OK, not exactly, but the general idea is there.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KERRY_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=TXCLU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Yes, he would want the Federal government to pay for this if people couldn't afford it. Yes, he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 (said cuts also known as the "Great Economic Growth Engine That Foiled a Terrorist-Attack Induced Recession") to help pay for this. Yes, Karl Marx would be proud.
I'm completely stunned that Democrats can say things like this and not be called out on it. How abysmally bad at math are reporters, anyway? A cynic might say that as long as a politician tows the Leftist line, they get a free pass to say whatever they want without someone pointing out how idiotic they sound. That's what a cynic might say, but since I'm not one, I won't.
Forget the math for a minute (as hard as that might be). Forget the pass that the Demos get from the MSM (because that's just old news). Does the average American realize that Kerry's talking about socialism here? And can someone - anyone - please point out to me a free society that has successfully chosen and implemented socialism and is better off for it?
The Demos whine about the big government that Republicans want. The Republicans whine about the big government that Demos want. I've got a solution: let's elect some Federalists and have no big government. After all, with both classes of kleptocrats unhappy, isn't that the definition of a good compromise?
Monday, July 31, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Terrorism at Home, Again
I'm puzzled why this is being considered a crime of hate, as this story quotes, and not terrorism. Since I couldn't post the link, here's the body of the story:
Muslim charged in Seattle Jewish slaying
By Daisuke Wakabayashi Sat Jul 29, 4:16 AM ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A lone gunman burst into a Jewish organization in downtown Seattle on Friday, killing one woman and wounding five others in what authorities were calling a hate crime.
The gunman, Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, was arrested without a struggle at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, where the shooting took place. He was later charged by Seattle police with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder.
Haq is a U.S. citizen, police said, and their initial conversation with him by phone while he was inside the building indicated that he was a Muslim.
Police would not disclose the content of the conversation, but Amy Wasser-Simpson, the federation's vice president, told the Seattle Times in a story on its Web site the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.
"This was a purposeful, hateful act as far as we know, by an individual acting alone," said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels at a news conference, adding "This is a crime of hate."
Authorities said they were "taking every precaution" in searching for explosives and additional suspects and were monitoring the city's synagogues and Jewish organizations.
"We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime," said Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
Seattle police alerted its officers earlier this week about carefully monitoring synagogues, temples and mosques, but Kerlikowske said it had received no specific threats.
The FBI was working with local authorities on the case.
FEDERATION HAD PRO-ISRAEL RALLY
Police first responded to reports of shots fired and a possible hostage situation at the center shortly after 4 p.m., when there were about 18 people in the offices.
Haq, described by a 911 caller as a man in his 30s or 40s, surrendered to police unarmed, but authorities found his weapon, a large-caliber, semi-automatic handgun, inside the building, according to Kerlikowske.
A hospital spokeswoman said three of the victims are in critical condition. The surviving women range in age from 23 to 43, including one who is pregnant. The fatal victim was only identified as a white female.
The federation, a group covering the Jewish community around the Puget Sound, had organized a large rally last weekend to demonstrate support for Israel in its fight against Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.
"I express our collective shock and dismay over the attack that has left five of our colleagues wounded and to share our extraordinary sadness for the loss of one of our colleagues," Robin Boehler, federation chair, said.
The Pacific Northwest chapter of the Anti-Defamation League said earlier this year that anti-Semitic incidents were on the rise because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and activities by white supremacists.
In 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center outside Los Angeles, wounding five people including children. Later that day, he shot and killed a Filipino mail carrier.
(Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb and Mary Milliken in Los Angeles)
OK, it's me again. Did you get all of that? I'll have more to say below. And here's more on the story from the Chicago Tribune, again, without any consideration for calling this terrorism:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-shooting29jul29,1,7810639.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I guess my point is this: at what point would we call a Muslim gunman walking into the Jewish Federation's offices (or a synagogue, or a Bar Mitzvah) and shooting the place up an act of terrorism? Does more than one person have to die? Does it have to become a regular occurrence? Doesn't it fit the common criteria of a terrorist act - "religious" in nature, designed to kill as many people as possible and inflict a sense of fear in the community?
