It is an unpleasant reality but we need to to face it. Michelle Malkin links to the Washington Examiner editorial page:
(show)
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Illegal Aliens and the Place of Polemic
- Undocumented Workers and Illegal Aliens
- Liberal Arguments Against Illegal Immigration
- Are Liberals Allergic to Common Sense?
- Teddy Boy Logic: Confusing Illegal Immigration with Civil Rights
- Illegal Immigration and Public Health
- More On the Catholic Bishops on Illegal Immigration
- Immigration, The Catholic Bishops, and the Misuse of Scripture
- The Larger Context: The U.N.'s Anti-Sovereignty Agenda
- Mark Steyn on Immigration
- The Reconquista and the Reconquistadores
- Tammy Raises Cain with McCain
- Illegal Immigration and Avian Flu
- Illegal Immigration Links
- A Wall is the Key to Any Reform
- From the AFL-CIO Weblog
- AFL-CIO Supports Illegal Immigration!
- Victor Davis Hanson on Illegal Immigration

Making the Army of Reconquista and scroll way down. There is a phantom image that effects this post only and pushes the body of it to the very bottom.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.