Monday, March 31, 2008

Neocons have met the enemy, and he is them

Speaking of delusional, check out this article from an old favorite, American Power. The title of the post, Muslim Students Association Seeks U.S. Destruction, says it all.

Um, hello? Who was it who said Islam is the religion of peace? And who's still pushing for even more Islamic and Third-World immigration, which made it possible for the Muslim Students Association to exist within our borders?

George W. Bush, that's who. Yes, your grubby little commander-in-chief, who thrilled you with his splendid little war. If you support the globalist, ultra-interventionist Neocons, be prepared for the part of their agenda you don't like. Their "creative destruction" of traditional cultures -- yes, ALL traditional cultures -- includes overwhelming the US with a floodtide of immigrants.

Get a grip.

Another mission accomplished

Poor Maliki. Like March, he went in like a lion, ready to show al-Sadr, whose followers he claimed were "worse than al Qaeda," who the real boss was, and that would be the Iraq central government:

Premier Nouri al-Maliki said from Basra on Thursday that the government is the only authority, rebuffing to negotiate with what he described as "the gangs" responsible for killings and criminal acts in the southern Iraqi city.

"We emphasize that the state is the ruler, none else, and it is capable of facing any force anywhere," said a release issued by Maliki’s office and received by Aswat al-Iraq – Voices of Iraq – (VOI).


But instead of achieving his announced goals, Maliki has been forced to negotiate a cease-fire, leaving al-Sadr and the other militias in place. Worse, the deal was put together by Iran:

Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers.

The deal could help defuse a wave of violence that had threatened recent security progress in Iraq. It also may signal the growing regional influence of Iran, a country the Bush administration accuses of providing support to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.


Like March, Maliki has left like a lamb -- a frightened, trembling lamb at that.

Yet, the war-bloggers are ballyhooing this as a victory for the American puppet government -- yes, the one cowering behind the increasingly deadly Green Zone. Just when you think these people can't become any more delusional, they surprise us all. This would be funny, except THEY'RE not the ones paying the price.

The New Divide

This passage from Time Magazine on Kosovar independence caught my eye:

The modern world isn't divided between capitalism and communism; it's divided in part between nations done dealing with their secessionists and those still fighting. Sri Lanka sided with Serbia, mindful of its Tamil rebels. Even Spain opposed Kosovo's claim as a precedent that could threaten Madrid's sovereignty by encouraging separatists. What's the joke about putting all your Basques in one exit?

I'd add one more category of nation-states, and that's those who have not yet had to deal with secessionist movements, but will. Soon.

McCain Foreign Policy: Bush Doctrine Plus

What’s wrong with Bush’s foreign policy? According to Mad John McCain, it’s just too darned sensible and cautious:

"I'd institute a policy that I call 'rogue state rollback,'" McCain said during a GOP primary debate in February 2000. "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments." Though Bush himself would not embrace McCain's weltanshauung until after 9/11, this approach to global affairs would eventually become known as the Bush Doctrine.

Instead of bringing democracy, McCain’s and Bush’s weltanshauung might just result in Gotterdammerung. And that's exactly what we can expect, since McCain's made it clear he plans to stick to the Neocon agenda:

In a major speech, Sen. John McCain distanced himself Wednesday from President Bush's foreign-policy tactics, but embraced his foreign-policy goals.

In a nod to foreign-policy realists, McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called for the U.S. to practice "international good citizenship" and reconnect with allies weary of Bush's go-it-alone doctrine. But, embracing neo-conservative thinking, he reiterated his support for the Iraq war and made clear that he would, as president, remain committed to an activist foreign policy bent on promoting democracy and confronting Islamic extremists.

"I am an idealist," McCain said, adding later that he was "a realistic idealist."

We real conservatives should revolt, because, as we've seen many times, the Neocon agenda means exactly what Robert E. Lee predicted would arise from centralized government. As he wrote to Lord Acton, ""The consolidation of the states into one vast Republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."

Consolidation and centralization is what George W. Bush is all about. McCain promises to be W on crystal meth -- with a Red Bull chaser.

What if you don't want that kind of domestic and foreign policy? Tough. Our handlers know that the secret to keeping us controlled is to allow us to vote on questions THEY compose. In this presidential election, the question we're allowed to answer is, "Who is best qualified to expand and consolidate the DC empire?" If you think that's an exaggeration, let's recall the foreign policy promised by the other two contenders, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.

