Books I'm currently reading, cont.

(Note: this post has been edited from its original, and is likely to undergo other revisions shortly.)

I just received my copy of Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Raoul Berger, yesterday. My copy is the second edition, hard-bound, and new, though the book is currently out of print. This book came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster, whom I thank. I sat down and read about six chapters yesterday evening, and indeed, Auster was right when he said I would be in for an "experience."

In addition to that book, I'm still reading the two I mentioned the other day. Also, with all the discussion on Islam, I've gone back to re-read Secrets of the Koran, by Don Richardson. Richardson's book deals with the unique nature of Islam to preclude any attempt to reach its converts by the redemptive analogy method.

One other work I've been lately revisiting is Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, which encompasses four volumes. Another work of Geisler which is complimentary to, well, all of the aforementioned books is Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. As to the latter two books in particular, I began a system of cross-referencing them a couple of years ago, and it's proving very helpful to me in my current pursuits.

All of these will find their way into many of my upcoming posts. Indeed, they've inspired several posts I've already prepared yet haven't yet put up. Y'all stay tuned.

Read More

What's Wrong with a liberal being Right?

This question, in one form or another, has long been one I've thought about, but particularly of late has the question arisen very often. Stated another way it might be asked "is a liberal ever right, for the right reasons?" I acknowledge that liberals are sometimes on the right side of a question, but again, is this ever for the right reasons? It seems to me that people can be on the wrong side of a question for the right reasons, as well as being on the right side of a question for the wrong reasons. Some people are on the right side of a question for the right reasons. But is this latter possible with a liberal?...

Read More

Some of us have it, some of us don't, part 2

If you haven't been following the thread over at VFR concerning what is required of Christianity, I would strongly urge you to do so. There, Kristor L. offers us one of the most excellent pieces of Christian Apologetics I have ever had the pleasure of reading. In fact, I think I'm going to add Kristor's initial lengthy comments to my newly added feature in the left sidebar of this blog, Select VFR Articles.

In Kristor's latest, he dismantles the arguments of his critics with a skill and a precision that is rarely to be seen these days.

We've argued these things before over at the AFB and elsewhere. And often times, when I'm asked how I know God exists, my reply is simply this: "I know God exists because of the existence of evil." Which is not to say that I believe evil is a real thing; I don't. Rather, I believe evil is a deprivation of a real thing, absolute good. But the key to it is that by simply being able to distinguish between good and evil, I must have some idea of what pure goodness is, elsewise, how could I make the distinction? In a purely physical universe (devoid of a transcendent God), where all of our observances of the phenomena of nature are marked by imperfections, how could we know that these imperfections are indeed imperfections without some idea of that which is all-perfect?...

Read More

Note to Commenters

Some of you may be wondering why I'm not responding to certain comments right away, or in a timely fashion. The reason is simply this: with the new Recent Comments section added in the right sidebar, if I answer immediately, no more comments than I generally get, my comments will dominate that section, which would sort of defeat the purpose. I guess there are drawbacks to anything, and of course, that's just on trial anyhow. Of course, if I had more commenters, and/or, comments from the readers (hint, hint)...;)

Read More

Welcome Back!, and a good question

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch is back from his short, but I'm sure needed vacation, and it seems to me he hasn't missed a step in the interim. As an example of what I mean, check out this entry.

John writes:

"I'd like to ask the question: "Does it ever benefit us to claim that liberals are being hypocritical if they don't want to destroy every sexual taboo?" For example, even liberals are often viscerally grossed out by incest. Some right-leaning pundits have criticized them for not taking their position to the logical extreme and calling for an end to laws against incest. But is that a smart way for traditionalists to talk?"

And here is one way in which I would answer it:...

Perhaps some of you are aware of the recent contentious incident between a traditional church in Dallas, Tx., and the homosexual community in the area? I read the story in the Dallas Morning News, and what happened according to the story was basically this:

The church in question volunteered its facitities and its services, at no cost to the family, to host the funeral of a church member's deceased brother. The church agreed to the family's putting together of a multi-media slide show depicting the deceased's life with the understanding that church officials would view the slide-show before approving it. The issue came about in this viewing where the family had inserted photos highlighting the deceased's homosexual behavior and lifestyle. Concerns were raised with the nature of the material and brought before the family, but the family would not agree to have any of it edited. No acceptable terms could be reached, and the church reneged on its promise. But what I'm getting at here is the goofy way in which the church's spokesperson handled the questions coming from the media. He said something to the effect of:

"What if the church were to volunteer its services to host the funeral of a murderer? Would it be required of us, or would it make any sense for us to allow depictions of that aspect of the person's life to be shown in our sanctuary?"

