Mark

Marcus concludes his next to last post by mocking mine, and the copy-cat zinger doesn’t come off. He would have us stand quietly by while our country is turned into a combination of Brazil, Asia and Africa. If that long-range prospect worries you, you’re a racist, tribalist, etc. In the immigration debate the cultural leftists – including the official Objectivists and their followers – have always claimed the moral high ground. Now they’re getting desperate because the old epithets “concrete bound” ... “tribalist” ... “racist” ... “collectivist” ... are becoming ineffectual. People are beginning to understand that there must be something wrong with how these words are being used even if they can’t identify the problem. Immigration patriots – as those who oppose unrestricted immigration call themselves – no longer care about offending people. The cultural leftists’ trick nomenclature doesn’t work anymore. I pointed out that preference and moral judgement are two different things. Marcus argues that you must have had prior experience in order to prefer one thing over another, therefore this is wrong – which argument is hard to follow. You can like a sunset without having seen one before. He puts scare quotes around the word “races” when he writes of “certain ‘races’ of people,” as if there were no such thing as race. Yet races do exist – otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Ayn Rand acknowledged that other races exist and that ab initio they are to be judged by a different standard of beauty, no experience necessary. This applies to every member of a race, not just an average. Marcus asks, rhetorically, “Would you really deny someone their just due just because you don’t ‘like’ the way they look?” In this loaded question, complete with scare quotes around ‘like’, Marcus pretends to speak for me. To repeat what I already said clearly enough: You owe a man nothing when all you want is to be left alone. If you happen to choose not to deal with him – for any reason good, bad, or indifferent – you rob him of nothing he had before. If someone forces you to deal with him, the injustice is against you. I pointed out that since passage of the Immigration Act of 1965, written by Norbert Schlei, introduced into Congress by Emanuel Celler and Philip Hart, championed by Edward Kennedy, and signed into law by Lyndon Johnson – real adherents of Objectivism every one, LOL – not to mention the simultaneous and intentional breakdown of immigration law enforcement – whites have dropped precipitously. Marcus replies, asking rhetorically: “.. so what if whites are ‘only’ 70% of the population?” Just look around you, that’s so what. I pointed to the vast under-representation of whites as perpetrators of stranger violent crime. Marcus replies: “Violent crime happens all over the world in every society, everywhere. It's a fact of life.” — talking right past my point. The subject here is not the Siamese in Siam, it is America and the color of crime. Marcus can have the rest of the world. I mentioned a recent horrible crime. To Marcus it isn’t real. He mocks the victim by putting “atrocity” in sneer quotes! It wasn’t a real atrocity! It didn’t really happen! He asks rhetorically: “Why amplify this ‘atrocity’ over the others just because a person of a certain race is perpetrating it?” Over which others, the number of stranger violent crimes that whites commit against minorities, per capita whites? Compare that with the number of stranger violent crimes minorities commit against whites, per capita minorities. The ratio of the first number to the second is a tiny fraction. The mainstream media pushes the former crimes for weeks on end and doesn’t mention the latter if they can help it, even the local news typically obscures the situation – “teens” did it, “youths” did it, etc. I wrote that averages can be useful and Marcus calls that observation collectivist and tribalistic. How about self-defensive. Marcus claims that “Guatemalans moving to America do not ‘take’ anything away from anyone in a fully free society.” Whether we live in a fully free society or not, masses of Third World migrants dilute and destroy American culture, which was once a great culture and still has remnants left. You can read about the slow motion train wreck on Vdare.com, which contrary to some other posts on this thread is an excellent resource for immigration news and commentary. Of course it has an agenda, and a good one: deportation of illegals, ending anchor babies, a reinstatement of the Immigration Act of 1924 which Hart-Celler rescinded. You don’t have to agree with every last thing on Vdare – I don’t myself – to find it valuable. If the current trend continues whites will soon be less than 50%, then drop ever more rapidly. According to the cultural leftists you aren’t supposed to notice. Concern for white demise is collectivist and racist! If so then those words must have a good meaning. The point of my last post was that the definitions of these words are in urgent need of refinement because of this hijacking of epithets. There is a good (or at any rate morally indifferent) sense of racism and there is a bad sense. “Collectivism” – which was originally a purely economic concept – needs to be clarified as well. Sometimes it is right and proper when making a decision to consider the average of a group. And of course some things are common to every single member of a group, otherwise it wouldn’t be a group. I mentioned standards of beauty earlier because it is an important consideration.

