There is a central rule of political science that is called Duverger's Law.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger
Essentially, in a first-past-the-post system - a system which requires a plurality of the vote for an election; the most common and simple form of election - the natural and inevitable tendency is to become a two-party system.
Third parties can be successful but only in the sense that they supplant an existing party. In other words, they rise to become one of two parties in the two party system. The best example of this is, as you well know, dear Reader, the Republican party in the 19th century.
The greatest implication of this is that for any potential third party, there is an enormous uphill battle to overcome the perception that a vote for a third party, however proper and justified, is counterproductive. Consider the US Presidential election of 1992. Indeed, many otherwise Republican voters who chose Ross Perot were faced with the election of their last choice, William Jefferson Clinton (and we all know how that worked out).
A more recent primary election saw Republican "moderate" Judy Baar Topinka beat Jim Oberweis and Bill Bradley for the GOP nomination for Governor of Illinois. Judy won with a plurality of the vote at 38%. Oberweis and Bradley, both considered "conservative" candidates, finished with 32% and 19% of the votes, respectively. There is a perception - not without foundation - that a "splitting" of the vote occurs.
Now, factions within the major political parties may throw this into some degree of confusion. Indeed, there is a conservative wing of the Republican party (called "real Republicans"), just as certainly as there is a leftist side to the Democrat party. Should either party, assuming a two-party system continues, nominate a candidate either too liberal or too conservative for the respective parties, voter turnout may decrease or there may be cross-over to the other side (imagine a Zell Miller vs. John McCain race... there are significant conservatives who would consider voting for Miller or not voting for McCain).
The important conclusion to take away from this is that third parties must overcome their perception as a wasted vote and that there is an enormous PR battle to instill in the minds of voters that change is possible, and that as history shows us, change is necessary.
Many thanks to my dear friend Samuel for turning me on to Duverger's Law.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Our Two Party System
Of late, dear Reader, I have become fascinated with our two-party system. Of course, as you know, the last major third party was the GOP, which essentially displaced the Whig party.
There is an entire body of research out there on game theory and how it relates to political outcomes. I am Jack's raging curiosity (extra credit to those who get that movie reference).
So, give me some time and I'll do some looking into the topic.
Meanwhile, a few thoughts on Congressional elections...
Disenchanted as I have been with the GOP, I yet hope that they retain power in both houses of Congress. They are, at its most expedient, the lesser of two evils and probably not going to totally screw up the country. I say: probably.
I'll definitely have more to say on this topic, especially as it relates to game theory and our political system.
-AH
There is an entire body of research out there on game theory and how it relates to political outcomes. I am Jack's raging curiosity (extra credit to those who get that movie reference).
So, give me some time and I'll do some looking into the topic.
Meanwhile, a few thoughts on Congressional elections...
Disenchanted as I have been with the GOP, I yet hope that they retain power in both houses of Congress. They are, at its most expedient, the lesser of two evils and probably not going to totally screw up the country. I say: probably.
I'll definitely have more to say on this topic, especially as it relates to game theory and our political system.
-AH
Friday, June 23, 2006
Happy Anniversary
One year ago today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London in the Kelo decision.
Such a wrong-headed decision invariably ignited citizens into action. Personally, this event triggered the collaborative activities of the three contributors to this blog, although we just recently got this space up and running.
Across the country, states exercised their rights by instituting their own restrictions on the taking of private property. Some, admittedly, were better than others.
I had mixed feelings about this day, but was mostly glad that things have happened as they have. DeTocqueville said that everything serves the Lord; even the willfully wicked serve him, albeit unknowingly. And then what should I hear on the ride home....?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
President Bush, by Executive Order, sought to rectify the wrongs. The most important part is Section 1, Policy:
"It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."
Bravo, Mr. President, and thanks for the anniversary present.
Such a wrong-headed decision invariably ignited citizens into action. Personally, this event triggered the collaborative activities of the three contributors to this blog, although we just recently got this space up and running.
Across the country, states exercised their rights by instituting their own restrictions on the taking of private property. Some, admittedly, were better than others.
I had mixed feelings about this day, but was mostly glad that things have happened as they have. DeTocqueville said that everything serves the Lord; even the willfully wicked serve him, albeit unknowingly. And then what should I hear on the ride home....?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
President Bush, by Executive Order, sought to rectify the wrongs. The most important part is Section 1, Policy:
"It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken."
Bravo, Mr. President, and thanks for the anniversary present.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Conquest of America
"By the transgression of a land many are its princes, but by a man of understanding and knowledge, so it endures." -- Proverbs 28:2
For two hundred and thirty years, the United States of America has weathered numerous wars, droughts, and recessions. The Republic has managed to adjust to drastic changes in policy, geography, and demography over some ten generations. After all this time, in the midst of international calamities and threats to civilization itself, America looks stronger than ever.
There is an American embassy in nearly every sovereign nation around the globe, each of them bearing some semblance of an American military presence--a fully volunteer military presence. It is now absolutely impossible for anyone to launch an attack on the United States by sea, by land, or by air--it may even be impossible from space--without the United States knowing about it and dealing with it swiftly and decisively.
For at least the last two centuries, throngs upon throngs upon throngs of men and women have come to this nation's shores and ports of entry to seek liberty, wealth, education--simply put, a better life. They have found it all and more. In just the first dozen years or so since Independence Day, Philadelphia DOUBLED in size (don't forget, there was a war fought during that time, and the city changed hands more than once). The ingenuity, productivity, and creativity of the American people have been revealed in every generation through history; and this history is manifested today in the markets, the arts, the sciences, and the entertainments which, by and large, are taken worldwide as second to none.
Having said all that, there are signs that the foundations of the republic--the same republic which I have just finished illuminating in no uncertain terms for the reader--are crumbling, that the conquest of America is imminent. Some witty fellow a while back said, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy." (1) I cannot vouch for the reader, but I have seen almost my fair share of unprincipled and unmannerly among us in my time. The same chap goes on, "While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
Kind reader, having eyes, what signs do you see of readiness to surrender or even surrender itself? And who, pray, is the conqueror? I put it to you, it is themselves: "When People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." (2)
But what say you?
Samuel Adams
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(1) The Writings of Samuel Adams, Cushing, ed., vol IV, (124)
(2) Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (261)
For two hundred and thirty years, the United States of America has weathered numerous wars, droughts, and recessions. The Republic has managed to adjust to drastic changes in policy, geography, and demography over some ten generations. After all this time, in the midst of international calamities and threats to civilization itself, America looks stronger than ever.
There is an American embassy in nearly every sovereign nation around the globe, each of them bearing some semblance of an American military presence--a fully volunteer military presence. It is now absolutely impossible for anyone to launch an attack on the United States by sea, by land, or by air--it may even be impossible from space--without the United States knowing about it and dealing with it swiftly and decisively.
For at least the last two centuries, throngs upon throngs upon throngs of men and women have come to this nation's shores and ports of entry to seek liberty, wealth, education--simply put, a better life. They have found it all and more. In just the first dozen years or so since Independence Day, Philadelphia DOUBLED in size (don't forget, there was a war fought during that time, and the city changed hands more than once). The ingenuity, productivity, and creativity of the American people have been revealed in every generation through history; and this history is manifested today in the markets, the arts, the sciences, and the entertainments which, by and large, are taken worldwide as second to none.
Having said all that, there are signs that the foundations of the republic--the same republic which I have just finished illuminating in no uncertain terms for the reader--are crumbling, that the conquest of America is imminent. Some witty fellow a while back said, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy." (1) I cannot vouch for the reader, but I have seen almost my fair share of unprincipled and unmannerly among us in my time. The same chap goes on, "While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader."
Kind reader, having eyes, what signs do you see of readiness to surrender or even surrender itself? And who, pray, is the conqueror? I put it to you, it is themselves: "When People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." (2)
But what say you?
Samuel Adams
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
(1) The Writings of Samuel Adams, Cushing, ed., vol IV, (124)
(2) Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (261)
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Father's Day 2006
Although I find myself almost constantly pressed for time lately, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a few moments and say a couple of things.
To you, dear reader, and to my brother Webster, Happy Father's Day. The importance of fathers has been getting some much-needed attention in the last week. Of course, this depends on where you get your news (I'd recommend talk radio and the internet).
Here's some startling statistics on the father-less (source: "Fathers linked to healthy families" http://patriotpost.us/)
"According to the CDC, DoJ, DHHS and the Bureau of the Census, the 30 percent of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71 percent of high-school dropouts, 75 percent of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80 percent of rapists, 85 percent of youths in prison, and 85 percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders. In addition, 90 percent of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. In fact, children born to unwed mothers are 10 times more likely to live in poverty as children with fathers in the home."
So, take a moment on Sunday and appreciate a dad. Better yet, when you hear people downplay the importance of them between today and Father's Day 2007, be aware of it, and the consequences of a society that doesn't value fatherhood.
To you, dear reader, and to my brother Webster, Happy Father's Day. The importance of fathers has been getting some much-needed attention in the last week. Of course, this depends on where you get your news (I'd recommend talk radio and the internet).
Here's some startling statistics on the father-less (source: "Fathers linked to healthy families" http://patriotpost.us/)
"According to the CDC, DoJ, DHHS and the Bureau of the Census, the 30 percent of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71 percent of high-school dropouts, 75 percent of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80 percent of rapists, 85 percent of youths in prison, and 85 percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders. In addition, 90 percent of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. In fact, children born to unwed mothers are 10 times more likely to live in poverty as children with fathers in the home."
So, take a moment on Sunday and appreciate a dad. Better yet, when you hear people downplay the importance of them between today and Father's Day 2007, be aware of it, and the consequences of a society that doesn't value fatherhood.
