OUT OF SERVICE

Due to the increasing demands both inside and outside of school, I have decided that this site will be on a temporary hold. I do not plan to post anything on this site until the end of this semester. Once summer begins, this site will resume it's activity.

The same goes for my YouTube.

DR. SIEBERT IN REVIEW

I went to listen to a lecture by a certain Dr. Rudolf Siebert. The topic was on secularism, religion, and reconciliation. Here are my criticisms:

1. He said that 9-11 was aimed at symbols of modernity.

This is only true in part. A critical look at the works of Osama bin Laden and other Wahabi jihadists would show that while they certainly aren't fans of western modernity, their primary issue was with our exporting it to Muslim countries via diplomacy and military interventionism.

He cited the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House as proof of his assertion. The problem lies with the fact that these symbols have more to do with economics and militarism than mere modernity. They attacked the World Trade Center because it was at the core of the globalization they so oppose. The Pentagon was attacked because of its role in the international affairs of other countries. A book entitled Blowback by Chalmers Johnson details this with great precision. The White House, though not attacked, would have been ideal due to the fact that any and all executive decisions made in regards to foreign policy are made from there. These reasons, rather than modernity, loom behind the reasoning of the jihadist.

2. Pope John Paul II said Darwin may have been right.

While this is partially accurate, it is a tad misleading. Darwinism, a theory devoid of God's providential oversight in the creation of evolution of species, is anathema. On the other hand, Old Earth Creationism has a long history in the Church and among the fathers. Furthermore, the Pope never once mentioned Darwin's name.

In short, he was staying in line with his predecessors by affirming that one could be a theistic evolutionist insofar as he remains within the confines of Catholic dogma.

3. Why was Pope Pius XII encouraged not to talk about the Big Bang?

Contrary to Dr. Siebert's claims, the reason for this was due to the fact that Lemaitre wished to have his findings critically analyzed within the astronomical and mathematic communities. He wanted his theory to stand on its own merits, and felt that it wouldn't be taken as serious were it to be heralded by the world's foremost religious figure. It had nothing to do with the potential reaction among the laity.

4. Siebert regularly made the debate to be between religion and science.

This is common, but unfortunate. There is no lack of scientists in the Christian community, whether Catholic or Protestant. It is not as if Science is monolithic, standing its ground against a plethora of men in black. The very fact that he admitted Lemaitre as being the one to break ground on the modern day Big Bang theory is in itself proof of this.

5. He talked about the debate over the personhood of a child.

Unfortunately, he didn't offer scientific proof for when personhood begins. He made an assertion, but never backed it up with scientific evidence of fact. His position was nothing more than an arbitrary opinion. This isn't to say that he doesn't have evidence at his disposal; it is just to say that he chose not to disclose it.

6. The said that the Problem of Evil is a difficulty for religionists.

I would say that it is a psychological difficulty, but not a logical one. On the other hand, I believe that the problem of evil, at least in any normative or meaningful sense, is a logical difficulty for the secularist. Their presuppositions, as varies as they may be, do not provide the necessary preconditions for normative ethics. I contend, as a presuppositionalist, that this can only be found in the Christian worldview.

7. He talked about the seeming contradiction between what the Bible says about oaths and the fact that Christians subject themselves to them, often with their hands on the Bible.

The issue at hand was not with lawful oaths and vows, which were a hallmark of covenantalism, but with the oaths sworn to anything other than God. It dealt with oaths that were rash or vain. Covenantal continuity, over against the kind of discontinuity and contradiction Dr. Siebert presupposes, is the rule of thumb on this issue.

8. He implied that there was a tension or contradiction in in Christ not coming to abolish the law and his remarks pertaining to "you have heard it said... but I tell you..." in Matthew V.

This only holds weight if one believes that what they had heard was an accurate description of the spirit and letter of Torah. Upon scrutiny, we find that this is not the case. It was either in contradiction to Torah, or was a poor and shallow understanding and application of Torah. Either way, there was no tension or contradiction.

9. He talked about how modern day Christians (of the traditional kind) have trouble living out the command to love their neighbors.

If by love he means acceptance, then he is correct. Christ's command was not an endorsement of moral relativism, nor was it a command to embrace or celebrate actions deemed morally repugnant or socially deviant. Granted, Christ spent time with prostitutes and tax collectors. But to argue that he endorsed their lifestyle or celebrated the diversity of their wickedness would be an argument from silence. On the other hand, we do have evidence that he told sinners to repent, be baptized, be discipled, and go and sin no more.

10. He said the Fathers rarely read the Bible literally.

This is only a half truth. Actually, it is only a quarter truth. The Fathers typically used a hermeneutical method known as the quadriga. This forced the interpreter to look at various texts in a literal, spiritual, moral, and analogical sense.

While I could go on to deal with his seeming lack of knowledge on the issues of theonomic casuistry, Just War, and the legitimacy of the death penalty, I will refrain. It has not been my hope to discredit the entirety of what he said. In fact, I thought much of it was noteworthy. The point of this entry was to merely point out those areas I believed to be inaccurate and misleading.

Atheism, Cannibalism, and Pumpkin Pie

This is an conversation I had with Craig French of Atheism sucks on a recent edition of Paleo Radio. The title of this blog entry says it all. Read the original post here.

To read his material, visit Atheism Sucks. And look forward to more contributors from Atheism Sucks on Paleo Radio.

FALSE DICHOTOMIES AT OLIVET

Got an email from Dustin Byrd from Olivet College's Department of the Humanities. He was encouraging people to attend a seminar that would deal with the "antagonism between religion faith and secular rationality." The lecture will be delivered by Dr. Rudolf Siebert on March 7th in the Burrage Library at 1400.

Can someone please inform these folks that they are entertaining a false dichotomy? To word it in such a manner indicates that they either believe faith to be irrational, or rationality to be purely relative. One is offensive, the other is absurd.

Pick your brew, but know that both are philosophically poisonous.

BTW- Secular rationalism would be the appropriate designation.

Planned Parenthood & Racism

I want to thank Spartan Spectator for notifying me of this video.

HATE SPEECH & MSU

Hate speech. What an elusive concept. What makes something hate speech? Well, according to most speech police, it would include any and all speech (or actions) that incite, or could potentially incite, violence. It is speech that is, or could possibly be, harmful to the psyche of another. It is, to many, what is referred to as revisionist history, although this is highly qualified in the favor of the speech police. It is speech that is believed to be prejudicial or bigoted; the latter being another very elusive concept. While these qualities and characteristics are the most common among what is referred to as hate speech, this by no means satisfies the entirety. But at least this gives us a framework wherein the discussion can be understood.