Marcus makes a package deal out of (1) a moral character judgement and (2) a preference. He also denies the utility of statistics, but set that aside for the moment and consider only his confounding of (1) and (2). If preference for one race over another were evil, then a white man’s preference for marrying a white woman would make him evil. Merely having a preference doesn’t mean you think the non-preferred is immoral, stupid, or any other objectively negative thing. It’s just your personal preference. You have a natural right (since 1964 violated by federal law) to discriminate and associate as you please. The reason you have that right is that exercising it can be good for you. Many Objectivists have lost sight of this simple truth. We can evaluate men on the basis of their individual character and other attributes and still prefer not to deal with them in various situations because we don’t like their looks or whatever. Does refusing to deal with someone initiate force against them? Only a leftist would say it does. About the utility of statistics: sometimes it’s reasonable to consider averages or groups instead of individuals. A cab driver avoids – at any rate wants to avoid – fares going to or coming from high crime neighborhoods. Speaking of mass immigration from the Third World, consider any positive attribute such as health, appreciation of capitalism (not just the wealth it provides), intelligence, etc. If the average of that attribute among Guatemalans is inferior to its average among Americans, and America lets in millions of Guatemalans, the American average drops. It’s simple arithmatic and common sense. Take the attribute of intelligence. If Binswanger thinks we can let in millions of people with an average IQ of 80 (or whatever) without it changing the character of America – whether they are allowed to vote or not – he’s an idiot. The fact is Binswanger is not an idiot, he just doesn’t give a damn about America. One consideration is not statistical but certain. There are different standards of human physical beauty. (Look up “beauty” in Binswanger’s Lexicon.) Do you want to be surrounded by Vietnamese every time you leave your house, no matter how filtered they are for intelligence, freedom from disease, etc.? The idea of racism needs to be split in two: (1) the Racism – I’ll distinguish it by capitalization – where the moral character of one individual is judged, with certainty, by his race, and (2) the racism of preference. I said that racism is natural and that anthropologists know this. Marcus replies that “Racism is a primitive impulse ...”. The word ‘primitive’ is ‘natural’ with a negative spin. After rejecting the spin Marcus and I agree. Rand spun ‘natural’ into ‘atavistic’ and I would say the same to her. She wrote very confusedly on the subject of race. If she intended to compare racism, lowercase, to preferring one’s family I would say: Precisely! People tend to love their children more than random characters off the street. More often than not they cut their mothers some slack too. Now I don’t think Ayn Rand meant to trash that kind of racism. She was speaking of character judgement, not a tendency towards preference. However she did fail to make herself clear by explicitly distinguishing between the two kinds of racism. If she did mean to include preference in her denunciation then Ayn Rand was wrong. It’s not racism that is “divisive” – a leftist jargon word Marcus plucked out of the current intellectual miasma – it’s that the races naturally divide. To repeat, whites live in the whitest neighborhood they can afford. If blacks move in, before they get to 5% whites want out. In colonial times all the angst about race was unnecessary. It is unnecessary in a country where whites don’t feel guilty about being over 90% of the population and on average better off than the rest simply because they are on average better in a number of positive attributes. This was the case in America as recently as the 1960s, before cultural leftist ideology took over and before the Hart-Celler Immigration Act brought 90% down to 70% and counting. Marcus, you claim that racism corrupts justice. Tell that to the Rodney King jury not me. You claim racism is an enemy of peace? Even as I write this – I was about to describe the latest stomach-turning atrocity in the city I happen to be visiting, but what’s the point speaking to the deaf. God damn your “peace”. Stranger violent crime – violent crime committed by someone the victim doesn’t know, the kind of crime you worry about – is almost always committed by minorities. If a white is the victim, the perpetrator is almost always non-white. Frequently, as in “the knockout game,” the perpetrators are Racist in the bad sense of the word. Talk about “clubbing someone over the head”! Yet Binswanger and his fellow brain-dead official Objectivists would solve the problem by opening the borders completely, allowing in yet more La Raza. How much can their followers ignore and evade in the name of Objectivism?