Obviously this is a ridiculous comparison to make. And all it accomplishes is to bring into question the credibility of the church and its reasoning, or its ability to take a reasonable position on anything. I mean, this person is its spokesperson, right? You can imagine how the homosexual community in the area reacted to this explanation of the church's position. You can imagine how liberals would react to this; not very favorably.

But here's the deal. The spokesperson from the church could have strengthened the church's position and its credibility immeasurably by simply responding to the media's questions in a way that people can understand and relate. For example, he could have said something like this: "What if a homosexual church in Dallas (of which I'm sure there are several) agreed to host the funeral of the straight brother of a member of that church? Would the church allow to be shown in their sanctuary depictions and images of the deceased working to inhibit the progress of the homosexual agenda in the Dallas area? Would the church leadership not reject such material based on what it perceived to be hostility toward homosexuals of which the congregation in question is made up? Furthermore, why would the family expect it to? Why would the straight community expect it to? Is any organization bound to honor a commitment to another party when certain pre-established and known boundaries have been crossed and no acceptable compromise can be reached?"

If you're going to accuse someone from another perspective of being hypocritical, you need to be able to show examples of their hypocracy. Otherwise, don't make the accusation to begin with if you're not able to back it up.

Read More

Is Liberalism a new ideology, or is it as old as the devil himself?

This is a question that really begs for a clear and a concise answer. I've read numerous times on other blogs where people date the establishment of liberalism in this country as a dominant political force merely back to the 1960s. Is this the case? Is American liberalism really only a few decades old?

Personally I think liberalism has always been with us. In fact I can date it back, and show examples of its manifestations to the 1840s at the very least. But I think we make an error if we do not put a finger on a date and an event which would be the turning point for the rise of liberalism on a national scale. I believe this turning point came when the fourteenth amendment and the incorporation clause was ratified. Prior to this event, liberalism as a viable political force was kept relatively at bay...

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

Additional Items of Note

You'll note that the face of Webster's has changed just a bit. In particular the Star Spangled Banner section has been moved from the right sidebar to the left sidebar. This was done to make space for some additional items we added yesterday.

In the left sidebar, just below the American flag, you'll notice a section titled "Select VFR Articles." The articles listed are permanent links to the respective articles at the VFR site. I'll be adding more to these as I have the opportunity to read more of Auster's works on subjects which interest me, and hopefully interest you. For instance, I know that he's done quite a bit on the fourteenth amendment, one of my favorite subjects. I'm going to go through some of those articles and see what I can find to put up under that section.

Also, I've added another blog to my blogroll. For the time being I want to keep my blogroll pretty short, so I'll be adding to it very sparingly. Though I've had some extra time on my hands lately, that is soon to change and the amount of time I'm going to be able to devote to the blog will accordingly be decreased. There is also the element involved that I'm not accustomed to doing this, or to blogging. So until I get my feet under me better, I'm not really looking for a huge amount of traffic or anything like that. I want to take this slow and easy, and let it happen rather naturally. That seems the best way for me.

As always, thanks to all of you who take the time to come by, especially those of you who leave interesting comments.

Read More

The Sufficiency of Christianity

I've said innumerable times in the past that we are not to compare ourselves with others who are worse, or appear to be worse than we are to establish our "goodness." This method falls short every time because we can always find someone who possesses and exhibits qualities worse than our own until finally we arrive at the ultimate evil and the father of it, Satan. Compared against Satan, the consummate personification of pure moral deprivation, or evil, we're all righteous. And that's exactly the road we lead ourselves down when we mistakenly compare ourselves with people and nations worse than our own to establish our relative goodness.

I'd like to direct your attentions to yet another entry posted at VFR where Kristor L. establishes that the correct way, and the standard of measure we should apply in all cases is indeed the exact opposite of the above. Indeed, we are to measure ourselves against the ultimate in goodness and righteousness, the necessary Creator God. This method will never fail to shed a bright and glaring light on our deficiencies, and is the only way for societies, and those who make up society to improve themselves.

Indeed, Christianity is sufficient.

Read More

Some of us have it; Some of us don't

I know the Bible teaches us not to covet, but I can't help but covet the talent that others have with the written word. I want you to go over to Rick Darby's blog and read what Mr. Auster has to say about the beauty of disease. I don't know how many times I've attempted to express this exact kind of thought on the non-existence of evil and evil things. They are not things in themselves, they are rather deprivations of something real. But never have I been able to put it in words as beautiful and simplistic as these. What a treat!

Read More

The Dual Threat of Islam and Liberalism

I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet, and to move you in the right direction as I said what I needed to say in my entry to the AFB this morning.

