovine and bovine bunch who need to be reminded that it is not 1960 anymore. 

The graphic below is crude and I would prefer not to have to post such things, but the time for unrestricted civility is over. Civility is for the civil, not for political enemies who pose an existential threat, a threat not merely to our lives, but also to our way of life.      

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . . . (emphasis added)

Whence it follows that Joseph L. Biden is in dereliction of duty, an impeachable offence.  Furthermore,

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” — Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution

“As each state will expect to be attacked and wish to guard against it, each will retain its own militia for it own defense.” — James Madison, speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

“This is not over. Texas’ razor wire is an effective deterrent to the illegal crossings Biden encourages. I will continue to defend Texas’ constitutional authority to secure the border and prevent the Biden Admin from destroying our property.”

That’s the message sent via X (formerly Twitter) by Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Tuesday.

Obviously, Governor Abbott remains resolute.

And every patriot stands behind him.

Where to Send Illegal Immigrants

Send them to 'sanctuary' jurisdictions.

Eric Adams, mayor of NYC, would be happy to show his hospitality and humanity. I am using 'jurisdiction' to cover cities, counties, and states.  Here is a nifty map and a list brought to you from the fine folks over at the Center for Immigration Studies. I am proud to report that no city or county in Arizona is on the list. 

Note the clustering of 'sanctuary'  counties. The nastiest such cluster appears to be in the Pacific Northwest in Washington and Oregon with an increase in the density of clustering as you 'migrate' toward the Left Coast.  

From the map, I judge that the majority of the 'sanctuary' jurisdictions are coastal with most of the 'fly-over' jurisdictions in THC-rich Colorado.

A state is composed of counties, and counties are composed of cities (towns, etc.).  Would I be wrong to infer that if a state is a 'sanctuary' state (Illinois, e.g.), that every county  in that state has the same status, and every city in every county? OR can counties and cities in a 'sanctuary' state retain non-'sanctuary' status? I don't know, which is why I am asking.

(By the way, it annoys me when I ask someone a question of the form 'Do you know why ___?' and he responds, 'Why?')

Now for a trio of polemically-intended witticisms:

There  is more of sanctimony than of sanctuary in a 'sanctuary' jurisdiction.

It is easy to be sanctimonious if you have no skin in the game.

Only the inmates of an asylum could confuse an illegal immigrant with an asylum-seeker.

Mockery is a weapon not to be sneered at in our battle with our political enemies. And throw in a little contumely for good measure.

 

Just Like a Libertarian!

A member of the Cato Institute argues that the solution to the immigration crisis is to legalize immigration. Too stupid for words. Or maybe you disagree?

Thomas Aquinas Against Open Borders

Substack leader. 

With linkage to a passage (pun intended) from the doctor angelicus.

Another Day, Another Outrage

Biden DOJ sues SpaceX for following the law. Another example of 'lawfare,' the use of the law to undermine the rule of law.  Should 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees' be given the rights of citizens when they are neither, but are economic migrants who have entered the country illegally? Obviously not, unless you are a hate-America leftist out to destroy the republic. Then it makes perfect sense.

France's Agony

Rod Dreher reports on the ravages of the allowance of the mass immigration of unassimilable elements. Will we learn? Little chance of that. Dreher concludes:

I feel strongly that one reason so many of us in the West — including many conservatives — cannot bring ourselves to deal with realities like those posed by mass migration is because the things we would have to face in order to deal effectively with the situation make us sick, or at the very least confused. We thought the world was one way, but it’s not. There is a direct line between the hubristic, cruel, catastrophic US invasion of Iraq to make it a liberal democratic bastion, and the disaster France (and Europe more broadly) has brought onto itself, and continues to bring onto itself, through mass migration, coupled with a woke elite that detests their own civilization.

UPDATE (7/2): 'Migrants' destroy French public library. But it's only property damage. No big deal, right? A guy I know raised the question whether our Christian values have made us unfit to survive in a world of savages aided and abetted by 'woke' leftist globalists.  Are the decadent French getting what they deserve?  But we are right behind them, just a little less decadent.

Why Secure the Border?

For many good reasons, none of them 'xenophobic' or 'racist.' Here is one that will certainly be ignored by the Sino-compromised Biden administration. Gordon G. Chang reports.

I'm no socialist, but here I present -- wait for it -- a socialist argument for border control. 

Extremism and Leftist Projection: The Border

Mainstream leftists promote extreme ideas and policies; mainstream conservatives do not. But this fact does not stop leftists from projecting their extremism into us. They call us extremists! Uncomfortable with their extremism, and not wanting to admit it, they suppress their awareness of  their extremism by projecting it into us. There are numerous examples of this political-psychological projection. This entry will discuss just one. 

Consider the question of national borders. My thesis is that conservatives at the present time in the USA are moderates on all or most questions pertaining to national borders and their enforcement.

