Is Hussein Obama a royal screw-up, and why?

Chiu Chunling wrote a post over at Loyal to Liberty from whence I extract the final interesting paragraph posted below.

Chiu writes:

Even so, I will make my plea to those without moral scruples. Make the smart choice. This communist revolution thing never works out anyway, not even when upgraded with fascist regulatory and propaganda schemes. And Obama has royally screwed up the whole timetable and provoked a counter-force. The fence is about to be torn down, so you'll be needing a new place to sit. You might even have to stand. Just don't stand with the commies, okay? I know it seems like they're 'the future' and all that, but that's all a bunch of propaganda. Learn from history. Or just ask yourself if you really want to be queuing up for bread and band-aids. (emphasis mine)

I'll admit up front that I'm partial to the view highlighted in italics, and that my partiality to it is the reason it caught my attention as well as why I chose to post it in its own blog entry here at Webster's. Part of the reason I'm partial to it is that I've been saying all along that Obama cannot possibly know what he's gotten himself into. And before the election that he could not possibly understand what he was about to get himself into. Part of the reason I've been saying that is because I don't believe he can possibly understand real people who still possess real souls, his being surrounded all of his life by people who had long since sold their souls to the devil. So he only knows what evil, soul-less people are thinking, and his radical movements are predicated on how he thinks people will react to his destructive policies and his radical drive to impose them; he thinks that all normal people have no souls and no consciences like those individuals who've always surrounded him. Hence, without some outside help from someone who does understand real people, only by blind luck itself can he possibly avoid provoking real people.

It is a serious problem for him. But that's what he gets for thinking he was qualified for the presidency in the first place.

But, of course, he couldn't accomplish any of this without the aid of the radical leftists in Congress who suffer from perhaps a somewhat milder form of Hussein Obama's delusion and misunderstanding of basic human nature of those whose souls remain intact.

Read More

What would be the result of secession?

There is a school of thought that says of secession that, pacifists that we (modern Americans) are, there would be no agressive counter-movement by the central authority were a state or a group of states to secede from the union.

At the Tenth Amendment Center Jeff Matthews argues this position (albeit he doesn't use the term "pacifists," but I think this is essentially what he's getting at).

Jeff Matthews writes:

No way we’d have civil war if one or more states seceded. Not in these days of thinking we Americans are above the fray. We have it in our minds that civil wars and unrest are for the Middle East and perhaps, Korea, but not for here. We are far too good a people for that. There is no way the feds would even dream about it. They’d be pissing their pants, thinking about what to do, but there is no way, they’d invoke martial law and start shooting, dropping bombs, throwing grenades, and launching rockets. Not if it happened now.

Ha, ha.

No disrespect intended, but sometimes I have to wonder about these people, about their personal experiences, their upbringings, etc., -- what it is that convinces them to believe that any government, including (or especially) our own, cannot be provoked to take up arms against its own citizens. The thinking, in my opinion, besides being pretty naive, is a bit dangerous as well.

I personally cannot imagine a scenario involving the secession of one or more states in which the central government would not see it as a hostile act by the offending party/parties. Thus, I cannot imagine a secession scenario that would not involve aggressive action by the central government eventually resulting in bloodshed. So Jeff and I are on opposite ends of this particular spectrum. Okay, I'll grant a 1% chance that a state or states would be allowed to secede from the union peacefully, with no immediate violence done to them on behalf of the union. But that's about all the chance I'd give it. And notice that I said immediate.

Does it never occur to people that it's easy to be pacifistic whenever pacifism is made easy? Sorry if it sounds a little too cliche', but isn't it the truth? I mean, what need have our northern neighbors the Canadians of a strong, viable military? What need of national strength and masculinity when the most powerful nation on God's earth shares a continent and a border with you? However, whenever someone feels like he's being backed into a corner and fears for his life, he's liable to come out swinging. But our government isn't run by a bunch of pacifists anyway. They just like to give that impression because they think it's in vogue. Besides, I hold that any government capable of a Waco style massacre is capable of just about anything.

Update: The discussion took off after I mentioned in the thread the implications of the Waco massacre.

Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched. Attacking a seceding State would have to be open and overt war, so the dynamics are different. At Waco, they had to conceal the arson and murder of 80 people, including women and children, and thus play homage to virtue and moderation by hiding what they wre really like and lengths they willing to go to. With a seceding State they could not conceal the aggression and killing. The whole facade of pretending to be righteous would have to be shed.

Jeff Matthews follows up:

Also, Waco was perceived as a small group of nutjobs. It’s far different than taking on a whole state.

TM replies,

You guys are making the point and then missing it. What do you think a seceding state would be made to look like but a bunch of nutjobs hostile to the United States? C’mon.

and further:

…even by a (large) segment of its own citizenry, by the way; a segment of the citizenry that enjoys a form of dual citizenship - state and national.

Hannibal Barca weighs in:

Constutional convention or secession…This is why it is important - NO, it is CRUCIAL, to take over the state legislature. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The tenth amendment is about the states. We should be focusing on the states. We should be looking at pulling people out of office via recall. We shouldn’t be waiting to just vote them out. Rip them out.

The good news is that WE THE PEOPLE happen to live in the states, not WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNNMENT.

TM follows up on Patrick Henry Lives's comments:

“The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched.”

True. But let me just point out that that was after the ‘compound’ and the people in it were ruthlessly attacked (by land and air) by a bunch of jackboot thugs who had already tipped off the media and everything else. So what, in reality, is different about it?

The ATF wasn’t too concerned about the image it was going to project, other than it concerned itself pointedly to projecting the image of POWER wielded for the noble cause of ‘justice’. Not to mention that there was a fifty one day ’standoff’ in which all manner of evil and lewd and lascivious behavior was going on at the hands of our illustrious government law enforcement officers taking their orders straight from the top (granted, this was all concealed). But the Congressional hearings on the matter, in which such things came out, were an absolute joke in which the government was made to look like the innocent and noble victim of a bunch of religious crazies in spite of it all.

Yeah; I can see that happening again.

Jeff Matthews replies:

You are all letting your imaginations get the better of you. Our federal government will not start a war with a seceding state. Think about it and tell me who will. Congress? Not on your life! The President? Fat chance. It will not happen. The feds would rather write them off than suffer the blow in the world’s eyes of having a civil war - not to mention the cost of such a war.

TM replies to Jeff:

Jeff,

A flyover state like Oklahoma (perceived by the general public to be populated by a bunch of ungovernable backwoods hillbillies) secedes. Upwards of thirty percent of its citizens cry foul. The U.S. government has an interest in that thirty percent because they are also U.S. citizens who disagree with Oklahoma’s move to secession. On top of everything else that group would be perceived as victims of an aggressive majority population whose rights would be threatened, and the U.S. government would be pressured (as if that would be necessary) to come to their rescue. And on and on and on.

Now, you can say I’m letting my imagination run away with me, but it doesn’t make it so. And you can’t simply say “not on your life,” “fat chance, it isn’t going to happen.” That’s a bit weak, don’t ya think? But what in God’s name does the fed care about world perception on the subject of a seceding American state? ‘The World’ routinely puts down such movements. So whose side do you think it would take?

I can imagine any number of scenarios involving secession that would ultimately result in bloodshed, but I can’t imagine a single scenario that would not. Nonetheless…

I’m content to leave it at that. We’ll undoubtedly see eventually because a state will definitely cross over that rubicon at some point in the not too distant future. And I imagine that others will soon follow. Until then, it’s all just speculation on our parts. But I’ll wager a cup of coffee on it if you like. ;-)

Jeff replies:

I see the issues you raise, Terry. I imagine it is possible to manufacture a “Fort Sumter” scenario all over again.

I find the whole scenario kind of eerie in a “Hotel California” sort-of way. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

TM replies:

Jeff,

Believe it or not I’ve actually quoted that exact Hotel California line myself (several times) in these same kinds of discussions.

