Polite Kid

Polite Kid

0 comment Thursday, July 24, 2014 |

This is a video montage of a town called Lorain, Ohio. I've never been there (to my recollection) but the scenes of this town could be your town or mine, back in the old days. The people could be your neighbors or mine.
I can't tell you who the singer is, singing the accompanying song, but it's very touching.
The comments at You Tube are the usual combination of ignorance and profanity, and many of them indicate that Lorain has deteriorated. It looks like it's the familiar story: changing demographics, according to this page.
So in a way, it is a prototypical American town. Lorain's story seems to be the story for too many of our towns today.
Still, the scenes of the town in its better days show us the America that once was, just as a reminder of what we have lost, or are losing.

Labels: , ,


0 comment |
We've got a problem on the right.
The American people as a whole are sorely divided in many different ways: one generation against another; the social classes (which do exist, though not in the European sense) are divided, and of course race is the biggest and most serious source of division. The deep rift between left and right, which has become a chasm in recent decades, is largely centered on race, even more than on class conflict. The left have worked themselves up into a frenzy over how 'racist' most of their racial brethren supposedly are, and they are willing, it appears, to see open conflict over this.
Bring religion into the mix, and you have one more source of deep division. So with the Islamic population that has been imported into our country, bringing with them religious and racial disparities, you have a very volatile combination.
The events over the last several days in Oregon, with the Somali immigrant attempting a bombing at a Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony, have caused something of a revival of discussion of the Islamic question. On several genteel conservative blogs there is actually rather tentative talk about curbing Moslem immigration, and -- imagine! -- sending them home.
A few years ago, I asked why we are so afraid of the 'd' word (deport). We were not always afraid of it; Eisenhower, who was hardly a right-wing nativist, actually did deport a good many illegal Mexican migrant workers. But now, the word deportation has, thanks to the left and their media, been associated with phrases like 'cattle cars' or 'tearing families apart.' But all 'deport' means is to send somebody back to their place of origin, otherwise known as home. Imagine that.
I still think we ought to use the simple phrase ''sending them home''. The left are diabolically good at finding emotionally-laden words to use against us; we can respond by refusing to let them dictate the terminology and the words used to frame the debate.
About this time, someone will suggest that it is horrifying to send people back to some pestilential and dangerous country like, say, Somalia. But pray tell, how did Somalia, or other such places get to be cesspits? And will those same conditions not eventually develop here as we import the authors of all the chaos to live among us?
But back to the question of Islam specifically: there are many on the right who believe that Islam is not a threat except insofar as we cause that to happen. We, with our evil foreign policy and our War On Terror, have caused terrorism. Actually I can't help but remember that my far-left friend, whom I have known since college, said the exact same things. You might say in response, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Leftists might be right about Islam and our wars in the Middle East.
Nonetheless, I always stop and think twice if I start to agree with my lefty friend.
For the record I opposed the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's one of the things (immigration being another) which sent me running and screaming away from the GOP. I started this blog as a way of examining some of these issues and also as a way of exploring where I belonged on the political spectrum, as I was not an average Republican nor was I a paleoconservative -- because I did not agree with many paleos that Islam was not a threat if we simply leave them alone.
I am all for leaving them alone, but to say that they are not our enemies is not possible for me.
Here we read a frequently-quoted right-wing writer scoffing at the idea that Islam is a threat.
Consider that ten minutes before the first tower got hit in New York, the thought had occurred to practically no one in America that Islam constituted a mortal threat to all that we hold holy, chiefly chain restaurants and iPods. But Islam afterwards offered to fill this void that the Russians had wimped out on. For a brief period after the implosion of the Soviet Union, Americans had no threat to worry about. They found it deeply puzzling. Weren't we supposed to be afraid of something? It didn't feel right.
