Monday, June 03, 2013

What to do about Islamic incursions?

My friend Eric, posting on Facebook, has asked me a question. And because my answer will prove to be lengthy, I'm responding here. The discussion is in reference to whether we should oppose Islam, to which my position was "If someone is a terrorist, you nail his ass. But you do it because he's a TERRORIST, not because you're a bigot."

Here is his follow-up question in its entirety:

Dave, you answered well. With wisdom, Priest. Let me rephrase, because I wasn't clear.

As a high level ranger-monk, I respect the arts of war. And I spy, with my elven eye, conflict on the horizon. Priests of Allah & their flocks, are settling in our lands. As a whole, this cult finds our freedoms insulting to their faith; which often produces holy bezerkers.

So, we have a hostile culture, immigrating & growing 2x to 3x faster, and our hands are tied. As lawful-good types, we can't persecute or attack individual cultists, until they have broken our laws. We must allow flag burners to burn our symbol of freedom, or it it will fail to symbolize freedom. But, if we don't do something, there WILL come a time when we can do nothing.

So, what do we do? Wait until they raise their numbers high enough to replace Republic with Sharia? What of our own barbarians and crusaders, that will initiate hostilities with the hostiles? I can almost smell the smoke of a thousand holy fires, burning down mosques, churches and synagogues.

My battle experiences have fused into trusted consciousness; a combat calculator. And, your priestly wisdom should give consideration to the brewing storm.

Our actions must be Just, but we must act. This steady & silent invasion will take our streets, our armies, our senate, and then our Rome.

Battles are fought long before wars are declared. What would you suggest we do? Wait, fight or legislate?

My Answer:

Wait, fight, or legislate.

It's option 4, thus far overlooked, that got us into this mess, and is best positioned to get us out of it. Option 4 is "educate". This is accompanied by another task, which I'm going to call "de-legislate" (as in "repeal"); and yet another, "enforce". Always, we must be careful not to throw out our brains with our idealism.

As I've mentioned previously, we used to teach Civics, and quite properly so. But at some point, individuals of a "more enlightened" point of view decided that it wasn't proper to indoctrinate children with propaganda about outmoded and provincial concepts such as patriotism and respect. Hyphenated diversity became more important than the melting pot of Americanism. The fundamental differences between the rights of citizenship and basic human rights were blurred to insignificance; and as a result, the concept of a "sovereign nation" has been largely forgotten. This is the reason immigration is a problem.

And now, though all of this is blatantly obvious, the intellectual heirs of these same "enlightened" individuals wonder what the hell happened.

If you don't feel like reading the bulk of this admittedly long-winded soapbox rant, feel free to skip to the Summary, below.

Our government was designed to be a representative Republic, and not a simple Democracy, to defend against the tyranny of mob rule. It was balanced between States rights and central rule for the very same reason, so that the few urban centers do not ride roughshod over the rest of the dispersed populace. Different people in different places have different needs, and our Constitution states outright that the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government in that document are left to the various States, or to the People. This is simply because - to maximum extent - the power of daily government should be kept as close to the People as possible.

Our entire Constitution is designed to thwart tyranny. That includes the Bill of Rights, which grants freedoms of speech and press, so that tyranny may be exposed; and freedom of religion to guard against exactly the sort of abuses of sharia law. It includes the Second Amendment, which gives teeth to the People to safeguard all of the other guarantees. Nevertheless there now exist those who are wholly ignorant enough to believe that the Second Amendment has anything at all to do with hunting and sporting. It doesn't. Nor can we allocate our responsibilities as citizens to the very government it is our duty to oversee.

But while the Second Amendment is an anti-tyrannical safeguard, it's one that doesn't need to be used so long as people understand, respect, and live by the provisions of the Constitution as a whole. This means heavy education on sound Constitutional principles. It means pledging allegiance, and I personally don't give a rat's ass as to whether you include "under God" or not, as you prefer (see 1st Amendment). It means teaching tolerance... in the sense of "this ain't your business", and seeing that everybody knows what that means. It's none of your business whether I pray or who to; and it's none of my business who you marry.

And with regard to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law" means CONGRESS SHALL MAKE. NO. LAW. It takes a serious dumbass to screw that one up, and a bigger dumbass to attempt to defend the screw-up.

