Archive for November, 2004

Explaining Things

Every day you pull your car into a parking place between two other cars. You can just swing your car in.

It is clear you know what you are doing because your car went in on one try without hitting either other car and you left enough space for the other two drivers to reach their cars when they come back, all in one go.

So far, so good.

But for a person who doesn’t drive a car, that can look a little scary. You swing in and obviously you know what you are doing.

How?

Then the person who has never ridden a car before asks you exactly HOW you did that.

Obviously you did it, so why can’t you explain exactly HOW you did it? Chances are that you can’t explain it. You’ve been driving a long time, and you know how to do it. In fact, if you thought about it too much before you swung in, you might just hit one of the other cars for the first time in your life.

Before this election I predicted the results with a fine accuracy. I usually do. To be fair, my doctor brother made the same predictions I did.

By now everybody will tell you they did, too. But we actually did.

So some people asked me HOW I got it right.

I haven’t the foggiest notion.

I started driving — legally — when I was fourteen years old. I was carrying around my first political petitions a year before that. I had done both politics and driving a good while before that.

So during the 2004 political campaign while the pollsters were doing state-by-state scientific analyses and had their hands on the public pulse, I was sitting here watching cable television. I got it right. They got it wrong.

Why?

Even Dick Morris, who is a political expert extraordinaire, made the statement that the election would be “very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, VERY close.”

I didn’t think so. I figured it wouldn’t be runaway, but Bush would win comfortably. In fact, I had very little doubt about it. It seemed obvious to me.

Why?

I haven’t got the foggiest idea.

I said months ago in WhitakerOnline.org [Kerry’s Two Fatal Problems] when Kerry was leading in the polls, that it would be miracle if he won. In that case I was explaining that the Clintons didn’t want him to win. The media are just discovering that, though the Augusta Chronicle ran two op-eds by me that said that months ago.

But that Clinton explanation just a point I wanted to make. Even if I hadn’t come up with that, I knew that Kerry was just plain losing.

If I were in Dick Morris’s position, where he has to explain what he is saying and think about it a lot, I would probably have made the same mistake he did. If I tried to swing my car into a parking space and I had to explain every move I made, I would probably ruin somebody’s fender.

8 Comments

Legal Background on Gay Marriage

The Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that the MASSACHUSETTS STATE Constitution requires gay marriage.

The legal rule is that the Federal courts do not interpret STATE constitutions. So, from the point of view of Federal courts, the state constitution of Massachusetts requires gay marriage.

In 1968, twenty states had anti-miscegenation clauses in their constitutions. But the Supreme Court said that, regardless of the fact that all the states that ratified the Constitution and almost all the states that ratified the fourteenth amendment and had enforced anti-miscegenation laws, the United States Constitution did not allow anti-miscegenation laws.

There was NO question of constitutional intent in that 1968 decision. The Supreme Court made no pretense that they were interpreting original intent. They were making law, and they said so.

On the day that decision was issued, it was Federal law that constitutional intent means absolutely nothing. Unless you object to that decision, constitutional intent means nothing.

And no one dares to question it.

But in that case, the Supreme Court was interpreting the FEDERAL constitution. They agreed with state courts as the final word on the fact that state law banned interracial marriage, but they said the Federal Constitution overruled the state constitutions.

So the Massachusetts law stands.

The next question is whether a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts is valid in other states. The Federal Constitution requires every state to give “full faith and credit” to the acts of other states. But there is no enforcement clause in the “full faith and credit” statement. The Federal courts have consistently refused to enforce it.

The most important case relating to one state recognizing a marriage in another state was when North Carolina refused to recognize the easy Nevada divorce law. A person who was divorced in Nevada found that, according to the North Carolina Supreme Court, he was still married when he came back to North Carolina.

The Federal Supreme Court decided that the North Carolina decision was right, and that North Carolina had no obligation to recognize a Nevada divorce. So even today you can be legally married to two different people in two different states.

When a state refuses to extradite someone convicted in another state, that is a violation of “full faith and credit,” but they have done it hundreds of times.

So a gay couple is legally married as long as it stays inside the state of Massachusetts, and nothing less than a constitutional amendment is likely to change that.

My own opinion is that if you don’t want the courts to own the institution of marriage, you will have to condemn the 1968 decision first. And NOBODY has the guts to do that.

8 Comments

“Both Sides” Equal One Side

I mentioned before that if democracy means voting, there have never been more truly democratic countries on earth than those ruled by Communist regimes. They held THOUSANDS of regular elections. In every single one of those elections the voter turnout was over 99!

