Obama Speaketh, and the church sayeth Amen!

Here's a story from ABC News on Caesar Obama's 2006 statements which are now, two years ex post facto, the focus of so much media attention. (Hat tip VA)

I could take several different approaches to the topic if that were my desire, but they'd all boil down to the obvious singularity: Obama is indeed, as Dr. Dobson has stated, a "fruitcake", unfit to be president of the United States. And he has a sizeable contingency of lesser fruitcakes who fawn over his every word, to wit:

The speech delves into Obama's view of the constructive role religion plays in society, beseeching "work that progressive leaders need to do" on the subject, followed by his views of "what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge." (emphasis mine)

That included "the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice," Obama said, as well as "the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

First of all, someone pointed out in a comment to the article that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In a response to the comment another commenter asked the question "so what do you think is meant by the "establishment clause" of the first amendment? Well, obviously, by the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the founders meant to say that Christians in particular can't, uh, well, uh ... let's let someone with authority to speak on the matter answer that; here are his credentials:

I am a pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S.

Whoa! You got my attention Pastor. Proceed.

I see nothing wrong with Obama's comments as quoted in this article. In fact, I applaud them.

Ok, fair enough. But why do you qualify your support for Obama's statements with the phrase "as quoted in this article?" You're not trying to leave yourself a little wiggle room just in case it turns out that your boy truly is what he truly is, are you? Never mind.

The good Pastor continues:

Leaders who are unable to embrace our nation's pluralism are out of touch and risk establishing a theocracy.

Tripper, you wouldn't, perchance, be Dr. Charles Stanley would you, In Touch pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in America as you are and whatnot? Well, anyway, I think you've coined a new phrase soon to be as popular in America as the oft repeated "our democracy" -- "our nation's pluralism." Congratulations. But I'm confused, how is it again that our out-of-touch founders rejected the notion of "our nation's pluralism" and yet avoided, in the very midst of a comparatively non-pluralistic society, establishing a theocracy? Wait, you said this is a "risk", albeit one directly connected to a rejection of pluralism, not necessarily an absolute surety. You're good; you are good! What other pearls of wisdom have you for us poor ignorant biblically and historically illiterate laymen?:

Pluralism is much more of a strength to celebrate rather than a liability to fear.

Wow! Pluralism, excuse me, "our nation's pluralism" is not merely more of a strength to celebrate, but much more of a strength, ummm, much more to be celebrated. Nice touch. Now as the verse of the song in the hymnal says (page 101): "let's all celebrate and have a good time." But before we start, we need you to drop us another pearl'r two:

Christians can/should be completely faithful without legislating morality or theology.

Oh, I see. According to our in touch pastor, there's some sort of mystic power in Christianity which enables us believers to divorce our religious persuasions (or the lack thereof) from our political beliefs. And in addition, Christians, ummm, I mean "in touch" Christians, can and should do the impossible, i.e., avoid legislating their peculiar brand of morality. Do I need to demonstrate for the gazillionth time that all laws are based on morality, someone's morality? Even Obama, as idiotic and self-destructive as his statements which inspired the good pastor's approving statements are, was not so foolish, at least in this particular case, as to assert that the impossible is possible, even for Christians.

Let me say it again for the benefit of those who missed it the other gazillion times I've stated it: ALL laws are founded in a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. Which is to say that all laws are created on the basis that a thing is right or it is wrong, that it is good or it is evil; that it is moral or immoral. To demonstrate this, I've used the example of abortion before. Yes; laws that favor abortion are founded on a moral perspective. If you doubt me, ask someone who favors abortion laws why they favor abortion laws. Invariably you're going to get an answer based in their particular idea of morality; generally they favor abortion because they think it is wrong (i.e., immoral) to deny a woman the "right to choose" over her own body, and that it is right (i.e., moral) to grant her this "inalienable" right. I don't care how you look at it, that is a moral perspective, and any law which has its basis in such a perspective is a moral law. And as I said, all laws have their bases in this kind of moral reasoning. Therefore, it is literally impossible to not "legislate morality," someone's morality. Question is, for the gazillionth time, whose morality are we going legislate? The great champion of diverse cultural and moral clarity, the benevolent leader for change Augustus Obama provides us the answer. Mr. Obama:

Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

In other words, whatever we once were (a Christian nation, for those who missed it), we are now an admixture of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, non-believers and etc., and whatever collective morality this odd collection produces, that is the morality that will be legislated. But with the "increasing diversity of America's population," says Augustus Obama, "the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater." One could rightly conclude from this statement that as diversity continues to increase in this country, so too will the dangers of sectarianism continue to increase, and that therefore, as the dangers of sectarianism, which are a direct result of increases in diversity, increase even beyond what they are now with further increases in diversity, it is our increasing diversity which spells our ultimate doom. And yet, according to our trippin' pastor, who sees nothing wrong with Obama's statements and in fact applauds them by the way, this diversity, religious and otherwise, is more, much more to be celebrated than to be feared. Which begs the question: what kind of junk is Pastor Tripper tripping on?

Read More

I have to hand it to John Savage

And I admit that when I first read his post, Cuisine and Symbolism, I thought to myself "boy, he's really stretching it." Boy was I wrong! I don't have an explanation for why that was my attitude after a first reading of the entry, but I can tell you that after having read it again it's definately not my attitude now.

In a comment to the post I mentioned that I'm bothered by the growing number of "European looking, squared off organ donors" that I'm seeing on American highways these days. But why does this bother me? If this is what some people want to drive, it's no skin off my nose is it? Maybe it's that deep down I understand that there's a fundamental change (not for the good) taking place in this country, and I'm associating the tendency toward this aesthetically ugly, cheap, foreign looking vehicle, with the degradation of our values and mores, which it seems to me have become themselves cheap and ugly and foreign.

Anyway, do be sure to read John's post. And do not neglect to read the comments, which are very good. And if you have a mind to, see if you can come up with a term to replace "emty-shellism." John suggests "vacuism," but for some reason that I can't quite put a finger on, I don't think it works. I think what might be required is to come to some sort of an agreement on what constitutes the West's "fundamental nature." I know there's a school of thought out there that says the fundamental nature of the West is to continually improve or get better, i.e., evolve (this is the school of thought that says that the U.S. Constitution is a "living, breathing document" and whatnot). Thus, the addition of certain ingredients which were formerly incompatible with the West (due to its comparably primitive evolution) are now become compatible through chance occurance and random mutations. Proof positive that the West's fundamental nature (which can't be changed, only adjusted in scope) is indeed to improve or get better, and that any resistance to it is not only wrong, but futile. Or something like that.

Read More

The case for having a "large" family

The following is simply a reprint from Vanishing American's excellent May 22 entry, Large families?, with a few of my own comments interspersed throughout.

What are the advantages of having a large family? What are the disadvantages? Can a large family be raised on a single income in today's economy? Are people with large families irresponsible, environmentally and otherwise? These are just a few of the questions VA touches on in her post. VA writes:

Caveat: the following is not meant to disparage anybody who has few or no children. I am speaking in generalities and I trust that nobody will take offense at anything I say here.

TM: Likewise. However, if you do take offense to something VA says, and I agree with, I have to tell you that in my opinion, having already encountered it many times before I'm sure, it's likely a personal problem. Each of us has his or her own little quirks that in the grand scheme of things don't amount a hill of beans. Let's not make a mountain out of a mole hill, okie dokie.

VA continues:

In the recent discussion, the question of family size and number of children came up. Now, the most common reason we hear for encouraging large families these days, is the Mark Steyn-esque argument that we need to outbreed the Moslems. I think that's one of the least compelling, and the worst reasons, for having large families. First, can we, who are a dwindling number globally, out-reproduce the teeming Third World? Remember we are far outnumbered, and also keep in mind that this teeming Third World is knocking ever more insistently at our doors and windows. Those who are not already in our midst are on their way or planning to be on their way or trying to find out how they can get here, wishing to be somewhere in the 'rich world', as they call it in The Economist. So hoping to outpace the Third World in reproducing is a far-fetched hope.

There are better reasons for having large families, the best being that we love children and want to welcome as many as we can take care of into our already happy lives. And for Christians, we view kids as God's gift to us, and we want to raise them to know and love and serve and give glory to God.

As members of a large extended family called our nation or people, we want to raise our children to carry on the life of that group, and to continue our ways and our heritage into the future. Our children are the future for our particular line, and for our people.

Who should not have a large family, or perhaps any children? Those who don't want children, who are not prepared financially to care for them, or who are in some way not good candidates.

People should not reproduce carelessly and should not have children by accident.

TM: I agree with VA in the first instance. I have no personal interest in trying to "outbreed" the Moslems or anyone else. That we need to, if we need to, is just incidental to any good reasons for having a large family. Raised as I was in a moderately large family, as well as in a community where this was more the rule, than the exception, and having come away from that experience with an outlook more favorable than not to the experience, my wife and I determined early in our marriage that we and a relatively large family were more or less made for each other. This decision between my wife and I was made secretly and independently of anyone else, and as I said, very early on in our marriage.

