The American left and European left are enablers of the jihadis. This is a combination of real politik, the desire to destroy global capitalism and American power, and delusion.

France is not particulary enamored of the muslim radical regimes, but they support them and vote with them in the United Nations. Why? Because they consider them allies against American power and influence. My rival’s enemy is my friend. They foolishly think they can control the forces they have abetted for so long. They will find out they can’t.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the left has morphed into Green parties and anti-globilization forces. The rhetoric has changed a bit, but the goal is the same- to bring America and western capitalism down. Jihad is another tool in their arsenal.

The left, through its influence is the media and academia, has been successful in propogating the message that the very things that have brought health, prosperity, peace and liberal democracy to hundreds of millions of people is the real problem in the world! This is cognitive dissonance big time. Seabisquit says guilt and self-loathing of post-colonial European elites is the source of muderous hate in Islam for the West. That is silly, although it does foster a contempt for the weakness of their enemies, which arguably encourages vicious behavior. If they can frighten or guilt-trip the enemy to acquiesing, a la Munich, it is the easiest way to accomplish their goals.

There is no end to this. Conflict and struggle is unending. T’was ever thus. The only thing that is uncertain is the outcome.

I disagree with F&C’s (what an interesting moniker!) last statement. The one thing that IS most certain is the end of the West—unless we stop it, NOW! Islam is coming to your town, and they won’t be speaking French.

There was a thread at VFR recently wherein a poster mentioned how “France has nukes” and “how dangerous” they would be if the Islamists took over that already anti-American country. I had never contemplated such a scenario. Perhaps it is something we should be concerned about.

For now, however, those 15 or so Al Qaida ships, North Korea, the (formerly Russian) suitcase nukes and sleepers here in America are what we should be concerned with, not the French.

Europe has plenty of downtrodden immigrants of Hindu, Buddist and Christian persuasions. If Seablatherer assumptions are correct we should see comparable problems caused by the these groups.

Since we don’t see such problems, the Seablatherer assumptions are not correct or, at the very least, need more intellectual work.

If we granted, for the sake of discussion, that American leftists are to blame for propagandizing Muslim and other immigrants upon their arrival, what difference would it make to Seablogger? There is no near-term prospect of victory over the leftists in America. How does importing more human fodder for them to propagandize help matters? Would it not be more prudent to suspend almost all immigration until the battle over leftists is won?

Seablogger concludes that none of Mr. Auster’s proposals are workable because they are “discriminatory”. Our current immigration laws are discriminatory, in that we have quotas for different countries, family reunification priorities, refugee status for some and not others, etc. So what? Any policy except completely open borders is “discriminatory”. If Seablogger is terrified by the potential accusation of “discriminatory policy”, he should stop pretending to be a conservative, or openly advocate open borders.

I have heard this “Blame the elites, not the immigrants” argument before. Patently idiotic. Perhaps, since some American elites were sympathetic to Communism, we should have ceased blaming the Russians.

Seablogger is confused, and unwilling to grasp the nettle. Still he hints at something I believe is true, although he attributes far too much to it. While it is not true that Moslem jihadists hate the West because of Western liberals’ self-hatred, it probably is true that the loudly proclaimed guilt and self-loathing of post-colonial European (including American) elites helps them overcome any doubts they might have about hating the apostate West. HRS

Mr. Sutherland raises a good point. I would add that the guilt and self-loathing of the elites also, perhaps even more importantly, emboldens jihadis and gives them confidence that they will win over a weak, decadent West.

“Guilt and self-loathing of the élites”? The folks who are laughingly called our “élite”

a) feel no guilt whatsoever

b) are madly in love with themselves, and

c) are in no sense but possession of power an élite of any kind.

Steve Sailer says that most such sniffy political correctness is nothing more than status comptetion. If he’s right, then it should collapse very quickly under the right kind of exposure and pressure, as did the Berlin Wall.

