What He Said

If you know nothing of the ongoing Jihad or think it overblown then I can only suggest you make the effort to read a bit more about it. Please.

The Islamic fundamentals of Sharia and Jihad (Islamic law and its universal imposition) are not compatible with the one fundamental of civilization, which is of course Liberty. The 1400 year history of jihad, painfully reinforced by what is unfolding in Europe right now, make it plain enough that the essence of Islam is intolerance. The symptoms are most notable when Muslims near or surpass plurality.

People need to stop looking the other way. Reject the suicidal premises of multicultural political correctness rather than using them to stifle criticism of the principles of Islamic ideology. There are good reasons to believe Islam threatens civilization. Questions must be asked. Lines must be drawn.

In defense of liberty
By Andrew C. McCarthy/Herbert London
October 20, 2006

We believe that being in denial about Islamic militancy profoundly compromises U.S. national security. Our system's toleration of religious belief does not immunize religions from criticisms of the tenets or practices of those belief systems. This is particularly true when the criticized practices, though rhetorically labeled "religion," are actually elements of an imperialistic social system antithetical to equality, liberty, separation of church and state, and other core Western values.

Activist efforts to limit America's free marketplace of ideas -- such as the tactic of slandering commonsense criticism as "Islamophobia" -- are contrary to the very foundation of democratic governance. The West cannot cure Islam's propensity to spawn radicalism; this is a matter only Muslims can address. But we must do whatever is necessary to protect our liberty and security.

Since the United States is in the midst of a long war for the survival of our way of life, the following steps should immediately be taken:

• Congress should enact legislation stating forthrightly that our enemy in the ongoing war is radical Islam.

• Immigration from and aid to Muslim countries should be drastically reduced. Upward adjustments should be contingent on measurable reforms that promote liberty while reducing the role of religion in politics. (Provision should be made for asylum for reformers.)

• Any Muslim foreign national who will not concede under oath that American law must be followed in the U.S. when it conflicts with Islamic law should be subject to exclusion or deportation.

• It should be made clear that a person's status as a Muslim (particularly if he is also a male under age 45 who is a citizen of a country with a substantial Islamic population) is palpably relevant to investigations of terrorist threats. To do otherwise wastes finite investigative resources and challenges the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement by treating all Americans as if they were potential Islamic radicals.

• Mosques in the U.S. have been used by Islamic radicals to spread their ideology, as hubs for terror recruitment and paramilitary training, and even for storage and transfer of weapons. While the war ensues, it should be made clear that the FBI and other authorities do not require a criminal predicate to collect intelligence or conduct investigations. Mosques in which violence or unlawful activity is encouraged should be subject to forfeiture and loss of tax-exempt status.

• Rigorous examination should be required for certification of Islamic chaplains in the military and the federal and state prison systems.

• Congress should create a National Security Court with jurisdiction over terrorism and other national security matters. Alleged alien-terrorists should be designated unlawful enemy combatants (apprehended either inside or outside the U.S.) and be accorded the minimal rights required by American due process standards. Removing their cases from the civilian and military courts will increase the quality of justice in those systems.

• With radical Islamic sentiment gaining traction in oil-rich nations, it is imperative that U.S. energy independence become a national priority. Congressional action must be taken to remove the onerous legal and regulatory barriers to the construction and expansion of refineries, production of oil and gas from offshore wells, construction of gas pipelines and other energy transportation infrastructure, and the building of power plants, including alternative generation sources such as solar stations, wind farms, tar sands, nuclear power plants, etc.

• Treaty obligations, alliances with other countries and membership in international organizations need to be consistent with national goals. Where they have become obsolete or harmful, they must be reshaped or eliminated.

The 20th century was filled with massive assaults on liberty by totalitarian aggressors who questioned the resolve of the defenders of liberty. This flawed assumption of weakness led to vast and unprecedented death and destruction. We make this statement in an attempt to diminish the chances of another such bloody miscalculation, and we pray that the rich benefits of the American model of government will gain a new appreciation around the world.

