Everyday I seem to read of horrific stories of young women and little girls brutally raped and slaughtered by illegal immigrants, and how others over time are found “Not Guilty” or their case is expunged from the legal record for matters of political expediency. It has grown into a double standard to where Barack Obama, whose past is littered with dead bodies and even death to the legal rights to review his personal records from his youth as if he has something to hide from his formative years in Kenya. He will always be provided a free pass, his detractors (Hillary Clinton, who launched the “birther” movement) declared “racists” because somehow his Sub Saharan Africa heritage is actually being acknowledged as it is — but not Ted Cruz, whose birth certificate and personal information are very public even as he was born to parents who were naturalized American citizens in Canada. And because Sen. Cruz does not support Obama’s overtures to Communist Cuba as he likely will spread more of his love joy to North Korea, he is not truly “Hispanic”. Poverty seems to be a common theme for the Left. The more people it leads to morbid poverty and therefore the longest possible bread and soup lines of major cities, the more success it can measure for itself.
I have read extensively historical records and cultural landmarks in literature on what makes America so special — and I still do, everyday. I am continually amazed by the sheer ignorance of liberals and libertarians, both of which are politically-born of the same cloth in most ways. Both liberals and libertarians believe in a non-morally binding approach to civil government, as in a nation where hedonism is not merely to be considered the norm, but a matter to emancipate the general public from any faith-based or otherwise-culturally ingrained indoctrination, these moral codes once upon a time legally deferred to parental consent and individual community charters. In fact, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has admitted his design to strip the right of parents to raise their own children and furthermore, for those “without” parents to live in boarding schools, all while parents today who are protesting against Common Core are being arrested. To listen to him is to recollect tales of the horrifying Hitler Youth and Red Guard programs of Nazi Germany and the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong. The individual is meant to be faceless under Obama. Today’s children will be those blank-checked, dependent empty countenances with much ado about nothing tomorrow.
Both liberals and libertarians espouse historical revisionism, to rewrite what cannot fit securely into their narratives, to correct what was wrong with past agendas rather than addressing the actual roots of their troubles. With respect to liberals, they simply choose to scrap the most critical academic field from all public educational curricula. It was Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-79), the accredited intellectual founder of left-wing political thought, who made this the operative political attitude among future generations of this fringe at all extremities in his landmark political treatises. Historical revisionism is foreshadowed by Rousseau to perhaps entail such extreme measures as “complex thought processes involving notions of property, calculations about the future, immediate recognition of all other humans as potential threats, and possibly even minimal language skills”.
“I am not abusing science…I am defending virtue before virtuous men.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 4)
“Astronomy was born from superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and falsehood; geometry from avarice, physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from human pride.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 12)
“All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom, for although they had enough reason to feel the advantages of political establishment, they did not have enough experience to foresee its dangers.” (Second Discourse, Vol. II, p. 54)
For the paramount intellectual giant of the libertarian movement Murray Rothbard, historical revisionism paints a subjective portrait of a canvas already inscribed, only with defamation or roses, whichever is most practical. He wrote this in his article “Revisionism for Our Time” (1966).
“Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda. This, in itself, is a virtue. But some truths of history, of course, may be largely of antiquarian interest, with little relevance to present-day concerns… All these lessons revisionism has to teach us. For revisionism, in the final analysis, is based on truth and rationality. Truth and rationality are always the first victims in any war frenzy; and they are, therefore, once again an extremely rare commodity on today’s “market.” Revisionism brings to the artificial frenzy of daily events and day-to-day propaganda, the cool but in the last analysis glorious light of historical truth. Such truth is almost desperately needed in today’s world.”
“A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite.”
The ambiguity portends itself. Does Rothbard mean for such a devolution to entail democracy or anarchy? That depends on when you read a piece and from which part of his life and career he authored it. Rothbard admitted to becoming an anarchist. He also devalued the right of the individual to his or her own self-accountability, that the fetus is “a parasite”. From one vantage point, Rothbard would love the Outback Steakhouse slogan — “No rules. Just right.” The freest one can possibly be is dead since no one has the right to be born once conceived.
Since President Obama is a master of all these illicit political tactics, he also had no shame in declaring the lie that Native Americans alone have the right to object to illegal immigration. Conveniently, there was no such thing as the political state in North America either 15,000 years when the original humans in the Western Hemisphere crossed the glacial bridge from Siberia to Alaska near the Bering Strait (known to geologists as “Beringia”), nor when John Smith and John Rolfe established the first permanent settlement at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. In fact, the Native Americans at the conclusion of the last major ice age not only “invaded” North America, but raped her of her land through settlements, depopulating entire ecosystems of their wildlife for food and game. There were the noble savages, the nomads who today would really be in trouble with the EPA and animal rights activists for being people who eat tasty animals.
And since there is no consensus at all as to what is considered a “Native American” since man is not indigenous to the Americas, might I ask Mr. Obama why it is he refuses to consider himself an illegal immigrant’s descendent given the original humanoid figures were born in Abyssinia, in Africa near present-day Ethiopia? I did not have a most distant ancestor already in the Americas at that time to file a grievance against the invasion of the first peoples in the Western Hemisphere who were descendents of Africans, but today I am being accosted as a white man as guilty of “white privilege” because, well, I was somehow born of the good genes of being white according to the Left, inadvertently admitting their belief black people are racially-dysgenic through inferior genetics. How horrible that such a racist as I must be simply for opposing our current president would dare point that out regarding the left-wing race baiters who themselves apply socialism to kill what Margaret Sanger called “the unfit”.