A moderate position is one that is more or less midway  between two extremes. One extreme is the de facto if not de jure open borders  view according to which anyone at any time may immigrate  without being in any way vetted as to health status, criminal status, or in any other way. The opposite extreme is the closed border view according to which no immigration of anyone at any time is permitted by law and the law is strictly enforced. 

Now no one is for the second extreme. No one in the USA holds that all immigration should be illegal, than no one should ever be granted political asylum, etc.

But the Biden administration's position is very close to the first extreme. That cannot be denied by anyone who is  both well-informed and intellectually honest.

The conservative position is commonsensical and moderate, lying as it does between the extremes. Conservatives, to harp on the obvious, are not opposed to immigration; they are opposed to illegal immigration. Among conservatives there are debates as to how latitudinarian immigration policy ought to be. But that is a further question.

I could go on from here and show that on every or almost every issue that divides the nation, mainstream conservatives are moderates. I solicit your help. Tell me in the ComBox what those further issues are and how the mainstream conservative treads the via media.

'Asylum Seekers'

Is a home invader an asylum seeker? Only in very rare cases.  So why are people who immigrate illegally called asylum seekers? A few are but most are not. What we have here, once again, is the characteristic 'progressive' abuse of language.  At the same time that so-called progressives abuse 'asylum,' they also abuse 'xenophobic' when they apply this terms to those of us who stand for the rule of law. You are one dumb conservative if you acquiesce in the Left's abuse of language.  He who controls the terms of the debate controls the debate.

Rockland County to NYC

A massive middle-fingered 'salute.'

Quite rightly. ('Quite rightly' is in my head because I heard Donovan's Mellow Yellow on the way to the range Friday morning. Donovan uses 'quite' to mean entirely, but in American English at least it also can mean somewhat.  Does it have both senses in British English?)

The article mentions 'migrants.'  Conservatives should not acquiesce in leftist-prog-'woke' language abuse. There are two distinctions here that ought to be respected: illegal-legal; immigrant-emigrant.

'Migrant' manages to elide both distinctions in one fell swoop. Par for the course for a leftist journo. But dumb is the conservative journalist who plays along.

'lllegal immigrant' and illegal aliens' are the correct terms for what the article calls 'migrants.'

Language matters. It's a war. Subversion of language is the mother of all subversion. Don't let the 'mothers' get away with it.

"But no person is illegal!" But who ever said that any person was? (I can explain the point here if you need it explained. Better yet: you tell me what my point is in the combox.)

Rockland County

To Those Fleeing California

DO NOT come to Arizona! It's just too damned hot here for you snowflakes. And on top of that everybody is packing heat. That's why you don't hear any honking on the highways and byways. "An armed society is a polite society."

We are racist to the core in this rattlesnake-infested inferno which is also home to the scorpion, the Gila monster, and other venomous critters no librul would want to tangle with. There is nothing here but hot sand and dirt lightly covered with some dessicated but still prickly-as-hell vegetation such as cat claw.

Everything here either sticks, stings, or stinks.  Go elsewhere! Oregon and Idaho would love to have you.  Or better yet: wallow in the shit you shat. Enjoy the sanctuary that your sanctimonious silliness has built. Receive the wages of wokery.

 

 

California lost a Congressional seat due to mass exodus. Excellent! Geographically beautiful, California is now a political craphole to rival the People's Republic of Taxachusetts. I say that as a native Californian who lived for most of the '70s in Boston.

Polity and Comity

Substack latest

On 'Illegal Alien' and 'Illegal Immigrant'

Substack latest.

The Republic is probably beyond saving at this late date. So why do I bother to write pieces that underscore what really ought to be obvious? One reason is selfish: I like to write and then re-read what I have written. But having taken the time to write something clean, coherent, and sensible, why should I hide my light  under a bushel? It is not impossible that a half-dozen readers will actually read what I have written and be led to think a bit more clearly and act a little more responsibly.  

Another Good Dementocratic Reason to Keep the Southern Border Wide Open

Here:

Between 2018 and 2022, seven Catholic priests were murdered in Mexico. There has been an increase in the kidnapping of religious, as well as 800 reports of “collection” of derecho de piso by organized crime: an extortion “fee” demanded to keep Catholic churches open.

 

Immigration and Social Order

I linked to this outstanding essay about seven years ago. It is jam-packed with insights. See if you agree. The graphic below is from the essay mentioned:

Schemata such as this are useful up to a point. 

The Melting Pot

A melting pot can't do its job if unmeltable ingredients are thrown into it.

A Response to Liccione on Border Enforcement

From my Facebook page, 22 March 2019

 

Michael Liccione writes,

 

Totally open borders would be a surrender of sovereignty. Totally closed borders would be inhumane. There must surely be a via media that would be neither. But Washington seems unable to define it, because both Capitol Hill and the White House see more to be gained by political posturing than by working together on finding it. And that, my friends, is the problem--in this area as in so many others.

 

1. Who is for totally closed borders? No conservative of note. Certainly not Trump. Conservatives oppose illegal immigration, but not legal immigration. Nor do they oppose asylum provisions. They oppose the misuse thereof.