To be exact, she's a syndicated columnist -- Universal Press Syndicate -- and VDare pays to reprint her column. She has a way with words. Here she is quoted in "Immigration Enthusiasts": "... Democrats haven't won the hearts and minds of the American people. They changed the people. If you pour vinegar into a bottle of wine, the wine didn't turn, you poured vinegar into it. Similarly, liberals changed no minds. They added millions of new liberal voters through immigration." Mark ARIwatch.com

I’m concerned with America’s culture not Egypt’s economy. America may be the safest of all countries in which to drive but unrestricted immigration makes it less safe. Vdare.com is a great source for immigration news from an “immigration patriot” point of view. The epithet “immigration patriot” isn’t obviously descriptive but that’s what Vdare calls people who oppose further immigration for a time, especially from Third World countries. If you care about America then reading Vdare is well worth your time. One point of the article referenced in post #1 is that the government should respect our right to discriminate. The so-called Civil Rights Act of the 1960s (actually there was more than one) violated that freedom – broadly speaking the freedom of assembly. Letting trash like Tark Girgis into the country is part and parcel with forbidding us to discriminate against them once they are here. The writers at the self-styled Ayn Rand Institute are outspoken in support of unrestricted immigration. They are indistinguishable from cultural leftists. What Yaron Brook said about anchor babies, of course without using that phrase, is just as applicable to Egyptian cab drivers. The following, quoted in “Open Borders and Individual Rights,” is authentic word for word: “I believe that people who are today struggling and fighting to come to the United States are acting heroically. My standard for heroism is a person trying to make the best life that they can make for themselves. A pregnant woman in Mexico who wants a better life for her child, and is therefore willing to struggle through what it takes today to cross over the border illegally into the United States is heroically trying to make her life, and her child’s life, better by coming to America. I don’t think that should be condemned, I think indeed that should be praised. She’s a hero for trying to make her life a better life by coming here ...” He doesn't conclude by saying “And to hell with America as you knew it.” That would be too revealing.

Before bringing them here. Setting aside the overblown account of John Nash's contribution to mathematics ... Killed in Crash by Egyptian Immigrant – and Everybody’s Talking About Seatbelts

This politician has been in office somewhat over four years. During that time he's talked a lot about patriot issues and attempted, in action, very, very little. Now when he runs for president suddenly the man's a patriot firebrand. In 2011 I gave a lot of money to Ron Paul in his campaign for the Republican nomination, fully realizing he most probably wouldn't win, because I saw his campaign as an educational effort having consequences for future more successful campaigns by like-minded others. And then the little suck-up known as Rand Paul endorsed Romney, even as Ron Paul was still in the running. He sucks up to Hispanics. He is not "one of our own," at any rate not one of mine. Mark ARIwatch.com

He spoke in vague generalities designed to sound good to everyone that could mean anything to anyone. He said nothing particular about the most important issues of our time: Out of control immigration. The violation of rights by so-called civil rights laws. Domestic spying (NSA etc) [correction, he did mention phone records, which understates the problem] The so-called Patriot Act (TSA etc). Mark ARIwatch.com

www.ari.aynrand.org/~/media/pdf/ari_annual_report_2014_web.ashx Previous years don't seem to be online. I'd like to see the one for 2012 when, according to ARI's 990 filing (a more informative document required of charities) that fiscal year, ARI sent $100,000 to the "Middle East" -- no country specified -- for "outreach." The above 2014 annual report doesn't break down the salaries -- this time about five million dollars total. The 990 filing will show who got what. The online availability of the 990 is always well over a year late. I don't know if the tardiness is due to ARI or the services -- unaffiliated with ARI -- that put them online. ARI itself so far has not.

