Borrowing from the attributed Ben Franklin quip on democracy, I once observed that:
Liberalism is two jews and a black voting on who to have for lunch; Conservatism is a well-armed white enforcing the result.
In hindsight I should have qualified that this was mockery rather than edict, as it has been fully embraced on both sides of the political aisle.
Probably the primary means by which conservatives corner themselves into enforcing liberalism is by their religious devotion to the Constitution. Like most of our contemporary social quirks, this will one day be the source of many puzzled chin-strokes by Chinese historians. Because the Constitution is simply a government charter, and nothing else whatsoever. Rather than a poetic statement of purpose, people, or ambition, it is merely a broad (and broadly ignored) template for restrictions and responsibilities of various federal institutions. That something so utterly mundane would inspire impassioned allegiance is, I suppose, no more ludicrous than not being addressed as “zir” at the DMV.
That’s not to say our constitution isn’t worthy of reasonable admiration or imitation. Some federal formats are definitely more disposed to producing a happy productive populace than others. Though these things aren’t magical or divine. Liberia has been governed under a constitution modeled closely on America’s for 170 years. Why it has not yet produced similar results is something very few parchment devotees are inclined to discuss. It almost seems as if there exists some key civilizational ingredient beyond which branch of government has jurisdiction over bankruptcy regulations. Just don’t tell the Oathkeepers that.
As most already know, the Oathkeepers are one of several self-styled patriot groups committed to enforcing the results of liberalism and ensuring that neither house of Congress adjourns for more than three days without the consent of the other. These commitments are described as follows:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.
In other words, we’re indifferent to our children being born into Babel. But we’ll lay down our lives to keep bills for raising revenue from originating in the Senate. That’s very principled.
Yet some people are reportedly antagonistic to those principles. And they must be opposed with every fiber in our constitutional beings. Here’s a recent article on the Oathkeeper website that highlights that organization’s struggle against the malign posterity on whose behalf the Constitution was actually written. In it the author rages against white racism that now apparently threatens the Emoluments Clause. He implies the Constitution, written exclusively by white Christians, now requires a country potentially devoid of them. You can certainly imagine the negotiations in 1787 Philadelphia: We hacked this country out of tomahawks and wilderness; we were bled in war by the British; and now finally we have an opportunity to make it ours. So how can we be certain our people get no special benefit?
The author goes on to cite the Revolutionary War’s African and Mestizo Brigades and their legendary assault on Cornwallis. Yet he is strangely silent in reflections on the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited immigration to free white people of good character.
The commentary is mostly supportive of his position, though there is a nontrivial split between nationalists and the legacy liberals who imagine themselves conservative. Of course this sort of piece would be a sanctimonious bore without a few alt-right wags arriving to cheer the multi-kult Konstitution.
Give ’em hell Navy Jack!
I’m not sure what these racists even mean with words like “threat to white identity” and such. Now that we’re a minority in Texas, I’m proud that my bi-racial grandchildren will grow up in a world where they, as non-whites are THE MAJORITY. I look around the word, or in parts of the great ‘ol USA where non-whites are the majority , I admire their politics and law, their cohesiveness as a people and I see THE FUTURE!!!
ps. God bless Israel as a Jewish state and damn the racist for wanting a “place for white people”.
Kudos, Navy Jack! Well put, sir.
I have watched, with no small degree of mounting disquiet, the insidious ascendance of these so-called “Alt-right” gangs since the election of President Trump. Beneath the thin veneer of seeking to protect “white” (whatever that means!) children, they are simply crude racialists, boors and ignoramases.
My son and I had the great misfortune of running afoul of some of these “Alt-right” thugs in March this year.
We had stopped by a local Dairy Queen for a blizzard after church. Apon entering the establishment, I spied a trio of burly young men in Trump hats at a corner table. I didn’t think anything of it, except to note that one of them was wearing a “Pepe the Frog” (a racist comic book character) tee-shirt, and another was clad in a “Bill Clinton Is A Rapist” garment. NOT what you hope to see in a family restaurant! The third wore a blue plaid shirt so I payed him little heed.
To cut a long story short, these ruffians rapidly took an unwelcome interest in me and my son, nudging each other, looking at us, and whispering among themselves. (I should point out that my son is African American, we adopted him from Eritrea through our church).