In fact, if voter turnout makes a democracy, North Korea is the most democratic country that ever existed. North Korea is the only country that EVER had a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT turnout in a national election.

Did the Communists hold REAL elections?

Absolutely. An election gives the voter two sides, BOTH sides, to choose from. The voter was given a ballot with a list of candidates put forward by the Communist Party. You could: 1) not mark the ballot and drop it into the ballot box; or 2) mark out any names you didn’t like.

If a candidate didn’t get fifty percent of the vote, the Party had to come up with a new nominee.

That never happened. But you had TWO choices. You could choose between “both sides.”

And, it was a secret ballot. You could take the list behind a curtain and mark off any names you didn’t approve of.

Going behind this curtain presented a minor problem. You were in a room where Communist Party members were sitting. If you wanted to approve the entire Communist Party ticket you simply took the ballot of dropped it into the ballot box. Almost everybody did not go behind the curtain and loyally dropped the list straight into the box.

If you took the ballot behind the curtain to mark some names off, several Party members saw you do it.

Oddly enough, not only did over 99% of voters turn out, but over 99% of them voted a straight Communist ticket.

But “both sides” were represented.

In America we have free speech because “both sides” are represented. Both leftism and respectable conservatism are supposed to be given equal time. But what if you aren’t a leftist, a respectable conservative, or somewhere in between?

If you are not one of the “both” sides, then you go behind that curtain.

And people see you do it.

2 Comments

11/13/04 Insider Letter

(reprinted to Blog from 11/13/04)

*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***

A writer on Stormfront mentioned that it was the World War II generation that gave everything away. Nobody has ever discussed that but Yours Truly, but it is becoming part of general knowledge.

A congressman was told that if he believes in free trade of goods and services he should believe in free trade of labor, which means open borders for immigrants.

That used to be the standard conservative line: “Free movement of goods, services, AND LABOR.”

The congressman replied that there is a huge difference between goods and services on the one side and labor on the other. He said, “Labor VOTES!”

Obvious, isn’t it?

But for years, nobody mentioned the fact that labor votes except one Robert Walker Whitaker, Esquire. It took me YEARS to get THAT point across.

Now I am trying to get THIS point across:

“There is a professor at Harvard named Noel Ignatiev who says:

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.”

You then go on to say that everybody who says he is an anti-racist agrees with that. They say they want to “solve the race problem” by pushing immigration and integration on EVERY white country on earth and ONLY on white countries.

They say intermarriage is the solution to the RACE problem. But this so-called RACE problem does not exist in Asia or Africa. As Ignatiev said, they demand a final solution to the WHITE problem in exactly the same way that Hitler demanded a final solution to the Jewish problem.

You can call that anti-racism. I call that genocide. Does that make me a racist?

Once this point becomes general knowledge, the entire political landscape will be affected. It puts the enemies of white people, who have always been on the offensive, in a vulnerable, defensive position.

This is a war of words. I work hard to find the right words. I start with the conviction that I am right and they are wrong, and I back that up by finding the simplest way to put the truth.

But all my life, while making these devastating points, I have been ABSOLUTELY alone. No one backs me up. Everyone wants to forward to everybody the latest conservative book or some exposition of how Kerry has underarm odor.

I sure could use some help.

READBOB.COM

Bob

No Comments

Mike, Our Humor is a Bit Rough Here

Mike and Peter seem a bit confused by my long fake insults to HS and Richard.

Mike asked if I wanted comments or not.

Mike and Peter, if you ask Richard or HS, you will find they are both proud that I directed my fake put-downs at them, just as I directed one at myself.

If I like what you say, I’m not going to tell you you’re a sweet kid. That would make HS or Richard sick.

Look at what I said about HS and Richard. It said they are both big-leaguers.

It also says that HS and Richard can not only dish it out, they can take it.

I would much rather someone say that about me than give me some sugar-sweet words of praise.

4 Comments

What Censorship Is

The first rule of REAL censorship is that you don’t read about it.

Where would you read about it?

If you ask the average person about censorship, he will talk about the suppression he reads about a lot. He will ask you if you are talking about Michael Moore or the Federal Government refusing to sponsor pornographic “art.”

Those incidents of “censorship” are well-known because people read about them all the time.

When the Canadian authorities seized Why Johnny Can’t Think: America’s Professor-Priesthood I was not “outraged.” This is standard practice. I have dealt with it all my life.

Some people said, “Bob, you should take this to the press.”

Yea, right.

How?