That would be a damn good start.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Understands Islam

The Liberals' War
Why is the left afraid to face up to the threat of radical Islam?
BY BRET STEPHENS
The Wall Street Journal Sunday, September 17, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Here's a puzzle: Why is it so frequently the case that the people who have the most at stake in the battle against Islamic extremism and the most to lose when Islamism gains--namely, liberals--are typically the most reluctant to fight it?

It is often said, particularly in the "progressive" precincts of the democratic left, that by aiming at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and perhaps the Capitol, Mohamed Atta and his cohorts were registering a broader Muslim objection to what those buildings supposedly represented: capitalism and globalization, U.S. military power, support for Israel, oppression of the Palestinians and so on.

But maybe Ms. Newman intuited that Atta's real targets weren't the symbols of American mightiness, but of what that mightiness protected: people like her, bohemian, sexually unorthodox, a minority within a minority. Maybe she understood that those F-16s overhead--likely manned by pilots who went to church on Sunday and voted the straight GOP ticket--were being flown above all for her defense, at the outer cultural perimeter of everything that America's political order permits.

Hmmm, yes I see. And what does Ayaan Hirsi Ali say?

"Many Europeans feel that a confrontation with Islamism will give the Islamists more opportunities to recruit--that confronting evil is counterproductive," says Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born, former Dutch parliamentarian whose outspoken opposition to Islamism (and to Islam itself) forced her repeatedly into hiding and now into exile in the United States. "They think that by appeasing them--allowing them their own ghettoes, their own Muslim schools--they will win their friendship."

A second factor, she says, is the superficial confluence between the bugaboos of the Chomskyite left and modern-day Islamism. "Many social democrats have this stereotype that the corporate world, the U.S. and Israel are the real evil. And [since] Islamists are also against Israel and America, [social democrats] sense an alliance with them."

But the really "lethal mistake," she says, "is the confusion of Islam, which is a body of ideas, with ethnicity." Liberals especially are reluctant to criticize the content of Islam because they fear that it is tantamount to criticizing Muslims as a group, and is therefore almost a species of racism. Yet Muslims, she says, "are responsible for their ideas. If it is written in the Koran that you must kill apostates, kill the unbelievers, kill gays, then it is legitimate and urgent to say, 'If that is what your God tells you, you have to modify it.' "

There's nothing wrong with criticizing an ideology. Like Islam. Or Leftism. If you believe your ideology, then defend it. Responding to criticism with censorship or violence is a sign of either sadism or insecurity, perhaps both.

This poor lady lives in fear for her life because she criticized an ideology. How many bedwetting Bush Police State hallucinators can say that?

Illegals Still Officially Unwelcome in Escondido

Yeah, yeah. More local politics. Stop whining and pay attention. The national media and both major political parties are doing their best to ignore immigration during this election season. Escondido is part of California's 50th District, where a race between an anti- and pro-illegal immigration candidates is on for control of a seat formerly occupied by bribery convict Duke Cunningham. Have you heard about this anywhere else? Probably not.

Yes Iran, Iraq, the Jihad, and our problems with various overseas strongmen and their nuclear playthings are bigger, longer term problems... if the US can get its immigration problems under control. If it can't then all those other causes are as good as lost, or at least alot harder to win.

The US won't be able to effect squat overseas whether it balkanizes into a schizophrenic mixture of wealthy law-abiding and poor lawless communities or simply degenerates into an anarchic bloody mess like Mexico.

We've sent thousands and spent billions to fight head-sawing savages halfway around the world. Do you think we could spare a bit to keep the same kind of people from overstaying their visas or walking across our borders? Do you think we could go further than that, but no less called for by our duty to the law, and go house to house to find and deport anyone who isn't a legal resident? I say yes. And I'm getting old waiting for our government to do what the law and the people say is right.

Marie Waldron on Immigration - Escondido City Council, 18 Oct 2006:

Some people say the cost to defend this is too much. Hogwash! What is the cost of not doing it? Can we afford to sell out the future of our country, sell out the future for our children?