Monday, June 12, 2006
No Hope in Guantanamo
Well, the MSM has me convinced!
In the wake of the suicides of the three "detainees" at GTMO, the left and their cohorts in the media are worked up into a lather about the conditions of the prisoners at our base in Guantanamo Bay. It appears that the suicides were committed using bed sheets and clothing, and procedures have since been changed so that sheets are given out just before bed.
The astute among you will note the use of derisive quotes in the first sentence of the above paragraph. It is a style that I have decided to adopt to illustrate how out of touch the MSM really is. Here's an example:
From Agence France-Presse: "MIAMI (AFP) - Pressure mounted within the United States and from abroad to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp following the suicides of three 'enemy combatant' detainees over the weekend."
(Note the term enemy combatant - correctly identifying the legal status of those imprisoned at GTMO - placed in derisive quotes).
I know what you're thinking, dear reader: hang on a second! Isn't The Monarchist's usage of derisive quotes around the word detainees actually the right way to do it? Terrorists or enemy combatants being called detainees belies the media's bias (why not call them captives, for instance?), so putting detainees in derisive quotes is proper usage. You, dear reader, would be right-o.
First, the 460 or so people being held in GTMO are terrorists or suspected of terrorist activities. They were picked up in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or in any number of locations. Second, it is beyond reason or any form of logic to suggest that these enemy combatants should be released while we are still engaged in hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn't a fishing tournament; we don't have to send the little ones back because to hang on to them would be "unfair" somehow. Until the fight is over, we have every right to detain the people we catch, no matter how big of a prison we have to build. Every terrorist in GTMO is one less terrorist who can kill a US Soldier or an innocent civilian.
Imagine the same conversation being held in 1943. Senator Clueless: We have an obligation to release these German and Japanese combatants, or try them in US Courts. What kind of a generation are we, that we let such nonsense into the national discourse? Would that Greatest Generation have tolerated such seditious sentiment? At the minimum, can't rational thinkers all agree that such views are at their best and most innocent a product of stupidity?
Secondly, why are we supposed to be concerned with the rights, let alone the treatment, of people who either have tried to kill us, supported those who have, or are possibly interested in doing so? How morally confused have we become as a society? At what point did political correctness trump the instinct of self-preservation?
All this notwithstanding, international human rights groups, Democrats, and the media all issue dire warnings about the pressure to close the prison at GTMO - which brings us back to the point. Three prisoners killed themselves on Saturday (and I thought the Religion of Peace had rules against this sort of thing). But I fancy myself a fair guy, so I'll tell you what. I'm an Internationalist at heart, that I am. Heck, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Multiculturalist. So, here's my proposition: we start following the lead of the Religion of Peace, and treat the prisoners we have with the same respect, dignity, and kindness that they have afforded the prisoners they've caught. By my estimation, this should earn us the respect of the Democrats, the UN, the US media and international human rights groups. Lord knows they've been too busy worrying about what enemy combatants have to eat at GTMO or if their Korans were desecrated to condemn the violence being perpetrated upon innocent Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (although if pressed, most would adamantly "support" the troops).
In the wake of the suicides of the three "detainees" at GTMO, the left and their cohorts in the media are worked up into a lather about the conditions of the prisoners at our base in Guantanamo Bay. It appears that the suicides were committed using bed sheets and clothing, and procedures have since been changed so that sheets are given out just before bed.
The astute among you will note the use of derisive quotes in the first sentence of the above paragraph. It is a style that I have decided to adopt to illustrate how out of touch the MSM really is. Here's an example:
From Agence France-Presse: "MIAMI (AFP) - Pressure mounted within the United States and from abroad to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp following the suicides of three 'enemy combatant' detainees over the weekend."
(Note the term enemy combatant - correctly identifying the legal status of those imprisoned at GTMO - placed in derisive quotes).
I know what you're thinking, dear reader: hang on a second! Isn't The Monarchist's usage of derisive quotes around the word detainees actually the right way to do it? Terrorists or enemy combatants being called detainees belies the media's bias (why not call them captives, for instance?), so putting detainees in derisive quotes is proper usage. You, dear reader, would be right-o.
First, the 460 or so people being held in GTMO are terrorists or suspected of terrorist activities. They were picked up in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or in any number of locations. Second, it is beyond reason or any form of logic to suggest that these enemy combatants should be released while we are still engaged in hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. This isn't a fishing tournament; we don't have to send the little ones back because to hang on to them would be "unfair" somehow. Until the fight is over, we have every right to detain the people we catch, no matter how big of a prison we have to build. Every terrorist in GTMO is one less terrorist who can kill a US Soldier or an innocent civilian.
Imagine the same conversation being held in 1943. Senator Clueless: We have an obligation to release these German and Japanese combatants, or try them in US Courts. What kind of a generation are we, that we let such nonsense into the national discourse? Would that Greatest Generation have tolerated such seditious sentiment? At the minimum, can't rational thinkers all agree that such views are at their best and most innocent a product of stupidity?
Secondly, why are we supposed to be concerned with the rights, let alone the treatment, of people who either have tried to kill us, supported those who have, or are possibly interested in doing so? How morally confused have we become as a society? At what point did political correctness trump the instinct of self-preservation?
All this notwithstanding, international human rights groups, Democrats, and the media all issue dire warnings about the pressure to close the prison at GTMO - which brings us back to the point. Three prisoners killed themselves on Saturday (and I thought the Religion of Peace had rules against this sort of thing). But I fancy myself a fair guy, so I'll tell you what. I'm an Internationalist at heart, that I am. Heck, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Multiculturalist. So, here's my proposition: we start following the lead of the Religion of Peace, and treat the prisoners we have with the same respect, dignity, and kindness that they have afforded the prisoners they've caught. By my estimation, this should earn us the respect of the Democrats, the UN, the US media and international human rights groups. Lord knows they've been too busy worrying about what enemy combatants have to eat at GTMO or if their Korans were desecrated to condemn the violence being perpetrated upon innocent Iraqi civilians and American soldiers (although if pressed, most would adamantly "support" the troops).
Thursday, June 08, 2006
DEAD!
As you've heard by now, dear reader, al-Zarqawi was killed in an airstrike just outside of Baghdad. Well, here's the link to the story on CNN if you haven't:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html
Needless to say, this is a great day in particular for US forces in Iraq. A cynic would say that in his place a half-dozen new guys will pop up, even more violent than him. I doubt it. That would mean that most Iraqis don't want freedom and liberty, and I think recent history there - in particular, the elections over the last couple of years - shows that they do embrace self-determination.
One of the most evil people on the planet - remember, this man beheaded civilians in the name of his god - has just been given his comeuppance. This is an enormous victory for the Iraqi people, for whom I am most happy today.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/08/iraq.al.zarqawi/index.html
Needless to say, this is a great day in particular for US forces in Iraq. A cynic would say that in his place a half-dozen new guys will pop up, even more violent than him. I doubt it. That would mean that most Iraqis don't want freedom and liberty, and I think recent history there - in particular, the elections over the last couple of years - shows that they do embrace self-determination.
One of the most evil people on the planet - remember, this man beheaded civilians in the name of his god - has just been given his comeuppance. This is an enormous victory for the Iraqi people, for whom I am most happy today.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
On the Concept of Term Limits - No. II
To the Citizens of the United States of America:
We have begun to address the issue of term limits, and in our first installment committed to show that term limits conflict with Liberty; that they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; that they exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and that they create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. We will prove the above with an understanding of human nature and that most effective teacher, experience, and demonstrate that term-limits are incompatible with the concepts of Americanism and Federalism.
On Liberty
How does one endeavor to define Liberty? The most appropriate definition must include that freedom to both act and think as one wishes, unrestrained by an outside force; Liberty is that state of being that mankind reaches when free to physically act as one wants, but also to think and exercise one's will without restraint.
Yet there is a qualifier. Liberty becomes license when one acts in contravention to the laws of Nature or Nature's God. License is the abuse of freedom, the difference being that license speaks more toward permission, or leave to do whatever one pleases, even if contrary to law or accepted norms.
For such a complex object, our attention turns to the Father of American Education, Federalist Noah Webster. Says he:
"LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.
6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.
8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.
9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.
10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.
To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.
To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.
To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.
Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals." (Italicized emphasis mine. Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=liberty)
For our purposes, it is essential to focus in on Webster's third meaning of Liberty, and one particular phrase in specific: "A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression."
Term Limits Destroy Civil Liberty
Term-limits are in substance inherently opposed to Liberty. By definition, a term limit provides a statutory mechanism by which a candidate is prohibited from seeking office. The criteria for prohibition is that he or she has already served in such a capacity for a defined period of time.
The best example for refuting the foolish nature of term limits is one from our own history. Franklin Roosevelt was the last President to serve more than two terms, and largely the public returned President Roosevelt to office to maintain a consistent course in prosecuting the war against the Axis in the second World War. In grave matters such as war and national security, a citizenry would properly choose to reelect the executive who is best equipped to chart a course to peace; he or she that understands the conflict and can apply every God-granted ability and skill to the successful completion of hostilities.
It is pure conjecture to theorize on how differently WWII might have ended had the public not been able to return FDR to office four times. However, our current struggle against terrorism and Islamofascism may yet show us the error of our ways. The 2008 Presidential election may see a victor who applies an entirely different approach to the War on Terror. It remains to be seen - God Bless and keep America safe! - how such a change will affect our standing in the world and influence the fortunes of this Republic or Her enemies.
Necessary or Expedient for the Public?
