A Pyrrhic Victory? Please

The Southern Agrarian writes: Friday, June, 29, 2007 9:33 PM
TSA:
"the fact that I called you a klansman is a truth"

No it obviously isn't, it's just a clever distortion harking back to the days when the South was Democratic and Republicans gave a damn about civil rights. Many of the people crowing victory under this column sound alot closer to stringing people up in trees and setting them on fire than I'LL ever be.

"you are a liberal,"

THANK YOU!

"a multiculturalist,"

MUCHAS GRACIAS! (und viele dank!)

"a democrat,"

By far the lesser of today's two evils

"a socialist,"

But this is going too far! I can't be your whipping boy for every bad idea ever held by a Liberal. (Jeez, I recognize that the Right has had FAR TOO MANY awful ideas to dump them all on one person.)

"a believer in smearing your opponents as racists, xenophobic, and hate-mongers."

Sometimes the truth hurts, TSA. You're not ALL racist xenophobic hate-mongers, but check out this guy:

===============
Sam (6/28 8:25 PM):
"I say shoot illegals if they cross the border. They are not legal citizens."
===============

and this guy:

===============
UncleSam76 (6/29,3:59 PM):
"A surefire fix to the illegal alien problem would be to pass a law requiring every illegal alien to take a midnight ride across the Chappaquidick bridge with a drunken Ted Kennedy as their driver."
===============

and ESPECIALLY *this* guy:

===============
Super freak (6/29 9:27 PM):
"BEANERS
GOOD BYE CHERRY PICKERS YOUR NOT WELCOME IN OUR COUNTRY GO BACK TO YOUR SEWER YOU 3RD WORLD FILTH"
===============

The above do not sound TO ME like fair-minded citizens solely concerned with proper respect for our country's laws. How do they sound to you? Yes, you DO have a share of racist xenophobic hate-mongers like the above in your cadre of immigration reform opponents. And many more of you disguise it via code-words like "our culture" and "our American Heritage", as if embracing and absorbing the best of ALL foreign cultures were not at the Heart of our American Heritage.

"You are for silenting debate through the fairness dcotrine."

Please read the first response to Rich Lowry's 6/25 article here on TH titled "Imbalanced on Talk Radio". Many, many Liberals oppose the fairness doctrine.

Though I found much to dislike in the just-defeated immigration reform bill I was for it because it contained provisons for a Guest Worker Program. A well-designed and implemented Guest Worker Program is ALL that we need to resolve the illegal immigration problem.

In return for legal status, freedom from fear of being deported, and a chance to seek work in the U.S., the vast bulk of the people now sneaking across our borders would instead line up for Guest Worker cards with the best identity documents that their country of origin can provide, and be issued a Biometric Guest Worker ID bearing their photo and prints. They'd pay a small part of the fee they now pay to coyotes who dump them in the desert. The current complement of Border personnel could now deal with the tiny numbers of real criminals, drug smugglers, and terrorists who are still trying to sneak in.

In their own self-interest employers now forced to hire illegals in order to stay in business would instead hire legal Guest Workers as they become available (for the same wages) over Illegals. Knowing that employers finally have a practical legal recourse to going out of business, law enforcement officials would be far more enthusiastic in enforcing laws against employing illegals. Illegals would thus be STRONGLY incentivized to document themselves and become Guest Workers.

Finally, and best of all, these Guest Workers would no longer be in the underground economy. Presumably they would be eligible for lesser benefits than citizens, and they would pay taxes to fund the services that they consume.

There! NO stupid publics work project (The Great Wall of CA-NM-AZ-TX), NO massive Federal Hiring Spree to multiply the numbers of border guards, and NO erosion of civil liberties and expansion of the 'Nanny State' via a national biometric ID for citizens. Just a problem solved, cost-free, by free-market principles.

And I see no reason why our country should not strengthen itself via allowing successful guest workers to eventually become citizens.

Pork barrel legislation is pork barrel legislation is por barrell legislation. That is what the CIR was, not a solution or a fix to the problem.

Our American Culture does by all means take in other cultures, but they are assimilated and not forced on us by elites sitting in Washington D.C. who do not live with this problem daily. The American Culture is unique, because it is not based on race, creed, religion etc., it is based on the ideals of classical ideology - the rule of law, limited government, strong families, free markets, freedom of association, free speech, - the American sentiment.

It is our sentiment, American sentiment, that serves us as a people as a filtering system that has made this a great nation, not allowing lawlessness to rule the day. When politicians and activists take up the sentiments of others and try to impose them on the American sentiment - it results in what we had with the CIR defeat - the people from all walks of life stood up and said NO!

I am not opposed to a temporary guest worker program, I am not opposed to immigration, I support both, but under orderly legal systems. I have supported both opening in efforts as I did in 1986, but to allow an all out invasion with no checks by our government is anarchy, not enforcement and that my liberal multicultrualist is wrong, wrong for the nation, wrong for our culture, wrong for our society.

As far as my characterization of Democrats as what they are is my belief. I grew up with Klansman democrats, all they have done as a party is changed their alliances and victims.