First Hillary:

Like Bush, a tough-talking Clinton left open the possibility of military action against Iran if it attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. "We cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

Obama's proposed foreign policy is just like everything else in his kaleidoscope platform -- shifting, colorful, and pretty -- designed to make the audience believe he's going to give them whatever it is they want. But notice that despite the concessions to the growing peace movement, Obama knows what DC's real business is, and that's the bomb-and-rebuild business. He wants to be the CEO of the American Military-Industrial Complex, which keeps the cash flowing at Lockheed Martin when the bombs are flying, and at Halliburton, when the rebuilding begins. Read Obama on what he'll do in Iraq, and watch a master manipulator at work:

"After the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'"

"This course of action will help to focus our efforts on a more effective counter-insurgency strategy and take steam out of the insurgency. … I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq. The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces. At the same time, sufficient numbers of U.S. troops should be left in place to prevent Iraq from exploding into civil war, ethnic cleansing, and a haven for terrorism."

The legendary smoothtalk of "Slick Willie" may be eclipsed by "Slick Barry."

Of course, the real point here is that no matter which of the "mainstream" candidates wins the White House, expect DC to wage more war in the Middle East. Those making a bundle off the war machine don't care what the target is. And the ideologues; that is, the Neocons, or "idealists," as McCain calls them, will succeed in expending American blood and treasure for an "Israel First" foreign policy.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Davidson College's Confederate heritage

Everyone's excited about how scrappy little Davidson College has beaten the odds in the NCAA Tournament. One thing the press seems to be ignoring is the college's close ties to the Confederacy.

Stonewall Jackson’s wife was Mary Anna Morrison, who was the daughter of Robert Hall Morrison, then the President of Davidson College. Mary Anna Morrison Jackson was known after the war as the "Widow of the Confederacy," and was prominent in the United Daughters of the Confederacy chapter here in Charlotte. Her funeral in 1915 was the biggest event Charlotte had seen at that time.

Confederate General Daniel Harvey Hill, who fought at Fredericksburg and Gettysburg, was married to Isabella Morrison, the sister of Mary Anna. He was a professor at Davidson from 1854 to 1859, when he left to become superintendent of the North Carolina Military Institute of Charlotte. D.H. Hill is buried in Davidson College Cemetery.

To accommodate Muslim students, Harvard tries women-only gym hours

Here's a taste of our multi-cultural future:

Harvard University has moved to make Muslim women more comfortable in the gym by instituting women-only access times six hours a week to accommodate religious customs that make it difficult for some students to work out in the presence of men.

Men have not been allowed to enter the Quadrangle Recreational Athletic Center during certain times since Jan. 28, after members of the Harvard Islamic Society and the Harvard Women's Center petitioned the university for a more comfortable environment for women.

This is why history has no record of a "multicultural" society that can sustain itself -- sooner or later, one culture predominates. While the rest of the world's ethno-cultural groups assert themselves in their neck of the woods, the West imagines it stands for universalism, which, translated into everyday reality, means "nothing."

What's that old rule about nature abhoring a vacuum?

Bush would expand powers of Federal Reserve

Bizarre -- yet so typical of Bush:

The Bush administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the way the U.S. financial industry is regulated.

In an effort to deal with the problems highlighted by the current severe credit crisis, the new plan would give major new powers to the Federal Reserve, according to a 22-page executive summary obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The proposal would designate the Fed as the primary regulator of market stability, greatly expanding the central bank's ability to examine not just commercial banks but all segments of the financial services industry.


No matter what the problem is, Bush's solution is always to centralize control. In education, it's No Child Left Behind, which usurped power from the States (the one time he warned us what he was going to do, and we, as an electorate, agreed to it). Same with terrorism -- when the mish-mash of intelligence services failed to coordinate prior to 9/11, Bush's response was to create the massive and Byzantine Department of Homeland Security -- a title that still gives me the creeps.

And he calls himself a conservative?

Friday, March 28, 2008

Soldiers become American citizens in Africa

The Pentagon reports the US military is overwhelmed by the strains of fighting two wars, and manning 130 foreign bases. Americans aren't volunteering in sufficient numbers to maintain needed troop levels, so it only makes sense to recruit natives to serve in the empire's legions and to reward them with citizenship.

After all, it worked so well for the Romans.

And this young man is more than happy to be part of US forces operating in his home land:

Irungu joined the military in 2004, after emigrating from Nairobi, Kenya.