 

2. You can't look for a *via media* where there is a false alternative.

 

3. There is no moral equivalence between Capitol Hill and the White House. The House Dems and the the anti-Trump Republicans are pursuing a dangerous and morally irresponsible course. Trump is not posturing. He is doing what must be done under the circumstances.

 

4. Work together? Come on Michael Liccione. I don't mean this personally. I like you and I respect you. But, with all due respect, you are not thinking clearly. You can't work together with a Speaker of the House who incoherently babbles about walls being immoral and her colleagues who wax Orwellian in their advocacy of border security without border barriers. You can't work together with political opponents whose transparent motive is to win demographically by flooding the country with 'undocumented Democrats.'

 

5. One last shot. Some 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam over a 20 year period. Some 70,000 American died of drugs last year alone due in large part to a porous border. Does that concern you? And that is JUST ONE problem with lax border enforcement.

 

............................

 

And now, three years later, it is easy to see just how right Trump was on all the issues Biden is wrong on. Biden has proven to be a disaster on all fronts, foreign and domestic.  The United States and the world are incalculably worse off now than they were when Donald J. Trump was president.  In particular, had he been reelected, Putin would not have invaded Ukraine.

 

Weakness invites aggression, especially when amalgamated with senility and leftist nonsense.

A Socialist Argument for Border Control

Three years ago on this date on my Facebook page.  Redacted and improved.

 

....................

 

Suppose you want a massive expansion of the welfare state. You want, among other things, a college education to be free to anyone who wants one. In addition, you want free health care for all, and perhaps a guaranteed minimum income. Suppose further that you want your socialist government to work and not go bankrupt. To will the end is to will the means. Among the means:  A stemming of the tide of illegal immigration. So here you have the makings of a socialist argument for border control, an essential component of which is a physical barrier at the southern border. An essential component, not the only one. Mirabile dictu: A socialist argument for a conservative conclusion.

 

You can't have both open borders and socialism. I say to the libertarians: You want open borders? Go for it, but ONLY AFTER you have stripped the government down to its Lockean functions and instituted something like a Nozickian 'night watchman' state. (See Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.) But of course that strip-down is not in the offing: the libertarian dream is u-topian. It's like Nowheresville, man, as Maynard G. Krebs might have said.

 

The welfare state in the USA is here to stay.  The only question concerns its size and scope. Will it metastasize unto the collapse of the nation?

 

An equal but opposite utopianism to that of the libertarians is the utopianism of the Green New Dealers.  To them and their democratic socialist fellow travellers, I say: you are going to have to become what you call 'xenophobes' and 'racists' if you want to implement a workable socialist scheme. You are going to have to become like us conservatives: 'nativists' and 'white supremacists' who hate the Other simply in virtue of his being Other.

 

Of course, none of these epithets apply to us. You only think they do in your perversity, ill-will, and deliberate self-enstupidation.

Why Not Allow Illegal Immigration?

It is important to present calm, rational arguments for the few people left who can be reached in this way.  

No Polity without Comity

No polity without comity, and no comity without commonality.

E pluribus unum is a noble goal. But a durable and vibrant One cannot be made out of just any Many.  Not just any diversity is combinable into unity.

This is why the oft-repeated 'Diversity is our strength' is foolish verbiage that could be spouted only by a liberal-left shallow pate. 

We blew it as a society and now we are in trouble and teetering on the brink of collapse.  No polity without comity, and no comity without commonality. The commonality that insures social harmony requires the stoppage of illegal immigration and reasonable limits on legal immigration together with the demand that potential immigrants be assimilable and willing to assimilate. But we no longer have the will to make that demand. We don't even have the will to protect the borders.

But of course foolishness about immigration and its effects is only one part of the explanation of our decline and eventual dissolution.

Still, we fight on, but only part-time because, being conservatives, we understand that the political is but a limited sphere. So ride the bike, traipse the trails, make music, draw and design, contemplate the constellations, make love to the wife. 

Above all, lift up your eyes, if you can, to a Reality superior to this passing scene, superior to this vain world whose vanity will vanish along with it.

Did Sexism Bring Elizabeth Warren Down?

That's what she thinks, but she is fooling herself. Her extremism brought her down. 'Progressive' politics is like a progressive disease: it just gets worse and worse as leftists compete to see who can go farthest Left.  But while the leaders of the Democrat Party are sick with the disease and barking mad, most rank-and-file Dems retain their grip on common sense. And so they gave Warren the boot.  This despite the great support she received from the distaff contingent.

The over-ambitious 'Cherokee'  committed suicide by political correctness. Good riddance!  The hyperactive little hustler was a fraud on the personal level who gamed the Affirmative Action system to promote herself, and her ideas were insane: 'free' health care for illegal aliens; inventing new forms of  'racism' including health-care 'racism,' environmental 'racism,' and a couple of others; choosing a trans-gendered child to advise on selection of a Secretary of Education.  The last bit of lunacy amounted to political suicide by intersectionality, as Tucker Carlson remarked. If she had exercised some restraint, she, and not the senile Biden, would be going up against Trump, and the Dems would have a shot at beating him.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said that funds being used to construct the president’s border wall with Mexico should be redirected to help contain coronavirus, a quickly spreading epidemic with origins in China.