But the core of the issue is this, we face a dual threat which comes in the forms of Islam, and liberalism. Both ideologies are extreme at the core. Both must be dealt with in a way that extinguishes the threat each of them pose us or we face the threat of being consumed by them, and are, in a word, dead.

In an attempt to find a way of dealing with the dual nature of this crisis, I put the question to Lawrence Auster of whether his separationist strategy for dealing with the threat of Islam might as well be capable of dealing with the threat of liberalism, which I see as just as much a threat to our safety and existence as is the extreme ideology of Islam. And here Mr. Auster answers me.

For a better understanding of where I'm coming from here, click on the link to the entry I put up this morning over at the AFB. And if you have any ideas about how to apply the principles of the separationist strategy to liberalism, do make them known to Mr. Auster.

Read More

Featured Features

How do you like that creative play on words? ;) I just wanted to make you all aware of the new features added to Webster's. All of these are added in the right sidebar and include Featured Entries, Recent Comments, and one other that's been up a while now yet I've failed to mention, the Table of Contents feature.

As to the latter, if you'll click on the button so named, the entire list of entries posted to Webster's to date will come up in the center post column of the blog. It can be a useful feature for anyone wanting to go through the complete list of posts in search of a specific topic.

As to the Featured Entries, these will be updated from time to time, so keep your eye out for that. And this is a feature I've wanted to add for a while now but didn't simply because I was waiting until I'd built an archive that contained some posts with some degree of meat to them.

In any event I hope you find these additional features useful. If not, please don't hesitate to let me know, and if I get enough negative feedback on something, I'll consider removing it. We spent a lot of time in the beginning making this blog attractive on its face. Now's the time to make it as useful as we possibly can without of course overdoing it. I need to discuss this with some friends, but one thing I'd like to add here is some permanent links to articles others have written on a given subject that compliments the overall purpose of this blog.

Thanks to all of you for remaining faithful, and I'll continue to try to improve on what we've done so far. And as always, thanks to CTO for helping me out with these new features.

Read More

The Bigotry of (using) the lower-case Alphabet

(Note: The word "using" has been added to the post title since it was first put up because with the addition the title more accurately reflects what the post is about. The parenthesis is there to distinguish between the original title and the new one.)

This morning I was involved in a discussion with someone whom I highly respect concerning the capitalizing of proper names. The issue was raised when I sent a message containing the words “islam,” and “muslim” purposely not capitalized, which I was informed should be capitalized because they are proper names. In reply I explained that this was a method of mine to discountenance these terms and what they describe. My opponent replied that this should never be done as it, in short, is a form of bigotry.

I acknowledge that there is an element of truth to this. And I understand that we need to be careful about the image we project. On the other hand, I think we tend to take things like this too far sometimes. If I say, for instance, that Islam is evil, or it is a false religion, or if I even imply these things about the Muslim faith, then how much more degrading to a devout follower of Islam can describing him as a muslim be?...

What if I call the Devil by the name satan, refusing to capitalize his proper name as an expression of my protest against him and his evil works? What if I refer to Mohammed as mohammed in the context of denouncing his supposed authority and prophethood? In referring to mohammed in this way, is this worse than identifying him as a false prophet, or comparing him with Christ as a 'farthing candle and the Sun,' if that were my choice of expressing it? Are these properly forms of bigotry on my part? To be fair to my counterpart here, I don't think he's objecting to this method of protest because he thinks I'm truly a bigot, but more based on concern for the image that methods like this tend to project. But he may speak for himself on that point.

I admit that I have an extreme dislike of and bias against the Islamic religion because, as I explained to my counterpart, the religion itself makes God out to be a liar and the father of it. It makes the unchangeable God out to be in fact changeable, and allows that he can in fact contradict himself. As most of us know, this is not possible with God, He being pure simplicity with no potentiality; we being complex beings with a great capacity for potentiality (getting better or worse).

I want to make clear that when I refer to Islam or Muslims in the lower case, it's not the people who wrongly accept this false doctrine that I'm objecting to, it is the false doctrine itself, or the religion that I object to in the form of de-capitalizing the proper names. I do the same when I refer to democrats, by that name or by their personal names many times, as many of you are by now thoroughly aware. Does this mean that I'm a bigot toward certain individuals who hold to liberal-democrat beliefs? I guess one could conclude that, yes. But I think that the evidence pretty well shows that it is the belief system I'm protesting against by this method, not the individual holding it.

So, I ask you (and please be honest) am I wrong in this? Do we not risk, in strictly observing the rules laid down by my counterpart with no departure from them allowed, censoring our very defense against the religion of Islam. What I mean is, if we accept that it is simply not allowed under any circumstances to refer to Islam in the lower-case because it seems like bigotry, then what will be our next censorship of an expression of disapproval of the religion of islam?