I only have one disagreement with what VA wrote above worthy of note -- her use of the term "kids." Many moons ago (as my native ancestors might have put it) I was corrected for using the term, and I've never forgotten that invaluable lesson. A very prominent, influential, well respected individual said to me in response to my usage: "sheep have kids, human beings have children." Amen! The words we choose have impact and meaning in ways that simply escape us at times. I can't tell you how many times I've been in discussions with people where I emphasize the word "children" in place of their word "kids", and I notice an almost immediate dignified and reverential tone, which was not there before, come into their speech, and a new light come into their eyes. It's as if they'd never really thought of their children as dignified human beings with independent value, but as just so many dependent offspring (sheep) who happen to have the same bloodline and live in the same pasture. I could say a lot more, but in the interest of keeping this entry within limits, I won't. I would simply say that if you doubt me, try it for yourself next time you're in conversation with someone about their children.

VA continues:

But apart from all this, what are the advantages of big families?

Over the last 30-35 years, we've seen the triumph of the leftist-feminist idea that large families are harmful to women, who are thereby made nothing but domestic slaves to husband and children. Even many 'conservative' women believe this, and say as much. Once, only leftist feminists said and thought such things; now it's considered common wisdom among 'conservatives', sadly.

The other attitude that has won out since the counterculture days is the 'zero population growth' attitude, that somehow people having large families are irresponsible and backward and selfish, while having few or no children is the sure sign of an enlightened, environmentally responsible person.

Somehow, this ethic is never applied to the Third World peoples, whether they are at home in their native countries or whether they are here in our countries, breeding large families, at public expense.

Another argument that has been widely accepted is that couples cannot afford large families because today's world makes childrearing and stay-at-home mothering out of reach of 'average' people. I say this is not as true as we think; it's all a matter of priorities. It's only economically unfeasible for some people because they choose to spend their resources on pricey toys and gadgets, extensive travel, dining, and many other non-essentials while ruling out the 'expensive' family.

This is very much a 'live for today' attitude, which is at odds with conservatism or tradition.

Today we have much higher standards in terms of what we think is an acceptable standard of living. Many think poverty means having only one car, or living in a modest home rather than a McMansion, or shopping at a lower-price retailer (and I don't mean Wal-Mart) rather than having the trendiest, most up-to-date of everything.

In other words, many of us are spoiled and self-indulgent.
Most of us, myself included, could cut out a lot of the frills and nonessentials and thus have more money for the essentials. In this day of rising gas prices, and tightened budgets, we will probably have to cut out the fat.

Where do I start? I can assure you that my wife does not feel, nor has she ever felt, for more than a fleeting moment, like a "domestic slave" to myself and the children. Indeed, this is one of those things that I've run across many many times during our marriage. People automatically assume that my wife would be much happier if she had a career and weren't burdened with the necessity of taking care of six children. I don't know how it is exactly that they come to these conclusions, but I assume that it's mainly driven by the impulse that since they're happier with one or two children and a career, or they think they are (I'm not sure how they know they're happier), then she would be. Little do they know that she wants to have more children, and I do not. Selfish individual that I am, I don't particularly care for the idea of raising children in my senior years. Aside from the biological problems with having children past a certain age, I simply don't think midaged and elderly people are equipped (in any number of ways), on the average, to properly raise children. Simply stated, God has good reasons for limiting our productive childbearing years to a youthful average, and I don't question them. I simply try to understand them to the best of my meager abilities.

As to the "environmentally irresponsible" attitude about having a large family, I'd really rather not discuss it. I'm not out to make any enemies, so I think it's better that I not address it, if you know what I mean. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of people I know who have fewer children than I do use more, a lot more, of the earth's resources, among other things.

VA writes:

But are there real arguments to be made for large families?
I grew up in a fairly large family of five children.

My parents were from large families, of thirteen and eight children, respectively.

Here's what I know from experience and observation about large families:
The children of large families are given more responsibility, usually through necessity, and they have to pull their weight and do their part. This encourages a work ethic and a mature attitude at an earlier age, as well as giving them confidence in what they can do.

They learn the idea of accommodating and getting along with others among a group of siblings.

Kids in a large family are each others' company and entertainment, as well as emotional support. You learn to interact with peers through interacting with your sisters and brothers. Granted, it's not always a bed of roses, but neither is life in the larger world. It teaches you a sense of reality.

"The great advantage of living in a large family is that early lesson of life's essential unfairness."
- Nancy Mitford

Older children in the family act as role models (in positive ways, and sometimes negative ways). Older siblings can sometimes be an inspiration either to do good things, or an example to avoid, by bad example. Having younger siblings helps us learn childcare skills and responsibility, which prepare us to be parents in our turn.

Having many siblings tends to teach us not to be as materialistic, because resources are spread rather thinner in large families, and we learn to have regard for others and their wants and needs as well as our own.

Children in larger families have a less exaggerated sense of their own importance; in a larger family you are not going to be doted upon by your parents or grandparents as much as if you were an only child. You thus attain a sense of perspective about yourself and your value. You don't get the idea that the sun rises and sets on you, in a large family. It isn't all about you. There are other people to be considered, and everybody has to take their turn, and learn to wait.

I've noticed that many 'only children' have more trouble relating to peers, or that they tend to be more idiosyncratic, more inclined to be loners. That can be good or bad, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems rather lonely to be an only child. Friends somewhat take the place of siblings, but friends can and do come and go. They are not always there for life, as siblings usually are.

Now I can hear the arguments that 'brothers and sisters aren't always close; many times they can't get along, and even loathe each other.' That's as may be; no doubt it happens, but I don't see that in really well-functioning, loving families much. I didn't see any of that kind of conflict in my Dad's family; the bond between him and his brothers and sisters, and their loyalty to each other, overrode any squabbles they had, which were few.

Blood is, as the old saying has it, thicker than water. Friends can fall out and part ways forever, (and yes, so can family members) but especially with a large family, even if you are estranged from one or two of your siblings, there are plenty of others there for you. Large families present better odds of having supportive, loyal family members who will stick by you.

The same is true of parents and children. My beloved Grandma, with thirteen children and dozens of grandchildren and who knows how many great-grandchildren never lacked for someone to care for her at the end of her life. She did live a long and healthy and active life, and her health failed only at the very end. She was always surrounded by people who loved her as only family members can love.

Of course we can love those who are not kin. But there is a special kind of accepting, enduring, unconditional love that is found among close kin. We can see it also between loving spouses and among certain very close friends, but the family circle is the main source of such love, and after all, it's within the close family unit that we first learn love, acceptance, cooperation, self-sacrifice, and compassion. We also learn patience, and contrariwise, we learn how to stand up for ourselves, if we have contentious siblings.

The family is a microcosm of the larger world out there. It can prepare us to succeed and prosper, given the right conditions. Even a less-than-ideal family can teach us useful lessons.

And surely having large families, with many caring relatives is better for society, especially when seen from a conservative or traditional perspective. In the future, given the prevalence of small families, there will be many, many older people who will rely on nursing home care, and on the ministrations of strangers and the government to help them as they become infirm.

In past eras, when there were large families, siblings shared in the care of the elders when they could no longer take care of themselves, and there was less need for the old folks to be warehoused in nursing homes as they aged and their health failed. Usually, one of the many children could take in the ailing parent and care for them at home.

From a conservative point of view, smaller families and many childless adults will one day mean many frail elderly having to be cared for by the state and by strangers in the relatively near future. If our ideal is smaller government, and a shrinking of the 'nanny state', small families are counterproductive. The presence of strong (and large) family support systems means far less need for entitlement programs and institutions for the elderly.

Likewise, the leftist-feminist agenda has created a need for more day-care centers and has led to a tendency to put toddlers in 'pre-schools' at earlier ages, in the care of the school system.This contrasts to the customs of the past. When I was a child, most of us did not leave our mothers until age six, when we were required to start first grade. Now, at age six, most children are already veterans of the 'system', and fully acculturated to the public school institution.

So the smaller family tends to mean more isolation, early in life and late in life, with the reliance on the rather impersonal institution rather than the loving bosom of the family.

There are many reasons why the left pushed the idea the desirability of few or no children, and of the 'village' raising our children, as opposed to parents and the extended family having control over their children's upbringing. Overall, the agenda has weakened the family and home and the influence thereof, in favor of the influence of the state and debased popular culture.

And speaking of debased popular culture, has anybody noticed how much our popular culture tends to disparage and ridicule the family unit, especially the traditional family? Many sitcoms and movies tend to portray 'dysfunctional' families with obnoxious, boorish parents and malicious siblings. The family is treated very roughly in our entertainment media. I think this is intentional.

People in a society with mostly small families and a weakened family unit are often people with few close ties, people who are rootless and disconnected and more prone to alienation and anomie. They might be possibly more inclined to find 'surrogate families' in weird places, like cults, or political causes, or perhaps simply to remain permanent adolescents, doing adolescent things into middle age or beyond. We often read the standard excuses made by liberal sociologists and journalists about how fatherless kids, (of whom we have many now) or kids with weak family bonds, join gangs, and find their support system there. We are social animals, and people who lack the most primal connections will either tend to find some substitute, or perhaps just become isolated. There does seem to me to be a larger number of isolated, lonely people in today's America, compared to the past.