“Steve Sailer says that most such sniffy political correctness is nothing more than status competition. If he’s right, then it should collapse very quickly under the right kind of exposure and pressure, as did the Berlin Wall.”

That is a really interesting remark. But to what extent is it true?

Er, which remark— Mr Sailer’s, or mine? This is his:

ISteve.com reader: “I’ve long noticed that liberals are often operationally conservative in some ways or at least elitist… One writer characterized liberals as ‘talking left and living right.’ And I don’t think its just liberal guilt as I’ve never noticed that these people feel guilty about much of anything.”
 
Sailer: I don’t believe in “white liberal guilt” either, except perhaps in the case of the occasional older white Southerner. It just seems like white liberals want to be seen as morally and culturally superior to white hoi polloi on racial issues as a form of status competition. 

http://www.isteve.com/Web_Exclusives_Archive-Apr2004.htm
in response to: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/ca_history.htm

Sailer has also made the same point about environmentalism being status competition. If this rings true out here in the prairies where the liberals are fairly nice and polite, how much more must it be so for the firebreathers on the coasts, those with no redeeming values whatsoever?

Underlying this dance is the fact that the Left doesn’t believe a word of what it says, any more than the post-Brezhnev Soviets believed in Marx. They do experience embarrassment and fear, however, and so are open to a two-pronged attack of mockery and aggression.

By aggression, I mean the thing they fear most— forcing them to live up to their stated values. E.g., when faced with a particularly egregious PC officeholder, simply announce that in lieu of wasting good money on traditional campaign materials (most of which money leaves the district or even state), you’ll just buy some houses in your opponent’s best precints and resettle some of the state’s most troubled families there.

The status manipulation argument is not likely a fundamental one. In any case, it applies only to those who suffer from class anxiety, or who want to fool people with a false status image, but not to the honest. Why then, if status considerations were operating to any significant degree, are there not people who fear that they may lose by being considered to be of to rarefied a type to relate to ordinary people’s concerns, not pretending to be anti-immigrationist, pro-majority or anti-diversity?

Correction: the last sentence above should read ‘pretending’ instead of ‘not pretending’. To put it differently; it would seem that there should be also people who would want to down-class or butch up their image by saying what has been given economic-educational class associations, which are lower. Politicians in particular are known for such ploys. Also leftist scholars, who want to sound working-class, but especially not haute-bourgeois, could make nativist or pro-caucasian comments in a manner calculated to toughen their image. None of these possibilities occurs, as far as I’ve seen; therefore another explanation is better, perhaps.

What better example of the phenomenon Mr. Bolton describes than the Bushes? A patrician Connecticut/New York family with impeccable old New England roots and Andover/Yale/Harvard sheepskins is made over into a clan of Texas ranchers and oilmen. Both Georges have pursued the Texas image so assiduously that I’m a little surprised they haven’t sold the Kennebunkport house. Texas does get awfully hot in the summer, though, especially for Yankee transplants. (I’m too polite to say carpetbaggers.) HRS

Mr. Sutherland’s comment about the Bushes somehow illegitimately foisting themselves off as Texans is off-base. The 23-year-old George H.W. Bush moved with his wife and two-year=old son to Texas in 1948, he made his life and career there, he made his fortune there in the oil business, he became a Congressman from that state, he ran for the Senate from that state, and Texas has remained his principal residence throughout his life. And when he left the White House, he returned to Texas. Unless Mr. Sutherland, who is himself a native Southerner transplanted to New York City, feels that no Northerner has the right to move to the South and make his life there, I can’t imagine what he is objecting to.

There are so many legitimate criticisms to make about the Bushes. Mr. Sutherland spoils it by making unwarranted cheap shots about the Bushes as “carpetbaggers.”

As I said above, I’m too polite to call the Bushes carpetbaggers, which they are not. Yankees moving South is acceptable as long as they assimilate and not too many of them do it. I hope Yankees feel the same about Southerners moving north.

