…

So for the record I’ll again attempt to have a debate here.

As quoted above:

Its military power and financial sophistication both hastened the process whereby streams of incomers became coherent forces capable of carving out kingdoms from its own body politic.

They don’t need a military army to invade.

By allowing illegals to come in unrestrained they increase their voting block and power.

Rewarding illegals with citizenship if they serve in the military is also an important issue regarding their gaining voting block power in favor of all things unrestrained immigration, which is what is at stake here.

With the size of our military needed to protect us, rewarding too many illegals citizenship for serving, is a pitfall in itself, which is what is referred to in the quote.

Our, financial sophistication can also be a cause for our downfall, when it is allowed to import so many illegals, that, if unrestrained will suck us dry.

That’s pretty simple stuff, not complicated at all.

Riehl World View

Always thoughtful blogger, James Joyner, wonders if conservatives are now a minority within the Republican Party. With all due respect to James, the analysis is terribly flawed. It cherry picks items to make the case and ignores those…

I’ll just say that, in short, the situation of the Roman Empire ca. 400 AD and of the US in the present day show some interesting parallels, as noted, but it ends there, in my opinion – which is why I spoke of the potential misuse of Heather’s conclusions.

Just so you know, the Roman Empire did pretty well for generations trading with, assimilating, subduing, and on occasion accepting infusions of population from the barbarian tribes that surrounded its borders. Without such a policy, it never would have lasted twice as long (or, in the East, around seven times as long) as our republic has been in existence, while expanding beyond its technical abilities to administer the territory.

However, when rampaging and pillaging armies of indigenous Central Americans cut a swath of destruction from El Paso to Chicago, then proceed East, capture Manhattan, and deny its trade, tax income, and general use permanently to the rest of the country, we can re-visit the issue!

Also, it’s not a political blog, but rather an amusement blog, attached to a business I run. Those of you heading there for further enlightenment may be disappointed – but feel free to drop me a line if you’re interested in movie posters and other collectibles!

It really ironic that CK MacLeod is accusing Ann C. of being a hypocrite when at the same time he is blatantly supporting McShamnesty, yet, at the same blogging that about the fact that uncontrolled immigration is what eventually collapse the Roman empire.

To wit, from his blog:
Dated: December 15, 2007
Titled: Empires Rising and Falling

I’m almost surprised that in all of the discussion of illegal immigration, I haven’t yet seen someone attempt to use, or perhaps misuse, Peter Heather’s THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, which sums up the last few generations of archaeological and historical research to overthrow widespread beliefs about what finally brought the Empire of the West to an end.

Not financial mismanagement and overstretch,
not moral decline and decadence,
not the disorder and violence of periodic succession crises always on the brink of civil war,
not the softening of old Roman brutality and cruelty under the establishment of Christianity,
not military attack and competition by powers like the Huns and Persians – though all of these played their roles –

but, rather, uncontrolled immigration appears to Heather to have been the key:

He then further expands on this here:

[I]t is impossible to escape the fact that the western Empire broke up because too many outside groups established themselves on its territories and expanded their holdings by warfare.

Or…

[T]he Roman state became its own worst enemy. Its military power and financial sophistication both hastened the process whereby streams of incomers became coherent forces capable of carving out kingdoms from its own body politic.
…..
….
The Inca Empire was also destroyed by outsiders, but the denouement, as described in Kim McQuarrie’s THE LAST DAYS OF THE INCAS, struck me as altogether displeasing, in fact as rather relentlessly ugly – the destruction of one cruel and brutal ruling elite (the Incas) by an even more cruel and brutal would-be elite (the Conquistadors). One observation stood out for me amidst the frequently fascinating but ultimately alienating tale of depravity, torture, greed, megalomania, and combat as desperate as it was unequal:

(Conquest… had little to do with adventure, but rather had everything to do with groups of men willing to do just about anything in order to avoid working for a living.)

I’m not saying I buy it – but there’s an element of truth to the statement. I think McQuarrie’s book rather effectively reports a fuller context.

The problem with hypocrites is that they are very lazy. Which is why they are also so easy too expose.

I’ve often said this:
“Hypocrisy is the lazy man’s sin, because, at some point, they are required to take a principled stand, and whatever hypocrisy is, it’s not standing on principle. Rather it’s taking the easy way out.”

