Invisible Contracts -- caught in our own snares

I won't go into a long dissertation on either the importance of the subject at hand, nor on the contents of the documentation which comprise it. I simply want to turn you on to something someone turned me onto recently while in a meeting between associates in my area. The subject is, of course, Invisible Contracts which we voluntarily (remember, the 14th Amendment only makes involuntary servitude illegal in America, not voluntary servitude) enter into in our commercial lives. The snares which we lay for ourselves by voluntarily agreeing to the terms of the contracts aforesaid, is the payment we receive in return for our lack of self-governing, independent qualities.

Disclaimer: I'm not agreeing with or endorsing the author's beliefs per his Mormon education.

Read More

Should I take back what I said the other day about Social Cons?

Below is posted the content of an email I sent to Lawrence Auster just a few moments ago:

Is someone reading VFR?

Look at the email below from Tim Wildmon of AFA, particularly the first bolded sentence. Keep in mind that AFA and Dr. Dobson's groups (Focus on the Family and its political arm CitizenLink) are closely aligned, and, I think (actually I know, but I can't go dig up evidence of this right now), are in regular communication with one another.

Are we seeing some progress here amongst the Social Cons? I can't agree with the idea conveyed further in the email stating that we must attack abortion funding in the bill as a separate issue from the entire bill itself. In case the bill passes. This is all but conceding defeat. No! We must attack the bill as a whole as a clear violation of the constitution, because that's the only basis on which it can be defeated, with or without abortion funding, with or without healthcare for illegal aliens, with or without so-called 'death panels', with or without healthcare rationing, with or without criminalization for non-compliance. Etc.

But are we seeing some progress?

The AFA Action Alert email is posted in its entirety below.

Stop the Washington takeover of our health care system
Urgent: Contact your senators today!
November 17, 2009

Dear Terry,

The Senate may vote as early as Thursday to move on its version of the government takeover of health care.

At the president's urging, Democrats are expected to use a parliamentary maneuver which will enable them to strip the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House bill and push through a bill that will involve the use of your taxpayer dollars and mine to pay for abortions.

It must be clear that we oppose the Democratic health care legislation under consideration with or without protections for unborn human life. The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of health care, require rationing of care to seniors, create 111 new bureaucracies, and increase the already bloated federal deficit by a staggering amount.

But we also must make our voices heard any time and every time human life is at stake. Should a health care bill unfortunately reach the president's desk, we must do everything in our power to see that it does not use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children. Conservative estimates are that taxpayer funding of abortion under the government takeover will increase the number of abortions by one-third.

Take Action

E-mail your senators today and urge them firmly but politely to oppose the Washington takeover of our health care system with or without protections for unborn human life. Please also tell them to keep the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment in the health care bill that will keep the government from funding abortion, should the bill pass. (bolded text in original email)

I'm pleased to see that Mr. Wildmon and AFA have taken the position above of opposition to the 'healthcare' bill whether it contains abortion funding or not. Hopefully they can influence Dr. Dobson's groups to do the same. But the bottom line for me is this, if this monstrous government take-over of healthcare in America is successfully passed and signed into law, we are left with very few peaceful means (State level nullification laws, for instance) to prevent the wholesale desruction of life, liberty, and property which we have heretofore declared to be our unalienable individual rights as human beings and as Americans, subject to and protected by a written inviolable constitution.

I ask again in the words of Patrick Henry: Is life so dear; is peace so sweet???

Read More

On the destruction of local self-government/"establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states"

(Note: The entry has been updated below.)

By now you've all undoubtedly read about the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' ruling on the matter of a local Oklahoma county's display of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, brought about by a single, solitary individual who was (gasp!) "offended" by such display, thus filed a complaint.

Our frequent and insightful commenter, Chiu Chunling disagrees with me on this point, but I, nonetheless, cannot fail to mention the establishment of a constitutionally recognized dual citizenship in that pesky fourteenth amendment, U.S. Constitution which has provided the impetus for the federal courts to deem all governmental entities, down to the smallest most local level, mere agents and arms of the "federal" government.

