UPDATED: ‘Conservative’ Defects, Announces (D)evolution on Immigration (Tons Of Turncoats)

Conservatism, IMMIGRATION, Paleolibertarianism, Political Correctness, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Rights, States' Rights, War on Drugs

A full-throated support for individual freedoms would mean a denunciation of the wicked War on Drugs and an abandonment of the useless and creepy fetish over another person’s prime real estate: a woman’s title in her body.

In a bid to remain in the anchor’s chair and to play a part in national politics, a conservative has chosen, instead, to say bye-bye to borders. Well, sort of.

Sean Hannity said this, on Thursday:

(Politico) Sean Hannity said Thursday he has “evolved” on immigration and now supports a “pathway to citizenship.”
Hannity told his radio listeners Thursday afternoon that the United States needs to “get rid of the immigration issue altogether.”
“It’s simple to me to fix it,” Hannity said.

This, as the country is still surveying the debris left by the “D-Bomb” dropped on Tuesday, Nov. 6. The reference to demographics is from this week’s column, “The D-bomb has Dropped,” now on RT. It speaks to the demographic shift in US population, which only a moratorium on mass immigration, buttressed by strong secessionist movements (as specified in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot”) can remedy.

“Left-libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever.” (Mercer, May 1, 2009)

UPDATE: TONS OF TURNCOATS. Crybaby Boehner is leading a ton of other “conservatives” to the promised (la-la) land:

”A comprehensive approach is long overdue, and I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

“overhaul,” “reform,” “comprehensive solution” “fixing a broken system”: These are all euphemisms for amnesty, Dream Act, preferential treatment, subsidies continued, etc.

UPDATE II: The D-Bomb Has Dropped

Democrats, Elections, IMMIGRATION, Private Property, Republicans, The State, The West, Welfare

The current column, now on RT, is “The D-Bomb Has Dropped.” Here’s an excerpt:

“…People with higher incomes constitute a minority, an economically dominant minority (to paraphrase Amy Chua). People with low incomes are in the majority, a politically dominant majority.

The rich are politically impoverished; the poor politically rich. The rich dominate the economy, the poor dominate the polity.

When elections roll around, the politically powerful exact their revenge against the economically powerful.

What kind of a right gives one man control over another man’s life? In a democracy, the right to vote does just that.

As for demographics; they have become destiny. They were not necessarily so. Demographics have been the excuse central planners have advanced to persevere with immigration policies that destroy civil society and shore up the welfare state.

The now-waning West became great not because it outbred the rest of the world. The West was once great because of its human capital—innovation, exploration, science, philosophy; because of superior ideas, and the willingness to defend such a civilization, not because it was more populated than the rest of the world.

America doesn’t need more people; it needs better people.

Making nice with constituencies that vote repeatedly and habitually for the candidate who promises them more stuff is tantamount to sleeping with the enemy. The only voters who could be swayed by the promise of the free market are the Democratic Party’s Asian supporters, since they enjoy higher incomes and stabler families than the party’s Hispanic and black devotees.

Ultimately, elections are about perception—the way in which the people perceive the political planks of the two parties. …”

Read the rest of “The D-Bomb Has Dropped,” on RT.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION, AND DO BATTLE FOR LIBERTY BY:

• Using the content-sharing icons on Barely a Blog posts.

• At the WND and RT Comments Sections, and on Facebook.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” WND’s “Return To Reason” , and RT’s “Paleolibertarian Column.”

UPDATED I: Facebook THREAD: In reality, voting Republican does not shrink the state. On the contrary; Republicans are a reliable engine of government growth. But with the importation of constituencies that want stuff, the two parties are competing to satisfy that demand. Importing third-world dependents has only helped grow the welfare state.

UPDATE II: I needed a laugh. A friend needed one. We all need one. Here is Patrick J. Buchanan in one of his finest moments.

UPDATED: Mitt Romney: Elements Of A Tragic Figure

History, Literature, Morality, Nationhood, Politics, Pop-Culture, Republicans

Mitt Romney embodies some, not all, the elements in Aristotle’s definition of a tragic figure:

* Character must be a person of stature. (Check)
* Character must neither be totally good or totally evil
* An error of judge or a weakness in character causes the misfortune. (Check)
* The character must be responsible for tragic events.
* Action involves a change in fortune from happiness to misery. (Check)
* Subject is serious. (Check)
* Tragic hero is of noble birth and displays a nobility of spirit. (Check)
* Protagonists pitted against forces beyond their control. (Check)
* Struggles courageously until his fall. (Check)
* Though defeated, gains a measure of increased wisdom.

Mr. Romney’s election concession speech speaks to these tragic elements, especially this man’s abiding faith in “this great nation.”

I so wish — I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose another leader. And so Ann and I join with you to earnestly pray for him and for this great nation.

UPDATE (11/7): We “left everything on the field,” Romney said, adding “we have given our all to this campaign.”

This comports with the prototypical Greek tragic figure who “struggles courageously until his fall.” Meantime, the snake in the grass coiled and hissed and spat venom, all the way to a victory.

Exercising A Right Over Others

Democracy, Elections

PBS’s Christina Bellantoni cites a poll (which I can’t locate on PBS News Hour’s usually well-organized site), according to which individuals earning less than $50,000 trended Barack Obama; those earning more than $50,000, and certainly individuals in the upper-income tax bracket, preferred Mitt Romney.

Single women and racial minorities are with Obama too. (Understandably, categories overlap.)

People with higher incomes are in the minority. They are an economically dominant minority (to paraphrase Amy Chua). The rich dominate the economy, the poor dominate the polity.

When elections roll around, the voting mass exacts its revenge against the economically dominant minority.

The economically dominant minority funds government. The rich pay most of the taxes. Obama is the candidate who, on paper at least, has promised his special constituencies more of what richer people rightfully own. Mitt Romney is the candidate who, on paper at least, promised to confiscate less private property.

That is, at least, how the voter perceived the candidates.

Answer me this, then: What kind of a right is the vote? What kind of a right gives one man control over another man’s life?

In this democracy (for we are no longer a republic), you vote not for a representative who will defend your inalienable, individual rights. Rather, if you are The Rich, whom The Left treats as a reified, rigid state-of-being, you vote defensively. And if you are The Poor, you vote, indirectly, to extract what your guy has promised you from The Other Guy.

In a word, pillage politics.