What Mr. Auster says about GHW Bush moving his family to Texas and taking a few risks is true. Still, they are what they are - which is nothing to be ashamed of - and, via Kennebunkport and where they go to school, have retained connections with the part of the country whence they spring. Knowing that about them, the country ‘n western Texas persona that the Bush men adopt rings a bit false. HRS

I am a native Tennesseean. I know many transplanted Yankees. They invariably much appreciate living in the South. However, they usually keep their Northern mindset. They have a way of displaying liberal attitudes while taking advantage of the Southern environment. This is similar to liberals enthusing over the wonders of “diversity” while living in the whitest neighborhood they can find.

The Bushes NEVER seem Southern to me. My family has lived in the South since the 18th Century. Where did GWB go to prep school, university, and graduate school? Namely, Andover, Yale, and Harvard. Aren’t the attitudes GWB expresses as President exactly what you would expect from someone educated at those institutions? As Mr. Sutherland says, the Texas persona the Bushes “adopt rings a bit false.”

As an aside to Mr. Sutherland and David’s remarks on the essentially Yankee Blue Blood nature of the Bush clan, a firend of ours was making the point yesterday evening that folks who graduate from Yale without the benefit of racial preferences generally know how to correctly pronounce the word “nuclear.” GWB’s continual use of ‘nucular’ is an attempt to make himself into a good ol’ Texas boy and is only slightly less real than Clinton’s self-depiction of being raised in a log cabin in the Arkansas Ozarks while black churches were being torched by Klansmen.

It’s a minor point, to be sure, but other politicians have also mispronounced nuclear in that fashion —- notably JFK! Bush 41.1 is probably trying to borrow glory, as usual…

Mr. Levine, do you know for a fact that JFK said “nucular”?

I regret to say that I am old enough to recall him doing just that! Even then, people gently ridiculed it as an endearing fault.

President Kennedy also said “idear” for idea, something I have known many New Englanders (including Hahvud-trained WASPs) to do. President Bush’s “nucular” may actually be a survival of the speech ways of his old New England ancestors. If so, he and Rove had better get to work suppressing it! There is nothing particularly Texan, or Southern generally, about saying nucular. HRS

As a native Texan, I can attest that I had to cringe many times when hearing the pronunciation “nucular” in Dallas from other native Texans. It was the minority pronunciation, as elsewhere, but it was not rare.

Whenever I hear Bush say it, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw as a teenager in National Lampoon. The scene is out west, near some restricted government land, with razor wire on top of the high steel fence. The sign on the fence reads: “No one who says ‘nucular’ allowed beyond this point.”

Quote from Reg: —I don’t believe in “white liberal guilt” either, except perhaps in the case of the occasional older white Southerner. It just seems like white liberals want to be seen as morally and culturally superior to white hoi polloi on racial issues as a form of status competition. —

My fiance isn’t white and I am—and I bet I could read the collected works of Lawrence Auster at dinner to my numerous lefty friends here in my superwhite rich neighborhood with Kerry signs and bumper stickers everywhere (whitest one in my still quite white city) and they’d be afraid to say one damn word against what I was saying. It’s amazing. I wrote Steve Sailer about this once and he just wrote back “ha ha ha.” Best email I ever got.

I don’t get “Pa Chay’s” point. Why would rich white liberals be afraid of attacking my ideas about race?

Since my fiancee isn’t white, they fear I am morally better than they are.

I’m laughing out loud. So, if a morally superior person (morally superior because he’s engaged to a non-white) espouses ideas that from the liberal point of view are racist and against non-whites, the liberals will decline to criticize the speaker, because of his morally superior status.

