Advertisement

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Amnesty and the Sucker Nation

posted by Jack Kerwick

You are an employer. One of your employees has spent years neglecting the most basic duty of his position.  When you call him on it for the umpteenth time, he reassures you that he will get it right this time. But to do so, he must assume other duties in addition to his original one.

As this person’s employer, would you accept his word?

You are the spouse of a chronic philanderer.  After years of enduring one betrayal after the other, you’ve finally had enough.  He begs you not to leave and promises once more that he will stop his tireless cheating. Only this time, he tells you that for this to happen, he will also put an end to all of his other irritating habits: leaving his socks lying around, leaving his whiskers in the sink, leaving the toiletseat up, etc.

Advertisement

As this person’s spouse, would you accept his word?

These questions are rhetorical: no employer and no spouse with an ounce of sense could fail to see these promises for the worthless gestures that they are.

A person who repeatedly failed to do the job for which he was hired is much more likely than not to find himself without a job.  But even if, for some reason—like tenure, say, or his membership in a union—he isn’t fired, only the most wildly irrational of employers would think that if only this employee has more duties delegated to him will he then shape up.

And while a spouse may stay with her cheating spouse even as he continues to cheat, there is no one so foolish to think that if only he devotes himself to discharging more of the obligations that he has heretofore violated will he then discharge this one obligation.

Advertisement

“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”  In our private relationships, there are fewer statements that more resonate with us than this.  When it comes to our relationship with our government, however, it is as if its meaning was utterly alien to us.

When those in the federal government advocate, as they now do once more, on behalf of amnesty, they are like the derelict employee and the philanderer from these examples.

Our government is useless if it doesn’t secure our nation’s borders.  This task is one of the few responsibilities that the United States Constitution assigns to it, a duty that it has failed miserably to execute.  So, because the government hasn’t done its job, because it hasn’t honored its promise to protect its citizens, we now have what our government assures us is an untenable situation, a crisis that demands immediate attention:

Advertisement

At a minimum, 11 million illegal aliens are living in our midst.

What should be done? Our office holders from both parties, from Barack Obama to Marco Rubio, tell us that these millions of people who entered America illegally and, thus, broke a number of other laws since their arrival, must now be placed on a “pathway to citizenship.” 

They must be granted amnesty.  They must be permitted to stay here.

Read: our elected representatives failed to avail themselves of the endless opportunities that they’ve had to keep their promise and now the rest of us are told that we have to deal with the consequences of their abdication of duty—irrespective of the costs.

Yet there is more.

Not only do we have to suffer the effects of our representatives’ refusal to do the one thing that they pledged to do.  We are now told that the only remedy available for reducing this damage is one that they have already tried before, back in 1986,  a “solution” that actually—and predictably—added to the damage.

Advertisement

But this isn’t the worst of it.

As it turns out, things aren’t looking all that bleak after all, to hear our amnesty apologists in Washington D.C. tell it.  Never again will Americans have to worry about this illegal immigration thing.  Never again will they have to worry about the government doing its job and securing the borders. What will make the future different from the past is that in the future, the government won’t have to worry about fulfilling just this job. It will now have this job and a whole lot of other jobs to do. 

That’s right.

The same federal government that couldn’t just secure America’s borders before is now promising us that it will be able to do this much and everything else that is contained in this latest rendition of “comprehensive immigration reform.” 

Anyone who buys this is a sucker.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

And shame on the federal government that never seems to tire of trying to fool the American citizen—particularly when it comes to the issue of amnesty.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

Amnesty: Racial Pandering Is Not the Way for GOP

posted by Jack Kerwick

Because Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to three million mostly Hispanic immigrants in 1986, Republicans feel all but compelled to grant amnesty to eleven million such immigrants in 2013. 

When asked why Republicans are more open to pursuing “a pathway to citizenship” today than they were just a few years back, John McCain offered a reply that is refreshing for its frankness: “Elections.  Elections.”  The Republican senator fromArizona, former presidential candidate, and long-time supporter of amnesty explained: “The Republican Party is losing the support of Hispanic citizens.”

Numerous polls have indicated that McCain’s assessment is flat out wrong, that “Hispanic citizens”—i.e. those Hispanics that are here legally—are about as opposed to illegal immigration as is the average American.  Such polls shouldn’t be necessary, though, to see that amnesty does not promise to be a winning ticket for the GOP. There is one simple fact that should make this plain:

Advertisement

The GOP remains chronically unpopular among Hispanics in spite of the fact that it was a Republican president that granted the one and only amnesty for Hispanic immigrants that this country has had.

But if it isn’t their resistance to amnesty, it may be asked, then why do Hispanics continue to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?

To answer this question, we need to do something that few politicians from either party are willing to do: speak truthfully.  And the truth is this: the reason that Hispanics, along with blacks and Asians, vote in massive numbers for Democrats has everything to do with racial politics.