On WikiAnswers, someone asked about the advantages and disadvantages of a large family. The only response was this:

"If someone decides to have a large family that's their business, however having a large family you better have a good salary or both parents working as the cost of having a large family today is expensive. With a small family the costs are less."

Is this what it really comes down to, dollars and cents? It isn't possible to count everything in economic terms. Doing so, or even attempting to reduce everything to the naked economic calculations, shows a kind of soullessness that is the unique product of our spiritually impoverished time.

Our parents and grandparents raised families, often large families, in less prosperous times than ours. If they did it, so can those today who want families.

It all comes down to priorities.(emphasis mine)

“He that raises a large family does, indeed, while he lives to observe them, stand a broader mark for sorrow; but then he stands a broader mark for pleasure too.” - Benjamin Franklin

TM: With respect to this last lengthy section of VA's entry, as I said in a comment to the post, "I couldn't agree more with everything she said." My experience, both during my childhood (when we were much poorer and had much much less than my family has now), as well as during my adult years which has been primarily devoted to properly raising a large family (by today's standards), is essentially the same as VA's. Indeed, as people who know me well can attest, I've made the exact same arguments in the exact same terms time and time again. To my mind, and by my experience, it must be much more difficult to raise children right in a small, as opposed to a large family. I'm not saying that a large family necessarily assures that the children will turn out better, just that it must be, and is (I know) more difficult -- it must require a great deal more conscious effort to resist both a personal impulse, as well as the impulse of the extended family (grandparents primarily) to indulge them, to enforce proper discipline, and so on and so forth -- to "raise them in the way they should go" so that "when they are old, they will not soon depart from it."

Once again, I could go on and on and on about the advantages of having a large family, not just to myself and the children, but to society at large. But as VA rightly notes, it's all a matter of priorities. One thing that cannot be denied is that we now live in a debased culture full of self-absorbed, self-indulgent people. And I'm willing to wager that the vast majority of this culture of self-absorption and self-indulgence are the product of small, not large families. Any takers?

Read More

What's to be learned from negative stereotypes, and what's happened to all the Americans?

This is a subject that's been weighing on my mind for a couple of weeks now. Ever since I heard the story of a respected friend who was blind-sided and subsequently beat up by two individuals of a particular ethnicity (hint: there are, according to official government estimates, somewhere on the order of 12 to 20 million of 'em here who are illegal).

Stereotype numero uno: This particular ethnicity is prone to run in packs, and they are purported to consider one-on-one physical confrontations as "no bueno" for themselves. hmmm.

So as the story goes, there was this get-together at a friend of the friend's house. A friend of the friend of the friend invited a couple of low-life vagabonds to the "party." At some point a friend of my friend, seeing the stereotypical "thieves" written all over these two, announced to the room that nothing had better go missing from his house. There were a few unfriendly words tossed about, and the two finally left. Later in the night after most everyone else had left, the two returned, announcing their presence with a well aimed rock through a window. My friend and the two others in the house rushed to and opened the door, to find one of the individuals standing at the edge of the street goading my friend to come to him. As my friend (ill-advisedly, but nonetheless) walked off the front porch and aggressively approached this individual, the other sprung from his hiding place at the corner of the house, hitting him with a blow to the side of the head which knocked him down and more or less temporarily immobilized him. Then the two began to kick my friend in the head and the upper torso.

Rule numero uno: Never, never, never allow an opponent to goad you into taking an aggressive posture in his territory; there's always some reason, advantageous to himself, that he's calling you to him. If you don't believe me, try this: Calmly reply to his invitation: "No; you come here." Nine times out of ten he won't. Guaranteed.

Where were the other two, you may be asking. Well, as I understand it, they remained comfortably on the porch as spectators. Neither the fact that my friend was blindsided by the hidden one, nor that once down he was attacked by both prompted either of them to action of any kind, in word or deed. I'm no tough guy, but I can assure you that the outcome would have been much different had I been there. And that's a fact! Sometimes you just put it all out there with no regard to personal safety or well being. Anything else is ... unAmerican! And you can quote me on that.

Read More

Why do Americans accept the unacceptable,...

and what, if anything, can be done about it?

Is our society so eat up with the cancer of cultural degradation that the unacceptable has now become acceptable among the majority, or is it, as Clark Coleman suggests, that the appearance of cultural degradation, seen in television adds promoting everything from "performance enhancement" drugs to "size enhancement" drugs for men, to lesbian activities between college girls, and etc., seems so utterly pervasive and overwhelming that the majority, not realizing it is a majority, feels incapable of, and utterly helpless in doing anything about it?

In a comment to Auster's article which I sent a few minutes ago and has not yet been posted, I wrote the following:

I've told the story before elsewhere, but in 1992 while serving in the U.S. Air Force and stationed in Anchorage AK, residents became alarmed by the radical homosexual agenda that the Anchorage city council was considering passing a local ordinance on -- adding the words "sexual orientation" to their non-discrimination laws -- which, as traditionalist conservatives understand very well, has far reaching destructive societal consequences. I personally attended several of the public hearings, braving sub-zero weather conditions with many other like minded concerned citizens who were "left out in the cold" so to speak due to the fact that so many alarmed citizens became instant and active opponents of the measure thus filling the council chambers to capacity, as well as the library building where these chambers were housed.

This did not deter the council from passing the ordinance by a margin of something like five to two, even though the members were warned many times and in many different ways that they'd be removed if they voted in favor of the measure. They passed the measure in open and direct defiance, even aggressive, insulting verbal defiance, of the clear and overwhelming will of the people. And they were all, every last one who voted in favor of the measure, summarily removed from the council at the next election cycle which was only a few months later, just as the citizenry had warned they would be. The new council overturned the measure as their first order of business.

The point is that this is an example of exactly how these things should be handled. We know that there are leftists in positions of power who are going to defy the will of the people, even on threat of their removal from office or on the threat of a boycott, or whatever. Such is the nature of leftists; they are aggressively defiant personalities who recognize no authority but the authority of the ideology of liberalism. The only way to deal with them effectively, therefore, is to give them fair warning of what their fate will be if they defy the will of the people, and then to follow through on that threat once they do. And when I say "follow through" I mean follow through all the way to the end, never allowing them to hold a position of authority where public policy is made again. ...

No news to you, I'm sure, that I like Mr. Coleman's idea, and I disagree with the dissenters and the naysayers. There are always any number of folks out there who say this and that lofty and worthy goal can't be achieved. And comparatively speaking there are generally far fewer people who believe a difficult thing can be achieved, than believe it can. But as Dad always used to say, "anything worth having is worth working for," which, of course, and as I've noted before, implies the opposite: anything not worth having is worthy of the expense of no effort.

Some folks place very little value on preserving moral and cultural virtue. Others place a great deal of value on it. You can count me firmly among that latter group, as well as among that group which believes that difficult and lofty goals are achievable, which makes the pursuit thereof that much more worthwhile.

Read More

Assimilation or Acculturation?

One thing that I think we need to do is to make people aware that there is a huge difference between the two. In fact, these are opposite, and opposing concepts.

John Savage has put up an excellent post this morning which is the primary inspiration for this post...

In reading John's post, two things were brought to mind, as I said in my comments to the entry:

1. Linda Chavez's statements in the recent FrontPage symposium on immigration and assimilation. And,

2. One of Lawrence Auster's recent entries over at VFR where in his concluding sentence to the initial entry, Auster reveals what a friend of his said to him while discussing the matter of the Muslim immigrants in our country. From memory, Auster's friend said that the Muslims were/are acculturating Americans to their customs in preparation for their ultimate takeover of America.

And here is where the rubber meets the road with regard to the difference between assimilation and acculturation. Assimilation means that the immigrants reject the culture of their homeland and adopt the culture of their new home. Acculturation means the very opposite; the host country and culture adapts itself to the cultural characteristics of the migrants. This is what multiculturalism does. It can't not destroy Western and American culture.

What Chavez and her ilk are talking about when they say that immigrants assimilate naturally, is not assimilation at all. It is, to the contrary, acculturation of Western and American culture to alien cultures. What Chavez fails to recognize (for whatever reason) is that American culture has already been turned on its head due to multiculturalism's demand that we acculturate, rather than that the aliens assimilate.

End of initial post.

Read More

Is it immoral not to talk about race?

Since this is the first official full day of Webster's Immigration Awareness Period, let me start it out by pointing you in the direction of a discussion (perhaps still ongoing) over at VFR where Lawrence Auster asks, Is it wrong for me to talk about race?...

I should say at the outset that my purpose during this open-ended period is not to fixate on the immigration question, but to take special notice of it in the days leading up to and immediately following the events scheduled for October 1st on the steps of my State Capitol, and which I intend to be in attendance.

Second, you have undoubtedly noted that I already have this VFR entry referenced under Webster's Recommended (Immigration Related) Blogposts. But I wanted to put together a few thoughts on the discussion as I see it in a separate entry of my own. I have indeed been paying close attention to the discussion as it has progressed.