The worst part of that Reuters piece (well, there's two really bad parts, keep reading) was the nauseating comment from the Police Chief. Thanks, Chief, I'm glad to hear you're going to be protecting mosques. You know how those militant Jews and Christians have a history of bloody, vengeful rampages when Muslims kill them. Think of all the retributive violence that happened after 9/11, right? And when you're done thinking of it, give me an example - one would be enough - of that happening after 9/11. I won't hold my breath.
And what in the name of the Eternal does the last paragraph have to do with anything? It is completely inconsistent with the second to last paragraph (which explicitly notes the conflict in the Middle East), and almost seems as if the authors of this piece wanted to say: yes, he was Muslim, but look! There's all sorts of people who hate the Jews! This guy back in 1999 did the same thing!
Well, Dear Reader, say a prayer for the families of those whose loved ones were shot, and a prayer for this Republic, that this type of terrorism doesn't become common. I'd love to hear the terrorist-loving apologists explain this one away, although I guess the ones at Reuters already did.
Muslim charged in Seattle Jewish slaying
By Daisuke Wakabayashi Sat Jul 29, 4:16 AM ET
SEATTLE (Reuters) - A lone gunman burst into a Jewish organization in downtown Seattle on Friday, killing one woman and wounding five others in what authorities were calling a hate crime.
The gunman, Naveed Afzal Haq, 31, was arrested without a struggle at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, where the shooting took place. He was later charged by Seattle police with one count of murder and five counts of attempted murder.
Haq is a U.S. citizen, police said, and their initial conversation with him by phone while he was inside the building indicated that he was a Muslim.
Police would not disclose the content of the conversation, but Amy Wasser-Simpson, the federation's vice president, told the Seattle Times in a story on its Web site the man got past security at the building and shouted, "I'm a Muslim American; I'm angry at Israel," before he began shooting.
"This was a purposeful, hateful act as far as we know, by an individual acting alone," said Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels at a news conference, adding "This is a crime of hate."
Authorities said they were "taking every precaution" in searching for explosives and additional suspects and were monitoring the city's synagogues and Jewish organizations.
"We are also protecting mosques, because there is always the concern of retaliatory crime," said Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske.
Seattle police alerted its officers earlier this week about carefully monitoring synagogues, temples and mosques, but Kerlikowske said it had received no specific threats.
The FBI was working with local authorities on the case.
FEDERATION HAD PRO-ISRAEL RALLY
Police first responded to reports of shots fired and a possible hostage situation at the center shortly after 4 p.m., when there were about 18 people in the offices.
Haq, described by a 911 caller as a man in his 30s or 40s, surrendered to police unarmed, but authorities found his weapon, a large-caliber, semi-automatic handgun, inside the building, according to Kerlikowske.
A hospital spokeswoman said three of the victims are in critical condition. The surviving women range in age from 23 to 43, including one who is pregnant. The fatal victim was only identified as a white female.
The federation, a group covering the Jewish community around the Puget Sound, had organized a large rally last weekend to demonstrate support for Israel in its fight against Hizbollah in southern Lebanon.
"I express our collective shock and dismay over the attack that has left five of our colleagues wounded and to share our extraordinary sadness for the loss of one of our colleagues," Robin Boehler, federation chair, said.
The Pacific Northwest chapter of the Anti-Defamation League said earlier this year that anti-Semitic incidents were on the rise because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and activities by white supremacists.
In 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow went on a shooting rampage at a Jewish community center outside Los Angeles, wounding five people including children. Later that day, he shot and killed a Filipino mail carrier.
(Additional reporting by Dan Whitcomb and Mary Milliken in Los Angeles)
OK, it's me again. Did you get all of that? I'll have more to say below. And here's more on the story from the Chicago Tribune, again, without any consideration for calling this terrorism:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-shooting29jul29,1,7810639.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I guess my point is this: at what point would we call a Muslim gunman walking into the Jewish Federation's offices (or a synagogue, or a Bar Mitzvah) and shooting the place up an act of terrorism? Does more than one person have to die? Does it have to become a regular occurrence? Doesn't it fit the common criteria of a terrorist act - "religious" in nature, designed to kill as many people as possible and inflict a sense of fear in the community?
The worst part of that Reuters piece (well, there's two really bad parts, keep reading) was the nauseating comment from the Police Chief. Thanks, Chief, I'm glad to hear you're going to be protecting mosques. You know how those militant Jews and Christians have a history of bloody, vengeful rampages when Muslims kill them. Think of all the retributive violence that happened after 9/11, right? And when you're done thinking of it, give me an example - one would be enough - of that happening after 9/11. I won't hold my breath.