“I’m going to be introducing a plan tomorrow to take every dime that the president is now taking to spend on his racist wall at the southern border and divert it to the coronavirus,” the candidate said during a CNN town hall on Wednesday evening. (Rolling Stone, 27 February 2020)

Leftists have painted themselves into a corner. They think, absurdly, that borders are 'racist.' But even they realize, despite their willful self-enstupidation, that borders are needed for disease control.  The solution, however, escapes them: jettison the absurd belief that borders are 'racist.'

They can't see their way out because the race card is all they've got and because of their blind hatred for Donald Trump. What a pathetic bunch of losers!

Will Leftists Now Re-Evaluate their Espousal of a "Borderless World"?

We of the Coalition of the Sane understand that one of the many reasons for enforced national borders is to impede the spread of deadly diseases. So I am hoping that such globalist nitwits as John Kerry and Hillary Clinton will learn something from COVID-19.  They will perhaps learn the importance of border control. If they do, something good will have come of the Wuhan virus.  One can hope.  Here's a report on something the illustrious Mr. Kerry said a few years back:

Taking a jab at Donald Trump for promising that Mexico would pay for a wall on the Rio Grande, the secretary [Kerry] enthused over his vision of a borderless world, and hectored those reluctant to join his flight to Utopia. Once offstage, Mr. Kerry ducked into an armored vehicle surrounded by heavily armed guards who shepherded him from one secure place to the next, and then home, where he could relax behind sturdy walls.

In other words, borders and guns for us, but not for you "bitter clingers" (Obama) and "deplorables" (Hillary). 

Just remember, folks, political correctness can get you killed. "Killed dead," as a deplorable might say.

Is Meaningful Dialog Possible with Leftists?

I rather doubt it. Suppose a bunch of leftists such as the editors of Commonweal say the following:

We reject the xenophobia and racism of many forms of ethno-nationalism, explicit and implicit, as grave sins against God the Creator. Violence done against the bodies of marginalized people is violence done against the body of Christ. Indifference to the suffering of orphans, refugees, and prisoners is indifference to Jesus Christ and his cross. White supremacist ideology is the work of the anti-Christ.

First of all, insistence on a nation's right to control its borders is not xenophobic. To suggest that conservatives have no good arguments for border control and that their insistence on it is based on irrational fear of foreigners is SLANDER. How Christian is that?

Second, illegal aliens do not constitute a race of people. So where is the racism in border control?  And where is the white supremacism?

Third, every nation has the right to decide whom to allow to immigrate.  There is, after all, no right to immigrate.

Reasons for opposing illegal immigration 

There are several sound specific reasons for demanding that the Federal government exercise its legitimate, constitutionally grounded (see Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) function of securing the national borders, and none of these reasons has anything to do with racism or xenophobia or nativism or any other derogatory epithet that slanderous leftists and libertarians want to attach to those of us who can think clearly about this issue.

There are reasons having to do with national security in an age of terrorism. There are reasons having to do with assimilation, national identity, and comity. How likely is it that illegals will assimilate if allowed to come in in great numbers, and how likely is social harmony among citizens and unassimmilated illegals?  There are considerations of fairness in respect of those who have entered the country legally by satisfying the requirements of so doing. Is it fair that they should be put through a lengthy process when others are allowed in illegally? 

There are reasons having to do with the importation of contraband substances into the country. There are reasons having to to do with the sex trade and human trafficking generally. There are reasons having to do with increased crime. Last but not least, there are reasons pertaining to public health. With the concern over avian influenza, tuberculosis, ebola, and all sorts of tropical diseases, we have all the more reason to demand border control.

Borders are a body politic's immune system. Unregulated borders are deficient immune systems. Diseases that were once thought to have been eradicated have made a comeback north of the Rio Grande due to the unregulated influx of population. These diseases include tuberculosis, Chagas disease, leprosy, Dengue fever, polio, and malaria.

You will have noticed how liberals want to transform into public health issues problems that are manifestly not public but matters of private concern, obesity for example. But here we have an issue that is clearly a public health issue, one concerning which Federal involvement is justified, and what do our dear liberals do? They ignore it. Of course, the problem cannot be blamed solely on the Democrat Party. Republicans like G. W. Bush and John McCain were just as guilty. On immigration, Bush was clearly no conservative; he was a libertarian on this issue. A libertarian on some issues, a liberal on others, and a conservative on far too few.

Illegal Aliens and Black Reparations

Here is another problem for the ill-starred notion of black reparations. Should those who reside illegally in the U. S. pay them? Why not? Don't they benefit from the putative legacy of slavery like everyone else?  On the  other hand, if you think that only the  descendants of slave-holders should pay reparations, then we citizens who are are not descended from slave-holders are off the hook. And what about the blacks who are descended from blacks who held slaves? Do they get reparations too? And who is black anyway? Rachel Dolezal?  If race is just a social construct, can I re-identify as black and get in on the goodies? If I can identify as a girl and then compete in an all-female athletic event, why can't I identify as black?

