Beullogeo's

Another transmission from Das Heimchen:

As you know, I always look for positive signs of changing attitude in the European media. The attached is a translation of a commentary I read at Tagesspiegel online. It shows a sign of awakening to reality, though the entire article did not mention the War on Terror once, nor was there any reference to the threat of the Islamic menace, which is at the base of Iran's belligerence. But I liked the author's realization that it would take the US and our military might to stem the advancing threat.

His attachment:

4/11/07

The following is a translation of an article that appeared in today’s Tagesspiegel, a leading Berlin newspaper.

The Nuclear Disorder

Iran’s nuclear plans can only be stopped by the USA - By Sibylle Tönnies

As long as the British sailors remained in Iranian custody, everyone made as if there was no connection between this affair and the nuclear controversy, as if this episode happened at the hottest border of the world purely by coincidence. For diplomatic reasons, this obvious connection was viewed with a blind eye.

But the most recent events in Iran underscore the need to consider the world-political context in which this kidnapping happened. The triumphal celebration of the enrichment successes, the proclamation of the exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, reminded the western world of the fact that Iran is their archenemy. Instead of discussing the question whether the young Brits may sell their stories to the press, the public needs to ponder a more important fact: With their imprisonment Iran has symbolically set the scene for claims to its territorial integrity, before it threw down the gauntlet to the West.

And successfully. In any case, Tony Blair was forced to attest to Iran - something, which otherwise might have been lost from memory - that the land has a great history and possesses its own dignity. And implicitly, that it is not a rogue state whose territorial integrity may not be ignored. With that, Blair confirms explicitly the principle of equality of the states, which Iran cites when it demands the same right to go nuclear as other nations.

That Iran is an archenemy I stated guardedly. It is a problematic old term, which should not imply that Iran is evil, more evil, for instance than the USA. Not at all! The question here is not about good and evil. The subject here is a necessary antagonism, which leads to a necessary world-political metamorphosis.

Each of the two antagonists represents a position that has its legitimacy. While Ahmandinejad insists on the old principle of equality of the member states, set by the UN Charta, which is based on territorial integrity, the Bush politics, is led by a new, though undeclared and undeveloped structure of world security: A unilateral, world police-based guard against the dangers of nuclear proliferation and that does not worry about sovereignty.

The current world order is undecided between the two positions. The current system of collective security, headed by the UN, though without military force - this system that prohibits attacks on the territorial integrity of others, without offering protection from those attacks - is no match against nuclear threat. The balance of terror of the Cold War had hidden this flaw for a long time.

Yet, there is no resolve amongst the community of nations to give up the sovereignty of nations in favor of a central world police. The thought alone causes fear - mostly because the US alone should not take charge of it. However that would be quite inevitable. Because like any national police, the world police would also need an over- whelming potency of thread, an effective military force. And faced with this requirement the UN is powerless. Only the US would be up to it. But for Heaven’s sake! No one wants that, not even the Americans themselves. But on the other hand, the thought of nuclear proliferation is horror inspiring. It is not because he is a rogue that no one wants to see Ahmandinejad nuclear armed, but because he is not allied with the US. One would much rather see the nuclear powers under one command.

The balance is held by two kinds of fear and a decision is difficult. This is why it is hard to find un-ambivalent opinions in favor of multi- or uni-polarity. Therefore, the question is avoided in that abstraction. The concrete “line in the sand” lies in the waters between Iraq and Iran.

The author is a professor of law and teaches at Potsdam University.

Yes, it's quite a conundrum for the anti-American worldview. They'd like to think a nuclear Iran really isn't any different than, say, a nuclear UK or US. But whenever the shit hits the fan anywhere in the world (including Europe) they don't call on Iran. Deep down some even know, for man-made disasters at least, Iran may have planned, funded, or carried it out.

When help is needed even anti-Americans expect the US to lead the cause, pay the bills, and if necessary send it's boys to kill and die. That is at least as long as doing so won't interfere with any non-American "territorial integrity", the economic interests of the anti-American's own territory, or the interests of "presidents" and "freedom fighters" who act an awful lot like lawless gangsters.

But then an anti-American doesn't really want to go there. Because resolving the conundrum might require sorting out the difference between good and evil, which is of course more distasteful for them than accepting a nuclear Iran.

Cricket-reader Pablo emailed the following to several media pundits and cc'ed me.

I respectfully request that you do a story on the subject of why some American politicians, Democrats and Republicans, support amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. And as a follow-up ask them how they justify supporting bringing more non-citizen guest workers into America.