-DW

Read More

Friday Night Football, It's Back!

I'm going to be watching the "Diggers" play the Wampas Cats tonight. I'm rooting for the Diggers as I have a couple of nephews who play for them. Last year the Diggers defeated the Cats soundly. I'm hoping for similar results this evening.

-DW

Diggers Win! 32-8

Read More

Is Christianity Destructive of Society?

Yes, you read the title right. Now pick yourselves up off the floor and let's discuss why this question needs an answer.

In reality this post is intended to lead you to another place where that question is being discussed. Just click on the link here provided and you'll be taken to the VFR entry of this morning: What Christianity requires in order not to be destructive of Society. Also, over at VA's is posted this title on the same subject: Which Christianity? continued.

As far as Auster's entry goes, I think Conservative Swede may actually have one good point. One of the things that VA points out in her post is that today's Christians tend to neglect the Old Testament in preference for the New Testament, the gospels and particularly Christ's words...

A Jew that's a Christian would most likely (today) be more familiar with the Old Testament than his Christian counterpart who is only familiar with the New Testament. He would be more prepared then to make sense out of the New Testament as it relates to the whole Bible.

How Christians have come to believe that the Old Testament, as part of the whole Bible, is not relevant to Christianity is beyond me. It would be like taking one of Paul's epistles and trying to understand it outside the context of the whole New Testament. I know Christians who actually do that. The rest of the Scriptures mean nothing to them if they can't make a direct connection between them and their preferred book(s) and passages. When the Bible explicitly states that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, and etc..." But of course, if the book that contains that passage isn't one of their chosen books, then they've probably never run into it I guess.

Anyway, I highly recommend you go read Auster's post. And particularly the excellent comments that follow. But don't try to understand the comments outside the context of the post entry. That's my advice.

-DW

Read More

Toward a New Strategy for Iraq

(Note: This is a re-write of an entry I put up yesterday morning. The other entry was pulled when I realized that I had made some wrong assumptions about Mr. Auster's position on the Iraq war. To that individual who made me aware of this, I thank you. And to those of you who might have read the other entry before it was pulled, I offer my sincerest apologies, as well as to Mr. Auster. -TM)

I have generally been a supporter of the Iraq war from the beginning. My reasoning for supporting that war may be summed up as follows:

After 9/11 the United States was left in a state of vulnerability while the muslim world had gotten a shot of adrenaline by the witness of those events. Whether Saddam had WMDs was never the issue with me. The issue was whether he would use them against us if he had them, and/or, if he could acquire them. And whether he was willing to put aside differences with other rogue regimes and combine forces with them to attack us, his and their common enemy while we were in a perceived state of vulnerability.

I think the answer to those questions is fairly obvious, and that's the reason I supported the invasion and overthrow of the Saddam regime...

That said, this idea of freeing the Iraqis/installing democracy has always been a thorn in my side, and though others would disagree with me, my belief has always been that the administration and the republicans were pressured into announcing these goals as of primary importance simply to garner support for the war. Yes; I believe President Bush is a true believer in the idea of democratizing the muslim world, and Iraq is his grand experiment. But my point is that I don't believe he and the republicans would have so readily announced that as a priority and a primary reason for invading Iraq had the democrats and the ultra-liberals not manipulated them into it by their anti-war rhetoric.

Now, maybe I'm wrong about that, and maybe I'm just recalling the history of the debate differently than it actually occured. That's fine, I don't always think I'm right. But the point is those goals should have never been a priority for us. And whether the administration was manipulated into announcing them as priorities or not, it should never have been so because it puts us in a position where either we're to stay in Iraq indefinately, or we are to remove ourselves having apparently failed in our objectives thus weakening us in the eyes of the muslim world and providing them with yet another shot of adrenaline.

With all of that said I have of late been contemplating whether we, the United States, have an alternative available to us that would satisfy our ends which to me boil down to self-preservation, not Iraqi democratization. I have always had a strong bias against any proposed "exit strategy" for Iraq based on the idea that they are generally liberal strategies which seem to pay no mind to the problems associated with simply retreating and effectively declaring defeat for ourselves and victory for our enemies. But I've recently been turned on to an "exit strategy" that acknowledges these problems and provides a means of dealing with them.

Now, I'm a realist in the sense that I understand that America and Americans are not prepared to embrace certain aspects of what this strategy entails. Indeed, were we so prepared, we would never have gotten into this situation to begin with. So it takes a radical shift in thinking. But as the author of this strategy might say in reply to someone like myself who might question whether Americans are prepared to accept and embrace such a strategy, which to some would be counted as wacky and radical: "How can we get there unless we talk about it and propose it and show this to people as a real alternative to our current hopeless approach?" It's a good point, because if this strategy has any merit to it at all, then we should at least accept it as a viable option. If it has a great deal of merit, then it should be adopted as our policy. And the only way to answer those questions is to first get it out there for people to see.

