Jb's Blog

views on current events

Archive for the ‘Diversity’ Category

My Brother, My Hero

with 3 comments

John Baird, my brother, my hero.

All of my brothers are my heroes for many reasons. But let me focus at the moment on the oldest of my natural-born brothers, John Baird. There are a number of things that make him a hero: he served our country in a distinguished career of more than twenty years in the Air Force, in duty assignments in a number of hot spots around the world.

But the subject of this post is something he did well before that. The story goes…

In the early 1960’s (1962, I believe), we lived in Columbia, South Carolina. John was a senior in Columbia High School. The city was mired in the racial tension of the ’60s that ran throughout the country, centralized in the South. There were protests all across the South, which focused the nation’s attention on the need to finally fulfill the Constitution’s guarantees of equality to all citizens, without regard to race. In Columbia, as in other cities, there were protests and sit-ins at downtown stores like Woolworth’s and Walgreen’s which had lunch counters serving ‘whites only.’

Columbia High was an urban school, whose campus was only a block or so from the downtown department stores which were a focal point of the historic sit-ins. One day after John got out of school, he walked over to Woolworth’s (or perhaps one of the other department stores) and joined other protesters in the peaceful sit-in at the lunch counter. When he tried to order a burger for himself and one for the man sitting next to him (who wasn’t white), he was run out of the store. He ran halfway home (which was miles from downtown) before those who were chasing him finally gave up and let him go.

I never knew about this incident, until John recounted the story for me when I visited him just a few years ago. Since I was hearing the story for the first time, I asked if he had told our parents about it. He said he hadn’t because he didn’t want them to worry. Well, perhaps he was right to have kept it a secret. Perhaps they would have worried. But knowing what I know of our parents through their actions and the example they set (which is another story for a different day), I’m totally confident that they would have also been very proud of him, if they’d known. I know that they were proud of him anyway, but this would have only added to their reasons to be proud of their number one son.

So John, for your contribution to the public discourse, and for standing up for the change which decency mandated of our society, and for choosing to do the right thing, you are my hero.


Written by jb

March 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm

Immigration Policy

with 6 comments

I am NOT racist. I am NOT violent. I am in favor of legal immigration policy which has been a major contributing factor in making the United States what it is. But…


Folks, we’ve simply GOT to get our national head around the immigration situation in this country. The demands being placed on our society are simply inconceivable (see photo). These demands would be ridiculous even if they were made by legitimate citizens, much more so when they come from those who have invaded our boarders illegally. Granted, these demands are not made by all who advocate for unrestricted immigration or for amnesty, yet they are the logical conclusion to those policies, and they are actually being made, and expected, by many.

Here are a few facts which should be setting off alarm bells:

Based on 2007 Census data, the Center for Immigration Studies reported:

  • The nation’s immigrant population (both legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.
  • Immigrants account for 1 in 8 U.S. residents, the highest level in eighty years. In 1970 it was 1 in 21, in 1980 it was 1 in 16, and in 1990 it was 1 in 13.
  • Overall, nearly 1 in 3 immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.
  • 31 percent of adult immigrants have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent. This means that our growing immigrant population is comprised primarily of unskilled labor, contrasting with earlier immigrant waves in which immigrants were skilled in ways which enabled them to contribute significantly to the benefit of society as a whole.
  • The proportion of immigrant-headed households which draw on at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households. In 2004, immigrant households received nearly three dollars in immediate benefits and services for each dollar in taxes they paid. — http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/upload/sr_14.pdf
  • The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children under 18 is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.
  • 34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989. With government run/subsidized healthcare on the way, the implications of this fact are staggering considering the public (taxpayers) will be on the hook for these related healthcare costs.
  • Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.

    The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that

  • 9 percent of the population of Mexico was living in the United States in 2004.
  • 57 percent of all illegal immigrants in the U.S. are Mexican. Another 24 percent are from other Latin American countries.
  • 55 percent of all Mexicans in the U.S. are here illegally.
  • By 2050, Hispanics will be between 29 percent and 32 percent of the nation’s population.

    In 2008, a study from Manhattan Institute reported that the current level of assimilation of all recent immigrant groups is lower than at any time during the great migration in the early twentieth century. Some ethnic groups assimilated better than others, but Mexicans were the least assimilated overall, and assimilate at the slowest rate.

    The Mexican government promotes the idea of extraterritorial nationalism among its citizens – the concept that Mexican citizens have an indigenous claim to large sections of the southwestern United States. Mexican president Zedillo said (July 23, 1997)

    I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of it. — http://zedillo.presidencia.gob.mx/pages/disc/jul97/23jul97-2.html

    This attitude is shared by Mexican citizens at large. Zogby International reported that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement “The territory of the United States’ southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.” — Results of poll of U.S., Mexican citizens, United Press International, June 12, 2002 —

    National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) is a popular organization which works tirelessly against the assimilation of Hispanic aliens into American society and for the continuation of illegal Hispanic migration into our country. Here are a few facts about La Raza and its stance on the issues:

  • La Raza views the United States as an irredeemably racist nation.
  • favors racial and ethnic preferences for minorities in the workplace and in higher education.
  • supports open borders and amnesty for ALL illegal aliens.
  • supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents.
  • advocates “reform” that would give illegal aliens full access to taxpayer-funded health care services.
  • characterizes any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers as “a disgrace to American values.”
  • supports access to driver’s licenses for illegal aliens.
  • supports voting rights for illegal aliens. ??????
  • opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
  • opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which would empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
  • opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine.

