Some of you asked to see the family’s arsenal (I’m glad readers presumed there was such a thing. That means you’ve come to know something about how I think.) Sorry; that would be a tad tacky, so here’s what’s new on the Images Page:
Prof. Paul Gottfried on 'La-Raza Libertarians'
IMMIGRATION, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism
The intrepid Professors Paul Gottfried writes the following in response to “La-Raza Libertarians“:
May Heaven bless you for raising these politically incorrect issues! Right now I’m looking at the tracts of a candidate for international relations at our college, who praises the West Germans for being so “wracked with guilt” that they handed over their country to Muslim immigrants.
As the descendant of people whom the Nazis chased out of Europe, I don’t feel compensated by the lunatic decision to deliver that straying continent into the hands of Islamicists. In fact I wouldn’t want these immigrants and asylum-seekers invading Europe from the Third World, whether or not they collect welfare benefits once they reach their destination.
It is essential that we keep making the distinction between favoring the free market whether here, in Israel, or in Europe, and encouraging the lunatic leftist ideology of open borders. What makes the view that you assailed yesterday particularly dishonest is that no one who expresses it wants us to stop Third World underclass immigration until we have abolished the welfare state. They are simply making excuses for not noticing who comes here.
—Paul Gottfried
Prof. Paul Gottfried on ‘La-Raza Libertarians’
IMMIGRATION, Islam, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism
The intrepid Professors Paul Gottfried writes the following in response to “La-Raza Libertarians“:
May Heaven bless you for raising these politically incorrect issues! Right now I’m looking at the tracts of a candidate for international relations at our college, who praises the West Germans for being so “wracked with guilt” that they handed over their country to Muslim immigrants.
As the descendant of people whom the Nazis chased out of Europe, I don’t feel compensated by the lunatic decision to deliver that straying continent into the hands of Islamicists. In fact I wouldn’t want these immigrants and asylum-seekers invading Europe from the Third World, whether or not they collect welfare benefits once they reach their destination.
It is essential that we keep making the distinction between favoring the free market whether here, in Israel, or in Europe, and encouraging the lunatic leftist ideology of open borders. What makes the view that you assailed yesterday particularly dishonest is that no one who expresses it wants us to stop Third World underclass immigration until we have abolished the welfare state. They are simply making excuses for not noticing who comes here.
—Paul Gottfried
Letter of the Week: War Powers by John Danforth
John Danforth responds to “A Republic, if You Can Keep It…”:
The Constitution of the United States of America has become just a decoration in some museum in Washington DC. Its words are platitudes, phrases to be used whenever the ACLU wants to sound scholarly. The populace has been government schooled in studious avoidance of the subject; ignorance of the constitution is fashionable, and this extends to members of congress.
I saw a snippet of an interview with our President the other day. I saw him say that he didn’t question the patriotism of those who opposed this latest bill, but he just sees things differently. He said, in his view, that we are at war, and they don’t see it that way.
This is where the equivocation comes in. We are at war, but not really. Just like other “Wars” we have been in, but weren’t really. I can dredge up from my rusty memory that the constitution explicitly says that congress has the power to declare war, and that the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. Although newer laws and bills have been passed, whereby congress gave assent to the use of force, still, we are NOT at war (at least not legally).
If we are not in a state of war, the U.S. government has no business trying to assert war-time emergency powers (which ought to be limited as well.) The Founding Fathers knew of the dangers of perpetual mini-wars. I believe that is why they tried to prevent them with the wording in our constitution. The threat of real war is intended to be something that our enemies and our citizenry will consider very seriously and very cautiously.
Just as with the commerce clause and amendments to the constitution, if the distinctions drawn by the authors of it can be fuzzed out of our ‘six-pack and ball game’ consciousness, then the fact that we are ‘sort of’ at war can allow the government to ‘sort of’ erode the foundations of our rights, and then only the ACLU will ‘sort of’ argue against the portions of a bill that don’t fit with their socialist agenda.
The attack on rational epistemology that started so long ago and has resulted in the United States adopting many of the planks of the Communist Manifesto–has now begun to bear real rotten fruit. We can justify the constitutionality of virtually anything, especially if the Supreme Court says so.
Pass me the laughing gas, I need another hit. I’m feeling like I don’t fit in around here.
—John Danforth