‘Drop the I-Word’ (‘I’ is for ‘idiocy’)

If an award were given for dumbest comment about America’s illegal immigrant problem, the hands-down winner would be Dayanna Rebolledo. Herself an illegal immigrant, Rebolledo said upon being arrested at a protest in Atlanta in April 2011 that she had risked deportation because she was “tired of seeing undocumented youth being treated like second class citizens.” If Rebolledo were as logical as she is exercised over the nation’s rightful sovereign objection to people sneaking across our borders, she might have realized that you can’t be a second-class citizen without being a citizen—period.

Now Rebolledo’s crown is in jeopardy, thanks to the rise of a new immigrants’ rights advocacy group. It calls itself “Drop the I-Word” and its mission is to persuade Americans not to use the modifier illegal to refer to people on U.S. soil illegally. The organization claims the term is a “racially charged slur used to dehumanize and discriminate against immigrants and people of color regardless of migratory status.” They further claim that the term has “fueled violence” and suggests a host of other more polite (“more accurate” in the parlance of DtI-W) replacement terms. These include “undocumented immigrants,” “unauthorized immigrants,” and “NAFTA refugee.”

It’s hard to know where to begin with statements this loony. People willing to wade through a nasty soup teeming with fecal coliform, E. coli, and other pathogenic goodies are worried about dehumanizing words?

Maybe the DtI-W folks would prefer that the U.S. treat its immigrants to the south the way Mexico treats its own. In Mexico, the Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion (General Law on Population) makes it a felony to cross into the country illegally (whoops!—”without documentation”), and the penalties are far graver. Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The penalty includes up to two years in prison—up to 10 years for repeat offenders.

The main problem with DtI-W’s argument is that they don’t have one. A spokesperson for the group appeared on the O’Reilly Factor last night and had nothing to offer beyond the same vague and baseless feel-good claims enumerated two paragraphs up. She speaks at one point of changing “inhumane laws,” but there is nothing inhumane about calling a crime by its name. Not to mention the fact that linguistically neutering the crime of illegal immigration carries the risk that more people—if such a thing is possible—will begin making the journey through that fetid soup.

Tea Party 2.0: Upgraded for 2012

While loud and raucous rallies are still a part of the tea party toolbox, the movement, which came to life over dissatisfaction with big government and anger over government bailouts and President Barack Obama’s health care reform, is evolving.

“After the 2010 elections, what was interesting, we moved to what I call Tea Party 2.0,” said Clyde Fabretti, a conservative activist affiliated with tea party groups in Florida such as the West Orlando Tea Party and the Central Florida Tea Party Council. “2.0 allows for … our ability to accomplish legislative initiatives, supporting various tea party candidates that adhere to the principles and values. And we have been hugely active.”

“But it isn’t the kind of activity that makes the press,” Fabretti continued. “I mean, when you put 5,000 people at an event, you know, everybody shows up with their cameras. You have 10 meetings with different legislators on [Capitol] Hill — nobody knows about it.”

With many activists still lukewarm to presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, many in the movement say they will focus intensely on flipping the Senate into Republican hands.

Rallying the troops is part of the movement’s agenda. On Friday, the Tea Party Express kicked off its sixth national bus tour, weaving its way through Pennsylvania and Ohio then heading to Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas, all states with contested Senate races.

But leaders in the movement described other tactics they’re using — some long-tried, some new that are designed to train and mobilize tea party and conservative activists for political warfare.

Tea party booster Americans for Prosperity spokesman Levi Russell said his group is supplying volunteers with suitcases stuffed with cell phones to set up mini phone banks in activists’ homes.

“This is a whole new thing that AFP has been putting in place and really hasn’t really talked about too much,” Russell said. He said the group has purchased “a few thousand” phones.

It’s also arming volunteers “with tablets, like iPad-style,” Russell said. “They’re going door-to-door, knocking on doors. They’re making phone calls,” the spokesman said.