Then came New York, and suddenly we saw it: The Clash of Civilizations. Islam was out to get us. Why hadn't we noticed? A roaring hatred for Moslems sprang up from people who had never met a Moslem, who had a garden slug's grasp of history. A deep satisfaction came over the land. We had been made whole again.
Battling Mohammedans quickly became an industry. The government at first tried to peddle Terrorism as the enemy, not Islam, but it didn't stick. Something more robustly flackable was wanted.
I find Buchanan, of the American Conservative, proclaiming that Islam is a Culture of Jihad, and most militant. No doubt. Very. Would it be poltroonish of me to note that just now Christian armies are busily annexing and wrecking Afghanistan and Iraq, having recently bombed Somalia?
[...] Those Moslems. Militant, they are. The bastards.''
I don't know if Reed is a Christian; I don't read his stuff often, but it appears he is not. I also know he is an expatriate who is married to a Mexican and who has Mexican children, so I consider that as having abandoned his American identity. Fine; he's done the right thing to move to Mexico.
But I think his writings are very influential among some on the right, and there are many around the right-wing blogosphere who say things much like Reed says above.
I don't see what solutions he offers except to leave the poor Moslems alone, but what would he have us do about those who are in our midst, like the Christmas bomber-wannabe? Oh, perhaps he'd say that the incident was ginned up by the powers-that-be, that it was a sting, that the boy was lured and baited into a trap.
Honestly, I acknowledge the basis for a lot of the cynicism on the right; I have a certain degree of it myself. But do those who scoff at the idea of an Islamic threat believe that everything (like 9/11) was an 'inside job' or a 'false flag operation'? I have a feeling that when/if another major incident happened, most on the hard right would say that it was a false flag deal. Is it not even possible that there might be genuine terror attacks?
I am just trying to understand the mindset; do people believe that Moslems in general do not hate us or consider us their enemies? It's easy to rationalize their militancy by blaming it on our government, but doing so ignores the long history of Islamic hostility towards Christendom, and their repeated attempts to conquer our forefathers or convert them forcibly. Moslems not only invaded, repeatedly, our ancestors' homelands, but often kidnapped and enslaved numbers of Christian Europeans. We have a long, troubled history with them which starts long before any of our current foreign policy mistakes.
And leaving the question of 'terrorism' aside, there is the very real problem of the gradualist approach wherein Islam colonizes Western countries with the express purpose of Islamizing them. They don't even need violence to attain their ends, as they simply immigrate en masse, bring their relatives, and have many, many children at their hosts' expense. All the while, as they reach a critical mass, they get a foothold in influential positions, and agitate against the host country's culture and religion. We see what is happening in Europe; how can one blame this on our foreign policy?
No, they've always been hostile to us and always will be. We cannot coexist in the same country, not without losing our identity and being absorbed into their race, culture, and religion. It can't be done.
But the fact that the right is divided on this issue is a big problem.
I wonder if some on the right see Islam as a weapon to be used against Christianity, much as the Christ-hating left sees them? The left is so consumed by their hatred and resentment of Christianity that they will submerge their own agendas (feminism, gay rights, atheism) and take their chances with Islam rather than co-exist with Christianity.
The left are playing the game of siding with ''the enemy of my enemy'', and hoping to make common cause, dancing with the devil. They are doing this at their peril, as they may well see someday -- or maybe not.
Incidentally, Chris Roach has a very good piece discussing the potential for the 'suicidally liberal' people in Oregon to wake up to reality.
''It�s not clear if an event like this, even if successful, can remove the politically correct scales from the eyes of Portland�s leaders. Theirs is a web of deception that will likely detect, even in this, a clarion call to redouble their efforts of outreach, tolerance, and the like. Liberalism like that of Portland�s mayor renders intelligent people stupid and blind to basic reality.''
I tend to think that the true-believer liberals would actually rather die and feel good about themselves while doing so, than to violate all that they believe in and identify with. I just hope that our whole society isn't taken down with them.