I’m thinking further about what this means. Does it mean that, since you’re engaged to a non-white, you can’t be racist, and therefore they won’t attack you as a racist? So right and wrong are purely a matter of status. Which perfectly fits with the whole liberal gestalt. Modern liberalism is not about the actual right and wrong of things, it’s about the desire to show that one is a “good” person, i.e., a person who believes in the right things. But (as I explained in my talk, “The Political religion of modernity”) that soon devolves into simply wanting to be seen as a “good” person regardless of objective right and wrong. And then certain symbols, such as being engaged to a non-white person, become the proof that one is a “good” person; and once one is validated as a “good” person (since there is no longer any reference to an objective good outside the “good” person), then the “good” person gets an automatic pass to say things that, if someone else said them, would be condemned.

It’s like Islam. There is no objective moral reference point outside Islam to determine if the actions of Moslems are wrong. If actions are Islamic, they are good. Similarly, with liberalism, if you are officially validated as a good (liberal) person, then there is no standard outside yourself, including the standards of liberalism itself, by which you can be condemned. The liberal self is God.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001644.html

Lawrence—

First, let me thank you for your website.

Of course I exaggerate—but not by much. Yes, “what soon devolves into simply wanting to be seen as a “good” person regardless of objective right and wrong” is exactly what I’m saying (this “shield” does not, interestingly, apply to black conservatives). I am so clearly a “good person” in the eye of liberal whites that they really don’t want to criticize me (at least to my face).

And you will of course note the similarity to Leninism.

I note the similarity to Calvinism. Even though the “elect” were guaranteed their spot in Paradise, the individual worked extra hard to prove to others, and to himself, that he was in fact part of that elect.

In 1976, liberals were unhappy with the idea of Jimmy Carter as the Democratic nominee. However, Carter had gotten a huge black vote in the primaries. Because of this, liberals had to concede that Carter deserved the nomination.

Some years later, I saw CNN analyst William Schneider talking about this. Since Carter had the black vote, white liberals had to accept Carter. This is another example of how non-whites are supposed to be the moral superiors of everyone in America.

Re the moral superiority of non-whites:

The Bush-Rove Republican Party is taking the notion of the moral superiority of non-white votes to suicidal extremes. At a time when a principled stand on issues that matter to white Americans (immigration and affirmative action, to name only two) would probably guarantee Republican landslides, the GOP has decided that the party’s highest priority is pandering to hispanics through illegal alien amnesties and to blacks by accepting and enforcing the anti-white discrimination regime the Supreme Court endorsed in the Grutter case. HRS

Here is letter I e-mailed Bill Oreilly and his superiors today, after his show last night about amnesty. I am sorry for the length.

“I hope you reconsider your support for amnesty. Your support for amnesty accepts unlawfulness and encourages others you influence to give up as you have done and as many have already done. You don’t even make amnesty contingent on anything; you said “I support it” and then proceeded to smile and to treat with great respect a supposed policeman that aides and abets illegal immigrant
unlawfulness and their violent crimes by excusing their very presence. Where was the “no-spin” response: an intense, outraged journalist that asks, “so you, a policeman that knows Mexicans commit vastly disproportionate violent crimes,
don’t want to actually expel noncitizens you have overwhelming statistics showing they commit hugely disproportionate acts of violent? Did you not know President Eisenhower used mass deportations? I say this because usually
the excuse people use to avoid the issue is we can’t deport. So Ike was unrealistic and you’re guest is a respected policeman?

You are behaving like the typical Bush right liberal—oppose liberal ideas until they become difficult to oppose and then support them. You used to be outraged by amnesty, and I assumed it was based on some principle. Now you support it. Rather than fight, you abandon principle. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. The Founding Fathers never had a chance and knew it, yet they persevered and won. Reagan stood for something, never abandoned his principles, and won.