The problem here, in my estimation, is not so much the idea of hate speech - or even censorship for that matter - but the standard used to determine what is hate speech. Even more important is the matter of who is the standard bearer. As recent history has played out, the standard tends to be secular pluralism, and the standard bearers tend to be a cabal of academic leftists.

This should raise flags for those on the other side of the ideological spectrum. Their views are in the cross-hairs here, and theirs alone. They will be labeled by the establishment as intolerant, bigoted, xenophobic, fascist, and even historical revisionists. Their ideas, values, and heroes will be maligned. They will be forced, not by persuasion, but by fear, into keeping their opinions to themselves. They will be told to keep their mouths shut, with penalties for any brave soul who violates their newly founded code.

The irony here is in the tenets within the standard. Most of the speech police work off of presuppositions that include moral relativism, epistemological subjectivism, diversity and tolerance. But their actions speak much louder than their words. Moral relativism wouldn't provide any basis by which to distinguish between hate and love. Epistemological subjectivism wouldn't grant them any intellectual rationale for judging one idea to be more repugnant than another. Diversity would require them to embrace and celebrate the fact that there are people who hold different political, ethical, and cultural ideas than they do. And tolerance would force them to bite the bullet, regardless of how ideologically distasteful they may think these hate-mongers to be. On each and every front, the speech police fall upon their own standard as Saul fell upon his own sword.

So how will this play out? In my estimation, the speech police will win. Not because their ideas are right, not because their standard holds up, but because they hold the trump card; they are in power. The entire affair is rather unfortunate, but it is all too typical.

R.I.P. First Amendment...

GUNS ON CAMPUS

In the wake of an ever increasing number of school shootings, many people are asking whether or not it would be prudent and wise to allow students and teachers who have gone through the appropriate channels to carry loaded weapons on campus and in the classroom. In fact, Senator Erwin of Alabama is putting that very idea before the state legislature. Senator Erwin believes that the time is long overdue for us to have this discussion, and he hopes his bill will bring it out into the open.

Many people are opposed to this idea, especially those within the educational establishment. Many fear that it would result in more events similar to those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Others insist that it would create, in their opinion, and unnerving learning environment. Still others are opposed to it on purely ideological grounds, being opposed to most any deregulation of currently existing gun laws.

But do their arguments and concerns hold up to scrutiny? I don't believe so.

First of all, the people who committed these crimes weren't law abiding citizens that went through the proper channels. These people were not only diabolical, they were criminal. Under Erwin's proposal, the new law would only include those who pass inspection and undergo the kind of weapons safety training currently required under law.

Secondly, the naysayers presume that allowing guns on campus will result in a sudden surge in those interested. Granted, there would be a mild increase in numbers, but it would be far from the "everyone would be packing" doomsday scenario envisioned by the opponents. Nobody is talking about passing out guns like candy on Halloween. The same rules apply, and the same type of citizens currently submitting to the process would be the ones to likely purchase such weaponry.

Third, an unnerving environment is one where any lunatic could walk in with an illegally purchased weapon with the sole intention of killing the most people he can before taking his own life, all the while being confident that there isn't one living soul in the classroom that could stop him short of his scheme. It is unnerving that one shooter could cause an entire classroom of students to run and hit the floor, fearing for their life, knowing that there is nothing but the desk they cower under to protect them. That is unnerving! Were the renegade student to be aware of the fact that the teacher and/or students have loaded weapons on the other side of the door, he may think twice before opening fire.

Fourth, these law-abiding students carrying weapons may not deter the mentally unstable from unloading on students, but minimizing the damage is certain worth their having the right to carry in the classroom. Thirty-two students, teachers, and faculty were killed at Virginia Tech. Thirty more were wounded. Even if the law-abiding gun-carrier were to drop that number from 32 to 30, I can list off two people and 4 parents who would be thankful that a brave student stood in defense of classmates who were otherwise defenseless.

Regardless of whether or not the law in Alabama passes, it is providing a framework wherein the discussion can be held. This, in and of itself, is a good thing. In fact, I'd dare say it is too many dead students overdue.

BREAKING NEWS: Not Really...

Breaking news! Britney Spears is a lunatic.

Breaking news! Someone is experiencing something dreadful... somewhere.

Breaking news! There was a house fire in Timbuktu.

How are these examples of breaking news? Well, they aren't. Honestly, this type of "breaking news" should be on page 37D of the newspaper. Unfortunately, these stories make their way to the "top of the hour" broadcasts and page 1A of many of our newspapers.

Living in the era of the Information Age, lacking the ability to find a solid story should be as hard as playing pick-up-sticks with your butt cheeks. Reporters should never feel as if they don't have a story. News-runners should wear through their shoes at least once a week, and should have callouses on their fingertips from scanning the World Wide Web for stories of real substance and relevance.

Still, people get what they asked for. People want to hear about Britney Spears recent escapades into insanity. People want to know about a fire in Timbuktu. So many tune in to hear of the latest "news" about someone going through something miserable... somewhere. Sad as it may be, this nonsense sells.

It is my hope that journalists will begin telling people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear. They need to box ears, not tickle them. This is the nature of the journalistic beast. Keep telling it like it is, but make sure that "it" is truly newsworthy.

FREEDOM TO CENSOR

We discussed censorship in seminar this morning. The question was:

Is there any instance where censorship is a good thing?

Most students immediately said no, but then - predictably - gave various exceptions. Some of these included child pornography, others included porn that involved animals. Beyond this, most thought it was entirely up to the individual. So long as it doesn't infringe on the right of another individual, all was well.

I humbly disagree. I think that while the federal government should probably stay out of censorship, there should be a degree by which a school, community, or even state should maintain the right to defend themselves from things that they believe would be harmful to the commonwealth. If a school doesn't want to permit Darwinism to be taught or My Two Mommies to be read, that is the right of the school. If a community doesn't wish to have pornography in their stores or gay bars on Main Street, they should be permitted to prohibit these things. If a state wishes to retain a specific moral climate, it is their Constitutional right to do so. In each of these cases it begins and ends with families, communities, cultures, and values.