This is the grave question we must ask ourselves with respect to restricting Liberty - and term limits are no exception. Upon examination, no reasonable person can answer in the affirmative with respect to the subject at hand. Some artful dissenters might offer as an example a long-tenured Senator or Representative; and yet, such an example fails to invalidate the rule. For the liberty to choose one's representatives in a republic goes both ways. Good representatives and bad may both be chosen, or not. Such circumstances, as they are, offer no valid evidence that term limits are either necessary or expedient for the public.
A system such as ours was designed without term limits because our Founders knew the value that a self-governing citizenry places on Liberty in choosing our governors.
We have begun to address the issue of term limits, and in our first installment committed to show that term limits conflict with Liberty; that they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; that they exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and that they create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. We will prove the above with an understanding of human nature and that most effective teacher, experience, and demonstrate that term-limits are incompatible with the concepts of Americanism and Federalism.
On Liberty
How does one endeavor to define Liberty? The most appropriate definition must include that freedom to both act and think as one wishes, unrestrained by an outside force; Liberty is that state of being that mankind reaches when free to physically act as one wants, but also to think and exercise one's will without restraint.
Yet there is a qualifier. Liberty becomes license when one acts in contravention to the laws of Nature or Nature's God. License is the abuse of freedom, the difference being that license speaks more toward permission, or leave to do whatever one pleases, even if contrary to law or accepted norms.
For such a complex object, our attention turns to the Father of American Education, Federalist Noah Webster. Says he:
"LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.
6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.
8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.
9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.
10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.
To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.
To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.
To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.
Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals." (Italicized emphasis mine. Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=liberty)
For our purposes, it is essential to focus in on Webster's third meaning of Liberty, and one particular phrase in specific: "A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression."
Term Limits Destroy Civil Liberty
Term-limits are in substance inherently opposed to Liberty. By definition, a term limit provides a statutory mechanism by which a candidate is prohibited from seeking office. The criteria for prohibition is that he or she has already served in such a capacity for a defined period of time.
The best example for refuting the foolish nature of term limits is one from our own history. Franklin Roosevelt was the last President to serve more than two terms, and largely the public returned President Roosevelt to office to maintain a consistent course in prosecuting the war against the Axis in the second World War. In grave matters such as war and national security, a citizenry would properly choose to reelect the executive who is best equipped to chart a course to peace; he or she that understands the conflict and can apply every God-granted ability and skill to the successful completion of hostilities.
It is pure conjecture to theorize on how differently WWII might have ended had the public not been able to return FDR to office four times. However, our current struggle against terrorism and Islamofascism may yet show us the error of our ways. The 2008 Presidential election may see a victor who applies an entirely different approach to the War on Terror. It remains to be seen - God Bless and keep America safe! - how such a change will affect our standing in the world and influence the fortunes of this Republic or Her enemies.
Necessary or Expedient for the Public?
This is the grave question we must ask ourselves with respect to restricting Liberty - and term limits are no exception. Upon examination, no reasonable person can answer in the affirmative with respect to the subject at hand. Some artful dissenters might offer as an example a long-tenured Senator or Representative; and yet, such an example fails to invalidate the rule. For the liberty to choose one's representatives in a republic goes both ways. Good representatives and bad may both be chosen, or not. Such circumstances, as they are, offer no valid evidence that term limits are either necessary or expedient for the public.
A system such as ours was designed without term limits because our Founders knew the value that a self-governing citizenry places on Liberty in choosing our governors.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Memorial Day 2006
Just wanted to make a quick post wishing everyone a Happy Memorial Day. Remember to say a prayer for all of our service men and women who have gone on to be with our heavenly Father, those who have served and made it home to their families, and those serving us today, standing in harm's way to protect our Liberty. God Bless those brave men and women!
Daniel Webster Adds:
Amen, brother Hamilton. I'm a little late, but nonetheless....
To all you family members of military members currently deployed in the "sandbox," stateside awaiting deployment, or who have already served one or more tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., God Bless You and keep you, dear Patriots! As my brothers well know I have a Marine nephew, with whom I'm very close, who served two tours in Iraq - the first of which included the invasion itself. So I understand completely and utterly the roller-coaster ride accompanying deployment, the safe return home, a second and third deployment, and so on. And I don't take kindly to disparaging remarks about our service members, the idea that they serve because they have no other options, and stupidity such as that, by the way.
For the record my family has been and is blessed with a rich heritage of military service, and one of my fondest memories to date is that of helping Dad and Sis organize a welcome home parade for our Marine in his rural hometown following his deployment with the invasionary forces. Our Marine returned home unscathed physically on both deployments, but I shall never forget the day I happened to catch him online, while deployed, and he related the news that he and his comrades had lost their entire chain of command to an I.E.D. while on patrol. Sis and I made all the arrangements that many of you have - acquired a passport, tucked away a few bucks, made mental preparations and so on - for what we knew was certainly a possibility. Thankfully we never had to use it, and thank the Lord our God that we've always had Him to lean on during such trials and tribulations! Where would we be without our faith; without our God? I shudder to think!
Blessed be the Name of the Lord!
~Daniel Webster
Daniel Webster Adds:
Amen, brother Hamilton. I'm a little late, but nonetheless....
To all you family members of military members currently deployed in the "sandbox," stateside awaiting deployment, or who have already served one or more tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., God Bless You and keep you, dear Patriots! As my brothers well know I have a Marine nephew, with whom I'm very close, who served two tours in Iraq - the first of which included the invasion itself. So I understand completely and utterly the roller-coaster ride accompanying deployment, the safe return home, a second and third deployment, and so on. And I don't take kindly to disparaging remarks about our service members, the idea that they serve because they have no other options, and stupidity such as that, by the way.
For the record my family has been and is blessed with a rich heritage of military service, and one of my fondest memories to date is that of helping Dad and Sis organize a welcome home parade for our Marine in his rural hometown following his deployment with the invasionary forces. Our Marine returned home unscathed physically on both deployments, but I shall never forget the day I happened to catch him online, while deployed, and he related the news that he and his comrades had lost their entire chain of command to an I.E.D. while on patrol. Sis and I made all the arrangements that many of you have - acquired a passport, tucked away a few bucks, made mental preparations and so on - for what we knew was certainly a possibility. Thankfully we never had to use it, and thank the Lord our God that we've always had Him to lean on during such trials and tribulations! Where would we be without our faith; without our God? I shudder to think!
Blessed be the Name of the Lord!
~Daniel Webster
On the Concept of Term Limits - No. I
To the Citizens of the United States of America:
It is evident upon no more than a cursory inspection, that the citizenry in general is supportive of the concept of term limits for Congress and the office of President of the United States. The former is a regular topic of conversation among people, on radio talk shows, and on political discussion boards of every persuasion; the latter, an accepted Amendment to our Constitution. In either case, such sentiment, however well-intentioned, is notable for its fallaciousness and is indicative of an incompletion of thought; furthermore, our tradition of Americanism and Federalism is directly opposed to the convention of term limits, a point we will prove in the course of the following essays. A brief history of term limits is warranted as a beginning.
Presidential Term Limits
Early Presidents adhered to a tradition of two terms until after the Civil War. According to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia: "Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office after serving from 1869 to 1877, but his party failed to nominate him. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 (non-consecutively) for a second time—he had succeeded to the presidency on William McKinley's assassination and already been elected in 1904 to a full term himself—but he lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first person to be elected President three times, with supporters citing the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but died in office the following year." (1)
Presidential term limits were instituted with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, proposed in Congress in 1947 and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951. The rationale at the time appears to have been the concern that one person could assume the position of an almost "benevolent dictator", without Constitutional limits to Presidential terms.
Such sentiment, however, assumes that human nature itself changes, and there occurs a complete and abject failure on the part of the citizenry. Such a scenario - that a President would assume dictatorial powers - is predicated upon either a most evil conspiracy or minimally the implicit approval of the other branches of government, both the Legislative and Judiciary. As each guards with extreme jealousy its Constitutionally-mandated sphere of power (and indeed experience would show that each branch seeks where possible to extend its influence beyond such limits), human nature therefore, to say nothing of a desire to uphold the Constitution, provides a sufficient guarantee that no one man could rise to such a station in a federal representative republic. But, if one can conjure up such a scenario - despite how chimerical it may seem - one still fails to account for the citizenry, who vote for the office every four years and exercise our Second Amendment Rights. Such a people, enamored with Liberty as we are, as a general rule can sense a charlatan when one comes before us, and even if elected, would not last in office for long. The number of one-term Presidents is evidence of the discernment of the American people: again, as a general rule, when a poor administrator comes along, his tenure in office is not long. Any discerning mind can propose exceptions to the rule, yet acknowledge that the existence of exceptions fails to invalidate the accepted generalization.
If such was the reasoning at the time - that one man might become de facto President for life, and therefore term-limits are necessary - upon what basis is it acceptable today that an error, merely because it has been endured for an extended period of time, should not be rectified? It is said that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right. We trust that with inspection, a wise and energetic citizenry will cast aside superficial appearances.
Congressional Term Limits
Term limits, with respect to Congress, are more and more commonly a topic for discussion among supposedly thinking persons. Such a sentiment, again though well-intentioned, is folly born of experience and frustration at an unchanging force: I speak again of human nature.
When such a discussion comes up, the proponent invariably says: “Look at the Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. He is Senator for life! How can this be, that he returns to office every election, when his moral character is so poor and his ideas so remarkably socialistic in nature?”
Other supporters of term limits focus on the corruption of Congress – rather than that body's actual or perceived ignorance – as the effect of unlimited public service. This argument assigns guilt to the system for the sins of public servants. This most common theme of proponents of term limits is summarized thus: term-limited public servants will somehow create legislators who are more upright, moral, and not prone to corruption. They will be insulated from the influence of lobbyists and faithful to the concerns of their constituents.