You act like a tough guy, but this failure to stand on your principles is evidence you are behaving as a phony. Tough guys never give up. This is not the first exhibit. It is not uncommon for you to go on and on about some side
of an issue, come unprepared, and then say, “maybe I am wrong” or ignore the guest’s argument (inconsistent behavior for someone that holds himself out as a tough examiner). A man with your responsibility for getting the facts right can’t come unprepared; employ an expert if you can’t defend yourself in cases such as amnesty. The appropriate response to an argument you are nonplussed about is to say, “I can’t counter that, so I will further consider it and get back to you my viewers.” You did not even challenge the ignorant assertion we
need “guest workers.” How else did we manage to become the most powerful country on earth before the devastating 1965 Immigration Law? Your guest
worker nonsense is one step away from giving up entirely. I have endured this all this behavior because I must seek allies where I can. Your tough guy behavior seems unreliable on both principle and professionalism, so there is little
reason to endure your behavior any longer.

Because your strong opposition to the immorality and anti-American position of amnesty and illegal immigration was the primary reason I would tune in to your show, I must take the similar principled action you proposed against Coca Cola
for their support of immorality and for France’s anti-Americanism. I am boycotting your show. I know you are a human being and work hard, and I am writing your superiors, whom I am informing that I am deciding whether to say I intend to boycott Fox TV also; you were the primary voice on Fox against amnesty, and now you support it. Maybe I will boycott Fox except for John Kasick, who still is opposed, but who, like politically incorrect people for the major networks, is relegated to sound bites. Fox talk-TV addresses right and left liberal issues at least as much as conservative issues, so why not tune in to the majors—which I gave up on decades ago and will continue to do so. I will visit the Fox Website and my reliable alternatives on the Web.

Before you write me off as a single-issue fool because I oppose mass, illegal, and Muslim immigration, know this. I consider this war (we all know this war is police, a war of survival of a culture, and not moral) vital to the survival
of a Christian America. Consider General Eisenhower, Prime Minister Churchill, FDR, and George Washington were single-issue people when the time called for it.” oreilly@foxnews.com and Viewerservices@foxnews.com

Did O’Reilly explain why he switched his position?

I am unsure. He included it as a lead-in aside to his question to the the Hispanic Police Chief of Sacramento whether the Chief would support Oreilly’s guest worker program. I knew he was going to change his position just as he is going to change to open borders one day so I immediately clicked him off. He is all over the place and does not provide philosophical-principled support for his positions, even though he is very smart and could certainly quickly grasp and articulate the support.

A correction to the last paragraph, second sentence of my 11:12 post: I consider this war (we all know this war is a political not a moral war between elected elites) vital to the survival of a Christian America and of citizens, who expect their government to protect their physical survival. I sent Fox a rewrite with other but minor corrections.

The problem of violent crimes prepretated by illegal aliens is a huge one. The police chief who was on the O’Reilly show should be relieved of duty for his refusal to enforce the law. Period. The tyical MO of Mexican criminals is to flee across the border into Mexico once they’ve carried out some evil, where they will be harbored since the Mexican regime usually refuses to extradite as it considers even life in prison as a cruel and unduly harsh punishment for murder.

Yet the Republican voters of Utah, despite a brave campaign from Throckmorton, chose to nominate the treasonous Chris Cannon again. Cannon will be attending a MALDEF meeting next week to celebrate. Since illegals are already allowed to vote in several locales (supposedly only in local elections) and sit on juries - the general campiagn to abolish the meaning of citizenship should come as no surprise. The Republican RINOs and Country Club types always invoke Reagan’s 11th commandment when conservatives start to fight back but (like all liberals) exempt themselves from the rule.

The TRUTH is more uncomfortable than to ignore it…

The TRUTH is more uncomfortable than to ignore it…

The TRUTH is more uncomfortable than to ignore it…

It is uncomfortable to write and to speak out because it is work. And this site is of enormous benefit to the many people like me who know change will not occur without indefatigable effort. Mr. Auster sets an example and teaches us not just by his writings but by allowing us to fumble around with trying to understand his ideas by applying them through our writings and by listening to us. My ideas and their expression (with mistakings caused by time pressures) would have been a lesser accomplishment without this site.

Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking, but I detected a distinct mood change in Oreilly last night, especially during his viewer mail segment, which I was hoping would include part of my e-mail. Oreilly was not in his usual phony smiling “bring it on, I am a tough guy” attitude. He looked serious and worried the whole night. A relative agreed with me.