    Leaders (and supporters) of La Raza have worked their way into the highest levels of our society and our government.

  • Raul Yzaguirre was president and CEO of La Raza for thirty years. Hillary Clinton appointed Yzaguirre as co-chair of her presidential campaign and assigned him to lead her outreach to Hispanics.
  • John McCain was honored by La Raza in 1999. McCain appointed Juan Hernandez as his Hispanic outreach director. In a Nightline interview on ABC News (June 7, 2001), Hernandez, who holds dual citizenship, said,

    I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ — Nightline Interview, ABC News, June 7, 2001 —

  • President Obama appointed Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of La Raza, as director of his Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.
  • Given La Raza’s agenda, how can it be in our country’s best interest to be placing their leaders in positions of authority and influence in our society and our government? What does it say about those who make these appointments?

    Unabated immigration from Mexico takes huge amounts of money out of the U.S. economy. In 2006, over 27 percent of Mexico’s labor force was working in the U.S., sending “home” $20 billion in remittances. That equals one-third of the total wage earnings in the formal sector of the Mexican economy and 10 percent of Mexico’s exports.

    How can our country, our society, survive such a continuing stream of aliens who won’t submit to our law (on the proper way to immigrate) who are encouraged above all to avoid assimilation, who make ridiculous demands on the society they are invading (again, refer to the above photo)?

    What do we do about our federal government’s refusal to enforce immigration law, while they continue to push in every way possible to throw our borders wide open and look for new ways to grant amnesty to millions of people who are here illegally?

    We’ve simply GOT to get a handle on this. We’ve got to. To not reign this in is societal suicide.

    Much of the information which inspired me to write this piece came from reading the chapter ‘On Immigration’ from Mark R. Levin’s book Liberty And Tyranny, from observing contemporary news sources, and from simply THINKING.

    Think, people. Think!!!

    Call It What It Is – Part 1

    with one comment

    The first post in what I plan to be an ongoing series.

    I’ve never been one to bend to the ridiculous demands of Political Correctness. What a crock! If we refuse to acknowledge what comprises the issues facing and challenging us, how in the world will we ever arrive at solutions to those issues, and grow beyond them? Sticking our collective heads in the sand won’t get us anywhere. “Call it what it is,” so we can take it out and examine it, and actually see things for what they are. And then decide how best to deal with them.

    It appears that the creeping sharia movement we’re seeing all the way up to the highest levels of our American government and society (as evidenced by our President who continues to demand “caution” before recognizing a domestic Islamic terrorist to be a domestic Islamic terrorist) are not at all limited to our American experience. All across Europe, governments are bowing to “sensitivities” of Muslim influences among their bloated immigrant populations. Bending over backwards to avoid accurately addressing the pressing issues facing our world.

    Case in point – consider this, from England:

    Don’t call extremists ‘extremists’

    Deputy Political Editor
    Published: 05 Dec 2009

    MINISTERS have been BANNED from using words like Islamist and fundamentalist – in case they offend Muslims.

    An eight-page Whitehall guide lists words they should not use when talking about terrorism in public and gives politically correct alternatives.

    They are told not to refer to Muslim extremism as it links Islam to violence. Instead, they are urged to talk about terrorism or violent extremism.
    [Edit: But IS there such a thing as “Muslim extremism?” If there is (insert rhetorical satire here), then why can’t it be mentioned any longer? Does the recommended usage of “terrorism” or “violent extremism” encompass the banned phrase “Muslim extremism?” Of course not. Only the phrase “Muslim extremism” encompasses “Muslim extremism.” So you’re asking us to pretend it no longer exists, then? Yea, that’ll really help in facing it.]

    Fundamentalist and Jihadi are also banned because they make an “explicit link” between Muslims and terror.
    [Edit: No they don’t. At least “fundamentalist” doesn’t. Excuse me, call me naive, but it seems to me that Muslims can not have an exclusive lock on the word “fundamentalist.” There are fundamentalists in almost every different group of people, but if we’re banned from using that word… what, just rip it out of the dictionary and pretend it never existed? And “Jihadi??” Banned because it makes “an ‘explicit link’ between Muslims and terror?” But then doesn’t the concept of “Jihad” have its origins in Islam to start with? Oh wait.. I see.. I guess that’s the point of all this, isn’t it? Personally, I’d be more than happy to forget the word “jihadi” and never use it again, if only the jihadis would abandon the principles of jihad.]

    Ministers should say criminals, murderers or thugs instead. Radicalisation must be called brainwashing and talking about moderate or radical Muslims is to be avoided as it “splits the community”.
    [Edit: Re: “radicalisation,” ditto, the above comment on “fundamentalist.” Why is the Muslim community the only one these sanctimonious watchdogs are concerned about “splitting?”]

