The prospect for secession looms ever nearer

I'm self-admittedly a bit biased on this topic, but y'all really do need to pay particularly close attention to the goings on in Oklahoma. I flatter myself that I have a pretty good sense of the general attitude of the citizenry in this state. I may be a bit more radical and outspoken about my intentions than most Okies are comfortable with, but you can write it down that there really is a "silent majority" here in Oklahoma that the other side is currently doing all it possibly can do to provoke to action.

Vanishing American has been writing quite a bit lately about the ominous 'healthcare' initiative. I personally do not see how it can be stopped at this point. And stopping it at this point would merely amount to a delay in its adoption anyway. On the other hand, states like mine will most definitely take action to protect their citizens against such insanity. Which, when you boil it all down, comes down to an all-out assault on fundamental liberty. Good health is not a guarantee, nor is it a "right." Of course, I already know that the 'healthcare' bill isn't intended to make the citizenry more healthy, but to destroy personal liberty. Which is the reason that it must be resisted with the firmest, manly kind of resistance we can possibly muster. You may be asking "where are all the men?" I say to you again, watch Oklahoma. The process will take some time, and the impatient among us (who I think are not as firmly dedicated to the cause as they like to let on, generally speaking) will continue to let loose their criticisms of non-binding resolutions, the ineffectiveness of the TEA rallies, etc., etc., etc... And yet the steady and resolved among us will continue to march on. I'm not sure that I fit well into either one of those categories, but I know that a lot of my brethren do. Hide and watch.

Read More

The "Culture of Death" will be accentuated by Obamacare

Vanishing American discusses the healthcare bill in "Time to be concerned" here. I've added a comment under the article in which I respond, by first hand experience, to one of VA's prescient comments concerning the undoubted effect of the bill.

I wrote:

...particularly those whose judgment is clouded by age or illness or medication, will find themselves signing agreements to forgo resuscitation in the event of some medical crisis,...

I know from first hand experience that this already happens with more frequency and less resistance (from the only people who can legally put up an effective resistance) than one would care to admit. Not once, but twice I've personally stood in the way of this or otherwise alerted people that had the power to stop it. Both instances involved aggressive family members of the victims bent on accelerating their respective deaths. In one case I was actually banned from visiting the individual in question under the pretense that I was "upsetting" him too much, making his imminent death unnecessarily uncomfortable for him. I was threatened with physical removal from the hospital and everything else. Nonetheless I was persistent in the fight, and we finally won. And alas, my friend yet lives a normal productive life in spite of it all. And that was two years ago. Once we were able to get him off the high doses of drugs they were daily giving him, his recovery soon followed.

Anyway, you're right, the healthcare bill will most certainly create a situation in which we'll see this kind of thing happening with much more frequency.

A few of my occasional readers will know something of the two incidents I've alluded to above. Fewer still understand the minute details of the individual cases. While I don't really care to get into all of it here, I will say that I learned some very valuable lessons in the first go-round which better prepared me to deal with the situation in the second (which was actually a lot more intense than the first), not the least of which is that family members do not always have the best interests of their ill relatives in mind, in spite of the appearances they give off. They're very good at what they do too; very manipulative, very deceitful in their show of concern only for the "dying" victim of their schemes. Indeed, I can say without the slightest hesitation that often they want them dead, and the quicker the better. For various reasons not necessarily related to some monetary reward they're expecting, but that's a motivation too. I can say too that these people are very aggressive about the way they seek to accelerate their deaths, and they will "out" anyone who presumes to stand in their way. These kinds of people are evil, and in their cases blood damn sure isn't thicker than water.

The moral of the story is simply this: Be extremely cautious about who you trust to oversee your medical care, including blood relatives. Choose them wisely while you're still in relatively good health and a state of mind unaffected by large doses of potent medications. Believe me, the advice is both warranted, and well placed.

Read More

Voluntary Union equals the Right to Secession

Yes; put me on Homeland Security Dept.'s watch list for making such a wild-eyed, crazy, nutty, dangerous assertion. Because, you see, there's no truth more evident to my mind than the truth I've selected above for the post title. It's a truism I've long known and understood, and one I've advanced and propagated within my circle of influence during the same lengthy period of time. This single fact makes me, according to Homeland Security chieflette-in-drag, Janet Napolitano -- of open borders, immigration-policy-is-the-exclusive-domain-of-the-federal-government fame, more dangerous than the growing, increasingly influenial and empowered, Muslim population in this country. But let's get down to where the rubber meets the road, shall we?...

If I voluntarily (the only legitimate kind of contract) enter into contract with another person or entity, and the other person or entity has clearly violated the explicit, plain terms of the contract, evincing a design to reduce me under his absolute control or sway extraneous to the terms of the contract, then I have the right (and the duty under certain circumstances) to declare myself, and by extension those persons whom the contract affects but have yet to establish a viable voice by which to restrain the other party's tendencies to oppressive excess, no longer bound by the terms of the contract as the other party is interpreting and applying them.