The telling line in this North County Times article
is Congressman Brian Bilbray calling the president's support for amnesty "felony stupid." The question is, Is President Bush acting as the lapdog of unscrupulous employers, illegal immigrants and non-resident, non-citizen future slave wage guest workers and not representing American citizens and legal immigrants? Is he simply following the wishes of employers of cheap laborers? Or, is this Karl Rove’s master manipulation? Is President Bush selfishly attempting to stack the deck, setting the stage for his 30 year old, half Mexican, nephew George P. Bush (Google him) to be elected the third Bush POTUS. As a Republican or if need be a Democrat it wouldn’t matter. Screw America, screw the Republican Party. History is what matters. Is the lure of being the first three president family in American history so irresistible as to make Bush felony stupid? Viva Bush.

My question posed to Democrats would be, "How do Hillary, Obama, Edwards and the other Democrat presidential candidates justify to blacks and other lower to middle class American citizens, (mostly Democrats) that they have their interests at heart while at the same time they are supporting amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants who are doing the jobs that used to be available to Americans? How do they justify supporting bringing more non-citizen guest workers in to make sure the supply of hard working poor is always plentiful and cheap for unscrupulous employers? It is so anti American worker, anti legal immigrant worker, so anti Democrat. Why aren’t the Democrats representing their constituents?" Are these so-called Democrat leaders so dumb, so blinded by their own egos and ambitions, that they don’t realize that they are being trapped to go against their own constituents, being suckered by Karl Rove. Don’t they realize that the one and only initiative that Bush can possibly get passed and then only with their complicity will stack the deck, set the stage for Bush’s nephew George P. Bush to be elected the third Bush POTUS. Either as a Republican or if need be a Democrat it wouldn’t matter to Rove or W. How gullible are they?

My question posed to those Republican presidential candidates, McCain, Guilani, Brownback, etc., who support the amnesty and guest worker proposals would be "Why?"

Don’t you agree those questions and the answers would make national news and a great story?

Svengali Rove has mesmerized GW and hoodwinked Democrats? There is no reason to invoke paranoid conspiracy theories. Rove and GW are drinking the same koolaid the rest of their Wall Street buddies. "They only come for jobs, jobs Americans won't do."

On this issue Ds and Rs have the same problem: a disconnect between leadership and constituency. The elected officials of both parties misunderstand who they represent and disregard the oaths they have sworn.

It is a great story. But it isn't being told and never will be because our media elite - like the business, political, and religious elite - overwhelmingly favor open borders.

Pablo's NC Times article for example, like virtually every other immigration story told by the for-profit media, subtly slants some issues and ignores others. There is far more truth to be found in the reader comments. There you find the righteous indignation of betrayed citizens and the brazen taunts of La Raza.

Bilbray's "felony stupid" line makes him sound like a hard-liner. He isn't. Only a fool or a knave would pretend that a "guest worker program" will in any way fix the very real problems caused by the immigration invasion status quo. Half the illegal aliens in the US are visa overstays - people who came legally on temporary visas and never left. US judges and politicians have already very thoroughly demonstrated their inability to prosecute visa violations. Another problem is the traditional liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to the children of people here illegally. Guest workers will expect equal or better treatment - and they'll sue and get it by appealing to the 14th Amendment - no matter what the guest worker plan says.

Any lawyer should realize these things, including the ones who become politicians and concoct guest worker lies. This should not come as a surprise. None of the excuses for the immigration status quo make any logical sense, much less the arguments in favor of legitimizing or expanding the mess.

They do not come here only for jobs.

They take jobs Americans would do.

They do not help the US economy, they hurt it. By sending billions home. By bringing disease. By bringing a culture of violence and crime.

The facist, racist, and xenophobic slurs open borders advocates throw at anyone who opposes the chaos and insanity of the status quo are intended to shut down debate. They do so because they have no rational position from which to debate. They did not achieve the status quo by reason or votes, and most are happy to "compromise" by simply stalling and allowing the chaos to continue.

Our legitimate outrage will continue to be minimized by the media and the leadership of both political parties. It is plain to see for anyone with access to the internet.

Got this one in my email today.

This is an extract of an National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Army Lieutenant General Reinwald about sponsoring a Boy Scout Troop on his military installation.

Interviewer: "So, LTG Reinwald, what are you going to do with these young boys on their adventure holiday?"

LTG Reinwald: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."

Interviewer: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

LTG Reinwald: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range."

Interviewer: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

LTG Reinwald: "I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm."

Interviewer: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

LTG Reinwald: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

End of the interview

It was followed directly by this one from flippityflopitty:

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these journalists/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials - after the fact."