From my view, and as I said in my comments to the entry, I think the correspondent who raised the initial question about Auster's supposed "fixation" on race, is reasoning from effect to cause, or, a better way of putting it might be that he reasons bassackwards, which is pretty common these days. Also, it should be noted that whenever people engage in this kind of bassackwards, effect to cause, reasoning, they generally tend to adhere to an equally bassackwards - external to internal - approach which has people being more shaped by their environment, than their environment being shaped by people. And once more, consistent with the general reasoning process of such folks, it also involves a part to whole, rather than a whole to part methodology.

In other words, a person's, or a group's internal character doesn't matter any more than race matters to this correspondent, though I'm sure he'd argue otherwise. What he seems to be arguing, in a roundabout sort of way, is that a people such as the Mexicans only display uniquely Mexican characteristics because of their Mexican environment; they do not shape their environment, their environment shapes them. Put them in a more favorable environment and they will automatically throw off their former tendencies, shaped as they were by the poor environment they found themselves in formerly, and will adopt in their place the superior qualities of Western culture, shaped as they are by their environment. Our environment will not be reshaped by their large presence among us because, as this correspondent reasons, people don't shape their environment, their environment shapes people.

But no matter how he tries to defend himself against this view, his words have already revealed his true attitude, which is internal. His attitude is basically spelled out this way, that ten million Mexicans can come to the United States all in one shot, and in the absence of multiculturalism, they are already well equipped to adopt the American way of life, our culture, and so on, and to become, in the place of whites, and as we pass the torch to them, the new traditionalist conservatives who will carry on Western culture as we become displaced by them.

Once again, this is bassackwards thinking. If these Mexican migrants were already equipped to do this, they would have already done so in their own country. There would be no reason for them, existence of multiculturalism or not, to bring their culture with them if they held no attachment to it. Yes, there are always going to be a few; a relatively insignificant percentage of foreigners, Mexicans or whomever, who possess the internal characteristics needed to adopt Western culture. But as Auster rightly notes, large numbers of them are going to carry with them their own cultural identity in preference to Western culture, by the aid of multiculturalism, not because of it.

Now, we should not fail to recognize, no matter how uncomfortable it is for us, that things have deteriorated progressively and steadily as we've allowed more and more immigrants into this country. In other words, as the white majority in America has been steadily eroding, so too has the moral and cultural underpinnings of this nation been eroding. Like I said, it may not be comfortable to speak of it in those terms, but it is what it is. These occurances have not happened in isolation of one-another.

Furthermore, whenever someone engages in the process of part to whole methodology, as this correspondent does, the whole picture is distorted to the point that it is very unclear to the mind's eye. And as bad as I hate to be the bearer of bad news to this individual, it is Westerners, predominately whites, who have discovered, realized and developed whole to part methodology.

Whole to Part methodology, simply stated, teaches this: That you start with a whole view (not to be confused with a complete view) before you begin breaking it down to its individual parts; that the individual parts only have meaning and are understandable as they fit into the whole picture, not the other way around. For instance, one cannot fully appreciate the design of the continent of Africa, one of the continents of nature, unless he understands the design of the whole earth and what its purpose is. Likewise, one cannot fully appreciate the design of the continent of Europe, one of the continents of history, and its peculiar structure, extensive coastline, and so on and so forth, unless he first has a good idea of the whole picture of the earth and its purpose. But I digress.

The point I'm trying to make here is that whole groups of people have specific and identifiable racial and cultural qualities unique to themselves. If they did not we would not have ways of discerning these peculiarities and identifying them as qualities unique to Mexicans, or to the Chinese, or to whomever. Individuals are to be, and can only be understood properly as they form a part of the overall racial and cultural makeup of the race and people to which they belong. To take an individual of a given race and to define the race by that individual is, as I said, bassackwards. Though there are exceptions, the general rule is this, an individual is to be defined by his race and his culture. And if his race and culture are found to be incompatible with our own, then what service are we doing him or his culture in inviting him here where the conflicting worldviews must at some point clash?

The question seems to be this, does multiculturalism have the power to resolve the conflicts that naturally arise between different racial and cultural groups? Or is multiculturalism, aiding and abetting the invasion of Western nations as it is, simply going to, at length, intensify them to the point of a global and racial conflict of epic proportions? The question, moreover, is is it wrong for Auster not to talk about race?

Read More

Nothing So Absurd...

And I have to point you in the direction of Vanishing American where she puts up a nice entry on whether 'good people,' because of their 'goodness' are resigned to doing nothing.

In my comment to the entry I quote the familiar refrain (probably more familiar to traditionalists than most) which basically states that "There is nothing so absurd than when something it repeated often enough, people begin to believe it." It applies to VA's post in a way that I bring out in my comments.

Also, VA points out in the post that "evil" can sometimes mean an absence of real good. I believe this is precisely what evil is; that the only thing real between the two, good and evil, is good.

Read More

Civil Rights for Minors?

(Note: This post has been expanded to include a couple of items which need to be addressed.)

Lawrence Auster over at VFR has put up an entry involving a discussion that he and I had yesterday concerning a VFR entry from 2006 he had sent me a link to in reply to a message I'd sent him regarding his entry Who and What rules America.

First of all, Note to Mr. Auster: I'm not a sponge! The "brief selection of VFR articles about liberalism" you sent me amounts to, by my calculations, 18 separate articles. It may be a "brief selection" by VFR standards, but it is not a "brief selection" by my standards! lol

Nah, just kidding y'all, I appreciate Auster's willingness to make me aware of, and provide me with the links to these articles. I've actually read several of them now. But to get to the point...


My question to Auster may be summed up in the final sentence of my initial correspondence with him on this topic where I ask:

"On what grounds did this child threaten and ultimately bring this lawsuit against his school?"

Mr. Auster's answer can be summed up in this sentence of his reply to me:

"Once you have turned schools into ideological battle grounds, you have fundamentally distorted them and the situation cannot be made right."

For a fuller understanding of the discussion as it took place, please click on the link to the VFR article, Should minors be allowed to sue their schools, even in a conservative cause?

Thanks to Mr. Auster for indulging me, and taking time to answer my question.

**********

A couple of items I need to address:

First, Auster and I seem to be in complete agreement as to what the only real and lasting solution for the problem here identified is, namely, a return to constitutional government. But this begs for an explanation as to what constitutes, to our minds, constitutional government. If the only real solution is a return to constitutional government, then we need to define in some detail what such a return would ultimately mean, or look like, or involve. I have asked Mr. Auster whether he has ever dealt with this question in a more particular way, and he informs me that he has not dealt with the question beyond the general terms in which he expresses them in his answer to me.

I therefore appeal to Mr. Auster to consider putting his talents to this important task. Some of you already know that my fellow AFBers and I have been working on, and have developed some models of what a return to constitutional government would look like, as well as what we believe the effects would be. Indeed, the whole idea of Balanced Government follows this theme of returning to constitutional government. The authority for the idea, we derive from the founding fathers and their writings on the subject. Particularly, the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address, and even Mr. Jefferson has something to say in extreme preference to governmental balance. As to Jefferson's preference to Balanced Government, I'm planning on doing a full post on it later on. As to Washington's, I already have a post up dealing with that, though it is by no means his last word on the subject.

But again, recognizing, as I do, the talents of Mr. Auster, I can see where his exploring of this subject in more detail in an article specifically intended to deal with the subject of a return to constitutional government on that level, might have the potential for some very fruitful and productive dialogue.

Second, in one of my replies to Mr. Auster, posted in the comments to the article, I say that this seems to me to be a case of the unprincipled exception. Auster replies to that statement in bold, saying that he's not sure this is a case of the UE. I did reply to his expression of doubt, wherein I explained how that I had concluded this to be a case of the UE. My reply to Auster's doubt is entered below, and italicized:

By the way, my invoking of the unprincipled exception (which I saw that you had questioned in bold) was/is based on the very principles of the unprincipled exception itself as you've defined them, or as I understand them, which state in part that liberalism does not allow for a direct attack on the principles of liberalism. So we end up dealing with the effect, rather than the cause.

This affects the nature of our conversations and our dealing with the problems of liberalism in a variety of ways, one of which, to my mind, is the customizing of our language and our rhetoric so as not to offend people (conservatives included) who are more or less liberal. This can become excessive, or extreme, and the whole point of our challenge to liberalism can be, and often is, distorted thereby. Thus, the message being distorted, the effect of the message results in minimal gains to the conservative cause.

Auster replies that he expressed doubt because I was expressing it (the UE) in an unfamiliar way. That makes a lot of sense because I've been known to do this kind of thing before in order to save space and time, and it usually ends up being a mass of confusion. For an example of what I mean here, go to the comments section of the AFB post, Why Libertarians have it Wrong, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Read More

What's Wrong with Democratization?

This question has been raised many times across the blogosphere, and I've ventured into it many times myself. I've only touched on it vaguely here at Webster's, so I'd like to do a fuller investigation into the matter for the sake of the archives.