Notwihstanding that, how anyone in his right mind can derive from the unambiguous phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." that the judicial arm of the central government has any jurisdiction, and/or, authority over the procedures (or displays, as it were) of a county or municipal government (re: local government) is beyond me. Our county and municipal governments in the State of Oklahoma are not arms and agents of the federal authority in any event. Whenever they become that, tyranny reigns supreme.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invaribly the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to create new guards for their future security.

But I've also quoted, many times, Hamilton from Federalist #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights. (italics added)

If I thought there was the slightest chance in hell that any relief was to be had via our "illustrious" legislators in Congress whose prerogative it is to tell the federal courts to take a proverbial hike in this matter, you can bet I'd be doing all in my power to persuade them to do so. As it is, though, I think it's more or less a collaborative effort.

Posted below the fold is the NewsOK article on the subject.

DENVER — An appeals court ruled Monday a Ten Commandments monument on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn in Stigler violates the Constitution because its primary effect is to endorse religion.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 against the 8-foot-tall monument in a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and a Haskell County resident who said it offended him.

The ACLU said the decision means "the county cannot continue to display it on the courthouse lawn. That said, nothing prevents any individual, group, or congregation from publicly displaying the same monument on their own property — and we would defend their right to do so.”

An attorney for the commissioners said the judges erred "for many reasons” in Monday’s decision, and he cited Supreme Court decisions in similar cases to support his conclusion. Attorney Kevin Theriot said he is recommending to the commissioners that they ask all 12 judges of the court to reconsider the decision of the three-judge panel.

Monument endorses religion, judges say

The monument was erected in 2004.
The Haskell County commissioners’ authorization of the monument "had the impermissible principal or primary effect of endorsing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause” of the Constitution, the judges wrote in a 52-page decision.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The judges said the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean a government action must not have a primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.

The judges wrote that, "in the unique factual setting of a small community like Haskell County,” the Christian origins of the monument’s erection "tended to strongly reflect a government endorsement of religion.”

Monday’s decision overturned a 2006 ruling by a Muskogee federal judge who concluded the commissioners did not overstep the constitutional line "demarcating government neutrality toward religion.”

Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes of Oklahoma City, a conservative appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote the decision for the Denver-based appeals court.

End of initial entry.

**********

Update: A short discussion on this topic has been had over at the Tenth Amendment Center where commenter Patrick Henry Lives first sounded the alarm. Also, he's written a supportive letter to the Haskell County Board of Commissioners and posted it in a comment under the thread. Here is the text of his letter:

Haskell County Board of Commissioners
E Main Street
County Courthouse
Stigler, OK 74462-2439
Phone: (918) 967-4352
Fax: (918)967-3290

Dear Board of Commissioners,

It was with saddened hearts that we learned of the recent ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declaring that the display of the Ten Commandments was an unconstitutional “endorsement of religion.” However, we were greatly encouraged by the statement of Commissioner Mitch Worsham indicating it was your intention not to obey or to take the monument down. We write to strengthen and confirm you in that resolve.

It has been the sovereign right of the People of the several States to acknowledge God in our public places since before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. All of our nation’s organic documents acknowledge Christ and God. This is historically true. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and to their peoples all powers not given to the federal government nor prohibited by the Constitution to them. The First Amendment prohibition against an Establishment of Religion applies by its express terms only to Congress. The usurpation of reserved States Rights by liberal, activist judges cannot override the written Constitution nor can it obviate our duty before the Majesty in Heaven. We must obey God more than men. We implore you not to yield to spiritual wickedness in high places by surrendering your ground.

Oklahoma recently passed a Tenth Amendment Resolution claiming sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution. To date, 34 States have followed or are following Oklahoma’s example in telling the federal government to cease and desist it unlawful intrusion into and usurpation of reserved States’ Rights. To bring this matter to an immediate Constitutional confrontation and crisis, we encourage you to petition the Oklahoma Legislature to enact legislation making it unlawful for any officer of the State or any of its subdivisions to obey a federal court judgment purporting to invade reserved States’ Right by ordering the removal of any monument displaying the Ten Commandments, the Cross of Christ, or other acknowledgement of God as the Supreme Majesty in Heaven, who alone is the author of our being, the guardian of our liberties, and the wellspring of our happiness.

