Category Archives: Nationhood

Traitor-In-Chief Tattles On Arizona

Conservatism, Federalism, Glenn Beck, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Republicans, States' Rights, UN

Another turn of the screw for Arizona comes courtesy of the traitor-in-chief and his administration. A “Report of the United States of America Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner,” issued by the State Department, states the following, on page 23, under the heading “Values and Immigration”:

“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.”

Why would the traitor class’s actions surprise anyone? Abe Lincoln, whom Glenn Beck, tellingly, and thousands of Americans honored on the week-end, sicced American brothers on one another in order to sunder states’ rights and bring the sovereign states under his totalitarian thumb. (Yes, “TAKING AMERICA BACK MEANS TAKING LINCOLN DOWN.”) What’s a bit of tittle-tattle to the despotic Unites Nations by BHO’s administration, in comparison?

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is furious; she tends to foam incoherently instead of asking Kris Kobach to speak for her.

Brewer’s right and obligation to protect her citizens was, alas, defended on Fox News by Michael Reagan, with reference to the dangerous concept (in the hands of his ilk) of American exceptionalism. Apparently property rights and state sovereignty are not enough; American presidents must go forth and tout the the American State as a force for good in the world.

Hey, Michael and the Messiah have a lot in common. The first heading in the just-mentioned report the US is mandated to hand over to the global government reads:

“A more perfect union, a more perfect world.” Out of Honest Abe’s mouth (Which corner? That fork tongue spoke out of both).

Danish-Style Welfare

America, Democracy, Europe, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Political Philosophy, Socialism, The State, Welfare

“The pigs to which the politicians pander outnumber—and are electorally stronger than—the productive whom they plunder. The first are feeding off the second and will not let-up. To remove or not to remove the teat of the Welfare State from its primary beneficiaries: that will be the question on the Tuesday following the first Monday, in November.” Indeed, fewer and fewer are working to feed more and more Americans. USA Today has the latest astounding figures:

“Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.

More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That’s up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.

“Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record,” says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.

The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. ‘Private physicians are already indicating that they’re at their limit,’ says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.

Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.”

[SNIP]

Statism Starts With Us!

Some time ago Oprah Winfrey discovered that the welfare state of Denmark was home to the happiest people in the world. She and others (Bill O’Reilly and his “Cultural Cretins” opposed her observations for no intelligent reason) have put this happiness down to “Free health care, education and long leave for new parents … A simple life and a strong social system.”

Copenhagen is one of the world’s most environmentally conscious cities. A third of the population rides bikes, many with groceries and kids in tow. Homelessness and poverty are extremely low here. If you lose your job, the government continues to pay up to 90 percent of your salary for four years. You’re never going to be homeless on the street.

I suspect that what makes “Denmark one of the best places on earth to live, according to American talk show star Oprah Winfrey” has quite a bit to do with fellow feelings of unity. Denmark is still relatively homogeneous, with a migration rate of 2.48 migrant(s)/1,000 population.

Multiculturalism immiserates.

It is also a tiny country of only 5.5 million people. A welfare state can chug along if it is small and well-managed. A welfare sytem consisting of 310 million people is doomed.

More importantly: If a good majority in a culturally homogeneous country has agreed on such a system of welfare, it is more likely to make them happy.

Moreover, direct-democracy initiatives on crucial matters are more prevalent in Europe than in the US. I mean, if you are going to suffer the blight of democracy, at least make it a direct democracy as a representative one is on par with tyranny:

“Of the constitutional provisions for mandatory constitutional referendums, those of Denmark, Ireland and Switzerland have been put into practice. In these states, mandatory referendums are required on all constitutional ]matters], whereas in Spain and in Austria mandatory referendums required only on fundamental changes to the constitution, and in Iceland only on certain types of constitutional amendments.”

“The Danish case illustrates how the referendum has been adopted as an institution that limits the powers of parliamentary majorities. The mandatory referendum was first adopted in Denmark in 1915 to compensate the abolition of the requirement that constitutional changes should be passed in two subsequent parliaments.”

UPDATED: Stoning: It Takes A Village

Islam, Middle East, Military, Nationhood, Religion

The Taliban did it is the spin in the media about the stoning to death of a young couple in northern Afghanistan. The many spectators who gathered to watch the stoning, as one news report alleged, were Taliban men. Executioners.

“The woman, Sadiqa, was 20 years old and engaged to another man, said the Kunduz provincial police chief, Gen. Abdul Raza Yaqoubi. Her lover, 28-year-old Qayum, left his wife to run away with her, and the two had holed up in a friend’s house five days ago, said district government head, Mohammad Ayub Aqyar.”

“They were discovered by Taliban operatives on Sunday and stoned to death in front a crowd of about 150 men,” wrote another report. “First the woman was brought out and stoned, then the man a half an hour later.”