Enough is enough. That's why we need to take control of our own communities. One city at a time. We want our cities back, we want our country back. Enough is enough.

The only political motivation is that of those unwilling to enforce our laws. When I came into office I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic so help me God. Not to be popular, do nothing, and get re-elected.

There is a moral right and a moral wrong. We as a city have every right to enforce occupancy standards the best way we can. We as a city have every right to enforce Federal law.

The ACLU will say otherwise. Section 8 U.S. Code 1324 Federal Immigration and Nationality Act states that harboring an illegal alien is a violation of federal law. Although the ACLU will say we're creating new law, we're not. We're just enforcing the law that already exists.

We're dealing with the direct effects of the federal government not doing their job. To look the other way is treasonous. Not supporting this ordinance and I've said this before is by de facto supporting sanctuary status plain and simple. Sanctuary laws are illegal in all US states and cities. Not to enforce our Federal immigration laws is purely a political decision that has no legal basis.

Section 8 U.S. Code 1324 says:

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

My emphasis on the paragraph relevent to Escondido's new ordinance.

Now at least one person argued to the council that because the code is titled "Bringing in and harboring certain aliens" that the "and" means you have to both bring in and harbor aliens in order to be guilty of anything.

This argument, like most others from the pro-illegal side, is absurd. As if we must interpret "1185. Travel control of citizens and aliens" to only apply to people who are both citizen and alien.

Even though 1324's list is incomplete it obviously tries to be specific about various components of an enormous illegal human trafficing system. It is a shock and disgrace that such a system has been tolerated by our government without debate and without the consent of the governed.

Now the criminals and their co-conspirators want debate and consent - a debate over how they are to be legalized, and consent from them that it is enough. It is disgusting that such a clear wrong, already well addressed in current federal law, has to be reiterated over and over again to morons who ordinarily spend their time clamoring for government to act on things not even enacted into law.

Do listen to Marie's whole statement. She covers very well much more than I've excerpted and extrapolated on above. We need more patriots like her at the State and Federal levels.

Illegals Officially Unwelcome in Escondido

Another small step in an ongoing struggle to state the obvious.

Calif. city bars illegal immigrants from renting
Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:11pm ET

ESCONDIDO, California (Reuters) - Local authorities in Escondido, California passed a controversial measure on Wednesday to prohibit landlords from renting to illegal immigrants, a law which opponents say is racist.

The city is the latest of several from California to Pennsylvania which have passed laws in recent months to deny access to housing or jobs to illegal immigrants in their communities.

Lawmakers in Escondido, which lies about 50 miles north of the Mexican border near San Diego, passed the measure by a 3-2 vote following a heated debate that was interrupted by shouts, chants and catcalls.

Police officers removed two men from the council chamber after an argument erupted, while outside city hall dozens of police and sheriff's department officers separated boisterous supporters and opponents of the law. There were no arrests.

The law is set to come into effect in 30 days in the community of 140,000 residents, where more than a third of the population is Hispanic.

There you go America. Be glad this law passed, but it won't be worth much unless the Feds not only close the border but also begin actively seeking out and deporting illegal immigrants everywhere, and quickly.

Marie Waldron, the woman behind the Escondido ordinance, is running for reelection. Please support her. Send her an email and tell her what a hero she is.

If you've never seen or heard a politician like her challenger, Olga Diaz, then steel yourself. Chicano politicians are coming your way. Loud. Angry. Insulting. Arrogant.

Why take my word for it? I created a YouTube account and took a crash course in video editting just so you could watch Olga in action:

I'm gonna add to my list of greatest hits and call you people nuts. You're either incompetent or malicious and neither speaks well for our council. You have given us a black eye in this community. Sam and Ed you have held this city down while Marie kicked it around. That man just told you that study you keep waving around in the air as proof in the pudding that this city is pouring down the drain, you have misused it. You have violated the trust of this community, you have angered the community, you have divided the community. Hell, we don't even have a community any more. Do you feel happy about that?

