Wednesday, July 30, 2008


I recently responded to a post on immigration on Womanist Musings. I wanted to flesh out my position but thought it would wind up being too long to put on someone else's blog. So I decided to put it here.

I generally believe in open immigration, one of the few things I disagree with Ron Paul about. I think only violent or larcenous criminals should be stopped from entering the country. I don't want people coming here to live on welfare (if they want to be supported by the taxpayers they should demand it of their own governments, we have enough of a dependency class of our own, and even the poorest nations have some wealthy people who could support their compatriots if need be). However, I think denying all non-emergency benefits to non-citizens and making the welfare state less generous in general could solve this problem without harassing and threatening the vast majority of people who come here to earn an honest living.

I do agree with Paul and other immigration opponents that we should repeal the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for everyone born in the United States. To be born a citizen one should be required to have at least one parent who is a citizen. Hardly any other nation grants citizenship on the basis of birth alone. Some countries, such as Germany, have families who have lived there for several generations without being citizens.

I understand that the 14th Amendment was passed to insure citizenship for children of former slaves. It was a noble cause and it served an important purpose at the time, but now that no one who was legally enslaved in the United States is currently alive, this is mainly used by people looking to game the system. If a woman gives birth to a child inside of the U.S. whether she is here legally or illegally, working here married to someone working here, or even a tourist that child is automatically a citizen. And even if both parents and any other relatives of that child are deported, when the child reaches adulthood, he or she can move back to the U.S. and petition for citizenship for his or her previously deported family members. This hurts efforts at assimilation and makes it easier for people with no respect for our Constitution and traditions to influence our politics, undermining our liberty and making our country more like the ones they fled.

Lack of assimilation and allegiance to the Constitution are the main problems with immigration. True there are plenty of native born people who don't respect the Constitution, though there is nothing we can do about them. We can however avoid adding to their numbers, and can choose to naturalize new citizens who will help us restore our liberty and our commitment to free markets and self-sufficiency. As for those who claim that crime and even terrorism are the main problems with immigration, I would argue that almost all (if not all) terrorist acts on U.S. soil were by those here legally. And border guards could focus on terrorists and other criminal threats if they weren't so busy harassing people coming here to work. There is no reason why any government should stand between a willing employer and a willing employee, unless the government is obligated by its own laws to grant the employees additional rights. Eliminate any such laws, focus border patrols on real security threats, and you eliminate such problems.

There is still the problem of native born people being unwilling to engage in fair competition for jobs. The situation in the U.S. is not perfectly fair, of course, since American workers cannot as easily become eligible to work abroad. However, by allowing a free circulation of labor into the country, the U.S. would be in a better position to negotiate American workers' rights to work wherever they choose as part of Free Trade Agreements. This still wouldn't please workers who feel entitled to what has in the past been the American wage for a particular job, when the prevailing global wage is much lower, but it would allow proponents of free markets to support guest worker programs unambiguously.

More about "Hate Crimes" and the Hate Crime Industry

In response to my post about the Snickers ad a friend of mine sent me the following link: (McCain here refers to Robert McCain the author's article not John McCain, so please don't prejudge this based on your opinion of John McCain and his candidacy). This article explains how groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti- Defamation League exaggerate threats from groups like the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis to scare their supporters into sending them more money. No surprise there.

However, much worse than parting fools with their money is the way these groups spy on others and use guilt-by (often specious) association. For example according to the article "ADL espionage targets included such liberal groups as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, as well as labor unions and environmental groups." And the rumors and lies they spread about militias are beyond the pale. Do militias have racist and anti-Semitic members? I'm sure they have some but that is no reason to tar the militia movement with those labels. Opposing aid to Israel or criticizing "the banking elite" and the mainstream media are not anti-Semitic positions. They can be legitimately opposed(For my part, I do admire the nation of Israel, and while I would like to see no country be dependent on handouts - aka "Foreign Aid" - I believe we should find a way to form a mutually beneficial with it. I do believe in the gold standard, and would like to abolish the Federal Reserve, letting the market determine interest rates, but I see current banking practices as bad policy not a conspiracy). But, whatever one's position on these issues, it should not be too hard to understand holding the positions the militias do without being anti-Semitic. Israel, after all is not entitled to foreign aid, no country is, and militias are consistent in opposing foreign aid for all nations. Associating banks and the media with Jews may have originated with anti-Semites but now is used far more often by apologists for banks and the media trying to shield them from legitimate criticism. I'm sure militia members would acknowledge that even if Jews are disproportionately represented in banking, journalism, and entertainment, there are plenty of other religious and ethnic groups in these industries, and they are not immune from criticism. As for racism or bigotry against any group besides Jews, I know of nothing in the positions taken by militias that shows any evidence of this, whatsoever.

Last, but far from least, these groups continue to spread the lies about militias being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. The FBI investigation of that affair showed no links between militias and the men convicted of the bombing. But I guess when you're objective is a more powerful authoritarian (or maybe even totalitarian) government, all anti-government groups seem the same.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

To Vitaly Kovtun I'd like to say....

Thanks a lot, asshole! Legitimate gun-owners don't have enough trouble with anti-self-defense reporters and editors trying to portray us as trigger-happy nuts. Of course, the thousands of people who use guns to prevent crimes or stop crime waves in progress rarely get this kind of coverage. If they're lucky they may get mentioned in their local press. If they're really lucky they might get mentioned in America's First Freedom's "Armed Citizen" column. America's First Freedom is, of course, mostly preaching to the choir, though it is better than nothing. Not that people protecting themselves or coming to the aid of their neighbors are looking for publicity, but it would be better for the rest of us to get a slightly more balanced picture by giving honest, decent gun owners a fraction of the publicity that turds like Kovtun get.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Hate Crimes

Someone at DON'T DO THAT has claimed that this video promotes hate crimes:

I didn't realize that speed walkers were a protected minority.