“I felt like I owed something to the country, and I should pay back,” said Irungu. “I feel very privileged to be at this point. It’s a pretty big milestone.”

Becoming an American citizen is a unique experience, but for the Nariobi native, being deployed to Africa and going through the naturalization process was quite an experience.

“There’s a special connection serving here,” said Irungu. “The last year of my military service I have spent in my homeland. It’s been an honor and a privilege to be able to contribute in an effective way.”

Kenya, huh? Maybe one day he'll contribute even more and become president.

Bush: Iraq is returning to normal

I think he's flipped out this time for sure:

President Bush, saying that "normalcy is returning back to Iraq," argued Thursday that last year's U.S. troop "surge" has improved Iraq's security to the point where political and economic progress are blossoming as well.

I guess he somehow overlooked the headlines from the past couple of days:

Thursday: 225 Iraqis, 4 Americans Killed; 538 Iraqis Hurt

Friday: 101 Iraqis, 1 US Soldier Killed, 190 Iraqis Wounded


That's a return to normalcy? And it gets even stranger:

Bush coupled his description of the situation in Iraq, meant to lay the groundwork for next month's report to Congress by U.S. military and diplomatic chiefs, with a forceful slap at war critics.

Wait a minute -- the man who unleashed all this chaos on innocent people is slapping at his critics? Words escape me once again ...

The Wrath of Rice

Seems the First Spinster agrees with Michelle Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright that America hasn't been good enough to its black citizens:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.

"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."

As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

I suppose the head start she received when George W. Bush appointed her as his National Security Advisor despite scant credentials doesn't count. She was so breathtakingly inept but loyal in that position that Bush had no choice but to make her the Secretary of State.

And this is the thanks we get? Here's a suggestion for you, Madame Diplomatrix: consider another point of view for a change, instead of the steady diet of resentment you're obviously on. Maybe a little Pat Buchanan will open your eyes.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

South Carolina Ranks High In Number Of Hate Groups

How do you follow up a lurid, spine-tingly headline like that? With a lurid, spine-tingly lead, natch:

Racism and hatred. A watch dog organization says South Carolina is near the top of the list.

In its latest report, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization out of Montgomery, AL, counted 45 active hate groups in South Carolina.

The state follows California, Texas and Florida.

Nicholas Chappell, of Laurens is a member of one group on the list: the KKK.

Eek! The KKK! Somebody save us!

The implication, of course, is that any gang of wretches designated as a "hate group" is like the KKK, and the reader can't wait to see who they are. C'mon, now. The KKK? That withered, hollow scarecrow is capable of nothing these days but serve as a fundraising tool for the fearmongers at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which poses as the only group that can stop evil racists and champion tolerance -- that is, if they can just get more donations to carry on their courageous work. Thanks to a compliant corporate media that backs the SPLC's every PR and fundraising effort, decrepit and dopey groups like the KKK are hyped up to appear dire and dreadful. The result is that your average muddlehead will panic at the spectre of racist organizations spreading like wildfire, and desperately grab for the checkbook.

And it's worked -- SPLC researcher Ken Silverstein has issued this update on the SPLC's finances since his last exposé: "In five years, the SPLC's treasury had grown by a further $48 million, bringing its total assets to $168 million."

That's why the SPLC tosses more “racism” charges than the Three Stooges threw pies. It pays. Here's just one example of how careless and unfounded their condemnations are: the American Enterprise Institute, which featured President George W. Bush as its key speaker a few years back, was slammed by the SPLC as one of a “growing” number of think tanks allegedly mainstreaming ideas that are “racist, bigoted, unfair, or just plain mean-spirited.”

Wouldn't you think the corporate media would've learned its lesson by now? They should've.

But the real kicker here is the blatant hypocrisy of this organization of self-righteous crusaders. The article ends with a definition of a hate group:

The Southern Poverty Law Center says the number of hate groups in the United States jumped by more than 200 in just seven years.

According to the center, some of the groups also target religious beliefs, sexual preference and political views.

How did the Center decide which groups made the list?

It's [sic] website states:

All have beliefs or practices that target an entire class of people.

Oh -- so denouncing an entire class for its alleged sins makes you a hate group? Then how do you explain this sweeping generalization from the SPLC web site?

“As a white Southerner for eight generations, my heritage is the Confederate past,” says Yale history professor Glenda Gilmore. “My ancestors fought for the Confederacy and owned slaves. But I know that my heritage is based on hate, on the hatred that grew from owning other human beings and fighting one’s countrymen for the right to own those human beings.”

