The Bill of Whites

The Federal government has been whittling away at our constitutional rights for decades now. Some might say it has been doing so for centuries. Our struggle for liberty has seen ups and downs, to be sure. In some ways, Americans today enjoy more liberty than in the past. For example, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 constituted some of the gravest threats to our liberty in the history of the republic. That they remained in effect for several years, and many people prosecuted under them, is evidence that the early republic was not a utopia for lovers of freedom. Abraham Lincoln’s treatment of those who opposed his war against the South would be unthinkable today. Much as we complain about government violations against our rights, so far they’re not arresting newspaper editors for their opinions (though this may be because government and the media are now controlled by the same people).
In other ways, we are much less free today than in the 19th century. While our freedom to criticize the government has increased, our freedom to criticize the government program of population replacement is severely curtailed. While there are no specific laws against criticizing non-whites, it’s virtually impossible to gain public office if you do so. You are also likely to lose your government job, or be demoted (hat tip to human-stupidity), if you express unorthodox opinions even outside of work.
It took whites a long time to recognized freedom of speech, and not all regions of the white world have advanced equally. How sad then, that the countries that have cherished this freedom the most, have also been the ones whose governments have been actively working to replace their white majorities with more primitive peoples – peoples that have little concept of “freedom of speech”. Eventually, the increasing numbers of non-Asian minorities will bring about a decrease in freedoms and the standard of living. When this reaches a certain point, the influx of NAMs will diminish – because there will no longer be a strong enough incentive for them to come here.

Considering that Obama’s predecessors, all of them white, showed little respect for civil liberties, we can hardly expect the mulatto (self-proclaimed “black”) president to be any different. Whether he was born in the U.S. or Kenya, some four years of his formative years were spent in Indonesia. Obama is not a protector of freedom and now, it would seem that Obama has issued an executive order making it a crime to obstruct the implementation of the new regime in Yemen. According to Salon:

As it does with most U.S.-compliant dictators in the region, the Obama administration has since been propping up Hadi with large amounts of money and military assistance, but it is now taking a much more extreme step to ensure he remains entrenched in power — a step that threatens not only basic liberties in Yemen but in the U.S. as well:

President Obama plans to issue an executive order Wednesday giving the Treasury Department authority to freeze the U.S.-based assets of anyone who “obstructs” implementation of the administration-backed political transition in Yemen.
The unusual order, which administration officials said also targets U.S. citizens who engage in activity deemed to threaten Yemen’s security or political stability, is the first issued for Yemen that does not directly relate to counterterrorism.
Unlike similar measures authorizing terrorist designations and sanctions, the new order does not include a list of names or organizations already determined to be in violation. Instead, one official said, it is designed as a “deterrent” to “make clear to those who are even thinking of spoiling the transition” to think again. . . .
The order provides criteria to take action against people who the Treasury secretary, in consultation with the secretary of state, determines have “engaged in acts that directly or indirectly threaten the peace, security or stability of Yemen, such as acts that obstruct the implementation of the Nov. 23, 2011, agreement between the Government of Yemen and those in opposition to it, which provides for a peaceful transition of power . . . or that obstruct the political process in Yemen.”

In other words, the U.S. Government will now punish anyone who is determined — in the sole discretion of the U.S. Government — even to “indirectly” obstruct the full transition of power to President Hadi. But what if someone — a Yemeni or an American — opposes Hadi’s rule and wants to agitate for a real election in which more than one candidate runs? Is that pure political advocacy, as it appears, now prohibited by the U.S. Government, punishable by serious sanctions, on the ground that it “obstructs” the transition of power to Hadi? Can journalists who report on corruption or violence by the Hadi regime and who write Op-Eds demanding a new election be accused, as it seems, of “threatening Yemen’s political stability”?

Few Americans care about what happens in Yemen. This is what makes such executive orders so dangerous; they pass under the radar – only to bite us later when we least expect it. If the president can issue an executive order prohibiting us from “obstructing” the transition of power in Yemen, it is not such a stretch to imagine a similar order that applies to a regime here in the U.S.  Obama is establishing a dangerous precedent. If a future president (or even Obama himself) issues a similar order protecting his own regime, he can answer his critics by saying, “you didn’t seem to have a problem with the Yemen order; this one is no different.”
Following a link in the comments there, I found a case where a Muslim (holding U.S. citizenship) was prosecuted, and convicted, for translating “39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad”. Reading the article, I have little sympathy for the man. He clearly works for the downfall of Western Civilization and he has no business even being in America. He obviously presents a threat. But the court ruling against him also presents a threat.
How can we reconcile the two threats? How can we mitigate the danger of radical Islam and, at the same time, protect our own freedom of speech? I think the answer is: We cannot! Freedom of speech is a concept that is foreign to Islam, at least to traditional Islam. As a matter of fact, is is foreign to most civilizations; it is at home only in Western-style democracies. It’s a white concept. I’m not saying that non-whites can’t learn it. Asians certainly can. I would hope that, some day, the whole world can learn to value the civil liberties of others. But I hope they learn it in such a way that they also recognize the limitations of civil liberties. If, through the protection of individual civil liberties, a society loses sight of its own identity, then all their struggles come to naught.