Deconquista

Sometimes the solution to a problem is rather counter-intuitive. Don’t want to get the flu? Get the flu injected right into your bloodstream, albeit with a fight-fire-with-a-different-kind-of-fire adjustment. Don’t want to be involved in wars? Then build and maintain a big, bad military. Don’t want illegal immigrants? Then don’t let them leave.

That’s right. We hear about fences and more patrollers and sanctions on employers and fake-ID makers. That’s all fine and good. Each addresses a specific problem with current policy—fences are absent, broken, or too-lame to matter; patrollers are scant; and the US-side criminal abettors don’t face any real penalty for their abetting. Now all of these measures are aimed at upgrading our ability to stop or catch the illegal aliens. But what do we do once the targets are caught? Same as always—put them on a bus and send them back home so they can do some stretches, take a nap, and come back again tomorrow. The illegal-immigrant-serial-killer Resendez was caught and released 17 times. 17 times! Finally they caught him… and kept him. Seems that the serial killing part was considered serious after the 16th time. He doesn’t need to come back again, because now he can’t leave. So, the obvious question to ponder, is What if we had locked him up for good the first time he was caught? How many people would not have been serial killed?

Here’s the plan: When illegals are caught creeping in or already here, they are interned—Gitmo style. Not abusively, not cruelly, but pragmatically and indefinitely. The last part is really important: Indefinitely. Camps where the enemy combatants (they are non-US citizens, combating law and order in the United States) can be concentrated (whatever should we call them?) will be established in suitable places. These can be cheaply established using Arpaionian-Maricopan Penal Architecture. In the desert with tents and cots. No dollars to send home, no you to go home, no opportunity to try again or even to make another try at making it work back home. No free college for the kiddies— they do get sent home. And no welfare benefits, we’ll provide the bologna sam’iches and pink undies directly. In fact, the potential traveler might conclude, he has a very good chance of making the family’s—and probably his own—situation far worse than it is here in San Filinda Blanco, or Fa On Gong, or Sandi al-Daway You tried to get in, you got caught, and now you are here at the Permanent Chapter of the World Scout Jamboree for who knows how long. Welcome to America.

Kramer

So Kramer, alias Michael Richards, is a racist. Or at least he says racist things. Or at the very least, he says things that the Determiners of Racism consider racist. And you, as part of “the public” are supposed to condemn him, boycott him, and not laugh at him anymore because he is not funny from now on. Exactly how is this in any way removed from Stalinesque, Kimjongilian Nazi (gasp!), McCarthyite (gasper!), Evolutionisonlyatheoryist (gaspest!) garbage-as-treasure? It’s not. It’s insulting to suggest it is in any way different from any other kind of PC bullying (remember, Kim is PC is Pyongyang) to tell the public what it should think and do in a case like this. To take matters from bad to absurd, Kramer goes to the original Naked Emperor and the Palace Fool, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to “apologize” and seek healing of his ideological malady. Why would anyone not hop happily aboard the next train to the GULAG or VC “re-education” camp before submitting to such Abughraibian groveling?

Here’s what is really offensive— not racist comments, but the notion that we are supposed to condemn racism while overlooking or even praising all other miscreant conduct. Celebridiots like Babs, George Clooney, and Ted Turner, say things that are not only offensive, but downright perverse, every day, every where, ad nauseum. They make the remarks in public forums specifically for news consumption. They advocate a pretty narrow and readily recognizable list of policies they want implemented that would severely cripple the United States and American society; destroy them in fact as the entities that many, perhaps most, Americans would like them to be. No need to go into the list here, it is well known.

Now of course even the cannibals' rights folks have every right to advocate anything they want to. But advocating something is by definition activist. It means the Advocates want something actually done—in this case, in my opinion, very harmful things. They are actively working toward that goal, not just saying that America Sucks in some passingly insulting manner.

Not so with Kramer. Simply being hateful toward a group of people isn’t advocating anything. It is just personal opinion. Kramer hasn’t advocated one thing that would make me poorer, less safe, or subject to regulation by delusionals. Babs has. George has. Ted has. Kramer didn’t campaign for David Duke. Many celebridiots did campaign for Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry--- people who have far more actual ability to harm this society than one freaky person spewing the Dread N Word possibly could. Kramer didn’t advocate anything or anyone. He just expressed rage and a personal opinion in a socially frowned-upon manner. In a private venue, not intended as a press conference.

So Kramer is supposed to be blacklisted for expressing a personal opinion many find offensive but that doesn’t pose any danger. While any number of other show biz figures are supposed to be cheered for the “courage” of wanting their country to lose a war. And actively pursuing that agenda. The Dixie Chicks’ freedom of speech is denied when people boycott their product, but Cosmo Kramer should be held accountable by the public by never working again. If there were Oscars, Emmys, Grammies, or Hero of the Hollywood Soviet awards for hypocrisy, how could the tiny statue manufacturers possibly keep up?