Is That Legal?

I have read the back and forth between your site and vdare.com's and some things that should be pointed out are how you make claims that you did not call their site a hate site(even though you strongly implied it), and use single sentences taken out of context from articles on this site. At least vdare gives opposing viewpoints in their entirety. It makes me uncomfortable that you choose to extract sentences from articles that do not give an honest representation of what is being said in the article. The same kind of word games are being played by Mr. Krantz when talking about Mr. Brimelow's appearance on his show. He tries to twist censorship of a guest into 'not really being censorship since it is not being done by the federal government'. Then he goes on to argue that Mr. Brimelow was not cut off and received a full 15 minutes which is just as much as any guest is allowed. Which is it? Was it Mr. Krantz exercising his right to cut off a guest if he deemed necessary 'since it is a privately owned show', or was Mr. Brimelow mistaken when he said he was supposed to receive 40 minutes of airtime?

Your listing of ostensibly outrageous statements regarding ethnic groups, group tendencies, and, in particular, certain exceptionally grisly aspects of recent Muslim immigration to Europe, appears to take as a given that there can be no reasoned basis for these statements.

It is notable that you feel entitled to assume your readers will also automatically assume that these assertions on VDARE are false, groundless, and indefensible. I urge your readers to peruse the VADRE.COM website, its extensive archives, and all the sources cited therein, and make up their own minds as to the reliability of its content and its authors.

Certain authors on VDARE, past and present, take a distinctly racialist tone in some or most of their postings(e.g., Sam Francis, Steve Sailer), but others deal purely with economics and demographics, e.g., Ed Rubenstein.

There is, in fact, no dogmatic position as to any matter on VDARE, other than the idea that no sane and healthy society, intent on survival in the interests of its posterity (as opposed to everyone else's posterity), can absord an unlimited, unregulated, and indiscrimintate flood of immigrants -- legal or otherwise.
The United States cannot, therefore, afford to persist in its present course, where virtually all control over who becomes a fellow citizen, in what manner they so become, in what number, and within what timeframe, has been abandoned.

This is not an unreasonable position. It is the position of a solid, overwhelming majority in this country.

It is a position, however, that does not generally get a fair hearing in the public square. This is primarily due to the actions of leftist partisans in influential positions who are determined to silence debate, rather than engage in it.

As a long-time listener of the Brad and Britt show, I have to interject.

I am a news junkie. I read and listen to the news all day long. And I have never heard a show more fair or direct on the radio. I am a Christian Democrat, and while I have disagreed with the guys many times, I continue to listen because I believe they listen to both sides of the story every time.

Remember, not everyone has a personal agenda or axe to grind. Some people are purely in it because they are professionals.

And if and when Brad and Britt do have a strong point of view, they tell you exactly why. I urge everyone to listen to both sides of the story. And--more importantly--listen to the show for several weeks. You aren't a credible commenter on this subject, and on Mr. Krantz's credibility (which is stellar, I might add), unless you do. We are lucky to have locals with such skill, integrity, and professionalism on the air.

What is that culture? Watch "The Last Picture Show" or "American Graffiti". Try to imagine that in any currently "culturally vibrant" community.

Note the results of diversity in the recent work by Prof. Robert Putnam of "bowling alone" fame. He found that increasing diversity leads to decreasing trust; not only between ethnic groups but within ethnic groups. That is, all cultures are degraded by diversity.

Laura, as a long time listener, can you say whether political guests frequently stay on the air for 40 minutes in the morning?

Robert Hume, I think you commented on the wrong post.

ELM: I'm a long time listener too, James S. One almost never hears guests on the B & B show for longer than a 20-minute segment.

Wow! Did someone just offer "The Last Picture Show" as an example of the benefits of a homogeneous community? Has Robert Hume seen the movie? It certainly is homogeneous, that I won't argue. Homogeneous and also shot through with melancholy, fin de siecle fatalism, and the pervading sense that the town is drying up and dying (along with the prospects of its young) from boredom and stasis. That's exactly how I want to live!

"This is primarily due to the actions of leftist partisans in influential positions who are determined to silence debate, rather than engage in it."

Good lord, my eyes are rolling. God forbid we point out racism and hate where we see it.

Having free speech doesn't give one the right to be free of criticism of that speech Kim. Calling it an "opposing viewpoint" doesn't change what the speech ACTUALLY is.

Gee, the "opposing viewpoint" people can dish it, but they sure can't take it. One little negative mention of their viewpoints, and they all go nuts!