That's about as simple a principle as there possibly can be. Any third-grader is capable of understanding it, just as any third grader is perfectly capable of understanding that no one has the right to reach into his pocket as a means to support the other's profligate habits and dependency. Where I come from we call it self-preservation.

When we apply the principle on a larger scale -- say, to the states as parts of the federal union of these states -- then the phrase in the post title, and the principle undergirding it, becomes abundantly clear. To say otherwise is not only unreasonable or irrational, it is a verbal act of aggression against the other party/parties to the contract. And who can forget President Clinton's infamous opinion/proclamation before a worldwide audience regarding a movement to secession among some Russian states in the 1990s during his presidency when he said something to the effect that we (Americans) had settled the question on whether a state or states could rightfully secede from a political union during our own "civil war."? Pardon me for saying it, and with all due respect, sir, but your opinion on that matter, Mr. President, sucks! We know for whom your totalitarian leftist statement was really intended, but I've always wanted to ask you by what authority you presume to speak for the rights (or non-rights) of other states and other peoples?

But here's the problem when it comes to the common folk...

We've so long neglected or otherwise re-written our glorious history that The People no longer understand what the American Revolution was and what it was all about fundamentally. The principle of Voluntary Union is an alien concept to this generation, truly. To speak about it outside a small circle is to speak an alien dialect which is "Greek" to the other side and to those "educated" by the other side. Nonetheless this nation, as Vanishing American correctly writes in this blogpost, was created in the aftermath of a movement to secession after it became abundantly clear that the Mother Country was going to continue to exercise arbitrary rule over the thirteen colonies from a distance of 3000 miles (in spite of the founders' repeated petitions), and that their British brethren were also deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity, lending the force of their support to their government's illegitimate arbitrary policies regarding the American States. It is, in point of fact, a history of repeated injuries and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, evincing a design to reduce them under absolute despotism with at least the tacit consent of their British brethren. And such a prince or government, as demonstrated in the DoI, is not fit to rule over a free people.

And speaking of being properly fit for a particular job or profession during one's adult life, Noah Webster wrote in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language that "Education is all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations." (emphasis added) Under the same word he further wrote that "Education in arts and sciences is important, but a religious education is indispensible," and that "a heavy responsiblility rests on those parents and guardians who neglect these duties."

Now, if you think that fitting one for usefulness in his future station(s) is to make him a dependent and servant of his protector and bread giver the "federal" government, and/or, an advocate for and immovable defender of the same, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth, then I would suggest to you that you are an enemy of America and of Americanism. And I suspect that a great many of you who advocate for this line of "reasoning" and this kind of "education" are of relatively recent immigrant stock. But we'll leave that for another post.

Once again, put me on the watch list. I'm going to end up on it irregardless at some point (if my name doesn't already grace the document), what with my absolute dedication to the cause of liberty, of self-government, and of a defense of God-granted unalienable rights as explicated by the founding generation and circumscribed in our founding documentation. By that definition, an unapologetic right-wing extremist I most definitely am. It's all a matter of perspective. And from the perspective of the radical left, I'm an extremist of the first order. Yes, little ol' me. How about you?

No King but King Jesus!; No Government for a Free People than a Government founded on (and operating according to) its legitimate principles!

Read More

Webster's

A few new articles from various sites have been added under Webster's recommended blogposts in the upper-right sidebar, which, of course, I recommend you read.

Check out the short VFR article heading the list in which Auster points out that,

This is not our society celebrating the beautiful holiday of Christmas. This is the Liberal Controllers of our society carefully teaching children an unnatural and dangerous lie that they would never believe unless they were carefully taught. How many whites will militate against vitally necessary immigration restrictions in the decades to come, how many young white females will be raped and murdered by nonwhites in the decades to come, because of the message of trusting and loving racial aliens that programs like this implant in them?

An alternate title might be "How the Grinch stole the instincts of America's children," and I wrote a comment to the article under that subject line.

Years ago I was doing a job for an elderly retired Oklahoma teacher and we somehow got on the subject of interracial relationships, specifically the growing tendency of white girls to take an interest in black boys. The teacher was very discouraged and heartbroken over what modern society and the modern education system was then perpetrating on what she referred to as "these poor white girls." Her theory was that because these females are emotionally driven they're beginning to take it upon themselves, given what liberal society is teaching them concerning white guilt, to give themselves as sacrificial reparations for the sins that whites have committed against blacks in America, thus putting themselves in very precarious situations.

I imagine that has a lot to do with it.