While this may seem radical to the modern mind, our Founding Fathers understood this very well. The very same people who wrote free speech into the first amendment also wrote blasphemy laws and codes pertaining to public vulgarity. They knew that while people should be free to make decision, communities also had the right to do so. They didn't view America as "we the individuals" as much as "we the people," and this was reflected in the way they enacted various laws.

We now live in a day and age where Jerry Springer, MTV, and mild-porn run rampant across a civilization that, in days past, would be repulsed by what they see and hear. They most certainly wouldn't have celebrated it as stellar examples of freedom of speech as they meant it to be. On the contrary, they would shake their heads in disgust. So should we.

Families, school, communities, and states should begin taking advantage of their constitutional right to censor what they believe to be harmful to their children, their students, and their citizens. If America wishes be a shining city on a hill, then we may wish to rid ourselves of porn shops, filth on airwaves, and smut in our schools. Until then, we may be shining on a hill, but a city shining with moral depravity.

IMMIGRATION AND TERRORISM

AL QAEDA IN AMERICA

People called me a pessimist back in 2004 when I said that Al Qaeda would be just as much a threat in 2008 as it was in 2001. Yesterday proved the optimists wrong.

As the New York Times reported, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell admitted that not only is Al Qaeda still recruiting, but that their efforts are steadily improving. They continue to train operatives to attack the United States, and many of their new operatives appear to be coming from the Western Hemisphere. Furthermore, many of these new jihadists seem to be from the United States.

While McConnell and others tried to ease the mind of the American public by saying that there is little evidence to suggest that they have infiltrated the motherland, this is in blatant contradiction to remarks made by President Bush during his State of the Union Address. During the earlier portion of his speech he admitted that terrorists are taking advantage of our broken borders, specifically that which divides the US and Mexico.

Due to the reaction of 9-11, terrorists have had to shift gears. Flying planes into buildings isn't on their current agenda. According to intelligence estimates, they are focusing on cyberterrorism, polluting our water supply, and possibly mounting attacks on other means of travel such as metro systems or railroads.

What our politicians need to take serious is what they have already recognized: the threat is on the motherland. If or when they do choose to attack us, it will be on our soil. This means that they must first be here. This will require our political leaders to begin taking matters such as our borders, work visas, and immigration very serious. It also forces them to be more scrupulous about what is coming in through our port system. Revising our agreement with Mexico to allow vast amounts of semi-trucks into our country is also a worthy consideration. Lastly, they may wish to take a closer look at the truckloads of refuse coming to our country (specifically Michigan) from Canada.

Each and every one of these must be taken very serious if we hope to stop a terrorist attack on our country. Unless our politicians begin taking steps towards stopping terrorists from entering our country, whether it's through immigration, visas, broken borders, imports, or trucking, they will be putting this nation at great risk. Worse yet, they will be derelict in their responsibility to confront the threat that they readily admit already looms over the American people.

MATTERS OF RACE AND GENDER

Race and gender matter. We all know they do. We may act like they don't. We may say they don't. But deep down inside, we all know that they do.

Last night gave us a perfect example of this reality. The mainstream media has, possibly above all except for the educational establishment, talked down the significance of race and gender. Yet as I watched the Super Tuesday commentary I couldn't help but to notice something as strange as it was predictable: the journalists were fixated on the racial and gender dynamics of the election. They had pie charts, graphs, and a never ending stream of statistics, all having to do with race and gender. They broke down the Hispanic vote, the Black vote, the White vote, and then broke these down into the categories of male and female.

I wish I could say that I was shocked by this, but I'm not. It's easy to say that race and gender don't matter when there are a bunch of rich white men in fancy suits pacing the platform. It is something altogether different when we have a black man and a white woman running neck-and-neck for the Democratic nomination, both having the potential to be the next president of the United States. Now race and gender matter, and they matter a lot! In fact, it seems as if racial and gender identities are the only things on everyone's mind.

Prior to this election, such focus on race and gender would have been seen as racialist or sexist. Now it is a matter or national interest and intrigue. Talking about these two factors is not only permissible, it is something that may cut hard into your ratings if you choose to ignore it.

The big question shouldn't be why race and gender have taken a central role in election coverage and commentary. The answer to that question is rather obvious. The real question is why such conversations were ever taboo in the first place. And what will happen post-election? What if Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton lose? Will we return to silence? Or will this newfound fascination reinvigorate lively debates over racial and gender inequality that have, for at least some time, been confined to academic symposiums and sit-ins? Time will tell. It always does.

THE AMAZING AMERICAN SYSTEM

Here we are in the midst of Super Tuesday. Different candidates winning different states at different rates. This all seems too typical. What many may miss is the fact that when all is said and done and the final primary vote is cast, the winner may come out with just around 40% of the party vote. This, too, is all too typical.

The problem I see here is that the next Republican candidate, and his platform respectively, will have the backing of just over 1/3 of all those he will soon represent. How is this representation? Will this person tailor his platform in order to better represent those 60% of people who didn't vote for him in the primaries? This is unlikely. Instead, if history is trustworthy guide, the winner will ignore the beliefs and values of the 60% that caused them to vote for another candidate and act like he and his platform have some mandate from heaven to stay the course.

My fears and frustrations were confirmed while recently watching Chris Matthews interview a delegate from New Jersey. He is an officeholder and has endorsed Mrs. Clinton. The question was what he would do were Clinton to lose the state. Would he delegate in a way that is consistent with the voice of the people, or would he stay true with his endorsement of Clinton. Without hesitation he vouched for the latter! While he admitted he would be going against the people, he must stay true to his endorsement. Bye-bye representation. Bye-bye notion of delegation! Yet this is typical not only of delegation but of those who take home the gold and head on to the general election.

However this works out one thing is for sure: 2/3 of the American voters will be let down... once again. What an amazing system we have.

YOUR LAND ISN'T OUR LAND?

Russel Means, the mediocre actor and former Libertarian presidential candidate, is urging various tribes to secede from the United States. This new country, which Means and others are calling the Lakota Nation, would take out portions of North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Montana. To entice nay-sayers into joining the revolution, he is promising that it will be a "tax free" zone. Furthermore, they will issue their own drivers licenses and passports. The new nation would be made up of small autonomous towns loosely networked into a general confederation.

Interesting. Not sure how that will turn out for them. Regardless of how just their cause may be, this isn't the first time a sector of the US population properly invoked their rite of secession based on what they believed to be abuses of the Constitution by the federal government. If history serves me well, it didn't work out too well for those brave souls.

