|
|
|
|
|
Commenting on Jefferson's reputed mulatto offspring,
one editorial writer said that, "in his older
years, Jefferson was concerned that liberation of
the slaves would lead to racial intermarriage."
Why "in his older years?" Virginia had
had an antimiscegenation law since the middle of
the seventeenth century. Jefferson always supported
it. Like every other influential white American
of his age, Jefferson opposed miscegenation all
his life.
At first I found this "older years" business
surprising. Obviously all the Founding Fathers were
concerned about miscegenation and similar problems,
because they wanted the blacks moved back to Africa.
Jefferson was always against intermarriage. All
the Founding Fathers were. So why "the older
Jefferson?"
Stupid of me. The answer is obvious.
To a liberal, and therefore to a respectable conservative,
the only reasons to be loyal to America are, 1)
Five Words and 2) Emma Lazarus.*
A liberal will say he supports America, but ONLY
so long as America exists for the Five Words: "All
men are created equal" and 2) as long as America
exists for immigration, and lives up to the words
of Emma Lazarus on the Statue of Liberty.
These are the only reasons a liberal, and therefore
a respectable conservative, feels America is worthwhile.
So why did the writer have to imply that, in his
younger years, Jefferson SUPPORTED racial intermarriage?
Because YOUNG Thomas Jefferson WROTE the Five Words!
No liberal or respectable conservative could allow
himself to even THINK that the young Jefferson was
against interracial marriage. To be against racial
intermarriage is to be anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews!
It has to be only in his "older years"
that Jefferson became anaziwhowantedtokillsixmillionjews,
you see.
I wonder if the writer even knows why he put in
those words "the older Jefferson?"
I don't think so. I think it was automatic.
* Please see my October 31 article, "Five
Words and Emma Lazarus" in the Archives,
top of page.
|
|
|
|
Hysterical Bill, which is what I call Bill Press
on Crossfire, routinely resorts to high-pitched
shouts. I remember early last year when Matt Drudge
reported that Monica had a blue dress with Clinton's
sperm on it. Hysterical Bill was actually screaming,
"If there is a dress, PRODUCE IT!
Produce this dress or shut up about it!" This
time, Hysterical Bill is shouting about how Republicans
have decided to end democracy in America by trying
President Clinton in the Senate. Press and the other
liberals are upset about how evil Republicans are
ignoring the polls.
The polls say most people don't want the trial of
Clinton to go ahead. But many Republicans want to
go ahead with trying the president, as the Constitution
says they must. You cannot discuss the subject of
impeachment for one minute without a liberal bringing
up the polls. He will then go into a discussion
of how wise the public is, and how dedicated he
is to the The People's Will.
This sounds odd to me, because all my life liberals
have been openly ignoring public opinion. They called
it Leadership. Back in the days when I was doing
press conferences for antibusing marches, we heard
a lot from liberals about "Leadership."
The public was against busing by margins of eighty
to ninety percent, BUT LIBERALS WERE FOR IT. Liberals
said that the probusing senators and congressmen
who backed busing in the teeth of public opinion
were showing "Leadership."
FLASH FORWARD to 1998.
The public is against impeachment, though not nearly
by the margins it was against busing. Liberals are
furious that congressmen still DARE demand impeachment.
"What," they ask, "Has happened to
the idea of DEMOCRACY?"
The public backed the balanced budget amendment
by a three to one margin. Liberals stopped it. No
respectable conservative will ever remind them of
this. Respectable conservatives today mostly support
racial quotas, so they will never remind liberals
of how leftists have defied public opinion on that
issue.
Bob Dole has come out against impeachment and he
refused to support the 1996 California initiative
against racial quotas, which passed overwhelmingly.
The George Bushes are trying to find some unconstitutional
alternative to impeachment, and they want to "appeal
to minorities."
"Appealing to minorities" is, of course,
the code term for backing racial quotas.
Anybody heard anything from Kemp lately? I know
he is for racial quotas. But has he said anything
about impeachment?
In other words, each time liberals have defied public
opinion to push their policies, respectable conservatives
end up declaring the liberals were right.
So we have the bottom line from liberals and respectable
conservatives: if you defy the polls for impeachment,
you are being fascistic and antidemocratic. If you
ignore four or five to one public opposition to
push a leftist cause, everyone will eventually agree
that you were just Showing Leadership.
Watch this closely. I assure you, every time a politician
defies the polls for the left, it will be "Leadership."
If the right does it, it is being "obstructionist."
And, in the end, it will be respectable conservatives
who will scream "obstructionist" the loudest.**
Only the left can "lead."
**Please see October 3 article, "Defining
Respectable Conservatives, They're Just Bureaucrats"
in the Archives, top of page.
|
|
|
|
|
The Eurodollar began its official existence on January
1, 1999. This new currency will replace the currencies
of seventeen European countries three years from now.
As one Dutch official said, this is a first step toward
Europe "enjoying the power in the world that the
size of its economy deserves".
But Europe is going to have to do a lot besides adopt
a common currency if it is to take its place in the world.
It will have to stop being a military dependent of the
United States. If Europe is to take its place in the world,
it will have to stop leaving every serious problem in
the world to THE LAST REMAINING SUPERPOWER.
In one discussion about Europe's refusal to deal with
terrorism or Balkan problems, Pat Buchanan said, "Europe
will have to grow up eventually." Among today's media-selected
commentators, only Buchanan would see this reality, much
less mention it.