Read More

Sarah Palin, Down's Syndrome, and Traditionalism

(Note: Be sure to read Nora's excellent comments to this entry where she lays out a few of her own theories on why modern women advocate abortion, and why men do nothing about it. Also that feminism is more responsible for our decline than all the other destructive isms.)

With all that's been said across the traditionalist blogosphere about Sarah Palin's selection as McCain's running mate, one point of view is particularly bothersome.

Over at VA's some of the (presumably "Traditionalist") commenters to her entry The Shameless Left are saying that it's a woman's choice (you know, "a woman's right to choose" applied selectively) whether or not to allow a Down's baby to live. Commenter Rollory even goes so far as to assert that based on the fact that the parents of Down's children "created" the child, then they should have power over such baby's life. This, my friends, is the antithesis of traditionalist American conservatism. I have to wonder from whence these people (originally) hail.

I for one hope beyond hope that Mrs. Palin never considered it her choice to terminate her pregnancy. As mere human beings who have no power to "create" life, we definately have no power to extinguish it on a presumed right of choice. A human baby is not a physical structure that we've "created" with our own hands, for goodness sakes! If you want to exercise your choice to destroy such a structure, none of the rest of us has any say in the matter. But engaging in sexual intercourse is not the same thing as creating life. If you believe it is then your worldview is definitely not traditionalist.

This idea about the sacredness of life is one of the fundamentals of genuine traditionalism.

Read More

No globalization without representation?

I wonder when that phrase (or some version of it) might become popularized as a universal battlecry among foreign peoples relegated to, or by their own volitions (it matters not) living in the lands of their births yet intimately impacted by the decisions of the President of the United States ... and of our Congress, and our Judiciary, and of the very people who inhabit this continent; the new universalist globalist battlecry to extend to all the peoples of the world the liberal principle of universal suffrage in American elections?

VA has an entry up this morning in which she cites one Mr. Simon Jenkins from his article of May 9, 2008 published in the U.K. Times. Mr. Jenkins writes:

The globalised president is a different matter. This leader must represent America’s values - and consequent actions - everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.

Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.

Commenter Alex seems to have been on the same page as me when he wrote:

There's plenty of glib media commentary on the responsibilities of the 'global presidency'. But while journalists cater to the insatiable public appetite for news of presidential follies (and reluctant admissions of accomplishments), almost nothing is heard from the academics who might be expected to provide some scholarly analysis of "decisions that benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote".(emphasis mine)

Yet they have no vote! Shout it from the rooftops! What could possibly be more unjust, more unfair, and yes more immoral than to have people who are potentially afflicted and murdered, whose very lives, liberties and fortunes are subject to the whims of a president of the United States who have no voice in the installment of that president?

This whole issue could be argued from many different perspectives, I suppose. One position would say that there is at least some truth to what Mr. Jenkins is saying; that globalization has indeed intimately connected the decisions of the President of the United States with the diverse peoples of the world, and that therefore the peoples of the world should have some voice in the election of the president. The logical end of this would of course be, as I said, involvement of foreigners in the entire American political process. Did not our founders say that "...governments ... derive(ing) their just powers from the consent of the governed?" If the policies of a president of the United States affect the lives of average Pakistanis, then these Pakistanis are, by definition, "the governed," are they not? The government of the United States can have no "just powers" then, aside from the direct involvement of the Pakistani people, whose lives are intimately affected by U.S. policy, in the American political process.

Months back John Savage wrote in a comment to one of my posts:

I've decided that wherever they differ from us moderns, our Founding Fathers deserve the presumption of being correct. Whether it's on Islam, the role of government, interpretation of Scripture, race, or whatever else, we're the children looking up to our great teachers. Where opinions have changed, the burden of proof lies on those who came later. Our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages, is it not?

To keep with the spirit of John's outstanding comment, what we must not do, as I've said or implied innumerable times in the past, is to cherry pick from their writings statements they made which would seem at first glance to support our particular view of the world and of a given topic. As the adage goes "a text out of context is a pretext." This is the reason I cited above the quote from the Declaration of Independence. Let us not forget that it is a declaration of American Independence; let us not neglect to attend to the preamble which declares that during the course of human events it sometimes become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. In other words we should always read a particular sentence or phrase in context of the whole piece of work, and that whole piece of work in context of the whole American movement for independent nationhood, in the case of the Declaration of Independence. And as I've said many times as well "WE [heavy on the WE] hold these truths to be self evident", and etc. WE can't and shouldn't speak for anyone else as we seem inclined to do.

But in this case of a so-called 'global president', and the inherent right of all people affected by the presidency, both natural results of 'globalism', it seems to me, we would all be very well served to look to the example and wisdom of our founding fathers, as John Savage says, and in this particular case to Washington's Farewell Speech.

