An Open Letter to Mitt Romney on Illegal Immigration and Caving in General

Romney's immigration stance may soften to appeal to Latino voters

Mitt Romney may adopt a softer tone on illegal immigration now that the long and divisive primary is over and he gears up for a head-to-head battle with Barack Obama....

"We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," he told donors, according to NBC. Latinos' overwhelming support for Democrats and Obama "spells doom for us," he said.

---

Commentary by walford

Not all Latinos support illegal immigration and those who do would NEVER vote GOP in the first place. We don't need them. They are either hell-bent on Reconquista or they are not eligible to vote. Both of those groups will be voting Obama in November.

Rather than enforce existing laws, is Romney willing to try to be more of an appeaser to illegal immigration than is Barack Obama? If so, he will fail at this and instead only serve to alienate the Republican base who will be only more inclined to either stay home or vote third party.

What should be done instead? We do not need to militarize the border, build a wall or seek mass deportations. Instead, three things that will cost no money will more than suffice in addressing the illegal immigration issue effectively.

1. Reserve all taxpayer-funded benefits for U.S. citizens and legal residents. No driver's licenses. No welfare. No food stamps. No education. Such services should be sought in their native lands. The United States is not obligated to provide for the rest of the world.
   
2. Clarify the 14th Amendment so it applies as it was intended when enacted. Those born slaves or born to slaves in U.S. territory are citizens. Those born to non-citizens -- particularly those who are here illegally -- are citizens of their home countries. The United States is one of the few countries of the world that do not have this policy. There is no good reason for pregnant women braving the desert in pursuit of giving birth to a taxpayer-funded meal ticket.
   
3. All who are convicted of crimes in this country and found to be here illegally should be summarily deported.
   

These and similar measures will result in many who are here illegally deporting themselves as well as those who are contemplating coming here remaining home and reforming their own countries. The number of American unemployed will have more job opportunities and higher wages as the labor glut is alleviated. By all means, compare the number of unemployed Americans to the number of people in this country illegally.

It is said that Americans would not pick strawberries or pluck chickens, so we must allow illegal immigration, guest worker programs and/or amnesty. In actuality, Americans would not do such work at the wages paid to people here illegally by exploitative employers.

Fostering or even tolerating illegal immigration is not compassionate. It is cruel.

Mexican governments over the past couple of generations have been spared internal pressures to curb the cronyism, respect human rights and foster a business-friendly environment. Why? Because the United States has been serving as a political and economic safety valve for various despotic regimes in the world. The results have been bad for ordinary people on both sides of the border.

Gov. Romney, I implore you to reconsider on this and all other major issues that you may be considering conceding in pursuit of so-called moderate voters. Ronald Reagan won decisively in two national elections because he unabashedly held to the principles upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln was founded. Unity. Freedom. Family. Self-Reliance. Empowerment. God. Country. Security at home and abroad.

We have had enough of having the GOP leadership taking the base for granted and attempting to placate the squishy middle. They will be attracted to those who actually stand for something. Prove your conservative detractors wrong and don’t betray us. Show us the courage of convictions and don’t apologize for who you are or for America.

Both parties know well what the will and interests of the American people are with respect to illegal immigration and have let us down.

Too many Democrats consider them voters to be bought with taxpayer-funded largesse. Many also are attracted to the fact that they come from places where questioning government authority is hazardous to one's health.

Let us not count you, Gov. Romney as among those Republicans who are beholden to commercial interests that are addicted to cheap, easily exploitable labor.

Redistribution, collectivism and economic freedom

Commentary by walford

Governments cannot redistribute wealth; they can only redistribute poverty. Governments cannot eliminate or curb poverty, they can only eliminate or curb wealth.

The only choice we have is a shared poverty under collectivism and central planning or "the disparities" that accompany the prosperity that is enabled by economic freedom.

There is no way to grow an economy to the benefit of all w/o the rich getting disproportionately richer. So if the very poor will have their wealth tripled, the very rich may have their wealth multiplied a thousandfold. Is this bad? Is a shared poverty preferable?

That is because Economic Freedom raises the bar on how much wealth that it is possible to create. And the concept of created wealth is something that collectivists cannot possibly fathom.

Do not begrudge Bill Gates his fortune. He did not attain it at our expense, taking a larger share of finite pies than the rest of us as the advocates of redistributionist central planning would have us believe. That may have been true under pre-industrial agrarian economies, but not since then.

Bill Gates and those like him have baked new, better, cheaper pies. In the process of enriching himself making computers more powerful and easier to afford, he has also increased what it is possible for us all to attain.

He is a greater benefactor to mankind than Mother Theresa could have been in 10 lifetimes.

Gay Marriage: "Conservatives Understand Liberals. Liberals Don't Understand Conservatives."

