A couple of weeks ago I wrote a ‘think piece’ describing how things like the coronavirus illustrate why I am a ‘nationalist.’ You could sum it up basically as this: a proper role of the government is to serve its own people first and primarily.
The fatal flaw of globalists is that they are perfectly happy to see their own citizens suffer as long as the globalist can thump his chest about how ‘compassionate’ he is. The more reasonable route does not strike me as controversial… you know, how about protecting the interests of your own citizens and then provide care and concern for the citizens of other countries? After all, those folks have their own governments, right? This seems to me, and to many, as basic.
So, if the countries of Central America are crappy, the globalist does not say, “Let’s help them fix their countries.” The globalist says, “Let’s bring in all the problems of those countries and make them our own. No? YOU HATEFUL XENOPHOBIC RACIST!”
I don’t want to make this another ‘think piece’ on nationalism, but rather a ‘think piece’ on the other side of the coin, about the life we have–or should have–behind the protections of our own government. The whole point and purpose of such protections is that foreigners would have to undergo certain procedures so that we do not have to.
The privileges and immunities of the US Constitution apply to Americans. Not Italians, Armenians, or Canadians. This basic fact is lost on most of the American ‘left,’ some of whom literally believe that foreigners have ‘Constitutional Rights.’ Unfortunately, those on the American ‘right’ have been all too eager to go the other direction. That is, they may correctly reject the idea that a Frenchman has rights under the US Constitution, but they then retract those rights even for American citizens!
What is the Patriot Act except a sweeping infringement of basic liberties of Americans? This was passed on a bi-partisan manner. Or what about the FISA courts? Ostensibly, these were supposed to be directed against foreigners (That is what the ‘f’ stands for in FISA), but we saw recently that there are people pleased as punch to turn such things against American citizens as it suits them. FISA is a particularly dastardly abuse, as the American Constitution expressly insists that the accused in America have the right to face their accuser, while the FISA courts deliberately prevent this from happening. Who is shocked that it came to be abused? And yet ‘conservatives’ supported this, too.
Basically, it works like this. The ‘left’ is happy to completely and utterly disregard due process and the rule of law on the sole basis of the feeling it gives them when they perceive they are showing ’empathy.’ If someone else suffers along the way, well, they probably deserve it. (See the current war on the ‘rich’ in the Democrat primary process.) But the ‘right’ is ready to disregard due process and the rule of law on the basis of public safety, security, and what not.
Neither extreme is all that great. If I had to choose one, I’d refuse to choose either of them. The problem is that so-called ‘public health’ issues are treated as ‘common cause’ by both Democrats and Republicans, and naturally, ‘public health’ issues are always portrayed as requiring collective, sweeping, actions concerning the ENTIRE PUBLIC, typically with top down measures. Historically, wide latitude has been given to our politicians to usurp our rights in the name of a ‘crisis.’ When the ‘crisis’ is a ‘public health’ one, then we all get inflicted with the ‘health’ measures, whether we live where the incident is taking place, or 2,000 miles away.
The point that the Republicans miss is that the whole point of our system is to ensure that our rights NEED NOT BE USURPED because elsewhere in the system, due diligence and due process are being exercised at the precise point of pressure.
The latest example of this is the whole anti-vaping thing that went down. In a particularly odious and obnoxious example of Federal overreach, Trump (a Republican president) signed into a law legislation passed by the Democrat held House and the Republican held Senate. In another case, the Republican held SCOTUS upheld the ban on bump stocks, a perfect example of an isolated abuse by a single person leading to the removal of rights of 300,000,000 people.
At least the bump stock ban was tied explicitly to… wait for it… bump stocks. The anti-vaping law expanded into a bloated ban on tobacco purchases in general, which extended the age from 18 (adults, supposedly) to 21. And what was the catalyst for this sweeping infringement on American adults going well beyond the original pretext? A supposed ‘epidemic’ of vaping related deaths. You haven’t noticed, I suppose, that now that the law was passed, there has hardly been a peep about vaping or vaping related deaths? After the passage of the law, there have been as many incidents as before the passing of the law, and yet the issue has dropped completely out of the media. What a bunch of manipulating asses and manipulated tools.
Actually, looking at the chart provides a good example of what I mean by ‘exercised at the precise point of pressure.’ Clearly, there were few, if any, dangers to ‘vaping’ prior to late summer of 2019. There had to have been a specific circumstance which made this spike occur. Instead of resolving that circumstance related to VAPING, why, naturally, of course, we should extend our reach to tobacco in general! Of course!
The CDC website gives us some reasons why there has been a decline after the ‘spike.’ None of those reasons are related to the new restrictive legislation. SHOCKER! The reasons given are spurious in themselves:
- Increased public awareness of the risk associated with THC-containing e-cigarette, or vaping, product use as a result of the rapid public health response.
- Removal of vitamin E acetate from some products.
- Law enforcement actions related to illicit products.
Almost certainly, the second was more important than the first. The third belies the fact that there were already laws sufficient to deal with the issue without passing any others. The tobacco/vaping law was not passed until Dec. 20, but the incidents had already begun falling in October. Any decline really tied to law enforcement action was on the basis of existing law.
I’m pretty torqued off about how all of that unfolded, but for my purposes here, I offer it only as an illustration of how both Republicans and Democrats and so-called ‘civil servants’ can all conspire together to erode the freedoms and liberties of average Americans. As Rahm Emmanuel famously put it: never let a crisis go to waste.