Let's look at an example... gays can't marry, not because there's no law to allow them to, but because there are laws prohibiting it. Yet, rather than repeal the stupid laws, people want to pile new laws on top of them. The fact is, there shouldn't be a law at all. In a free society, that which is not prohibited is allowed. We need a lot fewer laws, and a lot more attention paid to the ones remaining.

Citizens have certain responsibilities, and elevated rights beyond those basic human rights. Non-citizens should look to their own countries to provide for them; and should they find that they want the benefits of United States citizenship, they should only be able to do so through one path, which includes a solid Civics education and a pledge of allegiance to this country, forsaking all others. And if they don't want to do that, then I fully support their right to attempt to re-shape their own country to conform to their ideals.

We have a steady influx of immigrating hostiles only because we allow it. As a nation, we allow it because we have been misinformed as to the nature of patriotism, nationalism, and sovereignty. We are misinformed on these points because those who have held the reigns of our education system, in their zeal to be progressive and enlightened, have failed in considering the inevitable consequences of their philosophy... and in a very few cases, because this is exactly the desired result. They have guilt-tripped and manipulated Americans into actually believing that all the people of the world have an indiscriminate God-given right to plop their asses down within these borders.  To stem the "invasion" we need to reverse that mistake. Only those who are educated as to their responsibilities, who accept them, and who pledge conformity with them should be granted citizenship. All others should go home... we do not need a subversive underground.

Sadly, those who have grown up under the present broken, self-destructive philosophy are now legislating, enforcing, and interpreting our laws. They began by disregarding the plain language of the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The "it" in that statement refers to the Constitution, not the Federal government. As a result the vast bulk of our government rests on the shakiest of foundations based on a Supreme Court (mis)interpretation that this amendment is merely a "truism". In other words, in most circumstances they really don't much care whether it's enforced. The problem with that interpretation is that it is only a truism so long as the practice is actually followed. By failing to uphold the Tenth Amendment, the Supreme Court has ensured that it is no longer a truism, such that it is clear the issue should now be re-interpreted.

As a result, a great many Federal laws should be struck down. Here is the rule of thumb: the Federal government can do only what it is allowed to do by the Constitution; the citizenry is free to do anything that they're not lawfully prohibited from doing; and the fact that the Federal government can't make a law doesn't mean your State or local government can't do it, within the boundaries set by their own constitutions and so long as they're not prohibited from doing so by the Constitution of the United States. Generally this means that the Constitution prohibits localities from passing laws that violate your rights and prohibit you from exercising your guaranteed freedoms.  Limiting the Federal government doesn't mean advocating anarchy; it's advocating local and home rule. This not only maximizes your freedoms and your influence, but ensures that should you really not like your local government and feel yourself powerless to change it, you don't find yourself in a Procrustean bed of centralized control. You can find a place that suits you.

At least that how it works on paper, and should work in practice.


It boils down to this:
    Afraid of Muslims? Then insist on wholly Constitutional government.
    Afraid of Christians? Then insist on wholly Constitutional government.
    Afraid of Atheists? Then insist on wholly Constitutional government.
    In ALL cases, insist on wholly Constitutional government so you don't HAVE to be afraid.
And educate, educate, educate. If you want to call it "indoctrination", so be it. Embrace the indoctrination, or buy a compass and a prayer mat... you may need them.

I have Liberal friends and relatives who I will surely piss off with my suggestion that we actually control our borders and reserve to citizens those things that should be reserved to citizens. I have Conservative friends and relatives who I will surely piss off with my insistence that moral judgement should be left to God alone and if you fear Him then you should look after your own behavior. I will surely piss off both groups by insisting that "make no law" includes the laws they want.

For my part, I am pissed off at Democrats and Republicans both who polish this or that isolated phrase on which to hang their attempts to control behavior that is blatantly none of their business. I am equally pissed off at both by their refusal to execute the duties that blatantly are their business. There is no duty more strongly incumbent upon all three branches of government than to maintain our sovereignty. Without this primary responsibility, there can be no such thing as a "guarantee" of any freedom in any form whatsoever.

Is education a viable solution? Only if the majority of United States citizens wake up and reject the mountains of shit they've been handed over the last 50 years. Personally I have my doubts as to whether they will... lately they've proven themselves to be both ignorant and gullible to the extreme.

No comments:

Post a Comment