There will never be black reparations for slavery. The idea is just too incoherent for implementation. And it perpetuates the victim mentality that keeps blacks on the bottom. Nor should there be reparations for slavery. See the following. Trigger warning! They are exercises in reasoned discourse.

David Horowitz on Black Reparations

On Black Reparations

Kevin Kim on John Pepple on Sweden as Europe's Sacrificial Lamb

A tip of the hat to Bill Keezer, and greetings to fellow bloggers Kim and Pepple. The titles of their blogs do not, however, earn the coveted MavPhil transparency of content award.

Feed: BigHominid's Hairy Chasms
Posted on: Thursday, September 5, 2019 1:22 AM
Author: Kevin Kim
Subject: Pepple on Sweden

Is Sweden Europe's sacrificial lamb, to be laid out as a bloody example of what happens when you heedlessly allow an influx of Muslims who refuse to assimilate into your culture? In John Pepple's grim blog post, Dr. Pepple quotes a Frenchwoman who immigrated to Sweden, but who is now leaving the country for Budapest because the crime has gotten so bad, and because PC politicians, who fear being branded as racists, refuse to recognize that there's any problem with current immigration policy and law enforcement. Here's an excerpt of something the woman wrote—one long, cri de coeur sentence: I can no longer live under this immense mental stress, insecurity, murder, shooting, executions, explosions, rapes and gang rapes, robberies, home burglaries, beatings, car fires, school fires, serious criminals who, after a relatively short prison stay, may again be released to move freely among us, an increasingly dismantled welfare system, lack of health care staff, teachers, elderly housing, lack of elderly care, an increasing number of poor pensioners, municipalities in principle bankrupt or in bankruptcy, all these no-go zones called something else, lack of police resources where it may take 1.5-2 hours for them to arrive at the scene of ongoing crimes if they arrive at all, the lying politicians regardless of political color and the accomplished so-called PC media, the demonization of people who think differently, the shrinking freedom of expression, the increasingly diminishing democracy, and last, but not least, the ongoing and widespread Islamization of the country. Go read the rest. A similar picture is being painted of countries like France, which is dealing with its own immigration/assimilation problem. France has a built-in cultural immune system called laïcité or, roughly, secularism. This is why French law has made no bones about disallowing the wearing of religious items like Muslim veils (hijab, etc.). But in the area surrounding Paris, which is filled with tenements and housing projects, there are the same no-go zones, with plenty of robbery, rape, car fires, and so on. In Paris itself, tent cities—with their attendant filth and violence—can be found as well. But once you leave Paris, you'd be forgiven for thinking France is still France. In the area where my buddy Dominique lives, in the small town of Le Vanneau-Irleau, life goes on much as it has for decades, utterly untouched by what's happening in France's big cities. In the United States, there's a similar state of affairs, albeit with somewhat different demographics. Still, the heart of the US problem has much in common with Europe's problem: a lack of political will when it comes to things like immigration and the true causes of poverty, and a lack of will when it comes to law enforcement. Any teacher knows that losing control of the classroom means the students will rule and nothing of significance will be learned. This is basic human psychology: people need structure if they are to live in harmony and to flourish. Without structure, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. This is the paradox of freedom: true freedom is, far from being unstructured, veined throughout with structure. The creative freedom and amazing technique you can see in a great painter or martial artist is the result of focus and discipline. It's strange, but it's strictures that allow humans to flourish. And a society is no different from an individual in this regard: a society without strictures—an organic system of rules and laws and unspoken social contracts—becomes flabby and moribund. Look at New York City before and after Rudy Giuliani's two terms: Giuliani enforced the law, and his policies resulted in a few years of glorious prosperity between long periods of poverty and crime. Sweden is experiencing this problem now; so is France, at least in its big cities. The US has its own similar urban problems. As the folk song goes, When will they ever learn?

View article...

I am not Totally Opposed to Open Borders

I'm for half-open borders, borders open in the outbound direction.  Anyone who wants to emigrate should be allowed to do so. 

Communists need walls to keep people in; we need walls to keep them out.  Hence the rank absurdity of the comparison of a wall on our southern border to the Berlin Wall.  Now the mendacious leftists who make this comparison cannot be so historically uninformed as not to see its rank absurdity.  But they make it anyway because they will say or do anything to win.  They are out for power any way they can get it.

It is interesting that even hate-America leftists do not want to leave the United States. They talk about it, but few do it. And where do they say they will go?

Canada is high on the list. Why not Mexico? Are they perhaps racists?

Gun Violence and Border Control: A Plea to Our 'Liberal' Brethren

Dear 'Liberal,'

If you are concerned with gun violence, then you ought to be concerned with controlling the border. A porous border allows for human trafficking, drug trafficking, and -- wait for it -- gun smuggling. Now can you grasp that weaponry illegally brought into the country can and will end up in the wrong hands?

