Category Archives: Founding Fathers

UPDATED: Desperately Seeking Desperadoes in Diapers

Business, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, Nationhood

“Desperadoes in Diapers” is the current column, now on The Quarterly Review. An excerpt:

“First they came: thousands of unaccompanied illegal minors rushing the South-Western border. Then came the theories as to why they came. Determined not to miss a trick, America’s traitor elite—open-border interests and enemies of private-property rights—called the arrivals refugees, victims of nativist Know-Nothings who want invaders turned away. The desperadoes in diapers were also said to have fallen victim to a sudden deterioration in conditions in Central America. No proof has been advanced for the claim that, all of a sudden, things in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have worsened. Because they reason in circles, no-border advocates deploy no logic to justify their claims. Only this did these Aristotelians say:

That Central American minors are arriving, hat-in-hand, is in itself proof that their homes have become uninhabitable. Quod erat demonstrandum (as Erik Rush likes to say); Q.E.D.; case proven.

Having been given the go-ahead by media mogul Rupert Murdoch—he came out for de facto limitless importation of third-world immigrants—his employees at Fox News cued the violins. Shepherd Smith was weeping and gnashing his teeth: “Not politics, but the disgusting conditions in their countries have sent these kids to our shores,” he asserted. “What is a caring nation to do? Their parents love them so much; they gave them to smugglers for a better life.”

However poor, this here mother would never have handed over her daughter to a smuggler. But what do I know about parental love? No more than the nation’s first president knew about the glue that was meant to keep America together.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington presented what historian Paul Johnson calls “an encapsulation of what [he] thought America was, or ought to be, about.” America, said Washington, “is a country which is united by tradition and nature. ‘With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religion, Manners, Habits and Political Principles.’”

What a dummy!

“The children, the children,” wailed Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. “It’s all about the children. We are the United States, what do we do about the children?” Such showy “humanitarianism” invariably means the following: Working people in the U.S., with children of their own to mind, will be roped into supporting the children of the world. Enslave one set of people to whom American politicians are beholden by law, for the benefit of another.

Where’s the humanity for the non-consenting host population? …

Read the compete column. “Desperadoes in Diapers” is now on The Quarterly Review..

Our German readers can now follow this column and other worthy writers in the JUNGE FREIHEIT, a weekly newspaper of excellence.

Editors wishing to feature the “Return to Reason” column in their publications, pixel or paper, please contact Bookings@ilanamercer.com. Or, ilana@ilanamercer.com

UPDATE (7/3): Myron Robert Pauli: “I liked the quote of John Quincy Adams. Historian David McCullom said he was the most intelligent of our Presidents. His nickname was Old Man Eloquent. When one plots the trajectory from John Quincy (‘America does not go around in search of monsters to destroy …. She might become the dictatress of the world’) Adams to Bush-II and Obama, it makes me want to cry. – - – Arguably, I am a classical liberal but not a libertarian anarchist OR a welfare-socialist. I do not want foreign mobs taking $$ and turning the country even more socialistic nor do I want to have to turn my own home into a personal fortress to keep out the horde. The reality of modern America is that Washington and Adams would essentially be intellectual outcasts in America of 2014.”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Morality And Religion

Constitution, Founding Fathers, History, Law, Morality, Religion

On this Good Friday and Passover, it is worth remembering George Washington’s message on morality and religion, in his 1796 Farewell Address.

“Washington—in light of the dreadful events which had occurred in Revolutionary France—wished to dispel for good any notion that America was a secular state. It was a government of laws but also of morals,” writes historian Paul Johnson, in The History of the American People. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,’ he insisted, ‘religion and morality are indispensable supports.’ Anyone who tried to undermine these ‘great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens,’ was the very opposite of a patriot.” (P. 229)

There can be no “security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice.” Nor can morality be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

What Washington was saying, explains Johnson, is that America, “being a free republic, dependent for its order on the good behavior of its citizens, cannot survive without religion. And that was in the nature of things.” (P. 229)

It’s hard to reconcile modern-day USA with the America the Founding Fathers bequeathed and envisaged. The law, a branch in what has become a tripartite tyranny, has plunged Americans into a struggle to express their faith outside their homes and places of worship.

Forgotten in all this is that religion is also a proxy for morality. (And I say this as an irreligious individual.)


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

A Law Unto Themselves

Constitution, Founding Fathers, Healthcare, Justice, Law, The Courts

Why stage a judicial intervention when you can sit back and let the executive and the legislature accrue more power, a power that invariably will redound to the Courts as well?

On Monday, the High Court, which should check the other two branches of government—how is that working out?—decided against taking up “the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s surveillance program that collects bulk telephone data of millions of Americans.” (NJ)

When the Supreme Court has the chance to strike down rights-violating laws and legislation (like the Obamacare individual mandate)—it so often declines.

“Monday’s decision,” concludes the National Journal (too charitably, in my opinion), “reaffirms expectations that the justices would rather allow the issue to percolate within the circuit courts first.”

(At least NJ covers such stuff.)