Apparently, the SPLC is so busy exposing the prejudices of others that they've blinded themselves to their own biases. And articles like this are part of the problem. For proof, check out how the piece ends:

To read the complete report from the Southern Poverty Law Center, and learn more about how the Center is teaching tolerance, click this link: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/intrep.jsp

To see a map of South Carolina and the number of hate groups listed compared to the rest of the country, click here.

For more on the League of the South's statement on racism, click this link:
http://dixienet.org/New%20Site/statementonracism.shtml

Two links to the bullying SPLC, and one for the victimized League of the South. And of course, the writer tosses in one more cream puff to help the cause by reminding us that the SPLC's purpose is "teaching tolerance."

Sure it is.

Military tells Bush of troop strains

Bush & Co. think they're all-powerful and all-wise, and that when they act, they create their own reality. But now even the generals are questioning this administration's hyper-interventionism:

Behind the Pentagon's closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush Wednesday they are worried about the Iraq war's mounting strain on troops and their families. But they indicated they'd go along with a brief halt in pulling out troops this summer. ...

The chiefs' concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.


That's the thing about reality -- ignore it long enough, and it'll sooner or later let you know it's still there. That rule even applies to Neocons, no matter how right they imagine they are.

The British armed forces face a similar crisis:

Britain is at risk of losing the capability to wage major wars as it reaches a crisis point in resources, senior academics have warned MPs.

The stress of constant operations was also leading to a "massive increase" in marital breakdowns with many troops forced into resigning from the services to save their relationships, the Commons defence committee heard.


Is it possible that the real saboteurs of American security are those who ignore the facts and squander blood and treasure on senseless crusades? And that maybe those who warn about unwinnable wars have both a better grasp of reality and a greater concern for our well-being? Just wondering.

Tibet monks disrupt China media event

My reaction? Hurrah for the monks! What do they want? Self-determination for their people:

The simmering political tensions in Tibet burst into the open on Thursday in one of Lhasa’s most important temples when a group of 30 young Buddhist monks interrupted a government-organised visit by journalists with shouts about the lack of freedom in Tibet and in support of the Dalai Lama.

The monks were clearly agitated and several wept openly as they accused the authorities of lying to the visiting journalists and promised further demonstrations.

“We want a free Tibet, we want a free Tibet,” shouted one of the young monks, who was crying at the time.

What's particularly exciting about this is that these young men are taking great personal risks for Tibet, their land, their people. The article describes them as being in their 20's, and therefore, largely educated and indoctrinated by the Communists.

And yet they fight on for Tibet.

Meanwhile, in the land of the fearful, we're worried that all this fuss could harm the flow of cheap junk at our local Wal-Mart. The contrast between these young monks defying their conquerors and the shivering subjects of the DC empire reminds me on an old movie quote. It was Jack Nicholson in Easy Rider who said it:

George Hanson: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.

Billy: Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened...


Yep. That's what happened. And thanks to these faraway rebels for reminding us.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

A very disgruntled reader calls me out

It hurt to read this:

Your [sic] so full of yourself you don't realize your [sic] guilty of the same things you accuse Craig Bidle [sic again] of. First you claim he took quotes out of context but you seam [si-- aw, nevermind] to forget to include the context yourself. You take his statements out of context.

But I provide links so readers can check for themselves if I misrepresented the original argument.

You do not realize that Bidle is correct about the racism of anti-immigration nativists.

You're right. I don't. And I never will.

You don't even offer any kind of rebutal to his, very correct, statement about nativists and Nazis.

I assume you're referring to The ideology of Open Borders, which included this quote from Mr. Biddle:

If by “We have a right to our culture” opponents of immigration are speaking of a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then what they seek is not to protect American culture but to “achieve” something on the order of Nazi culture. Nothing more need be said about that.


That's nothing but guilt by association. The Southern Poverty Law Center gets away with this sort of thing all the time. It's sloppy argumentation -- especially for a so-called apostle of Reason. (And speaking of sloppy argumentation, notice that Biddle seems to think that American culture can be preserved without preserving our traditional ethnic make-up.)

Bottom line: you can't equate border security activists with Nazis. There's nothing totalitarian or genocidal about wanting to preserve your country's traditional demographics. For example, here's a well-known politician arguing that immigration reform will not alter America's racial composition:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same… Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…. Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia….