So, I will quote the author, Mr. Auster, from his entry posted at VFR yesterday wherein he has provided the link to the separationist strategy.

Auster writes:

"Either way, we have to leave Iraq. What must be rejected is leaving Iraq in the Democratic Party's way, in a way that looks like a defeat, which would encourage our jihadist enemies everywhere. Here, then, is what I propose. We should leave Iraq, while announcing that our former policy of Muslim democratization was a mistake and that our new policy is not to spread democracy to the Muslim world, but to stop and reverse the spread of Muslims to our world. Instead of acting like some pathetically distracted, naive do-gooder, like the James Stewart character in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, we will look like a tough country shedding our liberal illusions about the Muslims and determined to defend our own safety. Instead of being a defeat, such a withdrawal will be part of a radical strategic shift in which we leave our foolish past behind and immeasurably strengthen our own position." ("What we need to do in Iraq," VFR, July 13, 2007).

Whether this stategy has any merit to it is left to you to decide. But I've done my part to get it out there, and I'd like to hear what you have to say on the matter.

-DW

Read More

Who would be in YOUR top ten?

Has anyone ever asked you to give a list of five or ten people you'd most like to meet, or to have a private discussion with? Have you ever thought about what your answer would be if asked that question?...

I know for myself, and if it were possible, I'd like to meet such people as George Washington and John Quincy Adams, to name a couple of historical figures. But I'd also like to meet and talk to certain contemporaries of mine. At least a couple of spots on my list would be reserved to kindred souls within the ranks of traditional conservatism. You know, down-to-earth types whose work commands your respect.

Well, today I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with one of these kindred souls via email, and the conversation was very pleasant, very enlightening, very uplifting. And we discussed one of my favorite topics to some extent which is the fourteenth amendment and the relationship between its establishment and where we are today.

I won't go into anything else here except to say that I was turned on to some very helpful materials, including a book title that I've heard before but which sub-title seemed to elude me. I'm told that if I'm into the fourteenth amendment, then I'm in for a real treat in reading this book. And I am into the fourteenth amendment, big time, as my brothers over at the AFB can fully attest. So I can barely wait to get my hands on a copy.

But I would simply say to that individual of whom I speak, it was an honor discussing this topic with you, and I appreciate your cordiality very much. Thanks for all your help, and again, thanks for what you do. And keep up the great work!

-TM

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 Case Against Torture

(Note: See my comments posted at VFR on this topic where I mention another aspect of that particular torture conversation which came to mind after I put up this entry. Thanks to Mr. Auster for posting them.)

With all the conversation going on over at VFR concerning a certain form of gnosticism emanating from a certain group espousing a pacifist sort of Christianity that would, among other things, allegedly prefer the allowance of a hijacked airliner, with innocent passengers on board, to crash into the Sears Tower, as an example, rather than downing the fateful aircraft thereby saving untold thousands, I've been reminded time and again of a similar conversation I was involved in some time back.

In my conversation the question about the use of torture to extract information from 'enemy combatants' was the central issue. My contention was that I supported the use of torture when it was necessary to save American lives. My opponent's position was that torture is immoral, and that he could never support the use of it under any circumstances. So I put this question to him:

Suppose your family is captured by terrorists. Suppose that you get information from a reliable source that someone in your neighborhood friendly to the captors has knowledge of your family's whereabouts. Would you, if necessary, use torture to extract information about your family's whereabouts in an attempt to save their lives. His answer, which may or may not surprise some of you, was: “No!, I would never use torture under any circumstances.” And that's putting it mildly.

Of course, I did not hesitate to tell this individual what a piece of scum I thought he was to prefer to protect his own sensibilities over the saving of the very lives of his family members. But when push came to shove, I wondered, is this truly the way he would react, in spite of all his self-righteous invectives?

I often wonder about that to this very day. I suppose some folks have lost all sense of a moral obligation to protect innocent lives even at the mere hazard of crushing their own sensibilities. But I wonder if part of my opponent's unwavoring adherence to this goofy notion of his was not really based in the knowledge that if he answered “yes; I would use torture in that case,” that his whole case against using torture, which he had very carefully laid out, would at once break down?

-DW

Read More

Righting a Wrong

This is going to come as a huge shock to you all, but I've actually been wrong before. Moreover, I've actually assented to a wrong idea knowing full well that I was assenting to an idea that was purely untenable.

One of the most egregious examples of this came a couple of years ago when I wrongly, and knowingly, assented to the idea, expressed by someone I'll not name here, that "people are essentially good." I knew there was a huge problem with this idea, and I recognized it right away. Yet, to my great regret now, I joined in to this chorus feigning a true belief in the concept.