A Comprehensive Response to Correct Inaccurate Thinking
We will endeavor to show that term-limits in every form are poor policy. Term-limits conflict with Liberty; they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; term-limits exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and term-limits create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. All of these reasons will be proven through a review of experience and an understanding of human nature, rendering term-limits incompatible with the tenets of Americanism and Federalism.
Footnotes: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It is evident upon no more than a cursory inspection, that the citizenry in general is supportive of the concept of term limits for Congress and the office of President of the United States. The former is a regular topic of conversation among people, on radio talk shows, and on political discussion boards of every persuasion; the latter, an accepted Amendment to our Constitution. In either case, such sentiment, however well-intentioned, is notable for its fallaciousness and is indicative of an incompletion of thought; furthermore, our tradition of Americanism and Federalism is directly opposed to the convention of term limits, a point we will prove in the course of the following essays. A brief history of term limits is warranted as a beginning.
Presidential Term Limits
Early Presidents adhered to a tradition of two terms until after the Civil War. According to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia: "Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office after serving from 1869 to 1877, but his party failed to nominate him. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 (non-consecutively) for a second time—he had succeeded to the presidency on William McKinley's assassination and already been elected in 1904 to a full term himself—but he lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first person to be elected President three times, with supporters citing the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but died in office the following year." (1)
Presidential term limits were instituted with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, proposed in Congress in 1947 and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951. The rationale at the time appears to have been the concern that one person could assume the position of an almost "benevolent dictator", without Constitutional limits to Presidential terms.
Such sentiment, however, assumes that human nature itself changes, and there occurs a complete and abject failure on the part of the citizenry. Such a scenario - that a President would assume dictatorial powers - is predicated upon either a most evil conspiracy or minimally the implicit approval of the other branches of government, both the Legislative and Judiciary. As each guards with extreme jealousy its Constitutionally-mandated sphere of power (and indeed experience would show that each branch seeks where possible to extend its influence beyond such limits), human nature therefore, to say nothing of a desire to uphold the Constitution, provides a sufficient guarantee that no one man could rise to such a station in a federal representative republic. But, if one can conjure up such a scenario - despite how chimerical it may seem - one still fails to account for the citizenry, who vote for the office every four years and exercise our Second Amendment Rights. Such a people, enamored with Liberty as we are, as a general rule can sense a charlatan when one comes before us, and even if elected, would not last in office for long. The number of one-term Presidents is evidence of the discernment of the American people: again, as a general rule, when a poor administrator comes along, his tenure in office is not long. Any discerning mind can propose exceptions to the rule, yet acknowledge that the existence of exceptions fails to invalidate the accepted generalization.
If such was the reasoning at the time - that one man might become de facto President for life, and therefore term-limits are necessary - upon what basis is it acceptable today that an error, merely because it has been endured for an extended period of time, should not be rectified? It is said that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right. We trust that with inspection, a wise and energetic citizenry will cast aside superficial appearances.
Congressional Term Limits
Term limits, with respect to Congress, are more and more commonly a topic for discussion among supposedly thinking persons. Such a sentiment, again though well-intentioned, is folly born of experience and frustration at an unchanging force: I speak again of human nature.
When such a discussion comes up, the proponent invariably says: “Look at the Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. He is Senator for life! How can this be, that he returns to office every election, when his moral character is so poor and his ideas so remarkably socialistic in nature?”
Other supporters of term limits focus on the corruption of Congress – rather than that body's actual or perceived ignorance – as the effect of unlimited public service. This argument assigns guilt to the system for the sins of public servants. This most common theme of proponents of term limits is summarized thus: term-limited public servants will somehow create legislators who are more upright, moral, and not prone to corruption. They will be insulated from the influence of lobbyists and faithful to the concerns of their constituents.
A Comprehensive Response to Correct Inaccurate Thinking
We will endeavor to show that term-limits in every form are poor policy. Term-limits conflict with Liberty; they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; term-limits exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and term-limits create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. All of these reasons will be proven through a review of experience and an understanding of human nature, rendering term-limits incompatible with the tenets of Americanism and Federalism.
Footnotes: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Sunday, May 28, 2006
For The Record
Dear Reader,
Further to Mr. Hamilton's point, and by his leave, allow me to address the concern that future articles posted to this blog may be received, by cynics and detractors, with a certain indignant attitude and an indictment of pessimism leveled against us in response....
You may have guessed, dear reader, that the contributors here are working on something behind the scenes; something that by its very nature is somewhat controversial. And you would be correct in that determination, which is the reason, of course, for Mr. Hamilton's preemptive defense of our positions against attacks that are likely, very likely, forthcoming. That's just the nature of the beast....the thin-skinned among us are easily offended, and generally speaking, people firmly attached to an idea aren't easily persuaded to change their opinions for any number of reasons not altogether virtuous, but not altogether lascivious either. I for one wouldn't have it any other way! Nor would my brothers, I suspect.
It would be pretty presumptive on our parts (something we all despise about human nature in general) to assign a particular reason - virtue or lasciviousness - to a particular view simply based solely or largely on the view itself, which amounts to speculation founded on the available evidence which is generally very incomplete, and often easily misread. People make this mistake all the time in their approach to government, science, education, whatever....we strive not to, and hold one-another accountable whenever necessary. We welcome the opportunity to defend against such unfounded notions as they come, in any case. But a preemptive strike against a foe when you know an attack is coming is indeed a wise and prudent measure....for the record....as well as to avoid unnecessary and meaningless debate. Just remember, the loudness of their invectives is of no meaningful consequence other than to give yet another clue as to their motives, allowing them to place themselves squarely in their respective camps - cynics and detractors - as Mr. Hamilton wisely, and insightfully termed it.
Mr. Hamilton is absolutely correct when he states: "nothing could be further from the truth." Indeed, so far from the truth of the matter would be such an accusation, if and when it is received, that in reality it is the accuser indicting his own pessimistic attitude toward the American People, which such an individual simply can't help but make abundantly clear in his attacks....mark my words. As proof of the fact I offer, preemptively, one irrefutable piece of evidence which was at inception of this group and this blog, is now, and will continually be reinforced from this day forward....It is THE PEOPLE of the United States, the American People to whom this blog is; to whom our efforts are dedicated, and to none other. That is proof enough, from my perspective, that the contributing members here place a great deal of emphasis on the "genius and intelligence" of the American Public when the evidence, all the evidence, is laid before them in a reasonable, thoughtful manner. Beyond that you will find that we put very little, if any, faith in the ability of government, external government, to effect the ends we seek by means that often stand in opposition to, if not war directly against, historical American exceptionalism. Simply stated, it is "self-government," on an individual basis and level which we firmly believe is the only saving grace for a nation founded on liberty....the fate of this republic depends on that, and that alone, when you boil it all down. And if we thought you, the readership, couldn't grasp the concept, nor acknowledge, accept, and handle the responsibility that naturally comes with it, we wouldn't be writing to you as we speak. No; we'd likely be seeking a place of refuge from the wrath of the Author of Liberty, or preparing ourselves to receive the chains that such an approach would ultimately necessitate. And when you ask the question of yourself: "what do they stand to gain in addressing the citizens of America; in challenging their ideas and notions directly?" the answer is fairly obvious, isn't it?
In short, my friends, it is up to us - you and me - average Americans to effect the changes necessary to "renew this republic." I can't think of a single reason why we can't do it, and a host of reasons why we can, and will. As Dad used to say: "can't never could do nothin'." That, my friends, is pure optimism, and there's nothing unrealistic about it, unless your "realism," teaches you that "I can't" is the general attitude that founded and built this great nation, which is about as true as the notion that multiple worldviews share equally in the ideals which produced "American Exceptionalism." It may not be P.C. to state it otherwise, but we ain't here to be P.C. anymore than we're here to be party to the propagation of false notions.
~Daniel Webster
Further to Mr. Hamilton's point, and by his leave, allow me to address the concern that future articles posted to this blog may be received, by cynics and detractors, with a certain indignant attitude and an indictment of pessimism leveled against us in response....
You may have guessed, dear reader, that the contributors here are working on something behind the scenes; something that by its very nature is somewhat controversial. And you would be correct in that determination, which is the reason, of course, for Mr. Hamilton's preemptive defense of our positions against attacks that are likely, very likely, forthcoming. That's just the nature of the beast....the thin-skinned among us are easily offended, and generally speaking, people firmly attached to an idea aren't easily persuaded to change their opinions for any number of reasons not altogether virtuous, but not altogether lascivious either. I for one wouldn't have it any other way! Nor would my brothers, I suspect.
It would be pretty presumptive on our parts (something we all despise about human nature in general) to assign a particular reason - virtue or lasciviousness - to a particular view simply based solely or largely on the view itself, which amounts to speculation founded on the available evidence which is generally very incomplete, and often easily misread. People make this mistake all the time in their approach to government, science, education, whatever....we strive not to, and hold one-another accountable whenever necessary. We welcome the opportunity to defend against such unfounded notions as they come, in any case. But a preemptive strike against a foe when you know an attack is coming is indeed a wise and prudent measure....for the record....as well as to avoid unnecessary and meaningless debate. Just remember, the loudness of their invectives is of no meaningful consequence other than to give yet another clue as to their motives, allowing them to place themselves squarely in their respective camps - cynics and detractors - as Mr. Hamilton wisely, and insightfully termed it.