Returning to the coronavirus, based on the information available right now, there is very little to fear about it beyond what we already fear when it comes to communicable diseases. It seems possible that there is information we don’t have which the various authorities do have–namely, the coronavirus is an engineered bioweapon that has escaped a Chinese weapons lab. That would change my calculus, but if this is a true fact, it is not one that has been revealed definitively to us. Therefore, I’m going to operate on the basis of information already in hand, which is that the coronavirus is not much more than a slightly more contagious version of the flu with its own unique set of complications.
Now, in a reasonable world, we’d focus our efforts on addressing that unique set of complications. But this is a world in which vaping deaths clearly associated with some X factor, and that X factor alone (Vitamin E acetate, apparently), leads to sweeping FEDERAL legislation that goes beyond the ‘target’ into broader areas, in this case, tobacco use.
Evidently, we can expect mass quarantines, mass runs on food and supplies at the store, checkpoints throughout the country, cancellations of schools for weeks on end, and who knows what other draconian measure will be contemplated, when in fact narrow proscriptions in relatively confined regions or localities would have been sufficient. This is an extension of patterns we’ve already seen.
I feel reasonably confident that the minute they develop a vaccine, they are going to REQUIRE everyone to take it. The ground has already been laid for this in many other very minor examples. Public health officials literally have wet dreams about being able to force people to take vaccines. If the vaccine itself causes harm? Well, they’ll never find out, will they? And anyhow, its not their loved ones harmed by the vaccine.
Democrats, naturally, usually support such measures, although as we saw in the measles ‘outbreak’ in New York, there are still a good number of genuinely ‘liberal’ people who resent being asked to bear a risk when the risk posed by the actual disease is tiny. But its not the Democrats I fear–they are a known quantity when it comes to such things. There is no restriction they are uncomfortable inflicting on their fellow man except when it comes to sex. As far as sex goes, they want you to have it as much as you want, with anyone or anything, with no consequence whatsoever.
But Republicans, while retaining some sanity when it comes to realistically considering the topic of sexuality, cannot bring themselves to put their foot down when presented with infringing measures in the name of ‘public health.’
Thus, I have known many Republicans who support compulsory vaccination. History, both at the Federal, state, county, and municipal levels, reveal that Republicans can be found defending such policies. To date, however, these battles have been fought mainly at the state or municipal level.
If they have been supportive of compulsory vaccination when it is just the measly measles, what are they going to do with the coronavirus?
In principle, you’d think not much. After all, the flu already kills tens of thousands of Americans each year, and though there are mass campaigns to encourage people to get vaccinated, except in narrow cases (eg, workers in hospitals, etc), these are not made compulsory. If this is already the case with the flu, why would it be different with the coronavirus?
(We may ask another question: if this is the case with the flu, and there are very few calls, if any, to require getting a vaccination for the flu, why are there so many calls to require vaccinations for the measles, chicken pox, etc, where there are nearly zero deaths each year for the last twenty years? A topic for a different day, but the short answer probably is: MONEY and POWER.)
I suspect that the coronavirus will be different for all the reasons it is a big deal already. Namely, the Media. What would the media do without a crisis every week? Probably go out of business. I, for one, would welcome that. However, it seems unlikely to happen. (Sad!) Which means that no matter what happens, even if confined to small regions, with just a couple of fatalities, if Trump does not move to enact every conceivable tool at his disposal to curb the spread of the coronavirus, he will be flogged mercilessly by the Media. We’ve already seen Democrat politicians join in this.
But that’s not the worst of it, because Trump has shown that he is willing to stand up to Democrats and the media alike. The inflamed Republican voters will be sympathetic to such things, probably beyond what the facts dictate (just like the panic over the coronavirus is probably inflamed beyond what the facts dictate), and will expect Trump to do what is necessary to curb it. And Trump already has a proven track record of taking such measures (bump stocks, vaping).
Well, I don’t suppose anyone has considered what would REALLY be necessary to curb the flu, let alone the coronavirus. Living within such a society would be living under a tyranny. Trump is primed to do it all: checkpoints, quarantines, compulsory vaccination, etc. As would any Republican president, I believe. As, indeed, pretty much every politician, regardless of political stripe, although the rationales might differ.
Thus, I return to my first paragraphs.
A society operating like this is not a free society at all. The reason we defend our borders is precisely so that we do not have to live like this in the first place. Unfortunately, we already have much of the apparatus in place to inflict such things on ourselves. Will this be the time that it really goes beyond the pale?
If you haven’t figured out yet that every few months there is some kind of ‘national’ crisis which calls out for national, Federalized, impositions, there is probably nothing that can be done for you. But let’s say you have noticed, and are concerned. What then?
Might I suggest that the answer is not more of the same, but rather a radical return to the Constitution, as written?
I don’t care how much power you give the president, Congress, or bureaucrats in general, there are some things that just cannot be stopped. Sure, sometimes you can dampen them. But it is high time you consider the cost that you pay for measures which rarely, if ever, achieve the stated aims. If you don’t get a ‘return on investment’ from Central Planners, maybe we can give Self-Governance a shot? At the very least, if New York or California (for example) foul it up (as we fully expect them to do), at least Wisconsin and Missouri don’t have to pay for their mistakes.
But if the Central Planners fail, we all pay.