I'd like to clear the record on this, as well as to finally put my conscience at ease in this matter. I do not believe that people are essentially good, but rather that they are essentially bad. People need a reason to be good, as I've said so many times since, thus contradicting myself. I believe that the best reason to be good is contained in the Bible. And the Bible explicitly states that man is not good, no not one.

I agree with Auster on this question of being good. I can't truly be good outside the good influence of my religion. And to that person (you know who you are) to which I falsely and knowingly mis-stated my actual position (for which I have no good explanation), I offer my most sincere apologies, and beg forgiveness.

-DW

Read More

Mark Your Calendars

Tuesday, August 28th, North Americans will be treated to yet another Lunar Eclipse. This total eclipse of the moon will be the second this year. And yet another is due to occur February 21st of '08. All together, North America will have been treated to three separate lunar eclipses in less than a year. For information about the event as it will unfold in your time zone, see this article at Sky and Telescope.

-DW

Read More

Creedal Patriotism; Legitimate or not?

(Note: Do not neglect to read John Savage's first comments to this post. John's comments further reveal that the 4W position betrays their actual desire to formulate a new American creed more conducive to their own brand of patriotism...)

John Savage has suggested that I post the following comments I made earlier this morning to his fine entry “Toward an Understanding of Patriotism According to WWWW,” here at Webster's.

I should explain that John got my attention on this when he cited the header description line at the AFB as an example of the kind of ideological patriotism that 4W had taken their stand against.

As I explain in the comments below, my view is that if creedal patriotism can be shown to be an illegitimate form of patriotism, then it should be rejected. And if it truly is an illegitimate form of patriotism worthy of rejection, then its antagonists should be able to lay down reasonable arguments for its illegitimacy while fully adhering to the dictates of their own reasons...

John poses this interesting question in reply to an earlier comment of mine:

“Back to what Terry said. I'm wondering if it implies that creedal patriotism is not uniquely American, but there's always some unifying creed that binds a nation. That creed may be relatively unstated, but it commands love for certain symbols, heroes, etc. The fact that we have a shared ancestry needs to have some meaning attached to it, I suppose. Otherwise kinship had better be very close if we're going to care about it, and act upon it. Is that right, Terry?”

Here is my answer:

“Well, I tend to think that way, yes. Indeed, it seems to me that family unity and so forth is part of the creed, not separate from it. We can analyze them separately, but I don't see how they can be completely separated as distinctive kinds of patriotism and loyalty capable (or not) of themselves to satisfy the elements comprising 'legitimate' patriotism.

I don't deny the importance of natural affection, familiar places and smells and all of that. As a matter of fact I affirm it, but it only goes so far. Cella and Martin seem to leave no room for a blending of these, claiming one to be an illegitimate form of patriotism and loyalties, supposedly rejecting it in favor of the other.

If it's truly illegitimate then it oughta be rejected. But if it's truly illegitimate as they claim, then why do they adhere to it? I doubt, for instance, that Cella and Martin would assert that their own blood ties with their extended families are stronger inducements to loyalty than their ideological kinship to one-another. Even if they are blood relatives, they likely don't identify as well, nor do they have as strong a bond to other blood kin whose ideological beliefs are different than their own. The proof seems to me in the pudding.

It seems to me that blood ties and kinship based on purely natural kinds of affection would tend to break down in proportion to the distance removed from the immediate family. And that's just speculation on my part because I don't think we have any real examples to look to where this kind of purely natural loyalty is adhered to in strictness.

Ideological loyalty has its limitations too. It would break down the further removed one was from the core ideas and principles. But you cannot simply reject it based on its inherent limitations anymore than you can reject the other based on the same thing.

Again they concentrate their efforts on identifying the weaknesses inherent to ideological loyalties, neglecting to deal with the limitations and weaknesses of the more primitive kinds of loyalty.

In short, it seems to me that Cella and Martin argue in favor of an ideological loyalty. Their creed seems to be no-creed. But it's still a creed, isn't it?”

John's comment that follows to the effect of this not being my final word on the subject is fair enough. It certainly wasn't intended as the final word from this end, but more of a beginning. And I certainly intend to say more. As for now this should suffice to give you a window into what I believe some of the problems are with the 4W position on ideological patriotism. In the absence of a more compelling argument for a rejection of creedal patriotism, I take my stand for it.

-DW

Read More

A Friendlier Atmosphere

Congressman Tancredo will be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight with guest host Michelle Malkin wherein they will be discussing sanctuary cities, immigration, and Tancredo's campaign, according to the Tancredo '08 website. I'm not a 'Friend of the Factor' as I expressed in these comments. But I think I'll watch tonight.