Read more here.

California to middle class: drop dead

The new USC study pointing to a much-slower rate of population growth in California has been greeted by demographers and urban planners as good news, in that it supposedly gives our state’s leaders a little breathing room to better plan for the future. The rate of growth has slowed to about 1 percent a year, the result of fewer immigrants coming here and many Californians heading to other states.

“The cooling pace means the state, city and county governments and other entities will have more time to prepare for a bigger population than they did in years past, allowing for more effective planning,” according to the Los Angeles Times, paraphrasing the study’s authors. “That could ensure that new roads and parks, for example, are put in areas where they are most needed and where growth is likely to be sustained, they said.”

That’s an absurdly optimistic spin. California’s elected officials have been doing as little planning as possible, unless one counts planning to spend tens of billions of dollars the state doesn’t have on a high-speed rail line that will partially replicate what the airlines already do. Our leaders are battling new water-storage facilities and punishing farmers with absurd water-use restrictions. They impose roadblocks to building new highway systems, and land-use regulations make it nearly impossible to build the homes and businesses necessary to meet the needs of a growing population. You can hardly call that planning.

Read more here.

Who is ‘racist’?

Around this time of year, I sometimes hear from parents who have been appalled to learn that the child they sent away to college to become educated has instead been indoctrinated with the creed of the left. They often ask if I can suggest something to have their offspring read over the summer, in order to counteract this indoctrination.

This year the answer is a no-brainer. It is a book with the unwieldy title, “No matter what … they’ll call this book Racist” by Harry Stein, a writer for what is arguably America’s best magazine, “City Journal.” In a little over 200 very readable pages, the author deftly devastates with facts the nonsense about race that dominates much of what is said in the media and in academia.

There is no subject on which lies and half-truths have become so much the norm on ivy-covered campuses than is the subject of race. Moreover, anyone who even questions these lies and half-truths is almost certain to be called a “racist,” especially in academic institutions which loudly proclaim a “diversity” that is confined to demographics, and all but forbidden when it comes to a diversity of ideas.

The ultimate irony is that many of those who publicly promote or accept the prevailing party line on race do not themselves accept it privately. A few years ago, when a faculty vote on affirmative action was proposed at the University of California at Berkeley, there was a fierce disagreement as to whether that vote should be taken by secret ballot or at an open faculty meeting.

Both sides understood that many professors would vote one way in secret and the opposite way in public. In short, hypocrisy is the norm in discussions of race — and not just at Berkeley. Moreover, it is the norm among blacks as well as whites.

Black civil rights attorneys and activists who denounce whites for objecting to the bussing of kids from the ghetto into their neighborhood schools have not hesitated to send their own children to private schools, instead of subjecting them to this kind of “diversity” in the public schools.

As for whites, author Harry Stein says that many white liberals “give blacks a pass on behaviors and attitudes they would regard as unacceptable and even abhorrent in their own kind.” This, of course, is no favor to those particular blacks — especially those among young ghetto blacks whose counterproductive behavior puts them on a path that leads nowhere but to welfare, at best, and behind bars or death in gangland street warfare at worst.

Read more here.

Joe Albero For Mayor Of Salisbury? Publicity Stunt or Serious? What Say You.

HuffPo Blogger: ‘Rise Up Ladies! If Your Man‘s a Republican Stop Having Sex With Him’

In the wake of the “War on Women” controversy, a number of individuals have seemingly gotten it into their minds that Republicans, particularly Republican men, ought to be punished for their callousness.

In mid-March, a women’s organization held a week-long “sex strike” in an awareness campaign for their “reproductive rights” (presumably this means free birth control), and now author and Huffington Post blogger John Blumenthal is encouraging another such strike, but with a much wider reach.

What, exactly, does he propose? No sex until November, and if by then you are not 100% convinced he will vote Democrat, “Make him stay home on election day.”