Mr. Hamilton is absolutely correct when he states: "nothing could be further from the truth." Indeed, so far from the truth of the matter would be such an accusation, if and when it is received, that in reality it is the accuser indicting his own pessimistic attitude toward the American People, which such an individual simply can't help but make abundantly clear in his attacks....mark my words. As proof of the fact I offer, preemptively, one irrefutable piece of evidence which was at inception of this group and this blog, is now, and will continually be reinforced from this day forward....It is THE PEOPLE of the United States, the American People to whom this blog is; to whom our efforts are dedicated, and to none other. That is proof enough, from my perspective, that the contributing members here place a great deal of emphasis on the "genius and intelligence" of the American Public when the evidence, all the evidence, is laid before them in a reasonable, thoughtful manner. Beyond that you will find that we put very little, if any, faith in the ability of government, external government, to effect the ends we seek by means that often stand in opposition to, if not war directly against, historical American exceptionalism. Simply stated, it is "self-government," on an individual basis and level which we firmly believe is the only saving grace for a nation founded on liberty....the fate of this republic depends on that, and that alone, when you boil it all down. And if we thought you, the readership, couldn't grasp the concept, nor acknowledge, accept, and handle the responsibility that naturally comes with it, we wouldn't be writing to you as we speak. No; we'd likely be seeking a place of refuge from the wrath of the Author of Liberty, or preparing ourselves to receive the chains that such an approach would ultimately necessitate. And when you ask the question of yourself: "what do they stand to gain in addressing the citizens of America; in challenging their ideas and notions directly?" the answer is fairly obvious, isn't it?
In short, my friends, it is up to us - you and me - average Americans to effect the changes necessary to "renew this republic." I can't think of a single reason why we can't do it, and a host of reasons why we can, and will. As Dad used to say: "can't never could do nothin'." That, my friends, is pure optimism, and there's nothing unrealistic about it, unless your "realism," teaches you that "I can't" is the general attitude that founded and built this great nation, which is about as true as the notion that multiple worldviews share equally in the ideals which produced "American Exceptionalism." It may not be P.C. to state it otherwise, but we ain't here to be P.C. anymore than we're here to be party to the propagation of false notions.
~Daniel Webster
Thursday, May 25, 2006
A Few Thoughts on the American People
From time to time, this space will address some of the more pressing, and likely controversial, issues facing the Republic. Of course, dear reader, it will also address some, well, not-so-pressing issues. Before going much further, I'd like to take a moment and say a few words about the character of America and Her people.
You can call it our national DNA. Or, our philosophical heritage. Call it whatever you want. What I call it is the discernment, and genius, of the American people. Throughout our history, brief as it may be among the storied civilizations that have passed from this world yet at every critical juncture, the American people have always chosen the wisest course. Too discerning to be fooled and too principled to do anything but what is right, Her people have always pondered, reflected, and paused; yet, when the time for action arrives, Her people are just as decisive, steadfast and resolute as any people, anywhere in the world, throughout history.
I pause for this reflection as future blog entries will begin to tackle some meaningful issues and topics essential to the renewal of this Republic. A detractor, or maybe just a cynic, will read these papers and wrongly conclude that we have a pessimistic view of Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a label must be applied, I consider myself a realist as I always try to see the world as it is, and not as I wish it to be.
In future posts, this space will address and refute some misconceptions and just plain wrong ideas commonly held among the population. I am sublimely confident that such misconceptions take hold in the minds of the citizenry for innocent enough reasons, and that once addressed, people of reason will cast aside their former misconceptions and embrace reality, however difficult adopting such a new - as well as right and proper - outlook may seem.
In short, I believe in the exceptionalism of America and Her people. It is for this reason that this blog exists: to remind us of what makes us great; to cast aside that which sullies our reputation; and to affirmatively do those things necessary for the renewal of this Republic.
Confidently, I speak for my brothers in this effort; yet they may have thoughts of their own to add to this. Assure that the blessings of Providence guide us, I remain,
A. Hamilton aka The Monarchist
You can call it our national DNA. Or, our philosophical heritage. Call it whatever you want. What I call it is the discernment, and genius, of the American people. Throughout our history, brief as it may be among the storied civilizations that have passed from this world yet at every critical juncture, the American people have always chosen the wisest course. Too discerning to be fooled and too principled to do anything but what is right, Her people have always pondered, reflected, and paused; yet, when the time for action arrives, Her people are just as decisive, steadfast and resolute as any people, anywhere in the world, throughout history.
I pause for this reflection as future blog entries will begin to tackle some meaningful issues and topics essential to the renewal of this Republic. A detractor, or maybe just a cynic, will read these papers and wrongly conclude that we have a pessimistic view of Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a label must be applied, I consider myself a realist as I always try to see the world as it is, and not as I wish it to be.
In future posts, this space will address and refute some misconceptions and just plain wrong ideas commonly held among the population. I am sublimely confident that such misconceptions take hold in the minds of the citizenry for innocent enough reasons, and that once addressed, people of reason will cast aside their former misconceptions and embrace reality, however difficult adopting such a new - as well as right and proper - outlook may seem.
In short, I believe in the exceptionalism of America and Her people. It is for this reason that this blog exists: to remind us of what makes us great; to cast aside that which sullies our reputation; and to affirmatively do those things necessary for the renewal of this Republic.
Confidently, I speak for my brothers in this effort; yet they may have thoughts of their own to add to this. Assure that the blessings of Providence guide us, I remain,
A. Hamilton aka The Monarchist
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Madness in the Senate
I was just listening to Mike Reagan's show, and it sounds like our Senators are out of their minds. Or, well, perhaps, dear reader, this is just more proof of something you already knew.
So it seems that yesterday the Senate voted on legislation - that passed - that would provide social security to illegal aliens. Let me say that again: social security. For illegal aliens. Something like eight RINOs voted along with their ideological kin in the Democrat party to pass this... abominable... piece of legislation.
I'll probably have more to say on the matter, but it seems to me that the parties are more and more becoming indistinguishable from each other.
A. Hamilton aka The Monarchist
So it seems that yesterday the Senate voted on legislation - that passed - that would provide social security to illegal aliens. Let me say that again: social security. For illegal aliens. Something like eight RINOs voted along with their ideological kin in the Democrat party to pass this... abominable... piece of legislation.
I'll probably have more to say on the matter, but it seems to me that the parties are more and more becoming indistinguishable from each other.
A. Hamilton aka The Monarchist
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Our Buddy Cap
Has this ever happened to you? No sooner do you think you've got something figured out than you realize that 1) you don't, in fact, have it figured out and 2) it's not about you, or up to you to determine... well, anything.
Cryptic sounding I know, but our friend Cap is bowing out of the AFB, no sooner than I got the dang thing up and running. As I think you know, faithful reader, we've been collaborating now and again for a few months on how to save the Republic.
Cap (not his real name, obviously) is a sharp dude. He's introduced me to a lot of ideas that have challenged my way of thinking, and shared with me a couple of old French thinkers (Bastiat and Boetie, look 'em up, people) that, quite disconcertingly, has made me re-think my dislike of the French. Now, THAT is an accomplishment folks. If you detect a libertarian streak in me now and again, you can attribute that to the man.
We had our share of disagreements, laughs, and thoughtful debates. On more than one occasion I opened my mouth and said something stupid or just entered the ring half-witted and ended up looking the fool. Boy, do I regret those moments. Such things will happen to you if you're a flyweight stepping into the squared circle with a heavy. We also got to know a lot about each other, personally, and this is guy who is among the finest individuals I've had the pleasure of meeting.
Cap has this love of knowledge, history and particularly philosophy - stuff that makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Although he's not going to be a contributor here, you bet your sweet bippy (and where did I get that phrase from?) I'm going to be crossing my i's and dotting my t's... or something... so I don't post something one day and have it torn from aft to stern by a "visitor" to the blog. You hear me, Cap? I'm looking over my shoulder.
So heads up folks, Cap's flying solo. God bless ya, Cap. I hope you find what you're looking for, brother.
Cryptic sounding I know, but our friend Cap is bowing out of the AFB, no sooner than I got the dang thing up and running. As I think you know, faithful reader, we've been collaborating now and again for a few months on how to save the Republic.
Cap (not his real name, obviously) is a sharp dude. He's introduced me to a lot of ideas that have challenged my way of thinking, and shared with me a couple of old French thinkers (Bastiat and Boetie, look 'em up, people) that, quite disconcertingly, has made me re-think my dislike of the French. Now, THAT is an accomplishment folks. If you detect a libertarian streak in me now and again, you can attribute that to the man.
We had our share of disagreements, laughs, and thoughtful debates. On more than one occasion I opened my mouth and said something stupid or just entered the ring half-witted and ended up looking the fool. Boy, do I regret those moments. Such things will happen to you if you're a flyweight stepping into the squared circle with a heavy. We also got to know a lot about each other, personally, and this is guy who is among the finest individuals I've had the pleasure of meeting.
Cap has this love of knowledge, history and particularly philosophy - stuff that makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Although he's not going to be a contributor here, you bet your sweet bippy (and where did I get that phrase from?) I'm going to be crossing my i's and dotting my t's... or something... so I don't post something one day and have it torn from aft to stern by a "visitor" to the blog. You hear me, Cap? I'm looking over my shoulder.
So heads up folks, Cap's flying solo. God bless ya, Cap. I hope you find what you're looking for, brother.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Terms Limits a Well-Intentioned Nonsense
An idea that gets a lot of play is that of term limits for elected officials.
I hear it on talk radio a lot. You can see it on just about any discussion group or message board. When people really start quantifying the number of things wrong with our government, invariably someone will volunteer that maybe the solution is term-limits.
If you're in agreement with this idea, then I've hit my target audience perfectly, and I'll only require a little of your time. Sit back, relax, and let me share my views on the subject. You see, I think people who reflexively offer term limits as the solution aren't thinking.