One of the main arguments I've always made concerning the question of democratizing anyone is that democracy (and I really don't even like the term democracy because it indicates mob-rule) is not a suitable form of government for some peoples and cultures. I would say that pure democracy is not a suitable form of government for any people, but I digress. Somehow we've come to believe that because we find what we call democracy suitable to our liking, that that automatically means it is equally suitable to the liking of others, they just don't know it yet. But we're bound and determined to educate them on this point and bring them to the light that what they really want and desire above all is to be free. But what is it they want to be free of?...

Let's see whether we can put together a suitable analogy here for the sake of providing some clarity to the question. Let's say that at the age of 18 some young American is accused of a violent crime resulting in the death of some other young American. Let's say that the accused is charged and found guilty of the crime, and that he is given a life sentence in prison as punishment for his alleged crime. Now, what I want to point out here is that it does not matter whether the youngster is actually guilty. What matters is the fact that he's been found guilty by a jury of his peers, and he is sentenced to life in prison. That's all that matters in this context.

Now, let's say that thirty years after the fact, all the while the accused maintaining his innocence while being confined to prison and prison life, new evidence comes out that proves his actual innocence and exonerates him of any wrongdoing. He is immediately released from prison and sent to live back in society. Does it not make sense that this person is going to have a difficult time adjusting from life in prison to a life of freedom in a free and open society? How much more so when you do the same thing to whole societies of people?

Think about some of the things this person, innocent as he is of any crime, had to learn and adopt simply to survive within the confines of an American prison. He would be continually looking over his shoulder and watching his back. Not to mention that he would have little understanding or experience with what it means to govern oneself and live peacefully among others, and so on and so forth.

If we take the truth of this and apply it to, say, Iraq and the Iraqi people, I think it is fairly evident that, whatever their innermost desires may truly be, democratizing them is a virtual impossibility, particularly in the short go. As I've said so many times before, given enough time I suppose virtually anything is theoretically doable. But I see no wisdom at all in this idea of trying to democratize peoples and cultures who are not accustomed to exercising or living under any form of freedom as we know it. And besides that, what makes us think that our own modern ideas of freedom are not themselves found wanting, and resulting in progressively less and less of the same?

Read More

Auster Astounds!

OK, I have to post Auster's appeal to liberals because it is so good. I wrestled with the idea of posting this quote in the context of a longer post, but ultimately I decided against it as I seemed to be, at every turn, only watering down or diluting his message. It stands on its own merits. I needn't add anything.

Auster writes:

"Listen, liberals! If you want our society to maintain its liberalism, albeit in a modified, no longer dominant form, then you need to support the renewal of our historic nationhood, culture and religion that traditionalists such as myself advocate. Only such a renewed culture can fortify and defend the West against the Islamic religion which would destroy all liberalism."

I will only say this (and please read the entire entry posted at VFR), I wonder whether Auster's suggestion is acceptable to liberals even as merely a consideration?I'm not so sure. Liberals seem to be so committed to liberalism that the slightest hint of a less dominating influence is anathema to them, and absolutely non-negotiable. In other words, liberals had rather sacrifice our entire culture, nationhood and religion, than to yield one foot of ground they have already conquered, wouldn't they?

-DW

Read More

The Battle About to Ensue

Oklahoma as THE Example:

Some time back (August 8, to be exact) I put this blog post up wherein I derided my State representative for his failure to mention (in a form letter sent to his constituents, including myself) the new immigration law in the State of Oklahoma due to go into effect November 1 of this year. He didn't mention it in either his list of 'accomplishments' during last session, nor in his list of 'vital' issues which he promised he would 'fight' for in the upcoming session. I find this to be a strange omission on his part, and I say as much in a message I sent to his office just today.

But also in the post I mentioned that one concern I have as a legal citizen and a native of this State, concerned for the preservation of our laws, our heritage, our culture and our institutions, and for our unalienable right to self-preservation in legally closing the door to mass migration here from Mexico and States bordering Oklahoma, is that our new law will be challenged in the State and Federal courts, with the real potential (considering the rampant liberalism in this nation) that our laws and our very right to defend ourselves against this invasion, will be suspended and even perhaps deemed 'unconstitutional' by the powers that be.

Well, that battle I predicted would take place then is already taking shape as we speak. The battle lines are already drawn, and we are about to go to war...

First of all, let me explain that I'm in no way trying to say that it is due to any special insight I have that I knew this was coming. Any conservative American who's worth his salt is well versed in the tactics of the left, at least in a general sense. Leftists love to challenge laws they disagree with in the courts because it is there that they find their most reliable and most powerful friends. Simply stated, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when a State passes bills which stand in opposition to the basic tenets of the liberal doctrine then liberals are going to come out of the woodwork to challenge them, and they're going straight to the courts.

Truly, liberals have no compunction about usurping the legislative process, or of overthrowing a duly enacted law by a duly elected legislature because they believe themselves to hold and occupy the moral high ground, and therefore, to them, whether they find themselves in the majority or the minority, the legislative process is only good and legitimate when their desires are met; when the basic tenets of the liberal doctrine are complied with and codified. My friends, liberalism is literally eating us up from the inside out, with little noticeable resistance from the other side. But that's a subject for a different discussion.

My purpose here is to build upon what I've already written concerning Oklahoma's new immigration laws, again, due to take effect November 1. First, I won't quote from the actual legislation passed in the Oklahoma House and Senate, and signed by Governor Henry. What I will do is to excerpt highlights from a story recently published in the Tulsa World. What is HB 1804? The law will:

• Ban illegal immigrants from state government identification.

• End most public assistance and entitlement benefits for illegal immigrants.

• Authorize state and local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law.

• Penalize employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

• Penalize anyone who knowingly transports or harbors illegal immigrants.

You can see by this list highlighting what the law deals with specifically that it treats only “illegal” immigrants and those who hire them, though 'legal' immigrants found to be 'knowingly transporting or harboring illegals' in this State are dealt with as well. But the concentration of the law is mainly on immigrants of the illegal variety.

In the Tulsa World story (actually published the day after I put up the aforementioned post, interestingly enough), “Immigration law could see court fight,” the charge is leveled in opposition to the new law that it's going to 'scare' people, and it's 'going to harm people.'

First of all, I don't see any harm in scaring people who have no legal right to be here, nor any desire to assimilate; nor is there anything wrong with putting the fear of God in some folks who show no respect for our laws, or their hosts. If you don't want to live in fear, go home! Besides, everyone knows, as Ben Franklin said: “fish and guests stink after three days.” Well, your 3 days are long since up in this State.

This kind of liberal reaction to a duly enacted law is all too predictable in this country, and even in this State which by comparison with some others might be considered 'hard core conservative.' But there's nothing hard core conservative about this State in reality, any more than there's anything hard core conservative about President Bush, unless you're viewing both from a radical liberal perspective. We've got our share of bleeding hearts here, and they display a genuine, deep hatred of anything resembling traditionalism, except the liberal traditionalism to which they've been thoroughly indoctrinated, of course. And this is one of the very reasons that conservative Okies like myself have had enough of this onslaught of liberal 'values' we've had thrust upon us in this State over the years. Enough is enough, and it's time to put our foot down, or draw the line, or whichever suits your tastes.

As I've stated countless times before, I don't even care to see migrant Americans come here because of what they tend to bring with them – some measure of liberalism over and above that which already has a firm foothold in this State. The question to me is this: Is my State and its traditions worth protecting from enemies foreign and domestic? And I answer it with an emphatic YES!

Here's an excerpt from the story in the Tulsa World which serves to illustrate the point:

The state's polemic anti-immigration bill could be challenged in federal court as soon as Oct. 1, said the president of a national organization that's behind a local effort to stymie the law before it takes effect Nov. 1.

The Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, held a press conference and prayer Wednesday outside City Hall.

"We are going to use Oklahoma as an example," he said.

Rivera announced plans for an Oct. 1 rally against House Bill 1804 on the steps of the Oklahoma Capitol.

He said he anticipates that thousands of people will participate.

A lawsuit against the law could be filed before then.

The argument likely will be that HB 1804 unconstitutionally pre-empts federal immigration law.

The law's author, state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, said, "I'm 99.9 percent sure this bill will withstand any legal challenge...(emphasis mine)

First of all, it's not an 'anti-immigration' bill. Though a good argument could be made that it should be, it's not 'anti' anything but “illegal” immigration, by any stretch. Furthermore, I'm not 99.9% sure it will withstand legal challenges. While I appreciate the optimism of the author of the bill, I'm not that optimistic. As I said, there's a fairly sizeable liberal contingency in this state, and there's no doubt that liberals from across the fruited plain will come to the aid of this group in support of their efforts to compromise and overthrow Oklahoma's laws. But that's a point I'll address in a moment.

Note the anti-Oklahoma tone of Mr. Miguel Rivera as he assures us that we (they) are going to use Oklahoma as an example. An example of what, and in what way are you threatening to make an example out of us, Mr. Rivera? As an example of what happens to a state (or states) determined to defend its culture, its people, its very existence against a foreign invasion of a people and peoples who feign a love for freedom, yet have no idea of how to establish it or to defend it...and show no desire to learn? Exactly how do you propose to use this state as an example, sir, by recruiting as many illegals as you can to come here and take up residency prior to November first? How exactly do you and your minions intend to undermine our laws, and by what authority, moral or otherwise, do you intend to do so?