And what in the name of the Eternal does the last paragraph have to do with anything? It is completely inconsistent with the second to last paragraph (which explicitly notes the conflict in the Middle East), and almost seems as if the authors of this piece wanted to say: yes, he was Muslim, but look! There's all sorts of people who hate the Jews! This guy back in 1999 did the same thing!
Well, Dear Reader, say a prayer for the families of those whose loved ones were shot, and a prayer for this Republic, that this type of terrorism doesn't become common. I'd love to hear the terrorist-loving apologists explain this one away, although I guess the ones at Reuters already did.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
A Moral Cause
I've been reading Richard Carwardine's Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power with great interest and enjoyment. First, the book is very readable and focuses on Lincoln's public life as an Illinois politician through his rise as a national figure and his ascension to the Presidency.
I would strongly recommend it for open-minded fans of American history (I say open minded for this reason: if you think Lincoln was a tyrant, or responsible for 600,000 deaths, or trampled on the Constitution, you're probably not in the right place to appreciate the work). It paints a very compelling portrait of a man who at once desires to avoid war and fighting, and yet takes the opportunity whenever he can to inspire people to recognize that "peculiar institution" as inconsistent with the intention of the founders (frequently quoting the Declaration) and also to recognize the decision before the citizenry: either a nation that progresses under the spirit of '76 or back-slides into tyranny.
The author provides an insight into the time, and the challenges facing the loose affiliation that would become the Republican party. It was a party that was created to accomplish minimally one end: arrest the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Most Republicans were content to let slavery run its course in slave-holding states (for they were convinced, as Lincoln himself said in his many speeches, that "right makes might," and that it was an institution that wasn't long for this world).
But here's the important point: this was a clearly defined moment in history, when a moral decision between Liberty and Tyranny had to be made, and the world is clearly better for our 16th President. There are moments like this throughout history, but they are only evident with the clarity of hindsight.
What will be our generation's defining moment of moral decision making? Will the threat of fascism once again awaken free people everywhere to stand united and fight against a back-sliding of civilization? More sinister an enemy is the atrophy of our collective morality and disregard for Christian virtue - manifested in a noticeably more dependent and less self-governing citizenry. These are the two enemies of Liberty as I see them in the summer of 2006, and although I fear that things will get worse before they get better, I pray I am wrong.
But if I am right, may the Author of Liberty help us and grant us the courage to dedicate ourselves to His work; bless us and protect us until we accomplish our purposes as He sees fit; and send us His Holy Spirit that we may communicate the danger and rally good people everywhere to the cause of righteousness and Freedom.
I would strongly recommend it for open-minded fans of American history (I say open minded for this reason: if you think Lincoln was a tyrant, or responsible for 600,000 deaths, or trampled on the Constitution, you're probably not in the right place to appreciate the work). It paints a very compelling portrait of a man who at once desires to avoid war and fighting, and yet takes the opportunity whenever he can to inspire people to recognize that "peculiar institution" as inconsistent with the intention of the founders (frequently quoting the Declaration) and also to recognize the decision before the citizenry: either a nation that progresses under the spirit of '76 or back-slides into tyranny.
The author provides an insight into the time, and the challenges facing the loose affiliation that would become the Republican party. It was a party that was created to accomplish minimally one end: arrest the spread of slavery into the Western territories. Most Republicans were content to let slavery run its course in slave-holding states (for they were convinced, as Lincoln himself said in his many speeches, that "right makes might," and that it was an institution that wasn't long for this world).
But here's the important point: this was a clearly defined moment in history, when a moral decision between Liberty and Tyranny had to be made, and the world is clearly better for our 16th President. There are moments like this throughout history, but they are only evident with the clarity of hindsight.
What will be our generation's defining moment of moral decision making? Will the threat of fascism once again awaken free people everywhere to stand united and fight against a back-sliding of civilization? More sinister an enemy is the atrophy of our collective morality and disregard for Christian virtue - manifested in a noticeably more dependent and less self-governing citizenry. These are the two enemies of Liberty as I see them in the summer of 2006, and although I fear that things will get worse before they get better, I pray I am wrong.