Instead of addressing my e-mail, he picked on a pathetic mailer that foolishly accused the Sacramento Chief of Police of being a racist; which is why in respected argument one must avoid name-calling, unless of course the other person starts it. I agree with punching back. And tough guys don’t pick on foolish name callers; tough guys accept the challenge of a rational arguer. There were probably many other commentators like me, so I don’t dare claim credit for Oreilly’s mood.

Good news! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123674,00.html
“Border sweeps move inland.” “For years, border patrol (search) agents in Southern California have done just that — patrol the U.S. border with Mexico and highway checkpoints, arresting illegal immigrants only near the border.

But now those agents are extending their reach inland, conducting sweeps in cities and arresting hundreds of illegal immigrants in states like California, Arizona and Texas.”

Stick to your principles and redouble your efforts at immigration reform: keep those letters and phone calls to eilites going. This is just another example that progress is being made. Never give up your principles. You are not lazy; you just need motivation, and here it is. Work by a few can produce enormous accomplishments; look at Jewish people and remember most people are interested in themselves and other things, not in fighting against you on immigration.

Good news indeed, but I wonder if this is just part of a desperate re-election ploy by Mr. Bush after the damage done by his amnesty proposal?

More good news. Nader comes out against illegal immigration. http://www.steinreport.com/archives/2004_06_28.html#003954

Now some have a choice other than Bush and Kerry, although my vote still goes to the stronger candidate Kerry, to get a right liberal out of control of the Republican Party; but I am reconsidering a vote for Nader and will watch his polls to see if he hurts Bush more than Kerry.

Mr. Murgos brings an excellent news, immigration limits people should enjoy the moment, they don’t come too often :-(

Not only Nader is against illigals, he is against importing soft-slaves via H1B while there is such unemployment among American IT workers:

“In an interview with The American Conservative magazine, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader said it was time to crack down on illegal immigration and the employers that broke the law. “I don’t believe in giving visas to software people from the Third World when we have got all kinds of unemployed software people here,” Nader said. “We have to control our immigration.”

I’m not in a battleground state, my state will go to Kerry by 20 points. Nader has got my vote.

Here is a letter I sent to the Republican National Committee in response to the RNC, which sent me a letter questioning my support of Republicans.

“I have not abandoned the Republican Party. I vigorously support my Congressman, David Vitter. I have always opposed President Bush.

Bush abandoned the Republican Party. He is not a conservative and needs to be removed from control of the Party, which is why I am voting for the awful Kerry. The President is a right liberal; for God’s sake, his wife supports abortion, and he declined to oppose the Michigan anti-white affirmative action policy. He spends money like no Republican before him. He leaves liberal Clinton orders unchanged. He advocates amnesty for illegal aliens from an alien culture and race he has adopted—Mexican—notoriously anti-white and anti-Semitic.

He is a phony. Why not close the southern border and then give the desperate Sudanese the opportunity to engage in a massive invasion of the U.S.; because Bush is a hypocrite. He lauds the joy of standing on the corner of any street in America, closing his eyes, and hearing Spanish being spoken. Why not English or another language? He holds back our military and border patrol from enforcing the law and ensuring we are not inundated with a culture that exhibits a highly disproportionate violent crime rate. He has the power to stop it with the stroke of a pen, so don’t say his hands are tied. I am not stupid. Congress could do nothing to stop him; on this issue, Congress has no chance of overriding his veto.

He is a race baiter that selects people based on race and tells everyone else they are wrong to do so. He regularly makes special efforts and pronouncements to assist Hispanics in hiring and in programs. Where are the special benefits for non-Hispanics—you know—white, actual citizens? He is a man with a personal agenda without regard for what a huge majority of Americans want: immigration control. Of course, during his campaign lying (which I knew he was doing), he said he supported immigration control but now throws a few measly dollars at it when we spend billions on caring for illegal aliens. So why believe anything he says? A chip off the old block; I recall his Daddy’s “read my lips, no new taxes.”