And it occurred to me the other day you might not know how to turn back. You just might not know how to look these people in the eye and tell them that you're not going to support this ordinance. You're probably afraid of them. Most of the people here are. They're unreasonable. They're not even nice. There is no conversation going on about this. There is no dialog. You are in a position of power when you should consider it a position of service. You have done a disservice to this community. That's unfortunate. I don't know how else to tell it to you other that straight up. You are wrong.

Which community is Olga talking about? The illegals and their compadres?

Over the course of months, during several public meetings dozens of people had an opportunity to speak, including some who spoke only in Spanish or broken English. They pleaded for compassion. They cited the UN. They said not having illegals would hurt their businesses, or simply hurt their feelings.

The arguments in favor of illegal immigration make no sense. But they've been heard. Loud and clear. How can anyone pretend there has been no dialog, or that anyone but the scofflaws are being unreasonable or divisive? Divisive, as a subsequent speaker well put it, is waving a Mexican flag at a demonstration in the USA. Divisive is ignoring the law. Divisive is demanding special treatment for yourself or your compadres. Divisive is hurling insults.

The common theme of pro-illegal arguments is: leave this alone, or else. Or else the economy will suffer. Or else God will disapprove. Or else we will make trouble. Which of course only reinforces their image as lawless sociopaths led by treasonous rabble rousers.

The difference between what the Escondido city council is doing and what Olga Diaz would prefer is the difference between night and day. On the one side you have a group doing its sworn duty in the full light of public scrutiny. Holding open discussions broadcast to anyone who cares to watch and recorded so posterity can understand.

On the other side are the low and slimy tactics of a group who knows the immigration status quo is wrong and unfair. They have silently defied the law for decades - with no announcements, no hearings, no consent from the people. Motivated by financial gain, leeching directly or passing the costs off to others. So accustomed to the crime that for them it is no longer a crime, or for that matter even a source of shame. They can "migrate" wherever they like and those who already live where they feel like migrating can go to hell.

This past spring they thought they were strong enough to finally come out in the open. The reaction they got was probably not what they expected. Even the illegals have by now noticed that "migrants" have "migrated" to almost every corner of the US. Hence the nationwide outcry. A ton of bricks, real and electronic, shipped to Congress indicates the depth of American's dismay at how out of control immigration has gotten. They want it fixed, pronto.

So. Now completely exposed and clearly unwelcome, what do the pro-illegals do? Complain there is no dialog. Cry racism. Make demands. Threaten lawsuits. And through it all show no regard for the rights and desires of legal residents.

Fortunately the heroes serving on the Escondido city council are aided by ordinary people speaking out. America has been and still can be a wonderful melting pot, given a reasonable rate of influx. The best evidence of this is that her most moving defense comes from legal immigrants. Inoculated against slurs of xenophobia and racism these people waited in line, and have friends and relatives who are still waiting. They came not only to escape a bad situation elsewhere, but to become Americans. They have integrated into society. They respect its norms and laws, and lend their support to it.

Take for example Saul Lisauskas, who spoke right after Olga Diaz. And make sure to watch Olga's face in the backgound.

Federal government has failed to do the job it is supposed to do for us. Thank you very much for you doing the job. The federal government doesn't do it, we have to do it. This is We the People. This is We the People government. For the people by the people.

Just consider this - what she just said. They are being the ones insulting us. They are attacking us. They are coming here breaking the law. They continue to break the law. And you know what's going to happen next? You do not fit the mold. You're not brown enough. You're not Mexican. You're not from the south of the border. You will be voted out even if they even if they succeed in doing what they're trying to do.

This is what's called Aztlán, Reconquista, la MEChA, La Raza is coming here. So please stand up and thank you very much for doing the job. You are doing it correctly. Thank you.

I took the liberty of adding the links. If you haven't heard these words before go read a bit about them.