Everyone knows this.  Few people are willing to say it.

There aren’t many things in American politics capable of commanding a trans-racial consensus.  That the Democratic Party is the party of entitlements, though, is something that is recognized by Americans of all colors and creeds. And let’s face it: a growing number of Americans, of all races, find the offer of something for nothing irresistible.

Advertisement

Yet for non-whites, the Democrats’ lure is that much more powerful, for the Democratic Party is also universally recognized as the party of so-called “affirmative action,” of endless privileges and benefits for racial minorities.

The professional and monetary benefits to be had from voting Democrat are enough to attract many non-whites.  For others, however, the attraction runs more deeply than this. 

The Republican Party, both its leadership and its rank-and-file, consists primarily of whites.  In our new, multicultural America of which, as TIME magazine said, Barack Obama is both “symbol” and “author,” this alone is enough to render it suspect. But it also consists of whites who repeatedly talk about “personal responsibility,” “individualism,” “capitalism,” “the Founders,” “the Constitution,” “the Declaration of Independence,” etc.—words that, thanks to the tireless labors of race activists, are taken by many non-whites as “code” for racism.

Advertisement

There is no small number of non-whites who don’t so much vote for the Democratic Party as vote against “the racist” Republican Party.

Whether it is 1100 or 11 million Hispanic immigrants who are granted amnesty, it is this many voters who the Democrats can add to their base. Obviously, the Democrats know this, for if not, they would not be leaning on the Republicans to endorse it.  Just as Democrats do Republicans no good turn in telling them which candidates they should run for office, they do them no good turn in telling them that amnesty is the key for Republicans to win future elections!

But let’s play along here for a moment.  If Republicans want to expand their “outreach” efforts, maybe in addition to amnesty, they should consider doing some of the following.

Advertisement

First, they should voluntarily relinquish some of their seats in Congress and hand them over to the Hispanics, blacks, and Asians of their choosing. 

Second, they should become the most unapologetic apologists for socialism, affirmative action, Spanish as our first language, and the end of a “war on drugs” that has left a disproportionately large number of young black and Hispanic males incarcerated and dead. 

Third, they must forswear all talk of a “War on Terror” or “Islamism” or whatever they want to call it, for whatever name they assign to the belligerents upon whom they would have the U.S. military set its sights, those belligerents are non-white.  How can Republicans expect to win elections if they are seen by non-whites as the white party that wishes to go to war with non-whites?

Advertisement

The truth of the matter is that as long as there remains a Democrat Party that non-whites can call home, there will be nothing that Republicans can do to keep them from flocking to it.

A strategy other than racial pandering is in order. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

Ilana Mercer v. Judge Napolitano: A Look at Two Types of Libertarianism

posted by Jack Kerwick

It looks like some 11 million illegal third world immigrants will soon become American citizens as Congress prepares to provide for them “a pathway to citizenship.” 

Amnesty is coming our way.

Meanwhile, another event makes national news as it is announced that women will no longer be prohibited from engaging in combat. 

A certain type of libertarian cheers both developments, and for good reason: underlying both is one and the same conception of liberty.

That is to say, the idea underwriting both of these issues is the idea that liberty or freedom is as self-evident and universal as is the most basic statements of mathematics. It is an idea of liberty that is as indifferent—utterly, thoroughly indifferent—to culture and history as is 2 + 2 = 4. 

Advertisement

Though they broke American laws in so doing, those millions of immigrants who entered our country illegally were simply acting on their “right,” their liberty, to pursue happiness for themselves and their children.  Similarly, women have “a right,” a liberty, to fight to on the front lines of war if they so choose.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is an example of a type of libertarian who thinks along these lines.  

The Judge eviscerated Arizona Governor Jan Brewer when she signed SB 1070 to help Arizonans deal with the ravages of illegal immigration that it had been suffering for years.  And he also has never put up any kind of resistance to amnesty.  Instead, Napolitano has remarked that if “our rights come from our Creator—as the Declaration of Independence declares,” then “how can they differ because of where our mothers were when we were born?”

Advertisement

With respect to the administration’s decision to lift the ban on women in combat, Napolitano claimed to be “thrilled.”  While on a Fox News panel last week, the Judge noted what he perceived to be the irony involved in the fact that it is a “collectivist president” who has decided “that people should be judged as individuals and not as members of groups [.]”  Napolitano lavished praise upon the President for relegating to the dustbin of history “the old military prejudices against…women,” ideas rooted, “not in facts,” but “often…in ignorance, bias and prejudice [.]”

This latest development, Napolitano believes, is a victory for liberty and individualism, for “each person in the military will [now] be judged for combat, leadership and command based on their skills and ability—not some group they are a member of based on the consequence of birth” (Emphasis added).