The whole purpose here is to intimidate other states in this union, cowering them into non-resistance. And if that objective is met, then the aliens, and alien ideas of government have won another significant battle in the culture war. Oklahomans have no choice but to fight this battle with all we have, not just for ourselves, but for all Americans who are citizens and residents of States that have not yet come to their milk on this question. Eventually they will because they'll be forced to. But until then this State, with its “toughest immigration legislation in the nation,” must fight and win this battle, not only for ourselves, but for all States in this federal union of ours. It's not up to the People of this state to demand and create your legislation for you, but we are obliged to defend your rights (preemptively) as well as our own on this question. Indeed, whether it's our intention to defend your rights in this way or not, that is exactly what we're going to do ultimately.

The State of Oklahoma is about to go to bat for the whole of the United States on this vital question. But we wonder, when the going gets tough, how many of our compatriots will be with us? The answer to that question may well determine what the outcome will ultimately be, not only for this state, but for the whole nation.

The question more simply stated is this: with whom is your allegiance - your fellow Americans, or the illegal invaders? Take your time.

-DW

Read More

Do We Deserve Our Government?

This is one of those questions that just eats at ya, y'know? Those who know me well know that I've been an outspoken critic of the American People for a long time now, placing the blame for our governmental situation on ourselves at least as much as on any of our so-called 'leaders,' and often more so. One of my oft repeated refrains, in fact, has been some form of this: “the next time you have a complaint about your elected officials and the way they're conducting themselves, in their 'personal' or their 'private' lives, just go to the nearest mirror in your home, look at yourself and repeat these words “I am (insert offending leader's name).”

Now, this is not a very popular position to take, even within 'conservative' circles, but as VA and others write, 'we should be able to have an adult conversation about this thing, and whether it has any truth to it.' Indeed we should, and ultimately we must, I should think...

I mention VA because she put up an entry a few days ago dealing with this very question over at her blog, Iowa and the government we deserve. And yes, implicit in the title is the idea contained in the body of the post indicting us Americans – We the People – for the government we have and complain so often about. We've had this conversation more than a few times over at the AFB, and elsewhere, and the conversation went southward fairly quickly in some instances where someone was offended by the notion that we have ourselves, and only ourselves, to blame for our condition, when ya boil it all down.

Personally I think the idea applies to Americans in a very unique way. Even at this point when things seem to be so very bad; when our government seems so very out of control, when the cancers of liberalism and political correctness seem to have almost thoroughly overtaken us in our political capacity as 'one nation; one people,' we still hold the purse strings; we still are the ultimate and the final authority in this government founded on laws and free elections.

In some other parts of the world, people are ruled by 'arbitrary' government, that is, they are ruled by illegitimate government, founded on illegitimate ideas of government. But not us. Not yet. Not completely. Many of us traditionalists who point to our Christian roots as the very foundation which gave rise to this government 'of, by, and for the People,' as well as has been chiefly responsible for sustaining it, often recur to scriptures such as Psalms 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”, in our various warnings that we need to get back to those traditional roots in order to 'secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' The implication being, of course, that the foundations themselves, once destroyed, leave us with a fragmented or a non-existent means of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

So, is our nation's foundation still left intact? In other words, do we still have in place a solid enough foundation upon which to rebuild those parts of the American edifice which we've witnessed (and actually contributed to in many cases) deteriorate over time, but at a very accelerated pace over the last couple of decades? I'm thinking here in terms of the absolute moral degradation that has seemingly overtaken us during that span of time.

To me the question is a vitally important one, because either way we answer it within ourselves, ultimately will determine within us, and without us, what measures we take, or don't take, to ameliorate the impending crisis. And seriously, folks, I don't care what it is we're talking about, whether it's immigration reform, conducting a war against islamic jihadists the world over, restraining (or not) such things as promiscuous and immoral sexually devious lifestyles, putting restraints on certain tendencies to be ungovernable, to be anarchist; or coming to grips nationally with the immorality of Abortion, or whatever, our Christian tradition always (Always!) applies in an extremely 'foundational' way.

Our founding fathers and mothers understood this concept very well. And they passed on to their children and grandchildren these fundamentally reducible principles of 'Christian Self-Government.' Not only do we see it in their writings leading up to the revolution where this example may be given as a prime one of a collective determination on their parts,:

Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the sins of a People long blessed with inestimable privileges, civil and religious, to suffer the plots of wicked men on both sides of the Atlantic...

-A Proclamation of the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, April 15, 1775

But we see it as well in their progeny such as this exemplary example shows:

I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches...The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other...

-Matthew Fontaine Maury

Many other examples of the same line of thinking may be had by even a cursory investigation into our unique history as a distinct nation. But the point is this, that which makes us, and always has made us a distinctive people when compared against other peoples of the world is our history of being unwilling to allow extra-biblical, extra-traditional doctrines to creep into our thinking. Our founders understood that to do so would eventually pave the way for extra-constitutional, anti-traditionalist American values to corrupt our system, our laws, our institutions, our very culture. And so it is that we bear witness to today.

So what is the answer? How do we get this nation back on track? Truly I believe that the only answer, when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, is that we need to rediscover our Christian roots, and to apply those uniquely Christian principles of government that this nation was founded upon. Some of course will scoff at this notion, but if I know anything at all to be a 'truth,' it is that if there is a God (and God exists, don't kid yourselves), then He has revealed certain things to his moral creatures (mankind), in 'general' and 'special' kinds of revelation. The Bible being of that latter kind of revelation, reason would teach us that, as Maury relates, whatever it touches, it is authority for. And if it touches on political science, it is authority for that as well.

Truly we are at fault my friends, because with all of our scientific 'advances,' and those things which we've discovered, not invented, having made our lives so easy, we have forgotten to whom to give the glory.

Blessed be the name of the Lord!

-DW

Read More

CSPAN's Coverage of the Iowa Straw Poll

I watched the coverage from the time the event was just beginning in the auditorium. Of course there was an atmosphere of excitement in the building, there were a lot of motivated folks there to support their predetermined preferences.

My preference is of course Tom Tancredo. His message was very clear – stop immigration; preserve our heritage! Of course this is what appeals to me most about Tancredo, that he makes the linkage between our policy of open borders/easy citizenism, and the alarming rate at which we are losing our sense of who we are. And he does so without apology, as well he should in my opinion...

The coverage itself was left uncorrupted by a bunch of pundits giving their assessments of the individual candidates' messages. This I found to be extremely appealing because I'd really prefer to draw my own conclusions on each based on their individual messages, how well they delivered them, and so on and so forth.

Not that I haven't already determined who I like the best among the candidates, but there's something to be learned about them in the way that they deliver their messages. In the case of my preference (Tancredo), I thought he was less effective than he could have been with respect to the wider audience (those who decided to watch it with me on CSPAN) due to the fact that he kept stumbling over his words in what appeared to be a rush to get through his speech. Had Tancredo slowed down a bit in his delivery of the speech, I think it probably would have resonated more with the viewership, and/or, those who might watch the coverage at a later date. As far as his 4th place showing goes, I have a hard time believing he would have changed any votes with his delivery of the speech, irregardless of how good or bad it was.

As much as I would like for substance to rule the day over style, though; to govern one's own approach to the overall message offered of the individual candidates, I'm just not sure that people in general can separate style from substance. And I think this was the weakness in Tom's speech.

As far as Ron Paul goes, I understand that his wife had been hospitalized the day prior to the event, and that due to this fact he was rather exhausted. He did look a little tired, but as I've said before, I don't care for the libertarian underpinnings of his message. Were I capable of taking the messages in his speech at face value, I would say that Paul has a lot to offer. But since it's not possible for me to lay aside his other speeches and writings, and the underlying libertarian message that is always present therein, I'd have to say that Paul's speech appealed to me very little.

These are just a few of my thoughts as to what I witnessed during the coverage of the event which was strictly limited to that which was held in the auditorium. Any additional thoughts from those of you who watched the event with me?...

-DW

Read More

A Win for Traditionalism in the Great State of Kansas

Here's a story that traditionalists oughta derive some measure of encouragement from “Kansans Keep Gambling out of County.” I've been highly critical of my own State for allowing these gambling Casinos to crop up all over the place. It is my position that gambling is corrupt at its roots; that it must involve corruption in order to operate, period. I've also said numerous times in the past that its just a matter of time before our own casinos get nationwide exposure for their corrupt 'gaming' practices. And it'll happen, mark my words...

But this story is, as I said, an encouraging one for traditionalists and for counties and States still holding to traditional values on this question of gambling:

Sedgwick County voters showed gambling to the door Tuesday, voting against ballot measures for a resort casino and slot machines at Wichita Greyhound Park. The track reportedly will close within three months.
"The Gambling Goliath can be defeated, and Kansas citizens just proved it," said Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy at Focus on the Family Action. "I hope other states and counties are paying attention — you can defeat gambling in your community!...

Here's a lesson we need to learn in my state. I'll grant that we may be in something of a different situation given that our casinos are owned and operated by native American tribes such as the Choctaws who probably operate the most casinos in this State. Other tribes are catching on quickly though, getting into the 'gaming' business themselves.