God bless you as you endeavor to persist in your moral courage and resolution to resist the unlawful acts of a usurping federal judiciary. Better that Oklahoma secede from the Union than to abandon its duty to its citizens and to God.

Sincerely,

Patrick Henry Lives

Read More

TEA Parties -- will they have the desired effect?

I understand the temptation to look on the scheduled Tax Day TEA Parties (and those scheduled on other significant dates in American History) as ineffective means to an end which is ultimately unattainable, thus as seeing them as simply going through the motions with no possibility of their having the desired effect. But let's not be too quick to judge their effects; the combined effects of the Tea Parties and of other similar efforts we are currently engaged in, shall we?

Also, I want to avoid comparing our modern TEA parties to the historical Boston Tea Party that the Sons of Liberty conducted in which they cast whole shiploads of the detested beverage into Boston Harbor. To make such a comparison is like comparing apples and oranges.

Historically our current TEA protests are more comparable to the decades' long struggle between the American colonies and the British government, in which the colonials engaged in a variety of means to protest the arbitrary imposition of taxes placed on various items, as well as the arbitrary claim to authority over the American colonies from the British ministry. During the course of this struggle the American colonists engaged in a variety methods of peaceful protestation finally culminating in events like the Boston Tea Party and the formation of the Continental Congress from whence the Declaration of American Independence ultimately came forth. A broad accounting of the events that ultimately led to America's declaring its independence from the British government may be found within the document itself, to wit:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[...]

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

So we see in these excerpts from the Declaration that our current methods of protestation follow closely the methods of our colonial forbears. And you'll have to excuse me for feeling a special connection between myself and our forbears, but as God is my witness I have been writing letters to Congressmen and Senators, as well as letters to the editor, etc., for umpteen years now reminding both our rulers and our brethren of the Declaration's pronouncement that "...and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves...but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government...". And what have I generally received in return for my trouble? Basically the same treatment the founders received initially for theirs.

Now, had I my way about it the stage we're currently at in this struggle would have taken place fifteen years ago. But I have no control over that. Providence has a way of constructing events according to His timetable, not ours. And it's certainly not my place to questions His timing. My place is to hear the clarion call when it comes and to conduct myself accordingly.

So, will the combination of our efforts ultimately yield dividends favorable to the restoration of government of, by, and for the People, striking a proper balance between the various branches and spheres of our unique form of government? I don't think any of us can know that for sure, but I'm putting my money down that eventually they will. And as I said, I'm committed to conducting myself accordingly, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence and an appeal to Heaven for the rectitude of our intentions.

Read More

Subject to the tyranny of dead men

As I've written elsewhere, I'm not particularly inclined to be tyrannized by the living, much less by dead men. But that's just me. If you are inclined that way, well, that it is your problem, not mine, and I'm not going to make it my problem. Which is to say that I won't be tyrannized by your proclivity to be tyrannized by a dead generation, period.

Certain of my commenters, both very recently and further back in time, have said to me in very dogmatic terms that certain policies and agreements now existing were created by folks no longer existing and way before I was ever thought of. This fact to these persons means that therefore I (and by extension most everyone now living) have nothing to say about it; that we the living are subject, without review or revision, to the laws of dead men. It is, whatever it is, written in stone from henceforth and for all time. End of story, say they.

What a slave mentality this is! I'm not sure I can put a finger on the exact cause of this mindless, slavish mentality seemingly prevalent among the masses, but the public education system in American, such as it is at this moment in time, can't be helping matters any. And it can't be helpful that we've opened the door wide to peoples and cultures and traditions which can have little knowledge or understanding of what freedom is and how to maintain it, and thus to pass it on to posterity.

