0 comment Saturday, November 15, 2014 | admin
In recent threads here, the subject of social class has come up, and of the relative merits of our political system. Most Americans of course believe that ''democracy'' or more correctly, our representative Republic, is the best possible political system. Along with that belief, many Americans also believe that there should be no class distinctions or hierarchies; everybody is as 'good as' the next man, and thus it it good that everyone has a vote and (theoretically) an equal voice in government.
These subjects turn up in a letter written in 1857 by British historian and statesman Thomas Babington Macaulay. The letter was written to American writer H.S. Randall who had written Life of Thomas Jefferson, and sent a copy to Macaulay.
Macaulay responded with a lengthy letter spelling out his doubts about the future of 'democracy' in America, and about the perils of democracy in any country. He specifically referred to the then-recent establishment of democracy in France, pointing out that the result was a looming crisis in France, which appeared to be leading to ''general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness.'' But, happily, he says, the danger was averted -- though at the cost of a loss of liberty. It was a choice, he says between civilization and liberty. Macaulay said that the result of such a situation would be the same in Britain, and in the United States.
America, he says, has remained immune from such disturbances because of the smaller population and lower population density. When the United States became more populous, this country too would not be exempt from disturbances in economic hard times, with greater numbers of unemployed and discontented people at the lower end of the economic ladder. Such people would be fodder for demagogues stoking class envy, and promising an equitable redistribution of wealth. The presence of a ruling class would be a protection against such situations, because when the have-nots have sufficient political power, they will vote for their own immediate self-interest and not for the good of the people as a whole.
Macaulay says:
"I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people who should in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed corn, and thus make the next year a year, not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stop you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilisation of liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic will be fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; -- with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions."
Some sixteen years later, James A. Garfield offered a response to Macaulay's words in a speech called ''The Future of the Republic." Of course Garfield took some exception to Macaulay's rather grim predictions, and to his arguments. He first chides Macaulay for his focus on social class, and being a good American, boasts that we in America recognize no such thing as social class:
"Our society resembles rather the waves of the ocean, whose every drop may move freely among its fellows, and may rise toward the light until it flashes on the crest of the highest wave."
Garfield then moves on to note that Macaulay did not take into account one factor, which Garfield calls ''the great counterbalancing force" -- universal education. Granted, back in 1873 when Garfield's remarks were written, education in this country had not been subverted, gutted, and rendered an absolute detriment as it has been since. In Garfield's day, this country had attained very high levels of literacy, and the immigrants who had begun pouring in from all over Europe were taught English, and Americanized.
In retrospect we can see that too much faith has been placed in our educational system, or universal literacy. If that is our only protection from the social crises that Macaulay warned of, then we are leaning on a very slender reed.
But here, Garfield unexpectedly offers warnings of his own:
"And here is a real peril, -- the danger that we shall rely upon the more extent of the suffrage as a national safeguard. We cannot safely, even for a moment, lose sight of the quality of the suffrage, which is more important than its quantity.
We are apt to be deluded into false security by political catch-words, devised to flatter rather than instruct. We have happily escaped the dogma of the divine right of kings. Let us not fall into the equally pernicious error that multitude is divine because it is a multitude.''
In mentioning the Latin maxim, ''Vox populi, vox Dei", the voice of the people is the voice of God, he says
''It is only when the people speak truth and justice that their voice can be called "the voice of God." Our faith in the democratic principle rests upon the belief that intelligent men will see that their highest political good is in liberty, regulated by just and equal laws; and that, in the distribution of political power, it is safe to follow the maxim, 'Each for all, and all for each." We confront the dangers of suffrage by the blessings of universal education.
[...]
Hence, as popular suffrage is the broadest base, so, when coupled with intelligence and virtue, it becomes the strongest, the most enduring base on which we build the superstructure of government..."
We are now living in a time when Macaulay's warnings are being validated, and when reading Garfield's words, we can see where this country went wrong in extending the suffrage, while at the same time corrupting our educational system and our media.
The colossal mistake of undermining national cohesion and identity by opening our borders to ever more disparate peoples was yet one more nail in the coffin of our republic.
I will give Macaulay the last word here by quoting from one of his essays:
''Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the Government do this: the People will assuredly do the rest.''
These subjects turn up in a letter written in 1857 by British historian and statesman Thomas Babington Macaulay. The letter was written to American writer H.S. Randall who had written Life of Thomas Jefferson, and sent a copy to Macaulay.
Macaulay responded with a lengthy letter spelling out his doubts about the future of 'democracy' in America, and about the perils of democracy in any country. He specifically referred to the then-recent establishment of democracy in France, pointing out that the result was a looming crisis in France, which appeared to be leading to ''general spoliation, a national bankruptcy, a new partition of the soil, a maximum of prices, a ruinous load of taxation on the rich for the purpose of supporting the poor in idleness.'' But, happily, he says, the danger was averted -- though at the cost of a loss of liberty. It was a choice, he says between civilization and liberty. Macaulay said that the result of such a situation would be the same in Britain, and in the United States.
America, he says, has remained immune from such disturbances because of the smaller population and lower population density. When the United States became more populous, this country too would not be exempt from disturbances in economic hard times, with greater numbers of unemployed and discontented people at the lower end of the economic ladder. Such people would be fodder for demagogues stoking class envy, and promising an equitable redistribution of wealth. The presence of a ruling class would be a protection against such situations, because when the have-nots have sufficient political power, they will vote for their own immediate self-interest and not for the good of the people as a whole.
Macaulay says:
"I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such season of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning; that you will act like people who should in a year of scarcity, devour all the seed corn, and thus make the next year a year, not of scarcity, but of absolute famine. There will be, I fear, spoliation. The spoliation will increase the distress. The distress will produce fresh spoliation. There is nothing to stop you. Your Constitution is all sail and no anchor. As I said before, when a society has entered on this downward progress, either civilisation of liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand; or your republic will be fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth; -- with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country by your own institutions."
Some sixteen years later, James A. Garfield offered a response to Macaulay's words in a speech called ''The Future of the Republic." Of course Garfield took some exception to Macaulay's rather grim predictions, and to his arguments. He first chides Macaulay for his focus on social class, and being a good American, boasts that we in America recognize no such thing as social class:
"Our society resembles rather the waves of the ocean, whose every drop may move freely among its fellows, and may rise toward the light until it flashes on the crest of the highest wave."
Garfield then moves on to note that Macaulay did not take into account one factor, which Garfield calls ''the great counterbalancing force" -- universal education. Granted, back in 1873 when Garfield's remarks were written, education in this country had not been subverted, gutted, and rendered an absolute detriment as it has been since. In Garfield's day, this country had attained very high levels of literacy, and the immigrants who had begun pouring in from all over Europe were taught English, and Americanized.
