My arrogant opinions about politics, culture, science fiction, and whatever else I feel like talking about.

Today's Example of MSM Dishonesty

        Patterico catches The Los Angeles Dog Trainer at it again.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:08 | link | comments
msm, bias

Disgusting Stuff

        A member of the 'tolerant' left prays for Dick Cheney's death.  Truly vile.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:06 | link | comments
leftists, hate & haters

Steyn Pummels Peters

        For some time, Mark Steyn has been saying that Europe is washed up, do to demography: the only "Europeans" who are breeding at or above replacement level are the Muslims, so they will inherit the future.  He has a new column on the subject here.  Money quote:

        Here's the question for Bishop Kate [Jefferts Schori]: If Fatma An-Najar has 41 grandchildren and a responsible "better educated" Episcopalian has one or two, into whose hands are we delivering "the stewardship of the earth"?  If your crowd isn't around in any numbers, how much influence can they have in shaping the future?

        So as Steyn sees it, Europe is doomed, and will probably become a colony of North Africa.

        But Ralph Peters is disputing all that.  In his latest column, he writes:

              Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.

        THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened — even when the threat's concocted nonsense — they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity.  One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing. . . .

        From the French expulsion of the Huguenots right down to the last century's massive ethnic cleansings, Europeans have never been shy about showing "foreigners and subversives" the door.

        And Europe's Muslims don't even have roots, by historical standards.  For the Europeans, they're just the detritus of colonial history.  When Europeans feel sufficiently provoked and threatened — a few serious terrorist attacks could do it — Europe's Muslims will be lucky just to be deported.

        I understand Peters's reasoning, but he seems to forget, to paraphrase a philosophical saw, that " 'Will' implies 'Can.' "  Powerline commented on the question, and Steyn sent them an e-mail reply Powerline added to their post.  Steyn says in part:

        Had he read America Alone, for example, he would know that I do, indeed, foresee a revival of Fascism in Europe.  He concludes: “All predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.”  Which of us predicted anything about “going gently”?  As I write on page 105 of my book: “It’s true that there are many European populations reluctant to go happily into the long Eurabian night.”  What I point out, though, is that, even if you’re hot for a new Holocaust, demography tells.  There are no Hitlers to hand.  When Mr. Peters cites the success of Jean Marie Le Pen’s National Front, he overlooks not only Le Pen’s recent overtures to Muslims but also the fact that M. Le Pen is pushing 80.  As a general rule, when 600 octogenarians are up against 200 teenagers, bet on the teens.  In five or ten years’ time, who precisely is going to organize mass deportations from French cities in which the native/Muslim youth-population ratio is already — right now — 55/45?

        That seems right to me.  Europe may find a Hitler, but where will it find an SA and SS to do the dirty work?  Muslim "youths" are already a substantial part of the French Army.  How many of them are going to help murder their co-religionists, or just deprive them of the vote?  Rather few, I think.

        And would even genocide save Europe, assuming it was carried out successfully?  Over the past few months, Jonathan Last of The Philadelphia Inquirer has been writing a series on population decline.  As he noted in one article:

                An older, contracting population is a harbinger of dark times.  In the modern welfare state, the cost of caring for the elderly is largely shifted to the government.  Combine an increasing population of seniors with an increasingly expensive state pension and health-care system, and you have a portion of the budget that must grow ever larger.  The options: slash benefits, overhaul the system, or raise taxes.  As Longman explains: "Younger workers, finding that not only does the economy require them to have far higher levels of education than did their parents, but that they must also pay far higher payroll taxes, are less able to afford children, and so have fewer of them, causing a new cycle of population aging."

        In other words, the further the fertility rate falls, the greater the incentive for people to have fewer children.

        Capitalism is, historically speaking, a relatively new contraption, but recent experience suggests that capitalism and falling populations don't mix particularly well.  Consider Japan and Europe.  Japan's fertility rate is 1.34, 17 percent of its population is over 65, and its economy is a shambles.  By 2050, Japan will lose a seventh of its population, and the percentage of citizens over 65 will increase from 17 percent to 32 percent.  Italy — never, and certainly not now, a model of smoothly running capitalism — will lose 13 percent of its population, while the proportion of those over 65 will double to 35 percent.  In Russia, which is already losing 750,000 people a year, that future is now.