Read More

Outstanding Blog Award

Months back, as you'll recall, there was given out in the circle of which this blog is a proud yet inferior (in a number of ways) part, the "Excellent blog award." Indeed, this blog even received the award, not once but twice, from two highly respected bloggers. While I very much appreciated Webster's being considered an "Excellent" blog, and worthy of this award, I also knew at the time that it would be difficult for me to continue to live up to this billing, particularly in the immediate future, given time constraints, intellectual constraints, and so on and so forth. Basically I feared, having made the cut on two separate lists, that I was going to let some people down. We can argue about whether that fear turned into a self fulfilling prophesy, or whether it was just reality based, i.e., knowing one's own limitations. But I would say it was the latter.

Now, not to put undue pressure on anyone, but I would like to personally recognize and acknowledge the outstanding efforts in support and defense of traditional conservatism which I see on display day in and day out at one particular traditionalist blog, namely, Vanishing American. And to formalize this acknowledgment, as well as my personal appreciation for her sacrifices, her steadfastness and resolve, her dedication to the cause of traditionalism, and etc., I would like to offer, with sincere gratitude and great respect, Webster's first presentation of the (soon to be coveted) "Outstanding Traditionalist Blog Award."

If any of you should like to take it further and pass out the award to other worthies, I am not opposed. However, I would recommend that you consider the spirit in which the term "outstanding" is here used and for which it was chosen, and let that be your guide.

Read More

Is Conservatism a "House Divided"?

Hopefully I'll have a lot more to say on this later, but since it's been weighing heavy on my mind the last few days given the unfortunate events you're all aware of, I thought I'd ask the question of you in hopes of getting some reasonable impersonal, and insofar as possible, neutral responses.

We're all aware of what happened and we all have our opinions as to who's most at fault, and so on and so forth. Personally I think there's probably enough blame to go around, so I'm not particularly interested in your opinion as to who can be assigned the most blame. What I'm most interested in is how you would answer the question in the post title, and how the events mentioned have, if at all, contributed to or shaped your thoughts on the matter.

Read More

My reaction to the disagreement between VA and LA

(Note: This entry has been expanded at the bottom of the page.)

Not that I think my opinion matters to anyone, or that I think it should matter to anyone, but I needed to express it anyhow.

My reaction overall can be summed up in one word: Unfortunate.

Beyond that, let me say in defense of Auster's readership (Mr. Auster can defend himself) that I do not appreciate the charge leveled against them of being "sycophants." It's not a fair assessment, nor an accurate one as a rule, in my opinion.

If I, as a VFR reader, have disagreed with Lawrence Auster once during the relatively short period of time that I've been reading both VFR and VA, I've disagreed with him at least fifty times, and probably many more times than that. I've posted my own articles here at this blog citing some of our more notable disagreements, as some of you already know. And it's not that I take the charge personally. I don't because it simply does not apply to me, and if you think it does, well, that's your opinion which you're entitled to, but it's an uninformed and a stupid one, to be frank.

The reason I'm offended by it has very little to do with myself, but more to do with other VFR readers -- the majority who comment there -- most of whom have also had serious disagreements with Auster, and far from seeking his favor, often and to the contrary, seem to be after the exact opposite. But it seems to be the opinion of some that if you overlook Auster's tendency to be direct in defending his position, and continue reading and commenting agreeably at VFR, then you're obviously an Auster sycophant. Seriously, folks, do you not realize how ignorant (not to mention "liberal") this makes you appear?

So you're personally put off by Auster's style and you don't read him anymore because of it. Fine. But why do you feel it necessary to charge his readers with this accusation? And on what legitimate basis do you lay the charge? Be aware that by your standard for what constitutes a sycophant, the same could be said of you yet no-one that I'm aware of is saying it of you. Who, therefore, has the moral highground, and the superior claim to being a genuine conservative, I ask?

I respect both VA and LA for their individual talents and their relentless defense of traditional conservatism. And I'll continue to read them both as well as to express my gratitude, respect, my admiration of their talents, and so on and so forth. And you can rest assured that when you do the same with either of them, I for one will never assign to you the illegitimate and completely unwarranted charge of being a sycophant. Principled conservatism prevents it of me.

There, I've said my piece. Take it how ever you like.

**********

In a private email to me VA asked that I clarify a misunderstanding about her comment to this entry. Where she makes reference to being "harassed by a particular individual," she's referring to the time she closed comments in January, not to this current situation, not to Mr. Auster, nor to any VFR reader.

It's a perfectly reasonable explanation for the "particular individual" harassment charge. Read in context VA started out by addressing Anonymous's account of what happened back then, and my reply to Anonymous on the subject of what happened back then.

And if that is not evidence enough for you, then consider that she addresses the current issue later in the comment with the words beginning "this latest business involves..." So, obviously she's distinguishing between the two separate episodes and addressing them separately.

