"Our new King George"

Tenth Amendment Center commenter DWalla created this poster for displayal at a TEA rally in his area. Of course, Hussein Obama would be more appropriately portrayed as a King of Saudi Arabia than in the garb of an 18th century British Monarch. But the poster makes a pretty good political point nonetheless. And I've asked DWalla whether he can make one to go with that represents our leftist Congress as the New British Parliament. But then again, that wouldn't really be representative of what they actually are either.

Read More

What about them fuel prices!

Okay, the title is a bit misleading. I have no intention of discussing fuel prices in this post, but to offer a partial explanation for my recent (lengthy) absence from blogging.

It would be true to say that we've been busy, but also somewhat misleading. Busy I have been, but not exactly in the conventional sense. But that's a subject for another post. I've been busy with more enjoyable activities, i.e., learning more about the sport of gymnastics and applying that knowledge -- you can figure it out. As far as politics goes, well, I guess you could say it's analogous to our work situation -- it seems like I'm experiencing a sustained dry spell of sorts. "Burnout" is probably the right descriptive for what I've been going through personally, but at least I'm back to reading some of my favorite political blogs ... and enjoying it.

See y'all soon.

Read More

VA and LA hash things out

Do not miss this discussion ongoing in the comments section of VA's fine entry on secession which I linked to the other day. The discussion has gotten very interesting with Auster and Vanishing American hashing things out between themselves.

Without political union (meaning the United States as it currently exists) can the American people maintain their distinctive existence and continue to act on the world stage? That's a question being broached in this discussion. It seems like the question comes down to this: Is it possible for the United States to reorganize itself in such a fashion so as to preserve its distinct nationhood while maintaining its ability to operate on the world stage? Or is the United States of America resigned to maintaining its current political organization in order to continue being a major player on that stage?

With regard to my own contribution to the discussion (which pales in comparison), I can only say that it was not my intent to argue for a "constitutional," or a "lawful" right to secede from the union. The idea of constitutionality/lawful right was raised in the original story where the terms unconstitutional and unlawful were used as I recall. In short I agree with Mr. Auster that secession/rebellion is a "natural" right, not a constitutional right. But I should have made that explicit.

End of intitial post.

Read More

New book released

Speaking of unlikely alliances, here's one that I wouldn't have seen coming with a pair of binoculars at ten yards distance, or something like that. ;)

Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas putting partisan politics aside to come together and co-author a book on, well, putting partisan politics aside? Will wonders never cease!

Here's the link to the Article.

End of initial post.

Read More

Is Liberalism a new ideology, or is it as old as the devil himself?

This is a question that really begs for a clear and a concise answer. I've read numerous times on other blogs where people date the establishment of liberalism in this country as a dominant political force merely back to the 1960s. Is this the case? Is American liberalism really only a few decades old?

Personally I think liberalism has always been with us. In fact I can date it back, and show examples of its manifestations to the 1840s at the very least. But I think we make an error if we do not put a finger on a date and an event which would be the turning point for the rise of liberalism on a national scale. I believe this turning point came when the fourteenth amendment and the incorporation clause was ratified. Prior to this event, liberalism as a viable political force was kept relatively at bay...

Read More

How Would You Define Politics?

I think one of the best definitions I ever read of the word is contained in Webster's original 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. As most of you know Mr. Webster was a contemporary of the founding generation, he was an influential leader of his day, particularly in the area of education where his influence is still felt to this very day. In fact, some of you are probably unaware of this, but there's been a concerted effort going on in this nation for some time now to restore, through the educational process, Mr. Webster's uniquely “American” methods of education, particularly at the primary levels. From my view this is vital to the restoration of this republic, and for saving it from the dark abyss which liberalism in all its varied forms is leading it to.

I should like to open a discussion on what the term politics means to each of us individually, and I'd appreciate your participation. I will begin the discussion by saying that to me, despite all the negative modern Americans associate with the term, politics is essentially good. Politics, to me, seeks to improve us and our condition, individually and collectively. It has no power of itself to do good or evil, to secure or to crush liberty. Politics is merely a vehicle which human beings use to accomplish either/or. I don't buy into the libertarian theory, btw, that there's no such thing as 'collective liberty.' I rather tend to think that liberty begins with the individual, but it certainly does not end with him/her. As Mr. Webster might have stated it were the question put to him, “those who claim there is no collective liberty involve themselves in a palpable error, for though they understand the particular aspect of liberty, they fail to understand the general aspect of which the particular is always a part.” And though the libertarian would insist that the 'greater good,' or the 'common good,' should never be sought at the expense of the individual good, using such arguments that indict this pursuit as having been responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, I find that to be a rather poor argument given that in fact what the libertarian is really vying for is indeed his version of the 'greater good.' It's just that the libertarian believes that the collective, or the 'greater good' is indeed, and almost always the individual good. Or, they are one and the same thing. While this may well be true, it does not absolve the libertarian of his error. Which is to say that he seeks the greater good as much as the next guy in spite of all his railings against the idea of seeking the greater good.

So, essentially, I think politics seeks the greater good for the people it applies most particularly to in a universal sort of way. Again, I think politics (in pureness) is essentially good and seeks the best good of the whole. I think politics has a reciprocal aspect to itself, and that indeed if it can be said to be responsible for a net loss of liberty, not a net gain, as the libertarian would seem to have it, then it is an indefensible concept, this idea of politics, and irreconcilable with the idea of liberty.

What say you?

-DW

Read More