Did you see Olga's face? You can practically hear her thoughts. "We the people? Yeah whatever. Attacking us? Smirk. That's right gringo, you better be afraid. The law? Well shit, I got nothing for that. Squirm. Toss hair. Brown? Feign shock. Reconquista? Oh crap. Feign ignorance. Do the other gringos understand him? Ohhhh man I hope not. Ok, act natural..."

Olga showed a different face in a previous appearance:

If you're gonna do this, do it right. And know what you're getting us into and know what we're getting out of it. I'd just like to speak in support of making sure we are all aware of the costs and again then we can measure the benefits.

"Make sure we know what we're getting into" indeed. While we're at it let's find out what we're already into. How much has illegal immigration already cost? How much will it cost if we do nothing? We're told immigrants are a boon to the economy. Whose economy?

Empire of Liberty

Max Boot defends America's Wilsonian Instinct:

Admittedly, American attempts to safeguard liberty abroad were limited in the 19th century, when the U.S. was still a third-rate power. But Americans were excited by liberal revolutions, whether in Latin America, Greece or Hungary. Even John Quincy Adams—the secretary of State who said that the U.S. “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”—horrified the monarchs of Europe by urging their subjects to rise up and seek their freedom. The Monroe Doctrine that he helped write was an attempt to keep Spain and other European autocracies from expanding their domains in the Americas.

The U.S. was not willing to fight for purely idealistic motives—something we’ve never done, not even in Kosovo or Iraq. But whatever other motives were present, there was a powerful idealistic impulse behind all of the nation’s 19th century wars, from the War of 1812 to the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War and numerous smaller forays abroad to safeguard American traders and missionaries.

Contrary to the animadversions of Iraq war critics, there is nothing new about spreading democracy at gunpoint. The central philosophy behind Manifest Destiny was the belief that Americans, as the champions of liberty, had a right to annex not only all of North America but also territories from Hawaii to the Philippines. So successful were the Americans in establishing their “empire of liberty” (Jefferson’s phrase) that today almost no one realizes that the “winning of the West” was imperialism in another guise.

Properly understood, it is not the Wilsonians who are outside the mainstream of American foreign policy. It is their realpolitiker critics who seek to import an amoral approach to foreign policy that flourished in 19th century European chancelleries but has never found a home in the land of the free.

To which I would add that an Empire of Liberty offensive is especially appropriate in light of and in response to the recently rejuvenated and metastasizing Jihad. And that Jihad's existential threat to free civilization should fill its members with resolve - not fear, self-doubt, nor self-loathing. Wilsonian or not, who cares? Speak up. Do your part. We can only hope it is not too late to change the ugly course of history.

A history Spengler confidently describes from a theological angle:

Pope Benedict XVI's September 12 speech provoked a fruitless debate over the remarks of a 14th-century Byzantine emperor about the evils that Mohammed had brought to the world. Nothing ever will be learned, much less proved, by this tedious and sophomoric exercise. Gathering dust half-read on my desk are a number of books recounting the supposed evils of Islam - by Ba'at Yeor, Oriana Fallaci, Serge Trifkovic, and many others. There is not a speck of theological insight in the stack of them.

Western policy toward the Muslim world appears stupid and clumsy because its theological foundations are flawed. It is not what it is, nor what it was, but rather what it does that defines a religion: How does a faith address the paramount concern of human mortality, and what action does it require of its adherents? I addressed these issues under the title Jihad, the Lord's Supper, and eternal life (September 19), explaining that jihad does for Muslims precisely what Communion does for Christians. It is not a doctrine but a sacrament, that is, a holy act that transforms the actor.

If you have a taste for barbequed neocon be sure to read the rest. Pity pithy Spengler doesn't think much of Boot or other pundits with similarly sensible opinions. I doubt he's read even half of their books. Even so Spengler's oxymoronic theo-logic and Boot's Americentric secu-logic complement rather than contradict.

Never mind these retards.

Water in the Hole!