And don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that a state seceding would necessarily result in an immediate aggressive counter-move by the national government (although that, to me, seems like the most likely scenario if some latitude is given to the term “immediate, for the reasons I’ve already listed and more.). On the other hand, I can hardly envision a “fractured” America (an America that does not universally recognize a single central governing authority) that could live in mutual peace and harmony for very long. So when I say that secession means civil war, I’m saying that a fractured America, from the very moment that it fractures into different (independent) governing entities and onward, is an America whose exposure to internal disputes automatically increases exponentially. Independent governing entities have, by nature and by necessity, authority to enter into treaties with other nations and states, coin money, provide for its own defense, declare war, and so forth and so on. So in the end, it all boils down to internal disorder between the various governing entities, and civil war. At least that’s the way I see it. And let’s face it, there’s no love lost between certain states and certain others in this union. But anyway…

I will add further comments as they're posted.

Also, not that I'm trying to cover every possible scenario, or to mention every single contingency that would ultimately factor into a likely scenario (as if to say that I'm capable of it in any event), because I think it is important that different perspectives be offered, but I cannot fail to mention that in addition to the "upwards of thirty percent" of U.S. citizens that the U.S. government would be "bound" to defend, there are also the "birthright" children that the government would consider, under such a scenario, wards of the state. Again, I think the Waco incident is a good analogous example of how this might all play itself out.

Update: Jeff Matthews responded to my last post above:

I see it not as a matter of will everyone think what everyone else does is okay after a secession. I highly doubt that. We certainly don’t agree with all that England or France does, but we get along with them just fine (for the most part).

I see no problem existing that way and being the happier for it.

I would as soon see the Union stick together, but these clowns in D.C…. They are ruining it for all of us.

I chose not to respond under the article because I figure it's probably time to let the discussion die in that particular thread. Plus, I wanted to give Jeff the final word, since it's his article'n'all. ;-) We can take the subject up again somewhere else. However, let me just say that in his comments above Jeff reveals more lack of discernment. First of all, comparing the severing of the United States into two or more independent sovereign governmental entities to our relationship with Great Britian and France, et al, is like comparing apples and oranges. To have mentioned our relationship with Canada and Mexico, given that we share the same continent and are not separated by a whole ocean, would have been a better example, but it would still be apples and oranges. I trust that you understand why.

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

Savage on Legislating Morality

Over at Brave New World Watch, John Savage has put up another interesting entry concerning legislating morality. One thing I've argued ... forever it seems, is that everyone, irregardless of how often or how vehemently they deny it, has an inseparable personal bond to legislating morality...

I've argued this position in any number of ways, stating it in a variety of terms. In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the first things my brothers and I over at the AFB (the orginal three of us) discussed was this idea of legislating morality, or, that all laws are founded on a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. My argument today is essentially the same as it was then: that all legislation can be reduced to a moral foundation whether it's coming from liberals, conservative, libertarians, or any of their offshoots. Why? Because we're all human beings, which is to say "moral" beings.

But I think there's an underlying principle that needs to be brought out here. And it is basically this:

Someone who denies that they wish to legislate on a moral basis, and there are many of them across party lines, is almost irrelevant to any cause seeking to set things aright. Until one embraces this fundamental truth, they are simply living a lie, and there is no basis for a truth-seeker to give any credence to what they say.

From my view, I have a lot more respect for someone who admits a fondness and attachment to legislating morality, even someone whose morality I disagree with. At least that person is honest about his intentions. I appreciate honesty in anyone, particularly concerning one's motives, even those I have differences with.

Dishonesty about one's attachment to legislating morality betrays a person's ill-intentions, whatever party he aligns himself with. On the other hand, we have to recognize that some folks are not necessarily dishonest about legislating morality as much as they are misguided about it. But in either case, dishonesty or misguidedness, someone who denies an attachment to legislating morality while at the same moment appealing to a moral perspective as the foundation of his position, warrants little attention.

If people are incapable of separating their morality from their politics (and I firmly believe this is the case) then what good is it to any cause to claim an "amoral" position? And by the way, I think the term "amoral" is an altogether illegitimate term insofar as it defines a person's actual position on a given subject. All the term is good for, in my view, is to show where a person claims to be on a given subject, not where he actually is. In other words, you can bet your bottom dollar every time that an individual holds a moral position, in spite of the fact that he claims a position of moral neutrality. In fact, many times this claim of moral neutrality betrays a sense in the individual claiming it, of holding the moral high ground. Which sort of defeats the purpose, don't ya know.

Read More