The "being harassed by a particular individual" comment has nothing to do with VFR or any VFR reader. It is simply an explanation to me for why she closed comments back in January, which I was unclear about.

Also, I simply do not agree with Auster's interpolation re VA's "rough and tumble" remark in her comments to this entry. Sure, you can read that into her statement if you really want to stretch it, but I personally have no interest in such as that.

Read More

Webster's receives "Excellent Blog Award"

I need to acknowledge this as a matter of good form for the moment. I'll get back to you later with my list of ten excellent blogs, which slightly differs from the others out there.

I want to say thank you to Mike T. over at the AFB, and to Vanishing American (Wow!) for naming Webster's on their respective lists. Also, thanks to John Savage over at Brave New World Watch who gave Webster's the equivalent of "honorable mention" (I hope I'm not misrepresenting John's mention) in his post on the subject. Personally I think John has it about right for a couple of reasons, (1) I don't post frequently enough, and (2) most of my postings are not as "meaty" as they should be to qualify Webster's as an excellent blog. But I am working on improving on that, rest assured.

And on that last note, I've been thinking a lot lately about the call going out to conservatives to save the Republican party as a vehicle for conservatism. Without getting too deep into it right now, let me say that perhaps I need to be reminded (or convinced) why it is I'm supposed to be trying to help save the Republican party? It seems to me that in doing so I'm being asked to yield yet more ground to the liberal elements within the Republican party which incessantly work like a cancer to eat away at conservative principles, installing liberal principles in their rotted out places; that it is not the liberal factions which are being asked to back off a bit, but the conservatives. Can someone explain to me at what point in this process the cancerous effects of liberalism cease to make further advances within the Republican party?

At what point does the congregation rise up and demand adherence to the principles of orthodoxy on the threat of leaving the church en masse?

I suppose each of us has his breaking point, or his tolerance threshold. In the case of the Repbublican party and its continual slide into liberalism, I think I've just about reached mine.

I'll try to get back to this subject later, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate any input you might have, agreeable or disagreeable to my main premise. Thanks.

Read More

Is Democracy a legitimate form of Government?

Check out this post over at Vanishing American where VA, in an amazing show of self-restraint, stands aside and lets the giants speak.

My first thought in deciding to post on this topic was to follow VA's lead and let these great men speak for themselves; to let the quotes stand on their own. But ultimately I could not resist the temptation to share a few of my thoughts on the quote that stood out most prominently for me. The "standout" quote for me while reading through this list, and a quote I don't recall ever having seen before, incidentally, was the following from Aristotle, Politics:

Democracy arose from men thinking that if they are equal in any respect they are equal in all respects.

In other words, and very simply stated, democracy arose from liberalism, since liberalism is the ideology which teaches this false doctrine that if men are equal in any respect, they are equal in all respects.

Now if, in your opinion, I'm unfairly attributing to Aristotle ideas he is not actually trying to convey, or I'm putting words in his mouth, or I'm destroying, in any way, the spirit of his message, please do not hesitate to let me know. But it seems to me that one may justly paraphrase the above quote to say:

If men are not equal in all respects, they are not equal in any respect. This is the core fundamental thinking of liberalism, the establishment of which, as the governing rule of society, is the core fundamental object of democracy, liberalism's form of government; government of, by, and for liberals.

I think I may have just experienced something of an epiphany here. It seems to me that democracy is not a form of government at all, at least not in the normal sense in which we use the term "govern-ment," which implies structure and order and restraint, and so on. Indeed, democracy, as a ruling theory arising from liberalism, seems more anti-governmental than govern-mental to me.

Read More

Robert E. Lee's birthday

VA has a good post up commemorating the day of the birth of General Robert E. Lee, most famously known as the commanding general of the confederate army during the war between the states.

Since VA has disabled comments to her posts apparently indefinately, and since I cannot access her forum, I'll say a couple of things here:

First, with not the slightest bit of embarrassment I join with VA in recognizing the accomplishments of this truly great and noble man. I know a few "conservatives," who despise the man because he led the southern army. Frankly I think these individuals need to re-check their political leanings, as well as brush up on their history a bit. And in the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I got to say about thaat.

Second, VA quotes an article which in part states the following:

Many are appalled the state forces them to help maintain the hundred year old statue of Robert E. Lee. The group called for schools to stop portraying Lee as a virtuous hero. They also criticized the General Assembly for sponsoring Lee's birthday celebration.

Let me respond to this by saying that I'm willing to bet that many, if not most, of those "appalled" at being "forced" to help maintain the statue of General Lee aren't, in actuality, being forced to help maintain anything, including this statue. I'm willing to bet this, and I think I'm on pretty safe ground in doing so, precisely because I don't believe that many of these protestors, or most for that matter, are net taxpayers. And if you're not a net taxpayer, you're not being forced to do anything you don't want to with your tax dollars. In other words, you ain't got no beef, particularly when your beef amounts to a false claim which cannot be substantiated.