What's that? You think that the people at "DON'T DO THAT" think the man in the video is gay? A pretty big assumption on their part. How did they come to that conclusion -by STEREOTYPING? Maybe so, because if they assume that most gays would be offended by this, much less consider it a "hate crime" they must be giving credibility to another stereotype - the idea that gays are "sissies."

Monday, July 21, 2008

Am I a hypocrite to sign a petition to get Michael Weiner fired?

Michael Weiner is the real name of Michael Savage. While normally I respect people's rights to go by the names of their choosing (I myself prefer to be called "Joe" short for my middle name "Joseph" rather than my first name "John"), "Weiner" is a much more appropriate name for this cum-stain with a radio show than the faux tough guy name "Savage." As you may have heard Weiner made some really idiotic comments about people with Autism:

I am diagnosed as learning disabled, with all of the anxiety and depression disorders that normally go along with that. I have never been diagnosed with any form of autism, but as I have learned more about Asperger's Syndrome, I have found that I do have a lot of its traits. I asked my psychiatrist about it and she agreed that I have some of the traits, though she said that a diagnosis would cost $800 and treatment for me at this point in life (I'm 38) would be limited. I am skeptical about self-diagnoses so I will not diagnose myself with AS or any other autism spectrum disorder. I will say that I strongly identify with Aspies and find a lot of comfort in online AS support groups.

So I was offended by Weiner's remarks. I took them personally and I (electronically) signed a petition to get him fired. But even if I didn't I might still find them wrong. Would I have signed a petition to get him fired if I wasn't personally offended, maybe, maybe not, but I still would have found them wrong.

So, is it hypocritical to want Weiner fired when I would have tried to prevent the same for Imus based on his "Nappy-Headed Hos?" or similar comments (I wouldn't mind Imus being fired for general stupidity or lack of entertainment value but that's a different matter). How about The New Yorker's infamous cartoon, or John Kerry's use of the term "Tar Baby" (or John McCain's use of the same term some months ago)?(It should be noted that I would never defend any of these people or that magazine under normal circumstances). Maybe, it is hypocritical. I'm not Black so these don't affect me personally. Neither would slurs against my ethnic backgrounds (Irish and Italian) unless there was obvious intentional malice behind the slurs.

But, I think that it is intentional malice that's the point. I don't have a problem with someone making jokes about learning disabilities, emotional problems, autism, etc. In fact, on Uncyclopedia (where I post as "Naughtyned") I participated in tearing a new asshole for some loser who had a problem with the Asperger's Syndrome article there. The article itself was a mildly funny satire that had little to do with AS in reality. Making fun of the dick who made an issue out of it was hilarious:
It should be noted that many of the other people participating in giving the asshole we dubbed "Anonymous Slashy" the ridicule he deserved, claimed to be diagnosed Aspies themselves. Maybe some were lying, but I doubt that all were.

Anyway, if someone could convince me that Michael Weiner's comments were a joke or just a thoughtless off the cuff remark, rather than a deliberate slander I would withdraw my support for the petition to have him fired. Otherwise, I feel justified trying to get him fired while at the same time opposing hypersensitivity in general.

I do want to make clear that as stupid as repulsive as I find Weiner and his comments, I do respect his right to free speech and would never go beyond using the power of the marketplace to get him fired. I would never subject his speech to restriction by the government.

Second Attempt

This is my second attempt at blogging. My first blog which was started about two years ago began with a lot of passionate energy, but that soon fizzled out and the blog fell by the wayside. The blog was called "Extreme Rage" and used the url I know that url must give the impression that I am some kind of fundamentalist or other religious fanatic. I am not, nor was I at the time. I was raised Catholic and currently don't consider myself a member of any particular religion, though I do believe that some kind of God, or at least some being that transcends this universe exists. I don't know if there is a heaven or a hell, but I'd like to think some type of afterlife exists. And if there is justice anywhere in the cosmos there would have to be a place of punishment for the many rotten people who get away with horrible deeds in this world. A big "if" I admit, but thinking of people who create misery for others screaming in agony and making unheeded pleas for mercy does make life more bearable.

But neither this blog nor the old one is not about religion. This blog like "Extreme Rage" is about politics. Unfortunately, I deleted the previous blog. Now I wish I hadn't since, while it was not that great, and by now mostly outdated, it would be nice to have a record. But anyway, this like the previous blog this is about protecting liberty and the United States Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Lately our own government has been a far greater threat to our freedom than foreign tyrants and terrorists, though we should not forget that there are people from other parts of the world who wish to harm us and our way of life, even if we don't like our governments methods of "defending" us. I hope to get to that in more detail in a future post.

The point is I have been wanting to create a new blog covering the same points as the old one, but with the idea that while they're are still plenty of things to be angry about, that life is not all bad, people are not all bad, and it helps to keep a balanced perspective. So for about a month I tried to think of a name for my new blog. Then it came to me as I was reading responses made to comments I made on another blog. These did not come from the author of the blog, who despite our differences, I have generally found to be polite and civil. However, some of the other commenters on "Womanist-musings" concluded that since I, and some other commenters questioned the wisdom of the welfare state and praised people who were able to rise above difficult circumstances through personal responsibility are "fucktard trolls": (comments 34 & 35 have the term, starting with any comment from 6 onward should give the context).
I changed the word in this title to "funktard" not because I have a problem with salty language, but because I thought it would be more in keeping with my attempt to make this blog less hostile and more light-hearted.

So there is my introduction. I hope to get into more substance, beginning with the next post, soon.