Bush’s Motivations, Consequences, and Solutions

Dear Mr Kalb and Fellow Readers,

We are fighting a retreat based on timid leadership in legislatures and in Websites. The liberal Senate and the nearly liberal House are nearly always proposing amnesty etc. The House might or might not hold firm in refusing to compromise on enforcement only, but do not count on it for an instant. And what would be such a “success”? Defensive action.

Why do the enforcement-only congressmen not band together and go on the offensive against whoever is in their way even if it is the President. As Thomas Sowell said in Human Events on May 15, 2006, “Gen. MacArthur once defined defensive warfare in one word: ‘Defeat.’” The enforcement-only congressmen have been losing for decades, and they are used to it. They have become mere courtesans. No leader, no Congress can lose for decades and hold respect. What have the revolutionaries to lose, assuming they are not in it for a career?

As brilliant as Mr. Sowell is on most occasions, he is clearly a defeatist when he assumes a Democratic takeover (which by the way will almost certainly occur if the House compromises) “disqualifies them for national leadership when a nuclear Iran and nuclear terrorists loom on the horizon.” Do not most know Bush is going to take no decisive military action against Iran? Do not most know nuclear terrorism is not going to be cured by Bush or anybody else on the horizon? If he were serious about nuclear terrorism, he would evacuate our cities and use tactical nuclear weapons agaisnt countries with leaders such as Iran.

Be clear about one thing, if anything. Bush is the enemy. Just as he will destroy your Party, country, and culture over Iraq, he will destroy them over his dedication to his adoptive Mexican culture regardless of argument. Destroy over Iraq? Yes, Chris Matthews and his correspondents really drove this home tonight when they concluded Bush is going to pursue the Iraq war no matter what. Evidence of his disregard for the will of the American people over Mexico: his continual lying about whether he his pushing amnesty. Offense is needed.

Nevertheless, keep a close eye on and support David Vitter, my senator, a brilliant, fearless person I am certain will be a formidable Presidential. I know him, and he is the real thing.

Paul Henri

14 thoughts on “Bush’s Motivations, Consequences, and Solutions”

  1. Nuke the President?

    What should border-enforcement Congressmen do to go on the offensive? They have no power other than to argue their case and vote — the same power that the other side has. They have no hold over the President, and the national Republican party, which supports Bush, will not take kindly to any activist opposition (whatever that might be) to him from members of his own party.

    It’s down to Americans to resist the combined influence of big business, the mainstream media, the Liberal Establishment, and the pro-amnesty lobby. That’s quite an order.

    Why don’t we all move to Arizona, form a strong majority, and resist the national government?

    • Paul,
      I happen to think Bush


      I happen to think Bush will strike Iran, through air attacks, before he leaves office. I don’t think he can resist, because I think Bush is addicted to war. I have no idea if such a strike will have any effectiveness, or what the blowback might be.

      As for the evil twins of Iraq and the immigration meltdown, this is a logical consequence of neoconservatism, which dilutes the historical nation into an ideology then preaches the armed proselytization of that ideology throughout the world (with special emphasis on our enemies), on the grounds that the ideology contains universal principles valid for all peoples at all times. On the immigration front, this ideology means the nation is composed not of a common culture or common history, but just a collection of random individuals who subscribe to the ruling ideology (the “proposition nation”). This kind of thinking leads naturally to an open-borders policy, because a common culture or a common history are wholly irrelevant considerations (and such considerations would be “racist” and non-universalist).

      Thus, Bush interprets himself as spreading these universal principles into the Middle East through his democratization crusade, and enacting them at home through an open-borders policy. He understands these ideological principles as universally salvific, and therefore 1. relevant to the experience of everyone, everywhere, 2. first principles, that override all other considerations, and 3. non-negotiable.

      Bush is vague about these ideological principles, as all neoconservatives are. They usually intone something along the lines of “freedom” and “democracy,” and “all people yearn to be free,” and “American has a unique destiny,” or “America is a beacon to the world,” etc. The implication is that we have exclusive possession of the truth, and better yet, we have a national mission to share this truth or impose it upon all other peoples of the world, for which the world will be eternally grateful.

      This makes him a fanatic over Iraq, and a fanatic over open borders. On the first item he alienates liberals and moderates (and some conservatives); on the second item, he alienates conservatives and traditionalists.

      • Political Ideology as Religion
        Dear MD and Fellow Readers,

        It is important that you remind us that neoconservatism is political ideology. Political ideology cannot be proven through liberal rationalism. It is therefore a series of beliefs, that is, a religion not truth.

        Paul Henri

        • Lawrence Auster linked to
          Lawrence Auster linked to Randall Parker’s amusing suggestion to merge the two obsessions of neoconservatism, Iraq and mass immigration, by sending tens of millions of Mestizos to the Sunni triangle to marginalize the Sunnis, drive down their wages, dilute their culture, overwhelm their cultural institutions, and drain their treasury for welfare costs.

          Parker ends by saying this:

          “I know what you are saying: I wish I had thought of that.