But if I am right, may the Author of Liberty help us and grant us the courage to dedicate ourselves to His work; bless us and protect us until we accomplish our purposes as He sees fit; and send us His Holy Spirit that we may communicate the danger and rally good people everywhere to the cause of righteousness and Freedom.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Annie Get Your Gun
I really enjoy Ann Coulter - she's got such a way with words.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
I have a hard time finding fault with her conclusions. If you use what the Left says and does as your basis for judgment, it's hard to come to a different conclusion.
For an analysis of what the intentions of Israel might be with respect to Lebannon, check out Jonah Goldberg's piece, which I'm linking to at the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607200041jul20,1,5967039.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
For what it's worth, I hope he's right, and that they follow through on it.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
I have a hard time finding fault with her conclusions. If you use what the Left says and does as your basis for judgment, it's hard to come to a different conclusion.
For an analysis of what the intentions of Israel might be with respect to Lebannon, check out Jonah Goldberg's piece, which I'm linking to at the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0607200041jul20,1,5967039.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
For what it's worth, I hope he's right, and that they follow through on it.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Trying Out a New Look
Well, dear Reader, I've switched up the format here just a little bit. I think I might like this template better than the other. But check me out, ever the unilateralist (and here you just thought I was a Monarchist), I'm springing it on my brothers without warning! If they nix it, we'll go back to the other format. Or we'll litigate. I don't know, we'll see.
I'm going to brush up on my WWI history, because what's been happening in the Middle East for the last week or so has that familiar, awful, runaway-train feel to it. There's probably a dozen different ways to think about the strategy at play in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and I've already got a bit of a headache, so maybe I'll take a shot at it tomorrow.
Other than that, wait a second...
Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Was he distracted when they brought it to him to sign? Could it have been an accident? Aw, who cares? What great news!
OK, I'm going to say it. Since when is upholding the Constitution strictly the role of the Judiciary? Aren't all elected officials, and the other Branches, bound by it? And my last question: why couldn't he have vetoed any of the other Constitutionally inconsistent garbage that has come across his desk (McCain-Feingold, for starters, anyone)?
I'd make a list, but I've got to get up in the morning and put in a full day.
I'm going to brush up on my WWI history, because what's been happening in the Middle East for the last week or so has that familiar, awful, runaway-train feel to it. There's probably a dozen different ways to think about the strategy at play in the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and I've already got a bit of a headache, so maybe I'll take a shot at it tomorrow.
Other than that, wait a second...
Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Bush vetoed a bill sent to him by Congress! Was he distracted when they brought it to him to sign? Could it have been an accident? Aw, who cares? What great news!
OK, I'm going to say it. Since when is upholding the Constitution strictly the role of the Judiciary? Aren't all elected officials, and the other Branches, bound by it? And my last question: why couldn't he have vetoed any of the other Constitutionally inconsistent garbage that has come across his desk (McCain-Feingold, for starters, anyone)?
I'd make a list, but I've got to get up in the morning and put in a full day.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
A New Direction?
It's my understanding that the Democrat Party is rolling out something of a... what, platform? And here I already thought they had one. I haven't read it (well, either the old one or the "new" one), but anybody who has been conscious over the last 25 years knows the drill (appeasement, abortion on demand, more taxes, more government, less liberty, etc.).
Here's the funny thing: the Democrats aren't the only ones in need of a new direction. Conservatives, as distinct and different animals from Republicans, are in need of leadership, direction, and a backbone, for starters. The last Presidential candidate who ran as a real Conservative pretty much humiliated... that other guy who no one remembers any more. Every namby-pamby "compassionate" conservative who has represented the GOP since then has either lost (see: 41) or just squeaked by (see: 43).
Looking ahead to elections in 2008, the GOP front runners are Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. No, wait. Um... yes, I've got it. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But let me ask you - are there material differences among those four names? I for one am puzzled by the dearth of strong Conservative prospects. There are a few, and maybe as 2008 nears they'll become more "household names" (Human Events polls show Tom Tancredo of Colorado as usually the favorite), but I wouldn't wait too long. Money raised today (and McCain is raising it) will be indispensable in campaigning once the season begins.
There's a line of thinking that goes something like this, and I'm unsure if it is right or not: a "moderate" Republican would be good for the Conservative movement because it might finally mobilize the base. True, we have seen Conservatives band together in rejection of some of Bush's less than conservative moments (Harriet Miers, among others, anyone?), but I'd rather see another Reagan in the White House.