        So getting rid of the Muslims means getting rid of a large section of the population still of working age.  In the latest installment of the series, Last commented:

                As Massimo Livi-Bacci explains in his Concise History of World Population, more than 100 years ago, economists "feared that coal supplies would be used up, and about 30 years ago the Club of Rome made similar predictions regarding other raw materials."  Instead, markets and human innovation stepped in to provide greater efficiency. . . .

        Which leaves us with the economy.  In 1971, Simon Smith Kuznets won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of "tested knowledge."  As Kuznets explained: "More population means more creators and producers, both of goods along established production patterns and of new knowledge and inventions." . . .

        So the proposed "benefits" of population decline are, at the very least, suspect. . . .

        Between 400 B.C. and the birth of Jesus, world population increased from about 153 million to 252 million.  For the next 200 years, growth slowed almost to a halt.  Then, between A.D. 200 and 600, population shrank from 257 million to 208 million.  It took 400 more years for the population to recover to the level it had attained in Jesus' time.  [During this period of population decline and recovery Europe saw the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, and the Dark Ages — St. O.]

        The other drop in population occurred between 1340 and 1400, when the Black Death ravaged the world.  Global population fell from 442 million to 375 million.  Neither of these moments were particularly pleasant periods in human history.

        Or, as Mark Steyn notes in America Alone, "There is no precedent in human history for economic growth on declining human capital."

        It is impossible to predict with certainty the side effects of population decline.  But there is good reason to believe it will be bad for us.  Innovation will suffer as the demand for nearly everything (save health care) slackens.  The welfare state is unsustainable in a contracting, top-heavy population.  And instead of producing windfalls of excess supply, economies will probably contract.  As Livi-Bacci observes, "Historically, areas depopulated or in the process of losing population have almost always been characterized by backward economies."

        If Europe gets rids of the Muslims, just who is going to pay for its welfare state?  Bueller?  Anyone?

        The ref, ol' me, rules Steyn the victor by a TKO.

Posted by: saintonge at 00:16 | link | comments
culture, europe, foreign affairs, war with jihadism

Our Immediate Middle East Future

        Either a) there will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as Iran gets nuclear weapons, and the rest of the region follows; b) Israel premptively nukes Iran to kill their program.

        Yes, I know the post in question doesn't say that, but that's what a rational expectation comes down to.

        Hat tip: Powerline

Posted by: saintonge at 16:56 | link | comments

Funny

        You know that Democratic Congressional victory?  Well, it was all a sinister Karl Rove plot to re-elect George H.W. Bush president.  Really.  Go see.

Posted by: saintonge at 16:19 | link | comments
satire, democrats, republicans, elections, congress

Want to Do Something Constructive About the War?

        Don Surber, one of my favorite bloggers, and Dave Barry, The World's Greatest Journalist and My Close Personal Friend^®, blog about a bold new proposal: orgasm to end war.  Go read about this idea, and mark Dec. 22nd on your calendar.  Remember, it's your moral and civic duty to end the senseless violence.

        And someone remember to tell Bill!  This sounds like a policy he can truthfully say he supported for decades.

Posted by: saintonge at 13:48 | link | comments
satire, leftists, the worlds greatest reporter and, citizenship, war with jihadism, stupidity springs eternal, former president penis, i am not making this up

The Changes We Miss

        As everyone knows, Red China is a corrupt, repressive dictatorship.  But just now, I was over at Site Meter, looking at where my readers came from, and I noticed one hit from Tianjin, China.  If the Internet had existed when Mao the Evil was on the Dragon Throne, that wouldn't have been allowed.

        Speaking of Mao, there was an interesting book review in The New Republic, concerning Mao's Last Revolution, which deals with the "Cultural Revolution" of 1965-'76.  It was an incredibly bloody period, and the author of the review, Andrew J. Nathan, notes that the authors of the book, Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals, don't make sense of it all.  What was Mao trying to accomplish?  To what end was the violence, insecurity, humiliation, and confusion a set of means?  This shows how little totalitarianism is understood.  The "means" of mass death and upheaval were ends in themselves.  There were other factors, of course, such as power struggle by Mao against possible rivals, but for the most part, piling up bodies and making people suffer was the primary goal of "the ten year catastrophe," and indeed, of Mao's entire political life.  And it succeeded.