The flood continues and our leaders seem capable of nothing but excuses. Here's something you may not know:

According to a RoperASW poll, the majority of Americans favor reductions in immigration levels, severe penalties for using false identification, and more involvement at the state and local level to help locate and deport illegal aliens.

What's incredible is that this poll was taken more than three years ago, long before the pro-immigrant rallies forced the media to report on the issue, at least a little. News of the prevailing opinion can only surprise a member of the majority because it is never mentioned. Not the polls. Not the results. You have to be a sinning racist xenophobe to even be curious.

It was in fact only because I stumbled on the following claim in the November Playboy that I became aware just how clear and consistent public opinion is on immigration.

Three quarters of PLAYBOY readers think illegals should be deported, only slightly lower than the national rate.

I had never heard of such results before, and I'm not exactly uninterested in the subject. The news media grows ever more obsessed with polls, except apparently when it comes to immigration. Thankfully the internet and its search engines are not run by the government or mass media. Yet.

Most legislators either lay low or pass new immigration laws they have no will to enforce. Some do both. No new federal laws are required to immediately stop the flow of illegal immigration. Man the border. Build a wall. If you're in Congress try working more than 50 days a year. Your job is to represent your constituents and uphold your oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

If you have misgivings, or feel oppressed to be placed in the unthinkable moral dilemma of having to choose sides (Allah forbid), then you should bow out of the job right now. The oath is meant to weed out the weak-willed. Well, that and to ensnare traitors who would harm the country from the inside.

Social servants, for example, who should be looking for ways to detect illegals and make it harder for them to stay, not easier. Their treason is less overt and perhaps even unconscious but it does as much damage as the example set by Azzam the American. Plenty of Azzam's buddies have already come to the US and overstayed their visas. We can be sure they really appreciate how concerned we are for the comfort and convenience of illegals aliens.

Federal Reserve Helps Illegal Immigrants
October 11, 2006

As the immigration debate heats up, the U.S. Government agency that serves as the nation’s central bank has quietly created a program that provides low-cost banking services to illegal immigrants.

To facilitate the process for immigrants sending money home, the Federal Reserve graciously created “Directo a Mexico,” which enables remittances to be transferred through the agency’s own automated clearinghouse linked directly to Mexico’s central bank (Banco de Mexico).

Since we're so desperate to encourage even more illegal immigration let's make sure everyone knows just how easy it is to come over, drop a baby (for free), and go on food stamps.

Food-Stamp Program Finally Speaks Their Language
By Jennifer Delson, Times Staff Writer
October 13, 2006

Though it goes against the conventional wisdom of anti-illegal immigration supporters, those who enroll the poor in the federal food stamp program say they've struggled for years to get immigrant Latino families signed up.

Now a Spanish-language news report and television ad campaign have spurred thousands of immigrants in Orange County over the last several weeks to contact a nonprofit organization that offers a Spanish-language class called "Food Stamps in Four Hours."

. . .

The Orange County strategy has been lauded throughout the state as a way to reach immigrants who are reluctant to get help from the government.

"They won't come on their own," said Jerry Sanders, food bank manager of the nonprofit Community Action Partnership of Orange County in Garden Grove. "They come from countries where they think the government isn't to be trusted. They figure there's a catch to free food."

Advocates say immigrants, if here illegally, are also worried about being deported if they apply for food stamps. Or they fear jeopardizing a pending application for residency or citizenship. Illegal immigrants can apply on behalf of their minor children here legally.

Other immigrants say they were simply embarrassed.

"The Mexican man is macho. He doesn't want to come to this country and beg," said Alfonso Chavez, the Community Action Partnership's outreach coordinator. "I tell them this is a program that will help the children. The kids are American-born, and they have a right to this program."

Wonderful. We've got so much money we can blow some getting the word out that we're giving it away.

Aliso Viejo resident Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, which fights illegal immigration, said the Orange County program encouraged illegal immigration.

These immigrants and their children "should only be given life-saving medical care," Gilchrist said.