Blumenthal explains in his article:

Maybe you haven’t heard the news lately ladies, but for reasons only they comprehend, Republican men are waging war on you. That’s right. Full-scale combat. A veritable crusade. We’re talking no contraception, no abortions, no Planned Parenthood, needless vaginal probing, and they’ve only just gotten started.

And what are you doing about it? Not much.

Here’s the scenario: If we elect Mitt Romney, and both houses of Congress end up being dominated by passengers from the clown bus, God only knows how far they’ll go. Will humorless federal agents in black suits, earpieces and reflecting sunglasses be stationed in your bedroom? Will your ovaries become the property of the state? Will women’s suffrage be repealed? Will you be required to wear chastity belts and/or burqas? Will burning witches at the stake return as a reality show?

They’re holding all the cards, ladies, and their self-righteous imaginations are limitless.

Republican imaginations are limitless, critics ask? Burning witches at the stake as a reality show, if Republicans are elected? Federal agents stationed in your bedroom? Is he joking?

But it does not end there:

Here’s the good news: It’s within your power to prevent all this from happening. How? Simple. Deny sex to your men folk if they plan to vote Republican. Of course, you probably like sex too, but sometimes people in a democratic society have to make sacrifices for freedom and equality.


Of course, you first have to determine whether your fella is a Republican, if he hasn’t already told you. This shouldn’t be too hard. Does he own a Glock, which he keeps in case a deer breaks into your house? Does he work for Goldman Sachs? Does he favor the missionary position because it sounds vaguely religious? Does he keep a Confederate flag in his sock drawer? When you go to Macy’s together, does he wander off while you’re in the cosmetics department and secretly fondle sweater vests?

Read more here.

CAFE standards kill

As Washington keeps yanking money from Americans’ wallets, car prices are set to rise beyond the reach of low-income drivers. From there, things grow deadly.

Blame a regulatory regime called Corporate Average Fuel Economy, aka CAFE standards. Congress enacted these mandates in 1975. Washington generally has increased CAFE standards in an ongoing effort to boost automobile efficiency. Lacking magic wands, car manufacturers spend money to obey these laws. Then – surprise! – up go sticker prices.

The National Automobile Dealers Association calculated on April 12 that a Chevrolet Aveo, the most affordable vehicle it studied, would climb from $12,700 to $15,700 by 2025. This $3,000 increase(in 2010 dollars) would prevent 6.8 million humble drivers from qualifying for car loans.

“Fuel economy improvements must be affordable,” New Mexico Ford dealer Don Chalmers told journalists at the estimate’s unveiling. “If my customers can’t buy what I’ve got to sell, there are no savings at the gas pump and there is no environmental benefit.”

Is this what Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa P. Jackson calls “environmental justice”?

Team Obama is fueling these anticipated price increases by boosting CAFE standards from 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016 to 54.5 MPG by 2025.

As they have for 37 years, car companies will follow these new rules by making cars thinner and lighter. Smaller, slighter vehicles get better mileage. But that hardly matters when a car smacks into a sycamore or slams head-on into another vehicle. That’s when most drivers would trade lower mpg for protective layers of thick steel.

The laws of physics are stubbornly impervious to Mr. Obama’s green slogans, no matter how abrasively he shouts them. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concluded in 2007, “None of the 15 vehicles with the lowest driver death rates is a small model. In contrast, 11 of the 16 vehicles with the highest death rates are mini or small models.”

“Fuel-standard lethality is as obvious as a smashed windshield,” J.R. Dunn observed in the American Thinker. He carefully tracked CAFE’s mayhem.

“According to the Brookings Institution,” Mr. Dunn wrote, “a 500-lb. weight reduction of the average car increased annual highway fatalities by 2,200-3,900 and serious injuries by 11,000 and 19,500 per year. USAToday found that 7,700 deaths occurred for every mile per gallon gained in fuel economy standards.”

Read more here.