It is in this vein that Dr. Yeagley (who I seem to recall once argued this very line with me here at Webster's. I'd have to go back and check the archives to be sure) has an interesting entry up over at BadEagle.com concerning certain internal governing characteristics of the Comanche Tribal Constitution and the term restrictions (term limits) it imposes on its Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Yeagley complains (and his complaint is warranted in my opinion, irrespective of who currently occupies the seat) that the Comanche constitution established by dead men contains a flaw that needs to be corrected by none other than the living. What a novel concept! Yeagley's complaint is not only leveled at the imposition on the Chief of the tribe himself, but the imposition on the Comanche people which denies them the right to select a given Chief as many times in succession as they themselves choose to select him. Yeagley goes further even, complaining that the very institution of elections is not a Comanche tradition; that [dead] White men imposed this institution on the Comanche people in 1934, though I don't get the impression he's arguing that the entirety of the Comanche constitution should be scrapped.

Dr. Yeagley writes:

Nick Tahchawwickah and I see precious value in our present leadership. We recently presented a proposal to the Comanche Business Committee about an amendment to our Comanche Constitution that would insure continuation of that leadership. When a true leader appears among the Comanche, we think the people have the right to maintiain his leadership as long as they want. Under our current Constitution, imposed by the Bureau of Indian Affiars in 1934, our chiefs can remain in office only for two consecutive terms. Then they must be out of office, at least one term, before they can run again. This is certainly foreign and contrary to the old Comanche ways. Leaders were [n't] 'elected' in the first place. They evolved into the position by natural selection. And they certainly were never "changed" regularly by scheduled elections. This is a bit bizarre for Comanches, actually. Tahchawwickah and I want an amendment which will allow unlimited terms. (The new, proposed Constitution, which hasn't come to a vote yet, does not even address the matter of terms or term limits.)

I personally find very interesting Yeagley's choice of terms in the foregoing paragraph. For instance where he invokes the language of Darwinian natural selection. But that's a side issue not necessarily related to this post. The main point is that Dr. Yeagley's complaint (again, a valid complaint in my opinion) is with the imposition of a dead generation of White men on a living generation of Comanches, the illegitimacy of which I've been arguing all along. Dr. Yeagley asserts that living Comanches have the right to adjust their Tribal Constitution to their own liking, or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it:

...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to create new guards for their future security. ...organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

And I most certainly agree. This is just a no-brainer, one of those "self-evident truths" spoken of in the DoI -- that governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed in the foregoing statement are minimally the living. They're more than just the living, of course, but that's what they are at a bare minimum. Beyond that bare minimum as applies to the Comanche People and their governing Constitution, they (living Comanches) have every right to determine for themselves what qualifications are requisite for their own citizenship, for their own leadership and so forth and so on. If the general sense of the Comanche People is that term limiting their Tribal Chief is bad for Comanches, then let them remove this imposition from their governing constitution.

We've had our own discussions (though I don't recall taking the issue up here at Webster's) about the illegitimacy of term limiting our governors under the United States, particularly the term limit imposed on the presidency by the 22nd amendment, U.S. Constitution, which serves as a good example for us to look to. It is one of those things that when you get into the depth of the subject you begin to realize how very detrimental to good politics term limits are, notwithstanding their popularity among the ignorant masses, as well as the "good intentions" of those who advocate for term limits. But beyond that, term limits can be nothing more and nothing less than depriving the People of a choice they may have otherwise made in exclusion of them. The best way to regulate the amount of damage a bad politician can inflict is to hold regular elections, and to make him subject to impeachment and prosecution according to law. If you have a policy in place which artificially regulates how long a given politician can serve in a given capacity, then you end up with that "lame duck" situation that generally attends the second terms of U.S. Presidents. In other words, I would argue, and have argued, with regard to this concept of term limits, that a good politician can be made bad and that a bad politician can be made worse by the very institution of (artificial) term limits itself.

But of course it is all written in stone now, so I have no say in the matter. I should therefore take my place as a slave to the policies and enactments of dead men.

Read More

A quibble that's increasingly becoming a major gripe

Can we agree that the holiday we celebrate annually on July 4th in this country should be referred to as "Independence Day," not "the 4th of July"? I mean, we don't refer to Christmas as "the 25th of December," nor our own birthdays, nor our wedding day as "the 23rd of March" (randomly chosen date) or whatever. December 25th and July 4th are dates on the calendar which mark two great occasions for celebration in this country, the birth of Christ and the birth of the nation respectively. Personally I think we do a disservice to our founders and the epoch when we use the calendar date July 4th as synonymous terminology with the event which we're celebrating, or which we're supposed to be celebrating.

