Category Archives: culture

e pluribus unum

Posted on by
Reply

This post is adapted from a passage in Chapter 4 of my book A Conservative’s Manifesto.

What is the “many” in the title, the pluribus? When the phrase was first proposed for the Seal of the United States in 1776, it referred to the 13 States being joined into one nation. It has come to mean, in addition, the several peoples, religions, languages, heritages, and so on who come to the United States to join our great experiment in individual freedom and individual responsibility.

What is the one, the unum? That’s the point of this post.

We Americans take in and incorporate (note that verb) immigrants, and gladly so, for they bring fresh ideas as well as fresh approaches to old problems and a renewal of dedication to nation. However, we should not become our immigrants—they need to become Americans, or alternatively to recognize their resident alien status. Those who come to the United States do so for the opportunities here, and they’re welcome to share in these opportunities—immigrant and legal alien alike.   Immigrants come to America specifically for the economic opportunities, the political freedoms and opportunities, the sociological opportunities—in a word, for the American culture, which they know a priori to be different from their own—and which they understand to be the foundation of our American exceptionalism.

Immigrants need to adapt to, and assimilate into, our culture. Some will argue that this implies an imposition of a particular majority culture on minorities, but it is not an imposition. It is a recognition and an acceptance that to benefit from what America has to offer, to benefit from American opportunities, and to preserve these for Americans already present and for future Americans, native born and immigrant, it is necessary to preserve and to adapt to that which is America. Immigrants holding themselves apart denies to them the very reason they came—our opportunities and escape from the restraints of their old countries.

What immigrants must do is accept the current political structures, which they knew from the start, and take part in their new community. These new citizens, like the “original” citizens, must speak a common national language and share the commitment to maintaining and defending the nation. And so, having committed to the nation—to America—they will have their impact by engaging as citizens in our common discourse. However, this is not a demand for sublimation. On the contrary, once immigrants have become citizens, rather than having chosen to remain resident aliens, they can, they should, actively participate in that common discourse and make their influence concerning the nation’s goals and future through free discussion.

Parenthetically, the need to preserve these American attributes, these fundaments of American exceptionalism, emphasizes, also, the importance of providing civics courses that teach the American social contract and American citizenship in our schools, so as to reach all American citizens.

Social Guarantees

Posted on by
2

Ilan Brat and Giada Zampano wrote, in a recent Wall Street Journal piece, about job protections and their effects on the prospects of today’s children and young adults in Europe. The whole article is well worth the read for its specifics, but from my perspective, the following is the money quote, from one of those young adults, Ms Serena Violano, a 31-year-old still sharing a room with her older sister in their parents’ home:

For our parents, everything was much easier. They had the opportunity to start their own life. Instead, we don’t have any guarantees for our own future.

Therein lies the core of the failure of “social democracy.” There are no guarantees. There never were any guarantees, for Ms Violano’s parents or for anyone of that generation. Those of Ms Violano’s parents’ generation made their own futures, with no expectation that anyone, least of all government, would guarantee them anything but the freedom of their own choices and efforts. They had no other expectations because they knew that government could make no other guarantees.

The well-intentioned guarantees of social democracy, including the labor “guarantees” of which Brat and Zampano wrote, in the end can only destroy what they purport to guarantee.

An Attack on the UNRWA School in Rafah

Posted on by
Reply

…for which the US—President Barack Obama and his mouthpiece, Valerie Jarrett and Samantha Power, and his State Department’s mouthpiece, Jen Psaki, have roundly condemned Israel. A typical Obama administration rush to judgment without tarrying for such trivia as facts.

Lenny Ben-David, Managing Director of the Israel Consult, Inc, and erstwhile Israeli Deputy Chief of Mission in DC, has put together some imagery that sheds light on the…incident…with the school. I’ve reproduced them below, together with Ben-David’s twitter captions of them.

Propagan Scandal at Rafah UN school 1. #Israeli attack took place OUTSIDE school, vics dragged inside. see drag marks pic.twitter.com/s48UVUciG5Rafah_1Propag Scandal at Rafah UN school 2. Pic of vics arranged inside school. All 4 men of military age. See drag marks pic.twitter.com/1ZsDtPkJ5yRafah_2Propag Scandal at Rafah UN school 3. Need a child in pic. Striped shirt man brings her. #Israel claimed hit PIJ men pic.twitter.com/hWWBZdSyIC [To which I add: compare the background of this image with the background of the first image: the child, here, clearly is being carried into the school from the outside.]Rafah_3Propag Scandal at Rafah UN school 4. Striped shirt arranges her pathetic body next to PIJ men. Photogs ate it up pic.twitter.com/KTEgM3qgAdRafah_4Prop Scandal at Rafah UN school 5. Poor girl’s final act. Run w her for cameras. Note water to wash away drag marks pic.twitter.com/5f5k6D602oRafah_5These “casualties” obviously were generated well outside the school and carried in for a cynical arrangement. Which our administration, among others, fell for.

