My Photo
I am retired from government, law enforcement, politics and all other pointless endeavors. I eat when I am hungry and sleep when I am tired.

Friday, September 26, 2014


The reemergence of Jeff Bell on the New Jersey political scene is cause for nostalgia and hope against hope enthusiasm among conservatives.  They can save themselves the effort.  He will not defeat Cory Booker for a NJ Senate seat.   Even New Jersey’s nominally Republican Governor, Christie “Pass the linguine,” Christie likes Booker better.

Almost everyone New Jersey is on the public teat in some way or another.  The public is divided into economic opportunists and parasites, so the present system works just fine for them.

Bell is a foreign invasion enthusiast extraordinaire.  He calls for immigration reform with all the bogus caveats he knows never be enforced.  Citing President Reagan, he trots out the old quote “Latinos are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet.”  How many times must we hear this?  That was in 1986, and the Latinos are still sure they’re Democrats.  Reagan later admitted the amnesty bill he signed was a very bad mistake.  Yet clowns like Bell keep trying to re-perpetrate it.

Bell claims that the Republican Party has been “Unwelcoming” to Latinos by “….refusing to consider a path to legalization for those who came here illegally over the years or an expanded quest worker program that is open to low skilled workers, not just PhD’s.  President Reagan tried to solve this problem in 1986, but the law he signed that year left out access for immigrants who want to come here and work temporarily without becoming citizens.  It’s led to the crisis we have today of millions of people who come from Mexico and elsewhere and simply stayed because neither the law–which actually makes it a misdemeanor- nor out border security encourage people to come here the right way.

That is a chilling insight into Bell’s thinking.  He assumes that Mexicans and others have some prior right to seek employment here and it is we who create a crisis by failing to accommodate their inevitable presence among us.  Note also that he assumes that we need to welcome foreign PhD’s.  In plain speaking, this means that he likes lots of H1B’s but think’s it unfair to overlook the needs of huge unskilled labor industries. 

He goes on to say that,  “If elected, I’m headed to the U.S. Senate to fight for a comprehensive immigration reform plan that includes a generous, market-based guest worker program so we don’t repeat the crisis that stems from 1986.”   

This is either breathtaking stupidity or outright cupidity.  I am persuaded it is the latter.  Bell knows that the 1986 law led to our crisis because no one in or out of government would enforce it.  It is madness to suppose that his new “Reform” would be enforced any better, or at all. 

Immigration Reform means amnesty.   Bell hopes to attract funding from cheap labor industry sources.  Their complaint is that the last amnesty wasn’t big enough! 

Bell must be desperate to make this cheap labor pitch because he specifically adds the “Promotion of Legal Immigration” as a separate item on his website.
Just so we get his message he says, “To prevent recurrence of the undocumented immigrant buildup of recent decades, immigration reform must include a generous guest worker program with state-by-state flexibility to exceed any nationwide limits on quotas specified by federal policy.”

Perhaps he should name his bill, the No American Left Employed Act.   (NALEA?)  Providing for the common defense must not interfere with the industrial tomato harvest.  Who cares how many quests are here to speed the process along.

The Reagan Coalition contained many factions.  Characters like Bell, Jack Kemp and their ilk were/are creatures of economics just as surely as comrade Brezhnev was a creature of Dialectical Materialism.  While the rest of us were patriots fighting the Cold War, they dreamed of a new America governed by the manipulation of the tax code.  And just like Comrade Brezhnev, they are at heart materialists with little interest in our culture or traditions.  We mistook them for fellow patriots but were not.  For them, we fellow citizens are just economic units.



Jeff Bell Voters?

In order to get a feel for just how interchangeable we all are to such people, I suggest readers go the Bells own website. *  Examine Bell’s picture show carefully.  You may see some odd sights. Chinese people in hard hats looking into the distance are illustrations of his energy policy.  Most bizarrely, under National Defense, you see Chinese Communist bayonets as an image of a strong America.  I suppose some young media person took these images of the net.  Yet, it speaks volumes about Bell’s audacity in carelessly using such images to gull Americans into voting against their own patrimony. 