On a related note, it would be rather interesting having a nice little tax haven this side of the Pacific, or this side of the southern border for that matter. I mean, the slaves of Mammon would get all the benefits of China, Mexico, or India, but a lot less in travel and shipping costs!

FREE TRADE vs. AMERICA

I will not be on the air this evening. I am very sick. Liz may be doing the program on her own, but I am not sure.

FREE TRADE ON PALEO RADIO

PALEO v. STATE OF THE UNION (Part 2)

This is the second of a two-part series dealing with the recent State of the Union address. The first dealt with his remarks on immigration and the economy. This deals with remarks pertaining to Iraq, the so-called War on Terror, and the Middle East.

BUSH: "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else."

PALEO: I am curious then as to how you explain saying that our aim is "build" preserve free and independent nations, with democratic governments answerable to their citizens. This isn't the government they had before. A secular democracy, one which is "encouraged" by you and others, is a form of government entirely alien to their people. There is no precedent here. It is, in its most basic form, an imposition of an alien system upon an alien people.

BUSH: "Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures."

PALEO: Why did this sentiment not fly with Palestine, Syria, or Iran? What happens when Hamas, The Muslim Brotherhood, or Hizballah get the majority vote? What happens if Saudia Arabia were to become democratic? Would we settle for Sharia in Iraq or Afghanistan? What if Al Qaeda received a popular vote in Pakistan or Indonesia? We have expectations, and we will not permit the people to speak were they to vote in favor of such ideologies.

BUSH: "Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq."

PALEO: Our generational commitment? Who committed us? Certainly not the brave men who put their lives on the line to create an independent Republic. This is Wilsonian to the core, having no precedent in the historical American tradition.

BUSH: "That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there."

PALEO: No, Iraq is a distraction. Iraq was not necessary. And terrorists are there because we are there. If we were in Saudi Arabia, they would be there. If we were in Syria, Pakistan, or Iran, they would be there. They believe that we are evil, granted; but when an "evil" is in their front yard, they take it personal. They feel, as would we, that these military actions are an affront on their religion and their culture. The only difference is that they, unlike us, take their religion and culture very serious.

BUSH: "Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we do not have to face them here at home."

PALEO: This flies in the face with what you said earlier in your admission that terrorists are entering this country through our borders. You readily admit that they are not only "over there," but also "over here." The only problem is that our troops are over there and not over here. If terrorists wish to hurt us, they must be here. They can only get here through borders, immigration, visitations, and work visas. But what have we done to stop them from using these means to enter our country? Nothing.

BUSH: "Freedom in Iraq will make Americans safe for generations to come."

PALEO: We were safe from Iraqis when they weren't free. Iraqis could be foaming at the mouth and burning our flags all they want, so long as they do so over there. Our security from such radicalism, something that was relatively uncommon in pre-war Iraq, will only come from securing our borders, protecting our coasts, checking imports, and crunching down on who we let in this country.

BUSH: "We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself."

PALEO: The goalposts have changed so many times, the American people are getting dizzy! Take down Saddam. Check. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Didn't work out the way we were promised. Setting up a government. Check. Helping rebuild infrastructure. Check. Arming and training a police force. Check. Elections. Check. Now these? Seriously, we are acting more like the Peace Corp than the US Military. These standards are not only high, they are utopian.

PALEO v. STATE OF THE UNION (Part 1)

This is the first of a two-part series. The first deals with immigration and the economy. The second will deal with military interventionism and the so-called War on Terror.

BUSH: Claims that we have a "healthy, growing economy, with more Americans going back to work."

PALEO: Economic indicators point towards anything but healthy. The growth we do have is in service jobs with the food industry and janitorial services leading the way. Americans, contrary to the president's claims, are losing jobs left and right. In fact, the job growth we did have doesn't even match the rate by which Americans are entering the job market.

BUSH: "Now we must add to these achievements. By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive..."

PALEO: The problem here is with free trade agreements and government regulations and taxation. We are not competitive because the deck is stacked against us. How can American producers choosing to stay stateside compete with third world countries? The cost of production resulting from regulations, taxation, and the quotas placed on our good by foreign countries makes it virtually impossible for us to compete on a level (or semi-level) playing field.

BUSH: "To make our economy stronger and more dynamic, we must prepare our rising generation to fill the jobs of the 21st century."

PALEO: We have people going through college at an alarming rate. Many of these are in the sciences and technology. Unfortunately, these happen to be at the top of the pecking order for offshoring and outsourcing. As I have said on my program as well as on this blog, the jobs being projected as highest in demand over the next 10 years are hardly the kind that requires an education. In fact, only three of the top 10 jobs mentioned by Forrest Research require college education. This means that seven of the 10 can be taken by low-skilled workers, many of them here illegally.

BUSH: "America's immigration system is outdated - unsuited to the needs of our economy and to the values of our country."

PALEO: It is not so much that the system is outdated as it is that it is not being enforced by you and those in Congress. Furthermore, your not having made good on your obligation to enforce the laws of the land has resulted in an economic crisis, whether it is the level of unemployment for American workers or the deflation of wages resulting from illegal immigrants working in our system.

BUSH: "We should not be content with laws that punish hardworking people who want only to provide for their families, and deny businesses willing workers, and invite chaos at our border."

PALEO: We would not be punishing anyone for hard work. We would be punishing people for knowingly and willingly violating the laws of the United States of America. We would not be denying businesses of willing workers, we would be denying them the right o hire people who have broken our laws in order to come and work here for wages that pit them against American citizens. We are not inviting chaos on our borders, we are wishing for people to respect our laws and asking that they follow the appropriate channels to live, work, worship, and play here legally.

BUSH: "It's time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs American workers will not take."

PALEO: The problem with this is that the numbers don't add up. Most of the people involved in these services just so happen to be Americans. If Americans will not take these jobs, why are so many of them doing so? And it isn't that they won't take these jobs, it is that they will not (and cannot) work for the same low wages that illegals can.

BUSH: We need an immigration policy that "closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."

PALEO: You say this how many years after 9-11? How do you plan to do this? The border wall you promised? Why not our national guard? And what of those terrorists that the Border Patrol and Homeland Security believe have already slipped through the wide open border? Furthermore, and not to get ahead of myself, but didn't you say that we are fighting terrorists "over there" so that they won't be "over here"? If so, why would you even insinuate that terrorists are taking advantage of our porous borders?