        Mao remains the all-time champ at mass murder in sheer numbers, and undisputed title of Single Worst Human Being to Ever Live.  Of course, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot also share that title, but then, at their level of evil, normal distinctions break down, just as with infinite numbers, subtracting from them doesn't lessen them.  Rot in Hell, Mao, Adolf, Joe, Pot.

Posted by: saintonge at 12:52 | link | comments
change

Well, Well

        The future is going to be a scary place, as this story plays out.

        By the way, there was a story in Analog about this technology, in the May 1961 issue.  The author was Christopher Anvil, and the title was "Identification."  (Hat tip: Wikipedia and it's external links, which made it easy for me to locate the cover, and then the issue of the magazine.)  It's the only such prediction/story I know of.  If you've got another, leave it in the comments, please.

Posted by: saintonge at 11:55 | link | comments

Gloomy Thoughts on the War With Jihadism and the Iraq Campaign

        Never let it be said that I don't recognize the obvious eventually.  So I'll now state the obvious: we can't win the Iraq Campaign any more (though it isn't lost), and we can't win the War With Jihadism with out present tactics.

        Winning a campaign or war requires breaking the enemies' will to resist.  But that in turn requires identifying the enemy.  Our enemy in this war is a population that wishes to destroy our way of life.  That means making war on a population, a cruel and messy business, even by the standards of war, which is inherently cruel and messy.

        We can't do this in Iraq, because we gave up control to the Iraqi government.  They may win the war — they are already taking it to the Sunnis.  But all we can do there is help them win, if they do in fact win, or effectively overthrow the elected government.

        In the wider War With Jihadism, of which the Iraq Campaign is just a part, we can take the battle to the enemy, but we aren't willing to.  Our reaction to imams who preach the Jihad against us needs to be a bomb into the mosque in the middle of the Friday service, not remonstrance to a corrupt dictatorship.  Notice that in the discussion of what to do about Islamofascist Terrorism, this isn't even on the table.

        What then does the future hold?  Possibly our defeat.  Possibly, fifty or more years of war, till demographic collapse takes out the Muslim world (see 'Spengler' in Asia Times, here, here, here, and here. If you start with the last, you'll find links to the earlier ones).  But the mostly likely outcome, I believe, will be that we get tired of grinding, indecisive war, and try to come home; followed by more terrorist attacks, probably culminating in at least one atomic bomb going off in New York or Washington; followed by the deaths of hundreds of millions of Muslims.  This won't be just, even by the standards of war on population, for we will have passed up the opportunity to end the war far earlier, with far fewer casualties on all sides — but it will be effective.

        If you can think of a more likely outcomes, I'd be glad to hear them.

Posted by: saintonge at 10:38 | link | comments (1)
iraq, islam, terrorism, evil, demographics, war with jihadism

The Republicans Pull Ahead in the Dumb-off

Trent Lott was chosen Republican Senate Whip.

Posted by: saintonge at 09:36 | link | comments
republicans, congress, stupidity springs eternal

I May Have Spoken Too Soon

        I thought the Donks and Elephants would be equally stupid, but the Democrats rejected Murtha as Minority Leader, while the Republicans picked Boehner and Blunt as Minority Leader and whip.  But then, as James Taranto wrote: But hey, who better to lead the GOP minority than the men who helped create it?

        But all hope of Democratic goofiness is not gone.  The Democrats unanimously selected Pelosi as their candidate for Speaker, and she said of Murtha:

"I was proud to support him for majority leader, because I thought that would be the best way to bring an end to the war in Iraq."
        With insanity like that, the Dems may yet come through for me.

Posted by: saintonge at 06:28 | link | comments
idiots, republicans, elections, congress, demographics, stupidity springs eternal

Now if They Were Sincere

        The Democrats campaigned against corruption in Congress.  If they were sincere about this, they'd refuse to seat John Murtha or Alcee Hastings, leaving them with a majority, but getting rid of two crooks.

        Of course, they WILL the ethically challenged duo.  Which tells us all we need to know about their honesty.

