3 replies »

  1. My sentiments correspond directly to those expressed in this article. This is what I have been jamming down the leftard’s throats for some time now.

  2. Speaking of the leftard’s, have you seen these latest comments from Brad Spangler:

    ““If I was on a jury, I would not vote to convict any accused assassin of any politician who voted for, or signed, the Arizona immigration law. Such an act would be a matter of morally legitimate resistance in defense of the natural human rights of the innocent, as I see it.”

    This was quoted on the NoState.Com blog: http://www.nostate.com/3600/brad-spangler-on-the-arizona-immigration-law-horror/

    What I find odd about the hysterical reaction to the Arizona immigration law is that there are many, many laws on the books at every level of government that are far more onerous or draconian than the Arizona law. Examples include the Patriot Act and other measures generated by the War on Terrorism like military tribunals, most legislation associated with the War on Drugs, an wide assortment of anti-crime legislation, civil asset forfeiture law, aspects of self-defense law, many different gun laws, aspects of environmental law, even many routine activities of regulatory bureaucracies and social service agencies like CPS. Yet, none of this generates public protests, federal lawsuits, boycotts of entire states, or (in Spangler’s case) assassination and other things we see happening in response to the Arizona law.

    While no fan of police or law in general, it seems to me the reaction to the Arizona law is wild hysteria. Pat Buchanan explains the content of the law:

    “And what exactly is at the heart of the Arizona law?

    Simply this: Being in this country illegally is now a misdemeanor in Arizona, as it is in U.S. law. And as a 1940 U.S. law requires resident aliens to carry their green cards or work visas at all times, Arizona will require police to request such identification if, in a “lawful contact”—a traffic violation or altercation—the officer entertains a “reasonable suspicion” the individual may be here illegally.

    Is this really Nazi Germany? Does this really justify the hysteria? And if this is the Gestapo, why did Holder not make this feature of the law the grounds for his Justice Department suit?”

    In other words, the Arizona law is comparable to laws against trespassing and those requiring motorists to carry a driver’s license, which can only be enforced as a secondary matter after police conduct has already been made for some other purpose. Whether anyone approves of this or not, there are plenty of other state actions that are far more oppressive, extreme, or invasive of individual liberties or privacy.

    On top of that, elites proper have been outspokenly opposed to the Arizona law (e.g. Obama, Holder, Bloomberg). Does this indicate that immigrants are an oppressed minority? Or does it indicate that immigrants are a class that are actually favored by elites?

  3. I’ve long believed that the only thing that really sets our approach apart from that of the Infoshoppers is the question of universalism. For instance, they’re big on “immigrants’ rights” while many in our camp recognize the myopic nature of that. But I’ve argued before in favor of making the immigration issue a matter of local sovereignty, meaning communities dominated by liberals and leftists could have a permissive immigration policy if they wished.

    On cultural matters, I’ve argue for Live-and-let-live, and where this is impossible, simple territorial separation, which means religious conservatives, ethnic preservationists, racial separatists, cultural traditionalists, social conservatives, pro-lifers, etc. would have their own institutions, organizations and communities while liberals and leftists would have theirs. Nor does this mean that established values in a particular community are written in stone, for all eternity. People in a conservative community could agitate for more liberal values and policies, and vice versa. Decentralization would also lower exit costs and migration costs for individuals or minorities (political, cultural, racial, sexual, economic) who feel put upon.

    On the majority of cultural issues, I’m probably more of a leftist than a rightist, but facts are facts. I know totalitarianism when I see it.

Leave a Reply