Sure you can! And you CARE SO MUCH, don't you? Then you ought to support President Trump and oppose the obstructionist Democrats who either want open borders or practically promote them via their Trump-hating obstructionism.

Michael Kearns, Profile in Civil Courage

Erie County Clerk Michael "Mickey" Kearns took his first legal step to fight a new state law that allows immigrants in the country illegally to obtain a New York State driver's license.

At the time the illegal aliens receive, illegally, their driver's licenses, they will be able to register to vote, again illegally. Now in possession of photo ID, they will be able vote illegally in our elections.

The contemptible Dems profess to be worried about Russian interference in our elections. But these Democrat scumbags actively support illegal-alien interference in our elections. They are mendacious, hate-America leftists.

So please don't complain about a culture of contempt. Comrades Cuomo and de Blasio and all the rest of their ilk are fully deserving of contempt. Sorry David French, but these people are not fellow citizens but domestic enemies.

buffalonews.com

 

Erie County clerk: 'I will not be granting licenses to illegal immigrants'

The Greatest Risk We are Taking

Patrick J. Buchanan:

But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants, many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million, composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.

Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation and one people?

There is none. Most people with a bit of life experience know that one can get along and interact productively with only some people. There has to be a broad base of shared agreement on all sorts of things. For example, there ought to be only one language in the U. S. for all public purposes, English. It was a huge mistake when voting forms were allowed to be published in foreign languages. Only legal immigrants should be allowed in, and assimilation must be demanded of them.

No comity without commonality as one of my  aphorisms has it.

The Left, however, wants the end of America as she was founded to be, "one nation and one people." That is why leftists support the illegal invasion from the south.  But being mendacious leftists they will never openly admit this, but instead speak with Orwellian obfuscation of "comprehensive immigration reform."

The enemy has been identified.

Do not think of leftists and 'progressives' as fellow citizens; they are merely among us as disorderly elements and domestic enemies.  There can be no peace with them because they represent an 'existential threat.' Not to our physical existence so  much as to our way of life, which is of course more important than our mere physical existence as animals.

But I must add, contra certain of the Alt Right, that "one people" should not be understood racially or ethnically. An enlightened nationalism is not  a white nationalism.  America is of course  'a proposition nation.' You will find the propositions in the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence.  

I don't give a flying enchilada whether you are Hispanic or Asian.  If you immigrated legally, accept the propositions, drop the hyphens, and identify as an American, then I say you are one of us. I'll even celebrate the culinary diversity you contribute.

That being understood, it is also true that whites discovered these America-constitutive propositions and are well-equipped to appreciate and uphold them, and better equipped than some other groups. That is a fact that a sane immigration policy must reflect.

My view is eminently reasonable and balanced. It navigates between the Scylla of destructive leftist globalist internationalism and the Charybdis of racist identity-political particularism.

Patrick J. Buchanan:

But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants, many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million, composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.

Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation and one people?

There is none. Most people with a bit of life experience know that one can get along and interact productively with only some people. There has to be a broad base of shared agreement on all sorts of things. For example, there ought to be only one language in the U. S. for all public purposes, English. It was a huge mistake when voting forms were allowed to be published in foreign languages. Only legal immigrants should be allowed in, and assimilation must be demanded of them.

No comity without commonality as one of my  aphorisms has it.

The Left, however, wants the end of America as she was founded to be, "one nation and one people." That is why leftists support the illegal invasion from the south.  But being mendacious leftists they will never openly admit this, but instead speak with Orwellian obfuscation of "comprehensive immigration reform."

The enemy has been identified.

Do not think of leftists and 'progressives' as fellow citizens; they are merely among us as disorderly elements and domestic enemies.  There can be no peace with them because they represent an 'existential threat.' Not to our physical existence so  much as to our way of life, which is of course more important than our mere physical existence as animals.

But I must add, contra certain of the Alt Right, that "one people" should not be understood racially or ethnically. An enlightened nationalism is not  a white nationalism.  America is of course  'a proposition nation.' You will find the propositions in the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence.  

I don't give a flying enchilada whether you are Hispanic or Asian.  If you immigrated legally, accept the propositions, drop the hyphens, and identify as an American, then I say you are one of us. I'll even celebrate the culinary diversity you contribute.

That being understood, it is also true that whites discovered these America-constitutive propositions and are well-equipped to appreciate and uphold them, and better equipped than some other groups. That is a fact that a sane immigration policy must reflect.

My view is eminently reasonable and balanced. It navigates between the Scylla of destructive leftist globalist internationalism and the Charybdis of racist identity-political particularism.

Nationalism: Ethnic and Civic

Here:

Much of today’s debate fails to distinguish between two types of nationalism: ethnic and civic. The former is based on language, blood or race. American nationalism is the latter, civic in nature, holding that the United States is a nation based on a set of beliefs — a creed — rather than race or blood. This understanding of nationalism is equivalent to “patriotism.”