Advertisement

For this type of libertarian, a person’s gender, like his or her race, ethnicity, culture, and history itself, is a mere “consequence of birth.”  There is another type of libertarian, however—a conservative libertarian, if you will.

The great apostle of modern day conservatism, Edmund Burke, is among the more well known representatives of this type.  For our generation, though, it is to a Jewish woman, a former resident of Israel and South Africa and the daughter of a Rabbi, to whom conservative libertarians can turn to find their most able defender.  Her name is Ilana Mercer.

Mercer recently singled out Judge Napolitano’s brand of libertarianism as “left-libertarianism.”  Left libertarians like Napolitano, she notes, regard “liberty” as “an abstraction. Apply it ‘properly,’” she says, “and it will work everywhere and always.” 

Advertisement

From the perspective of left-libertarianism, “liberty is propositional—a deracinated idea, unmoored from the reality of history, biology, tradition, hierarchy.” 

In reality, Mercer continues, liberty has a “civilizational dimension.” It cannot be reduced, as left-libertarians would have us think, to the sole principle that no person should aggress against another. 

Though a Ron Paul supporter, and no fan of any of his rivals in the GOP presidential primaries, Mercer took the Congressman to task when he blasted Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum for allegedly disliking Muslims and Muslims and gays, respectively.  “A candidate who dismissed the national questions, namely immigration, affirmative action, the centrality to America of Christianity and the English language, etc.—fails to appreciate the civilizational dimension of ordered liberty,” she wrote.

Advertisement

Burke would agree.  So too would many of America’s founders agree with Mercer that liberty must be “ordered.”

These great advocates for ordered liberty would also agree with her verdict that when liberty is defined against “the consequences of birth,” as the Judge Napolitanos of the world define it, it degenerates into disorder.

 

Advertisement

The Final Part of My Interview With Leftist Academic Leon Marlensky

posted by Jack Kerwick

Below is the fourth and final part of my interview with leftist academic, Dr. Leon Marlensky.

JK: Getting back to my original question: If women and—

LM: At the risk of sounding rude, may I interject just one more time?

JK: I doubt that I could stop you even if I wanted to.  What is it?

LM: Even I have been using the word “women” to describe the estrogen-endowed members of the human species.  But “women” and “woman” both reflect and further Western patriarchy. Both terms are parasitic upon, or derivative of, “man.”  There is no surer way to guarantee the preservation of the systemic misogyny to which women have forever been subjected in the West than by continuing to use this awful word: woman.

Advertisement

JK: Then why have you been using it?

LM: This is the thing about structural injustices.  The injustices, like sexism, are embedded in our very concepts, in our very language.  “Woman” is a term of convenience. But you are correct—

JK: I am?!

LM: Yes. For now on, I will use, and will urge others to use, “estrogen-endowed” in place of “woman.” 

JK: Wonderful.  You can probably detect the sarcasm in my voice when I say that I’m glad that I finally got through to you on this score.

LM: Understood loudly and clearly.

JK: Now that that’s established, maybe I can finally return to my question.

LM: I know where you were going Jack.  It is true that I think that people of African descent, other racial minorities, and the estrogen-endowed living in what European men chose to call “America” are indeed just as guilty as white men for White, Male, and Christian Supremacy.  Regardless of the place that they occupy in our social hierarchy or the rhetoric to which they resort, everyone and anyone who continues to reap the benefits of the injustices that had been done to minorities and women, anyone and everyone who eagerly avails her or himself of the blood money on which America and the West were built, has blood on her or his hands.

Advertisement

JK: Wow. So whether it is Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell, or Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright—

LM: They are sellouts all of them.  Ditto with whether it is Gloria Steinberg or Phyllis Schlafly of whom we speak.  Farrakhan, Wright, Obama, Beyonce, Oprah Winfrey—they decry racism out of one side of their necks while basking in the fame and fortunes that whites make possible.  The “black” writer George Schuyler once said of Malcolm X that Malcolm should’ve “loved the white folks,” for without them, no one ever would’ve known his name.  I am saying something similar here.

Yet, of course, it isn’t just famous and rich people of African descent, other non-European lineages, and the estrogen-endowed who legitimize the oppression and exploitation of minorities and the estrogen-endowed.  It is every single such person who enjoys the higher standard of living in what men of European stock insist upon calling “America” who are also guilty of this crime.

Advertisement

JK: So even those who style themselves radicals, progressives, or revolutionaries are actually nothing of the sort.  Is this what you are getting at?

LM: Progressive?! Who is progressive?!  Barack Obama?!?! Hillary Clinton?!?!  It makes about as much sense to say of Obama and Hillary that they are progressive as it would make sense to say of a Jew who became one of Hitler’s Brown Shirts that he or she—uh, she or he—was progressive, or a person of African descent living in what whites call “America” who enslaved other people of African descent that she or he was progressive.