Do you think that politician was a Nazi because he apparently agreed that it's desirable to avoid a demographic revolution? If so, you're wrong -- that's Senator Edward Kennedy defending the 1965 Immigration Act -- which, it turns out, DID result in a demographic revolution.

Which is why we don't trust those who assure us that if we'll just agree to another amnesty for illegal alien invaders, they'll finally get serious about border security.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Constitution--Compact or Unitary Compulsion?

Al Benson, Jr, tackles the issue of whether a state can secede unilaterally -- an increasingly hot topic as more independence movements take wing. I was particularly interested in this point:

Considering what we have undergone in this country since 1865, with the resultant apotheosis of Abraham Lincoln, we might be tempted to ask--in Lincoln's mind was the Union "god" and was he (Lincoln) the Union? Lincoln lovers won't like that question but it should be considered in the ongoing public forum regarding Saint Abraham.

Where did Lincoln get his concept of the Union as "eternal?" Only Almighty God is eternal. All else will pass away in time and history. In fact, if America does not turn from her present ungodly direction, the least she can expect from the Almighty may be the reduction to the status of some third world entity.


I've often referred to war supporters as "state-worshippers," and Al's comment is illuminating. As the central government takes the place of God in our lives, it assumes all the characteristics associated with divinity -- including being all-powerful. I think this mindset is behind Americans' passive acceptance of government intrusions into our privacy. After all, who would've predicted that Americans would allow the Federal government to spy on them without just cause, or jail them without knowing the charges against them? All in the name of "protecting us" from Islamomeanies. But isn't a good Deity supposed to look after his worshippers?

Brief for Whitey

The pugnacious and agile Pat Buchanan assesses Barrack Hussein Obama's ballyhooed speech on Reverend Wright for what it is: the same ol' hustle we've heard before. Maybe, as Buchanan suggests, it's time for something really new:

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

Wow. You sure won't hear that kind of honest, direct talk from the oh-so-politically correct crowd -- of which Pat has never pretended to belong to. And thank God for that.

The ideology of Open Borders

Check out this argument for Open Borders from an Objectivist, anarcho-capitalist perspective:

But does a foreigner have a right to move to America? And should America welcome him? Yes, he does—and yes, she should. Recognition of these facts was part and parcel of this country’s founding.

"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment."

Unfortunately this pro-immigration attitude, expressed by George Washington in 1783, has all but vanished from American politics. Indeed, the policies of America—the republic built by and for immigrants—have become hostile to immigrants.

This article, by Craig Biddle, illustrates how shouting matches have replaced genuine debate these days. Both Open Borders advocates and ideologues are the worst sinners: they thrust a platitude in your face and demand you bow before it. They act as if that abstract ideal trumps all contrary facts and arguments. And in this case, since the author is a rigid Objectivist, this piece is especially other-worldly in its assertions.

For example, George Washington's statement is supposed to be accepted as a blanket endorsement of unlimited immigration. In fact, the first president was addressing newly arrived Irishmen, whose "decency and propriety of conduct" he believed would fit in with standard American attitudes and codes of behavior; or, as he put it, with "a participation of all our rights and privileges." But ideologues dismiss context. Instead, we are supposed to accept Washington's welcome to another group of former British subjects -- of which he himself was a prime example -- as the official Open Borders doctrine of all the Founders.

Of course, Washington's statement was no such thing. As proof, here are some other statements from Washington and other Founding Fathers on the issue of immigration. The context of these statements can be found in the sources provided by the American Policy Institute's pamphlet on immigration.

I have no intention to invite immigrants, even if there are no restrictive acts against it. I am opposed to it altogether... - George Washington, from a letter to Sir John St. Clair

Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people - a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs... John Jay

I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege of citizenship, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States. James Madison

And consider this observation by Thomas Jefferson, whose views on immigration were seconded by even his rival Alexander Hamilton:

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity: transact together. Civil government being the sale object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 217

There it is again, the recognition that a nation's culture is an expression of the interaction of its many members, and is thus a bottom-up phenomenon. In the above passage, Jefferson expresses concern that his country, Virginia, which owed its political and social institutions from its English orgins, must preserve those institutions to preserve its cherished way of life. Alien influences were a threat to the continuation of those institutions. Further, Jefferson observes that a shared culture is essential to liberty. Without a natural "common consent" as to how government could proceed, he implies, a more authoritarian administration would become necessary.