This is a good start, but it doesn't go deep enough. I applaud the distinction between the ethnic and the civic. But American nationalism is not wholly civic.  Indeed, it is hard to imagine any nation that could be wholly civic, wholly 'propositional' or wholly based on a set of beliefs and value.  And yet the United States is a proposition nation: the propositions are in the founding documents. I don't see how that could be reasonably denied. 

I also don't see how it could be reasonably denied that the discovery and articulation and preservation of classically American principles and values was achieved by people belonging to a certain tradition.  

This has consequences for immigration policy. I take it to be axiomatic that immigration must be to the benefit of the host country, a benefit not to be  defined in merely economic terms. 

And so I ask a politically incorrect but perfectly reasonable question: Is there any net benefit to Muslim immigration?  Immigrants bring their culture with them. Muslims, for example, bring with them a Sharia-based, hybrid religious-political ideology that is antithetical to American values.

So I ask again: Is there any net benefit to Muslim immigration?

On 'Illegal Alien' and 'Illegal Immigrant'

Liberals, whose love of political correctness gets the better of their intellects, typically object to the phrase 'illegal alien.' But why? Are these people not in our country illegally, as the result of breaking laws?  And are they not aliens, people from another country? 

"But you are labeling them!"  Yes, of course.  Label we must if we are not to lose our minds entirely. 'Feral cat' is a label.  Do you propose that we not distinguish between feral and non-feral cats?  Do you distinguish between the positive and the negative terminals on your car battery?  You'd better!  But 'positive terminal' and 'negative terminal' are labels. 

Label we must.  There is no getting around it if we are to think at all.  There is a political outfit that calls itself "No Labels."  But that too is a label.  Those who eschew all labels label themselves 'idiots.'

Related to this is the injunction, 'Never generalize!' which is itself a generalization. Label we must and generalize we must.  Making distinctions and labeling them, and constructing sound generalizations on their basis are activities essential to, thought not exhaustive of, the life of the intellect.

Liberals also object to 'illegal immigrant.'  In fact, the AP has banned the phrase.  But given that there are both legal and illegal immigrants, 'illegal immigrant' is a useful label.  There is nothing derogatory about it.  It is a descriptive term like 'hypertensive' or 'diabetic.' 

One consideration adduced at the AP site is that actions are illegal, not persons. But suppose your doctor tells you that you are diabetic, and you protest, "Doc, not only are you labelling me, you are forgetting that diabetes is a medical condition and that no person is a medical condition." The good doctor would then have to explain that a diabetic is a person who has diabetes.  Similarly, an illegal immigrant is one who is in the country illegally.  There is the act of illegally crossing the border, but there is also the state of being here illegally.

Plain talk is an excellent antidote to liberal nonsense. When a liberal or a leftist misuses a word in an intellectually dishonest attempt at forwarding his agenda, a right-thinking person ought to protest.  Whether you protest or not, you must not acquiesce  in their pernicious misuse of language.  Or, as I have said more than once in these pages,

If you are a conservative, don't talk like a liberal!

Bear in mind that many of the battles of the culture war are fought, won, and lost on linguistic ground. If we let  our opponents destroy the common language in which alone reasonable  debate can be conducted, then much more is lost than these particular  debates.  The liberal-left misuse of language is fueled by their determination to win politically at all costs and by any means, including linguistic hijacking.

Language matters!

'Liberal' Immigration Hyper-Hypocrisy

You may remember Trump Labor Secretary nominee Anthony Puzder who came under fire for having employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper.  But why should 'liberals' care given that they do not distinguish legal from illegal immigrants while standing for open borders and sanctuary jurisdictions in defiance of the rule of law? Suddenly, these destructive leftists care about immigration law? 'Liberals' should praise Puzder for giving the poor woman a job.  After all, as they say, no human being is illegal!

What the Left is doing here is employing a Saul Alinsky tactic.  The fourth of his Rules for Radicals reads:

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Leftists judge us by rules for which they have nothing but contempt. 

The ordinary hypocrite will not practice what he preaches, but at least he preaches, thereby paying lip service to ideals of conduct that he puts forth as binding on all.   The Alinksyite leftist is a hyper-hypocrite who preaches ideals of conduct, not to all, but to his enemies, ideals that he has no intention of honoring.

Of course, I am not saying that Puzder did not do wrong in hiring the illegal immigrant. He did, assuming he knew she was illegal.

Is Illegal Immigration a Crime?

It is. Nancy Pelosi and other prominent Democrats have been lying to us. Illegal immigrants are subject to criminal penalties. While improper entry is a crime, unlawful presence is not a crime. One can be unlawfully present in the U. S. without having entered improperly, and thus without having committed a crime. 

If a foreign national enters the country on a valid travel or work visa, but overstays his visa, failing to exit before the expiration date, then he is in violation of federal immigration law. But this comes under the civil code, not the criminal code. Such a person is subject to civil penalties such as deportation.

So there are two main ways for an alien to be illegal. He can be illegal in virtue of violating the criminal code or illegal in virtue of violating the civil code. 