Labels: , , , , , ,


0 comment Wednesday, July 23, 2014 |
Found among the comments on this thread at TexasDarlin's blog, posted by 'Feeling Hoodwinked':
From We The People USA
I saw today that Obama had been in touch with some Dem Senators to introduce legislation to amend the 10th Amendment.
By doing this, they hope to prohibit state's from being able to declare Sovereignty (which is what the 10th Amendment is about).
They will rush this through and surely pass it, as it is a Dem dominated Congress (as we saw first-hand with Porkulus bill)...
I have not been able to find anything about this supposed counter-effort by the administration, but I would be interested if anyone else has read or heard anything about it, although the same quote is the basis of another discussion here.
I did find a couple of pieces which are worth a read, including this one, State Sovereignty Movement Keeps Growing and this fairly lengthy piece: Firestorm brewing between U.S. States and Federal government.
And on the topic of secession, I trust you've all read or heard about The Occidental Quarterly's essay competition on the subject of secession and racial nationalism. Some of you here could probably submit good entries on those subjects.

Labels: , ,


0 comment |
Did you know that there is a French blog for Ron Paul?
Ron Paul France
There is also a Belgian blog, and a Brazilian one. Ron Paul is evidently drawing interest and attention around the globe.
Michael Nystrom, editor of the Daily Paul blog, says
For the first time ever, last week the site passed 4,000 visitors in one day, and not two days later passed 5,000. Yesterday, thanks in part to the bump from the Wired News article that mentioned the site, we hit an all time high of 5236 visitors in one day. This is 100% growth since the end of May, and tremendous growth from back in February, when Ron Paul's grandson Matt Pyeatt started blogging on the site. Back then, 400 visitors was a good day!
Of course these figures are just reflecting the larger trend moving through society. There is a hunger for truth that is not being fulfilled by MSM and the current political leadership. Ron Paul just passed 18,000 YouTube subscribers. This is tops, by far, of any of the candidates. ''
I think Nystrom is correct that there IS a hunger for truth, and the old media and our current crop of discredited and corrupt politicians cannot provide what this country needs. We need a complete change, and I think the Paul phenomenon is a manifestation of that genuine searching for truth and for a desperately needed alternative to the failed status quo.
The GOP loyalists who have been so disparaging of Ron Paul and his supporters are fooling themselves if they write this phenomenon off as just a few zealots spamming online polls, and hyping their numbers. Clearly the traffic to the Paul blog is one indicator of the interest that is out there.
I know that in my own site statistics, there seem to be many people googling Ron Paul's name, looking for news and commentary about Ron Paul. The Republicans are whistling in the dark by pretending that Ron Paul has just a few fanatical supporters. They only wish that there was as much interest in their stale candidates as there is in Ron Paul.
Tom Tancredo could and should be distinguishing himself from the rest of the herd of candidates, but for whatever reason, he has not been very visible in this campaign so far. (Oh, and by the way, stop by Tancredo's website and sign his Save America petition. Even though the amnesty bill is officially dead, it will reappear in some other form.)
I do wish Ron Paul would speak out on the border issue, since it is crystal-clear, after this amnesty debacle, that the people are highly incensed over our sieve-like borders, and the ongoing invasion. But so far, Paul has not addressed that red-hot issue, choosing to concentrate on the war in Iraq. Maybe this is because the media prefer to highlight the fact that a Republican candidate has dared to defy the party line on Iraq.
In case I haven't posted this before, here is the link to the Ron Paul archives, where you may read articles by Dr. Paul on a number of issues. Read what he has to say on other issues such as hate crimes, the stem cell debate, economic issues, the United Nations, and neocons.
I can't find much to disagree with in his thinking; he is sound on all the important things, and sadly, I can't say that about most of the candidates.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment |
Darrell Dow at the Dow Blog has a particularly fine post about 'Guilt, Atonement, and Foreign Policy.'
How has this desire for atonement driven American foreign policy? Through the systematic propagation of guilt, Americans have been indoctrinated with a belief that their history is little more than a series of power-grabs, a desolation of innocents. We are repeatedly assured that our history is simply an account of guilt toward Blacks, Jews, Chinese, Indians, Mexicans and ultimately the entire world.
The result of this defective history is a politics loaded down with guilt, in the face of which the populace assumes a posture of submissiveness. A foreign policy elite than is able to advance its interests by claiming a "humanitarian" justification for military adventurism, effectively placing guilt on one party in the midst of great complexity (e.g., Serbs vs. Bosnians, Russians vs. Georgians, etc.). Thus we are urged to atone for our sins by "saving" a "tyrannized" people from their "oppressors."
The other possibility is to heap the guilt upon ourselves and assume responsibility for every malady on all continents. All the guilt for the starving and oppressed of the world or the ruination and environmental degradation of the planet is thus placed squarely at our feet. Atonement in this scenario leads to foreign aid schemes and similar looting of taxpayers.
Good points. And so many of the Christians I know are heavily into guilt over poverty and want in the Third World, which they deal with by constantly fixating on the Third World in their charitable works, at the expense of charity nearer to home. But there isn't as much glory and applause and potential for patting oneself on the back with doing kindnesses to people right here at home.
But please read the rest of the post at Dow Blog.

Labels: , , , ,


0 comment Tuesday, July 22, 2014 |
At the C of CC website, there is a short piece about the demographic changes due to Hispanic immigration, and the growing percentages of Hispanics inn certain states.
''Some findings:
All states so far show substantial growth in the number of Hispanics. In several states, the Hispanic population more than doubled from 2000 to 2010. For example (in thousands)
Alabama (76 to 186)
Arkansas (87 to 186)
Maryland (228 to 470)
Mississippi (40 to 81)
North Carolina (379 to 800)
South Dakota (11 to 22)
It's pretty startling to see it in the numbers here, although anybody paying attention can see the changes being wrought.
The states listed above are states that heretofore had not had large Hispanic populations. Some of the Southeastern and deep South states had not ever had significant numbers of Mexicans in the past.
Some of the increase in numbers is due to 'natural increase', as Hispanics do tend to have more children, but it would appear that despite the occasional article in the controlled media telling us that the illegals are returning home, there are undoubtedly many new 'arrivals' each and every day.
The most absurd thing, in the face of this evidence, is the fact that the number of '12 million illegals' continues to be quoted as fact, even though the same figure has been used since at least 2005. Somehow, magically, there are always only '12 million illegal immigrants' in our country. "Always leave room for more" I suppose, is the rationale for continuing to use that same absurd figure.

Labels: , ,


0 comment |
Over at An Englishman's Castle, blogger An Englishman lists his "50 reasons to love America." This makes a nice contrast to the usual anti-American sentiment one finds on the Internet, and it reminds us that not everybody on the other side of the pond loathes us, as so many American insist.
So go over and read the thread there; it's interesting to read what people value about America.
I'd like to see America draw closer to our cousins across the Pond; we are all in the same boat, and I wish them well in our common struggle. I don't take part in the Europe-bashing or UK-bashing that some in our country are too quick to engage in.
I may be inspired to write 50 reasons to love the British people.

Labels: , , ,