No better illustration of that could be imagined than what's happening to us today in the last days of the United States of America, as the influx of diverse, conflicting cultures necessitate a strong government to ensure security and social harmony.

Mr. Biddle continues to re-write American history as the march toward the realization of Objectivist theory. Regulating immigration, he argues, is

... un-American and immoral. The basic principle of America—the principle of individual rights—demands a policy of open immigration. … Individuals possess rights not by virtue of their geographic location or national origin or genetic lineage, but by nature of the fact that in order to live they must be free to act on their basic means of living: their judgment.

This ignores the historical American belief that our rights are God-given, imprinted on us by long-established tradition and experience. (Remember that nice wording about how we “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”?) In the Continental Congress’ Resolutions on the Stamp Act, our Revolutionary forefathers declared:

“That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies, are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great-Britain.

That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.”

In other words, we claimed the traditional rights of our inheritance as a British people. This, of course, is what separated the American Revolution (actually, a war of independence) from the Jacobin-led French Revolution, which, as Edmund Burke argued, was a utopian, universalist, and individualistic crusade to destroy the bonds of heritage and tradition, as opposed to the American Revolution, which sought to preserve heritage. As Burke wrote to a young Frenchman:

Permit me ... to tell You what the freedom is that I love and that to which I think all men intitled. It is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty. As if every man was to regulate the whole of his Conduct by his own will. the Liberty I mean is social; freedom. It is that state of things in which Liberty is secured by the equality of Restraint; A constitution of things in which the liberty of no one Man and no Number of men can find Means to trespass on the liberty of any Person or any description of Persons in the Society.

In short, the French Revolution saw the individual human being as sovereign, as an end in himself. It overthrew the existing social order as repressive to the individual. Based not on experience, but theory, it regarded human history up to the present moment as a big mistake, lacking the genius and insight of the new philosophers who would remake the world based on their own enlightened values and ideas. On the other hand, the American Revolution, as Burke correctly summarized it, was fought to preserve the organic social order that the British colonists revered. Our legitimate rights, as the Founding Fathers recognized, arise from our experience as an historical people, which both creates and reveals our character. That ancient process reveals the handiwork of what Jefferson would refer to in the Declaration as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” the true, organic source of our rights.

Contrary to the views of Robespierre and Objectivism, political institutions arise from man’s social nature. Destroy an individual’s social ties, isolating him from his natural compatriots, and you have destroyed his humanity, including the rules of social interaction that allow him to operate freely in society. Different cultures prescribe different rules for what one expects of others and what they should expect from the individual. But if all culture is destroyed (by mandating the forced mixture of peoples with clashing ideas and values, for example), then there is no standard for social interaction, and bureaucracy must step in to restore order. That’s the difference between a free society, and an authoritarian one.

Biddle then attempts to discredit the arguments of border security advocates:

If by “We have a right to our culture” opponents of immigration are speaking of a right to preserve the racial makeup of their culture, then what they seek is not to protect American culture but to “achieve” something on the order of Nazi culture. Nothing more need be said about that.

This is what passes for political argument these days. Instead of countering with a reasoned response, Biddle slaps a label on an idea he doesn't like, and imagines he has de-legitimized it. As the self-appointed judge of what is logical and permitted, he informs us that we have no right to desire the preservation of an historical, organic culture:

The only culture to which anyone can have a right is a culture of respect for and protection of individual rights.

And that's that -- at least in the mind of Mr. Biddle.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

A new team for a new America

This may be even more newsworthy than we realize:

Declaring that Sen. Barack Obama is an "extraordinary American," Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico endorsed Obama for the Democratic nominee for president on Friday.

Sen. Barack Obama received the endorsement of Gov. Bill Richardson on Friday.

Richardson -- who sought this year's Democratic nomination for president himself -- joined Obama at a rally in Portland, Oregon, where the senator from Illinois is campaigning.

"Barack Obama will make a great and historic president," Richardson said, Obama standing at his side. "[It] is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader."
Yes, but "a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" for whom?

Here's a hint: take a look at a picture of our only (so far) Hispanic governor taken while he was running for President:



And here's the AP picture that accompanies the CNN article linked above:


See the difference? The new 'n improved Bill Richardson is all Hispanicized now. It's a new image for a new era -- maybe the era Bill Clinton talked about in the post below.

So I wonder: might we be looking at an Hispanic/African-American coalition to lead America into the 21st century? The only thing that tops Obama as "a great and historic president" would be an Obama/Richardson ticket. Can the largest and second-largest minorities constitute a new majority? Can two Mensheviks make one Bolshevik?