They still conduct lynchings daily of those they disagree with through the politics of personal destruction. I simply do no yeild any ground to any democrat on that issue, because I fought democrats all my life over these issues.

Just as democrats have changed their alliances and victims they have changed their stratagems and tactics based on the laws of the land. They can no longer as a party, and which they did, call up their terrorist buddies in white robes of decades past to do their bidding.

The underlying reason for the changes, is they wished to remain a natianal party, but they still engage in racialists, xenophobic and hate-mongering politics.

I can't and don't want to deny you the validity of your own personal experiences. I believe you when you say what you've experienced, and most people in and around the Democratic Party of today don't think about or acknowledge the war waged by Southern Democrats against Equality and Civil Rights up to the 1960's.

But surely you can find enough examples in plain view to at least acknowledge that nowadays hate-mongering is a thoroughly bi-partisan practice.

No I do not concede the point. The great harm done to 'the people' emanate from the unintelligence of all those who embrace estatist solutions in our society and overtime. The forces of reaction include all those who wish to use the power of the state to impose some 'mystical' vision of order on the rest of us.

I do not differentiate between the estatist democrat or the estatist republican. They seek power over others, rather than liberty. their vision of order means 'freedom to' do whatever they want. I believe and it is the American political lineage to see 'freedom from' oppression and estatism.

between estatist on one end of the libertarian on the other. There are no right-wing nazis and left-wing communists, they are the same, they differ only in doctrine.

The modern democrat party is situated in the estatist camp, Fabian socialists, seeking their imposition incrementally.

The national democrat party is as guilty as the 'dixiecrats' because their tacit and overt endorsement of racialist politics and repression as a means to maintain power.

There is no difference between estatists (Libertarians occupy the other extreme).

There is no difference between estatists (Libertarians occupy the on the other extreme).

There are no right-wing nazis and left-wing communists, they are the same, they differ only in doctrine.

The modern democrat party and parts of the republican party are firmly ensconsed in the estatist camp. They are more insidious, they are Fabian socialists seeking their imposition incrementally though artifice and stealth.

DIXIECRATS: The national democrat party is as guilty as the 'dixiecrats' because their tacit and overt endorsement of racialist politics and repression as a means to acquire and maintain political power.

What does this mean?

Estatism is the use of State power through coercion, compulsion, etc. to rule over others, that is, the desire and power to direct other people's actions and impose a vision of order (ideology or sentiment) by will power, viz., national socialism, communism, Fabian socialism (modern day liberalism) and other variants.

Fabian socialists believe in a velvet revolution, that is, they believe through their superior educations and minds that they can convince people to accept their ideas without violence. They are panty waisted gutless intellectuals of the modern era – professors and activist - holding to the views of Marxism, socialism and their own benevolent actions, i.e., their self delusional belief they are benevolent, seeking to codify their vision of order through statutes and laws in an attempt to regulate human actions. It is embodied in interventionism and nihilism.

They are gutless because they seek to enslave others without telling the truth about the consequences of their actions, i.e., their laws and ideas – Ideas Have Consequences. They can not even admit that they are socialists, they are mislabeled as progressives (even liberals), when what they seek is the most reactionary of all policies - estatism. Man has been running from estatism his entire existence, from the tribal chief, war lord, king, emperors, or modern day dictators. Hillary Clinton is certainly not a liberal in the classical sense, she is a reactionary seeking to use state power and to have all Americans submit to the will of the State.

As we have witnessed over the past 70+ years, the Fabians have made great in roads toward bringing about state socialism, but they have now been countered by libertarian thinkers, mislabeled as conservatives. I am no conservative, I do seek to preserve my culture, family and society, but I am for freedom for all, equal opportunity for all. The modern intellectual labeled a conservative is at their heart, libertarians.

We believe in liberty, meaning 'freedom from' the State, from despots, from dictators, and from regulations. The less of government, the better society becomes. The State remains the most bigoted, reactionary, oppressive, racists, xenophobic, polluting, warring, enslaving agent on earth.

More Estatism, Statism, is not the answer to the world’s problems, it is less.

As our population increases, and arguably as our society becomes more complex, if the Government does not increase in real measures of it's size, then there is actually less Government per person. I don't think that is sustainable, it's logical endpoint is anarchy.

Not that it's impossible to have too much Government; it certainly is and maybe we do. But I think that some growth in the size of Government is natural and OK.

What is natural growth? WE do not need more government, we need far less. We do not need a nanny State. Government growth should never be greater than the private sector, that has not been the case since WW-II. Government has assumed too many functions that traditionally been accomplished by the private sector (through associations and fraternal organizations).

Estatism is build on our premise - your assumption "as our society becomes more complex, if the Government does not increase in real measures of it's size, then there is actually less Government per person. I don't think that is sustainable, it's logical endpoint is anarchy."

That is why we now have a government than can't even protect our borders or carry out the simplists functions of government, it is too large and too cumbersome....

Please, the only complexities are created by the State. Complexity is part of deceit and deceit is purposeful strategy in selling the State.

Just look at the Department of Homeland Security if you want to see the 'natural growth' of government. What is unfolding is a general cluster (fill in the blank).