As John Quincy Adams, on the 61st occasion for celebrating Independence Day in this country, so ably said in a speech delivered to the citizens of Newburyport:

Why is it that next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day.
Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked to the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the Progress of the Gospel dispensation?
Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth?
That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity and gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced directly from Heaven at the birth of the Savior and predicted by the greatest of the Hebrew prophets 600 years before.

Perhaps my traditionalist friends will at least agree with me (and with Mr. Adams) on this point. Indeed, as Mr. Adams put it, our most joyous and most venerated festival, next to the birthday of the Savior of the World, returns on this day, the calendar date July 4th. The festival itself is not the same as the date on which we celebrate it.

Notwithstanding that, here's a Wikipedia article on the Declaration of Independence that you might find interesting.

Addendum:

Here's the first paragraph from the Wiki entry:

The United States Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, announcing that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress. (emphasis added)

Happy Independence Day!

Read More

No globalization without representation?

I wonder when that phrase (or some version of it) might become popularized as a universal battlecry among foreign peoples relegated to, or by their own volitions (it matters not) living in the lands of their births yet intimately impacted by the decisions of the President of the United States ... and of our Congress, and our Judiciary, and of the very people who inhabit this continent; the new universalist globalist battlecry to extend to all the peoples of the world the liberal principle of universal suffrage in American elections?

VA has an entry up this morning in which she cites one Mr. Simon Jenkins from his article of May 9, 2008 published in the U.K. Times. Mr. Jenkins writes:

The globalised president is a different matter. This leader must represent America’s values - and consequent actions - everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.

Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.

Commenter Alex seems to have been on the same page as me when he wrote:

There's plenty of glib media commentary on the responsibilities of the 'global presidency'. But while journalists cater to the insatiable public appetite for news of presidential follies (and reluctant admissions of accomplishments), almost nothing is heard from the academics who might be expected to provide some scholarly analysis of "decisions that benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote".(emphasis mine)

Yet they have no vote! Shout it from the rooftops! What could possibly be more unjust, more unfair, and yes more immoral than to have people who are potentially afflicted and murdered, whose very lives, liberties and fortunes are subject to the whims of a president of the United States who have no voice in the installment of that president?

This whole issue could be argued from many different perspectives, I suppose. One position would say that there is at least some truth to what Mr. Jenkins is saying; that globalization has indeed intimately connected the decisions of the President of the United States with the diverse peoples of the world, and that therefore the peoples of the world should have some voice in the election of the president. The logical end of this would of course be, as I said, involvement of foreigners in the entire American political process. Did not our founders say that "...governments ... derive(ing) their just powers from the consent of the governed?" If the policies of a president of the United States affect the lives of average Pakistanis, then these Pakistanis are, by definition, "the governed," are they not? The government of the United States can have no "just powers" then, aside from the direct involvement of the Pakistani people, whose lives are intimately affected by U.S. policy, in the American political process.

Months back John Savage wrote in a comment to one of my posts:

I've decided that wherever they differ from us moderns, our Founding Fathers deserve the presumption of being correct. Whether it's on Islam, the role of government, interpretation of Scripture, race, or whatever else, we're the children looking up to our great teachers. Where opinions have changed, the burden of proof lies on those who came later. Our situation is parallel to that of the people who painstakingly rediscovered ancient knowledge after the Dark Ages, is it not?

To keep with the spirit of John's outstanding comment, what we must not do, as I've said or implied innumerable times in the past, is to cherry pick from their writings statements they made which would seem at first glance to support our particular view of the world and of a given topic. As the adage goes "a text out of context is a pretext." This is the reason I cited above the quote from the Declaration of Independence. Let us not forget that it is a declaration of American Independence; let us not neglect to attend to the preamble which declares that during the course of human events it sometimes become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. In other words we should always read a particular sentence or phrase in context of the whole piece of work, and that whole piece of work in context of the whole American movement for independent nationhood, in the case of the Declaration of Independence. And as I've said many times as well "WE [heavy on the WE] hold these truths to be self evident", and etc. WE can't and shouldn't speak for anyone else as we seem inclined to do.

