One of the main reasons why advocates of tighter immigration controls
and, well, less immigration altogether, into the United States
are becoming increasingly worried is because they have seen the
“balkanized” writing on the wall.
Unlimited immigration, combined with an activist (read:
socialist) federal government, is creating small nations within
the larger nation of America. Radical black and Latino leaders, mostly, are to blame
for this, but the hapless minorities who buy into their “nationalist”
speech and hate rhetoric against all things white and all things
American are ruining the last vestiges of hope some of us still have
that this country will someday prove to be a true “melting pot” of
freedom and liberty.
Regarding what is coming on the horizon, if you thought all the
trouble in the Balkans and in Yugoslavia proper was bad, brother — you
ain’t seen nothing yet.
When American towns can adopt Spanish as an official language and get
away with it (even though Arizona cannot adopt English as an official
language), something’s amiss. When an obviously black radical leader
with a history of spouting violent (read: hate) speech can be
granted a permit to start a riot by a federal judge, something is wrong
Add innumerable (and gullible) immigrants to this explosive mix —
who buy this tripe hook, line and sinker — and you have the historic
of the destruction of this country, because no one who ought to know
better is or not too scared of being called a racist bigoted pig has the
cajones to stand up and call this stuff wrong.
There is no reason why America cannot — and should not — have legal
immigration. At the same time, there is no reason why this country
cannot demand that its immigrants conform to historically
American values, customs and societal norms. After all, we
used to demand these things of our immigrants — when white
Europeans were flocking to America. Why not now? What has changed?
The political landscape, that’s what. Too many U.S. politicians are
nothing but cowardly, vote-scarfing racial carpetbaggers who are too
self-absorbed to care about what they are doing to the rest of the
people in this country — of all colors.
It is no secret that the average Hispanic, black, Asian, and white
does not subscribe to an agenda of hate and radical nationalism.
We’d all rather just get along because it’s easier, better for everyone
involved, and it makes sense. So why do our leaders foster and foment
hate by bowing to the radical few — because they’re scared of a label?
It is also a provable fact — California’s recent overwhelming vote
to end “bilingual education” being just one example — that most
Americans, regardless of their heritage and ethnicity, support
standardized, common norms regarding customs, language and societal
behavior. But, obviously, our politicians do not. They’d rather pander
to special interest groups — minorities within minorities.
That’s not “representative government.” And it’s not American.
The rise of the South(ern) Party
Along the lines of the balkanization of America comes a new entity to
the political scene — the Southern Party, formally launched several
weeks ago and in direct response to the unresponsiveness of
federal (and state) politicians.
Lots of otherwise intelligent people have already tried to label
these “crackers” as nothing but racist slugs seeking an end to American
society as we know it. Actually, part of that is true; these people are
not “racist slugs,” but they do indeed seek an end to American society
as we have come to know it. That’s a good thing, however, because
society as we have come to know it is a cesspool of
government-subsidized nannyism, amoral behavior and
In essence, the Southern Party seeks one of two things: A reversal of
the federal government’s penchant to operate outside of its
constitutional parameters or a “peaceful” resurrection of the
Confederacy. The latter cannot happen “peacefully” in my opinion, but
that’s another issue.
I applaud the formation of this party and add this — were it not for
the complete failure of the country’s two main political parties to
deliver constitutional government to either constituency, the Southern
Party would never have been founded. That’s just a fact of the matter.
Furthermore the party’s open-door policy of accepting members (and
potential political candidates) regardless of race is a direct
slap at the official pandering of the Leftist hate specialists and
“official” policymakers who would love to paint these people as little
more than an official wing of the KKK.
It just ain’t so and that, I believe, is what scares “The
Establishment” the most. Good.
GOP campaign finance hypocrisy
Included in the list of the “10 things we most want to accomplish” —
a.k.a. the Gingrich-sponsored 1994 GOP “Contract With America” — was
campaign finance reform. The Republicans, we were told, had had it with
all the money corrupting the electoral process here in America.
Well, that’s not the case anymore, as a story in yesterday’s
Capitol Hill Blue
eloquently points out. And can you guess which political party is the
most upset by a group — of all people — of business executives that
supports reforming the campaign finance laws?
Yes, of course — the Republicans. Surprised? Me, neither.
According to the Blue story, a faction within the Committee for
Economic Development (nearly half the membership, actually) is
“convinced, whether it is this fall or a year from now, we will have
campaign finance reform because there is a revolt brewing.” In essence,
these people — tired of helping to finance ever-more-expensive
political campaigns — feel like the parties are “shaking them down”
and, quite frankly, they’re tired of it.
But the Republicans don’t get it. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who
heads fund-raising efforts for Senate GOP candidates, recently wrote
business executives saying he was “astonished to learn” their companies
were supporting the CED “in its all-out campaign to eviscerate private
sector participation in politics.”
“Eviscerate private sector participation in politics?” Who are you
kidding, Sen. McConnell? There is no “private sector
participation” in politics, Sen. McConnell, because the ordinary people
you’re supposed to be representing don’t have deep enough pockets to,
shall we say, get your attention. That’s the real private sector
— the American public — not some gaggle of corporate donors. Is it
that hard to tell senator?
The mere fact that the GOP’s own fundraising guru panders to
corporations instead of ordinary Americans ought to tell you something
of what he thinks about the GOP’s constituency. There may be a lot of
money in corporate boardrooms across the country, boys and girls, but
there aren’t a lot of votes there. And isn’t getting elected supposed
to be a numbers game?
Republicans have become Clintonesque (Orwellian perhaps?) in
asserting that limiting campaign contributions amounts to a violation of
free speech. Now I ask you — since when does giving money amount to
speech? How much speech does a $20 contributor to the RNC get compared
to a corporate contributor giving $250,000? Wouldn’t putting the
constituents’ concerns first help generate both votes and cash?
It is precisely this kind of arrogant hypocrisy that is driving away
the GOP’s core conservative constituency. Bolt, Pat, Bolt!