Posted by: saintonge at 05:14 | link | comments
democrats, elections, congress, dishonesty

Hey, For Once I'm in the Majority!

        Glenn has another of his polls up, asking who will blow it worse over the next two years?  For once, the majority agreed with me, at least as far as the first choice is concerned.  I'm not sure there really is a second choice.  Head over there and vote!

        What, you wanted the current results?  Oh all right.  As of 0235 CST, 6% think the Republicans will continue to reign as the stupid party, 34% think the Democrats will outdo them, and 60% opine "It'll be a dead heat for dumbness."

Posted by: saintonge at 04:43 | link | comments
democrats, republicans, congress, stupidity springs eternal

Thought for the Day

        The welfare state was put together by intellectuals.  It has caused chronic unemployment everywhere it has been tried.  The intellectuals occasionally pretend to be concerned about this, but don't care enough to change the system.

        Why not?  I speculate that, to an intellecual, being unemployed and on welfare is a Good Thing.  Intellectuals don't get bored in the same circumstances that average people get bored in.  Give them access to a library or equivalent, and someone to argue their views with, and they're happy.  Also, most human being seem to have a great problem really believing other people can be different from them.  So most intellectuals would be reasonably content being unempolyed for life, and taken care of by the state.  They expect the average person to react the same way.

        The average person, of course, doesn't react that way.  The average woman gets bored and has children out of wedlock, to give her a family to love.  The average man joins a gang, and goes hunting for prey.  The intellectual class may recognize this, but deep down, I think they believe that they can do something about it, that one day Real Soon Now they'll find the magic words that persuade everyone else to be an intellecutal too.

        One of the important lessons of history, though, is that there are no magic words.  Eventually, we'll know enough about genetics to know what can and can't be bred out of people, but till that day comes, there is no reasonable prospect of creating a population of intellectuals.

        Hat tips to John Hawkins, for interviewing Mark Steyn, Mark Steyn, for stimulating this thought, and Glenn, for linking to the interview).

Posted by: saintonge at 19:45 | link | comments (1)

Sometimes, It's What They Don't Tell You That's Important

        As you probably know, 18 states have voted on 'marriage-protection' initiatives, and they have passed seventeen times.  The narrow defeat in Arizona last Tuesday was the only time such an initiative lost.

        But did you know that Arizona already had a statute outlawing gay marriage?  Or that the existence of the statute was used as an argument against the initiative, on the grounds that the initiative 'went too far?'  Somehow, I don't recall any "gay marriage" proponent mentioning those facts.

Posted by: saintonge at 16:28 | link | comments

Proof That Repulicans Are the Stupid Party

        Here.  Read it and weep, laugh, or whatever you do when facing such imbecitity.

Posted by: saintonge at 16:10 | link | comments
idiots, insanity, republicans, congress, stupidity springs eternal

Wishful Thinking

        There are certain member of the commentariat who support illegal immigration, for reasons that remain obscure.  Among them are Fred Barnes and Michael Baroine.

        Now, the two of them are trying to spin the election results to show that the public favors open borders and phony "comprehensive reform."  Mickey Kaus shows the evidence they left out, and why it would likely hurt the Democrats.

Posted by: saintonge at 16:03 | link | comments
illegal immigration, congress, reality, border security, government policy, stupidity springs eternal

Stupdity In Everyday Live

        People tell me how wonderful Mozilla Firefox allegedly is, and I use it for some things.  Certain pages don't render properly in IE6 that do in Firefox.  But I continue to use IE6 as my browser of choice.

        Recently, I installed the latest version of Firefox.  When I did, it changed my homepage.  This is one of the reasons I don't use Firefox as my default browser.

        Recently, Microsoft introduced an improved version of IE6.  I found that to install it, I'd have to install their "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" spyware tool.  I'll switch to a new operating system first.

        I once tried another browser, Opera I think it was, and it overroad my 'Don't blink the cursor' setting in MS Windows.  I'd give up computers before I used one that made the cursor blink.  "Open Office" also did this nonsense.  I immediately removed Open Office and the Browser from my computer, on the grounds that any program that did that was automatically suspect of doing other objectionable things.

        What I wonder is, why does anyone do anything as stupid as the examples listed above?  I really can't understand the kind of mindset involved.