In the State of Oklahoma it is illegal to gamble, but the tribes get around this law by asserting their 'independent nationhood.' This is a question that we need to take up in this country on whether or not tribal entities may be considered national sovereignties within a sovereign nation. There is a conflict of interests in the policy that needs to be addressed, and personally I'm totally opposed to any form of 'dual citizenship.' Either you're a citizen of this country exclusive to all others, or you're not. No-one is forcing you to become a citizen, nor is anyone forcing you to renounce it. But this policy of dual citizenship is just plain hogwash!, and there needs to be a stop put to it.

But once again there's a great deal of encouragement we oughta take from the example laid down in the county of Sedgwick in my State's northern neighboring State of Kansas. I'm greatly encouraged that we still have people across this nation who haven't been corrupted by the enticing lure of how much money they stand to gain at the expense of their morals. Nor are some intimidated by the tactics these folks are known to engage. Indeed, Sedgwick County, Kansas, presents us with a fine example of traditionalist folks saying NO to the corruption that they know comes right along with the establishment of 'gaming' in their area. May other traditional counties in this country follow this good example! Thank you, Sedgwick County, for standing up for your tradition!

-DW

Read More

Time to take a Head Count

VA has a couple of entries up this morning that are very interesting, both having to do with the immigration situation in this country and in the wider west. In VA's top post, The Prospects for the West, Part II, she opens the entry with the most basic question that any conservative, any 'traditionalist,' any American oughta be asking himself/herself on a daily basis: “How many illegal aliens are in our country?” It's a great question, and one that we need to somehow, some way, get a more accurate 'guesstimate' of in the very near future...

VA goes on to elaborate on why the question is such an important one to Americans, and why we need to get a handle on it quick, fast, and in a hurry:

We hear the figure '12 million' bandied about a lot, but there is no solid basis for believing that figure to be accurate; it is repeated although no one can cite a source for it, or provide evidence to back it up.

But in discussing the issue of the future of the West, and whether the United States or Europe is in greater demographic danger, it would be helpful to have a real idea of how many illegals are here now, and how many are entering over the course of a year.

I have searched for authoritative information, but found little that is clear and straightforward. We should also keep in mind that NO ONE KNOWS how many illegals are here, or how many come in each day or each year. It's all speculation and guesswork.

The federal government and our politicians seem to like that implausibly low figure of 12 million, but it's in their interests to keep the figure modest; if they confessed that they have no idea how many illegals are here, or if they gave an inkling of the suspected numbers, there would likely be an uproar, especially now that so many Americans have been mobilized against amnesty for those unknown millions of trespassing illegals.

So we are probably safe in assuming the 12 million figure is lowballed.

I agree. Some say 12 million is the most reliable figure, or they at least imply that is the most reliable estimate available by their constantly citing it. I've heard some estimates ranging from 12 to 20 million, others from 12 to 30 million. The only figure that it seems everyone can agree on is the 12 million figure as a low end estimate. I think the 30 million 'high end' estimate by some to be suspect too, and think that it may well be itself a 'lowballed' figure. But how can we know for sure? Better yet, can we know for sure? Can we at least get this number of illegal aliens in this country narrowed down to a figure that is reliable enough that we can estimate more accurately what kind of an impact they're having on our society, whether negative or positive? I think we can, I think we should, and I think the reality is that we must at some point in the very near future.

And I think the best, and probably the only way of doing it with any real hope of obtaining accurate numbers is for the States and the local governments to do the counting themselves. I mean, if we can all assume with a high degree of confidence that the numbers of votes collected at the local level, transmitted to that of the state, and those numbers to the central authority from the various States with regard to our Presidential elections is at all within the ballpark, then surely the local and the state governments may be safely entrusted with collecting and transmitting data as pertains to the numbers of illegals residing within their own borders, can't they? If the answer that comes to mind is “no,” then I can hardly see how we can place any confidence at all in the results of the presidential elections, or any other national election numbers, for that matter.

The state and local governments have themselves a vested interest in obtaining some degree of accurate numbers in this regard. And even if they have a soft spot in their hearts for immigrants, particularly of the illegal variety in this case, an accurate assessment of the numbers of them residing in their particular locals would still be advantageous to the respective governments for any number of reasons I can think of off hand.

Certainly there would be some 'cooking of the books' going on in certain locations, but I'll reiterate, this reality doesn't cause us to throw out our whole elections process even though we know without a doubt that we have pets voting in increasing numbers in our elections, as well as dead people and the whole works.

And seriously, folks, as VA has said before, it isn't like these immigrants are hiding from anyone. No; they are fearlessly traipsing about all over this great land of ours. And if they're going to walk around in the open air with no evident fear of their being shipped back to their country of origin anytime soon, then there's no time like the present for us to start counting them up. Irregardless of what the figure ultimately ends up being, we need to know what it is within a reasonable degree of accuracy. We also need a reliable way of estimating how many are continuing to come in illegally on an annual basis.

Here's something for our illustrious Congress to start to work on - put together an immigration bill, “in pursuance thereof,” that has the state and local governments complying with a 'uniform' census project intended to get an accurate estimate of how many illegal immigrants actually reside in these United States at the moment it is taken, with an additional provision stipulating this be done on at least a 'semi-regular' basis so that we'll also have some reliable indication of how many are coming in yearly. Seems to me like a pretty good plan, how about you?...

-DW

Read More

What About Immigration Congressman???

Below is a letter I received in the mail from my state Representative yesterday. In the letter you'll note how 'proud' my representative is of his social 'achievements' during his tenure in office. But as he says, there's a lot more work to be done. So without further ado...

Dear District 17 Friend:

I hope this letter finds you well. As you may know, our state Legislature faces many tough decisions as we weigh priorities on a daily basis. As your State Representative, I am proud to represent you and work for a better Oklahoma. Our annual Legislative session ended in May, and I am now back in the District listening to your concerns for our State.

While in Oklahoma City this session, I was able to help negotiate and pass:

• The “All Kids Act,” increasing Medicaid eligibility for children from 185% of the poverty level to 300% while also providing coverage to families of four making up to $62,000 annually. This legislation will result in as many as 42,000 additional Oklahoma children being covered by health insurance.

• Legislation expanding student access to a quality college education as well as providing a permanent funding source for OHLAP. OHLAP allows students whose family makes under a certain income and meet certain educational and public service requirements, to have their tuition paid by the state.

I also helped to defeat legislation that would have given tax exemptions to oil companies. Those proposed exemptions would have resulted in a deficit in funding for the county government and local school districts and an increase in property taxes.

While I am proud of our many successes achieved during the past legislative session, I know my work is not finished. There are several initiatives I plan to address next year. As your State Representative, I will continue to fight for:

• Protection of our water resources from out-of-state interests.

• Safer communities for Oklahoma children.

• Increased funding for roads and bridges.

• Responsible government and ethics reform.

It is an honor and a privilege to serve you in the House of Representatives. I will continue to put aside partisan politics to do what is right for all Oklahomans as I work to find solutions to everyday concerns. Even though I am back at home in the District until the Legislature reconvenes in February, you can still contact me through my Capitol office by calling the toll free number...

Sincerely,...

Well, I certainly intend to give his office a call. I should like to know why there's no mention of the accomplishments of the body of which he is a member regarding the immigration situation as it now stands in my State. This is one of my chiefest concerns, nay, it is my chiefest concern. And though the Legislature has dealt with the situation legislatively, one of my concerns is that there's a battle about to ensue in the courts over this legislation. It seems to me that the immigration situation in this State is and should be priority numero uno for our representatives in the State Legislature, and until this State successfully and without question ameliorates this crisis. Our State's courts are likely to be clogged with suits filed on behalf of immigrants, legal and illegal, in this State, leaving Oklahoma citizens seeking justice out in the cold. Beyond that, every point that my representative makes about what his priorities are and have been in that body have something to do with the immigration situation as it now stands in the State of Oklahoma.

So, I ask you again, Sir, how is it that you're working to solve that problem at the root of these other things you're so proud of achieving? If you're not dealing with that crisis first and foremost, then you're not representing my interests, nor the interests of Oklahomans.

-DW

Read More

We Interrupt this Broadcast to Bring You a Special Story

So I rise early this morning to get back to work on my commitments here at Webster's, but before I start I make a couple of my usual rounds, and wouldn't you know it, I run into this posting over at VA's: 'Too many People'

I'm going to attempt to make this fairly short and sweet. VA does a fine job of saying most of what I should like to say anyhow, and more...

In some ways it reminds me of a debate I had some months back with a liberal gal about 'mountain climbers,' and whether or not they contribute to society. And BTW, if you're debating a thoroughly indoctrinated liberal person, you're not going to convince them, so from my view that shouldn't be your purpose anyhow. Your purpose should be, as I've learned, to refute their arguments for the sake of the wider audience.