    Islamophobia is also out as it is received as “a slur that singles out Muslims”.
    [Edit: Well, duhh!! Of course it singles out Muslims, or followers of Islam. To take issue with THIS fact is like saying not to use the word “red” because it singles out anything that is RED. Remember this brilliant quote from a few years back – “That depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” How dumb do the PC Police think we are, anyway?! As with the usage of any word ending in “phobia,” “Islamophobia” says more about the person who has the phobia than it does about the “thing” that they are terrified of. Do you think spiders feel any less like spiders when someone is described as being arachnophobic? Or homosexuals, when they themselves are so very quick to sling the homophobic slur at anyone who disagrees with anything they choose to believe?]

    The guide, produced by the secretive Research, Information and Communications Unit in the Home Office, tell ministers to “avoid implying that specific communities are to blame” for terrorism. It says more than 2,000 people are engaged in terror plots.

    The guidance was branded “daft” last night by a special adviser to ex-Communities Secretary Hazel Blears. Paul Richards said: “Unless you can describe what you’re up against, you’re never going to defeat it. Ministers need to be leading the debate on Islamic extremism and they can’t do that if they have one hand tied behind their back.”

    The Home Office said: “This is about using appropriate language to have counter-terrorism impact. It would be foolish to do anything else.”

    Call it what it is, folks. Don’t give in to the PC Police. There ARE facts, and there IS a thing known as TRUTH, contrary to what many would have you think. The TRUTH is always the truth, whether you, or I, or any immigrant group likes it or not.

    Differences: Conservative vs. Liberal

    leave a comment »

    I’d like to cite a source for this, but I don’t know where it originated. It was sent to me by my brother Rand. And judging from my own personal experience and observation, it seems significantly sad-yet-accurate.

    If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
    If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

    If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.
    If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

    If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
    A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

    If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
    If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

    If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
    Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

    If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
    A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

    If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
    Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

    If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
    A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

    If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
    A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

    If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
    If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

    If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended.”

    Written by jb

    October 17, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Carter’s Views

    with 4 comments

    Former President Jimmy Carter injects his personal opinion into the national debate by issuing a statement that (he believes) public opposition to President Obama is based on the “fact” that white people (in a sweeping generalization) believe “that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.”

    “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African-American,” Carter told “NBC Nightly News.” “I live in the South, and I’ve seen the South come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country that shares the South’s attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans.

    “That racism inclination still exists, and I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people — not just in the South but around the country — that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

    In commenting on remarks by reporters that some have compared Obama to a Nazi, Carter also said,

    “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”

    He grouped Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during Obama’s speech in that category, according to AP.

    “I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.

    “The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect.”

    Just where do “these people (Carter, Pelosi, Rangle, etc.)” get the notion that they can broadly and generally ascribe the motivation of racism to anyone who happens to disagree with the policies of our President? How sanctimonious of them.

    Carter grew up in the South, in a time when there indeed, and regretably, there was widespread racism. But as even he pointed out, “the South (has) come a long way.” For him (and others) to continue to attempt to apply the old racism of the South to anyone who disagrees on a policy-basis, is totally ridiculous. Carter indeed knows a bit about “sin in his heart,” and he has an absolute right to confess his own sins, but it is outrageous for him to ascribe the sin of racism to the hearts of any other person, especially when he so broadly applies the accusation to “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama.”

    I’m not saying that none of the opposition to Obama’s policies is race-based. I’m sure that some of it probably is. But for Carter and others to try to broadly paint any opposition as race-based shows them to be attempting to subvert genuine and honest discussion of the actual issues. How would they suggest we can discuss the issues? I must conclude that they ultimately don’t want discussion of these issues, and that is why they are trying to cheap-shot their way out of it with attempts like this one.

    The accusation of racism has gotten out of hand. Anyone now who opposes Obama’s policies, because he happens to be black, is a racist? I don’t think so. Applying that logic, would it be accurate to say that because President Obama called Kanye West “a jackass,” he is a racist? It would have to mean that, because Kanye is black. Obama “criticized” him. Therefore, Obama did so out of the motivation of racism. How ridiculous does that look? Every bit as ridiculous as Carter’s statement claiming that my opposition to any of Obama’s policies is based on racism, in my opinion.

    Carter may know well the Old South. But I claim that he knows absolutely nothing about what is in my heart. And I resent that he would try to ascribe racism to my motivation in my opposition to President Obama’s policies. He doesn’t know. And he should remain silent on things he knows absolutely nothing about.

    Written by jb

    September 16, 2009 at 12:48 pm

    The Irony in Diversity

    leave a comment »

    There’s an odd irony in diversity, from BlabberMouse.

    Friday, September 11, 2009


    A puppet troupe is coming to Gus’s school today to teach the kids about “Accepting Differences”. This morning, Gus was nervously eying the flyer, which features various puppets of color smiling for a group picture.

    “I don’t like these puppets,” he said. “I don’t want them to come to my school.”


    “Because they’re scary.”

    “Why are they scary?”

    “Because they’re weird, and they don’t look like us.”

    Written by jb

    September 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    Posted in Diversity, The Humorous Side

    Tagged with ,