Once you get beyond the rosy warm feeling you get when you think about Ted Kennedy working in the private sector, things don't hold up to any sort of deep examination. Term limits got their start thanks to none other than the Republican party. Allow me to go back, way back in time.
After General Washington served, there was a long-standing practice, really a precedent, that no President served longer than two terms. The founders considered the topic, but concluded that the specter - one man becoming like a king - was too chimerical to be taken seriously, and too insulting to the wisdom and energy of the American people.
And so it went until FDR. Unable to beat him, the GOP instituted Presidential term limits, and so we have the phenomenon of modern Presidencies. Presidents who serve two terms always have more productive and successful first terms. Returned to office for their stellar service, their second term becomes a battle as Congress generally asserts itself and becomes some degree of impediment to the President's agenda. Our current President has been impeded by Democrat enemies, the press, and leaky sources in his own administration, although this is not unique relative to other Presidents. Reagan had Iran-Contra in his second term, and low approval ratings. Clinton was impeached, although this was his own doing; I'm not sure that more needs to be said of Clinton. This creates an impression - a wrong one, I might add - that second terms are "lame duck" because that's just the way it is.
The dynamic between the Executive and the Legislative is the reason, not because second terms are inherently hamstrung. The unintended consequence of term limits is that the right and proper balance of power shifts - imperceptibly - creating this phenomenon. An energetic and active Executive is necessary for things as serious as the defense of the nation and as mundane as the proper functioning of the federal government.
Beyond the practical problem of term limits, there's a fundamental philosophical issue with it, namely: an infringement on the people's Liberty. Suppose there is a long and protracted war, much like the one we face against Islamic terror. Suppose again that the incumbent President was prosecuting this war with great success, such that our country didn't fear being attacked as much as right after the beginning of the conflict. Because of the term limit, that President will be asked to leave after his second term, thankyouverymuch, and on-the-job training begins for the new President. The People's right to elect whom they wish has been infringed.
Since Congress won't vote themselves term limits, there's an improper balance between the branches. Furthermore, experience has shown that congressional term limits are a bad idea too. I'll look into it further, but my recollection is that Nebraska has these in its Constitution (see: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-03282006-632564.html), and faces the unique challenge of a majority of freshmen legislators, given its unicameral legislature.
True to my pen-name, I think that Presidential term limits should be abolished; this should be a part of any good and proper Federalist platform. So as not to appear to be a Bush apologist, I'd even suggest waiting until after he leaves office, or excluding him from eligibility.
I'll close with a suggestion to anyone who still thinks term limits would be a good idea: term limits exist today. It's called voting for someone else. Senator Kennedy, after all, hasn't suspended elections and named himself "Senator for Life." That the people of Massachusetts keep electing him is their choice, or fault, depending on how you look at it.
Your obedient and faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
I hear it on talk radio a lot. You can see it on just about any discussion group or message board. When people really start quantifying the number of things wrong with our government, invariably someone will volunteer that maybe the solution is term-limits.
If you're in agreement with this idea, then I've hit my target audience perfectly, and I'll only require a little of your time. Sit back, relax, and let me share my views on the subject. You see, I think people who reflexively offer term limits as the solution aren't thinking.
Once you get beyond the rosy warm feeling you get when you think about Ted Kennedy working in the private sector, things don't hold up to any sort of deep examination. Term limits got their start thanks to none other than the Republican party. Allow me to go back, way back in time.
After General Washington served, there was a long-standing practice, really a precedent, that no President served longer than two terms. The founders considered the topic, but concluded that the specter - one man becoming like a king - was too chimerical to be taken seriously, and too insulting to the wisdom and energy of the American people.
And so it went until FDR. Unable to beat him, the GOP instituted Presidential term limits, and so we have the phenomenon of modern Presidencies. Presidents who serve two terms always have more productive and successful first terms. Returned to office for their stellar service, their second term becomes a battle as Congress generally asserts itself and becomes some degree of impediment to the President's agenda. Our current President has been impeded by Democrat enemies, the press, and leaky sources in his own administration, although this is not unique relative to other Presidents. Reagan had Iran-Contra in his second term, and low approval ratings. Clinton was impeached, although this was his own doing; I'm not sure that more needs to be said of Clinton. This creates an impression - a wrong one, I might add - that second terms are "lame duck" because that's just the way it is.
The dynamic between the Executive and the Legislative is the reason, not because second terms are inherently hamstrung. The unintended consequence of term limits is that the right and proper balance of power shifts - imperceptibly - creating this phenomenon. An energetic and active Executive is necessary for things as serious as the defense of the nation and as mundane as the proper functioning of the federal government.
Beyond the practical problem of term limits, there's a fundamental philosophical issue with it, namely: an infringement on the people's Liberty. Suppose there is a long and protracted war, much like the one we face against Islamic terror. Suppose again that the incumbent President was prosecuting this war with great success, such that our country didn't fear being attacked as much as right after the beginning of the conflict. Because of the term limit, that President will be asked to leave after his second term, thankyouverymuch, and on-the-job training begins for the new President. The People's right to elect whom they wish has been infringed.
Since Congress won't vote themselves term limits, there's an improper balance between the branches. Furthermore, experience has shown that congressional term limits are a bad idea too. I'll look into it further, but my recollection is that Nebraska has these in its Constitution (see: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-03282006-632564.html), and faces the unique challenge of a majority of freshmen legislators, given its unicameral legislature.
True to my pen-name, I think that Presidential term limits should be abolished; this should be a part of any good and proper Federalist platform. So as not to appear to be a Bush apologist, I'd even suggest waiting until after he leaves office, or excluding him from eligibility.
I'll close with a suggestion to anyone who still thinks term limits would be a good idea: term limits exist today. It's called voting for someone else. Senator Kennedy, after all, hasn't suspended elections and named himself "Senator for Life." That the people of Massachusetts keep electing him is their choice, or fault, depending on how you look at it.
Your obedient and faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Cap's Post and Happy Mother's Day
Cap's post and Webster's comment has me thinking, too, about the relationship between rights and responsibilities. The right to vote carries with it a responsibility that people aren't discharging with some degree of propriety. I think you fellows are on to something there.
Also I'd like to wish all the mothers a Happy Mother's Day. I really think one of the things that makes America such a great nation is the virtue of her women. Now, another topic for discussion is how this relates to society today, but I'm not going there now! May God bless our wives and mothers, one and all.
A. Hamilton
DANIEL WEBSTER ADDS:
A Happy Mother's Day, indeed! Thank you Mr. Hamilton, ummm, for reminding me. ;) Nah, someone once said: 'behind every great man is a great woman,' or something to that effect. And I firmly believe that with all my heart and soul. Funny thing though, in my case the good Lord has put several great women in my path during my journey in this thing called life....not the least of which is my precious wife - the better three-quarters of this marriage. And I've yet to attain my greatness. What's up with that?
Indeed you are correct, sir. The virtue of her women is vitally important to the continued success and greatness of this nation. Is it any wonder that "Justice" blindfolded is indeed represented as a fair maiden? Can you imagine Justice represented as a herculean male figure (or Patricia Ireland, for that matter) exacting his determinations by....what would be the impression? And you referred to this country as "her." Interesting....and as much an accident as the delicate and beautiful female depiction of Justice, I'd be willing to bet.
God Bless all you ladies; all you Mothers, sincerely, and with deep appreciation!
~D.W.
Also I'd like to wish all the mothers a Happy Mother's Day. I really think one of the things that makes America such a great nation is the virtue of her women. Now, another topic for discussion is how this relates to society today, but I'm not going there now! May God bless our wives and mothers, one and all.
A. Hamilton
DANIEL WEBSTER ADDS:
A Happy Mother's Day, indeed! Thank you Mr. Hamilton, ummm, for reminding me. ;) Nah, someone once said: 'behind every great man is a great woman,' or something to that effect. And I firmly believe that with all my heart and soul. Funny thing though, in my case the good Lord has put several great women in my path during my journey in this thing called life....not the least of which is my precious wife - the better three-quarters of this marriage. And I've yet to attain my greatness. What's up with that?
Indeed you are correct, sir. The virtue of her women is vitally important to the continued success and greatness of this nation. Is it any wonder that "Justice" blindfolded is indeed represented as a fair maiden? Can you imagine Justice represented as a herculean male figure (or Patricia Ireland, for that matter) exacting his determinations by....what would be the impression? And you referred to this country as "her." Interesting....and as much an accident as the delicate and beautiful female depiction of Justice, I'd be willing to bet.
God Bless all you ladies; all you Mothers, sincerely, and with deep appreciation!
~D.W.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Patience and Revolution
The Great Revolution did not begin at Concord or Lexington, or even in Boston, ten years before the shot heard round the world was fired. The Revolution had been taking place in the hearts and minds of men a generation before the Declaration. When John Adams was still a lad playing what is now known as baseball, Benjamin Franklin and his fellow Englishmen in America had grown weary of the usurpations of the British throne and of Parliament, and the cry of "Don't Tread on Me" began to take hold.
Over those intervening decades there were of course those throughout the colonies who bore a visceral hatred of the tyrant across the sea. But they remained patient, petitioning the authorities for redress of their various and sundry grievances. They even wore the red coat in defense of His Majesty's colonies against a clearer and more present danger in the French and their Indian allies. Indeed, they were proud to call themselves Englishmen to the very day of seperation. It was in that spirit that they continued to try to live at peace as best as they could with their brothers. As Englishmen in America, they had hoped that Englishmen on the home island would share the same love of liberty and life of conscience to which they were accustomed. It was not to be, obviously, and a seperation was eventually consummated on an unseasonably cool day in the summer of 1776.