          How can any supporter of the CIRA legislation in the Senate or in the White House object to this plan? We’d only be doing to Iraq what our leaders want to do to America.”


          • Auster: Bush is a Liar
            Dear MD and Fellow Readers,

            Mr. Auster struck near the head of the nail when he concluded at VFR that Bush was a bigger liar than Clinton. Clinton is simply a vile human being incapable of telling the truth. Bush lies to further his agenda. As soon as Bush concluded his promises of a pathetic set of border security strategems, he said to the effect that none of what he had just said would be worth a farthing unless we had a guest worker program. His premise is we must succumb to an organized invasion to avoid a disorganized invasion. Only a moron or a liar would believe this.

            The juggernaut Bushites set forth is “we cannot get rid of the illegals already here.” Ann Coulter has part of the answer: apprehend them when they appear in emergency rooms, classrooms, and at worksites. Attrition and mass deportation are just two more modest devices.

            Accordingly, people have reason to believe nothing Bush says. This was the result of Clinton’s leadership and is the result of Bush’s.

            Paul Henri

          • I think Auster’s premise
            I think Auster’s premise is that Bush invites the invasion, and actively enables it; he actually believes in it as a positive good.

            His lie, which has come actually late in the game, is his expressed concern for border security.

            In his national address, Bush did deliver a bold-faced lie. He said “guest workers” should return to their home countries when their guest worker status expired. When an amendment to CIRA, to assure such a return, was introduced in the Senate, the White House lobbied against it.

          • Bush the Traitor
            Dear MD and Fellow Readers,

            If it is not clear yet, Bush is a Benedict Arnold, who relied on his military accomplishments against the British. Similarly Bush relies on his accomplishments in Afghanistan as evidence he is a patriot. Yet we know he does nothing if not to encourage a Mexican invasion of America. He needs to be tried and hung, in my view.

            Oh my oh my, Bush is so congenial. Traitors and the Devil never appear less than congenial.

            Paul Henri

    • Congressional Affirmative Action
      Dear Rick and Fellow Readers,

      You are correct that congressmen have limited powers. And they have the ability to obstruct the President in many procedural ways. They can make him a laughing stock. They can unite behind a leader such as David Vitter and Tom Tancredo and savage him publicly and obfuscate every action he undertakes short of bringing the war with Islam to our borders. The Republicans must try to make him anathema, or the Republicans will surely lose the majority this fall.

      It is critical to realize Bush knows the potential consequences of his behavior and is willing to accept it; he intends to stay the course in Iraq without an understandable explanation and to assist in Mexico’s invasion of the U.S. He is hardheaded and will not waiver! Such a situation requires unwavering pro-action instead of reaction.

      Take heart that a majority of Republican senators voted against Bush’s amnesty bill. This is miserable leadership on the part of Bush and the abominable Frist, and is further evidence of Bush’s devotion to a Mexican invasion; yet this empowers the House to stand firm on its enforcement-only bill. I am sorry for going so long but you must, as encouragement, hear that the two senators I targeted this morning through analysis, Lott of Mississippi and Thomas of Wyoming (who had voted to cut off debate on S.2611) voted against S.2611 in the end. So never give up.

      I am more than willing to hear contradictions. I don’t want to take stupid action.

      Paul Henri

  2. John Calvin. Father from Neoconservatism
    A Foreign Policy of Fools

    Doug Bandow opens his article in http://www.antiwar.com, with a reference to John Winthrop and the Puritans:

    “A shining city on a hill. A light unto the world. That’s what early Americans hoped their land would become. A beacon of liberty, beckoning others to follow. A place of refuge and hope for those fleeing tyranny or seeking opportunity. An oasis in the midst of conflict and chaos. This once described the United States. But no longer.”

    That is an optimistic and erroneous assessment of the early American experience, even if we exclude the Puritans’ behavior toward the Indians, once described as “they fell first upon their knees and then upon the aborigines.”

    The Puritans always sounded nice when they were a dissenting minority, but in Massachusetts they were a majority, and practiced the first tyranny of the majority in our history.

    One of their favorite tortures, while chasing out people like Anne Hutchinson or Roger Williams, was ramming red hot irons through the tongues of dissenting Quakers – some “light,” some “shining city.” This has always been the other side of American history, and the torturers in our history, from the Philippines to Iraq, have a long tradition. Charles II had it right when he observed that the Puritans killed more men in that godforsaken wilderness than ever he did to avenge the death of his father.

    ~ Bill Marina, professor emeritus in history, Florida Atlantic U. & exec. dir., The Marina-Huerta Educational Foundation

    • Puritans
      Eric Voegelin has a nice case study of the Puritans in his book, “New Science of Politics.” Voegelin analyzes them as a political sect, intent on establishing a paradise on Earth through their appropriation of Scripture as a political tract, through their exercise of absolute power, and willing to undo and destroy all established institutions and public order along the way.