                                         Bayonets and rifles are Chicom Simonov's

·      All quoted Text comes from Bell’s Website

Sunday, September 14, 2014


First, Obama pronounces the Islamic State, "Unislamic."  Now the Late Breitbardt's Neo-con website impugns the Christianity of Middle East Bishops.  

As you can see from the headline to the right,  a conclave of persecuted Middle Eastern Christians met in Washington to appeal for our help and to reach out to each other.  They  made the mistake of granting Cruz permission to speak.  They couldn't have known Cruz as the shameless political opportunist and tool of the Israel lobby that he is.  They can't have imagined that their guest would demand fealty to the Zionist state as the price for his, and our help.  He might as well have distributed "l" pills, all the better to speed their suicide. He actually said, "If you don't stand with Israel, I will not stand with you." He said this to people representing people who had their homes leveled by the IDF.  

These people are the remaining Christians of a region in which each and every act of ours and Israel's brought them closer to extinction.  Any endorsement of Israel on their part will bring immediate massacre by their Muslim neighbors.  The Arab Spring that our idiotic President sought to further and exploit has been a Christian winter, bringing persecution and murder from Egypt to Syria, to Tunisia, to Syria.  And our government has done nothing to alleviate any of it.

The Government of Israel persecutes Christian Palestinians just as enthusiastically as Muslim ones.  Both Israel and the USA seek to topple The Assad Regime of Syria, despite the fact that Assad is the last friend Middle Eastern Christians have in the region. 

What we can take from this is that when leaders, either actual or of the opinion variety, lose all respect for their audience, their audacity knows no bounds.  The American Conservative movement has descended to enforcing anti-Chrisitian policy, on behalf of a foreign power.  American conservative Christians are actually willing to endure the bullying and vilification of fellow Christians by mountebanks like Cruz and non-Christians like the Neo-cons and Breitbart's little minions.  

If Cruz or anyone like him is the nominee of the GOP in our next Presidential election, the only recourse must be the defeat of the GOP and the rise of a viable patriotic party, reflecting the values and traditions of this country.    

Friday, September 12, 2014


We have it on the word of our President that ISIS "Is not Islamic.  In this he walks in the footsteps of giants.  Who can forget the words of President Buchanan who in 1859, declared, "Brigham Young is not a Mormon."  We Americans have always understood that people exercising their religious faiths are only doing so when we approve of the manner.  If they behave badly by our lights, they just can't be what they are.  Our President now holds the office of Supreme Pontiff of all faiths.  He may decide who is a Muslim and I suppose, a Christian, Jew or Buddhist.  As I mentioned in a previous post, we do this all the time with Communists.  The Commies that scare us must not be true Communists!

This is delusional.  Poor old Buchanan never affronted the public with the notion that Mormons were anything but Mormons who's interpretation of Devine will ran up against their government.  He managed to defuse his crisis over Utah without violence.  And he did it without  resorting to the gibberish employed by our Law School Professor President.  

I've noted something interesting in this and related calls for Muslim scholars to denounce ISIS and similar radical Islamic groups.  None of them follows the president's language.  

It's not impossible to find Islamic authorities who will denounce the actions and interpretations of their fellow religionists.  It is impossible to get them to read anyone out of Islam altogether.  There are very deep, ancient reasons for this that most Americans miss. 

From earliest times Muslims have only been required to perform the Shahada* to assert  their faith.  Say this and mean it, and you are a Muslim.  It's a very serious business to deny that anyone who says this is not a Muslim.  He may be a heretic, he may be mistaken, or a sinner who uses his status for sinful purposes, but, he is still a Muslim.

What this means in practical terms is that all Muslims are enjoined to cluster against we infidels. Grudging agreement with infidels over actions may be granted, but asking any Muslim to admit that anyone who proclaims their status as a nonbeliever is a fool's errand.

The President who spent some of his childhood among Muslims and his own Muslim relatives, must know this.  I can only suspect that he has no real faith, and so is comfortable dealing with all faiths as contingent word formulas without deep meaning.  