PALEO RADIO: January 28

Paleo Radio
Every Monday and Friday from 7-10pm EST
Listen online (Internet Explorer ONLY)
Call in! 269-749-7398

NOTE: For anyone who enjoys sports talk, the radio program prior to Paleo Radio runs from 5-7pm EST. Listen, call, tell them you heard about their show from Paleo Radio.

STUDENT CULTURE WARRIORS

Paleo Radio can be heard every Monday and Friday night from 7-10pm EST by going to www.wocrfm.com. The site is only compatible with Internet Explorer.

AMERICA THE ANDROGYNOUS

Paleo Radio:
Every Monday and Friday from 7-10pm EST
Listen LIVE on www.wocrfm.com

GREAT VIDEO ON IRRATIONAL TRADE

My friend Blake on the irrational attack of libertarian purists against those of us who support free trade under the proper conditions but do not believe that those conditions are currently being met in light of burdensome regulations, taxation, and fiscal policies. Great video!

MULTICULTURALISM & THE AMERICAN OATH

The pledge of U.S. citizenship since 1795 includes these words:

"... to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, and sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen."

This poses a great difficulty to the multicultural blueprint. Multiculturalism, to retain diverse, requires a diversity of language, culture, traditions, heroes, and bloodline. It also happens to invoke a variety of allegiances, specifically to foreign states. It is for this reason that we hear of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and others. This is also at the root of the fact that around 18% of Hispanic Americans respondents to the Hispanic Pew Center poll identified themselves as Americans first and foremost.

This is horribly problematic. It is problematic to the American identity. It is problematic to our culture, our language, and our way of life. Yet this is at the heart of multicultural dogma.

The greater issue at hand here is one of perjury. When anyone, regardless of nationality, vows to "renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity" to the nations they came from, they better make good on that claim. In the instance where they act in any way contrary to this oath, they are guilty of perjury. This is something that must be taken seriously.

Multiculturalism is fine and dandy, but the moment it enables or encourages one to break the oath of their citizenship (if they are here legally), then we have a problem. Unfortunately, this is all too common among those involved in multicultural programs, whether on campus or in the workplace.

PRECIPICE IN FRONT, WOLVES BEHIND

Miss American Pie bids farewell to the Working Class Jack as companies downsize, outsource, and offshore what were once American jobs. This once great nation of producers has run out of steam somewhere between Pauperism and the ghost town of the eternal Proletariat. Our microchips are now potato chips, our steel manufacturers are now McDonald's. All the while our politicians and economists whistle away the day, not knowing for a second what it feels like to be on the receiving end of the pink slip.

Those hit worst are the young, the poor, and those without a college education.

The young could work these jobs, believing that it was a stepping stone to something better. They knew that while the job may be tedious and redundant, it looked excellent on a resume. And with wages superior to Taco Bell, they could save up for a home or higher education.

The poor are hit especially hard here. Many of these people are willing to work long hour on the line in order to meet the demands of a meager life. These jobs may not have the skill level of the medical field or law, but it put food on the table, clothes in the closet, and checks in the bill statements. And with enough savings, little at a time, they had a greater chance at social mobility.

For those without a college education, jobs of this nature were a way to feel the pride of work and private ownership without having a degree to their name. They may have gotten married right out of high school. They may have had difficulties that would be difficult to overcome in a college setting. They may have come from a family without sufficient funds to send them to college. Maybe they simply wanted to dodge the bullet of student loans that so many spend years paying off in full. Whatever it may be, they had their reasons, and now their hopes are dashed to pieces.

And let us not forget the elderly. While I did not mention them before, it would be foolish to ignore the impact downsizing, offshoring, and outsourcing has on them. Many of them, ripe in age, have hit hard times. Social Security just isn't what it was made out of be. Health risks increase and insurance is hard to find. There may have been a death of a loved one, leaving them with less money and more bill. These people often find themselves back on the line, working tough hours, but it allows them to get by, and with some sense of accomplishment.

All of these people are hurt by the absurd faith based economics of so-called free trade. Each of these groups have been hit hard by executives who would rather benefit from slave labor and wages that work out to pennies on the dollar compared to the pay given to their fellow Americans. The almighty dollar is their creed, capitalism is the executive's national anthem.

Still, our politicians hold their breath in hope that their faith based economic theories will benefit America in the long run. We are assured over and over again that the loss of these jobs will result in the creation of other jobs. This may be true, it may not. The bigger question is what kind of jobs will be created. As it stands right now, the fast food industry and janitorial services are leading the way.

ANOTHER JOB BITES THE DUST

A dear friend of mine just informed me that her husband lost his job. What kind of job? Manufacturing. What state? Michigan. Typical, all too typical.

Free trade advocates may wish to minimize this as mere collateral damage in the pursuit of some globalist utopia, but it was what put bread and butter on the table for this Michigan family. Hope the worker in China, India, Mexico, or any other beneficiary to free trade trade policies enjoys the work and wages this Michigander once did... well, at least the work.

NEW LOOK AT OLD VIEW ON JUST WAGE

Most libertarians insist that just wages are fixed by nothing more and nothing less than the free consent of the hireling. If it is agreed upon, then all is well. So long as there is no coercion involved, then we have a just wage

I do not believe that this is .satisfactory. While the wage may be agreed upon, it leaves out a few important factors. It ignores the fact that when one works he or she is doing so in order to obtain what is necessary for self-preservation. As Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Rerum Novarum, a man's labor has two characteristics that must be considered by employers wishing to provide a just wage. The first is that work is personal. Someone is exerting time and energy. Secondly, labor is necessary for self-conservation. The person is not merely working for the sake of work; a person is working in order to live, move, and have his being.

With these two factors in mind, the libertarian notion of just wage is lacking. It's being voluntary, in and of itself, does not make it just. Justice requires that the employer provide for the employee the means necessary to live while the latter contributes valuable (and finite) time and effort to the betterment of the former.

The libertarian may respond by asking what is necessary for a man to live. The issue here is not with luxuries but with frugal living. No laborer has a right to luxuries. But the dedication of their time and effort is most certainly worthy of the sustenance necessary for self-preservation. This would be a living wage; a wage that allows man to live, move, and have his being. It should be sufficient for housing, food, and clothing.