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives/%28page%29/1

"Liberals see conservatives as being motivated by an opposition to liberals’ core values of compassion and fairness, as well as being motivated by their own (non-moral) values of in group loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and spiritual purity. For instance, when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights."

---

Commentary by walford

When Rick Santorum was recently being interrogated at a college forum about his opposition to gay marriage -- when he wanted to talk about the economy -- a part of his response [that was ignored by the media] was that civil unions are available. [I would add that a person can designate anyone to have financial and medical power of attorney.] He also went on to say that those who wish to change existing laws should make their case [democratically] in the legislatures by our elected representatives rather than in the Courts [by an unelected elite with lifetime tenure whose rulings are only subject to review by other appointed judges].

I would go on to add that marriage is an institution that has developed independently in every society and pre-dates written history. The community as a whole is invested in it because a major aspect and result of marriage -- under what circumstances children are born and reared -- has an effect upon us all. When humans were rare and vulnerable, our ancestors developed social structures and norms that had a direct effect upon survival of the group. We are each descended from those who made the right decisions in that regard.

If the vital institution of the family is to change via government sanction as well as by social mores, this is something the general population needs to discuss at length and any laws enacted be subject to revision and review as consequences make themselves apparent.

Conservative opposition to taxpayer-funded birth control -- beyond any religious objection -- is that it, in combination with abortion, greatly contribute to Westerners selecting ourselves for extinction and women being expected to sexually service men with no commitment. We do not regard this as being liberating or respectful. Behaviors are enabled that in turn create opportunities for micro-organisms to develop -- which our vaunted technology then helps to spread globally -- that otherwise would affect local populations only. Our fertility and continued survival is thusly undermined further. Conservatives consistently hold that Nature's Laws cannot be cheated and that we cannot change the rules of life on this planet to suit fleeting urges.

The pattern is familiar enough. First we are lectured about being tolerant. Then we are pressed to be accepting. All too often it is finally demanded of us to subsidize.

I will be so bold as to say that the above more typifies the conservative mindset than the Straw Men that are so routinely offered to be knocked down.

Instead, it is alleged that conservatives are waging a war on women's freedom and prudishly desire to impinge upon everybody's fun. We are telling people with whom they can be intimate because we are homophobic. And let us entertain this widely offered accusation for a moment. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals because the afflicted person fears that exposure will bring forth his/her own latent homosexuality. A phobia is a mental disorder. Therefore, those who think that homosexuality is anything but something one is born as; if it is considered anything other than an equally valid alternate lifestyle -- are proof-positive mentally ill. This blanket diagnosis is issued on a regular basis, regardless of the nature of the contrary view -- be it religious, biological, psychological and/or..."ew".

This demonstrates how Leftist caricatures of conservatives are ultimately based upon elitism. They cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them without being by definition stupid, ill-informed, and/or evil. Also, it is quite possible for Leftists to insulate themselves into intellectual enclaves of the like-minded with little exposure to the contrary.

For our part, we conservatives would have to take great lengths to avoid the Leftist viewpoint. They dominate the entertainment industry, the media, academia and the political class. Predictably, they look upon this from an elitist lens as well. In candid moments, they let it slip that they think that this is so because they are better informed.

The reality is the Aristocracy has shifted from being by birth to that of political pull. It is no less medievalist. The general population is on a visceral level distrusted as incorrigibly ignorant and should therefore be silenced or marginalized if it cannot be manipulated into accepting dicta from Our Betters.

We are constantly barraged with The Cause from the schools, the news and entertainment. This in turn has created a hunger for alternatives -- hence the increasing interest in vouchers, home-schooling as well as the high ratings of conservative news and commentary. The general population may not have had the level of access to information as did the self-appointed elites -- the Internet has served greatly to equalize that disadvantage -- but they have always had Common Sense. People know when they are being lied to and when they are being sold a bill of goods.

We are neither stupid, ignorant nor evil -- as the Left thinks and hopes we are.

Hence, the majority -- knowingly or not -- still holds to the essential conservative values of freedom, individual responsibility, objective reality and morality as being something that is externally generated and thus must be discovered, rather than made.

This frustrates, infuriates and terrifies the Left.

Natural Law, Natural Religion

 Commentary by walford

"Natural Law" is a concept that developed under the Enlightenment. It essentially means that we are all born free and that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our freedoms. That means it should protect us from criminals..., foreign invaders and to settle disputes. It means that we can do anything so long as it does not adversely affect anyone else [hence pollution would still be illegal and the existing laws could be even more strict].

It does not mean that government should provide for us or coerce us to conform to an arbitrarily defined Utopian ideal designed by a self-appointed elite.

