RSS

Category Archives: History

What difference, at this point, does it make?

It is clear that Secretary Clinton didn’t want to answer the question and it is clear that Senator Johnson wasn’t interested in her answer. The question, “What difference, at this point, does it make…?” is important in the verbal battle of “I’m not listening. I’M NOT LISTENING!”

Frankly, it matters, Madam Secretary, because the Obama Administration, of which you and Ambassador Rice are part, were more than happy to threaten liberty and freedom of speech rights rather than to confess their mistake.

Wait, you mean to tell me that a politician lied? In an election year?!

Re-election politics aside, subverting liberty while attempting to cover up your failure is not a valid excuse. This was not a defense of liberty. This was an attack on liberty.

Oh, and you let four American’s die.

 

The Once and Future Liberalism

Marko Kloos tweeted:

So, being a good little lad, I went and read it. In addition to being incredibly insightful, I happen to be studying systems theory in one of my classes this semester. This article fits. Like. A. Glove.

The author, Walter Mead, discusses liberalism and its four phases in American political and social life.

We can see this process at work in modern Anglo-American history, during which liberalism has gone through at least four distinct incarnations. Liberalism 1.0 was the political expression of the original Enlightenment philosophy that developed in Britain and shaped the Glorious Revolution of 1688. That Revolution remains the seminal political event in the history of the English-speaking world. The American Founding Fathers set out consciously to imitate the spirit of 1688. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights flow from the ideas of a revolution that once and for all made Parliament supreme over the Crown in British history.

But the Revolution of 1688 had its limits, and by 1776 liberalism 1.0 was no longer enough. In Britain, the corruption of the House of Commons allowed George III to reassert royal control; Americans realized that the constitutional monarchy of liberalism 1.0 was no longer ideal. The 2.0 liberalism of our Founding Fathers replaced constitutional monarchy with a republic expressly founded on natural rights and the sovereignty of the people. The 1.0 Revolution of 1688 had replaced an intolerant established Church with one constitutionally more tolerant; the 2.0 American Revolution of 1776 separated the church from the state to the benefit of both.

Liberalism 2.0, as developed in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, was rooted in the thought of 1.0 liberals like John Locke. But Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington developed and put into practice a set of ideas about how individual liberty could be reconciled with economic development and good governance. Note how the names changed. In 1688, if you supported the Glorious Revolution you were a Whig and a liberal. In 1776, if you supported those same principles against the Declaration of Independence you were a Tory conservative.

He goes on to describe liberalism in America and its various strengths and weaknesses. He describes modern liberalism as blue liberalism, or liberalism 4.1.  He also discusses how we are at the end of an era and in a position to create liberalism 5.0

As with earlier versions, liberalism 5.0 must build on the best of what has gone before while making adjustments—radical when necessary, though never gratuitously so—to existing beliefs and institutions. 5.0 liberals must challenge the right of blue liberals to own the L-word, seeking both to convince 4.1 liberals to come back to the future and denouncing those who won’t as the blinkered reactionaries and speed bumps they are.

Go read this article.

 
 

“It’s a Big F***ing Deal”

Sebastian talks about the current gun debate and why it’s so important. A couple of gems from his post:

… One reason [gun grabbers have] struggled over the past 12 years is that they haven’t had someone in the White House willing to push gun control. You have a President who is very popular with a segment of American society now pushing it in a big, big way.

Very true. We’ve been winning the battles for the last decade and the war is about to take a nasty turn.

… I think even people in deep red states with solid representation need to be heard from, because we might need their courage if the GOP leadership starts to look weak. I might also need your legislator twisting the arm of my legislator, to hold the Republican caucus together. If your letters focused on general anxiety about the Republican Party, and an expectation that your representative will be a leader in fighting gun control, that would be very helpful to those of us in blue states in Republican-held districts.