        Note: I rearranged the order of paragraphs after first posting this.  I also deleted some mistakenly posted HTML code.

Posted by: saintonge at 14:40 | link | comments
stupidity springs eternal

A Very Good Quesion Indeed

        Glenn notes that the gun control idiots are getting ready to try it again:

        WELL, THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG: The gun prohibitionists at the Brady Campaign are warming up for a Democratic Congress.

        The question is, will the Democrats be dumb enough to listen to them given that the last time they did it cost them control of Congress for twelve years?

Posted by: saintonge at 14:16 | link | comments
democrats, congress, government policy, stupidity springs eternal, wishful thinking, gun control

Truly Disgusting Hypocrisy

        Remember all the hype about Bush's 'tax cuts for the rich, financed at the expense of the middle class and working families'?  Before the election we never ceased to hear about it.

        Before we proceed, let's ask a question: what's the income of the middle class?  We can get a clue from three Census Bureau webpages.  The first shows median incomes by state, averaged over two year periods.  It reveals that median family income ranges from a low of around $34,500 in states like Mississippi and West Virginia, up to around $59,000 in Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire and New Jersey, with $45,893, plus or minus $272, being the median for the entire U.S. in 2003, and $46,071, plus or minus $243, being the median for 2004.  The second shows the income quintiles for the year 2004.  It reveals that the middle three income quintiles, consisting of 60% of U.S. households, received between $18,500 and $88,030 dollars income in the year 2004, with the top 5% getting over $157,176 in yearly income.  The third webpage, in the ever-annoying PDF format, says the household median for 2005 was $46,242, plus or minus $104, but doesn't update the quintile figures.  Based on the household median increase, I estimate the middle three quintiles as receiving $18,569 to $88,357, the top quintile more than $88,357, and the top 5% now at about $157,627.

        So there's our middle class — about $19K to $88K per year.  Back to the hypocrisy and either lies or incompetence.  There was a "news story" yesterday, informing us what our "new" (which is to say old, been around since the seventies) Democratic masters have in mind for tax policy.  Their chief preoccupation is the high tax burden paid by 'the middle class,' which turns out to be taxpayers with incomes of $100,000 to $500,000.  You see, there's this thing called the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was supposed to be levied on 'the rich,' but which now hits a lot of the well-to-do (as with all income tax before Ronnie put his foot down, the AMT isn't indexed for inflation, thereby raising the tax rates of ever more people per year as inflation raises nominal incomes).  People with incomes over $75,000 have to figure their tax under AMT, which doesn't allow personal or dependent deductions, interest on home equity loans, some investment and employee business expenses, interest from some kinds of otherwise tax-free bonds.  And most important, you can't write off property taxes, state income taxes, or local income taxes from the AMT either.

        Now it so happens that the states with the highest median household incomes and most expensive property values are very likely to vote Democratic, and very likely to have high tax rates on income and property.  So the poor, poor, pitiful Democrats in the upper 25% of income or so get whacked.

        My heart bleeds.  The Blue States could lower taxes and spending, but they operate by bribing people with their own money, conning the suckers into thinking that they are getting something for nothing.  But increasingly, it's being driven home to well-to-do Democrats that they are the ones paying for government largesse, not 'the rich.'

        The Democratic Congress intends to ride to the rescue of its largest contributors, and the government growth industry.  God forbid that they should be honest, and admit that the wealth and well-to-do necessarily pay most taxes, or that Democratic state houses, county commissions, and city councils should have to make hard choices.  No, the Donks will pretend that they're really helping out 'the middle class.'  Of course, taking away these taxes will lower revenues, at least as the Democrats figure things, so new taxes will have to be levied.

        In case you lost the thread, what this means is the Democrats intend to lower taxes on the upper class, raise them on the middle and lower classes, and increase the deficit.  And their press bureaus, the MSM, will lie to you about it, because they know that if they were honest, the proposal wouldn't fly.  Bend Over and Grease Up, Suckers, and hope the poker about to be shoved where the sun don't shine isn't heated too damned hot.  To paraphrase the fourth verse of the National Anthem:

And thus Shall it e'er be when the left helps out 'the common man.'