Saving the Union

They say history doesn't repeat itself, but the crackdown by the Chinese Communist government against the patriots in Tibet fighting for independence reminds me of ... another failed attempt at self-determination.

For example, here's a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry condemning Tibet's "peculiar institution" and its affinity for a natural aristocracy. And Tibet's quest for self-government, he says, is an attempt to destroy "national unity." The Chinese central government, on the other hand, presents itself as the force of modernity and liberaton:

Qin made the remarks in response to reporters' question concerning U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's meeting with Dalai Lama on Friday in India.

He called Dalai a "chief representative" for the surf [sic] system and a political refugee engaged in activities of splitting China and destroying national unity, stressing that China firmly opposes to any encouragement or support for the secessionist attempts of Dalai's clique which violate the basic principles of international relations.

As the Chinese Communists regain control over Tibet, they're focusing on young people, who must swear a loyalty oath to the central government:

That battle by China to reassert control over its restive Tibetan population has now drawn in students attending schools and universities in Beijing.

They are required to provide four answers, Tibetan sources told The Times. First, they must write a reply to the question “What position does the Dalai Lama occupy in your heart?” Second, they must provide the address and place of work of their parents. Third, they must give details of their own identity card. Finally, they must guarantee not to take part in any political activities.

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Bill Clinton seduces the South -- again

Bill Clinton swept into Charlotte yesterday to promote Hillary's campaign for president. One of his stops included the Stonewall Jackson VFW post. On TV, the name "Stonewall Jackson" was prominent on the lectern from which Bill spoke.

The symbolism was just a little unsettling. After all, Clinton's a certified left-globalist, the sponsor of what he called a “Third American Revolution,” whose ultimate goal was to make whites a minority in America. Here's how he put it in June, 1997, as quoted in The Tennessean:

“Along with our founding, which was an act of genius, and the freeing of slaves in the Civil War and the long civil rights movement, this will arguably be the third great revolution of America if we literally can live without having a dominant European culture.”
Despite his long career dedicated to destroying their culture, the great-great grandsons and granddaughters of Confederate veterans applauded Bill Clinton as he left a diner on his way to the VFW hall:

An hour and 15 minutes later, Clinton walked out, signing autographs and posing for pictures along the way. Tavern patrons gave him a standing ovation.

Only then did he drive to the Stonewall Jackson VFW post.

There, he touted Hillary Clinton's support for legislation aimed at helping veterans, including members of the National Guard. She would push for better veterans' housing, he said.

Post Commander David Duncan said neither the long wait nor the short visit bothered him.

"You gotta eat somewhere," he said. "The boy couldn't be starving to death. I'd wait a half a day to talk to him because he's the one (who) helped Vietnam veterans more than anyone."

Mr. Duncan's comments pretty much summarize what's happened to us. The South's warrior culture has been steered into supporting the Empire and its institutions. Those institutions, rather than their own heritage, now command many Southerners' loyalty. After shoring up his relations with the conquered, Clinton spent the remainder of his visit with the conquerers:

From the VFW, Clinton went to the Duke Mansion in Myers Park, where he met with about 50 people. They included Democratic elected officials from the region, Mecklenburg County commissioners, Clinton supporters and community
leaders.

"It was really exciting to have a former president in Charlotte," state Rep. Tricia Cotham, D-Mecklenburg, said later. "I am very glad that North Carolina is in play on May 6."
Happy subjects. Happy rulers. Who could ask for more?

Friday, March 21, 2008

What happened?

Bottom line, we're back. And a little irritated.

Seems the Rebellion blog was hit by a "denial of service" attack, which is computer nerd talk for overwhelming our trackback database with thousands of entries, finally causing the host system to shut down.

Apparently, we angered some folks who're so cowardly, they had to resort to vandalism. And they were successful -- not only did the site go down, our data files were so corrupted we may not be able to retrieve our archives.

So be it.

We're on a new platform now, ready to confront the con artists who are determined to impose a suffocating, alien regime on our people. While the Confederacy is gone, and isn't coming back in its old form, the Southern people are very much a modern reality, a reality that the leftists, multicults, and globalists cannot tolerate. This blog will continue to do two things: explore how the principles of the Southern Cause offer the best solution to the ongoing crisis, and expose the crooked men and the means they use to exploit and control us.

Let's get going ...