This consummation we know as the Declaration of Independence. In it is listed a series of grievances that would shock and amaze a history student from today's public schools (I should know, I myself am a recovering public school student). Seperation was made, but not before repeated and repeated and repeated treadings of the avenues of obsecration, advocation, and entreaty had been made, both locally and to the throne itself.
When you suffer an offence or you witness or learn of an offense suffered to a degree that you cannot but stand up and say or do something about it, you will very likely begin by feeling like a very small fish in an ocean of apathy. In a sea of Americans who think that they are mind-bogglingly free, I find myself in a school of ... four. I know how frustrating it can be to sound an alarm and in my frustration knee-jerk to a Founding-Fathers-Revolutionary-War-is-the-only-way-attitude. As more and more of like-minded individuals begin speaking out, more and more of these kind of voices are heard, and a word of caution becomes due.
Before a call to arms can be made, a call to reason must first take place. Indeed, you can say that it has been taking place, but not all avenues of petition have yet been exhausted. It is but unwise and dangerous to foment too early, as the unfortunate revolutionaries in Iraq during the 1990's most painfully found out. Instead, as reflected in the patience of "my cousin" John Adams, we must wait for Providence. Indeed, He is already moving!
Sam
Over those intervening decades there were of course those throughout the colonies who bore a visceral hatred of the tyrant across the sea. But they remained patient, petitioning the authorities for redress of their various and sundry grievances. They even wore the red coat in defense of His Majesty's colonies against a clearer and more present danger in the French and their Indian allies. Indeed, they were proud to call themselves Englishmen to the very day of seperation. It was in that spirit that they continued to try to live at peace as best as they could with their brothers. As Englishmen in America, they had hoped that Englishmen on the home island would share the same love of liberty and life of conscience to which they were accustomed. It was not to be, obviously, and a seperation was eventually consummated on an unseasonably cool day in the summer of 1776.
This consummation we know as the Declaration of Independence. In it is listed a series of grievances that would shock and amaze a history student from today's public schools (I should know, I myself am a recovering public school student). Seperation was made, but not before repeated and repeated and repeated treadings of the avenues of obsecration, advocation, and entreaty had been made, both locally and to the throne itself.
When you suffer an offence or you witness or learn of an offense suffered to a degree that you cannot but stand up and say or do something about it, you will very likely begin by feeling like a very small fish in an ocean of apathy. In a sea of Americans who think that they are mind-bogglingly free, I find myself in a school of ... four. I know how frustrating it can be to sound an alarm and in my frustration knee-jerk to a Founding-Fathers-Revolutionary-War-is-the-only-way-attitude. As more and more of like-minded individuals begin speaking out, more and more of these kind of voices are heard, and a word of caution becomes due.
Before a call to arms can be made, a call to reason must first take place. Indeed, you can say that it has been taking place, but not all avenues of petition have yet been exhausted. It is but unwise and dangerous to foment too early, as the unfortunate revolutionaries in Iraq during the 1990's most painfully found out. Instead, as reflected in the patience of "my cousin" John Adams, we must wait for Providence. Indeed, He is already moving!
Sam
Step aside, gentlemen, let's talk about ME
Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to talk about, well, me.
First off you should know that I ain't gonna wax all eloquent on ya much simply because I've done it before and I found it a wanting style not really suited for this day and age. Not that I don't have an appreciation for that style, I do!....ain't nothin' runs a chill up my spine no quicker than to read the immortal words of our founding fathers, except of course the crack of the pads on an autumn Friday night in rural Oklahoma as I witness the tailback from my favorite H.S. team plow over the opposition's middle-linebacker to begin a sixty yard gallop to the endzone. Smash-Mouth-Football - now that's what I'm talkin' about!!!
Okay, settle down, Webster!
Oh yes, as I was saying.....you can call me Daniel Webster, Webster, Daniel, Dan, Danny-boy, or whatever, I don't really give a hoot. But my name, for our purposes here, is Daniel Webster, got it?.....OK. I bear only slight resemblances to the portrait I have posted on my profile (Thank you Mr. Adams!), so to look upon it will simply give you a pretty poor impression of what it is I really look like if that's what you want to know - just the way I wants it. And hey, there just ain't much left to the imagination when someone posts a real picture of himself, now is there? So you see, you might apply the same principles here as you would with reading a book vs. watching the movie version, if you're catching my drift.
So, what have I disclosed about myself thus far? Let's review.
My name is Daniel Webster, I hail from Oklahoma and I like to incorporate a little okie slang into my writings. I'm also prone to make use of the double-negative, and such as that from time to time - don't be offended by it, it's just who I am. I bear only slight resemblances to the real Daniel Webster whose portrait I have posted on my profile page. I love a little smash-mouth-football. I prefer to keep my identity undisclosed for purposes Mr. Hamilton has already discussed, and, well....that's about as far as we've gotten, isn't it.
What else, what else?
Oh, I share with my brothers, and they are my brothers,! a deep love for this country, its people, its institutions, and an unquenchable desire to see it return to the days of Liberty through self-government. My view can be summed up this way ~ there can be no lasting liberty where self-government in its fullest extent is non-existent, or virtually non-existent. In other words I theorize that the amount of liberty a nation enjoys is directly proportional, as with individuals, to the extent that nation's people are self-governed. My own personal perspective on liberty is one that stands in stark contrast to that which we commonly hear today. Self-government is a huge part of it! Indeed, it is the sum and substance of it.... that is "governing" oneself, one's own affairs, one's own negotiations, one's passions, emotions, monetary transactions, family matters, providing for the welfare of one's own children, their educations, food, clothing, shelter, and so on and so forth. That, in short, is what "self-government" means to me; that, in short, is the kind of liberty our forefathers founded this country on. The long of it, I suppose we'll get around to by the by.
A few words about my brothers:
First, I want to thank Mr. Hamilton for exercising a little leadership, and starting up this blog. You will note right away that Mr. Hamilton is a natural-born-leader (that which I admire most about him), and anyone who possesses such leadership qualities and the frame of mind, moral qualities, skill for communicating thoughts, etc., of our Mr. Hamilton, should never leave his talents and giftings laying up in a napkin. What can I say about Mr. Adams except that he is absolutely right, you don't want to get him started! But I tell ya what, I love to get him started if I can. This man possesses a mastery of the language, writing skills, and a wit t'boot, that is just uncanny. As for Cap, he too has a style of writing and a manner of expression which is unique and quite impressive. And if you really want to test 'im, which you don't, just make the mistake of feigning an understanding of logic. My advice would be not to test him, but I know how y'all are so I'll just sit back and snicker whenever the first fool comes along and fails to heed my advice. Elsewise alls I can say is God Bless these fine gentlemen! I have a deep respect, which only continues to grow by the day, for each and every one of 'em. I guarantee you, my friends, they shall not let ya down....they are "all they're cracked up to be."
In closing let me say that I'm excited and honored to be a contributor to this blog. My brothers have set the bar pretty bloomin' high, and I hope I can rise to their level in posting my future contributions. I have any number of things I'd like to discuss and share my ideas on, and I'll do my very best, I promise.
See y'all soon,
~Daniel Webster
First off you should know that I ain't gonna wax all eloquent on ya much simply because I've done it before and I found it a wanting style not really suited for this day and age. Not that I don't have an appreciation for that style, I do!....ain't nothin' runs a chill up my spine no quicker than to read the immortal words of our founding fathers, except of course the crack of the pads on an autumn Friday night in rural Oklahoma as I witness the tailback from my favorite H.S. team plow over the opposition's middle-linebacker to begin a sixty yard gallop to the endzone. Smash-Mouth-Football - now that's what I'm talkin' about!!!
Okay, settle down, Webster!
Oh yes, as I was saying.....you can call me Daniel Webster, Webster, Daniel, Dan, Danny-boy, or whatever, I don't really give a hoot. But my name, for our purposes here, is Daniel Webster, got it?.....OK. I bear only slight resemblances to the portrait I have posted on my profile (Thank you Mr. Adams!), so to look upon it will simply give you a pretty poor impression of what it is I really look like if that's what you want to know - just the way I wants it. And hey, there just ain't much left to the imagination when someone posts a real picture of himself, now is there? So you see, you might apply the same principles here as you would with reading a book vs. watching the movie version, if you're catching my drift.
So, what have I disclosed about myself thus far? Let's review.
My name is Daniel Webster, I hail from Oklahoma and I like to incorporate a little okie slang into my writings. I'm also prone to make use of the double-negative, and such as that from time to time - don't be offended by it, it's just who I am. I bear only slight resemblances to the real Daniel Webster whose portrait I have posted on my profile page. I love a little smash-mouth-football. I prefer to keep my identity undisclosed for purposes Mr. Hamilton has already discussed, and, well....that's about as far as we've gotten, isn't it.
What else, what else?
Oh, I share with my brothers, and they are my brothers,! a deep love for this country, its people, its institutions, and an unquenchable desire to see it return to the days of Liberty through self-government. My view can be summed up this way ~ there can be no lasting liberty where self-government in its fullest extent is non-existent, or virtually non-existent. In other words I theorize that the amount of liberty a nation enjoys is directly proportional, as with individuals, to the extent that nation's people are self-governed. My own personal perspective on liberty is one that stands in stark contrast to that which we commonly hear today. Self-government is a huge part of it! Indeed, it is the sum and substance of it.... that is "governing" oneself, one's own affairs, one's own negotiations, one's passions, emotions, monetary transactions, family matters, providing for the welfare of one's own children, their educations, food, clothing, shelter, and so on and so forth. That, in short, is what "self-government" means to me; that, in short, is the kind of liberty our forefathers founded this country on. The long of it, I suppose we'll get around to by the by.