This is not Michael Moore-type national press discussions of “censorship.”

This is the real thing.

You can join the mob and scream about “censorship” when prayers are banned in public school and the fact is trumpeted nation-wide. This is what I call “famous censorship.”

Famous censorship is not real censorship. The whole point of real censorship is to keep things from becoming famous.

Making a big thing about students’ right to pray in school is easy and it makes the people who do it feel brave. You have a billion-dollar evangelical compex to trumpet that call. Those evangelicals have bought their right to media access by pushing third-world adoptions.

Those protestors of students not being allowed to pray in school wouldn’t touch the suppression of a book like mine. They could lose their respectability that way.

Let me repeat: real censorship is what you DON’T hear about.

3 Comments

11/27/04 Insider Letter

*** Bob’s Insider’s Message ***

(reprinted from 11/27/04)

In last week’s message I wrote about the heroic professor in Arizona who is under attack for standing up for white Americans. Mexicans are demanding that he be fired or disciplined for exercising his rights as an American. Whose country is this, anyway?

The college is being sued, and I’ve been asked to contact the Chancellor and others on the board regarding this. Here is what I will send them.

Dear Sir,

I was heartened to read in the November 13th Arizona Republic that you and the others in charge of the Maricopa Community College System are taking your jobs seriously, and resisting the bullying tactics of MALDEF and other special interest groups who come here to take advantage of the many great things our country has to offer while spitting in our faces. How dare these guests “demand” an end to our first amendment rights of freedom of speech because they don’t like what some people say.

Would these people consider my saying that they “demand an end to our first amendment rights” to be “discriminatory,” “racist,” or otherwise “hateful” or “hostile”? Or would they ask, as any student interested in real learning, “Are these statements factual?” Why do they come to America – to find a better way of life here (meaning a better place than they left) or to bring us light in some missionary effort? Has Mexico ever made a serious claim to being self-governing? Don’t all the multi-culturalists tell us that America is ONLY valuable because it is self-governing, and owes nothing at all to the unique characteristics of its founding people? Don’t these same multi-culturalists tell us that our self-government is limited to one choice when it comes to immigration – “Celebrate it, roll over for it, never criticize or try to limit it”? If not, then how do they expect Americans exercising their constitutional rights to disagree? “Oh, we are just not worthy of such wonderful folks.”

As a former student, professor, and author of a book on universities and the state religion of Political Correctness, I understand the difficult position you have been put in by this monstrous situation. You may well consider yourself a “liberal.” But you are making the only stand you can make. You must stand for academic freedom in a real sense, in the same way a man stands for his honor and a woman her virtue. To do otherwise is to become a hypocrite, a coward, a whore.

Those who despise our Western civilization will not understand your decision. They cannot fathom what moral courage is, much less the teaching of our Lord that having done our duty, we are still the “unprofitable servant.” They can say this outlook is not “superior” to the dog-eat-dog world they came from. Maybe they just don’t know any better. But you do. Let us not cast our pearls before swine.

You can count on my standing with you. I and thousands of others who are coming to the place of no longer tolerating this assault on our heritage and our future. We are not requesting, but DEMANDING an end to the religion of Political Correctness on our campuses. We pay the taxes that pay your salary and fund these schools. We will not have them be used as weapons against us.

May God be with you.

Robert W. Whitaker

This best way I know of to give thanks for the blessings we’ve been given is to fight to keep them for our posterity. Thanks to all of my loyal readers for your support of WOL and Why Johnny Can’t Think. May God bless you and your families.

Bob

6 Comments

HS is a Computer, Richard is a Freak

No sane person would write this blog. No sane human being would regularly comment on this blog.

That makes me proud.

In the article below I explained that, since HS is either a Bible-believing Christian who does not think that HS is the Voice of God, or HS must be a computer. I therefore refer to HS as “it.”

Richard L. Harrison is not a computer like HS and he is not basket case like me. Richard is a freak.

Richard knows what the Septuagint is, but he is a Bible-believing Christian. The first requirement for anybody who calls himself a Bible-believing Christian is that he does know that the last centuries of the Old Testament were written in Greek.

Even worse, Richard knows what Manichaeism is.

But it gets worse. Richard is not a Calvinist, but he has actually READ The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin’s tome.

The Institutes started small, but by the time Calvin died, it was ten thousand pages long.

I would not lie to you. I was in politics.

So if you read the blog and the comments, you will find we have a basket case, a computer and a freak.

If you keep commenting, you too will get an ego-boosting compliment just like Richard and HS got.

4 Comments