Category Archives: Nationhood

NEW COLUMN: Do We Still Have A Country? Part I

Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Law, Nationhood, Natural Law, Private Property

NEW COLUMN, on Townhall.com, is “Do We Still Have A Country? Part I.” It’s accompanied by an abridged YouTube clip.

An excerpt:

How do you know you don’t have a country?

Simply this:

Every single passive, non-aggressive act you take to repel people crossing your borders is considered de facto illegal, or inhumane, or in violation of international law, or in contraventions of some hidden clause in the U.S. Constitution.

So say the experts and their newly minted jurisprudence.

You may tell a toddler, “You can’t go there.” But you may not tell an illegal trespasser, “Hey, turn back. You can’t come into the U.S. at whim.”

Please understand that not giving someone something they demand or desire is a negative act. Or, more accurately, an inaction.

You are not actively doing anything to harm that person by denying them something.

Unless, of course, what you are denying them is their right to their life, their right to their liberty, their right to their property. Those are the only things you may not deny to innocent others. These interlopers do not have a right to, or a lien on, your liberty and property.

But if you cannot say to millions of people streaming across your border, into your turf, “Hey, you can’t go there.” Then it’s simple:

We don’t have a country.

Oh sure, we have a territory. America is a market place for goods and services. A mighty one at that. It’s a market place to which millions arrive each year to make a living and engage in acts of acquisitiveness. ….

… READ THE REST. “Do We Still Have A Country? Part I” is on Townhall.com.

UPDATED (7/6): NEW COLUMN: A July Fourth Toast To Thomas Jefferson—And The Declaration

America, Founding Fathers, History, Nationhood, The West

“Let us, then, toast Thomas Jefferson—and the Anglo-Saxon tradition that sired and inspired him.”Ilana Mercer, July 4, 2019

WND: By Ilana Mercer

The Declaration of Independence—whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate—has been mocked out of meaning.

To be fair to the liberal Establishment, ordinary Americans are not entirely blameless. For most, Independence Day means firecrackers and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. In fact, contemporary Americans are less likely to read it now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. Printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet,” recounts historian David Hackett Fischer in Liberty And Freedom. And President (of the Continental Congress) John Hancock urged that the “people be universally informed.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” An examination of Jefferson‘s constitutional thought makes plain that he would no longer consider the mind of the collective mentality of the D.C. establishment, “American” in any meaningful way. For the Jeffersonian mind was that of an avowed Whig—an American Whig whose roots were in the English Whig political philosophy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

By “all men are created equal,” Jefferson, who also wrote in praise of a “Natural Aristocracy,” did not imply that all men were similarly endowed. Or that they were entitled to healthcare, education, amnesty, and a decent wage, à la Obama.

Rather, Jefferson was affirming the natural right of “all men” to be secure in their enjoyment of their “life, liberty and possessions.”

This is the very philosophy Hillary Clinton explicitly disavowed during one of the mindless presidential debates of 2007. Asked by a YouTubester to define “liberal,” Hillary revealed she knew full-well that the word originally denoted the classical liberalism of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. But she then settled on “progressive” as the appropriate label for her Fabian socialist plank.

Contra Clinton, as David N. Mayer explains in The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson, colonial Americans were steeped in the writings of English Whigs—John Locke, Algernon Sidney, Paul Rapin, Thomas Gordon and others. The essence of this “pattern of ideas and attitudes,” almost completely lost today, was a view of government as an inherent threat to liberty and the necessity for eternal vigilance.

Jefferson, in particular, was adamant about the imperative “to be watchful of those in power,” a watchfulness another Whig philosopher explained thus: “Considering what sort of Creature Man is, it is scarce possible to put him under too many Restraints, when he is possessed of great Power.”

“As Jefferson saw it,” expounds Mayer, “the Whig, zealously guarding liberty, was suspicious of the use of government power,” and assumed “not only that government power was inherently dangerous to individual liberty but also that, as Jefferson put it, ‘the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.’”

For this reason, the philosophy of government that Jefferson articulated in the Declaration radically shifted sovereignty from parliament to the people.

But Jefferson‘s muse for the “American Mind” is even older.

The Whig tradition is undeniably Anglo-Saxon. Our founding fathers’ political philosophy originated with their Saxon forefathers, and the ancient rights guaranteed by the Saxon constitution. With the Declaration, Jefferson told Henry Lee in 1825, he was also protesting England‘s violation of her own ancient tradition of natural rights. As Jefferson saw it, the Colonies were upholding a tradition the Crown had abrogated.

Philosophical purist that he was, moreover, Jefferson considered the Norman Conquest to have tainted this English tradition with the taint of feudalism. “To the Whig historian,” writes Mayer, “the whole of English constitutional history since the Conquest was the story of a perpetual claim kept up by the English nation for a restoration of Saxon laws and the ancient rights guaranteed by those laws.”

If Jefferson begrudged the malign influence of the Normans on the natural law he cherished, imagine how he’d view our contemporary cultural conquistadors from the South, whose customs preclude natural rights and natural reason!