His quixotic mini-crusade again ISIS he will soon misfire over his lack of understanding.  Muslims are perfectly willing to kill each other, but only when they can delude themselves into the belief that the Muslims on the other side are heretics and bad Muslims.  Pronouncing ISIS out of the Umma, he just reenforces the perception that he is irreligious and Western.

Finally, why does he need to form a coalition when the regional forces of Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia far outweigh ISIS?  

*  There is no god but god (Allah), and Mohammad is is Prophet. 

Sunday, September 7, 2014


Dreher loves the Rotherham story.  

"If I had been a police officer who had failed those girls in this way, it would take all I had within me not to want to kill myself. But these dirtbags in Rotherham can’t even be bothered to resign in disgrace. It is clear that political correctness regarding racism had a lot to do with this horror. But it is also clear that sexism did as well, and class bias. The police — not exactly the rich, note well — thought these working class girls were sluts." Rod Dreher

Well Rod, they were sluts.  They allowed themselves to be groomed and violated.  They had free will.  All societies have such girls.  Civilized Western societies used to  try to keep them under control.  Everyone in society has the option of being a slut, or a thief, or a mugger.  Some will always stray into these behaviors.  It is how society reacts to this sad fact of human nature that counts.  

But never let that interfere with your war on the Church or anyone with a job to do.  Sure the cops needed to stand up.  Sure, the British justice system failed. But don't kid yourself.  It is precisely your sad, weak, guilt-ridden mentality that empowers such a system.  If everyone is to blame, then, no one is to blame. But if Great Britain had practiced the kind of self protective ethnocentrism that you hate, there would have been no swarthy alien Paki's to groom the girls.  If the Rotherham police had kept a firm hand on, the girls would have been sent home to their mums for a good talking to.  You cannot undermine a culture and complain that it doesn't do what you want.  You can have diversity or you can have rectitude and traditional decency.  You can't have both.

You say something interesting when you say of the cops that …"it would take all I had within me not to want to kill myself."  Perhaps this is the crux of the matter.  Your reflexive turning of your judge mentality inward, on your culture and your faith, says more about your neuroses than others responsibility.  A healthy man would find his wrath directed at the perpetrators more than the bureaucrats.  

But let's be honest, complex systems run by weaklings like yourself will always offer you endless  targets.  The Cops should have resigned, you say.  You write as if you don't know that cops are uniformed agents of the state.  A weak liberal polity will only abide conformist weakling cops. 
No matter what the system, every cop knows one thing, the pencil neck thought leaders of society are equally willing to fire you for doing your job and for not doing your job.  Admit it, if the cops had slapped the Paki's around and kept the girls from harm, you would have been the first to stab them in the back.  

Rod, you are the problem.    

At this point it's clear that the New York Times made a mistake in hiring Ross Douthat.  They should have hired Rod Dreher instead.  He is just their sort of non-conservative Conservative, always shedding tears and spreading blame.  


This week must be the Muslim bad behavior Olympics.  Rotherham, ISIS, that crazy Nigerian old lady decapitator in England; they are on a roll.  I'm reading "The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis as well, so I've got Muslims on the mind.

And yet, I can't help  noting this odd similarity between Islam and Communism/Socialism.  

No matter what goes wrong, neither system of thought is ever quite responsible for the actions of its adherents.  That is to say that no matter how many millions of people Marxists murder, it's always the fault of that particular brand or leader of the movement.  It's Stalin's fault, or Pol Pot's fault or Mao's.  Just as it is always the Muslim terrorist's fault, never Islam's fault.  I suppose we are meant to believe that if ISIS were real Muslims, or Stalin had been a real Communist, all would have been well.   We must never on any account entertain the thought that Communist/Socialist  ideology or Islamic doctrine have anything to do with what happens when these are applied.  

When ISIS decapitates an adulterer, we are told, that is not "True Islam."  No one asks the next question.  What is it when the government of Saudi Arabia does the same?  If the Saudi's aren't orthodox Muslims who is?  Where are these true Muslims?  When every Socialist society has the effect of depressing the numbers of it's own citizens, either by actively killing them, or by raising the cost and inconvenience of having children, we must never connect the dots. 