Here's the funny thing: the Democrats aren't the only ones in need of a new direction. Conservatives, as distinct and different animals from Republicans, are in need of leadership, direction, and a backbone, for starters. The last Presidential candidate who ran as a real Conservative pretty much humiliated... that other guy who no one remembers any more. Every namby-pamby "compassionate" conservative who has represented the GOP since then has either lost (see: 41) or just squeaked by (see: 43).
Looking ahead to elections in 2008, the GOP front runners are Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. No, wait. Um... yes, I've got it. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But let me ask you - are there material differences among those four names? I for one am puzzled by the dearth of strong Conservative prospects. There are a few, and maybe as 2008 nears they'll become more "household names" (Human Events polls show Tom Tancredo of Colorado as usually the favorite), but I wouldn't wait too long. Money raised today (and McCain is raising it) will be indispensable in campaigning once the season begins.
There's a line of thinking that goes something like this, and I'm unsure if it is right or not: a "moderate" Republican would be good for the Conservative movement because it might finally mobilize the base. True, we have seen Conservatives band together in rejection of some of Bush's less than conservative moments (Harriet Miers, among others, anyone?), but I'd rather see another Reagan in the White House.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Buried News Worth Noting
I heard the first of this on the Dennis Prager show yesterday and indeed had to look for the story as it wasn't one of the day's top headlines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm
Although the striking capabilities of the Japanese self-defense forces might be questionable, that they are considering it, and discussing how this may conflict with their constitution is a rather big deal.
Japan is really a sleeping giant in the Far East, and her neighbors might be wise to avoid waking her. According to Alan Axelrod in his new book, Profiles in Audacity, until Truman made the decision to drop the bomb, the Japanese people had never surrendered. As in ever. Conventional wisdom was that this wasn't even part of their culture.
Since the end of the war, the Japanese have been constitutionally limited to maintaining self-defense forces only. Prager's point on his talk show was that Japan's statement yesterday, although directed at North Korea, was intended for China. No doubt the Japanese are considering every option available. Israel could offer them some pointers, I'm certain, on first strikes against hostile neighbors. Imagine for a moment that Israel hadn't hit Saddam's reactors, and he had developed the bomb. What a different world we'd be living in right now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm
Although the striking capabilities of the Japanese self-defense forces might be questionable, that they are considering it, and discussing how this may conflict with their constitution is a rather big deal.
Japan is really a sleeping giant in the Far East, and her neighbors might be wise to avoid waking her. According to Alan Axelrod in his new book, Profiles in Audacity, until Truman made the decision to drop the bomb, the Japanese people had never surrendered. As in ever. Conventional wisdom was that this wasn't even part of their culture.
Since the end of the war, the Japanese have been constitutionally limited to maintaining self-defense forces only. Prager's point on his talk show was that Japan's statement yesterday, although directed at North Korea, was intended for China. No doubt the Japanese are considering every option available. Israel could offer them some pointers, I'm certain, on first strikes against hostile neighbors. Imagine for a moment that Israel hadn't hit Saddam's reactors, and he had developed the bomb. What a different world we'd be living in right now.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Independence Day 2006
230 wonderful, frightening and challenging years have passed, dear Reader, since that glorious July 4th. Although that wasn't the beginning of our struggle for independence, it might properly be considered the beginning of the end of our connection to the Crown.
I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Fourth of July and ask that we all reflect, especially today, on the nature of our independence in modern America.
We're all aware that our Republic was designed for a self-governing people, and that we're far less self-governing as a people today than we were 50, 100, or 230 years ago. If we can do so in little ways, let's try to remember that "Spirit of '76" in our everyday life. Fostering self-government in ourselves, our families and our communities is the only way I am aware of to stop our slide into socialism.
I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Fourth of July and ask that we all reflect, especially today, on the nature of our independence in modern America.
We're all aware that our Republic was designed for a self-governing people, and that we're far less self-governing as a people today than we were 50, 100, or 230 years ago. If we can do so in little ways, let's try to remember that "Spirit of '76" in our everyday life. Fostering self-government in ourselves, our families and our communities is the only way I am aware of to stop our slide into socialism.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Our Two Party System - II
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