Many examples as there are of evil men getting destroyed the counter-examples remain, enough of them to make history replete all over again. One more counter-example to add to those already mentioned would be Nguyen Van Thieu. From ARI Watch's review of Andrew Bernstein's essay "Honoring Virtue": "Before and during the Vietnam War the U.S. supported South Vietnam’s dictator Nguyen Van Thieu, just because he was nominally anti-Communist. ... [He] fled Vietnam when the U.S. pulled out, and moved to a mansion in Surrey, England, living in luxury until his [natural] death in 2001. The main source of his multi-millions in wealth was undoubtedly U.S. foreign aid. His heirs now possess that money." The last part of post 253 by "Franciso Ferrer" is an excellent summary of his position. Perhaps Rand's less than clear account explains how Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook can turn her "selfishness" into subjective hedonism when they promote open immigration. Mark ARI Watch

A sickening whitewash by the foxes guarding the chicken-coop. The Weavers were in no way a militia, and the FBI -- far from trying to negotiate anything -- set up Randy Weaver then murdered his wife and son. After that their dog isn't worth mentioning. See Ruby Ridge. Mark ARIwatch.com

"... foreigners come here to participate in the American dream." -- Harry Binswanger From Immigration Enthusiasts: Far more often than not the foreigner’s dream is a socialist one. Though he might come here to escape the consequence of socialism, namely poverty, typically either he fails to understand the cause-effect relation and even though productive votes socialist, or – and it’s very frequent – he is a looter on the receiving end of socialism, and votes socialist. The first part is worth repeating, No matter how nice and hard working they are, statistically immigrants from backward or socialist countries overwhelmingly vote socialist. Not only from voting records, I know from personal experience talking with some of the better immigrants -- friendly, honest, hardworking, and stuffed full of Marxist ideas even if they've never heard of Marx. I've argued with them ad nauseum yet nothing takes. According to the Pew Research poll of Hispanics quoted in a footnote of "Immigration Enthusiasts," the second generation isn't much better. And they vote the way they think. We're talking averages, there are exceptions, but they are a small minority. ARI likes to repeat that innocents get killed in a war. This is war. Except vetted whites from Europe and Australia keep them all out. See the testimony of Dennis Michael Lynch (successful businessman, movie producer) on why not give drivers licenses to illegal aliens: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpi3IxQX6Jk

Clever sarcasm, Neil. Snippets from an article on the website Vdare.com, "What I Saw at the Naturalization Ceremony — More Immigration Means Welfarism, Crime, and the End of America" by Nicholas Stix, October 5, 2013 Five years ago, my son and I accompanied The Boss [Nicholas Stix’s wife] to her naturalization ceremony ... at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Brooklyn. ... We got to witness the big swearing-in ceremony. Every Citizenship And Immigration Services (CIS) worker was herself an immigrant -- they bragged about it, while promoting the "America is a nation of immigrants" myth. ... Afterwards, The Boss was enraged. During the hours while we waited for her, the immigrant immigration workers had brought out forms for every welfare program under the sun, which they promoted to the candidates, and for which they proceeded to sign them up. This strikes me as illegal as hell. Doesn’t U.S. Immigration law clearly state that an immigrant may not be a public charge? I am also convinced that the citizenship process was lousy with fraud by the CIS workers. The Boss had studied hard for the citizenship exam, learning about who the first president was, about the U.S. Constitution, three branches of government, etc. But it was given by a CIS worker with no written, video or audio record of it. I believe that those workers passed everyone, whether they knew the answers to the questions, or even could speak English. ... S.744, the Schumer/ Rubio Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill, would fatally tip the balance of taxpayers to taxeaters, since virtually all of the people being amnestied would be taxeaters. ... [And] Every one of the new tech workers that people Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg would import under H-1B and other "non-immigrant" visas would displace a qualified American worker. ... ... The refugee racket has been a magnet for frauds, many of whom are also violent criminals from the world’s most uncivilized countries, like Somalia. ... ... although America’s immigration disaster is dominated by Third Worlders, it’s not just non-whites who have the rip-off-America mentality. ... During the early 1990s, I once went on a date with a pretty young Jewish girl from the Ukraine. She said that all of her young friends from back home worked off the books, while sponging off disability or welfare, and thought Americans were idiots for not doing likewise. ... S. 744 passed the Senate but fortunately not the House.