We ignored them, of course, but that only emboldened these miscreants to begin making hooting noises and laughing! At first I refused to believe my ears I was so appalled and furiously tried to get the attention of a member of staff.
Unfortunately it was a busy restaurant so I was forced to confront these chuckleheads directly.
I turned to them, showing my best death stare. “Do you ‘gentlemen’ (I put a sarcastic emphasis here) have a problem?”
“Yeah!” agreed the one in the ‘Pepe the Frog” shirt, “We don’t want your kind in here! Take your son back home to Iraq, we hate race-traitors like you, this is Trump country now!”
I was ready to call the cops immediately, but my son – who had endured this tirade with the silent dignity we’ve tried so hard to inculcate in him – suddenly spoke up.
“Sir,” he said, his voice clear and firm, “I believe you were addressing me, though I confess I am not fluent in vulgarian. You appear to be suffering from some logical fallacies, to wit:
“Firstly, “my kind”, as you so lewdly put it, is American. I *am* home, by the grace of God and the Constitution. Furthermore, my father is an elder in our church, not some sort of ‘traitor’.
“And finally, this is not ‘Trump country’. Not now, not ever. This is the United States of America, and while our First Amendment permits even cretins such as yourself freedom of speech, the Second Amendment also permits me to shoot you in the eye should you continue to commit racism. Now, begone!”
At some point during this, the entire Dairy Queen had fallen quiet, everyone listening to my son speak. Suddenly the restaurant erupted in wild applause. The racists went beetroot red (as red as their Trump hats, heh) and dashed out!
Then the manager came over and told us the next time we wanted a blizzard, it was on the house. I was fighting back tears of pride.
And my son, who humbled those bigots with eloquence? He’s only 12 years old and an honors student. Needless to say, we never saw those ‘Alt-right’ lummoxes again.
Only the Constitution can save us now. It’s all we need. If every single white American was replaced with Somalian immigrants it wouldn’t even matter, because we would still have the CONSTITUTION and besides this great American soil is magic— it turns ANYONE who comes here into a liberty-loving patriotic citizen. I know this for a FACT y’all, because my wife and I adopted our two sons from Somalia, and I’m pretty sure they’re going to be super conservative when they grow up. Anyway, you alt-right RACISTS can go to hell. America will be minority-white by 2040, and that’s going to be awesome because then maybe we can finally get some limited government.
To wit, vulgarians!
It goes without saying (as in it is practically never said) that all of this ridiculous paper fawning won’t survive the demographics that document allegedly mandates. Though while it remains perched on a pedestal, I imagine similar charters must seethe with envy. I’m sure readers know most organizations also feature what are effectively constitutions. For instance, Walmart’s is linked here. I don’t suggest anyone will want to read it all, though it is not lengthy. But take a look if only to note the structural similarity.
The Walmart document establishes the same kind of governance guidelines, with stratification of corporate responsibilities and separation of duties, as found in the federal version. Do Oathkeepers believe the Walmart governance framework is what made that company successful? Or was it instead the inspiration and ethic of its founders?
Is its particular corporate governance guidelines what makes Walmart Walmart rather than say Pets.com? Or is the value in that company (or Apple or Google) found in the ideas and execution of their people?
If drunken Luigi’s corner pizzeria adopted the Walmart constitution and followed it to the letter, could he expect billions in revenue and shareholder value?
What if a Walmart president decided to cease retail operations and turn the company instead into a lobbying and advocacy service for transsexual beet farmers? Would Walmart still be itself if the required “agenda review process” for this transformation has been completed?
But most importantly, for whom or what does that company exist? Is its reason for being to follow rote managerial guidelines? Do you think the Walton family says to itself: We don’t care if Central American migrants take our stock leaving us destitute and despised. We just want to know that “all meetings of each committee shall be held pursuant to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Company with regard to notice and waiver thereof, and written minutes of each meeting, in the form approved by the relevant committee, shall be duly filed in the Company records.”
I think they do not. In fact, I think the Waltons view corporate governance guidelines as a means to protect their interests, rather than their interests being a means to protect corporate guidelines. And this makes the Walton family and every other business owner an alt-right shareholder xenophobe who is a threat to their company’s constitution.
It looks like the Oathkeepers have a quite a market for expansion.