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.

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.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

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.

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.

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.