Obama is the immigration anarchy president. About two years ago Congress defeated the "Dream Act" so Obama got it anyway by executive order, exempting from immigration law about .8 million young adults. Now he’s letting in any and all children, mostly teenagers -- 60,000 for starters, hundreds of thousands soon to come, then millions via family reunification. Mark ARIwatch.com 　

Not up to your usual standard of humor, Brant. It's not your fault. I don't think there's any aspect of our immigration disaster that's funny. About that black Objectivist in the corner, if he’s smart he too would see the advantage of a predominantly white America. It would be safer and more prosperous for him as well as for me. Anyway I care more about me and mine than being politically correct. Speaking of humor and Cubans, if not immigration, here’s Rick Sanchez (who calls himself "a cuban from Miami") after being taken to the woodshed by Abe Foxman: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLEaiIq1sIQ#t=103

William.Scherk wrote: "A couple of readers seem to get agitated about ..." Hold it right there. Even without reading the rest of the sentence you know it's going to be a hatchet job. I'm not "agitated" I'm very concerned. I don't just seem that way I make it clear that I am that way. "... Third World persons and their presumed socialist bias infecting the USA with alien values and life-choices." I presumed nothing. I provided abundant evidence that asians, blacks and hispanics overwhelmingly vote socialist in the USA – much more so than whites. "Mark brings up his favourite taboo factor, ..." Again, hold the phone. William.scherk could have written "Mark brings up ..." and then what I said. Instead he jeers at what I said: "his," "favorite," "taboo." "... race, suggesting it is perfectly natural to prefer one's own race, as natural as sex." Just because you prefer the company of someone over someone else doesn’t mean you think the other is morally bad. And though you must judge an individual’s moral character by his own individual merits, you can favor or disfavor whoever you want for any reason. Few whites want to be forever surrounded by non-whites no matter how good they are. That is my preference. I do think it is natural. Partly it’s a question of different standards of human physical beauty, and goes deeper than that statistically if not universally. "It is depressing to consider that Objectivists might be pining for a less-brown world in the USA." Set aside the slur word "pining." As more and more Objectivists come to realize that open immigration is destroying our civilization, what William.Scherk finds depressing will become true for more and more Objectivists. Wanting -- and working to return to -- a predominantly white USA is the selfish thing to do.

Wolfe references a review (by Kevin Roose, in the New York Magazine) of a paper by David Brat. According to the review Brat says that Adam Smith's economic ideas are grounded in Protestantism, and modern day economists have lost their way trying to do economics without that basis. I read the introductory summary of Brat’s paper and that seems to be accurate. Rand would agree with the idea that economists make a mistake by being amoral, so to that extent she would agree with Brat. She would disagree about the morality being that of Protestantism, but then again she would agree with a lot of Brat's idea of that morality. Unfortunately Objectivists tend to think that anything to do with Christianity is automatically evil. (On ARI Watch you'll find a couple of footnotes about why this is wrong.) It’s a safe bet that Roose thinks most people are as anti-religion as he is. His motivation for emphasizing Brat's religiosity might be to make Brat, and his non-religious positions such as restricting immigration, look bad.

The poll, conducted by leftists, was of 78% whites, 22% non-whites. Hudgins’s "some 70 percent" comes from the answer to the third question (my numbers in brackets): Q3 There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. [1] The bill would secure our borders, [2] block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and [3] make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. [4] If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal? Strongly support ................. 40% Somewhat support .............. 32% Now what is the average Joe supposed to make of the question, which is actually four questions? He wants 1 and 2 and 3, and wants people to know he wants it. Many people would be suckered into a "support" answer even if they opposed "path to citizenship" immigration. After that trick question comes another asking the same thing (the poll analysis refers to these questions as "Support/Oppose Immigration Reform 1" and "Support/Oppose Immigration Reform 2"): Q4 Do you support or oppose an immigration reform plan that [1] ensures undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. pay a penalty, [2] learn English, [3] pass a criminal background check, [4] pay taxes, and [5] wait a minimum of 13 years before they can be eligible for citizenship? Strongly support ................. 32% Somewhat support .............. 32% The question wasn't as blatantly rigged so somewhat fewer people were fooled: 72% dropped to 64%. The drop, for essentially the same question, by itself proves that a lot of people were not responding to a lawyerly reading of the questions. If you take Q4 instead of Q3 as the basis for comment and throw out the "somewhat support" you get 32% support "path to citizenship" immigration, not "some 70%." And that 32% is groping in the dark based on bad data and probably over-estimates the true number. For sure "some 70%" is grossly incorrect. That’s how phony polls work. Take an issue you want to say most people support yet most people do not, then water it down with side issues that sound good to them, and wrap it in a package. The liberals who conducted this phony poll took care not to ask the one forthright question that would have meant something definite: "Do you want more Third World immigrants in your city?" The reason is that most natives would answer No, and strongly.