P.S. I’ve screen capped his blog and stored it here for posterity.

Enjoy.

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse on the issue, but the continued high pitched battle between conservative Republicans who have rallied around conservative-come-lately Mitt Romney in hopes of defeating Teddy Kennedy’s Good Friend John Mc…

Her personal conduct and morality is only an issue

You know nothing of her personal conduct and morality. What an arrogant statement.

She’s a hypocrite because she dates a jewish liberal

His religion is your concern, not mine, p & p. I wouldn’t stoop to bring it up. Her personal conduct and morality is only an issue because she has so frequently made an issue of her perceptions regarding the personal conduct and morality of her political opponents. Otherwise, like you, I also don’t recall her ever telling anyone to hate. That would be an odd instruction, wouldn’t it? “Please go hate.” No, in this one and only regard she’s fairly subtle. She merely goes out of her way to inspire hatred and to conduct herself in a hateful manner, all the while living the life and now even promising to support the candidate of the people she pretends to despise.

under the obviously mistaken impression that she’s any less a hypocrite than many of the people she has pretended to judge.

You’re skating on thin ice there, Spanky. She’s a hypocrite because she dates a jewish liberal? I don’t ever remember Ann giving dating advice nor do I ever remember her telling anyone to hate. Your inability to comprehend sarcastic humor or passionate debate leads you to break things down into the simplest denominators. You must believe that disagreement must then = hatred. Lack of nuance or subtlety? Definitely a liberal trait. No wonder you are a mccain voter. He oozes both hatred and liberalism.

hope you don’t support McCain because it would be quite ironic if you support the consummate reach across the aisle and screw my own party guy, but disapprove of personal relationships which are not sufficiently loyal to the Party Apparatchik.

No, what or who Ann Coulter does is of no importance to me. I’m more interested in those whom she manages to stir up under the obviously mistaken impression that she’s any less a hypocrite than many of the people she has pretended to judge.

As Maine goes, so goes the nation. :)

Sorry, no forgiveness for anyone on this blog who votes Democrat unless ye repents when it all begins to fall apart.

CliffHanger on February 2, 2008 at 7:45 PM

You’ll need to do the repenting and begging to get us back…or nominate a real conservative in 2012 otherwise you can continue to look at our big middle finger. Nominate McShamnesty and enjoy Hillary, reward for backing MShamnesty. You and the others know our stance, we;re not hiding the ball…nominate McLiar and we walk…you live with your choice.

Sorry, no forgiveness for anyone on this blog who votes Democrat unless ye repents when it all begins to fall apart.

CliffHanger on February 2, 2008 at 7:45 PM

I don’t know that anyone is entertaining that idea.

Be nice if Romney ran that pro-Mitt, McCain endorsement ad the next few days.

Opening with:

“Let’s hear what John McCain says about Mitt Romney…”

And end:

Romney For President.

What would McLame do if everyone jumped on him…?

duh. Everyone IS jumping on him.

If Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. endorse Mitt & McCain wins anyway, the media won’t let them live it down

Like I said yesterday, Rush does what’s good for Rush.

CK MacLeod on February 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM

P.S. lest you misconstrue, I am not a fanboy.

The more you look at his “heroics” the shabbier this “war hero” looks.

Write in, 2008.

If McVain doesn’t get caught on his b.s. this Tuesday.

Thats one huge gamble to take. Because the dems will enact every law they can to keep their majority. Votes for Felons and illegals no ID needed !

William Amos on February 2, 2008 at 3:48 PM

Tell me again how that differs from McShamnesty allowing 20 million more dems into the country? I will vote dem to stick it to McCain. If you want to forgive and forget that’s your call, but many of us are unwilling to be lied to then laughed at by McCain while he screws us again. No Thanks.

CK MacLeod on February 2, 2008 at 6:57 PM

I don’t know about you, but I never wanted to vote for my boyfriends.

It’s hope you don’t support McCain because it would be quite ironic if you support the consummate reach across the aisle and screw my own party guy, but disapprove of personal relationships which are not sufficiently loyal to the Party Apparatchik.

Except pimps like the Clintons?