   - Robert E. Lee 1863.

Today's vocabulary lesson comes from Das Heimchen (The Cricket), who writes:

"Migrationshintergrund" is a new German term which describes the woeful handicap that poor immigrants, particularly those from Muslim nations, have to deal with in Germany. Its literal translation is migration background or immigrant’s background.

In his book "Hurrah, wir kapitulieren" by Henryk Broder, the author describes how his Grandmother had a Migrationsbackground because after WW-2 she was displaced from Silesia. I.e., had to flee the Red Army to find Asylum in what was left of Germany. But, he explains, while she harkened back to the peaceful days of her homeland and she complained about myriad things, she was too polite, she had manners that prevented her to act like today’s "foreigners" when they riot and burn and destroy. Her favorite saying was, "one does not do things like that".

The following is a translation from the German of the author’s book and his views on the kind of license that Migrationshintergrund affords the Muslim population of today’s Europe.

Today, on the other hand, "Migrationshintergrund" means a sort of free pass for any situation. He who has a Migrationshintergrund, only will require an Attorney in the most extreme of cases. For instance after he has slaughtered a film maker in broad daylight on the streets of a big city. Lesser infractions against rights, law and order only require a mention to the media and the public that he has a Migrationshintergrund, which will immediately evoke sympathy for the perpetrator and critical words vis-a vis the behavior of the victim (a provoker, who respected nothing and no-one), and the proven question: "What have we done to them that they hate us so much?"

The problem isn't that illegal aliens skipped the line and broke the law. Or that they violate the wishes of their citizen neighbors, consume a disproportionate share of resources, commit a disproportionate share of crime, or import their corrupt values and diseases.

The problem is the insensitive word 'alien'.

Move to ban "illegal alien" from state docs
Bill Cotterell - February, 27, 2007

TALLAHASSEE -- A state legislator whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants wants to ban the term "illegal alien" from the state's official documents.

"I personally find the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, especially to children," said Sen. Frederica Wilson, D-Miami. "An alien to me is someone from out of space."

She has introduced a bill providing that "A state agency or official may not use the term 'illegal alien' in an official document of the state." There would be no penalty for using the words.

In Miami-Dade County, Wilson said, "we don't say 'alien,' we say 'immigrant.'"

That's right. A politician finds a word offensive so we should throw it away. Wilson has in fact already been using her bully pulpit to inflict the newspeak on any insensitive clod unfortunate enough to cross her path.

She said she encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners to get in-state tuition at colleges and universities. Wilson, who directs a dropout prevention and education program in Miami, said she politely asks witnesses at public hearings on such issues not to use the term.

That's right. When she's not clouding the immigration debate by playing with words Wilson tries to get illegal aliens a break on tuition.

Wilson said the first word isn't as bad as the second.

"'Illegal,' I can live with, but I like 'undocumented' better," she said.

Asked if her bill might run afoul of Gov. Charlie Crist's "plain speaking" mandate for government agencies, Wilson said, "I think getting rid of 'alien' would be plain speaking."

Words words words. You only need stable definitions if you intend to think and argue rationally. Of course those who eshew reason and are driven by their emotions find it more comfortable to simply redefine anything that doesn't make them feel right. If it feels good how can it be wrong?

This is why:

An alien is a person who comes from a foreign country. The term illegal alien is broader and more accurate because it includes undocumented aliens and nonimmigrant visa overstayers. An undocumented alien is an individual who has entered the U.S. illegally, without entry documentation. Any alien who violates the terms of his or her admission may be deemed to be out of status. Becoming out of status occurs when a nonimmigrant remains in the United States beyond the expiration date of their visa or when a nonimmigrant engages in employment in the United States for which she is not authorized. Roughly 60% of the illegal alien population are undocumented aliens and about 40% are nonimmigrant visa overstayers. Thus, the term illegal alien, being broader in scope, is the accurate term to use.

Shall we just cut the crap and call them citizens? After all if everyone can vote, get bank accounts, and go to state schools what point is there in distinguishing citizens from aliens?

The longer our leaders, in business and religion as well as politics, refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their open border policies the deeper the hole they dig for those of us who play by the rules. Those of us who support the US and its laws already distrust our leaders. If the immigration chaos doesn't stop soon there won't be any US or laws left to support.

Racist xenophobe gringos can at least take comfort in the hope that Frederica Wilson will help us redefine hurtful words like 'crime'.