In retrospect we can see that too much faith has been placed in our educational system, or universal literacy. If that is our only protection from the social crises that Macaulay warned of, then we are leaning on a very slender reed.
But here, Garfield unexpectedly offers warnings of his own:
"And here is a real peril, -- the danger that we shall rely upon the more extent of the suffrage as a national safeguard. We cannot safely, even for a moment, lose sight of the quality of the suffrage, which is more important than its quantity.
We are apt to be deluded into false security by political catch-words, devised to flatter rather than instruct. We have happily escaped the dogma of the divine right of kings. Let us not fall into the equally pernicious error that multitude is divine because it is a multitude.''
In mentioning the Latin maxim, ''Vox populi, vox Dei", the voice of the people is the voice of God, he says
''It is only when the people speak truth and justice that their voice can be called "the voice of God." Our faith in the democratic principle rests upon the belief that intelligent men will see that their highest political good is in liberty, regulated by just and equal laws; and that, in the distribution of political power, it is safe to follow the maxim, 'Each for all, and all for each." We confront the dangers of suffrage by the blessings of universal education.
[...]
Hence, as popular suffrage is the broadest base, so, when coupled with intelligence and virtue, it becomes the strongest, the most enduring base on which we build the superstructure of government..."
We are now living in a time when Macaulay's warnings are being validated, and when reading Garfield's words, we can see where this country went wrong in extending the suffrage, while at the same time corrupting our educational system and our media.
The colossal mistake of undermining national cohesion and identity by opening our borders to ever more disparate peoples was yet one more nail in the coffin of our republic.
I will give Macaulay the last word here by quoting from one of his essays:
''Our rulers will best promote the improvement of the nation by strictly confining themselves to their own legitimate duties, by leaving capital to find its most lucrative course, commodities their fair price, industry and intelligence their natural reward, idleness and folly their natural punishment, by maintaining peace, by defending property, by diminishing the price of law, and by observing strict economy in every department of the state. Let the Government do this: the People will assuredly do the rest.''
Labels: American History, Constitution, Democracy, Government
0 comment Sunday, November 2, 2014 | admin
Some thoughts that come to mind in light of the recent shooting in North Carolina:
First, it seems that the crime, bad as it is, was given more publicity than this, which was in some ways even more horrific
Why was there the difference in coverage? Because the North Carolina killings fit the leftist media's template; they like to play up 'gun violence', as if a gun in and of itself renders the crime worse. And then there is the race factor: the killer in the North Carolina case is a White middle-aged male, of the type that the media like to dwell on. I leave it to my readers as to why that is.
By contrast, the Massachusetts killings involved immigrants, and nonwhites at that, so the same kind of coverage will not be given to that story.
Likewise, this story involving Laotian and Vietnamese immigrant families who were involved in drug dealing.
White male+gun crime=Sensationalized coverage.
Nonwhites (especially immigrants)+other weapons=little coverage
The message that is received by people especially in other countries is that America is one of the most dangerous places on earth, where murder is supposedly commonplace, while in fact many other countries have higher murder rates and higher crime rates in general.
According to the Time Magazine article linked in the previous sentence, the United States crime rate has been dropping.
I can't count the number of times I have heard from someone that America is the most dangerous place on earth, or that our murder and crime rates are the highest. People outside the United States seem to believe this even more fervently than native-born liberal Americans, who like to believe the very worst about their own nation and people.
I often find it nearly impossible to convince them that the average crime rate is skewed by the fact that we have large numbers of minority groups who commit proportionately more crimes, and we have urban areas where the demographics add up to a very high crime rate.
Apart from these anomalies, America is not a crime-ridden nation, and there are many quiet towns and suburbs where people live in safety. In my county, there are many people who, believe it or not, still do not lock their doors. There is very little crime in the town where I live, as yet, though with the demographic changes that are surely coming, that will not always be the case.
There also seems to be a disturbing trend towards the widespread use of psychiatric drugs which seem to cause violent behavior, and there is no question but that our doctors and medical establishment actively push anti-depressant and other psychiatric drugs on patients, even those who are not seeking help for depression or other emotional problems. Many of these mass shootings seem to be related to these drugs.
And in our stressful and chaotic times, I suspect there are more people who are likely to 'snap', and how can we protect against such behaviors? Can we lock people up pre-emptively? We no longer commit people who are mentally disturbed; thanks to liberal policies, we ended involuntary commitment, so we are compelled to wait until someone has acted out to be able to confine them. Then it is too late, in many cases.
Still, America is nevertheless a great deal safer than much of the Western Hemisphere nations. Our neighbor to the North, Canada, used to be quite crime-free, but now they have been smitten with the diversity mania, and the crime rate will increase, despite their prohibitions against gun ownership.
One of the things that might be said about the safest parts of these United States is that the safest areas, I would venture, are areas where more citizens own guns. Liberal areas, which usually include the large cities and their immediate suburbs, are usually areas with fewer legal guns and more illegal ones in the possession of criminal or criminally-prone people.
So lack of guns does not lead to a peaceful community; just look at Washington, D.C. which has an astronomical crime rate and strict gun laws. Still, it's in the air: the media are on one of their anti-gun crusades, and they are doing that in lockstep with the current regime, which would love to diminish and ultimately do away with our Second Amendment rights.
Here are some facts from a pro-Second Amendment website, which are interesting even if a bit dated:
Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." In about 5 years since enactment of the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban in 1993, there have been 9 "school massacres." Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.
And from the Second Amendment Foundation's Q & A:
14. Should Guns be Banned?
We believe absolutely that guns should not be banned. We believe that in our constitution, gun ownership is protected just like freedom of speech, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We believe that the Bill of Rights are interdependent, in other words that you cannot pick which ones to honor, and which ones to ignore. If this is allowed, no civil rights are safe. We also believe that the right to defend one's self is a basic human right, and that banning guns would deprive law-abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves from armed criminals. We also believe that gun ownership keeps crime down, and that that claim is supported by scientific research. John Lott, Jr., a researcher at Yale University, found that on average, violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. Also, firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times every year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives saved for every one taken by a gun. ''
[...]
19. Why do people want guns?
There are as many different reasons for wanting to own a gun as there are guns to own. First, a gun can be a sporting tool. Target shooting is incorporated in many different Olympic competitions. Target shooting has always been very popular in the United States. On the sporting aspect of things, guns are also a vital part of hunting. Hunting, again, is a very popular pastime.
Guns are also a valuable tool for self-defense. A gun is an equalizer. This means that a gun allows a small or un-athletic person to defend themselves from a criminal no matter how big or strong the criminal may be. Guns are also a great crime deterrent. When a criminal thinks you might be armed, he is less likely to choose you as a victim. The right to defend oneself from criminals is a basic human right, and a gun is one of the best tools to protect yourself, as well as your family, from crime. Forty-six percent of gun owners report owning guns for protection from crime.
Finally, the founding father's believed that gun ownership was necessary for a country to truly be free. If the government distrusted the people so much as to disarm them, then that government no longer truly represented the people. In other words, in our structure of government, the power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people. How would it make sense for that government, of the people, to take away the most effective means of self defense from those people? ''
It seems, though, that our homegrown liberals will never come around to seeing the importance of the Second Amendment, and our natural right to self-defense; to the liberal, guns=bad. No argument will persuade them otherwise. Likewise with many of our cousins across the Atlantic who consider us barbaric and backward to even want our Second Amendment rights. If the rest of the world could vote on it, they would vote to disarm us and feel quite virtuous about doing it.
This, to me, is confounding: from where we sit on this side of the Atlantic, it looks as if Europe is about to be overcome by Moslem and other Third World invaders, many of whom have violent proclivities. Why would one consider being unarmed a good thing in those circumstances? Do our European cousins not even consider the possibility of the need for self-defense and basic self-preservation? As we, from our side of the ocean, see French cities burning, and violence in the U.K, along with authorities who are at best indifferent to the lives of their citizens, the situation looks alarming.
And we here in the U.S. are increasingly seeing drug-related violence crossing our ''border'' with Mexico, while our government blames us for supposedly arming them, and hopes to curtail our rights to self-defense, while the same government makes no effort to protect us from invasion. What will happen if the gun banners get their way and we no longer have the means to defend ourselves? We will be easy prey, sitting ducks, as our disarmed cousins across the Atlantic seem to be.
I think any honest, thinking American acknowledges the wisdom of our Founding Fathers; they were a sight wiser than most of today's sorry leaders. And they were absolutely adamant that American citizens ought to be armed, and have the right to self-defense.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - James Madison, 4th President of the United States, I Annuals of Congress 434
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 243-244.
"[S]elf-defense is justly called the primary law of nature� [It] cannot be taken away by the laws of society." - William Blackstone
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation." - Thomas Jefferson
"Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and therefore any state of society in which the sword is all the time suspended over the heads of the people must at last become intolerable." - President James Buchanan
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, 1788
"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason
"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 1788
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest." - Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (meaning "a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand".) -- Seneca the Younger
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted in Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave". - from "Political Disquisitions", 1774
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams, 1789
The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage. - Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. " - Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders"
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Henry St. George Tucker
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle
First, it seems that the crime, bad as it is, was given more publicity than this, which was in some ways even more horrific
Why was there the difference in coverage? Because the North Carolina killings fit the leftist media's template; they like to play up 'gun violence', as if a gun in and of itself renders the crime worse. And then there is the race factor: the killer in the North Carolina case is a White middle-aged male, of the type that the media like to dwell on. I leave it to my readers as to why that is.
By contrast, the Massachusetts killings involved immigrants, and nonwhites at that, so the same kind of coverage will not be given to that story.
Likewise, this story involving Laotian and Vietnamese immigrant families who were involved in drug dealing.
White male+gun crime=Sensationalized coverage.
Nonwhites (especially immigrants)+other weapons=little coverage
The message that is received by people especially in other countries is that America is one of the most dangerous places on earth, where murder is supposedly commonplace, while in fact many other countries have higher murder rates and higher crime rates in general.
According to the Time Magazine article linked in the previous sentence, the United States crime rate has been dropping.
I can't count the number of times I have heard from someone that America is the most dangerous place on earth, or that our murder and crime rates are the highest. People outside the United States seem to believe this even more fervently than native-born liberal Americans, who like to believe the very worst about their own nation and people.
I often find it nearly impossible to convince them that the average crime rate is skewed by the fact that we have large numbers of minority groups who commit proportionately more crimes, and we have urban areas where the demographics add up to a very high crime rate.
Apart from these anomalies, America is not a crime-ridden nation, and there are many quiet towns and suburbs where people live in safety. In my county, there are many people who, believe it or not, still do not lock their doors. There is very little crime in the town where I live, as yet, though with the demographic changes that are surely coming, that will not always be the case.
There also seems to be a disturbing trend towards the widespread use of psychiatric drugs which seem to cause violent behavior, and there is no question but that our doctors and medical establishment actively push anti-depressant and other psychiatric drugs on patients, even those who are not seeking help for depression or other emotional problems. Many of these mass shootings seem to be related to these drugs.
And in our stressful and chaotic times, I suspect there are more people who are likely to 'snap', and how can we protect against such behaviors? Can we lock people up pre-emptively? We no longer commit people who are mentally disturbed; thanks to liberal policies, we ended involuntary commitment, so we are compelled to wait until someone has acted out to be able to confine them. Then it is too late, in many cases.
Still, America is nevertheless a great deal safer than much of the Western Hemisphere nations. Our neighbor to the North, Canada, used to be quite crime-free, but now they have been smitten with the diversity mania, and the crime rate will increase, despite their prohibitions against gun ownership.
One of the things that might be said about the safest parts of these United States is that the safest areas, I would venture, are areas where more citizens own guns. Liberal areas, which usually include the large cities and their immediate suburbs, are usually areas with fewer legal guns and more illegal ones in the possession of criminal or criminally-prone people.
So lack of guns does not lead to a peaceful community; just look at Washington, D.C. which has an astronomical crime rate and strict gun laws. Still, it's in the air: the media are on one of their anti-gun crusades, and they are doing that in lockstep with the current regime, which would love to diminish and ultimately do away with our Second Amendment rights.
Here are some facts from a pro-Second Amendment website, which are interesting even if a bit dated:
And from the Second Amendment Foundation's Q & A:
14. Should Guns be Banned?
We believe absolutely that guns should not be banned. We believe that in our constitution, gun ownership is protected just like freedom of speech, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We believe that the Bill of Rights are interdependent, in other words that you cannot pick which ones to honor, and which ones to ignore. If this is allowed, no civil rights are safe. We also believe that the right to defend one's self is a basic human right, and that banning guns would deprive law-abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves from armed criminals. We also believe that gun ownership keeps crime down, and that that claim is supported by scientific research. John Lott, Jr., a researcher at Yale University, found that on average, violent crime dropped by 4 percent for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership. Also, firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times every year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives saved for every one taken by a gun. ''
[...]
19. Why do people want guns?
There are as many different reasons for wanting to own a gun as there are guns to own. First, a gun can be a sporting tool. Target shooting is incorporated in many different Olympic competitions. Target shooting has always been very popular in the United States. On the sporting aspect of things, guns are also a vital part of hunting. Hunting, again, is a very popular pastime.
Guns are also a valuable tool for self-defense. A gun is an equalizer. This means that a gun allows a small or un-athletic person to defend themselves from a criminal no matter how big or strong the criminal may be. Guns are also a great crime deterrent. When a criminal thinks you might be armed, he is less likely to choose you as a victim. The right to defend oneself from criminals is a basic human right, and a gun is one of the best tools to protect yourself, as well as your family, from crime. Forty-six percent of gun owners report owning guns for protection from crime.
Finally, the founding father's believed that gun ownership was necessary for a country to truly be free. If the government distrusted the people so much as to disarm them, then that government no longer truly represented the people. In other words, in our structure of government, the power is supposed to lie in the hands of the people. How would it make sense for that government, of the people, to take away the most effective means of self defense from those people? ''
It seems, though, that our homegrown liberals will never come around to seeing the importance of the Second Amendment, and our natural right to self-defense; to the liberal, guns=bad. No argument will persuade them otherwise. Likewise with many of our cousins across the Atlantic who consider us barbaric and backward to even want our Second Amendment rights. If the rest of the world could vote on it, they would vote to disarm us and feel quite virtuous about doing it.
This, to me, is confounding: from where we sit on this side of the Atlantic, it looks as if Europe is about to be overcome by Moslem and other Third World invaders, many of whom have violent proclivities. Why would one consider being unarmed a good thing in those circumstances? Do our European cousins not even consider the possibility of the need for self-defense and basic self-preservation? As we, from our side of the ocean, see French cities burning, and violence in the U.K, along with authorities who are at best indifferent to the lives of their citizens, the situation looks alarming.
And we here in the U.S. are increasingly seeing drug-related violence crossing our ''border'' with Mexico, while our government blames us for supposedly arming them, and hopes to curtail our rights to self-defense, while the same government makes no effort to protect us from invasion. What will happen if the gun banners get their way and we no longer have the means to defend ourselves? We will be easy prey, sitting ducks, as our disarmed cousins across the Atlantic seem to be.
I think any honest, thinking American acknowledges the wisdom of our Founding Fathers; they were a sight wiser than most of today's sorry leaders. And they were absolutely adamant that American citizens ought to be armed, and have the right to self-defense.
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."--Thomas Jefferson
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." - James Madison, 4th President of the United States, I Annuals of Congress 434
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 243-244.
"[S]elf-defense is justly called the primary law of nature� [It] cannot be taken away by the laws of society." - William Blackstone
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation." - Thomas Jefferson
"Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and therefore any state of society in which the sword is all the time suspended over the heads of the people must at last become intolerable." - President James Buchanan
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, 1788
"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason
"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 1788
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." - Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest." - Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story
"...quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est." (meaning "a sword never kills anybody; it's a tool in the killer's hand".) -- Seneca the Younger
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes."- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted in Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave". - from "Political Disquisitions", 1774
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams, 1789
The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage. - Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression. " - Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders"
The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Henry St. George Tucker
"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." - Aristotle
Labels: Constitution, Gun Control, Right To Keep And Bear Arms, Second Amendment, Self-Defense
0 comment Tuesday, October 28, 2014 | admin
We've all been watching the discussion of the citizenship questions regarding Obama. I've said almost nothing about it because the whole subject is so complicated, seemingly, that it makes my head swim to try to sort it out. And regardless of what some critics say, we don't know for certain where Obama was born; the question of his birthplace is far from settled.
According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]
So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.
Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.
And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements
However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:
...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''
Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.
I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.
But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.
Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.
This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19�21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.
Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.
But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.
All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.
I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.
According to World Net Daily, there is a Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate
The chasm between those who want President-elect Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate to verify his eligibility to hold the nation's highest office and those who simply support the Democrat is widening.
"The Constitution means what we today decide it means," opined one participant on a new WND forum that offers readers an opportunity to express their opinion on the birth certificate dispute.''
[Emphasis mine]
So as in all things, Obama proves to be a polarizing, divisive figure, as the article shows us. The fact that many Americans hold to the 'Humpty Dumpty' school of thought on the Constitution is troubling. Remember in Alice in Wonderland, when Humpty Dumpty told Alice that ''a word means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"? Such is the attitude most liberals and other uninformed people hold in regard to that shifting, changing, ''living" collection of words called the Constitution.
Here is the latest discussion from Texas Darlin's blog on the natural-born citizenship question. Make of it what you will. I am not sure the truth will ever be known, so I am not devoting too much time or energy to trying to solve the legal puzzles.
And over at Free Republic, someone posted a link to a .pdf file which is from a legal publication, discussing this topic. You can download the file at the link; it's 20-some pages long but if you are savvy in legal and constitutional matters, you might find it interesting.
Amending Natural-born citizen requirements
However, at Webster's Blogspot, Terry Morris raises a more important question:
...let us say, hypothetically, that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Hussein O. is not a natural born U.S. citizen prior to, or early in his actual presidency. What would be the result? A commenter named Mark has speculated over at Reflecting Light that Congress would quickly initiate an amendment proposal to retroactively qualify Hussein O. for the presidency, and that the requisite number of states (three fourths) would happily ratify it as a show of their non-racism and non-discriminationism.''
Terry asks readers' opinions as to what might happen if this scenario actually happened.
I say that this is the more important question because I think there may be a larger plan here to push the issue of the 'natural-born citizen' requirement for the presidency. I have been getting the impression for a few years now, in light of the move towards a ''global society" and the erosion of the whole idea of nationality, that there is a plan to remove the citizenship restrictions on presidential candidates.
But suppose it's brought to light that the president-elect is either not a native-born citizen, or that he holds dual citizenship? There would be quite a commotion should he be disqualified after the fact, and especially should his disqualification be on the basis of what most Americans would consider an obscure technicality.
Consider that we are being dragged into this new 'global age', into a supposed New World Order in which nationality and national citizenship will be stripped of their importance, if not abolished altogether. Who better to inaugurate this new order than someone of mixed parentage, a cosmopolitan, transnational upbringing, and ambiguous birth, namely, our president-elect? This may be the very reason he was likely groomed and propelled to the presidency in such a head-spinningly short period of time.
This section from the .pdf file linked above from FR confirms what I have been thinking:
The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is out-dated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty. The increased globalization of the world continues to make each of these reasons more persuasive. As the world becomes smaller and cultures become more similar through globalization, the natural born citizen clause has increasingly become out of place in the American legal system. However, even though globalization strengthens the case for a Constitutional amendment, many Americans argue against abolishing the requirement. In a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken November 19�21, 2004, only 31% of the respondents favored a constitutional amendment to abolish the natural born citizen requirement while 67% opposed such an amendment.12 Although some of the reasons for maintaining the natural born citizen requirement are rational, many of the reasons are based primarily on emotion.
Therefore, although globalization is one impetus that should drive Americans to rely on reason and amend the Constitution, this paper argues that common perceptions about globalization ironically will convince Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Part one of this paper provides a brief history and overview of the natural born citizen requirement. Part two discusses the rational reasons for abolishing this requirement and describes why the increase in globalization makes abolishing the natural born citizen requirement more necessary than ever. Part three presents the arguments against allowing naturalized citizens to be eligible for the presidency and identifies common beliefs about globalization that will cause Americans to rely on emotion and oppose a Constitutional amendment.
Now, think of it this way: if someone had tried to introduce the idea a year or more ago, it probably would not have aroused much interest or much support, outside the usual leftist circles. I am sure most Americans gave little thought to the possibility of a non-citizen president, or a president with dual citizenship, which may be the present situation. So an initiative on this issue would have gone nowhere, most likely.
But when the issue is personalized, around a candidate who has so many zealous followers, a personality who seems to evoke such a strong emotional response, it stands a much better chance of attracting support.
All this secrecy and subterfuge about the birth certificate, and the presentation of such an obvious fake Certificate of Live Birth on the Internet may have been fostered in order to start the public talking about the citizenship requirements for the Presidency, and it might also have served the purpose of creating opposition which would cause the Obama supporters to rally around their Dear Leader, seeing him as the target of 'bigoted' attacks from the right.
I know someone will mention Occam's Razor, and imply that I am reading too much into this, but I think it's certainly a possibility. Even if this is not part of an overall plan to push the idea that the citizenship requirement is 'discriminatory' and 'unfair', it's probably likely that the Democrats and the left generally are milking this for what it is worth. Count on the fact that they want to pull down all our traditional fences and safeguards. Anything which furthers the global, anti-national agenda is on their to-do list.
Labels: Citizenship, Constitution, Globalism, Presidential Candidates
0 comment Wednesday, August 13, 2014 | admin
Even though I haven't blogged much about the state sovereignty movement lately, I am keeping an eye on what is happening around the country, and on the discussion here and there about the issue.
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Terry Morris over at Webster's Blogspot has been doing a good job of keeping up with this on his blog, with this latest post and others.
On other blogs and forums, there is far less intelligent discussion of this issue, with a great many people still viewing the idea of state's rights and the implicit topic of secession with a skeptical or jaundiced eye. I am disappointed and sometimes disgusted at the lack of common sense on the subject which is evident in some discussions.
One such sophomoric article appears here, but a great many comments follow, with some sensible ones among them. The writer of the article makes the typical objection to state's rights and secession by opining that the previous attempt at seceding ended badly for South Carolina and the Confederacy, therefore the idea is tainted.
'Because the last time they got all uppity and started mouthing off about states� rights, we got our butts kicked.''
This is often the caliber of the arguments found in a lot of online discussions of state's rights and the Tenth Amendment, with the only other 'argument' being based on some kind of quasi-religious reverence for The Union.
Here Jack Hunter comments on the above-linked article and offers a sound examination of the Tenth Amendment movement and secession.
It's a very well-written piece; I recommend reading it all.
Thomas E. Woods describes here how, in the case of a powerful federal government overstepping its bounds, the only recourse was thought to be either arms or secession. However he spells out another alternative, which Thomas Jefferson himself outlined: nulllification.
He quotes Jefferson's words from The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798:
Let us recall some of Jefferson�s most potent words, ratified by the Kentucky legislature:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge of itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.'
The great theorist of nullification was Calhoun, one of the most brilliant and creative political thinkers in American history. The Liberty Press edition of Calhoun�s writings, Union and Liberty, is indispensable for anyone interested in this subject-especially his Fort Hill Address, a concise and elegant case for nullification. Calhoun imagined a state holding a special nullification convention, much like the ratifying conventions the states had held when debating the Constitution, and settling the matter there.
[...]
The most common argument against nullification is that it would produce chaos, with a bewildering array of states constantly nullifying a bewildering array of federal laws. Given the character of the vast majority of federal legislation over the past several decades (and longer), it is difficult to imagine a libertarian viewing this as an especially grave difficulty.
Having said that, there is little reason to believe that chaos would actually ensue. Consider the historical record. That Americans generally acknowledged the right of a state to secede from the Union-a far more extreme remedy, surely, than nullification-is evident from the number of cases in which states threatened to exercise this option. Abolitionist and pro-slavery spokesman, protectionist and free trader, all at one time or another counseled secession. Yet was the Union overwhelmed with acts of secession before 1860? Most people have little desire to endure a state of crisis for frivolous reasons. But there can be no doubt that the ever-present threat that an oppressed state might withdraw had the salutary effect of restraining the federal government�s exercise of power.
Moreover, to the fear that nullification would lead to intolerable disorder, James Kilpatrick reminds us of the disorder that characterizes the present system: "If power-hungry federal judges may impose one unconstitutional mandate, they may impose a thousand, each more oppressive than the one before." Is this not its own kind of disorder? "But if the Constitution is over the [Supreme] Court, who or what finally is over the Constitution? It can only be the States, who under Article V alone have the power to amend or rewrite it."
In answer to the idea of the Union as being so sacred as to disallow any thought of secession, this piece argues that
The only real argument to hold the Union together is sentimental, since for many Americans the proposition of breaking apart our country sounds repellent and treasonous. But I ask you what is a worse fate for America: To remain geographically united while our founding principles burn to the ground? Or to fracture geographically while our founding principles receive a new lease on life?
To my mind, the first of these options commits the worst sin of modern times, which is to elevate the body over the soul. I would rather live in a small nation with America�s soul intact than a large nation with America�s soul extinct.''
I think he is right; to make some kind of idol out of The Union is to exalt the outward form over the spirit, to say that the idea of The Union is even more important than the idea of freedom and liberty, and as many of us see it, placing the 'nation-state' or the current Empire above the nation in the natural sense of The People, the kindred people who really constitute the nation.
Can there ever be agreement between people who pledge their allegiance to an abstract notion, and those whose allegiance belongs to a 'band of brothers'? Is there any hope of convincing the former group that the nation is the people and not The Union? Watching the debates that are taking place around this issue, I don't see much hope of doing so. And for that reason, because of the deep divides in people's beliefs about what makes up a nation and what their idea of proper government should be, we need to have an option to dissolve a 'union' which forcibly unites people of opposing beliefs and loyalties.
"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."
"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." - Jefferson Davis
"The government of the uncontrolled numerical majority, is but the absolute and despotic form of popular government... If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled underfoot."
- John C. Calhoun
"All we ask is to be let alone." - Jefferson Davis
Labels: Constitution, Federal Government, Secession, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Saturday, June 14, 2014 | admin
I've only touched on this subject a time or two, in passing. But as someone who is intrigued by unanswered questions and deliberate obfuscation, I am curious as to what the real story is. And, as always, I am interested in what others are saying in online discussions of this.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.
I find the reactions to this issue rather maddening, for example, the people who invariably pop up wherever this is being discussed, saying that ''this is all a non-issue; you conspiracy-mongers are crazy" or ''you are being duped and used; this is just meant to bait you into following this down a rabbit hole, and making all conservatives look crazy."
The really ironic response is this frequently-heard one: ''this is a big waste of time! Why do all you people spend your time on this?" Meanwhile the people who write those dismissive comments are themselves spending time endlessly saying 'this is a waste of time. Give it up.' Evidently, it is not a waste of time to chide others about wasting time. And why does anybody object to others trying to solve a mystery? What's it to them?
So the Governor of the state in question suddenly remembers that the parents (putative parents) were 'his friends'? I seem to remember in Jack Cashill's articles, or perhaps elsewhere, that this governor said he knew the 'father' but did not know of a wife or child. But now he "knew them" both.
And first he said he was sure the documents could be produced, to refute the doubters, then he says 'I can't lay hands on them, but I have learned they are there, written down' or words to that effect. Strange wording -- that the proof is 'written down.'
It all gets curiouser and curiouser, as always when you go down a rabbit hole.
I really don't understand those who are quick to dismiss this out of hand. I don't understand those who are content to just repeat what the MSM says, and say 'well, I believe he was born where he says he was born.' Believe, based on what? This attitude seems to me to be Bill O'Reilly-esque, this proclamation that one 'believes' something which has not been established with any certainty -- just because. Incidentally, BOR is one of those who says that he 'believes' in the official birth story, as do Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and other such stalwarts.
As for me, I don't have a 'belief' on this issue; I am simply interested to see what does turn up. It does seem to be to be generally true in life that where someone goes to great lengths to conceal something or at least to make the facts hard to determine, that there is in fact something being concealed. What it is, I don't pretend to know. I do know that the mainstream media lies and conceals, as do those in authority when they believe it is justified.
Another argument used by the scoffers is that 'this is all a red herring; it is not important. What's important is his deeds, and this is a distraction that keeps us from focusing on the important things.' I just don't see that this is true. One can care about both issues. And anytime our electeds are concealing things, especially when those things involve issues of the Constitution and our rule of law, that is important. We are allowing a precedent to be set in which we will no longer 'vet' our candidates as to their eligibility. And the question of nationality by birth is important; our Founding Fathers were explicit that dual citizens or those not natural-born could not serve as our highest public official. And for good reason.
Even if an 'official' document just handily turns up in Hawaii, there are all those other documents which have not been made public. Is that just an act of defiance toward us, or a demonstration that we are not the repository of power in this supposed representative Republic anymore? Of course we are reminded every day that we are not; we have been made irrelevant as far as the powers-that-be are concerned.
I am glad that somebody is following this issue and trying to bring the truth to light. Would it make any difference, though, if the truth is established? It would assuredly not deter the blind followers; people like that need deprogramming, as with cult members. And would anything be done? Probably not, but isn't it best to know the truth, and to at least try to ensure that the law is not to be openly flouted by those who are elected to enforce and execute it? The cynical side of me knows that our laws and our Constitution are already irrelevant, as we see what is happening with our one-time 'borders' and so many other violations. But we don't want to reach such a peak of cynicism that we just turn a blind eye and shrug, as we fall into utter lawlessness.
Labels: Constitution, Controlled Media, Identity Politics, Rule Of Law
0 comment Thursday, June 5, 2014 | admin
Does this presage a crackdown on the Internet?
Is it possible that this might lead to moving against sites or blogs that, say, excerpt from copyrighted media materials? Of course it would probably involve those who express unpopular or dissident views (which of course would exempt the Left; much as they like to posture and preen as being 'dissidents', they are the establishment now).
And what about the significance, if any, of the government agency that is doing this? What on earth does this kind of thing have to do with the purported role of that department?
Thoughts?
Is it possible that this might lead to moving against sites or blogs that, say, excerpt from copyrighted media materials? Of course it would probably involve those who express unpopular or dissident views (which of course would exempt the Left; much as they like to posture and preen as being 'dissidents', they are the establishment now).
And what about the significance, if any, of the government agency that is doing this? What on earth does this kind of thing have to do with the purported role of that department?
Thoughts?
Labels: Civil Liberties, Constitution, First Amendment, Free Press, Free Speech
0 comment Tuesday, May 27, 2014 | admin
Here's a very fine piece by Larry L. Beane II which I found over at LewRockwell.com. It's titled ''The Founders Knew Latin'', which indeed they did. Latin, up until perhaps the middle of the 2oth century was considered part of a well-rounded basic education, and the Founding Fathers were steeped in it. As the article points out, many of the concepts of the Constitution are contained in Latin phrases like 'E Pluribus Unum', which we may remember, Al Gore mistranslated as ''Out of one, many.'' His faulty translation, turning the meaning of the phrase on its head, may have been a Freudian slip, as today most of the important principles of the Founders have likewise been inverted.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
The Latin motto "e pluribus unum" also captures the plural nature of the Union. It was never meant to be collapsed and rolled into into "one nation." This is even evident in common grammatical usage, for while the architects of the Union were still living, the singular verb "is" was not paired up with the plural subject "United States." But within decades, the federal government became increasingly heavy-handed with the states. The struggle between the forces of centralization and decentralization intensified between 1830 and 1861, when political compromises failed, and the Union fell into disunion. Seven states of the deep south had seceded and formed a new federation, acting on what is often called the "compact theory" of the American union of 1789. This approach to the Constitution holds that the states are sovereign, and that the Union is a "compact" between them. The compact theory holds that unless power is delegated to the federal government, that power remains reserved to the states or to the people � a concept written directly into the Constitution itself as the Tenth Amendment. A clear and concise overview of the compact theory and its historical implications, past and present, can be found in chapters three and four of Thomas Woods's Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. In spite of the Tenth Amendment and the intent of the founders, by the 1860s, those who opposed secession and who ultimately annexed the seceded states by raw military force were denying the compact theory, and offered instead its diametric opposite: the "nationalist theory." Though this theory had been around for decades, it was a minority view without teeth until Lincoln and his associates put it into force by force. This alternative view saw the Union as "one nation" that gave birth to the states and not vice versa � though one will hunt in vain for the words "nation" and "national" used to describe the Union in the Constitution itself.
Please click over and read the whole thing. It's a very good exposition of what is at stake in the renewed call for state sovereignty and the focus on the Tenth Amendment.
And hopefully We The People, Deo vindice, will once more see the Union as a federation in light of the compact written to limit government and defend our God-given rights, instead of continuing in our ignorance to be bullied, tricked, and manipulated into accepting the great lie of the expansive and boundless "one nation, indivisible" that must be worshiped and obeyed as a god. Maybe we are ready to join the founders and say unambiguously, "Satis est!"
Satis est, indeed.
Labels: Constitution, Founding Fathers, Nullification, State Sovereignty, StateS Rights, Tenth Amendment, War Between The States
0 comment Thursday, May 15, 2014 | admin
Just after I blogged about the idea that Americans have no race, I read this rather sad article about the Netherlands, and about the identity crisis of the Dutch:
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - One was a Somali refugee, the other an Argentine investment banker. Both are now high-profile Dutch women challenging this country to rethink its national identity.
Princess Maxima, the Argentine-born wife of Crown Prince Willem Alexander, triggered a round of national soul-searching with a speech last month about what exactly it means to be Dutch in an age of mass migration.
"The Netherlands is too complex to sum up in one cliche," she said. "A typical Dutch person doesn't exist."
Her comments have tapped into an unsettled feeling among many Dutch who fear traditional values have been eroded in a country roiled by a rise in Muslim extremism. It's a view espoused by Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has turned her back on her Islamic roots.''
[emphasis mine]
So the Dutch are having their identity stolen, too, and being told there is no such thing as a typical Dutch person. Anybody and everybody who shows up to claim a piece of the country, no matter where they originate, can now claim Dutch identity, just as our American identity is being taken from us. This is not only sad, it's insane. So I have been thinking about the Dutch culture, and as some of my ancestors were Dutch colonists who settled New Amsterdam, a piece of my heritage is there in the Netherlands.
On Thanksgiving morning I posted a link to a piece about the first Thanksgiving. Then, coincidentally, I happened to come across an article from a turn-of-the-20th-century Harper's Magazine, reprinted in a book I have, which claims that the Thanksgiving holiday is of Dutch origin. In fact the article lists a great many instances in which our early Massachusetts Puritan ancestors were influenced by Dutch customs and practices, so it's an interesting theory.
These days we are accustomed to being told by revisionist historians that anything good or worthwhile in America originated with some other culture, usually one of the favored 'diverse' cultures in our midst. For instance, we've probably all heard the idea that our form of government came to us courtesy of the Iroquois Confederation. But according to the Harper's article, the Dutch made substantial contributions to early American customs and institutions.
I plan to post some of the excerpts from the article soon, but since transcribing from the book will take some time, I'll begin with another online article, on the same subject, also from the early 20th century. It's called The Mother of America , an article by Edward Bok
which appeared in the Ladies Home Journal in October, 1903:
As a matter of fact, the reading world of America has yet to learn the real extent of the Dutch influences which underlie American institutions and have shaped American life...
Douglas Campbell was perhaps among the first of these writers to point out that the men who founded New York were not Englishmen, but largely Hollanders: that the Puritans who settled Plymouth had lived twelve years in Holland: that the Puritans who settled elsewhere in Massachusetts had all their lives been exposed to a Dutch influence: that New Jersey, as well as New York, was settled by the Dutch West India Company: that Connecticut was given life by Thomas Hooker, who came from a long residence in Holland: that Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, was a Dutch scholar: and that William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, came of a Dutch mother.
Take, for instance, what may be truly designated as the four vital institutions upon which America not only rests but which have caused it to be regarded as the most distinctive nation in the world. I mean our public-school system of free education; our freedom of religious worship; our freedom of the press, and our freedom of suffrage represented by the secret ballot. Not one of these came from England, since not one of them existed there when they were established in America: in fact only one of them existed in England earlier than fifty years after they existed in America, and the other three did not exist in England until nearly one hundred years after their establishment in America. Each and all of these four institutions came to America directly from Holland. Take the two documents upon which the whole fabric of the establishment and maintenance of America rests -- the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution of the United States -- and one, the Declaration, is based almost entirely upon the Declaration of Independence of the United Republic of the Netherlands; while all through the Constitution its salient points are based upon, and some literally copied from the Dutch Constitution. So strong is this Netherlands influence upon our American form of government that the Senate of the United States - General, a similar body, and its predecessor by nearly a century of years, while even in the American flag we find the colors and the five-pointed star chosen from the Dutch.
The common modern practice of the State allowing a prisoner the free services of a lawyer for his defense, and the office of a district attorney for each county, are so familiar to us that we regard them as American inventions. Both institutions have been credited to England, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to find in England even today any official corresponding to our district attorney. Both of these institutions existed in Holland three centuries before they were brought to America. The equal distribution of property among the children of a person dying interstate -- that is, without a will -- was brought to America direct from Holland by the Puritans. It never existed in England. The record of all deeds and mortgages in a public office, a custom which affects every man and woman who owns or buys property, came to America direct from Holland. It never came from England, since it does not exist there even at the present day. The township system ... came from Holland ... in fact, our whole modern American management of free prisons ... was brought from Holland ... in fact, our whole modern American management of free prisons ... was brought from Holland to America by William Penn. Group these astonishing facts together, if you will, and see their tremendous import: The Federal Constitution; the Declaration of Independence; the whole organization of the Senate; our State Constitutions; our freedom of religion; our free schools; our free press; our written ballot; our town, county and State systems of government; the system of recording deeds and mortgages; the giving of every criminal a just chance for his life; a public prosecutor of crime in every county; our free prison workhouse system -- to say nothing of kindred important and vital elements in our national life. When each and all of these can be traced directly to one nation, or to the influence of that nation, and that nation is not England, is it any wonder, asks one enlightened historian, that some modern scholars, who, looking beneath the mere surface resemblance of language, seek an explanation of the manifest difference between the people of England and the people of the United States assumed by them to be of the same blood, and influenced by the same (?) institutions? ''
It's an interesting idea that our system was influenced and shaped so much by Dutch customs. And it makes it doubly sad to me that the Dutch people have in a sense fallen victim to their own altruism and tolerance. Back in the 1600s, many of the Puritans who ultimately came and settled Massachusetts had lived in Holland, having found a haven there from the persecution they suffered at home. Similarly with many of my French Huguenot ancestors, who fled to Holland in the wake of the persecutions they underwent in France. Holland was thus a gracious country which welcomed many of my ancestors when they had true need of a refuge. But now, with the Camp of the Saints invasion of the Netherlands and Europe in general, we see the tragic results of tolerance in excess. From the news article about Dutch identity:
Han van der Horst, author of a popular book on Dutch culture and history, staunchly defends the nation's live-and-let-live traditions. He points to an old Dutch saying that translates as "everybody is entitled to his own views," but hastens to add: "It doesn't mean you respect those views or share" them.'
Tolerating the intolerant, and enabling the aggressive and the purely opportunistic is never wise. The West in general has to learn that lesson, not just the Netherlands, but all of us. You'd think we would learn from the example we see in each other's problems, but so far there is little sign of this happening.
Can a rediscovery of our roots help to strengthen the sense of national identity? It would be heartening if that could happen. A turning of the tide has to start somewhere.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - One was a Somali refugee, the other an Argentine investment banker. Both are now high-profile Dutch women challenging this country to rethink its national identity.
Princess Maxima, the Argentine-born wife of Crown Prince Willem Alexander, triggered a round of national soul-searching with a speech last month about what exactly it means to be Dutch in an age of mass migration.
"The Netherlands is too complex to sum up in one cliche," she said. "A typical Dutch person doesn't exist."
Her comments have tapped into an unsettled feeling among many Dutch who fear traditional values have been eroded in a country roiled by a rise in Muslim extremism. It's a view espoused by Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has turned her back on her Islamic roots.''
[emphasis mine]
So the Dutch are having their identity stolen, too, and being told there is no such thing as a typical Dutch person. Anybody and everybody who shows up to claim a piece of the country, no matter where they originate, can now claim Dutch identity, just as our American identity is being taken from us. This is not only sad, it's insane. So I have been thinking about the Dutch culture, and as some of my ancestors were Dutch colonists who settled New Amsterdam, a piece of my heritage is there in the Netherlands.
On Thanksgiving morning I posted a link to a piece about the first Thanksgiving. Then, coincidentally, I happened to come across an article from a turn-of-the-20th-century Harper's Magazine, reprinted in a book I have, which claims that the Thanksgiving holiday is of Dutch origin. In fact the article lists a great many instances in which our early Massachusetts Puritan ancestors were influenced by Dutch customs and practices, so it's an interesting theory.
These days we are accustomed to being told by revisionist historians that anything good or worthwhile in America originated with some other culture, usually one of the favored 'diverse' cultures in our midst. For instance, we've probably all heard the idea that our form of government came to us courtesy of the Iroquois Confederation. But according to the Harper's article, the Dutch made substantial contributions to early American customs and institutions.
I plan to post some of the excerpts from the article soon, but since transcribing from the book will take some time, I'll begin with another online article, on the same subject, also from the early 20th century. It's called The Mother of America , an article by Edward Bok
which appeared in the Ladies Home Journal in October, 1903:
As a matter of fact, the reading world of America has yet to learn the real extent of the Dutch influences which underlie American institutions and have shaped American life...
Douglas Campbell was perhaps among the first of these writers to point out that the men who founded New York were not Englishmen, but largely Hollanders: that the Puritans who settled Plymouth had lived twelve years in Holland: that the Puritans who settled elsewhere in Massachusetts had all their lives been exposed to a Dutch influence: that New Jersey, as well as New York, was settled by the Dutch West India Company: that Connecticut was given life by Thomas Hooker, who came from a long residence in Holland: that Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, was a Dutch scholar: and that William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, came of a Dutch mother.
Take, for instance, what may be truly designated as the four vital institutions upon which America not only rests but which have caused it to be regarded as the most distinctive nation in the world. I mean our public-school system of free education; our freedom of religious worship; our freedom of the press, and our freedom of suffrage represented by the secret ballot. Not one of these came from England, since not one of them existed there when they were established in America: in fact only one of them existed in England earlier than fifty years after they existed in America, and the other three did not exist in England until nearly one hundred years after their establishment in America. Each and all of these four institutions came to America directly from Holland. Take the two documents upon which the whole fabric of the establishment and maintenance of America rests -- the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution of the United States -- and one, the Declaration, is based almost entirely upon the Declaration of Independence of the United Republic of the Netherlands; while all through the Constitution its salient points are based upon, and some literally copied from the Dutch Constitution. So strong is this Netherlands influence upon our American form of government that the Senate of the United States - General, a similar body, and its predecessor by nearly a century of years, while even in the American flag we find the colors and the five-pointed star chosen from the Dutch.
The common modern practice of the State allowing a prisoner the free services of a lawyer for his defense, and the office of a district attorney for each county, are so familiar to us that we regard them as American inventions. Both institutions have been credited to England, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to find in England even today any official corresponding to our district attorney. Both of these institutions existed in Holland three centuries before they were brought to America. The equal distribution of property among the children of a person dying interstate -- that is, without a will -- was brought to America direct from Holland by the Puritans. It never existed in England. The record of all deeds and mortgages in a public office, a custom which affects every man and woman who owns or buys property, came to America direct from Holland. It never came from England, since it does not exist there even at the present day. The township system ... came from Holland ... in fact, our whole modern American management of free prisons ... was brought from Holland ... in fact, our whole modern American management of free prisons ... was brought from Holland to America by William Penn. Group these astonishing facts together, if you will, and see their tremendous import: The Federal Constitution; the Declaration of Independence; the whole organization of the Senate; our State Constitutions; our freedom of religion; our free schools; our free press; our written ballot; our town, county and State systems of government; the system of recording deeds and mortgages; the giving of every criminal a just chance for his life; a public prosecutor of crime in every county; our free prison workhouse system -- to say nothing of kindred important and vital elements in our national life. When each and all of these can be traced directly to one nation, or to the influence of that nation, and that nation is not England, is it any wonder, asks one enlightened historian, that some modern scholars, who, looking beneath the mere surface resemblance of language, seek an explanation of the manifest difference between the people of England and the people of the United States assumed by them to be of the same blood, and influenced by the same (?) institutions? ''
It's an interesting idea that our system was influenced and shaped so much by Dutch customs. And it makes it doubly sad to me that the Dutch people have in a sense fallen victim to their own altruism and tolerance. Back in the 1600s, many of the Puritans who ultimately came and settled Massachusetts had lived in Holland, having found a haven there from the persecution they suffered at home. Similarly with many of my French Huguenot ancestors, who fled to Holland in the wake of the persecutions they underwent in France. Holland was thus a gracious country which welcomed many of my ancestors when they had true need of a refuge. But now, with the Camp of the Saints invasion of the Netherlands and Europe in general, we see the tragic results of tolerance in excess. From the news article about Dutch identity:
Han van der Horst, author of a popular book on Dutch culture and history, staunchly defends the nation's live-and-let-live traditions. He points to an old Dutch saying that translates as "everybody is entitled to his own views," but hastens to add: "It doesn't mean you respect those views or share" them.'
Tolerating the intolerant, and enabling the aggressive and the purely opportunistic is never wise. The West in general has to learn that lesson, not just the Netherlands, but all of us. You'd think we would learn from the example we see in each other's problems, but so far there is little sign of this happening.
Can a rediscovery of our roots help to strengthen the sense of national identity? It would be heartening if that could happen. A turning of the tide has to start somewhere.
Labels: American History, American Identity, Constitution, Immigration, Multiculturalism, Western Civilization, Western Decline