"These are our ancestral homelands. We will defend our people and our culture."
Thus quoth the Native American Sioux. He stands before sacred Bear Butte in South Dakota. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Saudi Muslim. He stands outside the Kaaba in Mecca. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Israeli Jew. He stands at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Shinto Japanese. He stands inside a temple in Kyoto honoring his ancestors. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Frenchman in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame, or the Italian in St. Peter's Square, or the Englishman inside St. Paul's. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion erupt in righteous fury. "Nazi! Racist! Xenophobe!"
I've often wondered if a National iD card would help mitigate if not seriously reduce genuine illegal aliens. No card; no services. And snaring those able to live off the largess of others would be easier.
The only way I would accept something like that (and I am not inclined to accept something like that) is that it would be completely voluntary, contingent only upon someone asking for any kind of a handout or government benefit (there should be none).
Short of that, I don't think any government has the moral right to require that anyone have a national ID card to prove they're a citizen. That's guaranteed to be abused.
That would also guarantee a black market in said national ID cards. There is no arguing this fact. If there is value to it, and it's restricted, there's going to be a black market. Any technology to prevent the creation of phony documents will surely be defeated or copied.
I've only just begun your article, but I want to illustrate some points before I dig into something I can't get myself out of.
I get most of my articles off of LewRockwell, which sometimes wind you up here.
Primarily, this is my first time commenting on this publication; or really reading it ⏤ so it is I'm not sure how comprehensive the exchanges are.
I did notice in your "inaugural address" that there seemed to be a typo, in that what would I* say if I got the job ⏤ in the subtitle.
I wanted to address, however, the observation in choice in respect of the office of the president ⏤ in that according to his oath, he is impeachable for not carrying out certain obligations. This is in reference to constitutional laws that predicate what he must do ⏤ which leaves open the circumstance of previous laws, or laws previously passed by Congress ⏤ and the habitation of the presidential office.
These speculations may be too technical in nature, but I believe they precedent any sort of constitutional obligation, principally.
"These are our ancestral homelands. We will defend our people and our culture."
Thus quoth the Native American Sioux. He stands before sacred Bear Butte in South Dakota. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Saudi Muslim. He stands outside the Kaaba in Mecca. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Israeli Jew. He stands at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Shinto Japanese. He stands inside a temple in Kyoto honoring his ancestors. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion nod in solemn agreement.
Thus quoth the Frenchman in front of the Cathedral of Notre Dame, or the Italian in St. Peter's Square, or the Englishman inside St. Paul's. The Purveyors of Respectable Opinion erupt in righteous fury. "Nazi! Racist! Xenophobe!"
Another great article JD!
Everything you have written applies to the UK as well.
Have a great day my friend!
Mike
Thank you very much.
I've often wondered if a National iD card would help mitigate if not seriously reduce genuine illegal aliens. No card; no services. And snaring those able to live off the largess of others would be easier.
The only way I would accept something like that (and I am not inclined to accept something like that) is that it would be completely voluntary, contingent only upon someone asking for any kind of a handout or government benefit (there should be none).
Short of that, I don't think any government has the moral right to require that anyone have a national ID card to prove they're a citizen. That's guaranteed to be abused.
That would also guarantee a black market in said national ID cards. There is no arguing this fact. If there is value to it, and it's restricted, there's going to be a black market. Any technology to prevent the creation of phony documents will surely be defeated or copied.
What then?
I've only just begun your article, but I want to illustrate some points before I dig into something I can't get myself out of.
I get most of my articles off of LewRockwell, which sometimes wind you up here.
Primarily, this is my first time commenting on this publication; or really reading it ⏤ so it is I'm not sure how comprehensive the exchanges are.
I did notice in your "inaugural address" that there seemed to be a typo, in that what would I* say if I got the job ⏤ in the subtitle.
I wanted to address, however, the observation in choice in respect of the office of the president ⏤ in that according to his oath, he is impeachable for not carrying out certain obligations. This is in reference to constitutional laws that predicate what he must do ⏤ which leaves open the circumstance of previous laws, or laws previously passed by Congress ⏤ and the habitation of the presidential office.
These speculations may be too technical in nature, but I believe they precedent any sort of constitutional obligation, principally.