Still other reports emphasized that the Afghan government has condemned the barbaric act and that it was the only stoning since the US occupied this backward country. (The only one that we know of.)

The New York Times gives an honest account of this blood sport:

“The punishment was carried out by hundreds of the victims’ neighbors in a village in northern Kunduz Province, according to Nadir Khan, 40, a local farmer and Taliban sympathizer, who was interviewed by telephone. Even family members were involved, both in the stoning and in tricking the couple into returning after they had fled.”

It takes a nation of lunatics to imagine they can transform a country like this one.

UPDATE (Aug. 18): “It worked with Germany, didn’t it?” I’m convinced Nora is being cynical. She can’t be comparing the nation that gave us Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, Johannes Brahms, Thomas Mann, Immanuel Kant, Mercedes-Benz, on-and-on, to the people who gave us the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (say no more). She’s being funny. Besides, American welfare didn’t rehabilitate Germany post WWII; German genius and graft did. Even with an enormously debilitating welfare state, Germans are still the most productive, ingenious people in Europe.

UPDATED: It Takes An Indian

History, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, Nationhood

To tell it like it is. An American Indian. This may be well-ploughed territory to readers of this space, but it can’t be said often enough. “America is not a nation of immigrants. America is a nation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants,” writes David Yeagley at AltRight. “Everyone else is an immigrant. Even the early Celtic add-ons were not part of the foundations. The later Irish Catholic immigrants were most definitely not part of the foundations. The social order, that is, the government of the colonies, and that system which distilled into the Declaration of Independence, was created by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The Constitution of the United States of America is the work of Englishman who separated themselves, by war, from their home country.”

“Modern descendants of the Scots, the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Jews, etc., are first to declare that America is a nation of immigrants. This is their self-protection. Therefore this is their talking point when it comes to addressing the issue of immigration in general. But their mantra ‘America is a nation of immigrants’ only justifies their own presence here. The fact is, these people are all additions, not founders. All of the early immigrants, besides the Jews, have of course blended themselves into the founding sentiments. It was easier for the Scots than anyone else, because they were ‘British’ anyway.”

***
About left-liberal Jewish strategising, which is no different to the wimpy, lemming’s lunacy evinced by their WASP counterparts, THE BAD EAGLE says the following:

At this point, the argument that other non-WASP groups must be nurtured and honored by the Jew, in order for the Jew to protect himself from persecution, is a dangerous argument, and really ought to be dropped. It invites anti-Americanism. This in turn invites anti-Semitism

The argument is also self-defeating, as I observed in my 2003 “BLAME THE JEWS”:

“MacDonald’s assertion that Jews support open immigration policies so that they can bring about a more diverse society in order to diminish anti-Semitism and promote ‘Jewish ethnic interests’ must be questioned, especially in the post-September 11 world.”

Jews have little to gain by advocating for minority communities with which they haven’t much in common, culturally or socioeconomically, and who are likely to be hostile to them. How does promoting immigration from Muslim countries, for instance, benefit Jewish interests?
Jewish activism, if anything, is self-defeating as a group strategy. The community’s egalitarianism is thus more accurately seen as a function of liberal pathology, the same pathology so many Christian denominations exhibit – they all believe, mistakenly, that they are promoting ‘social justice.’
All in all, the paleoconservatives’ attempts to blame Jews for pervasive gentile madness, such as Mr. Bush’s war in Iraq, his lingering presence in Afghanistan, multiculturalism and ‘mass, non-traditional-immigration,’ is too silly to sustain, but, at the same time, a little sinister. (Next, MacDonald will hold Jews responsible for loading the Episcopal Church with homosexuals.)

[SNIP]

If you are interested, David interviewed me a while back, as part of a series of interviews with rightists about “Patriotism, Nationhood, and the American Indian.”

UPDATE (Aug. 15): From “Nation, State & Mass Immigration”:

“To say that America is a ‘nation of immigrants,’” writes commentator Lawrence Auster, “is to imply that there has never been an actual American people apart from immigration.”

It is to put America out of existence as a historically existing nation that immigrants and their children joined by coming here, a country with its own right to exist and to determine its own sovereign destiny—a right that includes the right to permit immigration or not. No patriot, no decent person who loves this country, as distinct from loving some whacked-out, anti-national, leftist idea of this country, would call it a ‘nation of immigrants.’

The people who established the American political order, described by Thomas Jefferson as “a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution … derived from natural right and natural reason,” were overwhelmingly British Christians. America’s Anglo-Saxon historical majority descends not from immigrants, but from English and Scots-Irish colonists. Over to Auster:

The immigrants of the late 19th and 20th centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Therefore to call America ‘a nation of immigrants’ is to suggest that America, prior to the late 19th-century wave of European immigration, was not America.”