That was me. "ARI Watch" has been active all along. (This is a very old thread.) I wonder if at this point your PHP code has spidered ARIwatch because if you search (web) for "world war" -- one example that should bring up an ARIwatch page -- you get no results.

I didn't say that Congress declared war on Germany. Because of the Tripartite Pact, FDR knew that declaring war on Japan would result in the Axis declaring War on the U.S.Addressing the last post by Las Vegas ... Argument by analogy is useful only when there's a real argument to back it up. Michael began his last post by referring to shallow thinking and then immediately explained what he meant. Just what does Las Vegas mean? Las Vegas writes that "Japan had initiated the force" when in fact vis-a-vis Japan it was the U.S. that had. Before Pearl Harbor FDR had, illegally, waged war with Japan in China, and he did it by allying with a Chinese dictator. Americans should have retaliated against the Roosevelt administration instead of Japan. Las Vegas claims that Rand must have supported retaliation against Japan despite Rand's abundant statements that the U.S. should not have entered WWII, which of course declaring war against Japan did. As Michael points out, Hawaii wasn’t legitimately part of the U.S. Michael mentions Operation Keelhaul "in which America forcibly relocated refugees back into lands occupied by the Russians." You can read about Operation Keelhaul and other little known facts about the aftermath of the Normandy invasion in these articles: Operation Keelhaul: The Story of Forced Repatriation by Julius Epstein. Review in World Affairs Brief by Joel Skousen. Other Losses by James Bacque. Reviewed by Stephen Ambrose. The mass starvation of Germans, 1945-1950 Review of James Bacque’s Crimes and Mercies. Behind An Eye for an Eye by John Sack. Lola Potok was a serial liar. (Amazon reviews) The Secret Betrayal by Nikolai Tolstoy. Reviewed by Charles Lutton. FDR helped cover up the Katyn Forest massacre He didn’t want to annoy Stalin. Stalin’s War of Extermination by Joachim Hoffmann. This was our ally? (Amazon reviews) Poles Review Postwar Treatment of Germans Solomon Morel fled to Israel and now lives in Tel Aviv. By Craig Whitney, NYT. 　

Objectivists say that under a proper government "you are morally bound to refrain from initiating force and from acting as a vigilante" (Binswanger). The question is: Is the improper government that we do have bad enough that in some situations there is no such obligation? The following is from "the cover-up quilt," a project, now defunct, of the late Tom Burkett and Beth George, one square for each victim of the FBI. Presumably the author has finished his prison sentence by now. The full name of the FBI’s victim was Shannon Marie Mahoney.　 The Shannon Mahoney Story by Brian Mahoney (her father) I am currently serving a 154 month sentence (12 years 10 months) for the murder (justified death) of a "protected government witness." The man I killed in Miami in January of 1988 was in the Federal Witness Protection Program and was providing the feds with information against Mafia persons. However that had nothing to do with me. In January of 1988 I was a prosperous businessman who owned and operated several eateries and bars in the Champaign-Urbana, Springfield, Normal-Bloomington area of Illinois. I owned a Condo in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida that my wife and kids and myself used a couple times a year. We were in Ft. Lauderdale after Christmas 1987 for vacation when on January 3rd, 1988 my little girl, Shannon – age 8, didn’t come back from the beach with her older brother. We immediately began searching the area and soon realized the worst nightmare any parent could possibly have, "A missing child." To make a very long, very emotional story short, the body of my daughter was found ten days later in the trunk of a car at a hotel outside Seattle, Washington. My little girl, my princess, had been kidnapped, raped, sodomized, tortured, then killed by this animal. This animal then cut my little 8 year old Shannon’s body into six parts, stuffed her into a suitcase and threw her remains in the trunk of his car. Because he was a "Protected Federal Witness" in several ongoing investigations against the mob, the feds stepped in and took jurisdiction. There was also a question as to where Shannon was actually murdered. A good and true friend of mine informed me that this animal was not going to be tried. The government was going to change his name and hide him back in the Federal Witness Protection Program due to his value as a government witness. I also was informed that he was a known pedophile ... On January 22, 1988 he was transported back to Miami by the U.S. Marshals Service. I found out what flight he would come in on. As the feds walked him down the airport corridor, I stepped up behind him and shot him, point blank, three times in the back of the head. I then handed the gun to the marshals and was led away in handcuffs. ... the animal who brutalized my Shannon is dead! I did it. I meant to do it. I am saved, and the feds hate it. When I killed their precious witness, it messed up over 50 ongoing investigations and several trials that were about to start. ... now that I know what I know about the federal courts – lying witnesses, lying feds, and corrupt prosecutors and judges, I’m glad that I did what I did, even if it meant some mobsters going free. We all make choices in our lives. I made one that I am now paying for, but the bottom line is that monster will never harm another child. ... The killing didn’t interfere with any legitimate trial. The would-be witness was offered something of value in exchange for his testimony and therefore it was bribed testimony, inadmissible and worthless. (I know, prosecutors use such testimony anyway and judges allow it.) Also, the character of the witness indicates he’s dishonest even without the bribe. (Right, it doesn’t matter to the court.) The reason I focus on this one square of the cover-up quilt is that I happened to be visiting Florida when the case went to trial. It made the local newspaper. The FBI and the DOJ are corrupt as hell.