Just perhaps, there is something in Socialist materialism that deadens the souls of it's adherents and rulers to a point where citizens are expendable.  And perhaps there is something in the spirit of Islam that stifles both technical and moral advancement.  

So here is a thought experiment.  The next time you hear someone comparing something awful to the Nazis, tell them that you can't judge all Nazi's by Hitler.  That real Nazism never got a chance.  Say, Hitler corrupted Nazism and there is no reason to oppose all Nazis just because Hitler gave that political philosophy a bad name.  

See how far this reasoning gets you.  Then ask why we apply such defective thinking to both Communists and Muslims? 

Monday, September 1, 2014


Dreher outdid himself this week with his deep feeling post on Rotherham. I write "feeling" rather than thinking for obvious reasons.  Perhaps I shouldn't be as disgusted as I am.  But nausea has reasons that the brain knoweth not.

Pakistani immigrants to the town of Rotherham were finally brought to book for "Grooming" and sexually exploiting White English girls.  The practice was well known, both within the populace and in the center right press.  That made the practice all the more off-limits to the authorities,  always anxious to appear politically correct in an anti-causasian sort of way.  

He writes, "My guess is that it is as unfair and as inaccurate to blame the rape by Pakistani Muslim men on Islam as it was (is) to blame the rape of children by priests on Catholicism." 
Dreher then goes on to blame both Paki' Muslim crime and Catholic clerical crime on the cultures of Islam and Catholicism.

You have to be very willing to avoid the obvious to write or think in this manner.  Or, you must be utterly terrified of the truth and where it might lead you.  

I have a friend who is quite brilliant and a holder of a PhD who maintains that the things that offend and frighten us about Islam are mostly artifacts of pre-Islamic culture.  Killing your womenfolk for disgracing your family and or beliefs can be found among pre-Islamic Arabs.  Killing them to just keep them out of the hands of other Arabs was also common before the Prophet came on the scene.  There are many other such examples.

So to the Dreher mind and the Dreher minded, we must not make judgements about the nature of Islam: not even when after more than a thousand years, the religion of peace can't make it's adherents change their tribal, bloody ways. 

He and his silly band of commenters go on to raise all the usual questions to which there must never be conclusions.  The idea that Pakistanis come from a very dysfunctional country  and therefore might not be good citizens of a post industrial society with vulnerabilities, must never be broached.  The Paki's are from a culture that is low trust, tribal and hostile to the culture of foreigners, even when those foreigners are supposedly their fellow countrymen. 

I can't see how Islam softened any of these traits.  I can easily see how Islam solidified these primitive features within a code sanctioned by Allah himself.  Pakistan only exists because Indian Muslims could not abide other Indians.  They had to separate and create a country that is both deeply Islamic and utterly failed.

What needs to be understood is that the concept of citizenship is a Western concept.  It has no place in Muslim thinking.  It's not the only such Western concept that doesn't fit in well with cultures of the desert and mountains.  There is no Agora in Mecca or any other Muslim city.  Islam is an inward looking civilization.  Life in Muslim society is family life.  Fellow citizens are just strangers who live under the same law as oneself.  If the strangers are not Muslims and the law is not Islamic, they don't owe much to wider society beyond paying taxes.  And this applies to vulnerable members of that society.  

By Sharia standards pretty much all Western women are whores.  Married ones are not to be touched but loose ones are fair game.  

The idea that everyone in society is in a kind of extended civic pact, based on adherence to certain binding ethical precepts, is profoundly alien to these people.  They prefer their way of life.  they prefer holding apart as little extended family enclaves where jobs go to sons and cousins, uncles marry nieces and outsiders are to be ignored or taken advantage of.  Such people cannot be expected to correct abuses committed by relatives.  That would  betray the all-important family to foreigners who live around them.  Islam does nothing to stop of soften any of this. 

The attempt to separate culture from religion is a worthwhile project for scholars.  But to behave as though the cultures of Muslims and the religion of Muslims can be teased apart in any useful way is a bootless distraction from what must be done.  Weak simpletons like Dreher cannot or will not discuss this honestly.