Posted by: saintonge at 03:59 | link | comments
politics, the future, msm, democrats, congress, dishonesty, usamerica, reality, government policy

Useful, Incomplete Thoughts

        Over at Townhall.com, someone named William Stuntz has a good column on why war is not like business.  The most insightful passage, for my money:

        In the world of business, decisions are made at the margin: a little more invested here, a bit less there; everywhere, strive to cut waste, to spend no more than is absolutely necessary.  In warfare, waste and excess are productive: They send the message that victory is inevitable, that whatever resources are needed to obtain it will be given to the task.  That is the essence of what military historian Russell Weigley called "the American way of war."  Overwhelm the enemy — instead of investing just enough, invest far too much.  Make sure the other side knows that our capacity to give and take punishment immeasurably exceeds their capacity to absorb and inflict it.

        . . . Iraq is not an unwinnable war: Rather, as the data just cited show, it is a war we have chosen not to win.  And the difference between success and failure is not 300,000 more soldiers, as some would have it.  One-tenth that number would make a large difference, and has done so in the past.  One-sixth would likely prove decisive.

      All true, but there's something that needs to be added: the U.S. has chosen not to win in Iraq because we've chosen not to win ever since Sept., 1949.  Before then, we thought we were invulnerable.  We weren't, but the false belief informed our actions.  The day it was announced the former USSR had the bomb, we lost our nerve — which is particularly stupid, given that the USSR ended up as former, not us.

        Yes, if we get into a “central” war with another nuclear power, if we choose to fight to win, regardless of cost, we may see cities go up in mushroom clouds.  We may see if we don't fight to win, though, because the actions of our enemies is not in our control.  THE central truth about war is this: if you control the opponent, you've won.  Until then, control is what you seek, not what you have.

        I happen to think Harry S. Truman was a great man and a great President, but his decision not to “put it all in” and go for absolute victory in Korea, regardless of the cost, set the stage for tens of thousands of more U.S. deaths there, and Viet Nam, and the current Jihadist war.

        The best protection we can have is the sure knowledge spread through the world again that an attack on the U.S. is sure and certain suicide for the attackers, their allies, and any bystanders who don't get out of the way in time.

        We either regain our nerve, or face an endless series of wars like the one we're in now.

Posted by: saintonge at 01:29 | link | comments

THE Essence of How the Republicans Lost

        Here's Dick Armey in The Wall Street Journal:

        The question Republicans now need to answer is: How do we once again convince the public that we are in fact the party many Democrats successfully pretended to be in this election?

        Republicans, do me a favor and don't even try to “convince” me you're this or that kind of party.  SHOW ME BY YOUR ACTIONS WHAT KIND OF PARTY YOU ARE, AND I MAY SUPPORT YOU.

        Jeez-us, don't you people EVER learn?

Posted by: saintonge at 00:38 | link | comments

Oh Well, One More

        "When Republicans worry more about staying in government than about limiting government, they get thrown out of government.  That's the lesson of Nov. 7, 2006."  Mark Tapscott

Posted by: saintonge at 22:22 | link | comments

Good Lines

        “The Republicans lost and the Democrats won for the same reason — they distanced themselves from their base.” — commenter Dave S. at Tim Blair's site.

        “At least Republicans now know where the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ leads: to the political wilderness.” — George Will.

        “So the world likes us again, right?  No more terrorism?  YAY!!!”  Treacher, the best among five good ones.

        And finally this, from before the election:

        “You can't have it both ways.  You can't say that it's a matter of life and death for the Republicans to maintain control and yet treat the actual job so casually while in office.  If the free world hangs in the balance, then bloody act like that during your term and not just in the 60 days before re-election.” — Brad Wardell

Posted by: saintonge at 21:40 | link | comments

Bad News, Good News

        Neil Boortz writes:

        I saw Richard Gephardt on the tube this morning.  Naturally he was quite pleased with yesterday's developments.  He was doing a good job of chanting the "The must compromise" mantra of the new Democrat majority.  More specifically, Gephardt was saying that there would probably be pretty quick action on immigration reform, now that the Republican control of the House was gone.

        He's right.  Amnesty for illegals is on the way.  President Bush is for it.  The Senate had already voted for it.  The only roadblock was the House.  Now, with Democrats in control, the House will be eager to go along.