You know everything we’ve laughed at the gun control movement about? No money? No supporters? All that has changed…

This is also very important. The 2010 US Census gave Utah an additional seat in the House. I live in the newly redrawn 2nd District and my new congress critter is Chris Stewart. I did not vote for him and I will hold his feet to the fire for the next two years, then work to get someone else nominated if I’m still living in the district.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported:

Congressman-elect Chris Stewart is willing to support some limited gun-control measures if they are packaged in a bill to boost outreach and treatment for the mentally ill.

… Stewart said he would oppose any legislative attempt to restrict ownership of handguns and other common weapons but could bend on banning high-capacity gun magazines for the sake of having a broader discussion on violence.

So, even before he was sworn into office, he’d already thrown gun owners under the bus. Not a surprise for a man who cheated his way into his first Federal office.

It’s a different world. Welcome back to the 90s. Now you know why they were so desperate to get leadership from the White House. Because leadership from the White House is, to quote our Vice President, “a big f**king deal.” A lot of folks don’t know how much we’ve benefitted by having no PAC money in gun control for the past 12 years.

If you know someone sitting this one out because they think the anti-gun groups don’t matter, slap them silly. We’re not facing the anti-gun groups, we’re facing the White House and the whole Obama coalition, and if you think that doesn’t matter, just ask Mitt Romney whether he agrees with you.

Contact your Federal representatives and let them know that we will not stand by and allow the White House to move on this unilaterally!

 

Remember Your History Or Be Doomed To Repeat It

It all begins with a dictator taking away your tools if self defense.

 

A World Without Guns

I missed this post on Gun Nuts Media last week, A World Without Guns. I’m posting to it now because Tim covers some vital points. The gun grabbers don’t want a world without guns, they want a world where only they have guns. Mike Bloomberg has no problem calling for your guns to be surrendered while he is surrounded by armed body guards. Go read what Tim has to say, then come back and tell me if you agree/disagree and why/why not.

 
 

Why Originalism Is Important

Welcome to another round of “let’s understand the US Constitution.”  There has been some discussion in the media lately about President Obama “invoking the 14th Amendment” to the US Constitution as a way to increase the debt ceiling with out going through Congress.  The specific article in question is this:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Most of the news stories that I’ve read read this way, “The validity of the public debt… shall not be questioned.”  Others do a bit more thorough job, “The validity of the public debt…, including debts incurred for payment of pensions…, shall not be questioned.”  Both of these short cuts are misleading. 

This is why originialism is so important.  The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is one of three amendments ratified shortly after the end of the American Civil War and the article clearly pertains to the debt incurred by the United States during the war and the debt incurred by the Confederate States during the war. 

Later when congress created the debt ceiling in 1941, it established a way to systematically authorize (and increase) debt by law.  Debt authorized by law remains valid and meets the requirements of the 14th Amendment.  Can the president just go around it?  I would argue that if he did, the debt he extended would not be viable because it was not authorized by law.  Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly gives CONGRESS, not the president, authority “to borrow money on the credit of the United States.” The 14th Amendment does not take that authority from congress and give it to the president.

Is the debt ceiling constitutional?  That’s not the question here and could be discussed another time.  The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, as will all other articles and amendments to the constitution, must be read from an orignialist perspective, meaning how the average person would have understood it at the time of its ratification.  If the US Constitution is a “living document” as many on the left proclaim, and the meanings of the words there contained change with time, what is the point of having a writing constitution?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 28, 2011 in History, Language, Politics

 

Calvin Coolidge

When thinking about the past Presidents of the United States, Calvin Coolidge is one of the last that come to mind for many.  This is truly unfortunate, especially for conservatives.  Here is actual video and audio from a small speech delivered by Coolidge in 1924, the first ever recorded for a President.  It gets really good around 2 minutes.

86 years ago, Calvin Coolidge told to the American people that their taxes were too high and that their liberties were were being trampled upon.  I ask you, does the current administration think about the individual when it proposes raising taxes or when it forces socialized medicine upon the people?  The answer, simply, is No.

Thank you,  President Coolidge, for giving conservatives another point in history with which to reference the intent of our Founders.

h/t – Dennis Prager

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 18, 2010 in Economy, Freedom - Loss Of, History, Money, Politics

 
 
%d bloggers like this: