What we obtain to cheaply, we esteem too lightly… it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. – Thomas Paine
In large part I think Thomas Paine was right, in that we little value the freedom that has literally been handed to us on a silver platter! After all, how many of today’s Americans have ever been required to defend that freedom by serving a few years in the military, or even been involved in a hard fought political campaign to preserve our rights!? For that matter, how many of today’s American citizens even know what freedom and liberty are? Freedom seems to be one of those “magic words” that has many meanings to different people, and that fits hand in glove with several other terms. According to my dictionary, the definition of “freedom” is the “absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. Individual freedom is the moral stance, political philosophy, or social outlook that stresses independence and self-reliance.” Along with “Freedom”, we commonly find the word “Liberty”, which is defined as the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will. From this, it would seem that freedom and liberty have much the same meaning. Thus, by these definitions, if I were truly free, I would be independent and self-reliant, responsible only to myself for my actions, and no other individual would be in a position to force me to do anything that I didn’t want to do. Of course I would also be the only one at fault if, due to ignorance, mistakes, or sheer stupidity, I managed to get myself injured or killed. It doesn’t take any real flash of genius to conclude that about the only way I’d ever have complete freedom or liberty is if I were the only person on the planet. (Which I suspect would get rather lonely, in a hurry.) Finally, the word “Law” is defined as a system of rules that shapes society and serves as the primary mediator in relations between people. So then, law is a modifier of freedom and liberty that tends to regulate the social interactions of people.
I’ll go a step further and ask “what is society”? Again from the dictionary: “A society is a body of humans generally seen as a community or group that is delineated by the bounds of cultural identity, social solidarity, or functional interdependence. A society allows its individual members to achieve individual needs or wishes that they could not fulfill by themselves, without the existence of the social group.” From that definition I’ll assume that society developed from the days when two or more cave dwellers decided to cooperate, share the cave, and the job of keeping the fire going. From that stage, a rudimentary society would logicially have evolved into hunter-gatherers remaining in the vicinity of a seasonal food source and thus becoming an agricultural – tribal community, and later into an early age town – city and possibly even a “nation” based culture. In political science, ‘society’ is often used to mean the state, the rule of government within a given territory, and over it’s inhabitants. The earliest states developed when it became possible to centralize power in a sustained manner. The development of agriculture allowed the production and storing of a food surplus, and immediately thereafter the emergence of a specific group of people who controlled the agricultural surplus and thus did not have to spend most of their time providing their own food. Essentially, “government” began with societies unproductive parasites assuming control the fat of the land, and things don’t seem to have changed much in the essuing centuries.
The history of the ‘state’ usually begins with classic antiquity when government took on a variety of forms. There were monarchies where power was based on the religious function of the king, and his control of a centralized army. There were also bureaucratic empires like the Romans, which depended on effective military and legal organizations along with the cohesion of the aristocracy. The dissolution of the Roman Empire led to the feudal European system which was a conglomeration of suzerains and anointed kings. There, a monarch was not an absolute power who could rule at will, instead, relations between kings and lords were controlled by varying degrees of interdependence, which was ensured by the absence of a centralized system of taxation. The local Lord collected the taxes in his fiefdom, and generally handed the King his share of the take. Thus the ruler needed to obtain the 'consent' of each estate in the realm before undertaking any major project. The struggles over taxation between the monarch and the nobility gave rise to what is now called the “Standstaat”, or the state of Estates, characterized by specific groups which negotiated with the king about legal and economic matters. These estates sometimes developed into full fledged parliaments, and sometimes they lost their struggle with the monarch, leading to greater centralization of lawmaking and coercive (military and police) power in his hands. Beginning in the 15th century, this centralizing process gave rise to the modern nation-state. Only recently has the military power been used primarily to defend the state from foreign threats.
Taxes are the tool by which government acquires value from the populace, and, as government cannot create value by itself, can only be acquired by extorting it from the citizenry. A Tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government." It "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government … whether under the name of toll, tribute, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name." When taxes are not fully paid, civil penalties (such as fines or forfeiture) or criminal penalties (such as incarceration) may be imposed on the non-paying entity or individual, hence the usage of the word “extortion”.
Interestingly enough, the founders of the United States of America took a step backwards, away from centralized government, when they produced our Constitution. Rather than placing the authority to levy taxes in the hands of the federal government, they gave it to the ‘several states’, in a manner reminiscent of feudal lords, with the understanding that those states would provide any vitally needed federal funding. The only taxing authority allowed the central government was collecting import revenues, and a tax on the production of whiskey. (Now we know why there has always been a severe dislike of “revenoor’s” in this country!) Although somewhat cumbersome, this system worked quite well, until Congress, probably claiming temporary insanity, passed the Internal Revenue Act, which effectively took taxation authority away from the states and gave it to the suddenly expanding central government.
The question is of course, when are we finally going to get fed up with a self-proclaimed omnipotent federal government, take the taxing authority away from “them”, and thus force them to do what “we the people” want done for a change?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Our Flag
Last Sunday, June 14th, we celebrated Flag Day, commemorating the adoption of the flag of the United States of America, which happened on that day by resolution of the Second Continental Congress in 1777. Known by various names, the red white and blue, the Stars and Stripes, Old Glory, the Star Spangle Banner, the American flag, it is the symbol of the heart and soul of our country, and our freedom. It represents the fifty states and the blood of the men and women who died carrying it in their hearts and souls as they fought for the freedom of our nation.
Though tattered and torn, it waved as 6,000 patriots died in the Revolutionary War. It survived the Civil War and draped the caskets of many who fought and died defending freedom. It flew at Gettysburg and the Battle of the Bulge, was blood stained at Kae-son, stood watch at Pearl Harbor as ships and men died on a burning sea. It proudly flew over a blood stained mountain on Iwo Jima. It was tried on the beaches of Normandy, on Porkchop Hill, Hamburger Hill, and it waved triumphantly on the shores of Tripoli. It proudly stood while 116,000 Americans fell in WWI, and 405,000 more in World War II. It survived the Chosin Reservoir and heard Taps being played for more than 54,000 soldiers who lost their lives in Korea. It waves over a wall that bears the names of the 58,000 who died in the jungles of Vietnam. It flew for the 293 Americans' who died in Desert Storm, and for more than 4,300 Americans who have given their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It continues to wave over the 260,000 Americans silently sleeping in Arlington Cemetery. When a soldier dies it drapes his casket, and with suitable ceremony is presented to the bereaved with the words “… from a grateful nation”. It still waves over our country, reminding us of the freedom with which we've been blessed, and the terrible cost of that freedom.
Many have spit on our flag, burned it and shamed it, not realizing the freedom it represents is the very thing that allows them that right, no matter how obnoxious or disrespectful it may be. But what a pity they do not know how much blood was shed so they could have the freedom to express the bitterness and hatred they appear to have for their own freedom and everything it represents.
Over one million Men and Women have died defending what our flag symbolizes, but others have died simply for living the American Dream it represents - a total of 2,986 Americans died on 9-11, the victims of evil people full of the hatred that comes with a freedom such as ours. But even then, when our spirits were at their lowest, three exhausted New York City Firemen had the inspiration to hoist an American flag for all the world to see, so they would know we had not been defeated, symbolizing the freedom, hope, and determination of the American people and the strength of our spirit. Some have purchased the freedom our flag represents, others have defended it, so that the rest of us might simply live under it in the greatest country on the face of the earth.
Some say it is not the flag, but what it represents that we should honor. I contend that we cannot honor the flag without a pledge to that flag. The Pledge of Allegiance debuted in October 1892 on Columbus Day, when 12 million children across America recited it for the first time. It has had three changes through the years, the most significant in 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added two simple words, “Under God”. He said “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war”. Yet the Pledge of Allegiance is only 31 words in length, words that are packed with pride, honor, loyalty and devotion.
Red Skelton, a brilliant comedian of another generation, shared a story many years ago. The story of his teacher, a Mr. Laswell, who began to think his class was just saying the pledge out of routine. This is what he said to them:
“I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word.”
I - me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge - dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity,
Allegiance - my love and my devotion
To the flag - our standard, old glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's been respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United - that means we all have come together.
States - individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet untied to a common purpose and that's love for country.
And to the Republic - a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands, one nation - one nation meaning 'so blessed by God.'
Indivisible - incapable of being divided.
With liberty - which is freedom-the right of power to live one's life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation
And Justice - the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others
For all - which means boys, and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
Mr. Skelton said that two states had been added to our country since his childhood, and two words had been added to the pledge, the words “Under God”. Then he said it be a pity if someone decided that those two words were a prayer and should eliminated. Little did he know that just a few years later such an effort would stand before the United States Supreme Court.
But the flag still waves, our nation is still one nation under God, and we still live under the banner of democracy, the flag waves in our churches, school yards, government buildings, and always in our hearts and homes, because that's where freedom originated, and that is where it must remain. America is as much a state of mind as it is a physical location. It’s the concept of an independent people, free to follow their dreams wherever they may lead. It’s a spirit of cooperation among equals, under a mutually agreed upon law. It’s the idea that no man must be subservient to another, and that no man should enforce his will on another.
(Inspired by a 2005 speech given by Ms. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State for Alabama.)
Though tattered and torn, it waved as 6,000 patriots died in the Revolutionary War. It survived the Civil War and draped the caskets of many who fought and died defending freedom. It flew at Gettysburg and the Battle of the Bulge, was blood stained at Kae-son, stood watch at Pearl Harbor as ships and men died on a burning sea. It proudly flew over a blood stained mountain on Iwo Jima. It was tried on the beaches of Normandy, on Porkchop Hill, Hamburger Hill, and it waved triumphantly on the shores of Tripoli. It proudly stood while 116,000 Americans fell in WWI, and 405,000 more in World War II. It survived the Chosin Reservoir and heard Taps being played for more than 54,000 soldiers who lost their lives in Korea. It waves over a wall that bears the names of the 58,000 who died in the jungles of Vietnam. It flew for the 293 Americans' who died in Desert Storm, and for more than 4,300 Americans who have given their lives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It continues to wave over the 260,000 Americans silently sleeping in Arlington Cemetery. When a soldier dies it drapes his casket, and with suitable ceremony is presented to the bereaved with the words “… from a grateful nation”. It still waves over our country, reminding us of the freedom with which we've been blessed, and the terrible cost of that freedom.
Many have spit on our flag, burned it and shamed it, not realizing the freedom it represents is the very thing that allows them that right, no matter how obnoxious or disrespectful it may be. But what a pity they do not know how much blood was shed so they could have the freedom to express the bitterness and hatred they appear to have for their own freedom and everything it represents.
Over one million Men and Women have died defending what our flag symbolizes, but others have died simply for living the American Dream it represents - a total of 2,986 Americans died on 9-11, the victims of evil people full of the hatred that comes with a freedom such as ours. But even then, when our spirits were at their lowest, three exhausted New York City Firemen had the inspiration to hoist an American flag for all the world to see, so they would know we had not been defeated, symbolizing the freedom, hope, and determination of the American people and the strength of our spirit. Some have purchased the freedom our flag represents, others have defended it, so that the rest of us might simply live under it in the greatest country on the face of the earth.
Some say it is not the flag, but what it represents that we should honor. I contend that we cannot honor the flag without a pledge to that flag. The Pledge of Allegiance debuted in October 1892 on Columbus Day, when 12 million children across America recited it for the first time. It has had three changes through the years, the most significant in 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added two simple words, “Under God”. He said “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war”. Yet the Pledge of Allegiance is only 31 words in length, words that are packed with pride, honor, loyalty and devotion.
Red Skelton, a brilliant comedian of another generation, shared a story many years ago. The story of his teacher, a Mr. Laswell, who began to think his class was just saying the pledge out of routine. This is what he said to them:
“I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word.”
I - me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge - dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity,
Allegiance - my love and my devotion
To the flag - our standard, old glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's been respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job.
United - that means we all have come together.
States - individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet untied to a common purpose and that's love for country.
And to the Republic - a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands, one nation - one nation meaning 'so blessed by God.'
Indivisible - incapable of being divided.
With liberty - which is freedom-the right of power to live one's life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation
And Justice - the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others
For all - which means boys, and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
Mr. Skelton said that two states had been added to our country since his childhood, and two words had been added to the pledge, the words “Under God”. Then he said it be a pity if someone decided that those two words were a prayer and should eliminated. Little did he know that just a few years later such an effort would stand before the United States Supreme Court.
But the flag still waves, our nation is still one nation under God, and we still live under the banner of democracy, the flag waves in our churches, school yards, government buildings, and always in our hearts and homes, because that's where freedom originated, and that is where it must remain. America is as much a state of mind as it is a physical location. It’s the concept of an independent people, free to follow their dreams wherever they may lead. It’s a spirit of cooperation among equals, under a mutually agreed upon law. It’s the idea that no man must be subservient to another, and that no man should enforce his will on another.
(Inspired by a 2005 speech given by Ms. Beth Chapman, Secretary of State for Alabama.)
Monday, June 15, 2009
Restructure?
"Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides." -- Margaret Thatcher
I spend far to much of my time grumbling and growling about the failings of our government and the loss of our freedoms, without making very many constructive suggestions. We all, at one time or another, get upset about some specific situation, and mumble something along the line of “there outta be a law”, or perhaps just “throw the bums out”, without really considering what the consequences of such action might be. After all, not considering all the results of their actions appears to be the preferred style of the Democratic Party, and I’m not the least bit impressed with that! Nor can I say that the republicans are doing much better. Then to, it seems that every time somebody gets a bright idea, congress passes another new law, and look at where that’s gotten us. As for throwing people out of office and starting fresh, just what are we going to do with a vast influx of ex-government employees suddenly on the dole? Besides, I’d like to retain some of those folks, as a few of them do, or at least try to do, a good job.
We know that our country faces a wide range of problems today, ranging from the economy to national defense, from crime to the environment, from immigration to an ageing infrastructure. And no one is going to wave a magic wand and solve those problems overnight, despite Mr. Obama’s promise of “change”. (Don’t ‘ya just love his comment about the United States being the greatest country in the world, and that he intends to change all that?) We certainly do need to make some changes, but… just what, specifically, do we want to change, how do we propose it be done, and in particular who is going to do it? Personally, I don’t think I’d trust either the Republicans or the Democrats of today with such an important and far reaching undertaking. Bi-partisanship will wreck anything that mainstream politics tries to accomplish. And any major change proposed by radicals of the left or right is going to be met with a lot of suspicion and even more resistance from most of the public. That does leave one group that the mainstream politicians are trying very hard to ignore, and that none of the radicals will ever trust. But the political moderates day may well have come, and they might well be the one group that gets things done.
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Group stated that "Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. ... Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies." Accordingly, 39 percent of the American people identify themselves as political independents, the highest percentage in 70 years. OK, so who represents the rapidly increasing middle of the road moderates? Perhaps it’s Nancy Pelosi, the radical speaker of the House, who accuses the CIA of lying, who advocates for abortion on demand and who pushes a radical environmental agenda? How about Rush Limbaugh, who insists that the Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough? Is it to be Mr. Obama, who sprinkles his speech with centrist language, but who governs from the far left? Keep in mind that even proven moderate politicians will have problems gaining support, because they so often play to the radicals in an effort to gain a few more votes.
It’s far more likely the Mariners will win the World Series than a political moderate of either party will rise to the top leadership. The most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money, and it’s rather difficult for a moderate to convince donors that they will become leaders in the party and are thus worthy of financial support. Special interest groups prefer people who support them all the time, and mistrust people who support them only three quarters of the time. Whether it is George Soros on the left or Richard Mellon Scaife on the right, donors give their money to fellow travelers and not to deal-makers. Centrists also make for bad television ratings and even worse talk radio. The absolutists on either side make nice headlines. With the rise of Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, moderates are either attacked as being sell-outs or ignored by both sides, making it hard to become a respected national figure in today's media culture. Yet despite these warnings from the left and the right, the American people are increasingly seeing themselves as centralist moderates.
So the question is, if moderates can't get any attention from either party, why don't they form their own? It's a good question, and not difficult to answer. History has not been kind to third parties in America. The Know-Nothings collapsed into nothingness. The Bull-Moosers died when Roosevelt lost. The Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans. And Perot’s Reform Party ran out of Perot's money. But it might well be time for our political system to evolve into a three party system. Can you imagine what a world would look like if we were to reach a legislative consensus on almost any subject that was satisfactory to most of the country?
For either party to prosper they must appeal to the nearly 40 percent of the voters who think of themselves as independents and who are personally centrist in their politics. The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by raging liberals or pious conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the real world problems, and are completely unimpressed by ideological absolutes. In the meantime, about the only thing currently in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillo’s.
I spend far to much of my time grumbling and growling about the failings of our government and the loss of our freedoms, without making very many constructive suggestions. We all, at one time or another, get upset about some specific situation, and mumble something along the line of “there outta be a law”, or perhaps just “throw the bums out”, without really considering what the consequences of such action might be. After all, not considering all the results of their actions appears to be the preferred style of the Democratic Party, and I’m not the least bit impressed with that! Nor can I say that the republicans are doing much better. Then to, it seems that every time somebody gets a bright idea, congress passes another new law, and look at where that’s gotten us. As for throwing people out of office and starting fresh, just what are we going to do with a vast influx of ex-government employees suddenly on the dole? Besides, I’d like to retain some of those folks, as a few of them do, or at least try to do, a good job.
We know that our country faces a wide range of problems today, ranging from the economy to national defense, from crime to the environment, from immigration to an ageing infrastructure. And no one is going to wave a magic wand and solve those problems overnight, despite Mr. Obama’s promise of “change”. (Don’t ‘ya just love his comment about the United States being the greatest country in the world, and that he intends to change all that?) We certainly do need to make some changes, but… just what, specifically, do we want to change, how do we propose it be done, and in particular who is going to do it? Personally, I don’t think I’d trust either the Republicans or the Democrats of today with such an important and far reaching undertaking. Bi-partisanship will wreck anything that mainstream politics tries to accomplish. And any major change proposed by radicals of the left or right is going to be met with a lot of suspicion and even more resistance from most of the public. That does leave one group that the mainstream politicians are trying very hard to ignore, and that none of the radicals will ever trust. But the political moderates day may well have come, and they might well be the one group that gets things done.
Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Group stated that "Centrism has emerged as a dominant factor in public opinion as the Obama era begins. ... Republicans and Democrats are even more divided than in the past, while the growing political middle is steadfastly mixed in its beliefs about government, the free market and other values that underlie views on contemporary issues and policies." Accordingly, 39 percent of the American people identify themselves as political independents, the highest percentage in 70 years. OK, so who represents the rapidly increasing middle of the road moderates? Perhaps it’s Nancy Pelosi, the radical speaker of the House, who accuses the CIA of lying, who advocates for abortion on demand and who pushes a radical environmental agenda? How about Rush Limbaugh, who insists that the Republicans lost the election because they weren't conservative enough? Is it to be Mr. Obama, who sprinkles his speech with centrist language, but who governs from the far left? Keep in mind that even proven moderate politicians will have problems gaining support, because they so often play to the radicals in an effort to gain a few more votes.
It’s far more likely the Mariners will win the World Series than a political moderate of either party will rise to the top leadership. The most important part of being a congressional leader today is the ability to raise money, and it’s rather difficult for a moderate to convince donors that they will become leaders in the party and are thus worthy of financial support. Special interest groups prefer people who support them all the time, and mistrust people who support them only three quarters of the time. Whether it is George Soros on the left or Richard Mellon Scaife on the right, donors give their money to fellow travelers and not to deal-makers. Centrists also make for bad television ratings and even worse talk radio. The absolutists on either side make nice headlines. With the rise of Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left, moderates are either attacked as being sell-outs or ignored by both sides, making it hard to become a respected national figure in today's media culture. Yet despite these warnings from the left and the right, the American people are increasingly seeing themselves as centralist moderates.
So the question is, if moderates can't get any attention from either party, why don't they form their own? It's a good question, and not difficult to answer. History has not been kind to third parties in America. The Know-Nothings collapsed into nothingness. The Bull-Moosers died when Roosevelt lost. The Dixiecrats eventually became Republicans. And Perot’s Reform Party ran out of Perot's money. But it might well be time for our political system to evolve into a three party system. Can you imagine what a world would look like if we were to reach a legislative consensus on almost any subject that was satisfactory to most of the country?
For either party to prosper they must appeal to the nearly 40 percent of the voters who think of themselves as independents and who are personally centrist in their politics. The next election, like the last one, won't be decided by raging liberals or pious conservatives. It will be decided by the vast middle, those centrist voters who see the real world problems, and are completely unimpressed by ideological absolutes. In the meantime, about the only thing currently in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillo’s.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Patrick Henry
I’m going to take this week off, and instead let a great American patriot speak. This is possibly the greatest public speech ever given by an American politician, other than Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. It was delivered by Patrick Henry in 1775 to the Virginia House of Burgesses. It has become famous as the "Give me Liberty or Give me Death" speech. Don't read it if going back to the spirit of the American Revolution bores you. Don't read it if you don't care to hear again why this country is great, or hear when men of true greatness speak about what it takes to remain a free and independant nation.
Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses Assembled:
"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to
be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes
with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and
darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its
purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so
long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying
supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just
God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see the close comparison of “then” and “now”. Are we to be the slaves of elitist rulers in a socialist world, or are we to be free men?
Patrick Henry to the Virginia House of Burgesses Assembled:
"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to
be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes
with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and
darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its
purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so
long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying
supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just
God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to see the close comparison of “then” and “now”. Are we to be the slaves of elitist rulers in a socialist world, or are we to be free men?
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Liberal Government?
Of all of the presidential contenders' slogans last year, Barack Obama was the most interesting. His campaign motto of "Yes, we can", was however somewhat ambiguous. Any reasonable person would ask: "Can what?", to which the stock answer was "Hope." But yet again, a reasonable person might ask: "Hope for what?" To which the answer was always "For change", or perhaps "Change We Can Believe In". I suppose that’s the opposite of unbelievable changes. It did make quite a battle cry of course, but the problem is that change can be either good or bad.
It would seem to me that the Democrats usually confuse change with improvement. They appear to believe in some sort of natural law which decrees “change” to always be for the better. They also fail to weigh the costs of change, or to consider unintended consequences. But the ability to bring about change becomes the leading symbol of the liberal politician. Thus it was that Hillary was so quick to join Obama on the change bandwagon. Her claim of "experience" sounded a bit thin, so "Ready on Day One" signs were soon replaced by "Ready for Change." But then, Republican campaign slogans weren’t much to brag about either. John McCain didn’t have a slogan, except "Mac is Back." Mitt Romney's idea was: "Washington is Broken" which was slightly better, but was still little more than an echo of Ross Perot.
Well, I was ready for change as well, but I like to think I’m smart enough to realize that the value of change lies in the eye of the beholder. Consider that when the Forest Service policies were changed, the destruction of the timber industry was an improvement to the environmentalists, even though the rest of us had a somewhat different viewpoint. But I’m still ready for “change”. I would certainly like to see a change with government expenditures being reduced, and our tax load trimmed as well. I would also like to see government agents and agencies get out of our personal lives. Then to, I would very much like to see a change to a limited government based on our constitution. The Democrats of course want even more government, so their ignoring government limitations are to be expected. But the Republican “dereliction of duty” indicates a serious drift away from the conservative standards of our nation’s founders. (I also realize that abandoning the constitutional ideals of our nations founders is grounds for a serious party in the halls of the DNC!)
But anyway, we’ve been promised a change by the present regime. Well… I’m still waiting. Our wars continue, we’re still mad at Iran, and I suspect that with the recent developments in North Korea we can expect a lot of saber rattling in that direction as well. Taxes are still going up you may have noticed (while the economy still flounders about), the Brady gun grab continues, globalization is once again on the rise, and of course anyone who doesn’t fully agree with the regime is listed as a domestic terrorist by homeland security. After all the weeping and wailing during the Bush administration I also notice that our Democratic Congress hasn’t repealed the so called Patriot Act, we’re still being “folded, spindled, and mutilated” into a national database, torture is now an approved interrogation technique, the Homeland Security guys happily continue spying on us, and the national debt is increasing fast enough to make FDR proud!
Then there are a few other choice tidbits from the Democrats, one of the best being, as I understand things: back in January that Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) seriously proposed a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment (the one that limits a president to two terms in office). FDR would have loved the possibility of becoming “President for Life”… well, FDR did just that in a manner of speaking, but this of course would make it official. Now the Dems want to try again with Mr. Obama I presume. The proposal was sent to the “Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties” for serious consideration. Dunno if the mainstream media ever noticed this or not, but they sure didn’t mention it!
It’s been said that the country is not yet ready for a three party political system. However, I don’t see where it’s ready for our current “one and a half party” system either. At present it appears that we have the disorganized Conservatives on the one hand, and the far more numerous Republicrats on the other. Unfortunately the hand on the throttle has us running full speed on a downhill slope, with no thought about what happens when we hit the curve at the bottom! (Its gonna be one jim-dandy train wreck I can assure you!) If however, the nation’s conservatives can ever get their act together, they stand a very good chance of grabbing the brake lever and stopping this pell-mell rush to disaster! Remember Ross Perot? He won 19% of the (mostly hard core conservative) vote in a presidential election when we weren’t facing anywhere near the problems we see today. Incidentally, Conservatives do make up about 48% of today’s voters. Now if we could just find another Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater…
The solution to the problem is fairly simple in concept, but will be rather difficult to put into practice. Essentially we need to get the nations conservatives to put aside their petty squabbles, join hands, and take back the government of our nation, starting with the various statehouses. Americans have been notorious over the last couple of hundred years for being able to cooperate, and put up a pretty respectable fight, in the face of severe adversity. If we, as a free and independent nation, have lost that ability, we might as well forget the whole thing and get used to new world order globalization and European style socialism!
There is of course the easy way out of the dilemma, just join the liberals, because then everyone will like you, including the ex-friends who abandoned you when you started spouting conservative opinions. Besides, it’s much easier to allow others to form your opinions instead of researching an issue for yourself, particularly when the facts you discover differ from the politically correct consensus. You can be rewarded for all shortcomings and nothing would ever be your fault. Your irresponsible behavior would be forgiven merely by preaching the spending of someone else’s money on whatever the latest cause. If you ‘care’, you won’t have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Besides, everyone knows that conservatives are racist, homophobic, stupid, and motivated only by profit, instead of any desire to be nice people. Even better, you can redefine reality to whatever you might want it to be. You could turn failure into success, murder into choice, or lies into ‘misstatements’, just by wanting the meaning of a word or two changed. You can be considered wise by your peers, instead of opinionated. Best of all, you could make up the rules as you go, changing them in midstream if needed, and then blame everything bad that happens on the conservatives.
That of course would be the easy way.
It would seem to me that the Democrats usually confuse change with improvement. They appear to believe in some sort of natural law which decrees “change” to always be for the better. They also fail to weigh the costs of change, or to consider unintended consequences. But the ability to bring about change becomes the leading symbol of the liberal politician. Thus it was that Hillary was so quick to join Obama on the change bandwagon. Her claim of "experience" sounded a bit thin, so "Ready on Day One" signs were soon replaced by "Ready for Change." But then, Republican campaign slogans weren’t much to brag about either. John McCain didn’t have a slogan, except "Mac is Back." Mitt Romney's idea was: "Washington is Broken" which was slightly better, but was still little more than an echo of Ross Perot.
Well, I was ready for change as well, but I like to think I’m smart enough to realize that the value of change lies in the eye of the beholder. Consider that when the Forest Service policies were changed, the destruction of the timber industry was an improvement to the environmentalists, even though the rest of us had a somewhat different viewpoint. But I’m still ready for “change”. I would certainly like to see a change with government expenditures being reduced, and our tax load trimmed as well. I would also like to see government agents and agencies get out of our personal lives. Then to, I would very much like to see a change to a limited government based on our constitution. The Democrats of course want even more government, so their ignoring government limitations are to be expected. But the Republican “dereliction of duty” indicates a serious drift away from the conservative standards of our nation’s founders. (I also realize that abandoning the constitutional ideals of our nations founders is grounds for a serious party in the halls of the DNC!)
But anyway, we’ve been promised a change by the present regime. Well… I’m still waiting. Our wars continue, we’re still mad at Iran, and I suspect that with the recent developments in North Korea we can expect a lot of saber rattling in that direction as well. Taxes are still going up you may have noticed (while the economy still flounders about), the Brady gun grab continues, globalization is once again on the rise, and of course anyone who doesn’t fully agree with the regime is listed as a domestic terrorist by homeland security. After all the weeping and wailing during the Bush administration I also notice that our Democratic Congress hasn’t repealed the so called Patriot Act, we’re still being “folded, spindled, and mutilated” into a national database, torture is now an approved interrogation technique, the Homeland Security guys happily continue spying on us, and the national debt is increasing fast enough to make FDR proud!
Then there are a few other choice tidbits from the Democrats, one of the best being, as I understand things: back in January that Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) seriously proposed a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment (the one that limits a president to two terms in office). FDR would have loved the possibility of becoming “President for Life”… well, FDR did just that in a manner of speaking, but this of course would make it official. Now the Dems want to try again with Mr. Obama I presume. The proposal was sent to the “Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties” for serious consideration. Dunno if the mainstream media ever noticed this or not, but they sure didn’t mention it!
It’s been said that the country is not yet ready for a three party political system. However, I don’t see where it’s ready for our current “one and a half party” system either. At present it appears that we have the disorganized Conservatives on the one hand, and the far more numerous Republicrats on the other. Unfortunately the hand on the throttle has us running full speed on a downhill slope, with no thought about what happens when we hit the curve at the bottom! (Its gonna be one jim-dandy train wreck I can assure you!) If however, the nation’s conservatives can ever get their act together, they stand a very good chance of grabbing the brake lever and stopping this pell-mell rush to disaster! Remember Ross Perot? He won 19% of the (mostly hard core conservative) vote in a presidential election when we weren’t facing anywhere near the problems we see today. Incidentally, Conservatives do make up about 48% of today’s voters. Now if we could just find another Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater…
The solution to the problem is fairly simple in concept, but will be rather difficult to put into practice. Essentially we need to get the nations conservatives to put aside their petty squabbles, join hands, and take back the government of our nation, starting with the various statehouses. Americans have been notorious over the last couple of hundred years for being able to cooperate, and put up a pretty respectable fight, in the face of severe adversity. If we, as a free and independent nation, have lost that ability, we might as well forget the whole thing and get used to new world order globalization and European style socialism!
There is of course the easy way out of the dilemma, just join the liberals, because then everyone will like you, including the ex-friends who abandoned you when you started spouting conservative opinions. Besides, it’s much easier to allow others to form your opinions instead of researching an issue for yourself, particularly when the facts you discover differ from the politically correct consensus. You can be rewarded for all shortcomings and nothing would ever be your fault. Your irresponsible behavior would be forgiven merely by preaching the spending of someone else’s money on whatever the latest cause. If you ‘care’, you won’t have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Besides, everyone knows that conservatives are racist, homophobic, stupid, and motivated only by profit, instead of any desire to be nice people. Even better, you can redefine reality to whatever you might want it to be. You could turn failure into success, murder into choice, or lies into ‘misstatements’, just by wanting the meaning of a word or two changed. You can be considered wise by your peers, instead of opinionated. Best of all, you could make up the rules as you go, changing them in midstream if needed, and then blame everything bad that happens on the conservatives.
That of course would be the easy way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)