Those who oppose strict enforcement of national borders show their contempt for the rule of law and their willingness to tolerate criminal behavior, not just illegal behavior.

9/11 Seventeen Years Later

The morning of 9/11 was a beautiful, dry Arizona morning.  Back from a hard run, I flipped on the TV while doing some cool-down exercises only to see one of the planes crash into one of the towers. I knew right away what was going on.

I said to my wife, "Well, two good things will come of this: Gary Condit will be out of the news forever, and finally something will be done about our porous southern border."

I was right about the first, but not about the second.

Do you remember Gary Condit, the California congressman?  Succumbing as so many do to the fire down below Condit initiated an extramarital affair with the federal intern, Chandra Levy.  When Levy was found murdered, Condit's link to Levy proved his undoing.  The cable shows were awash with the Condit-Levy affair that summer of 2001.  9/11 put an end to the soap opera.

But it didn't do  much for the security of the southern border. 

We got lucky in November, 2016. Now do your bit to vote down the obstructionsts and defeatists, whether living or dead, legal or not,  this coming November.

Voter Fraud is Real

Leftists of course deny the fact since it serves their purposes to do so. Their grand strategy is to win by demographic means. 

Truth is not a leftist value. Or rather, it is if it supports their agenda, but is not if it doesn't.

For a leftist, the difference between a citizen and a non-citizen is the difference between someone who is physically present within a nation's boundaries and one who isn't.

John Fund has done good, objective work on voter fraud. See here and here.

The Institutionalized Race War

Things are going to get 'interesting.'

I'm glad I'm an old man. I've had a good run. Trouble is, I take care of myself. 

More on the Left's Grand Demographic Strategy

Here:

We also now know, thanks to four different studies, that between 2.2 and 5.7 million illegal aliens have voted in the last few presidential elections.

The best guess is that at least three million illegal aliens voted in 2016, enough to give Hillary the popular vote but not quite enough to win some of the key rustbelt states won by Trump. This is why liberal state legislators all over the nation have pushed legislation granting illegals driver licenses. So far, 12 states have passed such laws.

The left knows full well that holding a driver’s license gives illegal aliens the confidence to also register to vote, not to mention many states have “motor voter” laws in which the DMV automatically registers to vote anyone granted a driver’s license. In California alone, the DMV has reported that one million “undocumented” immigrants have received driver licenses over the last three years. Unless they refused to register to vote, those non-citizens can now vote. Remember, in California, as in most states today, no one asks for proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.

The illegal alien vote is the Democrats secret voting bloc and it’s growing. This is why Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, threw the full weight of the DOJ at every state that even thought about implementing a voter ID program of any kind.

It is therefore Orwellian in excelsis when ID requirements are denounced as "voter suppression."

Democrats Only Pretend to Care About the Integrity of Our Elections

 

Here are three very important points. Please pay attention.

1) Barack Obama, you will recall, made light of the suggestion that U. S. elections could be rigged or stolen back in October of 2016.  You can hear his own words here. He and almost everyone else was sure Hillary would win a couple of weeks later. That is what all the pundits were saying, and anyway how could such an obnoxious cretin as Trump who had insulted so many people  possibly become president? When Hillary  lost in the electoral college, lefties couldn't believe it. It shocked them deeply.  You can see the depth of their reaction if you watch the many videos from election night depicting the tears of anguish and the tears of rage.  And so it is very easy to understand how lefties, who never stray from their enclaves, and never sully their precious minds with conservative commentary, and have no contact with the unwashed deplorables who stink of Wal-Mart and the barnyard, could believe that Trump just had to have colluded with the Russians to secure his victory. To their minds, there is no other possible explanation.

I heard Rosie O'Donnell say the other night that she "firmly believed" that Trump's win was due to Russian help.  I don't doubt that Rosie and her fellow travellers firmly believe it in a way that admits of no possible disconfirmation. It has become an idée fixe in their benighted brains.  They can't help it. They see themselves as good people, as progressive, bien-pensant, caring people, on the right side of history. It is simply incomprehensible to them that Trump won fair and square.

The reversal of position from 'no possible rigging' to 'Russian rigging' is very easy to understand: it's all about getting Trump out of office by any means.  The only reason the Dems care about election integrity now when they didn't before is that it aids and abets their drive toward impeachment.

2) Democrats support open borders, sanctuary cities, the sanctuary state of California, and the awarding of the franchise to illegal aliens. All of this is a giant middle finger in the face of the rule of law. Their grand strategy is perfectly obvious: to advance leftism and destroy America as she was founded to be, and to do so  by demographic means. If you don't see that you need the services of that proctologist I mentioned in an earlier post, the one who specializes in head injuries and especially difficult extractions.

3) And then there is the business about photo ID that Dems insanely oppose.  The reason they oppose it is obvious: they intend to make the polling places safe for voter fraud. It is part of their demographic grand strategy.  You will enjoy this YouTube video in which white liberals claim that blacks lack ID and blacks on the street react to the absurd claim.