This is obviously going to be a more "user-friendly" environment than was the set of Fox's other popular primetime show, Hannity and Colmes, just a couple nights ago for Mr. Tancredo. One has to wonder whether there was a significant amount of outrage expressed over the spectacle that we saw the other night, and whether this led Fox News to extend to Tancredo another invite under better conditions. I would suspect, given that this news was only reported within the last hour, that this has something to do with it.

But irregardless, tonight's O'Reilly Factor should be worth watching, and the viewers should be able to hear Tancredo out on these very important issues.

-DW

Read More

And Here's the Text of Tancredo's Statement - FTR

(Note: Read an eye-witness account of Tancredo's press conference in Newark posted at VFR.)

Statement of the Honorable Tom Tancredo Newark, NJ August 20, 2007

The fact that Newark, New Jersey is a “sanctuary city” for illegal aliens is now well known. In addition, it has been widely reported that two of the alleged perpetrators of this heinous act, which occurred two weeks ago Saturday resulting in the deaths of three young students and the wounding of a fourth, are in this country illegally. Both have prior arrests on charges ranging from sexual assault on a child to robbery and illegal possession of weapons...

If the alleged assailants are found guilty of these brutal crimes, Newark and its political leadership share a degree of culpability. They have established a sanctuary city policy in violation of federal law, harbored illegal aliens, and their actions have directly contributed to the deaths of three promising young American kids.

I am encouraging the families of the victims to pursue the option of a lawsuit in light of this culpability. Not only are sanctuary cities a moral outrage that restricts the flow of information to and from ICE, they are illegal-violating the plain language of 8 USC 1373.

Mayor Cory Booker and Governor Jon Corzine have apologized to the people of Newark for not having done enough. They are right, they have not. But their apologies are meaningless if they aren’t willing to do their jobs now.

Sanctuary cities are safe havens for all illegal aliens including gang members, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers, further exposing the law-abiding citizens of such cities to greater crime. According to the Center for immigration Studies, a confidential California Department for Justice study found that fifteen years after Los Angeles declared itself a sanctuary city, 60% of LA’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants as of 2004 in Los Angeles, 95% are for illegal aliens.

Because the leaders of this city and this state can not find the courage to put the safety of those they were sworn to protect above all else, we now read that a movement was launched last week aimed at increasing the number of sanctuary cities in New Jersey. It is time someone made it clear that sanctuary cities are a travesty of justice and innocent people are paying the price of leaders gone amuck.

As a nation we can no longer permit our cities and communities to thumb their noses at the laws of our land; and we can no longer allow illegal aliens to be above the law. The consequences of this lawlessness are simply too high.

It is time for Congress to pass a law that bans the flow of federal moneys to all sanctuary cities. For years I have offered such amendments to various appropriations bills. This year I was successful in doing so on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. There will be attempts in the Senate to remove my amendment, and I appeal to all Americans to demand their Senators resist such attempts.

In addition I personally believe there is a possibility that the political leadership of this and other sanctuary cities may be subject to criminal charges for aiding and abetting illegal aliens. Although I have no hope that the Bush administration’s Justice Department would ever pursue an inquiry, I assure you, mine would.

Thirdly, citizens of sanctuary cities need to demand their leaders cease and desist with such policies and in their place implement procedures that would assure that local law enforcement teams work with all other such agencies to assure the rule of law is re-established throughout the land. If their leaders refuse, they must be held accountable not only in the courts but also on Election Day.

It’s time Americans take back their country.

Thank you very much. I will gladly take questions." (emphasis mine)

Read More

Update on the Tancredo vs. Geraldo Showdown

You can read some pretty fair assessments of what happened here. If any of you watched this I'd like to read what you have to say about how the 'debate' went. Also, I agree with LA's answer to Ben W.'s question. Tancredo's people need to set some guidelines before they agree to go on with someone who has Geraldo's reputation for shouting down his opponents and taking over the show. I'm not convinced that there's any 'strategy' behind Geraldo's tactics, as Ben W. suggests, I think Geraldo really believes that...stuff, and he's genuinely passionate about it. I think Geraldo is a “true believer,” how about you?

-DW

Read More

Guess who's going to be on Hannity and Colmes...

I picked this up over at Tom Tancredo's blog. That's right, Congressman Tancredo will be on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes tonight, August 22, debating none other than America's favorite hispanic, and advocate for mass migration and national suicide, Geraldo Rivera.

The showdown is scheduled to begin at 9:00 pm Eastern. Be there, and tell all your friends!

-DW

Read More

How Would You Define Politics?