But in this case of a so-called 'global president', and the inherent right of all people affected by the presidency, both natural results of 'globalism', it seems to me, we would all be very well served to look to the example and wisdom of our founding fathers, as John Savage says, and in this particular case to Washington's Farewell Speech.

Read More

What is meant by Jefferson's declaration in the Declaration?

(Update: The link I provided earlier to this VFR article was wrong. This is now corrected. Additionally, LA replies to my comments offering us a neocon re-write of the principles of the DoI which I've added to the end of this entry.)

A great discussion has ensued over at VFR on Jefferson's expression in the DoI, "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... that to secure these rights governments are intstituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and the way this has been understood historically by Americans.

I've often noted that the Declaration states plainly that "We (heavy on the We!) hold these truths to be self-evident." In other words, We does not mean everyone. Not everyone holds these truths to be self-evident, nor do they form governments for the protection of their unalienable rights around these concepts. In fact, in many cultures these are completely alien concepts. And that's just the way it is, not the way we might want it to be. Again, I stress the WE here. And who do you suppose Jefferson is referring to when he states it this way?

But Auster certainly nails down this American's understanding of these concepts when he states the following:

These ideas have never been understood by Americans to mean that all human beings desire political liberty. In fact, it's always been understood by Americans that lots of peoples and cultures do not desire liberty but prefer despotism. Which means that they have the right to liberty in the abstract, but they don't desire to possess it or they don't desire it sufficiently to do the work that is needed to secure it, i.e., to institute consensual government. Yes, when Americans saw people aspiring to liberty, they sympathized with them and wished them well, and sometimes actively helped them...

I don't know whether Auster's assertion about this being a new phenomenon dating back only to 2002 is correct, but I can tell you this, I was having to contend against these perversions of these concepts in various forums on the internet at about that time. And that's about as far back as I can recall that these assertions were being made. At least that I took any notice of.

LA adds in his reply to my comments:

The Bush-bots could almost re-write the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all women and men are bound together by certain common desires, that among these are the desire for freedom, the desire to see one's children grow to adulthood, and the desire not to hear a knock on the door in the middle of the night. That in order to satisfy these desires, all people require and are deserving of democracy, to be delivered to them by the United States of America."

This is precipitated by these statements from Condoleeza Rice. Says she:

Today we hear these same doubts about the possibility of freedom in the Middle East. President Bush rejects this view--I reject this view--and so should you. There are no cultures or peoples on this earth who do not deserve the freedoms we take for granted. To think otherwise is a condescension unworthy of an educated mind.

I don't know about you, but that really gets under my skin. There are no cultures or peoples on this earth who do not deserve the freedoms we take for granted? Upon what basis does she found this idea, one might ask. Upon the basis that Condoleeza Rice believes it and therefore it is? I've said it before over at VFR, but it bears repeating, people like this seem to have the attitude that they can actually speak something which does not exist into existence. I for one put a lot more stock in the words of someone like Daniel Webster who said that God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it. If God is a just God, he cannot set people free who do not desire to be free any more than he can grant them entry into heaven when they have no desire to be in heaven.

I would say that Miss Rice is guilty of that which she charges others with. Namely "condescension unworthy an educated mind." It's just that she's condescending toward people like those of us who understand the reality of the situation -- that not everyone desires to be free, and certainly that not everyone deserves to be free. And I would kindly ask Miss Rice to refrain from using the expression "the freedoms we take for granted" as a universally applicable expression applying to all Americans. She may take her freedoms for granted (which might explain why she thinks all cultures and all peoples desire and deserve the same freedoms), but that doesn't mean every American takes them for granted.

But I imagine she received applause and ovations on these statements from her impressionable audience. Such is the nature of liberalism. It discolors everything it touches. And by the way, I ain't real sure that we ourselves desire or deserve freedom, even the relative freedoms we enjoy now. If this is the commonly held view which Miss Rice has stated here, and there's no recovery in sight for it, then I would advise everyone that you might as well cheerfully strap your chains upon yourselves. At least your children and grandchildren, if this view is widespread, will have no problems adjusting to their slavish condition.

Read More