Immigrationists are desperate to spin Brat’s victory as due primarily to something, anything, other than that he’s opposed to open immigration. At the end of the day politicians want to be elected and re-elected. Once they realize that the vast majority of (native, at least) Americans are opposed to open immigration (despite trick polls by liberal organizations), so opposed that they will vote immigrationists out of office, we will see an end to open immigration. Hence all the attempts by immigrationists to spin this latest upset in terms other than immigration. To mock one of Clinton’s 1992 campaign slogans: It’s immigration, stupid!

"Big business" for the most part is treasonous when it comes to the immigration invasion. Legal immigration is even more of a problem than illegal.

Quoting a Salon.com article: Thus the liberal Salon expresses its disdain for whites who oppose open immigration. Translation: Cantor and the House leadership are trying to jam amnesty down our throats. It's true, with or without God. An article on Vdare.com by "Washington Insider" says "David Brat’s primary victory over Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor" is ... the greatest electoral victory to date for the patriotic immigration reform movement. Having worked in Republican immigration politics for many years, I’ve seen a ... pattern in challenges to pro-Amnesty politicians. ... 1) Establishment candidate supports amnesty. 2) Challenger runs anti-amnesty campaign. 3) Establishment candidate pretends to oppose amnesty [too] and outspends challenger by many orders of magnitude. 4) Establishment candidate fools voters and wins. 5) Chattering classes use election as proof that voters support amnesty. 6) Establishment candidate goes back to supporting amnesty. ... ... Eric Cantor was on the same path. ... Cantor has been ... supporting Amnesty for some time. Yet, faced with Brat’s challenge, Cantor began sending out campaign mailers stating "Conservative Republican Eric Cantor Is Stopping the Obama Reid Plan to Give Illegal Aliens Amnesty." Money is what makes this campaign both stunning and such a win for patriotic immigration reform. Cantor raised over five million dollars to David Brat’s $200,000. Brat responded with a populist campaign calling Cantor a tool of the cheap labor and business lobby. ... ... [brat] shows a real passion and understanding of the importance of the issue that goes far beyond the usual clichés of "secure the border" and "stop Amnesty" you hear from your average conservative shyster. And although Brat focused on Amnesty, he has expressed support for ending birthright citizenship, ending chain migration and reducing overall legal immigration levels. ... While Brat portrayed himself as a Tea Partier, and toed the conservative line on most issues, he was able to attract voters because, the amnesty is the ultimate crony Establishment policy: not earmarks or a farm subsidies. 　 　

That part of Rand's essay is quoted here, and she is not cagy. About dropping atom bombs on Japan, it killed at least 11 American POWs, including two men who later died of acute radiation poisoning. From "Remembering Normand Brissette" by David Rubin:

Long before the Pearl Harbor attack, Germany, Japan and Italy had signed a mutual defense treaty called the Tripartite Pact. War against one was war against all. That's why FDR was so eager to get Japan to attack the U.S. Germany wasn't going to do it.