"If we encourage illegal alien families to come forward and exploit the … system, aren't we encouraging more illegal immigration? We have to cut these benefits off."

Thank Allah for the Minutemen.

If you live in the US you may not think such incentives are a big deal. Don't neglect the coupled impact of clear and supportive pro-immigrant messages coming from official sources. The government is saying in effect that the situtation for illegals is going to change. It's going to continue to get better.

In Mexico they're calling their coyotes.

And Canadians are revolted at the idea they'll soon be flooded with Americans. Thanks to johkiter for the link.

911asshats.org

Almost half of this week's South Park episode, Mystery of the Urinal Deuce, was Mr. Mackey pinching off one hilarious scat euphemism after another. All because someone left a chocolate hotdog in the urinal.

The other half mercilessly ridicules various 9/11 Bush cabal conspiracy theories. If you're one of the "retards" who thinks neocons brought down the WTC change the channel because you will not be amused.

As for the rest of us, the next time some ninny claims the Pentagon was hit by a missle make sure you point them to this brief video. Clockwork Orange gear may be required to get them to watch.

Even if that works there are plenty of other retarded theories. See for example 911Truth. Cartman says there's a 25% chance you're a believer. 911Truth says Zogby says polls say it's more like 46%. We are now entering another dimension.

The Shot Heard Across Southern California

This past Wednesday there was a skirmish over immigration in Escondido, a small city just a bit north of San Diego. Three of the five city council members voted to pass a law prohibiting landlords from renting to illegal aliens. Although it is a small and local victory we can only hope it's effect will reverberate nationally much as Hazleton already has.

For those who don't live along a major invasion artery this might give you some idea what the situation will shortly be like for you:

ESCONDIDO – The immigration debate raging here and across the nation seems to attract metaphors about rushing water – flood, deluge, awash, rising tide – to describe the numbers of people flowing illegally across the border.

City Councilman Sam Abed prefers precise figures to metaphorical references. Abed's numbers are startling: One Escondido resident in four, he contends, is an illegal immigrant.

Emphasis mine. Chew on it a moment.

Would you believe there are some who quibble over the numbers? And at any rate they have a problem with local government getting involved.

(Escondido Mayor Lori Holt) Pfeiler doesn't see it that way. Illegal immigration, she said, is a federal issue.

“If you want to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, you have to stop it at the border and on the job,” she said. “This whole debate about quality of life – how do you measure that? How do you define it?

“If the figures here really were 25 percent, what would happen if we removed 25 percent of our workers, 25 percent of our renters, 25 percent of our customers, in one fell swoop? It would be fascinating to do that and see what would happen.

Fascinating, yes. Is this a trick question? What would happen is there would be 25% less people. Less production and less consumption. Less load on the infrastructure. Less impact on the environment. Less crowded classrooms and hospitals and jails. Lower taxes. In fact, because the group that would be reduced tends to be more poor and less educated we can expect the positive effects of sending them away to exceed what would happen if we simply selected 25% at random.

What's the illegal ratio where you live? There are 10-20 million illegal immigrants in the US, whose legal population is just topping 300 million. That would be about 3-6% on average. What numbers would impress you? Whatever they are they'll be reached soon enough if the US maintains the status quo.

In defiance of such fatalism Marie Waldron, Sam Abed, and Ed Gallo voted to act:

Action begins when a resident, an official or business files a valid complaint with the city.

Landlord is then required to produce proof of a tenant's legal status.

City verifies documents with the federal government.

Property owner would be notified of a violation.

Business license suspended if illegal tenants not removed within five days.

This hardly seems unreasonable to me, and in support I appeared outside city hall before the meeting Wednesday. Later I watched the preceedings on local cable.

If you want to see what real people really have to say in an area inundated by illegal immigrants, unsquelched and undistorted by the overwhelmingly pro-immigrant mainstream media, then go watch the meeting.

Allow me to summarize.