In the case of Obama’s Affordable Care Act, John G. Roberts Jr., chief of the country’s legal politburo of proctologists, rewrote Obamacare, and then proceeded to provide the fifth vote to uphold the individual mandate undergirding the law, thereby undeniably and obscenely extending Congress’s taxing power.

Face it, the idea of a judiciary that would police the executive as an arm of a self-correcting tripartite government is worse than naive. Rather, it WAS recklessly naive of the American Founding Fathers to imagine that branches of a government, each of whose power is enhanced when the power of the other branches grows, would serve as a check on one another.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Perks Are For Perps With The Right Pigmentation

Crime, Family, Founding Fathers, IMMIGRATION

“Perks Are For Perps With The Right Pigmentation” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

If you’re a criminal alien with “family relationships” in the U.S., are studying on the American taxpayer’s dime, are the recipient of the “attention of [pro-amnesty] advocacy groups,” and have “been here a long time”; if you are the focus of “political considerations,” were in the midst of applying for legal status when, oops, you stumbled into crime, have made a career of traffic offenses or have violated state law the Obama administration does not want enforced (identity theft and fraud are examples); if charges are pending against you, but you have yet to be convicted—KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. You’re more than qualified for leniency, or for what the Obama administration has termed “prosecutorial discretion.” Deportation is no threat to you.

Congratulations! You’re on schedule for joining what the American Founding Fathers had hoped would be a commonwealth of virtue.

As for the youthful criminal alien who still has that certain, impish je ne sais quoi—why, he’ll qualify right away for this administration’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program. DACA is not quite the proposed DREAM Act, but it’ll get the offender all the benefits he can dream of—education, food stamps, health care, a shot at a job—and a reprieve from deportation.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the Obama administration’s “prosecutorial discretion criteria are allowing factors such as family relationships, political considerations, or attention from advocacy groups to trump criminal convictions as factors leading to deportation.”

In 2013, ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) released 68,000 criminal aliens back into the community. Much of their offenses were of the drunken-driving variety—among them were no homeschoolers on the lam from Germany, thank God! But, as FoxNews.com reported, the skill-sets in this sample of criminal aliens did include murder and rape.

For a second, I thought of encouraging my only sister, stuck in South Africa as she is, to live on the edge and consider becoming an illegal alien in the USA. It’s the easiest path to de facto permanent residency. No need for an education. No need for proficiency in the English language. “Press two for Spanish” is all the conversational eloquence required. Public charges are preferred. Ditto a vice or two. …

… Read the complete column. “Perks Are For Perps With The Right Pigmentation” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Surveillance For Thee But Not For Me

Constitution, Founding Fathers, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Politics, The State

Remember when the The Transportation Security Administrator dared to manhandle Sen. Rand Paul in the same way these goons grab our privates daily? Rand responded by telling CNN’s Erin Burnett, essentially, that the TSA folks were good people bogged down by inflexible rules. He followed up with special pleading, suggesting a system of sectional privileges and rights, based on professional need and proximity to power.

But that’s the way the system was destined to work. I know: This nerd’s lasting infatuation is with the unsung heroes of the American founding: the Anti-Federalists. And one of the Anti-Federalist essayists said that the Constitution creates a city or district in which power is concentrated. Once the elected representative (too few to represent anyone meaningfully) reached Rome on The Potomac—they would act as a cloistered, privileged ruling class, impervious to the people’s pleas.

And this has come to pass.

That phony, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), is furious that the CIA “has secretly removed documents from computers used by her panel to investigate a controversial interrogation program.” Lo and behold this bitch has “discovered” the Fourth Amendment and is bemoaning its violation. “The Fourth … bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance,” Feinstein preached.

Man of the people whistleblower Edward Snowden said all there is to say. He “accused the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee of double standards on Tuesday, pointing out that her outrage at evidence her staff were spied on by the CIA was not matched by concern about widespread surveillance of ordinary citizens.”

Snowden said almost all there is to say about the premise of surveillance for thee but not for me under which Americans labor.

It is eminently reasonable to surveil politicians. Because of the special privileges and powers they are able to arrogate to themselves, they ought to be exempt from many of the so-called protections afforded to ordinary citizens.

And of course, they should be denied the vote.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Bad Dreams From Dinesh D’Souza*

Federalism, Founding Fathers, Neoconservatism, States' Rights

What if Lincoln had not won the War of Northern Aggression?

According to the quintessential neoconservative, filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, had Lincoln lost, America would not be America. By which D’Souza means that the “union would not have existed. And America would be completely different.”

The Anti-Federalists warned that the creation of a national government would sunder the autonomous states and usher in an empire.

Indeed, if not for Lincoln, the US might have reverted back to a decentralized confederation of sovereign states (and slavery would have ended without bloodshed, as it did almost everywhere else).

“While a national government will add to the dignity and splendor of the United States,” wrote “A Farmer” (an anonymous anti-Federalist), in March of 1788, “true happiness lies in a simple quiet government.”

Before consolidation under the Constitution, Americans hardly had a government.

If only…

* Dreams from My Father is a book by Barack Obama.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint