Two books and a new imprint for your consideration.
First the books, written by John Bolton and Mark Krikorian. The subjects considered by each — sovereignty and immigration, respectively — are inherently part of the same issue: national identity and national boundaries.
Both of these issues are being marginalized by the transnational leftists. There aren’t many such beings on the right, given the precepts of conservatism, which gives pride of place to belonging — whether it be kin networks, localities, states or nations.
One contradiction to leftist ideology can be found in their ideas about “victims”. Thus, La Raza can say — can bellow — “Everything for the Race and nothing outside the Race” and are never called on this motto, the epitome of triumphalist, exclusivist thinking. Brown folks are entitled, you see. And that response in itself may well be the most condescending attitude the white oligarchy has come up with yet.
It is important to bear in mind that this oligarchy is indeed white to the bone. It lets in a few token browns to provide cover, but they must have the credentials provided by elitist education and connections. Despite these few nominal nods to a fairy tale “equality” the ruling class is overwhelmingly white, elitist and in charge. One of its tactics is to keep the turmoil at lower levels ever in flux, black and brown against white. Thus, La Raza and the ubiquitous unions versus the populist Tea Parties. Teach the first two the doctrine of scarcity and make those on the right feel disenfranchised by telling them the new jobs won’t include white men. This nasty rhetoric keeps everyone too busy to look behind the curtain.
You will note that with the elevation of Ms. Kagan, the U.S. Supreme Court will be comprised exclusively of Yale and Harvard graduates. Blacks, Latinas, women — it’s a good cover. Bush was Yale, Obama is Harvard Law. Two peas in a pod of a planned ever-larger government overreach. A government without borders.
Which brings us to Mr. Bolton and Mr. Krikorian’s efforts to inform us what these leftist ideas portend, and why we should pay attention to the government efforts to reduce our attachment to sovereignty or notions of illegal immigration as a violation of the law.
– – – – – – – – –
Former Ambassador to the UN and noted Trouble-Maker-at-large, Mr. Bolton is currently a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. Born into the working class Baltimore Irish community, he used his great intelligence to attain scholarships to private schools early on. He is a graduate of Yale Law School, but is largely considered a turncoat to the cause due to his ‘maverick’ ideas. In order to clean out the mares’ nest of our political class, Bolton advocates (1) giving the U.N. a none-too-gentle heave-ho, perhaps having it land somewhere within the confines of, say, Belgium, and (2) a dedicated, generation-long reform of the feckless U.S. State Department. Having served in both institutions, he knows the wretchedness of which he speaks.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ autobiography credits John Bolton for being a friend and mentor when Thomas arrived in treacherous Washington.
The biographical details on Mr. Krikorian are fewer. He is the director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank concerned with limiting immigration and questioning the current policies (or lack of them) in the US.
His education connections are not on the oligarchic level. To begin with, he is — thankfully — not a lawyer. His undergraduate work was done at Georgetown University, followed by a Master’s Degree at Tufts, in the Fletcher School. While the latter is not well-known outside of the diplomatic and “foreign relations” field, within those realms it is considered top rung. There is also mention of his time at Yerevan State University in Armenia, though it doesn’t reveal what he did there, either as a student or instructor (obviously, given his name, he is of Armenian background). Mr. Krikorian worked as an editor for a small town newspaper in Winchester, Virginia before signing on with CIS fifteen years ago (for real Virginians, Winchester is historically sacred ground. The city seal displays the four flags under which it has been ruled).
Both men are diligent workers in the field of American freedom. Thus both are roundly hated by the transnational Left — a good sign for those of us concerned with our country’s future as a polity dedicated to promoting the rule of law.
I have read neither man’s current offering, so I’ll give you a short overview of each before moving on to my main subject, the imprint under which these forty-eight page books are coming out.
Bolton’s offering, How Barack Obama Is Endangering Our National Sovereignty has this brief blurb:
[he]reveals what sovereignty means to Americans, not as an abstraction but a vibrant component of self government, what the threats are to that sovereignty from “global governance,” and how President Barack Obama looks at these issues. Former Ambassador to the U.N. John R. Bolton looks at specific threats to U.S. sovereignty and recommends what Americans can do to defend their sovereignty and resist encroachments from the wide array of challenges we face, internationally and in our own domestic politics.
Conservatives distrust this president’s ability or intention to protect America’s sovereignty. There is an uncomfortable intuition on the right that he doesn’t particularly like the country of which he finds himself fatefully in charge. Nor does he like our historical ties with what most of us consider our mother country, England. Mrs. Obama has plainly said that her husband’s home country is Kenya and we’re inclined to agree with her. Thus, as has begun in Arizona, we are starting to consider how best to challenge Mr. Obama’s destructive lassitude when it comes to protecting our borders or our people.
Bolton addresses the problems of sovereignty by beginning at the top with Obama himself.
Mr. Krikorian takes on the president, too. In How Obama is Transforming America Through Immigration, he addresses issues he’s covered in more depth in an earlier work. The first book is over three hundred pages;
this one is a tidy forty-eight. A reviewer of the latter says:
Mark Krikorian lays out the details of Obama’s open-borders approach to immigration and its political consequences. Krikorian, one of the leading critics of current immigration policy, examines the Administration’s record of weakening enforcement and describes how legislation crafted by the president’s supporters in Congress would ensure new waves of illegal immigration. Krikorian also explains how continued high levels of immigration, regardless of legal status, would progressively move the United States in the direction of more government and less liberty.
Each of these new offerings has a May 2010 publication date. They’re paperbacks issued by Encounter Books’ imprint, “Encounter Broadsides”. Krikorian’s book is No.10 in the series; Bolton’s is No.11.
The publisher calls the list of books “Ammunition for Serious Debate”. Labeling these short missives as broadsides will resonate for Americans who remember the writings of our earliest political philosophers:
… Uniting an 18th-century sense of political urgency and rhetorical wit (think The Federalist Papers, Common Sense) with 21st-century technology and channels of distribution, Encounter Broadsides offer indispensable ammunition for intelligent debate on the critical issues of our time. Written with passion by some of our most authoritative authors, Encounter Broadsides make the case for liberty and the institutions of democratic capitalism at a time when they are under siege from the resurgence of collectivist sentiment. Read them in a sitting and come away knowing the best we can hope for and the worst we must fear. The best defense is a good Broadside.
This time around, the obstacle to freedom is not England, it is our current administration and in particular, Barack Obama.
Thus you can choose from among the following titles (so far):
|No 1.||Why Obama’s Government Takeover of Healthcare Will Be a Disaster by David Gratzer.|
|No. 2.||Obama’s Betrayal of Israel by Michael Ledeen.|
|No. 3||How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections by John Fund.|
|No. 4||How Barack Obama is Bankrupting the U.S. Economy by Stephen Moore.|
|No.5||How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security by Victor Davis Hanson.|
|No.6||The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s Global Warming Agenda by Roy W. Spencer.|
|[Oops! Two of them are No.6]|
|No.6(b)||How the Obama Administration Has Politicized Justice by Andrew McCarthy.|
|No.8||Obama’s Radical Transformation of America, Year One by Joshua Muravchik.|
|No.9||How Obama Has Mishandled The War on Terror by Michael Mukasey.|
And, of course, Nos. 10 and 11 bring us back to Bolton and Krikorian, to concerns about sovereignty and the massive immigration at our southwest borders, especially with Obama at the helm.
After looking over these books, I was intrigued enough to email Encounter Books to inquire about this idea and what they hoped for. These are small books, easily carried and read in an afternoon. Think of them as good preparation for later on in the year when the campaigns heat up and the rhetoric from the Left becomes ever more frantic.
Here are questions they answered for me regarding Broadsides.
Who conceived of the idea?
Our publisher, Roger Kimball.
[Note:Because he so ably demolishes the shoddy, sleazy work that passes for “art” Roger Kimball is a conservative’s conservative.]
What are your short-term plans for “Broadsides”?
We will continue to make the case for liberty and the institutions of democratic capitalism as long as they are under siege of the resurgence of collectivist sentiment.
Will you be publishing more titles as the 2010 election draws nearer?
Yes. We hope our Broadsides crystallize the issues at stake and provide
ammunition for the political debate.
Are all the book/broadsides going to be limited to 48 pages?
They will be as long as necessary and as short as possible. We think 48 pages is a nice even number.
Are there plans to offer a reduced rate for, say, a subscription to the Broadsides imprint? I realize that $6.00 is quite reasonable (about the price of a quarterly periodical issue). However, pulling readers in via committments for a particular number, or an agreement re a particular author, etc., is probably something you’ve considered?
We are working on a subscription model and other enticing pricing options. Stay tuned on this.
In addition, I asked if future volumes were under consideration (they are), and suggested Congressional Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Encounter seemed to think that was an excellent idea. They hadn’t heard of Lt. Col. Allen West’s campaign in South Florida. I assured them they would indeed be acquainted with West before November rolled around. By way of introduction, I sent a link to the rousing video of his Tea Party speech in Washington, D.C. I especially like this one because of the enthusiasm of the sign language interpreter standing beside him. What a cheerleader!
Take a look at those Broadside offerings from Encounter… and, no, I am not receiving any books or fees for my encomium; I’m just an enthusiast by nature when I come across a good idea. I wish them good fortune with this endeavor: it’s timely, historical, imaginative and lively.
I hope they take on some of the fine campaigners for the coming election. Certainly these challengers will be criticizing the Obama machine. Their dissident voices deserve to be heard above the din of our MSM’s Obama devotees.
By the way, if you have favorite themes or authors to consider, there is an email contact and a phone number at the bottom of the Broadsides page. You’ll find them receptive to your ideas. That’s because you’ll be dealing with an actual business person, not a bureaucrat.
Now if we could just privatize some of the government…
Many thanks to Heroyalwhyness for the correction.
re quote: “Bush was Yale, so is Obama.”
Obama was supposedly a Harvard grad. Beyond published reports of Harvard Law Review presidency – Obama’s academic records remain sealed.
The Harvard-Yale Supreme Court nexus was discussed on McClatchy recently: “When Justice John Paul Stevens retires this summer, however, the eight remaining members of the Supreme Court — the top arbiter of U.S. law and a check and balance on the White House and Congress — will be comprised entirely of legal minds trained at two law schools, Harvard and Yale.”
So much for diversity.
“Encounter Broadsides” as a modern version of The Federalist Papers sounds like a phenomenal idea! I’m looking forward to exploring them all and with any luck,
Lt. Col. Alan West & Bill Whittle of PJTV, are two individuals Encounter Broadsides will consider for future topics as well.
Ah so! Chinglish most very popupar here, too!
In order to clean out the mares’ nest of our political class, Bolton advocates (1) giving the U.N. a none-too-gentle heave-ho, perhaps having it land somewhere within the confines of, say, Belgium
Disappointing. Especially when you reflect that John Bolton is considered to be a kind of mad-dog opponent of the UN. Really he just wants an exemption for the US while the UN continues 9/10ths of its work of global governance (or rest-of-the-global governance) off-shore and under tight NATO supervision. This position is simply a conscious re-enactment of the Wilson-Cabot Lodge compromise.
Baby steps first. Don’t be impatient for total solutions implemented straight off the bat.
If the United States could ever begin to turn against the UN, it would have enormous repercussions and be quite salutary. The UN depends on at least the passive acquiescence (and money) of the USA in order to perform its mischief.
Of course, the coming destruction of the currency will remove the funding of the UN by other means.
Immigration and losing sovereignty is the same thing. Sovereignty represents a nation(the real definition of it) instituting a government that is the sole authority on their land. Well, if immigrants vote, it’s the same as people from other country voting. The biggest threat to US sovereignty is immigration from Mexico, not the UN. At the end of the day, the US is UN’s enforcer. At any moment the US can tell the UN to pack their bags. Harder to do that with immigrants.
Mentioning John Bolton’s views re the UN was a distraction from the broadside he just published. Sorry. It’s just that he was so refreshingly outspoken back then that the political class hated him. Still do, afaik.
Yes, loss of sovereignty and the refusal to inforce our immigration laws go hand in hand. Bush wasn’t any better. He dragged his feet on that one.
Arizona is being destroyed by immigration. So this new whack by California, cancelling a $7m deal, won’t phase them. Not with all the money they have to spend on illegal immigrants right now.
I look for other states to follow with local enforcement of laws already on the books that the federales have decided to ignore.
Long, hot summer.
BTW, Los Angeles is supposed to be broke right about now, so they didn’t really have any $7m to pay Arizona anything. Empty but hostile gesture.
Dymphna, you realize that Auster has a point about this being an act that shows sovereignty on both sides(Cali and Arizona)… So maybe the US is beginning to split up. Who knows.
And Obama is Bush on steroids, so no wonder that Bush wasn’t any good. I hope other states get immigration laws – they kind of have to since now the competition related to it is open. This is why Cali doesn’t like it.
Yes, I agree. This has become a sovereignty issue. I long for the day when the Commonwealth of Virginia also reclaims its sovereignty.
The Mexican portion of California has become large enough to swing the state’s policies in its direction. Call it a “minority controlling interest”. And the non-whites who depend on the state have become so large a proportion relative to those whites (and also the older traditional Hispanic population) who contribute to the state through productivity and taxes, that California is headed rapidly for bankruptcy.
Virginia will have great difficulty reclaiming its sovereignty. If the great suburban mass north of the Rappahannock could be sloughed off, it would be relatively easy — out here in the hinterland we cling bitterly to guns and religion, and would have no problem repudiating the federal usurpers when things go sideways.
But Northern Virginia is a huge federal enclave, a wholly owned subsidiary of the mandarins in Washington D.C. It does not (yet) control the state, but it wields enough power to prevent any sort of attempt at full sovereignty, IMHO.
As Yorkshire Miner is fond of saying, we live in interesting times.