I think one of the best definitions I ever read of the word is contained in Webster's original 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. As most of you know Mr. Webster was a contemporary of the founding generation, he was an influential leader of his day, particularly in the area of education where his influence is still felt to this very day. In fact, some of you are probably unaware of this, but there's been a concerted effort going on in this nation for some time now to restore, through the educational process, Mr. Webster's uniquely “American” methods of education, particularly at the primary levels. From my view this is vital to the restoration of this republic, and for saving it from the dark abyss which liberalism in all its varied forms is leading it to.

I should like to open a discussion on what the term politics means to each of us individually, and I'd appreciate your participation. I will begin the discussion by saying that to me, despite all the negative modern Americans associate with the term, politics is essentially good. Politics, to me, seeks to improve us and our condition, individually and collectively. It has no power of itself to do good or evil, to secure or to crush liberty. Politics is merely a vehicle which human beings use to accomplish either/or. I don't buy into the libertarian theory, btw, that there's no such thing as 'collective liberty.' I rather tend to think that liberty begins with the individual, but it certainly does not end with him/her. As Mr. Webster might have stated it were the question put to him, “those who claim there is no collective liberty involve themselves in a palpable error, for though they understand the particular aspect of liberty, they fail to understand the general aspect of which the particular is always a part.” And though the libertarian would insist that the 'greater good,' or the 'common good,' should never be sought at the expense of the individual good, using such arguments that indict this pursuit as having been responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, I find that to be a rather poor argument given that in fact what the libertarian is really vying for is indeed his version of the 'greater good.' It's just that the libertarian believes that the collective, or the 'greater good' is indeed, and almost always the individual good. Or, they are one and the same thing. While this may well be true, it does not absolve the libertarian of his error. Which is to say that he seeks the greater good as much as the next guy in spite of all his railings against the idea of seeking the greater good.

So, essentially, I think politics seeks the greater good for the people it applies most particularly to in a universal sort of way. Again, I think politics (in pureness) is essentially good and seeks the best good of the whole. I think politics has a reciprocal aspect to itself, and that indeed if it can be said to be responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, as the libertarian would seem to have it, then it is an indefensible concept, this idea of politics, and irreconcilable with the idea of liberty.

What say you?

-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

Books I'm Currently Reading

You'll probably never read a book review here at Webster's, authored by myself at least. I was never very good at giving book reports in school, nor do I think I'd be much better at giving book reviews via this kind of medium. I'll recommend books from time to time, and in those recommendations I'll try to give a short overview of what the book's about and the reasons for which I recommend it. That will probably be the extent of book reviews coming from yours truly.

That said, I did want to inform you that I'm currently reading two books I picked up over the weekend, neither of which titles or authors I had any knowledge of prior to running into them - in one instance at a Christian bookstore my wife and I stopped by over the weekend, and in the other I happened upon at the University bookstore on the campus of OU over the weekend too. In fact, I ran into several titles at the University bookstore that intrigued me, but ultimately I chose the one listed here for immediate purchase.

Notwithstanding those facts I did read the introductions to both books prior to purchasing them, as well as to select and read some random passages throughout the chapters, as per my usual - I never judge a book by its cover, though a good looking cover will often capture my initial attention.

But anyway the titles of these books and their authors are: Infiltration, by Paul Sperry, and The Enemy at Home, by Dinesh D'Souza. So far the latter, with its emphasis on identifying why the cultural left bears much responsibility for the events of 9/11, has managed to capture my undivided attention, whereas the former, though it contains some very good information with regard to Islam's presence here in the United States, is less appealing to my particular tastes. I'm about 1/3 of the way through them both, and both books are about 300 pages, give or take.

I'll update you later as to how my reading of these titles is going, and whether I think they're worth the time to read. In the meantime, I wonder whether any of you have either heard of these titles or their authors, or whether you've read them before?

-DW

Read More

The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

There's an interesting discussion going on over at VFR today concerning whether or not it is widely known among the American populace that indeed the United States dropped leaflets warning the Japanese inhabitants of the targeted cities concerning what was about to happen, and instructing them on what to do to avoid being eviscerated themselves.

Probably what intrigues me the most about the post and the comments to it is the lack of knowledge about these facts concerning America's handling of the war against Japan. As far back as I can remember I've always known about this very relevant fact, but I did not learn it in school or from a book, I learned these facts from my dad who imparted them to me at a fairly young age. And I just assumed, very wrongly it appears, that this was indeed common knowledge among the American citizenry. I guess it all goes back to what I've said numerous times before here and elsewhere: "never assume nothin'."

But I've learned this morning that LA has started an informal poll on the subject, so y'all go over and participate. I should like to see just how wide-spread this lack of knowledge of these facts is. And I'll be keeping track of the results.

-DW

Read More