        This will be one of the first moves the Democrats make ... right after they go to raise the minimum wage.  Amnesty for illegal aliens will be the order of the day, amnesty without any meaningful controls to make sure that the invasion ceases.

        Every one of these invaders is looked on as a potential future vote by Democrats.  Nothing will be done to stem the tide.

        Boortz may be right about this, but if the Democrats do this, it will make the vast majority of USAmerican citizens so outraged, they'll repudiate the Donkey party.

        So, bring it on, Dick.

Posted by: saintonge at 20:52 | link | comments
politics, democrats, republicans, illegal immigration, bush administration, border security, government policy, citizenship, stupidity springs eternal

A Blast From the Past

        Just so we remember what we've overcome, Rummy gives us this:

        President Reagan used to tell the story of a young Soviet who finally saved up enough money for a car.  A Soviet clerk stamped the man’s papers and told him that he would get his car in 10 years.  The young man asked, “Will it come in the morning or afternoon?”

        The clerk, astonished, responded: “What difference does that make?”

        The young man replied, “Because the plumber is coming in the morning.”

Posted by: saintonge at 20:24 | link | comments
satire, foreign affairs, bush administration

Some Evidence They Got the Message

        UPDATE: Sen. Coburn also gets it.

        Representative Mike Pence, quoted in The Corner at NRO.

        As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons.

        Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad.  I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

        "While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

        "After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government.  In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

        This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, 'enough is enough.'

        Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision.  I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did.  And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

        As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

      Now, let's hope Pence becomes the new Minority leader.  And let's really hope the Stupid Party thinks for once.

Posted by: saintonge at 19:35 | link | comments
politics, elections, bush administration, congress, conservatives

What Does a Democratic Congress Mean?

        Go read this post at Daily Pundit, and the various comments, for an excellent summary of the possibilities, both optimistic and pessimistic.

        I tend toward the optimistic viewpoint, both by nature, and because the history of the U.S. can be summarized as 'God looks out for us.'  And if "Svolich" is correct, well, I live in a low probability target area, K. and I are relatively old, and we're childless, while my nieces and nephews are in even lower probability target areas.

        So, Donkeys and Elephants, it's time to stand and deliver!  Democrats, propose real policy.  Republicans, start supporting principles again.

        (Hat tip: Instapundit).

Posted by: saintonge at 19:11 | link | comments
politics, democrats, elections, bush administration, congress, weapons of mass destruction

        A Large Regular tells us how the Rumsfeld resignation has hurt the Democrats.

        Go read, it's very funny and very insightful.  (Hat tip: Glenn)

Posted by: saintonge at 18:50 | link | comments
iraq, satire, foreign affairs, elections, bush administration, congress, reality, war with jihadism

Oh, Come On!

        There was a ballot proposition to ban affirmative action in Michigan, and it passed.  Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan, said:

        We defended affirmative action all the way to the Supreme Court because diversity is essential to our mission as educators.  We must keep the doors of opportunity open to all.  Regardless of what happens with Proposal 2, the University of Michigan will remain fully and completely committed to diversity.  I am determined to do whatever it takes to sustain our excellence by recruiting and retaining a diverse community of students, faculty and staff.

        So, Harmon wants us to think that no USAmerican university educated anyone till the late sixties, when affirmative action began?  That the U of MI isn't denying anyone an opportunity to be educated when it rejects them because they're the wrong race?  Is she really stupid enough to believe this crap, or does she just hold the public in such contempt that she feels free to say anything?

        For the record, as Thomas Sowell has more than once pointed out, affirmative action is bad for those it pretends to help.  Being admitted to a university you aren't qualified for makes it much more likely you'll drop out, rather than succeed.  Not to mention making it certain that most whites will automatically suspect that, if you were white, you wouldn't be in the school you're in, or have the job you have.

        The real motive for affirmative action is the belief, which its supporters would rather die than admit, that blacks and Hispanics really are genetically inferior to whites.  I don't know if that's true, and I don't care, either, because I think people should be judged as individuals, but someday that belief is going to come back to haunt the affirmative racism supporters.

Posted by: saintonge at 18:29 | link | comments
culture, spin, idiots, blowhards, dishonesty, race, whites, social policy, reality, higher noneducation, illogic, stupidity springs eternal, annoyance