Natural Religion is that which is based upon the Laws of Nature, which are to be discovered, not made by Man. The Holy Scriptures are written in how the Divine operates directly rather than in the writings of man. Penalty and reward issue from the consequences of our decisions -- collectively and individually. If one puts his hand in a fire, he burns. If we engage in behaviors that create an environment that would spread disease, that tribe with be wiped out. If our government implements an economic system based upon faulty logic, the system will collapse.

In Natural Law and Natural Religion, the standards are understood as objective -- externally generated. Under Utopian ideology and dogmatic religion, the standards are subjective -- internally generated. Under those ideologies, rather than learning of the world and adapting, the object is to force others to conform to one's own perspective because we believe we each generate our own reality. The content of other people's minds is thus a potential threat as contrary thoughts can potentially destroy the arbitrary ideal.

My Ongoing Spiritual Journey

By walford

Like most of my contemporaries, I thought that the religions deemed acceptable by our culture defined all for religion. There was no connection with the Divine, rather what was important was that you agreed with other people's perspective and accepted their mythology.

My skeptical mind could not accept that, so I thought that I was an atheist. But at the same time, I held a great reverence for life. The more I studied in the life and physical sciences, the more I appreciated. Many scientists can be found expressing themselves in reverential tones about the objects of their research – and for good reason.

None of our technology can come close to what enables the simplest of living things. The electro-chemical processes that take place on the surface of a cell membrane are nothing short of phenomenal. Competition seems to be an essential part of life; even lifeless chemicals compete with each other for space. It seems that the essence of the struggle for life is which strands of genetic code will survive into the next generations.

The delicate balances that permit life on this planet, such as the orbit’s size and shape, the Earth’s tilt, speed of rotation, the magnetic field, etc. are astounding in their precision. There have been a number of what seems like interventions when the “reset button” on life has been pushed, such as the mass-extinctions that took place at the beginning and at the end of the Mesozoic Era. It’s almost as if that particular paradigm had been exhausted in potential and needed to be swept away for the next stage of development.

I found that science wasn’t enough to grasp these phenomena, so I researched religion. Sometimes I sat in on observances by those who would allow it. Many of them were followed by testimonials from the practitioners, saying that one didn’t need to understand why things worked, just BELIEVE and so many good things would happen. That wasn’t good enough.

Besides, I saw the danger of cults who would invest themselves with Divine sanction, which permitted them to command other people to suit their needs and do great evil.

But my research also yielded unmistakable evidence that, as our species spread throughout the planet, people developed religion independently of each other. [I know of no atheistic tribe leaving evidence of itself.] There were certain Sacred images they had in common, such as a mother cradling her infant child. A woman was often seen as channeling the Divine as she brought life into the world. The practices of the earliest religions were similar also. They danced and sang around fires. They knelt upon the Earth, raised their faces to the sky and gave thanks to that which propitiated life.

Their observances were based upon the phases of the Sun and Moon, because they are vital to life. We seem to have lost that – particularly the reverence for Nature, the appreciation for women and the female aspects of the Divine. Often it has been replaced by a sterile, gloomy, male-dominated system that functions more like an expansionist political ideology than anything else. It could not suffer competition from anything that would put an objective standard above their subjective cult, characterizing that which they aimed to replace as demonic.

So what comes from Nature is evil and what is fabricated by man is good? We can have a Father and cannot have a Mother unless she is lesser-than and subordinate?

Our species started out rare and vulnerable; we were most definitely NOT at the top of the food chain. There were many fits and starts in our development. Most of the experiments failed. We are descended from those who found a way to survive.

As such, there was no room for cults of personality that put the will of certain people above Nature. The successful religions had in common that life is Blessing, there is Order and Justice in the universe, we have a stake in each others’ welfare – and most importantly, in the world we leave behind.

We seem to have forgotten this and do so at our peril. We are no less subject to Nature’s Laws. All our technology has done is make it so the consequences of behaviors that are toxic to life are spread to the general population. We are still not exempt as our entire civilization hurtles toward a significant fork in the road.

Lets us discard our prejudices and emulate our ancient ancestors whom we must thank for our existence today. There is no secular or religious “ism” made by man that can replace the Laws of Nature.

I write this during the time of the year when the tribes of the Northern Hemisphere would be reaping their final harvests. They took the time to remember their forebears, purge bad habits and plant the seeds for the future.

Let us take this time to give thanks for the Blessings of Life by nurturing what brings it and discarding what harms it.

Be Blessed.

Technology and Open Communication Blamed for Suicide

Virtual Homicide, Virtual Suicide
By Dr. Keith Ablow

Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, 18, killed himself Sept. 22 after his roommate Dharun Ravi and his roommate’s friend Molly Wei allegedly taped him - secretly - in an erotic, homosexual encounter in his dorm room and then broadcast the video via Skype.

