A thoughtful compilation and analysis of some important, but underreported and under-researched news stories, with particular focus on keeping the People informed about all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic.
============
BY ALFRED WEST
(AKA THE SOVEREIGN EDITOR).
============
Anyone is free to comment on this site. Therefore, outgoing links posted by third parties may contain objectional material, but do not reflect the views of this site's owner. When linking to an outside page, links should not direct the reader to nude pictures, erotic stories, or other forms of pornography. Nor should links appear to sites using excessive profanity. Use common sense. If you would be ashamed for your church-going grandmother to see it, you shouldn't link to it. In addition to not linking to any inappropriate material, commenters should watch their language, else their posts will be deleted. Likewise, libelous statements will not be tolerated.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Divide and Rule
There is something we need to be considering about the driving need of our "leaders" in Washington to open the floodgates to hoards of culturally diverse people to live among us. It is a historical fact that the European empire-builders in Africa deliberately drew territorial boundary lines in such a way as to place diverse cultural groups within the same borders. The rationale for this divide and rule strategy is to provoke racial strife. If the subjects spend all their time fighting amongst themselves, they will be less likely to organize against the rulers.
I believe this principle is at work in Washington today. It is an incontrovertible fact that the majority of Americans are opposed to illegal immigration. In spite of this, Congress and the President have very tepid responses to the problem. Could this be because our political office-holders actually want illegal immigration to occur, that they want the native population to be displaced by culturally diverse invaders they are powerless to stop within the bounds of current law and anti-American civil rights court rulings? Homogeneous populations are less likely to fight amongst themselves and more likely to organize against an oppressor. Since immigration reform in the 1960s, leftists in our government have made it their stated goal to flood America with immigrants that are as different from traditional Americans as possible. They use pretty idealistic terms like "social justice" and "the brotherhood of mankind," but could the truth be that they want to destroy American homogeneity to enhance the power of the government? Like it or not, this is a tangible result of increasing diversity.
We Now Have a War on Thanksgiving
Nothing of traditional American culture is sacred anymore. The Anti-American Seattle School District has decided to teach children that Thanksgiving is a time of mourning for American Indians and a "reminder of 500 years of betrayal" by White people.
I've always wondered why, given that Indian tribes competed among each other for territory, Whites are considered to be particularly evil for doing the same thing? Were we not allowed to play because our toys were better?
So-Called Immigrants Rights Groups Confused About Immigration Enforcement
In California, uniformed Border Patrol agents have been temporarily reassigned for the relief effort. The ACLU and immigrants rights group claim that this is unfair to illegals because the sight of the Border Patrol uniforms is scaring them away from the evacuation sites. The immigrants rights groups are claiming that the presence of these uniformed agents unfairly discriminates against foreign migrants.
This really gets under my skin. First of all, why are immigrants rights groups always challenging the deportation of illegal aliens, suggesting that this violates the rights of immigrants? This is like saying that the arrest of purveyors of illegal narcotics serves as an abridgment of the rights of pharmaceutical venders generally. Second, if migrant workers who are here legally are afraid of being deported, then I would say that these so-called immigrant rights groups have failed in their civic obligation to let the migrants know that they need not fear deportation if they are here legally.
The War on Terror is a Fraud and Should Be Ended
In recent months, my opinion of the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in general have changed. In the beginning, I was a strong supporter. However, after watching the shameful execution of the war, it became clear to me that President Bush simply does not have what it takes to give the sorts of orders that would be necessary for a decisive victory. Such a person has no business calling for the invasion of another land even if the motive is a just one.
In the last few days, however, it occurred to me that the underlying premise of the War on Terror, and particularly the Iraq campaign, is false. Even if, as the President says, "the success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States," our being there does not benefit us in the long run.(1) The premise Bush presents is that if we fight in Iraq, we will be made safer. If certain variables are not considered, this argument can make good military sense, and indeed, this is why so many otherwise sensible conservatives support the war.
Fighting in Iraq is akin to using valuable time to scout out a roofer to repair a rotted area that may soon start to leak. Ignoring certain other variables, this seems like a good strategy. Spending the day in town hunting down a good deal on a roofer would ordinarily indicate responsibility and foresight. However, if you consider that the house is currently flooding due to a burst water pipe, leaving to look for a roofer would seem insane. A similar situation is taking place in America.
We are told that the war on terror will save this country, but I can't think of a single influential policy-maker who ever mentions the destructive cultural and economic effect of unfettered illegal immigration by what, as far as I can tell, are unassimilable foreigners.(2) Unless we get a handle on illegal immigration, Spanish-speaking enclaves of foreigners will only continue to grow and transform our cities from American settlements where everyone speaks English and have a cultural bond of a common history into something that is foreign to us.
I ask what is the point of fighting terrorism overseas to "preserve our nation" when absolutely no effort is being made at home to curtail the displacement of our culture? The blind eye the government turns toward the never-ending stream of foreigners coming across our southern border makes a fraud out of the so-called War on Terror--it makes no sense to protect the country from one thing if another thing will eradicate its language and culture anyway. Conquest only requires a gun if those to be conquered are willing or able to fight.
Australian Foreign Minister Politely Asks Mugabe to Resign
Australia's foreign minister apparently thinks that the black supremest tyrant of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), Robert Mugabe, will voluntarily give up power. Despite the fact that this fellow has been killing people and breaking things for at least 20 years, Australia's foreign minister thinks that to get him to give up power, all that is needed is for someone to ask politely--from one gentleman to another.
US Should Concentrate on Being Strong, Not on Projecting Power
I've been mulling over this matter for a few days and finally decided to write my thoughts down as they have not changed significantly.