Now, I am by no means endorsing federal wage laws. America is rather diverse, and different regions have different costs of living. This should be dealt with at a local or regional level. Even the state level would be ineffective, given the fact that the cost of living greatly varies from city to city or region to region.

Furthermore, one could make a case that such living wages could be procured by labor associations. These associations should by no means seek anything beyond what is necessary. It is due to the stupidity and selfishness of various labor unions that employers and employees end up with far less than they could have were they to seek only that which would provide for sensible housing, food, and clothing. In lacking the kind of moderation and self-restraint that would be advantageous to such associations, labor associations have possibly done more harm than good to those they are bound to assist. A return to sensible leadership and modest requests would do much more than absurd demands and political pandering.

Unfortunately, we live in a day and age where unions are more interested in political power than the basic needs and wellbeing of their members. We also live in a time when everyone turns to the federal and state governments to do for them what they should be able to do for themselves. Until we begin looking at this issue from a more personal, local, or regional perspective, I don't see the American worker making any significant movement towards a just and living wage any time soon.

LYING LIBS AT MSU AND THE SPLC

PALEO RADIO: 1-21-08

Listen LIVE on www.wocrfm.com from 7-10pm EST.

Streaming audio is only available on Internet Explorer.

CULTURISM & IMMIGRATION

This is an audio clip from Paleo Radio (January 18,2008)



For more information on Culturism: www.culturism.us

THE DISTRIBUTIST MANIFESTO

1. Distributists propose to go back to fundamentals, and to rebuild society from its basis in agriculture, instead of accepting the industrial system and changing the ownership.

2. Distributists affirm that the evils which Socialists trace to private ownership of property do not flow from the institution as such, but from the maldistribution of property which has come about as a consequence of laws favoring large ownership at the expense of small, and the absence of laws to prevent the misuse of money and machinery.

3. Distributists would not only restrict the use of machinery where it stands in the way of widespread distribution of property, but also where it conflicts with what they are accustomed to regard as the permanent interests of life.

4. Distributists insist that the interests of society, religion, human values, art and culture come first, and that machinery should be prohibited wherever it runs counter to them.

5. Distributists believe that the only legitimate use of money is to use it as "a common measure of value," and that all the problems of money, which so often people to believe in the existence of a kind of economic witchcraft, arise from the fact that there are so many people in the world who do not want to use money as a common measure of value, but to make more money.

6. Distributists believe that the way to make money a common measure of value is to fix prices, wages, and rents at a just level... [this would be] the first step towards a general restoration of property by destroying the power of the capitalists to undersell small men.

7. Distributists seek a return of a Guild system. They advocate such regulative Guilds (over against productive Guilds) is that the enforcement of standards, moral conduct, and workmanship, over industry, would operate to take the control of industry out of the hands of the financier and place it in those of the craftsmen and technicians.

8. Distributists believe that they key to the problems of property, usury, and credit are seen to be found in the fixation of prices, wages, and rents at a just level.

9. Distributists believe that in a perfect society people are held together by personal and human ties, and not by the impersonal activity of the state. The state is "to enable good men to live among bad."

10. Distributists believe that a society is only in a stable and healthy condition when its manufacturers rest on a foundation of agriculture and home-produced raw material., and its commerce on a foundation of native manufactures.

11. Distributists are opposed to Free Trade theory even more than its practice, recognizing in it the principle of social disintegration... It stands to reason that nations which pursue a national self-sufficiency will have less reason to quarrel with one another than those which follow international policies; while nations with normal and mixed economic will better understand each other than nations of specialists.

12. Distributists do not attempt the formation of a new political party, but seek to attain their ends through the permeation of existing parties, the platform, the Press, and other organizations.

13. Distributists restrict their activities to urging upon the public the necessity of reviving agriculture, to the end of making this country as self-supporting as possible as regards to essential foodstuffs; while in connection with this revival it advocates the fixation of prices at a just level (standard prices), organized marketing, and the control of imports.

Popular Distributists: Hilaire Belloc, Cdr. Herbert Shove, George Maxwell, G.K. Chesterton, Arthur Penty, H.J. Massingham, Eric Gill, Harold Robbins, Father Feeney, Father Coughlin, the contributors to I'll Take My Stand and Who Owns America?

300 PART II?

LEFTISTS' ATTACK ON AMERICANISM

American students are feeling more and more guilt with every passing day. This is especially true among white, Christian, heterosexual, conservative males. Whether we are made to feel guilty for slavery, gender inequalities, unfair money distribution, homophobia, religious pride, or the fact that we were born with a male sex organ, the left in America is working long and hard to make us feel as if we have done something wrong. Worse yet, they insist that we are the problem!

So the Diversophiles and Multiculturecrats have set in place an endless number of "programs" to help us in realizing just how bad we really are. Sure, we don't realize it yet, but after a few sensitivity training sessions in group think and guilt manipulation we should be mentally and emotionally vulnerable for anything they throw our way

Here is the rap sheet: Slavery? Yep, our fault. White Americans were the only people to have ever owned slaves in human history. Gender inequalities? Certainly that is the result of wicked white men conspiring with one another! Homophobia? Of course. I mean, it has nothing to do with the fact that we sincerely believe that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral, and dangerous to society! Religious pride? Ah, at last we realize that all religions are equal and that there is no hierarchy among their espoused morals or truth claims. Being born men? Well, this may be tough to fix, but as long as we are in touch with our feminine side and realize that egalitarian equality is the way of the day, then all is well.

Granted, I am being sarcastic here. Still, this is not as uncommon as we may think. This is especially true within academia. The goal is no longer liberal arts; no, the goal is leftist indoctrination. They don't want to give students the skills to better themselves; no, they want to mandate attendance to seminars that reprogram the way students think about themselves, their families, their heritage, their race, their economic status, their sexuality, their religion, and the world they live in. We are talking about a comprehensive overhaul of a student's world and life view. For the leftists, nothing short of this will suffice.

It is for this reason that students must stand up and fight for what they believe to be true, what they know to be true. Why be ashamed of your forefathers? Why be ashamed of your heritage and traditions? Why be afraid to speak publicly about your religion, without fear of retribution? Why be coaxed into believing that homosexuality is natural, moral, and safe? Why? Because guilt manipulation is a powerful weapon, and the left knows it.

Unless white, Christian, heterosexual, conservative males begin standing up for what they believe in their heart of hearts to be true, I don't see their being any change of the ideological tide any time soon. In fact, I think that we'd be left with nothing more than a dirge and a funeral procession for an American once so beautiful...