Digging through some old papers this weekend uncovered a poem I first encountered and hung on my door sometime in the 1980s. An epic of masterfully brief proportions, I was disappointed not to find it anywhere on the web. Powerless as I am, this I can fix.

One might wonder
how the sewage system functions
  So many people
  caring for no one but themselves
  worthless to everyone,
  but themselves.
Sewage,
More sewage.
  (ha ha ha)
  Flush it all down the fucking toilet

    Michael Bobrow

Drudge reports:

OBAMA: IF YOU LOOK AFRICAN-AMERICAN, YOU ARE TREATED LIKE ONE
Fri Feb 9 2007 15:51:32 ET

Acknowledging that his presidential campaign has opened a racial debate, Sen. Barack Obama, who has a white mother and an African father, says if you look African-American, you are treated like one. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who also addresses the race issue, appear in an interview with Steve Kroft to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Feb. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS television Network. If, as expected, Obama declares his formal candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination tomorrow, it will be his first interview to be broadcast after that event.

When asked by Kroft if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, "I'm not sure I decided it. I think... if you look African American in this society, you're treated as an African-American. "It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that... I've become a focal point for a racial debate," says Obama.

Obama's wife also addresses the race issue when asked by Kroft whether she fears for her husband's life as a black candidate. "I don't lose sleep over it because the realities are that... as a black man... Barack can get shot going to the gas station," says Michelle Obama. "You can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen."

Will being African-American hold him back as a candidate? "No.... If I don't win this race it will be because of other factors --[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace," Obama tells Kroft.

X X X X X

While Obama is addressing the subject of race perhaps he could express to potential voters his opinions on the following issues.

Not a Chance
The electoral journey of Proposition 54.
By Ward Connerly
Oct. 15, 2003

When it comes to race, America is governed by a grievance industry. They make their case by the use of data, citing the number of black males in prison, the number of blacks who have difficulty hailing a cab, the dropout rate of Hispanics, the incidence of hate crimes and "racial profiling" by the police, and on and on. Whenever there is a disparity between whites and "people of color," that disparity is defined as a form of "institutional racism." During the [CA Prop 54] campaign, two additional forms of institutional racism were unveiled: "environmental racism" - the number of toxic-waste sites located near "minority" communities, for example; and "disenfranchisement" - the disparity between the number of blacks and Hispanics who vote and the number of whites who vote. In response to the latter, the California legislature enacted legislation a few weeks before the recall election requiring local elections officials to include race check-boxes on forms to be completed when individuals register to vote.

With "institutional racism," actual incidents of discrimination are not required. It is the mere existence of statistical disparities that confirms patterns of "discrimination" by public and private institutions. The presumption of those who advance this argument is that if there were "social justice" and equity, the disparities would not exist; instead, all groups would be proportionately represented.

An ugly conspiracy of silence
Walter Williams

Last June, Jared Taylor, president of New Century Foundation, in Oakton, Va., held a press conference at Washington's National Press Club to report on the foundation's recently released study, "The Color of Crime." Some of the study's findings about interracial crime were surprising, so much so that I did an independent verification of the numbers.

Since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain crimes.

One category is interracial crimes. Its most recent publication (1997), "Criminal Victimization in the U.S.," reports on data collected in 1994. In that year, there were about 1,700,000 interracial crimes, of which 1,276,030 involved whites and blacks. In 90 percent of the cases, a white was the victim and a black was the perpetrator, while in 10 percent of the cases it was the reverse.

Another finding of the NCVS report is that of the 2,025,464 violent crimes committed by blacks in 1994, 1,140,670 were against whites -- that's slightly over 56 percent. Whites committed 5,114,692 violent crimes; 135,360, or 2.6 percent were against blacks.

In 1997, there were 2,336 whites charged with anti-black crimes and 718 blacks charged with anti-white crimes, so-called hate crimes. Although the absolute number of white offenders was larger, the black rate per 100,000 of the population was greater, making blacks twice as likely to commit hate crimes.

So far the only answer the left has for Ward Connerly, Walter Williams, or Jared Taylor is ad hominem. The self-righteous self-proclaimed owners of the moral high ground on race shall not be compelled to answer lowly Uncle Toms and Klansmen.

Even the conventional wisdom, promulgated ad nauseum by our academia and press, is that racism is predominantly a white crime whose victims are predominantly non-whites. Notwithstanding presumptions of "institutional racism" crime statistics indicate the conventional wisdom is in fact backward.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race

Racial differences exist, with blacks disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders

In 2004, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.