If the Obamas and Hillaries of the world can be called “progressives,” it is only because they advance the progress of White Male Supremacy.  Our radicals are a la carte radicals.  They are cafeteria revolutionaries.  They arbitrarily select some features of the West to condemn as racist, sexist, etc. while relying upon—clinging to—others that are no less racist and sexist.

Advertisement

JK: I must admit,Leon, you are nothing if not consistent.

LM: Hold it. Logical consistency is an intellectual virtue only in the West.  It assumes a rigorous dichotomy between being and non-being.  It assumes that the world consists of individual, distinct “substances.”  These, however, are assumptions that Eastern peoples reject.  For Hindus, Confucianists, Taoists, and other philosophical traditions of the East, the world is a single harmony, each part being inseparably linked to every other.

The so-called “law of contradiction,” then, far from being the most fundamental principle of all thought, is but another Eurocentric construct that has been imposed upon all peoples everywhere.

Advertisement

JK: So, you are not consistent?

LM: I refuse to play this game.  Whether you commend me for my consistency or criticize me for my inconsistency, you still approach me through an incorrigibly Western frame of reference. You continue to elevate a culturally-specific conception of Reason above all others. 

JK: Ok, ok.  We are about out of time, Leon. So that my readers can know a little more about you, would you care to briefly share with us your research interests?

LM: It would be my pleasure. My interests lie in two areas. 

The first is the treatment—the theologization—of erectile dysfunction in texts of the Medieval and early Modern eras.

JK: I didn’t know that this issue was addressed at all in the literature from these periods.

Advertisement

LM: Oh, it’s addressed all right, just not explicitly.  But once these texts are deconstructed, however, it becomes plain that the surface discourse, the dominant voice, suppresses other discourses, discourses regarding the sterility, the impotence, and the delayed ejaculation of their authors’ contemporaries—and maybe even the authors themselves.

JK: Uh…ok.  And your other interest?

LM: The specieism involved in fighting bacterial infections. 

JK: What?!

LM: A bacteria is a living species, correct?  Like all living things, it is has an interest in preserving itself.  This interest should be respected, even if it may at times be necessary to kill bacteria. But to eliminate it without batting an eye, as human beings routinely do, is to elevate our own species above that of bacteria.

Advertisement

There is another problem.  When species prey upon one another, their numbers are controlled and the world is safe. But inasmuch as humans spare not a moment to destroy bacteria before it destroys them, the human species threatens the planet with overpopulation. 

JK: Not that I wanted to get into this now, but I am curious: What, in your judgment,Leon, should be done about this?

LM: I think that, eventually, in order to spare Earth from the ravages of the sort of virulent specieism that humans—white humans especially, via the Father of all instruments of domination, science—unleashed upon all other species, and bacteria particularly, the federal government needs to launch a massive program by which it determines when it is permissible to combat bacteria and when it is not permissible to combat it.

JK: Well, thank you Leon, but, by now, I have definitely heard enough.

LM: Has it dawned on you that the word “heard,” like the words “seen” and “saw,” are ableist?  Not everyone can hear, after all.  And not everyone can—

JK: Thank youLeon!        

 

 

Previous Posts

Trump Traumatic Stress Disorder (TTSD): An Analysis of "Trump-phobia"
To the plethora of mental illnesses in this mental illness-ridden age of ours, we can now add another. We’ve all heard of PTSD or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. During this past year, something we can call TTSD has emerged. TTSD is ...

posted 8:18:43pm Apr. 29, 2016 | read full post »

The Fake Morality of Political Correctness vs. The Real Thing
That a senator from Vermont, a 74 year-old man who has spent his professional existence on the taxpayer’s dime and who is a self-avowed “socialist,” has managed to become an exceptionally popular Democrat presidential contestant is ...

posted 9:33:02am Apr. 29, 2016 | read full post »

Gary Johnson: A Free Trade Bernie Sanders?
Another insightful essay by guest blogger, Myron Pauli: I’ve never limited myself to Republican and Democratic nominees since I cast my first Presidential vote writing in Barry Goldwater in 1972. No regrets on rejecting the decent but ...

posted 9:37:46pm Apr. 21, 2016 | read full post »

Missing "Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism"
George Hawley, a professor of political science at the University of Alabama, supplies an invaluable service to students of American politics with his recently published book, Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism. All too rarely do we ...

posted 4:22:29pm Apr. 13, 2016 | read full post »

Groupthink in Academia
The Chronicle of Higher Education recently featured an article lamenting the lack of “diversity” in my discipline. Philosophy, so goes the article, just hasn’t been welcoming toward minorities and women. Thankfully, such enlightened ...

posted 9:50:04pm Apr. 08, 2016 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.