THE RON PAUL SPECTER

The more stupid the Republicans are, the more intense becomes the populist rebellion.

Sam Francis, Populism and the future of American Politics

I friend of mine recently asked what I think will happen in the instance Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination. Will he run third party? Will he endorse another candidate? These questions and many were at the forefront of his mind. This wouldn't be of any real significance were he to be a Ron Paul supporter, but this individual supports Fred Thompson. This wasn't the concern of a supporter wondering what to do once all is said and done. This was the legitimate fear of what will happen once all the votes have been cast.

This election is rather unique. We have an outsider ahead of Thompson and Giuliani after the first three states have staked their claims. While he is only hovering at around 8%, his influence on the upcoming general elections are looming. What will happen with that eight percent? Will they go third party or will they endorse the Republican nominee. These questions, more so than what Congressman Paul will do, ought to worry the frontrunners.

Fact is, most of Ron Paul's supporters are die-hard. They have become disenchanted with run-of-the-mill Republicanism. They believe that his ideas are the only thing that will save America. As far as they are concerned, the Democrats are flying off a cliff at 70 mph while the Republicans are cruising at 65. Both are going in the wrong direction, one just happens to be going 5 mph slower. This leaves the lesser of two evils in a different context than elections passed. And I am not at all sure that the traditional "X democrat is going to throw America to hell in a breadbasket" tactic will work on these people.

So what will happen? Well, I believe that the vast majority of Paul supporters, though certainly not all, will vote third party. Whether it is the Libertarian Party of the almost defunct Constitution Party, you will see a surge in their numbers. I do not predict that they will win, but their existence should strike fear in the heart of the Republican frontrunners. This voting block may end up being the Ross Perot and Ralph Nader of days gone by. People who spoke their mind, and voted their conscience, even when it could cost the lesser of two evils a stay in the Oval Office.

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

Aquinas: The Treatise on Law Qu. 90. The Essence of Law

2. Is the law always directed towards the Common Good? A: Every part is ordered to the whole as the imperfect to the perfect. The individual is part of a perfect whole that is the community. Therefore, law must concern itself in particular with the happiness of the community.

Many may decry Aquinas of proposing Communism. This would be a rather unfortunate rendering of what he had to say. He was far more concerned with law than economics, and he saw community in the form of a commonwealth rather than a communitarian utopia. He was, after all, quite aware of the flaws of man and the reality of inequality.

While many may wish to toss Aquinas to the wind, I think America would do well to consider his insight. There was a time when America understood the idea of a commonwealth. There was a time when America understood the idea of a nation. To be quite frank, there was once a time when America knew what America was! All of this has fallen to the wayside. Americanism - not the heresy - has become as elusive as a three-legged ballerina. To say that this is a tragedy would be a gross understatement.

America must regain its sense of identity. This requires common heritage, common traditions, a common religion, and common values. It takes Americans realizing, and accepting, that while the promises of "you can do anything you want" are nothing more than empty platitudes, they can most certainly do what they do best. And only they know what this is and how this is to be done.

But it is here where the individual and the common meet. It is here where we find a tension between what is good for the one and good for the many. This has been the trial of our times. Thankfully, we are not left to wander on our own. Those who came before us faced the same questions, and dealt with them in ways that we shouldn't take for granted.

These saints and sinners balanced out these two extremes with an archaic form of fusionism. On the one hand, they insisted on private property. On the other hand, they wished for the owner to feel a familial commitment to those around him. Likewise, they saw in man the right to elect a statesman. Still, they held them accountable to the wellbeing of the commonwealth. They also saw man's desire to pursue happiness as a great goal to be achieved. But they never mistook liberty for license. It was a balancing act, but one they did fairly well.

The cult of radical diversity, led by the Diversicrat ayatollahs, is tearing this country apart at the seams. Laissez faire tolerance of moral deviancy is eating away at our culture. It is long overdue for the people to rise up, to stand for God and country, and fight back the tide of degeneracy dominating this once great nation. Until we can balance our cultural institutions upon the tightrope of the one and the many, we will continue down this road. Unfortunately, this road is one that has been traveled by all great empires that once were but are no more.

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED

"The old saying that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns isn't entirely true; it's also true that when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns, and that statement is just as important to remember as the first."

Sam Fracis, from the book Shots Fired

THE GOOD, BAD, AND UGLY ON DR. KING

Olivet College will be honoring, and rightfully so, Martin Luther King Jr. on January 23rd. We will hear a presentation delivered by George F. Francis III, a member of the Olivet Board of Trustees. The speech will attempt to demonstrate how King's dream of a color-blind society must now be seen through the lens of personal responsibility.

I agree that a color-blind society is ideal. It is for this reason that I have been outspoken about the conflict between that dream and the goals inherent within multiculturalism and diversity. Both of these, all arguments to the contrary, rely heavily upon racial and cultural separatism. As long as we continue to encourage this subtle separatism, color-blindness will be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

All this to the side, I wish here to detail a number of facts that may be overlooked in the celebration of Reverend King. As with other heroes, we too often gloss over those things that do not fit into the nostalgic mold of them that we've created. This holds true of people from all races and cultures. President Jefferson was a slave holder; President Lincoln had what appears to be constitutional illiteracy; Theodore Roosevelt was quite open about his racism; the founder of Planned Parenthood believed in eugenics and saw abortion and contraception as a way to weed out blacks; and President Bush has done more to fund abortion with federal tax dollars through Title 10 and Title 19 than any other president before him. The list could go on, but I think my point has been made. Heroes, regardless of all the good they may have done, all too often have skeletons in their closet that their followers seek to keep hidden from public view.

With this in mind, let us take a look into the life of the beloved Reverend.

For starters, he was no friend to the free market. Granted, I share his concerns with anarcho-capitalism, but I certainly wouldn't identify my economic thought with the works of Karl Marx. He did this in a note to himself in 1951.

To make matters worse, he surrounded himself with advisers who were active in the Communist Party USA. This began with his time spent in the Highlander Folk School but went well into his public life. Names would include, but are not limited to, Hunter Pitts O'Dell, Stanley Levison, and Bayard Rustin. Interestingly enough, Rustin, who began his life of activism working with the Young Communist League, went on to be the chief organizer of the March on Washington in 1963.