Those showing up in support of the new law were fewer, older, and frankly a bit more loner/oddball. Their speakers were generally respectful and thankful to the board. They see the flood of illegal immigrants bringing poverty, crime, and disease; and consuming the city budget. To stop this they want US immigration laws strictly enforced. They ask local government to act mainly because the Mexican, US federal, and state governments have not.

Those opposed to the new law were greater in number (outside at least), and generally younger. They included many children. Their speakers generally showed distain for the board. The most honest among them were obviously motivated by compassion. Their God knows no borders. No one is illegal. The immigrants are poor and we should help them.

This is understandable, though it seems hopelessly naive. There is no end to poverty. Once the other 9/10ths of Mexico have moved north who shall the US import next? Where will everyone go once the US has been turned into the same sort of 3rd world shithole Mexico already is?

Far worse than the compassionists are the slick and well-educated weasels who pursue instead one of several angles with a thuggish flavor.

First there is the ACLU lawyer who questions the constitutionality of the new law and threatens to sue. Does the A in ACLU stand for Alien now? Escondido taxpayers harmed by the ACLU's actions might consider a class action lawsuit of their own.

The mayor agrees with the ACLU that immigration is entirely a federal responsibility. Law-abiding citizens are left to wonder why when a cop spots a bale of marijuana in a car driving through Escondido they don't say, "whoa drugs, that's a federal issue, and we can't even call the DEA"! The notion that state and local government has no right to protect its citizens and carry out their democratically expressed will is nothing but the wishful thinking of criminals and their apologists.

Then there are the self-proclaimed activists who should know full well the generousity and tolerance Escondido has shown immigrants for decades. Even so they can't keep themselves from throwing wild accusations of unfairness and rasism, obviously getting very wound up in their projected hatred. Their tone and demeanor at times becomes menacing.

Then there are the landlords and business owners. Does everyone realize this law will cost them money? Funny, they didn't mention that it's black market money. And they seem not at all concerned about the costs to their law-abiding neighbors.

Landlords also say they don't know who is illegal or how to check. In this they have a good point. A point that puts in perspective the modest progress that has been made in the fight against open borders and how long a road there is left to travel.

Why won't the government provide a secure, reliable, and drop dead easy way to verify anyone's citizenship or immigration status? Why won't they make this seemingly definitive service of government available at little or no cost? Why won't they apply this database to anyone who interacts with the government in any way? Voting, traffic stop, DMV, hospital visit, ... How if the government lacks the wherewithal to this can they require small business owners to shoulder such a burden?

I recently stumbled across some very interesting comments on the vast gulf between the elites and ordinary folk on immigration. It goes a long way toward explaining why US borders are open and why they will stay that way unless we continue to fight against it. Thankfully the Escondido city council isn't yet controlled by either the elites or their imported lackeys.

Llib Notnilc

As if Jimmy Carter wasn't bad enough last week we got a visit from Llib Notnilc.

No, not this notnilc. I refer of course to affable ol' country boy ex-President Bill Clinton's angry alter ego. You know, the man we see every so often when Bill "Chuckles" Clinton steps back and Llib "Moonbat Superhero" Notnilc steps forward. The eyes get squinty, lips purse. A finger wags and a raspy voice rails in a petulant tone against the injustice, the impudence of the mere posing of a question. As of late, the performance ultimately devolves into a fulsome little turgid screed against the ever conspiring right-wingers.

The most recent sighting came during Chris Wallace's interview of Clinton on Fox.

A few years ago Llib Notnilc lashed out at Peter Jennings.

Back on November 18, 2004, in the midst of a quite positive ABC News prime-time special about the dedication of the Clinton presidential library, Bill Clinton angrily wagged his finger at Peter Jennings, accusing ABC of conspiring with Ken Starr to "repeat every little sleazy thing he leaked" during the investigation into Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice.

And then there is of course this classic from 1998.

But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people.

Liar. He was too distracted to worry about bin Laden, al Qaeda, or the resuscitation and spread of jihad. And too small a man to take responsibility for that fault.