In 2004, offending rates for blacks were 7 times higher than the rates for whites

The race distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide

For the years 1976-2004 combined -

* Black victims are greatly over represented in homicides involving drugs. Compared with the overall involvement of blacks as victims, blacks are less often the victims of sex-related homicides, workplace killings, and homicide by poison.

* Race patterns among offenders are similar to those among victims.

                       Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2004
                                     Victims                   Offenders
                             White   Black   Other      White   Black   Other
    All homicides             51.0%   46.9%   2.1%       45.9%   52.1%   2.0%
Victim/offender relationship
    Intimate                  56.5%   41.3%   2.2%       54.3%   43.6%   2.2%
    Family                    60.6%   37.1%   2.4%       59.1%   38.6%   2.3%
    Infanticide               55.8%   41.6%   2.5%       55.3%   42.2%   2.5%
    Eldercide                 69.1%   29.3%   1.6%       54.4%   44.0%   1.6%
Circumstances
    Felony murder             54.8%   42.7%   2.5%       39.1%   59.3%   1.6%
    Sex related               67.0%   30.6%   2.4%       54.9%   43.3%   1.9%
    Drug related              37.2%   61.9%    .9%       33.8%   65.1%   1.1%
    Gang related              57.6%   39.0%   3.5%       54.4%   41.3%   4.3%
    Argument                  48.5%   49.4%   2.1%       46.7%   51.1%   2.1%
    Workplace                 84.9%   12.0%   3.1%       70.5%   26.4%   3.1%
Weapon
    Gun homicide              47.3%   50.8%   1.9%       42.0%   56.2%   1.7%
    Arson                     59.2%   37.9%   2.9%       55.7%   42.0%   2.3%
    Poison                    80.2%   17.2%   2.5%       79.6%   18.6%   1.8%
Multiple victims or offenders
    Multiple victims          63.6%   33.1%   3.4%       56.1%   40.5%   3.4%
    Multiple offenders        55.0%   42.3%   2.7%       44.8%   52.8%   2.4%

Although slightly less true now than before,
most murders are intraracial

From 1976 to 2004 --

* 86% of white victims were killed by whites

* 94% of black victims were killed by blacks

These are government statistics, not the KKK's. Though I only found out about the link because I was reading something written by Steve Sailer, who would undoubtably be dismissed by the media as a fascist xenophobe klansman for having the audacity to note that the white statistics include Hispanics, which obscures the relatively high rate of Hispanic crime.

US race problems go far beyond "the soft bigotry of low expections". The truth revealed by crime statistics is shocking. The deliberate suppression and inversion of this truth by our politicians and media is disgusting. By so quickly appealing to the victimhood of being "treated as an African-American" Obama chooses to perpetuate the distorted fantasy rather than facing the distasteful truth. Anyone who thinks Driving While Black is a burden should try to imagine Walking While White.

UPDATE 17 Feb 2007: Long Beach Hate Crime:

Suddenly, newspaper editors, TV-news directors and other media faced an unsettling prospect of their own: If white-on-black hate crime is covered with an apologetic tone and references to the legacy of slavery, what’s the tone for covering black-on-white hate crime? Can a minority be a racist? And how can we, the media, get out of this?

As the Press-Telegram reported on November 3, three white women aged 19 to 21 emerged from a “maze” walk in a house and were confronted by up to 40 black teenagers who pelted them with pumpkins and lemons. The paper said, “The taunts and jeers grew more aggressive, the victims recalled, as did the size of the crowd. Now females joined in, and everyone began saying, ‘We hate white people, f--- whites!’ ”

The bizarre case, now in its fifth week of trial, resulted in hate-crime charges against nine girls and three boys, two of whom will be tried later. Yet the story didn’t run in the Los Angeles Times until November 7, buried inside local news. In that piece, writer J. Michael Kennedy quoted the Press-Telegram’s interview with the victims, watering down the racist language to the vague and more acceptable phrase “a series of antiwhite epithets.”

While some media tiptoed around the story, another outlook was emerging as the fast-tracked trial — required in youth cases — hurtled toward its late-November start date. Well-known black political columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who has explored both sides of the story in a levelheaded manner, was quoted by City News Service as noting that the latest FBI hate-crimes report showed that blacks now commit more than 20 percent of the hate crimes, the majority of victims white.

Emphasis mine.

In other words blacks commit a disproportionate share of hate crimes. Imagine how much more lopsided the statistics would be if DAs did not operate in a PC intellectual environment where simple questions like "can a minority be a racist" are considered profound.

This "bizarre case" is a wonderful illustration of the cognitive dissonance that arises when the liberal J schooler's minorities-as-victims view of race and hate crimes meets the reality.