Naturally, Jefferson never entertained the folly that he was of immigrant stock. He considered the English settlers of America courageous conquerors, much like his Saxon forebears, to whom he compared them. To Jefferson, early Americans were the contemporary carriers of the Anglo-Saxon project.

The settlers spilt their own blood “in acquiring lands for their settlement,” he wrote with pride in A Summary View of the Rights of British America. “For themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have right to hold.” Thus they were “entitled to govern those lands and themselves.”

For the edification of libertarians prone to vulgar individualism, the Declaration of Independence is at once a statement of individual and national sovereignty.

And, notwithstanding the claims of the multicultural noise machine, the Declaration was as mono-cultural as its author.

Let us, then, toast Thomas Jefferson—and the Anglo-Saxon tradition that sired and inspired him.

©By ILANA MERCER

* Image courtesy of WND.

UPDATE (7/6/019):

 
“She is brilliant!
Many a radio host intimidated by her writing and brains. Otherwise she would be on many shows.”
“What an inspiring, informative, patriotic, reasoned, accurately historical article is this! I learned a lot, especially from the British end of things. Much gratitude for this substantial article — and admiration for its able writer! God bless you and yours…”
 

NEW COLUMN: Trump Barters For Borders — And Wins, Big Time

Democrats, Free Markets, IMMIGRATION, Justice, Nationhood, Natural Law, Republicans

NEW COLUMN IS “Trump Barters For Borders — And Wins, Big Time.” It’s currently on the Unz Review and WND.COM.

RELATED at Townhall.com: “Why The Mighty USA Must Beg Mexico To Police Its Border.”

Excerpt:

If President Trump doesn’t waver, his border deal with Mexico will be a victory. The Mexicans have agreed to quit serving as conduits to hundreds of thousands of central Americans headed for the U.S.A.

Despite protests from Democrats, stateside—Mexico has agreed to significantly increase enforcement on its borders.

At first, Mexico was as defiant as the Democrats—and some Republicans.

Democrats certainly can be counted on to argue for the other side—any side other than the so-called sovereign people they swore to represent.

In fairness to the Democrats, Republicans are only notionally committed to the tough policing of the border. And certainly not if policing the porous border entails threatening trade tariffs against our neighborly narco-state. Some Republican senators even considered a vote to block the tariffs.

Nevertheless, to the hooting and hollering of the cretins in Congress and media, Trump went ahead and threatened Mexico with tariffs.

More than that. The president didn’t just tweet out “strong words” and taunts.

Since Mexico, the party duopoly, and his own courts have forced his hand, the president proceeded to “retrieve from his arsenal a time bomb of ruinous proportions.”

Or, so the Economist hyperventilated …

READ “Trump Barters For Borders — And Wins, Big Time,” on the Unz Review and WND.COM.

RELATED at Townhall.com: “Why The Mighty USA Must Beg Mexico To Police Its Border.”

* Image courtesy of the Unz Review.

Government’s Funneling Illegals From Ebola Hot-Spots Into YOUR Communities

Government, Healthcare, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Republicans

Republicans are awfully silent about the scandal that is the southwest border. One cans safely state that Republicans make the border an issue only when they are running for office.

Unscreened individuals from disease hot-spots in Africa and central America are being given safe passage into your communities. “No special screening, extra scrutiny, or quarantine required.”

Republicans refuse to perform their constitutional duty to protect their citizens from an onslaught. Watch them wake up, conveniently, when the Democrats are in power.

On the other hand, The dumb Democrats would win hands down in 2020 if they screamed bloody blue murder over the criminal negligence, ostensibly under the Republicans, on the border.

REMEMBER: “Whether they’re armed with bombs or bacteria, stopping weaponized invaders from harming Americans falls within the purview of the U.S. government. The government’s basic duty is to protect America from health and safety threats, both foreign and domestic.” (See “Will CDC Trace Polio-Like Outbreak, Or Just Shout ‘Racism’?“)

But we Deplorables just accept dereliction that borders on treason.

550 African migrants were just caught in Texas. DHS head says they aren’t being screened for Ebola“:

The border crisis is no longer exclusively a problem of illegal Central American migrants. As word spreads of the collapse of border enforcement, the number of migrants from Africa continues to increase. The threat of bringing in dangerous diseases is higher than ever, yet there are no mandatory and universal screenings, quarantines, or detention before illegal immigrants are released into our communities, often within hours.

According to preliminary weekly data used internally by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and given to CR by a Border Patrol agent who must remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the press, over 550 African migrants were apprehended in Texas in just one week – from May 30 through June 5. The lion’s share were from the Democratic Republic of Congo, the country with the worst Ebola outbreak in the world.

With great clarity, author Daniel Horowitz, argues that,

So why is [Trump’s guy) McAleenan himself not requiring such a process, and if such a process is unfeasible given the numbers, shouldn’t these people be inadmissible rather than being released? Asylum does not trump the medically inadmissible statutes of 8 U.S.C. 1182. In other words, if the criminal smuggling conspiracy is so successful that it results in catastrophic numbers jamming our border, why should that strengthen the claim of the aliens to be released without following medical quarantine rather than strengthen the claim of the American sovereign to keep them out

?