How is it that people come to believe that if the money they spend (irregardless of where this money comes from) goes toward taxes of any kind, they are therefore net taxpayers being forced by the state to support something they disagree with? The answer is that they are liberals, and this is what liberalism teaches them. This is a very consistent fundamental doctrine of liberalism. It teaches that everyone is a contributor, no matter how much negative contribution he makes, or is it the net contribution of others that they take? rest of post here

Read More

Why liberals favor gun control laws

Some leftist by the name of Dave Johnson, who is uniquely capable of discerning the forest for all the trees, by the way, ran across one of VA's recent posts which so disturbed him that he had to write about it at his blog ... uh, Seeing the Forest.

Apparently, according to Mr. Johnson, liberal Seer extraordinaire, anyone who writes negative reviews of the recent Hispandering of Republican Presidential candidates is a "KKK-style racist," and a hater t'boot. Oh, and they're also Republican without question, for as Mr. Johnson concludes in his deeply moving well thought out stylishly written self-evident this-is-a-load-off-my-mind rejection of VA's post, "This is what the Republican Party has become." Wow! That's deep. Don't believe me? Here's the full text of Johnson's tripe:

I came across this hate-piece yesterday, and it is still bothering me, so I am bringing it up here. It's a right-wing anti-immigrant piece, going after the Republican candidates who participated in the Spanish-language debate. It becomes clear early on that it is direct hatred toward Hispanics in general - but then starts going after all non-whites, complaining about "politically correct" pandering to get votes from people who are not "us.".

This stuff is just pure KKK-style racial hatred. This is what the Republican Party has become.

Well I sure hope Mr. Johnson is feeling better now that he let out all that pent up anxiety he developed over the 24 hours he was forced to contemplate the implications of VA's hate-piece. That is all-important after all. And shame be on VA's head for saying things that she knows are going to assault the sensibilities of leftists. Doesn't VA realize that leftists are particularly sensitive people whom we must protect from their own tendencies to self-destructiveness -- self-destructive debasing ideologies appeal to self-destructive debased individuals. Doesn't she know that they're teetering perpetually on the edge and that it's our job, therefore, to avoid, at all costs, offending their sensibilities to the point that they might take that fatal final step?

Thanks be to God that Mr. Johnson has himself a blog. For in the absence of such an outlet, having been forced to read VA's deeply troubling hate-piece, I fear our friend, Mr. Johnson, most assuredly would not be with us any longer.

No wonder liberals favor gun control laws. They're afraid of what they might do to themselves if they're allowed to own one.

Read More

An amendment proposal to root out the cancerous forgetfulness of the American People

In a comment to a thread at VA's, Chasing the elusive 'Hispanic vote', commenter Matt declares that we need a constitutional amendment establishing English as the official language of the United States.

I can understand why some would think such an amendment a good idea, and I'm not arguing against having an English language amendment attached to the U.S. Constitution, at least not in the abstract. But Matt does not stop there.

Matt Writes:

We seriously need, for starters (since none of these candidates are serious about deporting the illegals), a Consitutional ammendment that says English is the official language of the United States (not a law, since it could be easily repealed). We further need to make it clear in said ammendment that state's laws regarding langauge are null and void (since some people have forgotten state law is trumped by federal law). (emphasis mine)

Matt's concluding sentence reads fine (it's a debatable point which I disagree with, but it reads ok) until we get to his gawd-awful parenthetical reasoning behind his assertion. We need to make it abundantly clear, in proposing and ratifying the English language amendment, says Matt, that any and all State language laws are declared null and void. Why? Because some people have forgotten that state law is trumped by federal law. You're gettin' this, right? If there's a federal law in force, state law dealing with the same issue is automatically trumped by the federal statute, which some people have forgotten, therefore we need to make this fundamental constitutional principle crystal clear to all. And the only way to make it crystal clear is to state it explicitly in the language of the amendment, leaving absolutely no discretion to the states on the issue. Presumably Matt would only have us stating this with regard to this particular amendment until we got to the next amendment Matt thinks necessary to be added to the constitution, then, here again, we'd have to make it explicit (since some have forgotten this) that federal law trumps state law. I think I may have a better alternative; a perpetual reminder to the American People (particularly the forgetful among us) that power and authority emanate from the federal head:

Perhaps the thing to do is to write an amendment up that deals specifically with the issue of federal law trumping state law, since, once again, some people seem to have forgotten this fundamental principle of American Constitutional government? The underlying issue, or, the root cause of the problem, according to Matt, is that some people (presumably a majority of Americans) have forgotten this constitutional principle that federal law trumps state law, correct? If that's the case, I might ask Matt, then why go through the motions of applying a bandaid to the wound. It's not going to heal. It's just going to fester and get worse. The better approach, then, would be to cut out the cancer at its roots, would it not? If so, I submit to Matt that the way to handle this unacceptable forgetfulness Americans display concerning the all-powerful federal government is to state explicitly in the federal constitution that federal law trumps state law unless and until the federal authority, by its good graces, decides that the states are trustworthy enough to make their own laws concerning language or whatever. And of course the fed would have to take into consideration whether or not the states and the people were mindful enough of the absolute authority in all matters, local or otherwise, of the almighty federal government before allowing us to create any laws for ourselves, necessary as they may be. Hence the need for a perpetual reminder, which by all rights should head the Constitution. In other words strike out the old tattered obsolete preamble and insert the new.

In truth I see no problem with this. The ninth and tenth amendments, the principle of federalism and of constitutional government have already effectively been overthrown anyhow, why not make it official?

Read More

Updated Webster's

Just a quick note to inform you of a few items added at Webster's the last few days.

First, I've added a few articles to Webster's Recommended Blog Posts, to include Mike's AFB interview with Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Herme's latest at Wise Man's Heart -- Another reason women should not be in the military, The People United over at VA's, and Why I support Fred Thompson from the Maritime Sentry. Be sure to check those out.

Also, I've added yet another article to Select VFR Articles in the left sidebar, The transparent intellectual fraud that is Darwinism. Another great article (and discussion) that we've all come to expect over at VFR.

Read More

A Good Discussion

Over at VA's a discussion on the ethics of using lethal force to protect property got underway yesterday. It's a pretty good discussion which I recommend as long as you can tolerate the holier-than-thou, I know all the undisclosed facts of the case, judge jury and executioner attitude displayed by one of the commenters.

The post itself is really not about the ethics of what Mr. Horn did, as VA points out. But that's the direction the discussion went, as is the case many times. I still think the discussion is a good one in which some good points are made on both sides of the argument.

Would I use lethal force to protect my property if I thought it necessary under a given scenario? Let's put it this way, I wouldn't recommend coming on my property with the intent to steal my property and letting me catch you in the act. I most certainly would confront you, weapon in hand. And if I determine that you're threatening the lives of my family or myself (the defender of my family), then you're liable to wake up dead. At the very minimum you're going to wake up in the hospital with severe injuries sustained. That I can assure you, and with supreme confidence. Does that make me a bad person? According to some, I think it does.

Read More

Warning: Politically Incorrect language used in this post

If you have a problem with it, give me your mailing address and I'll send you a dime which you can put a quarter with and call someone who cares.

VA has a good post up this morning where she cites an article written by one Mr. Max Boot, senior hombre' at the Council on Foreign Invasion, and a contributing idiot to, well, here's Maxy-baby's credentials, for what they're worth:

Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor to Opinion and the author of "War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the Making of the Modern World.

Whoa! I'm awed ... by Max's utter lack of any credentials which qualify him to speak to the topic of immigration from other than an unAmerican perspective. That's right, I said it, Max's tone is unAmerican, which is to say not-American. So Max is unAmerican and an idiot t'boot, which his article makes perfectly clear. A resident citizen idiot armed with a vote and a pen and an axe to grind against the xenophiles and islamophobes, and etc. Seems like we have a lot of those running around this country these days. I wonder how they got here?

Go read VA's post where she deals with the likes of Maxy-baby pretty effectively. The only thing she leaves out is saying explicitly that Max and his ilk are unAmerican, which is why I said it here. We can be nice and call him a neocon, or a right-liberal, or whatever (how about neo-American?), but the bottom line is that Max advocates the destruction of America via mass immigration and amnesty for illegals with no baggage check, political or otherwise. And that, my friends, is by definition "unAmerican." Look it up.

Read More

Do right liberals believe we can ever have too many immigrants?

Over at VA's Vince P. argues that the problem in America is not that we have too many immigrants, but that we don't project Americanism as the "primary" identity.

Below is my response to Vince's assertions posted over at VA's blog:

Vince P. wrote:

So what has led to conditions in America today? Is it because there's too many immigrants?

I don't think so.

It's because we as a nation we have decided that there is no reason to identify with being an American. Our schools are pumping out peopel who think America is the cause of the worls problems..

When the primary identity is no longer attractive, then by neccessity people have to fall back to another identity and that would be their ethnic or "old country" identity.

My reply to Vince:

"Vince, you're arguing for restrictions on immigration whether you realize it or not. Which is to say that you're arguing that we have too many immigrants in this country while denying that we have too many immigrants in this country. That's illogical.

If immigrants retain their cultural and ethnic identity to the extent that it is the "fallback" identity, and America's educational institutions fail to transmit to American youth the superiority of American culture and values and so on, as they're doing now, then the logical answer to this dilemma, as per your prescription, is to halt all immigration to this country so that the fallback identity does not become more proportionally unAmerican while we try to sort this deal out; if the fallback identity is not American identity under our current conditions, then these immigrants are by definition incompatible with America. All they can do or accomplish is to further the agenda of the left unless and until historic Americanism becomes the primary identity being projected and taught. This, Vince, would require the expulsion of huge numbers of first and second generation immigrants to this country."

I could say a whole lot more on this. But the main point is this, you can try to separate the numbers of immigrants in this country from the degradation of historic Americanism as we witness it now, but it is all a vain exercise. We've had liberal multicultist do-gooders in this country all along, even from its inception, and they've always worked to wriggle their way into government and to push their points. As Noah Webster noted way back when, "one of their main articles is to attach foreigners to their principles upon their landing here." Why would their modus operandi be then and now to attach foreigners, as opposed to natives, to their liberal principles? Is it not because foreigners (immigrants) are more disposed to be accepting of these ideas than natives are? Of course this is the case. We would do well to heed the advice and the reticence of founding fathers such as Webster who also said:

I consider it a matter of infinite consequence, the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. ... Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government founded on free elections.

Why is this, does Vince P. suppose? Why is it that foreigners--immigrants from Webster's day; immigrants who were mainly European and therefore much more likely to be assimilable than today's immigrants to this country--would so readily and willingly attach themselves to liberal ideas upon landing here? Why is it that in Webster's time, when Americanism and American superiority was being taught to our youth as the "primary" identity, Webster still observed this trend of unAmerican ideas and identity taking precedence over the then existing "primary" identity, which he also observed would spell doom for our Constitution if ever it became commonplace in America?

Hopefully we can discuss it later. Gotta go.

Read More

The Pilgrims and the myth that theirs was the "first" Thanksgiving.

Allow me to direct your attentions to Vanishing American where VA deals with the question of whether the Pilgrim Thanksgiving, which we always allude to as the first Thanksgiving, was in actuality the first Thanksgiving.

I've added a comment to her post. But I'd like to deal with the subject more fully later on. And by the way, I watched a documentary on the History Channel last Thanksgiving concerning the origins of Thanksgiving beginning with the Pilgrims. This documentary, to my great surprise, was historically very accurate as much was taken from Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation. If this airs again this year (and I imagine that it will though I've not checked it out yet), I highly recommend that you watch it. I think the series is about three hours long if memory serves. But it is well worth your time to watch it, preferably with your children if you have them. That is, if you can endure the modern Indian perspective (which is interspersed throughout).

Happy Thanksgiving to all. rest of post here

Read More

Reaction to limiting the franchise: We can't turn the clock back!!!

(Did I add enough exclamation points?)

Vanishing American has now weighed into the discussion on limiting the franchise with another thought provoking insightful entry at her blog.

VA writes:

So often we hear, when someone proposes to reverse a liberal policy which has been enacted, that 'we can't turn the clock back.' Usually this line is delivered with a tone of triumph, as if it settled the discussion once and for all. We can't turn the clock back? Really?

Can't we? Or do we mean to say that we dare not, because it might elicit tantrums from certain quarters, or a flurry of name-calling and foot-stamping?

That's a good question. And I think that's exactly what is meant by "we can't turn the clock back," or, its cousin, "how far do you propose to turn the clock back?" When people say things like this it's usually attended by a lot of high-browed holier than thou attitude which they use to shield themselves from having to come up with a good and reasonable argument to defend their view. I'd like to ask, what usefulness is this sort of thing to conservatism in general, and, why can't we all just be adults and have an adult conversation on the matter without all this do-gooder foot stamping at the mere mention that we ought to consider placing tighter restrictions on the elective franchise?

If it turns out that some of Auster's proposals are without merit, then so be it. But saying that we can't turn the clock back is not a very compelling argument. As I said to Mr. Auster, people like Mary Jackson and their positions would probably be better served if they'd just plead the fifth rather than attacking the proposals of conservatives with no substantive arguments in favor of their positions. According to Mary, the right of women to vote is such a self-evident truth that it requires no reasonable defense. Very good, Miss Jackson. What other self-evident truths have you independently discovered which conservatives need to be aware of? Wait! Don't tell me. "We can't turn the clock back" is one of 'em, right?

Attention Mr. Auster: You should consider a rewrite of your recent rewrite of the Declaration of Independence. Obviously there are a few self-evident truths newly discovered by Mary Jackson that you neglected to put in there. Fershame!

Also, how dare you post something so obviously offensive, alienating, and antagonizing as your limiting the franchise piece (see Ed L.'s comments). You definately know how to cull 'em.

Read More