This "stunt" isn’t just a college prank gone bad. It is evidence of the dehumanizing effects that technology is having on young people. I very much doubt that Ravi and Wei are murderers at heart. The "thrill'' of using a Webcam and Skype and Twitter to playact as producers and directors turned their victim (Clementi) into nothing more than another contestant on a mean-spirited, ill-conceived reality show.

That’s what technology does to people, though. Working from behind a camera and sending images into Cyberspace now removes the human face from the actions of many, many people. The hardware and software of Skype and Facebook and Twitter and many, many other Web standards can be a virus that scrambles the code of the empathy on the hard drives of their souls. They literally turn into the purveyors of entertainment who lose sight of where Web life begins and real life ends...

---

Commentary by walford

Technology didn't cause this to happen. In the past, the perpetrators could have secretly filmed this with still cameras. Prior to that, they simply could have told people what they saw and the result would have been the same. People have had videos made of themselves doing worse things and didn't commit suicide.

Certainly the irresponsible people who posted the video should be prosecuted for privacy invasion and possibly sued for precipitating this situation, but ultimately the person who killed himself was entirely responsible for his rash decision.

People like Dr. Ablow apparently are not comfortable with the fact that individuals can instantly publish all kinds of things w/o being filtered by Our Betters in the government or media. A healthy discussion on how to cope with this inevitable phenomenon in a free, technologically advancing society is certainly warranted and desirable.

But let us not cast blame upon an open means of communication and information-sharing.

What is Fascism?

Commentary by walford

Collectivism is an Utopian ideology which holds that everything and everybody belongs to a group, usually based in a certain location and is typically put into practice at a national scale. Collectivists believe that everything is produced by society as a whole, rather than the accumulated effort of individuals. Rather than allocating resources based upon effort, innovation, hard work, etc. and determined by supply-and-demand, collectivists believe that resource allocation and compensation should be allocated based upon "need" as determined by the political class. [In practice, resources are allocated based upon political considerations, with the most going to those most politically connected.]

Karl Marx and his ideological descendents developed the roots of modern collectivism, which then were put into practice either with government or private ownership. In both scenarios, the government actually controls property and individuals, ostensibly for the common good.

Socialists believe in collective [viz. government] ownership of the means of production.

Fascists, by contrast, tolerate private property, so long as it serves the State. They view private property as an allowance granted by the government and often refer to take-home pay that is not expropriated by the tax collector as a cost to society as a whole. They firmly believe that the State is the people and the people are the State. Therefore, the more powers the State has, the more empowered are the people. [Modern fascists express this as "we are the government" in response to objections to increased power centralized in the government.]

Rather than being driven by ideology, fascists think that there is a coterie of Our Betters who are somehow endowed with a certain Wisdom that is unassailable by reason and is superior to popular will -- which must often be thwarted if it cannot be manipulated. That's because the masses have been corrupted by the capitalist bourgeois culture and therefore don't know what's for their own good. They hold that everything belongs to the collective, so they often characterize a tax cut as a "bailout" or a "givaway" while taking from one and redistributing to another is regarded as an "entitlement." One is entitled to anything but their own earnings.

Hmm. Any fascists amongst contemporary politicians today?

The racism of the German version of fascism was peculiar to early 20th-century Germany [not Italy], but it should be noted that the National Socialist Worker's Party believed that the Jews were not only genetically inferior, but also were a pathogenic bourgeois capitalist element that was economically exploiting the German people.

Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same statist, collectivist coin. Their modern descendents are elitist and disdain democracy in favor of a cadre of Philosopher Kings to run our lives because we are too stupid/ignorant. The only difference between the medieval Divine Right of Kings and today's collectivists is that the latter holds that leadership should be selected by political pull rather than birth. Ideological heirs to medieval aristocracy, they share the conviction that the general population should be kept poor, ignorant and disenfranchised.

That they characterize themselves as "progressive" is therefore absurd. Their medieval mindset is the very definition of reactionary, because freedom is the most radical idea and the optimal human condition.

They are against anything that empowers individuals and for anything that empowers the government, holding that the only true freedom and justice can come from the State. Their modern ideological heirs are diverse in its particular goals, but is united in the proposition that all solutions involve higher taxes and bigger government.

They distrust private enterprise and hold that competition should only take place in the political arena as a blood-sport. They consider government spending to be "investment" while monies allocated by private concerns to be greed-motivated exploitation. And greed is only defined as economic aspiration, while lust for political power is not something they like to talk about.

This cadre is populated by incorrigibly intolerant True Believers who cannot abide that their conclusions would be subject to question, holding that anyone who disagrees with them are by definition stupid, ill-informed and/or evil.