But getting back to the point, this person was arguing that mountain climbers, and those who engage in activities she later generalized as “high risk sports” or something like that, do not contribute to society and should be forced to contribute to society through differing means like training in mountain climbing techniques which would be taxed heavily, fees paid to climb a given mountain which would go to fund rescue efforts and so forth. This particular individual had a bone to pick with most anyone who engaged in 'amateur' pursuits of any kind, insisting that anything that was deemed to be 'risky' should come with the requirement of the enthusiast to become a 'professional' before ever being allowed to pursue such a thing. And who, pray tell, did she think should determine what is 'risky,' and what not? Well of course, the government. Typical liberal.

My argument against this point, of course, was that there are any number of 'high risk' activities out there that the government needn't bother itself with - “Aren't you liberals ever satisfied; haven't you saddled the government with enough activities it's not equipped to deal with? And of course there was a lot of passion from the other side about how poor old grandma would be turned away in her moment of need due to the fact that 'high risk sports enthusiasts' had overwhelmed the rescue services financially and in the availability of manpower. Liberals always pull grandma out of their hip pockets when they need her most. But enough on that.

VA's post deals with the Duggar family in Arkansas, and some of the “ignorant of the facts” vitriol which has been leveled against them. They don't live but a stone's throw away from yours truly, in a manner of speaking. And I should like to take the family to visit them sometime. The Duggars, if you haven't heard of them, have seventeen children. That's right, 17. They have a huge home, as you might imagine, but something that some of you may not be aware of is that they built that home with their own hands. I remember watching a documentary about the family during the time that they were still building this home, and one of the older male children said something on camera that struck a chord with me, he said, and I paraphrase:

“Dad said “I think we can pour the foundation.” And I said that I thought we oughta hire a professional to do it. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did it. Later, Dad said he thought we could frame the walls. I said I thought we might should consider hiring a professional framing contractor to do the work for us. But Dad thought we could do it, so we did. Then it came to putting the roof up and drying the house in. Dad thought we could do it, I thought...well, we did that too...

Interestingly enough, the home they built had very little work done on it from outside the family. Yep; truly this family, The Duggars, built the home they now live in with their own hands. Quite an accomplishment in my books, for someone whose profession is not 'construction.'

All that one needs do is to click on the profile of yours truly to find that I have six children, which, even in this neck of the woods is considered to be a lot, too many by most standards. I know this because I listen to the gasps that always attend my first sharing of the fact that I have 'so many.' Lot's of times people want to know how many different mothers these children have, automatically assuming that there must be more than one. Usually they seem pleasantly surprised when I inform them that they all have one mother and one father.

But as I shared over at VA's in a comment to her post, I can't even begin to count the times that people have gone plumb out of their way to strike up a conversation with us in some public place, announcing that “these are the best behaved children I have ever seen.” They are shocked, shocked I tell ya, that six siblings consisting of three boys and three girls, and ranging in age from two to nineteen years (the nineteen year old is out of the house now, making his own way) can behave and get along together so very well. I suppose there's something to be said for the ideas and negative predispositions people generally have about 'large' families. Heck, I even complain myself about the fact that “I have enough mouths to feed, I don't need, and shouldn't be taxed to feed everyone else's offspring, nor their aged.” To me, government coerced taxation aimed at 'social programs,' like welfare, food stamps, WIC, State funded health and dental care, and etc., is the same as taking food out of the mouths of my children. Of course, I'm totally against the dependency that such programs create, not to mention the undue attachment to 'government' that they create as well.

But before y'all go assuming anything about large families, barking out blatantly stupid comments about how that you're going to have to feed and shelter these offspring of these 'oversexed' parents, you might want to do a little research. As I noted over at VA's, some folks need to pay more attention to that old adage which states: “To assume anything, makes an Ass outta u and me.”

Nonetheless, though, I ain't real sure about this, but I think my wife may have an eye on a couple or three of the Duggar boys, and a couple or three of the Duggar girls, for some odd reason. And y'know, there's a ratio advantage in our favor there...lol

-DW

Read More

Custer's Rout of the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn?

Over at John Savage's blog under this title there is a discussion in the comments section about Americans not knowing well their own genealogy. I agree with both John, and VA that this is most probably and widely the case among Americans, including myself which I'm somewhat embarrassed by as well as ashamed of.

Here's a personal story in this vein that you might find interesting, perhaps even one to which some of you can in some way relate...

When I was about six or seven years old is the farthest recollection I have of Dad making me aware of my native American heritage. This is kind of a funny story and I recall it often attaching a lot of humor to it, though I think there are some serious aspects to it as well.

At that time some of you may recall that capitalist American toy manufacturers and retailers had seized upon what I suppose must have been a good deal of interest amongst the American population in the history of Custer's last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

My recollection of this phase of Americans becoming interested in some of their post-civil-war history is best explained I think in the fact that Mom had purchased for me an action figure of Col. Custer himself, along with his horse and other bells and whistles. My best recollection is that it wasn't long thereafter that Dad brought me a counterpart to this action figure – either “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” most probably. Dad of course had an ulterior motive for providing me with the toy, and one in direct opposition, not necessarily to Mom's motive (I highly doubt that Mom had one to begin with other than just providing me with something I wanted most likely), but to her specific gift which I had probably requested.

Despite the true history of the Battle of Little Bighorn, my childhood replays of the battle always had Custer's regiment triumphant over the Indians. That's the way I wanted it to be, and since they were my toys I could play it out however I wanted to, or so I thought...

I remember one day while Col. Custer and company were thoroughly routing their Indian nemeses, Dad stopped me in the midst of my fun and began to explain to me that 'that's not the way it happened at all.' He further went on to ask me why it was that I preferred the Custer doll over that of the Indian he had provided me? This question of Dad's was prompted by the fact that I generally took very good care of the Custer doll and his horse. The Indian companion piece Dad had provided me was not so fortunate as that, however. I didn't have a very good answer, and it was really kind of a confusing question for me, in retrospect.

Looking back on it now, I would assume that my mind had been impressed with these ideas through different forms of media, as well as from the warring factions between my parents on this issue. I can't explain exactly why Dad's preference in this regard did not take well with me. I always thought of my Dad as being something of a 'larger than life' figure, and virtually everything he told me I took to be absolute and unadulterated truth. But in this particular an exception to that rule was very obviously noticeable, and Dad of course picked up on it and began to try to counter it with some extensive educational efforts on his part.

After Dad had that initial talk with me I remember trying to play the battle out to more conduce to the way that he had explained to me that it actually happened. But after having done so a couple of times I reverted back to my own preference for how the battle should have gone in direct contradiction to what Dad had told me. And I was in no way in the habit of contradicting my dad, nor had I any desire to disappoint him; quite the contrary. But in this case my personal preference proved to be just too strong to overcome. Of course, I was careful from there on out to have the Indians winning whenever Dad was around. And Dad and I entered upon a game of pretended preferences for several years thereafter.

I think the point of this story, besides my attempting to provide you with a good chuckle, is that even to this very day I have a strong bias in favor of my European heritage and over that of what little Indian blood I actually have running through my veins. As a matter of putting our history back in what I would consider its proper context, I think there's a largely neglected need for individuals like myself to express their true preferences, not succumbing to the pc pressure of always esteeming the poor, hapless Indians as having been manipulated, raped, pillaged, murdered and robbed at the hands of the true savages - the 'white devil invaders.'

I tend more to view 'ownership' in the way that Locke explained it, which is to say that the earth was given to man in common, but to establish a true ownership of anything thereof, one must invest that which may be reduced to his and his alone – his labor. Personally I have a hard time accepting the idea that occupation in and of itself establishes ownership in any 'American' sense of the word. I mean, I could go set up camp on a given piece of property, but the great likelihood is that the owners thereof – those who have invested their labor in the acquisition of that property – when they find me out, are going to do whatever is necessary to have me removed, as well they should.

I need a better explanation than 'the Indians occupied this land first' to convince me that they had established ownership of it entirely to the exclusion of anyone else. I don't deny that the Indians were wronged in some respects, but nor do I unquestionably accept the apparent conventional wisdom that the white devils wronged them in all respects, and that we're now occupiers of a land ill-gained. That to me is just a bunch of emotionally based hogwash, the logical conclusion of which makes me ill to stomach, to be frank.

In any event, Dad and I still have these conversations from time to time. He's not as apt as he used to be to try to convince me against my preferences and against my better judgment, but he still sticks largely to his guns on this issue. I suppose this issue will always be a point of contention between us, given that neither of us is likely to change his mind anytime soon. But for those of you who tend to take Dad's side on this question, and particularly those of you having also an attachment to the Christian faith, I would respectfully remind you, as I have Dad on occasion, that our Lord and our God must be extremely offended by an abject denial of that heritage of ours which actually resulted in 'securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves.'

These ideas of God, man, and government are traceable back to our European roots, not to the original occupiers of this land of ours. These ideas are most probably responsible for 'securing the blessings of liberty' on an individual and a collective level to the most people and generations history has heretofore ever recorded. Our European heritage is directly responsible for the blessings we enjoy, yet so easily dismiss today as a matter of luck. And as we ride upon the backs of our forefathers and mothers, we tend at the same time to dishonor them in denying that vital part of our unique heritage.

Lord forgive us, for we know not what we do.

-DW

Read More