That the school wasn’t even hit, much less the target, is shown here.

Will we see soon (or at any time) an apology to Israel by Obama or any of his minions? Maybe not.

 

h/t Power Line

What about a Palestinian’s right to freedom?

Posted on by
Reply

This is the headline of a FoxNews op-ed by Faheem Younus, President of the Baltimore branch of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA and a senior fellow at the University of Baltimore’s Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics. It’s a fair question.

Younus asks us to

think of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of the movie “Shawshank Redemption,” which shows the quest for freedom of an innocent banker serving two life sentences under hopeless circumstances. The cast goes like this: the criminals are Hamas, the warden is Netanyahu, Andy—the banker convicted of murder—is your average Palestinian, and Shawshank is Gaza.

His strawman includes his claim that ordinary Palestinians—Gazans, actually—are prisoners of the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Then Younus expands his claim:

But lately, the Palestinian’s moral right to exist has become a political wrong to list.

Recently, it has become evident that millions of innocent Palestinians will serve life sentences in this Shawshank, that there is no two-state solution, that their yearning for freedom is being swallowed by the biblical dream of a Greater Israel, stretching all the way from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

Of course, Israel has made no such claim. Israel favors a two-state solution (which, of necessity, includes the Palestinians’ “moral right to exist”), having learned from the West’s colonial days, followed by general colonial independence and trade, that the path to prosperity, for Israelis and for Palestinians, including Gazans, is through states freely trading with each other.

While purporting to decry Hamas’ behavior, though, what Younus does not discuss is that when Hamas and Fatah merged under the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas’ leadership, the PA became a terrorist state. Younus denies this (without substantiation), and the PA’s initial rhetoric also denied it. The ensuing empirical facts, though, prove the terrorist nature of the unity government, this new PA. The PA launched their latest terror war just weeks after the unity government’s formation; it has pursued its terrorism with rocket attacks against Israel’s nuclear facility; it has pursued its terrorism with endless rocket firings into Israel with the sole purpose of killing as many civilians and children it can; it has pursued its terrorism by storing its rockets in hospitals, UN facilities (it’s impossible to believe the UN had no complicity in this), and private homes; it has pursued its terrorism through firing from these same homes and hospitals; it has pursued its terrorism by using Gazan civilians and children as personal shields in engagements with the IDF; the list goes on and on and on.

The ensuing empirical facts also include these two: the Fatah part of the PA has been utterly silent on this terrorism. Fatah’s silence is a deafening roar of approval of the PA’s terrorism. Also, Abbas has openly stated he agrees with the attacks.

Gazans—ordinary Palestinians—are not at all prisoners of Netanyahu or of Israel generally. They’re hostages of the terrorist PA, and badly abused by it.

As to that rejection of a two-state solution and a favoring of Younus’ mythical Greater Israel, this is what Netanyahu has said:

“If we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria, like they tell us to…there’d be a possibility of thousands of tunnels” being dug by terrorists to attack Israel, [Netanyahu] said. There were 1,200 tunnels dug in the 14-kilometer border strip between Egypt and Gaza alone…. “At present we have a problem with the territory called Gaza,” the Prime Minister said. But the West Bank is 20 times the size of Gaza. Israel, he said flatly, was not prepared “to create another 20 Gazas” in the West Bank.

The Palestinians do, indeed, have their own right to freedom. And to the prosperity that goes with freedom. The path to that, though, demands that the PA release these innocents from their bondage. The path to that demands an end of terrorist wars against Israel. The path to that demands a verifiable—and verified—removal of the PA from its avowed goal of the utter destruction of Israel.

On Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This is from Justice William Douglas’ dissent in US v Autoworkers [emphasis added]. In the event, his dissent presaged Citizens United.

We deal here with a problem that is fundamental to the electoral process and to the operation of our democratic society. It is whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress. The principle at stake is not peculiar to unions. It is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers’ leagues, farmers’ unions, religious groups and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government.

Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign. The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore important—vitally important—that all channels of communication be open to them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.

In United States v CIO, Mr Justice Rutledge spoke of the importance of the First Amendment rights—freedom of expression and freedom of assembly—to the integrity of our elections. “The most complete exercise of those rights,” he said, “is essential to the full, fair and untrammeled operation of the electoral process. To the extent they are curtailed the electorate is deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function.” …

Some may think that one group or another should not express its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from any group—labor or corporate. First Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.

It would help of Progressives heeded this; the case itself dealt, after all, with a union’s right to speak.

Fat chance. Free speech isn’t for everyone.

h/t The Wall Street Journal