  3. Fight

    There is no more powerful word in the probably Anglo-Saxon dictionary of powerful words. Many fighters are in a solitary foxhole and bewildered, looking for leadership. Forget Bush. Forget trying to save the Republican majority by averting to Bush; he actively is trying to destroy the Republican majority. He is trading his “war on terror” and “no amnesty” to succeed at his actual objective: unknown. He is a crude. He thinks we do not recognize his lies are euphemisms for a war with Islam and to let Mexico take back its territory lost in the TREATY of Guadalupe Hidalgo and then some.

    Lawrence Auster at VFR links to a piece (http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul06.html) about the pudgy (not that I am slim anymore) Karl Rove, the half-wit behind the nitwit, and concludes there might be something to it. This is an error. Rove is not a mastermind unless one believes masterminds are people that hurt America and get themselves and their nitwits in major political trouble. So please refrain from being impressed with this half-wit. Soldiers in foxholes targeting Al Zarqawi got him, not Karl Rove, who had the audacity to hold two thumbs up to the media, which is a reliable communicator of propaganda because of its financial laziness.

    The main error is failing to fight. One way to fight: Politicians are usually bought cheaply, and we have a particularly cheap crop of them, as witnessed by the Senate’s passage of its amnesty bill. Pester your senators and House representatives incessantly, and contribute funds to them. You need not contribute hundreds or thousands of dollars. First and foremost tell them about their errors, but don’t forget to send them ten bucks every now and then when they do something you agree with. They will really pay attention to you under those circumstances. If you personally have been adversely affected by their action, tell them; such stories are pure gold.

    Fight by joining the Minutemen and other action groups even if you rarely have the time to appear with them. Membership is critical; membership spreads confidence, which spreads confidence. And use this site’s arguments to underlie your arguments, which cannot be refuted although some will assuredly introduce improvable assumptions in rebuttal. You will nevertheless have caused their eye to twitch. Get them distracted. Look on fighting as fun; no one is going to punch you, unless he or she wants to go to jail. Take a camcorder if you are timid. But mainly, get after your legislators, and do not stop doing so.

    Paul Henri

  4. Tom Tancredo
    Dear Mr. Kalb and Fellow Readers,

    Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country. No rant here; all meat. As pointed out by Lawrence Auster at VFR (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005869.html), the House is holding an uncommon hearing, this one being about whether it should appoint members to a conference committee to discuss the Senate’s amnesty bill. Just weight in with both fists on your House Representative regardless of how liberal he is. “Both fists” means exerting serious effort, not lambasting your representative, from whom you will gain nothing with such tactics. You must always be polite, solicitous, and reasonable. Yet you need not be verbose. If you are too anxious to compose a paragraph or two, just say, “Please vote against agreeing to a conference committee.”

    And for goodness sake, send him ten or twenty bucks every now and then when he votes for a bill you like. THEY CHECK SUCH THINGS BEFORE RESPONDING. Politicians are bought cheaply I am afraid to say.

    Bush will be gone in a couple of years, and we can support someone that supports a strong border enforcement policy. Again a cite I derived from VFR: http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin084772972jun08,0,4048476,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines. Here Jim Pinkerton (a Saturday regular on Fox News’ discussion of the media) stated as follows in part:

    “Rep. Tom Tancredo, who has made border control his signature issue, won a Republican presidential straw poll in Michigan. That’s right, an obscure backbencher from Colorado beat out all the big names, including Sens. John McCain, Bill Frist and Sam Brownback, all of whom voted with Bush on the pro-amnesty bill. McCain and the rest have cash and consultants, but Tancredo has something much better: a hot issue, a cause. . . .”

    Pretty choice: Karl Rove years ago told Tom Terrific never to darken the door of the President again. What an endorsement from a powerful half-wit courtier! So don’t be negative in your thinking. Think you can make a difference, and you will make a difference. No? If two movie actors can be governors of a huge state and one can be President of the United States, why cannot a representative from Colorado? Lincoln lost the senatorial election of 1858 to Stephen Douglas yet emerged as President. Why can’t Tancredo?

    Paul Henri

    • What an excellent, inspiring comment, Paul Henri!
      Thank you for the comment of 12:22am—one of your best ever!

      Long live free Flanders!

      • Humble and Practical
        Dear Fred and Fellow Readers,

        I am humbled by the high intellectual content Mr. Kalb draws like an electromagnet. Although I am not a part of that content, even intellects need motivation. I strive to understand them so as to learn for my own practical interest and to help them to take action and to sell themselves. Of course it encourages me to think many that love this site might not have high intellects; like me, they have an addiction to learning.

        No, I don’t live in a trailer down by the river. This is an inside reference to the skit performed by the talented, deceased alumnus of Saturday Night Live: Chris Farley. His skit’s character was a basket case who gave goofy motivational speeches.

        But I can deliver a speech well. I say this not to brag but to add to this site’s resume. I encourage others to state their talents so we can know we are surrounded by people with power and draw upon them if needed, not that a blog entry here imposes an obligation.

        Paul Henri

Comments are closed.