UPDATED: Kippah Or Hijab, The Statue of Liberty Is NOT A Symbol Of Immigration Or Immigrants

America, Conservatism, Free Speech, History, IMMIGRATION, Liberty, Logic

Some Democrat, Rep. J. Luis Correa, hung a painting in his office of the Statue of Liberty wearing a hijab.

Conservatives are outraged. Some, like Ms. Pamela Geller, say the “Painting Is Offensive to Every Immigrant Fleeing Sharia Oppression.”

But consider: Would the Statue of Liberty wearing a kippah be more correct, less offensive? What about the Statue of Liberty draped like a Buddhist monk?

The philosophically correct point should be that the Statue of Liberty isn’t a symbol for immigrants or of immigration; it’s an American symbol. It should take on no foreign garb, however philosophically appropriate an immigrant may think his traditional dress is.

Of course, freedom of speech means you draw whatever floats your boat.

UPDATE (8/11): Facebook thread.

Comments Off on UPDATED: Kippah Or Hijab, The Statue of Liberty Is NOT A Symbol Of Immigration Or Immigrants

The Closest We’ll Get To A W A L L Is A W A R. With North Korea

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, John McCain, War

Tuesday, President Donald Trump warned: “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

For his reckless threat against North Korea, President Trump was castigated by John McCain—composer of the jingoistic jingle, “Bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran,” whose favorite word in the dictionary is “war.” Pot. Kettle. Black:

McCain said he was unsure if that rhetoric constituted a threat of military action, but said that most previous presidents wouldn’t make a threat unless they were ready to act.
“I don’t know what he’s saying and I’ve long ago given up trying to interpret what he says,” the Senator told KTAR. “It’s not terrible but it’s kind of the classic Trump in that he overstates things.” He noted, however, that Trump’s remarks could be pivotal in escalating a confrontation with North Korea, which could ultimately endanger South Korea in what he said could be a catastrophic scenario.

The governor of Guam, a sensible man, was more concerned about “Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) [an awful man] for apparently being open to an all-out conflict in the western Pacific. Graham said on CBS News that he does not want a war with North Korea, but ‘if there’s going to be a war, it’s going to be in the [Pacific] region.'”

“As far as I’m concerned, as an American citizen, I want a president that says that if any nation such as North Korea attack Guam, attack Honolulu, attack the west coast, they will be met with Hell and fury,” said [Eddie Calvo].

So far, it looks like the closest we’ll get to a W A L L is a W A R. With North Korea.

NEW ESSAY: The Anti-Federalists Were Right

Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, History, Individual Rights, States' Rights

The Anti-Federalists Were Right,” is now on Mises Wire. Excerpt:

On the eve of the federal convention, and following its adjournment in September of 1787, the Anti-Federalists made the case that the Constitution makers in Philadelphia had exceeded the mandate they were given to amend the Articles of Confederation, and nothing more.

The Federal Constitution augured ill for freedom, argued the Anti-Federalists. These unsung heroes had warned early Americans of the “ropes and chains of consolidation,” in Patrick Henry’s magnificent words, inherent in the new dispensation.

At the very least, and after 230 years of just such “consolidation,” it’s safe to say that the original Constitution is a dead letter.

The natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders’ original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

Consider: America’s Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.

There is simply no warrant in the Constitution for most of what the Federal Frankenstein does. …

… READ THE REST. “The Anti-Federalists Were Right” is now on Mises Wire.

UPDATED (8/27): Progressive Magazine Mother Jones Does A Fake-News Number On Mercer

Free Speech, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Race

Writers Sarah Posner and David Neiwert, of the large progressive magazine Mother Jones, list me and quote me in an article (Sep. 21, 2016) by this title “Meet the Horde of Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and Other Extremist Leaders Endorsing Donald Trump: The Republican nominee for president has not disavowed any of them.

But there is nothing remotely “Neo-Nazi, Klansman-like, extremist,” or “white nationalist” in the Mercer quote excerpted by Mother Jones. And, there is one lie courtesy of Mother Jones’ intrepid fact-checkers. See for yourself:

Ilana Mercer

Author of The Trump Revolution, and a contributor to VDare.com [I’m not! I’ve written a few pieces for VDARE, but I am not a contributor at VDARE. Ask editor Peter Brimelow.]

Endorsement: Trump is “a political Samson that threatens to bring the den of iniquity crashing down on its patrons,” Mercer wrote in her book, published in June 2016.

In her own words: Mercer also wrote in her book that Trump is “a man who won’t grovel to the Powers That Be and who has refused to submit to the precepts of Cultural Marxism, namely the tyranny that sees speech policed for impropriety and individuals stigmatized and isolated for thinking and speaking in a manner disallowed by the politically correct police.”

Where’s the “Neo-Nazi, Klansman-like, extremist” or “white nationalist” elements in this excerpt?

UPDATE (8/27): Ditto the Southern Poverty Law Center, in “The Daily Caller has a White Nationalist Problem.”