What Buchanan is referring to is this: Since 1945, Europeans
have been in a state of permanent dependence on the United
States. People who are protected from reality never grow
up. This is as true of countries as it is of individuals.
Europe has been a military welfare case since 1945.
Don't let NATO fool you Despite its contributions to NATO,
Europe has very little responsibility for living - and
living very well - in the post-WWII world. NATO was set
up by the United States, and the poor little Europeans
were never asked to carry anything like their share of
the costs in men or money for the defense of Europe.
But Europe's small share of the NATO burden is the LEAST
of the situation.
Europe would not have lasted a month if someone didn't
protect the rest of the world from a Communist takeover.
The United States could survive economically if we were
limited to the Western Hemisphere, to the area the Monroe
Doctrine already covered before World War II. But Europe
has to trade with the third world to survive. And Europe
leaves the protection of its lifeline almost entirely
to the United States. When I speak of Europe as an American
military welfare case, NATO is totally irrelevant. Europe
doesn't even do its share in protecting its own, tiny
territory. But in the struggle to keep its lifeline open
all around the world, Europe does absolutely NOTHING!
And nobody notices.
If the United States had not protected the rest of the
world, Europe would have been doomed. But Europe never
gave a penny or a man to help this enormous job that the
Untied States was doing outside Europe. In fact, Europe
simply sat back and criticized American policy in fighting
the Reds all around the globe.
When the United States based nuclear defenses in Europe
to protect them against the USSR, Europeans rioted and
protested our Evil Imperialism. When we held the Communists
out of all the countries outside Europe that Europe could
not live without, Europeans talked about how immoral we
were.
Europe said, essentially, "Self-righteousness is
our most important product."
This is the sixth decade in which Europe has been a military
welfare case, dependent on the United States. This welfare
mentality, this utter lack of realism, is by now welded
into the European mindset.
In the 1950's, this silliness took the form of huge Communist
Parties in Western Europe, and in the 1960's, every ridiculous
leftist cause, such as a demand for unilateral nuclear
disarmament by America, got enormous support in Europe.
In every case, Europe could play its absurd little morality
games because someone else was taking care of them.
In the 1970's, the United States, sick of carrying the
whole weight of defending the world, cut back dangerously
on its military commitment. Europe was not about to question
this. And Europe did not increase its own military commitment
by a single nickel. Post- World War II Europe reminds
me of Peggy Bundy on Married With Children The very idea
of Europe having to do anything for itself elicits nothing
but an unbelieving horse laugh.
In the 1980's, the Reagan military buildup helped the
ongoing Soviet economic breakdown. It was the Strategic
Defense Initiative, what Teddy Kennedy and therefore all
the media called "Star Wars," that finally broke
the Soviet resolve. Gorbacev simply could not afford a
new breakthrough program to match the American high-tech
advantage.
So the left tried one last, desperate move to save the
Soviet Union: Stop SDI. Every American liberal media source
and practically all official opinion in Europe pulled
out all the stops.
I remember the last gasp. There was a costly television
flop called The Morning After, a movie demanding an immediate
nuclear freeze. A lot of other shows had pushed this last
desperate attempt to stop the nuclear race the USSR had
lost. But, even for the leftist media, it was simply too
late.
With the USSR gone, as Buchanan said, it is time, at long
last, for Europe to try to begin to grow up.
But in the post-Cold War age, there is a last, desperate
drive to prevent Europe from having to deal with the real
world. Both the left and the respectable right in America
support it. Since it is utterly divorced from reality,
European opinion is trendy left, and the liberals like
it that way.
The American right likes European opinion just the way
it is, too. The respectable American right wants, above
all else, for the United States to spend lots and lots
of money on the military. They LIVE for that. If Europe
began to grow up and bear its share of the military burden,
the United States could cut back. The one thing ALL respectable
conservatives demand is this: MORE AMERICANS IN SOLDIER
SUITS. What for? Respectable conservatives don't give
a reason. They talk vaguely about "obligation."
But what they have wanted fifty years for is more American
money on defense, and more Americans in soldier suits.
So they want it now. This means European military welfarism
MUST continue.
Both the left and right in America have found a slogan
to keep Americans providing military welfare for Europe.
Both the left and the respectable right repeat it all
the time.
On the left and on the right, the slogan they use for
their crusade against European adulthood is seven words
long.
And here it is:
"WE ARE THE WORLD'S LAST REMAINING SUPERPOWER"
The whole world can just sit back and let The Last Remaining
Superpower do all the work. If anything happens
anywhere in the world to threaten Europe or Europe's lifelines,
Europeans can just sit back and relax. Taking care of
the whole world is America's job.
There is plenty of oil in the Western Hemisphere for the
United States. But Saddam and every other problem in the
Middle East, where Europe's oil supply lies, must be taken
care of by The Last Remaining Superpower. The United States
will attack Saddam. Our "allies" (what a joke!!)
just have to sit back and approve or disapprove.
Which is what our "allies" have been doing around
the world for over half a century now.
Lake High has pointed out that many people oppose Southern
secession because secession would mean we would no longer
be part of The Last Remaining Superpower.
As Lake tells them, "I can live with that".
|
|
|
Home
| Current Articles | Article Archive | About
Bob Whitaker | Contact Bob | Links
| Privacy
Policy
|
|
|