The Glenn Beck event in Washington
Sorry folks, but I don’t take seriously a “conservative” leader who supports homosexual “marriage,” who keeps telling his audiences that American history is filled with racial atrocities (thus implying that it would have been better if whites had never developed a civilization on this continent), and who regards the 1964 Civil Rights Act—the law that gave birth to the modern liberal order—as his ideal of politics.
Yes, I understand that the leftist media see Beck as a radical right-winger. But I don’t take my compass readings of the political world from the leftist media. The conservatism of so many conservatives today is merely reactive: if the left attacks, say, George W. Bush or John McCain or Sarah Palin, labeling them as extreme right-wingers, the “conservatives” all assume that the left’s targets really are right-wingers, and they rally to their defense. What is needed is a conservatism grounded in its own principles, not a conservatism based on what the left calls conservatism.
I also understand that Beck thinks he can parry the constant charges of racism directed against him and the Tea Party by claiming to be more anti-racist than the liberals. But has conservatism ever advanced itself by dancing to the liberals’ tune? Conservatives and Republicans have been doing that forever. Has everyone forgotten the Republican Party’s three day minority dog and pony show at the 2000 Republican National Convention? The purpose of that was to disarm the liberal view of the Republicans as racists. Even if the dog and pony show helped the “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush get elected president, did it help advance conservatism? No. The victory of “compassionate conservatism” weakened conservatism, empowered big government, and led to the loss of direction and the demoralization of the Republican party, which led to the huge Democratic victory in 2008 and the passage of Obamacare. Conservatives who think they’re being smart by adopting liberal rhetoric and symbols are still the Stupid Party.
If you still don’t understand why Beck’s and the Tea Party’s embrace of a “color blind, post racial” America, the America of Martin Luther King’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, is problematic from a conservative point of view, just ask yourself this: why do we now have Islamic sharia spreading in America? Why do we have Muslims as a powerful influence in American life and politics? Why do we have American politicians and the entire mainstream media supporting the construction of a giant Islamic victory mosque across the street from the destroyed World Trade Center? Why are our airports crippled with humiliating security measures? For one reason and one reason only: we have a large number of Muslims in America. And how did we get a large number of Muslims in America? Through the principle of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the principle that all groups must be treated the same no matter how different they actually are, the principle that discrimination is the supreme evil that must be eliminated. That principle led directly from the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the 1965 Immigration Act, which allowed people from every country, including Muslims, to immigrate on an equal numerical basis into America. And that’s the principle that still makes it impossible for us today even to imagine stopping, let alone reversing, Muslim immigration. The only way we can save America from Islam is to start discriminating against Muslims, as a group that is radically incompatible with and hostile to our way of life. And we cannot do that so long as we make non-discrimination our supreme ideal.
Doug H. writes:
AMEN!!! Beck an the other talking heads are talking us right down the road to ruin, and they can’t even see it. I wonder if there is some kind of party that can be formed that does not constantly defend itself from racism, a party that is not always on the defense.Terry Morris writes:
Most people do not understand how the federal government, via the federal courts, misuses the citizenship and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment to establish the principle that we hear so oft-repeated: “federal law trumps State law.” Immigration is not a federal issue, regulation thereof is a reserved power left to the discretion of the states and local governments. This gets a bit complicated, but the reason the federal courts can run roughshod over the rest of the Constitution is because of the way they apply the aforementioned provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the debates of the 39th Congress over the citizenship provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Howard thoroughly dispenses with this idea of “birthright citizenship” for the children of aliens born in the U.S. yet subject to a foreign jurisdiction. But the way the federal government gets around the clear meaning of its provisions and the intent of its framers is through what is known as the “enrollment at birth program” conducted by the Social Security Administration. Mothers who give birth to children, regardless of their citizenship status or to what government they themselves are subject and owe their allegience, are asked by hospital staff to apply for both a birth certificate and a social security number for their newborns. Upon application, that person, or newborn, is deemed “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Thus, the citizenship and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment apply to that person at that moment.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 28, 2010 07:49 AM | Send