A few words about my brothers:
First, I want to thank Mr. Hamilton for exercising a little leadership, and starting up this blog. You will note right away that Mr. Hamilton is a natural-born-leader (that which I admire most about him), and anyone who possesses such leadership qualities and the frame of mind, moral qualities, skill for communicating thoughts, etc., of our Mr. Hamilton, should never leave his talents and giftings laying up in a napkin. What can I say about Mr. Adams except that he is absolutely right, you don't want to get him started! But I tell ya what, I love to get him started if I can. This man possesses a mastery of the language, writing skills, and a wit t'boot, that is just uncanny. As for Cap, he too has a style of writing and a manner of expression which is unique and quite impressive. And if you really want to test 'im, which you don't, just make the mistake of feigning an understanding of logic. My advice would be not to test him, but I know how y'all are so I'll just sit back and snicker whenever the first fool comes along and fails to heed my advice. Elsewise alls I can say is God Bless these fine gentlemen! I have a deep respect, which only continues to grow by the day, for each and every one of 'em. I guarantee you, my friends, they shall not let ya down....they are "all they're cracked up to be."
In closing let me say that I'm excited and honored to be a contributor to this blog. My brothers have set the bar pretty bloomin' high, and I hope I can rise to their level in posting my future contributions. I have any number of things I'd like to discuss and share my ideas on, and I'll do my very best, I promise.
See y'all soon,
~Daniel Webster
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Spies Like Us
So I took yesterday off, what, I'm not entitled? As Will Ferrell said to Garth Brooks "Oh give me a break, this is freaking hard!" Those of you who know what I'm talking about surely enjoyed that.
I'm a conflicted Monarchist today, faithful reader, because I've been thinking about spying. No, not on you! I've been thinking about the terrorist-surveillance program the NSA has, and today's USA Today story on the NSA's reportedly massive database on US telephone calls (see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm).
Now, my unease admittedly was lessened after reading more than just the tidbits that the MSM wants you to read (motto: "We're not biased, you are!"). It appears that the NSA (motto: "If you've got nothing to hide, then why so defensive?") has assembled the world's largest database - in the tens of millions - consisting of calls within the United States, with the assistance of SBC, AT&T, and any other "bell" you can think of, with the exception of Qwest, which is based in Colorado.
Now, they aren't tracking names, or the content of calls, but it appears to be... phone call patterns. Which struck me as a little odd, until I thought about traffic patterns. Now, I'd need to find a DOT expert to check me on this, but I'd guess that the folks who monitor traffic have a pretty good idea of when and where things get dicey, any given time, any day of the week. Heck, as a driver in the greater Chicagoland area, I could tell you when not to drive on what major thoroughfare.
This is all just my musings, but I'd guess telephone "traffic" is the same. Pretty consistent patterns probably exist... except when there's a semi-meets-Yugo incident on the Eisenhower heading into the city during morning rush hour. We're all familiar with the term "chatter" and how this has taken on another specific meaning in the post-September 11th world. Sort of makes sense, logically then, to watch, well, chatter patterns (I really need a copyright lawyer on staff). The White House assures us that all such activity is strictly within the law, and frankly, I believe them.
Except...
There's a little nagging problem I have with it. Part of it is that libertarian streak in me - not big, but there nonetheless - that says the government has no right monitoring calls. The problem becomes more clear when one considers that the folks in the White House today aren't going to be there forever. A whole new group might be in there come 2008, and (shudders) they may be Democrats.
We could do a brief history of the most recent Democrat Presidents, but, well, it's raining out today and that might push us all from the category of "gloom" to "incurably depressed" and I'm doing my best to keep it light, people. That said, the last guy had no problem with breaking the law, repeatedly. The guy before him was ineffectual and believed, like most of the left did, that we would just have to get used to the Soviet Union being a major world power. We all know how that worked out.
There's something about the NSA programs that have a hint of "escaped genie" feel to them. We can only pray that we don't reap the grave unintended consequences that could come from such power in the wrong hands.
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
I'm a conflicted Monarchist today, faithful reader, because I've been thinking about spying. No, not on you! I've been thinking about the terrorist-surveillance program the NSA has, and today's USA Today story on the NSA's reportedly massive database on US telephone calls (see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm).
Now, my unease admittedly was lessened after reading more than just the tidbits that the MSM wants you to read (motto: "We're not biased, you are!"). It appears that the NSA (motto: "If you've got nothing to hide, then why so defensive?") has assembled the world's largest database - in the tens of millions - consisting of calls within the United States, with the assistance of SBC, AT&T, and any other "bell" you can think of, with the exception of Qwest, which is based in Colorado.
Now, they aren't tracking names, or the content of calls, but it appears to be... phone call patterns. Which struck me as a little odd, until I thought about traffic patterns. Now, I'd need to find a DOT expert to check me on this, but I'd guess that the folks who monitor traffic have a pretty good idea of when and where things get dicey, any given time, any day of the week. Heck, as a driver in the greater Chicagoland area, I could tell you when not to drive on what major thoroughfare.
This is all just my musings, but I'd guess telephone "traffic" is the same. Pretty consistent patterns probably exist... except when there's a semi-meets-Yugo incident on the Eisenhower heading into the city during morning rush hour. We're all familiar with the term "chatter" and how this has taken on another specific meaning in the post-September 11th world. Sort of makes sense, logically then, to watch, well, chatter patterns (I really need a copyright lawyer on staff). The White House assures us that all such activity is strictly within the law, and frankly, I believe them.
Except...
There's a little nagging problem I have with it. Part of it is that libertarian streak in me - not big, but there nonetheless - that says the government has no right monitoring calls. The problem becomes more clear when one considers that the folks in the White House today aren't going to be there forever. A whole new group might be in there come 2008, and (shudders) they may be Democrats.
We could do a brief history of the most recent Democrat Presidents, but, well, it's raining out today and that might push us all from the category of "gloom" to "incurably depressed" and I'm doing my best to keep it light, people. That said, the last guy had no problem with breaking the law, repeatedly. The guy before him was ineffectual and believed, like most of the left did, that we would just have to get used to the Soviet Union being a major world power. We all know how that worked out.
There's something about the NSA programs that have a hint of "escaped genie" feel to them. We can only pray that we don't reap the grave unintended consequences that could come from such power in the wrong hands.
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
Please allow me to introduce myself...
My name is Capitalist Pig, and that's exactly what I am. I am a believer in free trade, free markets, free association, free thought. When people are left alone and allowed to peacefully interact with each other, good things happen: Wealth is created, wars averted, families brought together, and productivity increased. Unfortunately, our government has other ideas. Rather than discussing the creation of wealth, they try to redistribute it, as though poverty can be cured by simply giving people money. The idea that productivity is involved in the aquisition of wealth is foriegn to our beloved leaders. You people need to understand something: Wealth is good. It brings with it options that are otherwise denied. Money is a tool, and the more tools you have the better off you are. A carpenter with only a hammer and a saw ain't much of a carpenter. It's easy to understand why our government is a little sqeamish when it comes to wealth creation; the more of it we have, the less we need them. Take a look around. Where do you see the most social unrest? You don't see a lot of rioting, looting, and burning on 5th Avenue, or Hyannisport, or Brentwood. Those people are too busy getting rich and figuring out how to keep their pile. When people are concentrating on making money, they very seldom have time to visit violence on their fellow men. That's a lesson, by the way. You people think on it and I'll get back to you.
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Welcome aboard, Cap. Funny thing about human nature is that people with a lot to lose tend to behave in a manner best described as measured, and in their interest. People with nothing to lose act a little differently. No wonder the terrorists will do anything to impede Liberty; their existence is meaningless if people are free.
DANIEL WEBSTER ADDS: Thank you, Cap, for an enlightening and thought provoking post. Your statement: "a carpenter with only a hammer and saw is a poor carpenter," got me to thinking, and I ain't ashamed to admit that sometimes I need a shove in the right direction. If we apply the same principle to popular government we might say: "a voter possessing only the elective franchise and the choice of a couple poorly qualified candidates, ain't much of a voter." The lesson then, when applied to popular government, and correct me if I'm off base here, is that which we possess, really possess and own, determines to a great degree how effective we will be at our respective occupations. As owners of the elective franchise, by birth and natural right, it becomes us as good citizens to acquire ownership, real ownership through labor and industry, of a knowledge and understanding of human nature, history, the principles of government our forefathers founded this nation and her governing laws, institutions, and constitutions upon. Am I getting warm?
THE MONARCHIST ADDS: Welcome aboard, Cap. Funny thing about human nature is that people with a lot to lose tend to behave in a manner best described as measured, and in their interest. People with nothing to lose act a little differently. No wonder the terrorists will do anything to impede Liberty; their existence is meaningless if people are free.
DANIEL WEBSTER ADDS: Thank you, Cap, for an enlightening and thought provoking post. Your statement: "a carpenter with only a hammer and saw is a poor carpenter," got me to thinking, and I ain't ashamed to admit that sometimes I need a shove in the right direction. If we apply the same principle to popular government we might say: "a voter possessing only the elective franchise and the choice of a couple poorly qualified candidates, ain't much of a voter." The lesson then, when applied to popular government, and correct me if I'm off base here, is that which we possess, really possess and own, determines to a great degree how effective we will be at our respective occupations. As owners of the elective franchise, by birth and natural right, it becomes us as good citizens to acquire ownership, real ownership through labor and industry, of a knowledge and understanding of human nature, history, the principles of government our forefathers founded this nation and her governing laws, institutions, and constitutions upon. Am I getting warm?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