He shallowly and hypocritically proclaims the belief that race, language, and culture do not matter unless he is talking to his adoptive race. So our parents don’t matter? If genetics is meaningless, why have men? We have the technology to create easily a purely female society and, soon, clones. His opposition to freedom of association requires what occurred after WWII in Yugoslavia, which placed a boot heel on the neck of every citizen. His ideas require we believe in one super-race, as if that will solve the world’s conflicts: the Sudan is just one example of this fallacy. He is the Orwellian nightmare—one race, one religion, one philosophy, and dissenters are enemies of the state: his Chief of Staff, Carl Rove, told Tom Tancredo not to darken the door of the White House. How representative of the inclusiveness the President pronounces lies about? Vincente Fox, who engages in anti-American activities such as opposing our war on Islamic terrorism and encouraging his people to invade America, can darken the presidential door, but not an actual American.

I do not think he is an evil man like Clinton, but he is doing evil out of ambition and who knows what other motives: stupidity or loyalty to his adoptive race and culture maybe.”

My letter was intemperant, and I am glad I did not mail it yet. I will tone out the name-calling and reduce the stridency. Otherwise, it will have no chance of being seriously considered.

There have been two different desires expressed on this board with respect to Dubya: (1) That he win re-election narrowly and be properly chastened by the number of votes given to the Constitution Party, by write-in votes for Tom Tancredo, etc., and (2) that he be defeated and John Kerry elected. I have supported outcome #1, while others have said that only defeat will wake up the GOP establishment.

I heard the tail end of a phone interview with Tom Tancredo tonight on the Lars Larsson radio show. Larsson has been a supporter of Bush who has vehemently disagreed with the amnesty proposal and has hosted interviews with Mark Krikorian, Tom Tancredo, and others. Tancredo said that something has happened this year that has NEVER happened in the history of the GOP. Usually, when a telephone fundraiser is told by a Republican that no donation shall be made because of some issue or another, the solicitor is told to just say, “I am sorry that you are upset about this; we hope we can still count on your vote” and end the call. However, the number of small contributors who have raised the amnesty issue in refusing to contribute has caused the GOP to develop a telephone script in which they try to talk the potential donor into believing that Dubya has been doing various things to combat illegal immigration, that his proposal is not really amnesty, etc. The epidemic proportions of donor refusals led to this, but it is not working too well.

What about the big donors, who are called by special solicitors? Are they Country Club Republicans who have a different reaction than the small donors? For a refutation of that idea, see the following article, written by a special solicitor for big GOP fund-raising dinners of the $2000 per plate variety: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/article1.html

It would seem that the GOP is getting the message loud and clear. I just returned a postal solicitation with no contribution and “No AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS!” written on it.

This should cause some further reflection on the position that only a Dubya defeat will get the message through, or that a Dubya re-election will produce a lame duck who no longer needs our votes and can do what he wants. Money talks. The GOP needs to raise money during the next 4 years, whether Dubya needs another re-election or not. The big donors include quite a few who are withholding funds because of Bush’s treason.

I agree with Mr. Murgos on the GOP/RNC and what they have become (sell-outs, many of them, like Rep. Chris Cannon and others). I wrote many months ago about how the only way true conservatives can make a difference and “stick it” to the GOP is to write in Tom Tancredo and then next year, form our own party. I am quite serious about this. As monumental a task as it will be, I see no other alternative; the GOP has slid so far to the left as to make differentiation between the major parties nebulous at best. The Democrat Party has gone so far left that it is more like the Green Party of Europe than the party of Truman and JFK (By the way, americanpatrol.com has some excellent news linked stories over the past month on Rep. Cannon and Bush II’s push for amnesty through his point man on the issue, Rep. Cannon).

It is good to see a post by Joel LeFevre who I have not seen here for some time.