It occurs to me that the government of these United States is spending a lot of money to project our power overseas. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan for the long haul. I don't think we should pull out anytime soon, either. When we invaded them, we took responsibility for their populations, and that's all there is to it.
Now we're talking about invading Iran as well -- another long-term financial obligation that we simply cannot afford. There is the looming specter of the Taiwan-China crisis as well.
We appear strong now, and we are. However, our constant projection of that power has taken a toll. Our resources are more tapped out than most people realize. Simply put, we lack staying power. As far as I can tell, we have to borrow money to finance our current military operations and our government in general.
Foreign countries own so much of our national debt that serious damage could be done to our economy almost over night should China, for example, divest itself of its dollar holdings.
We need to find a way to generate more real wealth in this country. We need to revive our manufacturing, and most definitely do something about our tax structure that acts punitively against businesses and individuals alike. And we definitely need to stop this constant protection of our power so it is not diluted when we need it the most.
Jury Ruling May Be a Step in the Right Direction for Tort Liability
According to a recent article, "A Butte County jury has found a Gridley supermarket not liable to pay civil damages to an illegal alien who slipped and fell on a grape inside the store."(1)
The plaintiff was not named in the article. Her lawyer attempted to obscure her status as an illegal alien from the jury by asking her to stipulate that the reason she could not pay her medical expenses was because she could not work.(2) Whether or not the jury ruled against her due to her immigration status is not important. This was the correct ruling under common law principles that our courts have been increasingly hostile to. Liability is commonly attached not to -- well -- liability, but instead to money. If there is an injury and if someone with deep pockets can in any way be associated with the cause, that person will likely be sued.
For example, if a wealthy person leaves her car unlocked with the engine running and it is stolen [assume she was dropping off a video at Blockbuster], and the thief runs over a little girl resulting in $300,000 in medical expenses, her lawyers will try to sue the woman who's car was stolen, not the thief. The thief likely has no assets, but the woman he stole from does. The little girl's lawyers will allege that the woman was negligent in leaving her car unlocked. They will say that she should reasonably known that most incidents of random thefts are crimes of opportunity. As such, she should reasonably have expected a greater risk of her car being stolen if it were unlocked; further, she should have anticipated that harm could be done to innocent third parties. Her willful negligence in not securing her vehicle, a dangerous instrument, is the proximate cause of the little girl's injury. Had the defendant secured her vehicle, the intervening cause of the theft likely would not have occurred. Her failure to secure her car was a breach of her duty to keep the car from harming the little girl. Therefore, the defendant is liable for any resulting damage.
Now, I know what you're saying. The woman who's car was stolen is also an innocent party. The thief committed two crimes -- stealing the car and running over the little girl. That's how an ordinary rational thinker would react, because ordinary rational thinkers cannot blame someone for an act when the act was performed by a completely different person acting of their own volition. But in the fictional realms of legal speculation, lawyers and judges would consider the question of the rich woman's liability to have legal merit. When I asked a professor of tort law about this, emphasizing that it is not right to hold people liable for the actions of third parties, he answered in genuine earnest (and that was the truly chilling part) that it wasn't fair that an innocent third party should suffer and that it is the responsibility of the courts to to make sure the person most able to bear the cost does so. What he basically said was that the woman was liable because she was rich. If the car thief had been a trust fund kid on a joy ride, he would have been more likely to be held liable for the cost. Tort liability theories like this, entertained by judges, have made our court system into sort of an ad hoc welfare system.
I have never thought this even remotely resembles justice because it is wrong to make a person responsible for the voluntary actions of another. The ruling against the illegal alien who slipped on a grape might be a step in the right direction for tort liability. The article is sparse on the actual details, but if I were her lawyer, I would argue that the supermarket had a duty of care to maintain a safe premises. That the customer slipped shows that they did not do so; therefore they should be responsible (I would supplement this with affidavits, if I could get them, that the store was aware of litter on the floor, or that they did not take make an ordinary effort to watch for litter). If I were the supermarket's lawyer, I would basically say that the grape was dropped by another customer and even with the best effort, it is impossible to watch all the customers all the time. I would say that the supermarket exercised the ordinary standard of care and that negligence by a third party constituted an intervening cause. And for good measure, I would argue that the illegal alien was contributorily negligent in that she did not exercise due caution in her own movements and thus assumed the risk of injury. I of course, have no idea if this is what the defense argument was, but if any of it were, it is now legal precedent in that jurisdiction; and that would be very good news for innocent non-actors who are parties in tort liability cases.
______________________________
(1) Terry Vau Dell. "Jury nixes illegal alien's suit over fall in grocery store," Oroville Mercury Register, 2007 June 29, para. 1, http://www.orovillemr.com/news/ci_6256948. (2) Ibid. paras. 4-5.
"If you love wealth more than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,
depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest
lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tuwLvfPaA19ErIYugByj3gl4St41wTRysI9Bf_DirWvG1jW_FAHOQwgO1kGrV6BKfmBStUHW1_fo3QwRju5rOu1Kt1ZMG1sWy0Ba_m0tkAYDkMkot7wtszaoXvRpa9DmcHTw=s0-d)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_v0pBF2nGrlkm-Qqzdiw31BnZ2sCjCkW40remBL3ZwhwyU36y37lj5v0V2v-y-iqBRgK-jDd6t-9N9pK9tEr3jWRZyeB76cMScYQ-UoA8fNXuymkL2qISdP7FEjxxPZPlNbejDX=s0-d)
![[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vxFhIaCwjoUysb_mIgROWpI-RBSMa6W4cQBK0HrC2LS1fnJf0lw5uPb4fUu-FUHVSRaXpg3yFBa0o3pPBeN9QqnsjV-ixlLDtdnJrs9jjK6U6gEAPtF8Vg=s0-d)