We also have the sorrowful anti-American speech he delivered in 1967. Within this speech he went so far as to praise Ho Chi Mihn and even compared American soldiers to Nazi Storm Troopers. Regardless of what one may have thought of the war, this most certainly went over the line. But none dare call it treason.

Still, some may object that I am engaging in McCarthyism. So I think it only fair to examine a matter that, were it to happen at Olivet College, would result in serious penalties. It is the issue of plagiarism.

King had a bad habit of stealing from other people's work. It went so far as to infect both his written work and the various speeches he delivered throughout his career. For example, his "Contemporary Continental Theology" was largely stolen from a book written by a certain Walter Marshall Horton. His doctoral dissertation contains no less than fifty sentences taken from the PhD dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer. According to the "Martin Luther King Papers," only 49% of the sentences in his dissertations section pertaining to Tillich were original. Even the New York Times published a story where Boston University admitted to their belief that there was "no question" that he cheated on his paper.

In short, King was guilty of actions that are punishable with severe penalties at Olivet College, as well as most respectable colleges and universities around the nation.

All of this to say that while it is good to recognize men and women for the good things they have done, we should never do so at the expense of presenting a well rounded version of who they really were and what they really did. Heroes are human, all too human, and their lives reflect this. It is my hope that in recognizing the Reverend, we will do so without shrouding those areas of his life that were not exemplary examples of self or social responsibility.

*Edit: In the first draft of this post I said that King's advisers were part of the Communist Party of America. Turns out that it was actually the Communist Party USA. Minor oversight, but one nonetheless. Thanks to the reader who pointed this out.*

FREE TRADE MEETS DETROIT

From Paleo Radio, January 11, 2008.

THE ILLS OF FREE TRADE

Forrest Research projects these being the top-10 jobs in demand over the next 10 years:

1. Waiters and waitresses
2. Janitors and cleaners
3. Food preparation
4. Nursing aides, ordinaries, and assistants
5. Cashiers
6. Customer service representatives
7. Retail salesperson
8. Registered nurses
9. General and operational managers
10. Postsecondary teachers

As Lou Dobbs rightly points out, only three of these require a college degree.

BETWEEN WALL AND MAIN

As much as I hate to say this, I fear that the influence of special interest groups and lobby firms is radically disproportionate in light of the number s of people they actually represent. Wall Street has more influence than Main Street, and K Street has more power than Middle Class Boulevard. I sincerely believe that this has been problematic, regardless of the benefits such enterprises may occasionally benefit us.

Then again, this conundrum is very familiar to me. It is a tension I have lived with for a long time. I have wandered for many years on the dividing line between paleolibertarianism and paleoconservatism. Whether it be free trade or tariffs, open or closed borders, localism or nationalism, populism or federalist, capitalist or agrarian, I have found myself between a rock and a hard place. Good arguments all around, heroes and villains in both camps.

So why is this? I think that a large part of this has to do with my upbringing, both where I lived and the family values cherished within the home. As a middle-class Michigander I also see things from a middle-America perspective.

Take agriculture as an example. On the one hand we understand that farming tends to be work very few wish to do. On the other hand, we have seen corporations destroy family farming and jobs that were once offered to those with little immigration go to those with no documentation of citizenship.

Then we have trade. As middle-class people we certainly enjoy our Meijer's and Walmarts. We like the fact that what we buy doesn't cost us too much because we have seen our incomes go too far down. Then again, most of us in Michigan have our incomes go down because our jobs are being offshored and outsourced. NAFTA, CAFTA, and other so-called free trade agreements have assures that Michigan's number one export is manufacturing jobs.

This has resulted in a rise in populist sentiment. People are beginning to see that the real war going on is the one between corporatist and the Johnny Q public, capitalists and economic nationalists, as well as between foreign interests and the jobs over at local UAW.

The war is really between the abstract and that which we personally experience every day. It is a war between idealism and realism. More importantly, it is a war between a vision of what a minority hope the world may become over against a perspective that sees the world as it has been and how it ought to remain.

So here we are, between Wall St. and Main. We stand between the rock of special interest groups and the hard place of the realization that our nostalgia for things past may be nothing more than a phantasm. Where should we go? I am not sure. One thing I am certain of is that I don't enjoy this ride, and fear that we may be traveling the road to national ruin.

THE RISING TIDE OF POPULISM

Populism has gotten a bad rap over the years. It is used in a loose fashion by those in the media. Many have gone so far as to identify it with fascism, and a fascism grossly defined. Populism is as rich as fascism is awfully misconstrued by equating that particular philosophy with the tragic figures of Hitler and Mussolini. While I don't intend to justify fascism, I think that politicians and journalists alike would do well to reevaluate their understanding of its philosophy. Same goes for Populism. It is with the latter that I am concerned here.

Populism is rather broad. One can be right-wing, centrist, or left-wing, and still be classified a populist. At its core, it is little more than a view of society in terms of rivalries. It recognizes the reality of class distinctions, unjust inequalities, and the will to power. Typically, populists (at least in America) have taken aim at the social and economic injustices being done by a small group of people over against the general populace. They see a danger in oligarchy and plutocracy. They acknowledge the threats that a powerful and wealthy elite have on a people who lack both the political tools and financial resources to defend themselves from the onslaught.

This is especially seen when discussing trade, immigration, and multiculturalism. It is here that the will of the few appear to be imposed upon the public at large. Whether it is the damaging cost of free trade upon American workers, mass immigration (both legal and illegal) changing the culture, or mandatory multicultural sensitivity training, we see the minority elite imposing their ideology upon an unwilling and resentful populace.

Whether or not one likes those most commonly identified with populism (i.e., Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Thomas Flemming, Ralph Nader, Theodore Roosevelt), they cannot deny that much of what they say has roots in political and economic realism. The ideologues may see populist economic nationalism and a rigid non-interventionism as things of the past, but the numbers, both of lost jobs to so-called free trade and lost lives to imperialist adventures around the globe, speak for themselves. Numbers never lie, and the numbers are there for all to see. We don't need Ross Perot's charts, we need look no further than our paychecks and the ever growing number of those who have lost well-paying jobs to people in China, Mexico, and India.

However the political tides turn, one this is for certain, populism is on the rise. Some may call it reactionary, and they may be right. But it isn't a blind knee-jerk reaction to political phantoms and economic illusions. The reaction is a gut feeling that what they see and feel is very real, and that what they see and feel is reflected in the language of the populists.