In the Immortal Words of our Forbears

In Provincial Congress,

Concord, April 15, 1775.

Whereas it has pleased the righteous Sovereign of the Universe, in just indignation against the Sins of a People long blessed with inestimable Priveleges, civil and religious, to Suffer the Plots of wicked Men on both sides of the Atlantick, who for many Years have incessantly laboured to Sap the Foundation of our public Liberties, So far to Succeed that we See the New England Colonies reduced to the ungrateful alternative of a tame Submission to a State of absolute Vassalage to the Will of a despotic Minister--or of preparing themselves Speedily to defend, at the Hazard of Life, the unalienable Rights of themselves and Posterity, against the avowed Hostilities of their Parent State, who openly threatens to wrest them from their Hands by Fire and Sword.

In Circumstances dark as these it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that, whilst every prudent Measure should be taken to ward off the impending Judgments, or prepare to act a proper Part under them when they come; at the Same Time all Confidence must be withheld from the Means we use; and reposed only on that GOD who rules in the Armies of Heaven, and without whose Blessing the best human Counsels are but Foolishness--and all created Power Vanity;

It is the Happiness of his Church that, when the Powers of Earth and Hell combine against it, and those who should be Nursing Fathers become its Persecutors--then the Throne of Grace is of the easiest Access--and its Appeal thither is graciously invited by the Father of Mercies, who has assured it, that when his Children ask Bread he will not give them a Stone.

THEREFORE, in Compliance with the laudable Practice of the People of GOD in all Ages, with humble Regard to the steps of Divine Providence towards this oppressed, threatened and endangered People, and especially in Obedience to the Command of Heaven, that binds us to call on him in the Day of Trouble----

RESOLVED, That it be, and hereby is recommended to the good People of this Colony, of all Denominations, That THURSDAY the Eleventh Day of May next be set apart as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer; that a total Abstinence from Servile Labor and Recreation be observed, and all their religious Assemblies solemnly convened, to humble themselves before GOD under the heavy Judgments felt and feared, to confess the Sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our Transgressions, and a Spirit of Repentance and Reformation--and a Blessing on the Husbandry, Manufactures, and other lawful Employments of this People ; and especially that the Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights (for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty GOD) may be preserved and confirmed,--that the Provincial and especially the Continental CONGRESSES may be directed to such Measures as GOD will countenance.--That the People of Great Britian, and their Rulers, may have their Eyes open'd to discern the Things that shall make for the Peace of the Nation and all its Connections----And that AMERICA may soon behold a gracious Interposition of Heaven, for the Redress of her many Grievances, the Restoration of all her invaded Liberties, and their Security to the latest Generations.

By Order of the Provincial Congress,

JOHN HANCOCK, President

Read More

People for the American Way vs. People for the American Way

I wrote in a recent entry about the organization "People for the American Way," saying there that the members of, and people otherwise friendly to, that organization can have no conception of what People truly for the American Way know to be the genuine American Way.

Reckon the People for the American Way will ever understand what the People for the American Way are all about, or the extent of their power? Nah. So I guess we'll just have to keep teaching it to them.

Read More

Anti-Americanism

I've been meaning to post an entry dealing with the image you see to the left for several weeks now. I first saw the image while visiting Dad's little shop in my hometown several months back. Dad had, prominently displayed on a wall of his shop, a T-shirt with this image on it. Does this image elicit in you the same level of anti-anti-American sentiment that it does me? And why?

BTW, my dad is one of the most "American" people I know. Indeed, it would take a book's worth of illustrations to account for all the pro-American principles I was taught as a child. So the question is, why would Dad display such an image proudly as he does? (Dad: you're free to answer the question yourself.)

Read More

My Indian opponent finally comes clean

Jason A., a.k.a. jdogg, finally comes clean with me about his attitude concerning his Indianness and how it trumps his Americanness, among other things.

Jason's revelations, of course, are no surprise to me. I've been stating repeatedly in our discussion in this thread that this is the case; that anyone (not just Indians, but certainly Indians too) having dual citizenship must, by virtue of that dual citizenship, divide his loyalties between the two competing entities. And anytime this happens, one of the two is going to take precedence over the other. For Jason, he's an Indian first, and an American ... somewhere down the line.

Jason writes:

You are American, I am Native first, then American. What you argue for makes you basically my enemy. It's against the best interests of my people.

If I had it my way a statement like that would automatically disqualify such person making the statement from being a U.S. citizen. But we ain't there yet.

Well, Jason thinks that what I'm advocating is against the best interests of his people. But as I've been pointing out all along, in that thread and elsewhere, it can never be in the best interest of his people nor in the best interest of my people for his people or my people, or any people for that matter, to have dual citizenship in two distinctive political entities with two distinctive sets of interests. This is clearly and simply an impossibility. And what more evidence of the fact do we need than Jason's own hostile admission?

Another of my positions that Jason complains about is my perfectly reasonable position that dead men should have no power to rule over the living, whether they be dead Indians or dead whites, or in this particular case both. (I brought this out with Yeagley earlier in the discussion, at which point he abandoned the conversation. But can you blame him? I mean, think about it, what would it mean either way he answered the question?)

In other words, there is no law or treaty or constitution, nor any contract negotiated between men that can ever have the oppressive force of being sacredly and inviolably binding on future generations who do not willingly give their consent to it. Indeed, as the Declaration of Independence states "...that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no truth more evident to my mind (no truth more self-evident) than that "the governed" of which Mr. Jefferson speaks are in fact "the living."

Most of you are also aware (though I wonder about Jason) that the DoI also states "...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it." Again, we're talking about the living here, which means, people alive at this particular moment in history; me and you. For how can dead men alter or abolish anything in the here and now? But let us turn our attentions to the word "alter" in the foregoing statement for just a moment.

Jason seems to believe that if we decide to alter any point in any treaty made between dead whites and dead Indians, to his peoples' perceived disadvantage, then whites have once again broken the terms of an agreement that he believes is written in stone for all eternity. Meanwhile, Jason, in what he perceives to be the interests of his people the Indians, is going to do all he can to build upon, to add to what was originally agreed to in the treaties made between Indians and whites. I don't know about you, but I'm not inclined to be a slave to anyone, living or dead. But I'm telling you folks, I know a lot of Indians of one degree or another, and this is the general attitude among those that I know. I'm not saying all Indians share this view, I'm simply saying that this is the general attitude among Indians I know personally.

But Jason's attitude makes me wonder whether the main point of contention between Indians and whites, which is now commonly understood to be the fault of whites because they/we broke the terms of the bargain, is in fact this very point of a difference in governmental philosophy? For is it not so that a Paternal attitude toward the government of men is in direct conflict with that form of government which our founding fathers established on this continent? We know that our founding fathers borrowed much from Mr. Locke who, in his treatise on Government thoroughly dispenses with the idea of Paternal authority as a ruling principle among free men.

Anyway, I don't want to delve into it in this particular post, but I think it can be shown that the fourteenth amendment, the establishment of a U.S. citizenship, and all the things we've discussed before which derive therefrom, relates very closely to this whole issue of dual citizenship. Perhaps I'll take that up in a future entry. Stay tuned.

(Incidentally, the image I've posted above is titled, of all things, Founding Fathers. Am I seeing a problem or six here?)

Read More

Desperate Crossing: The Untold Story of the Mayflower

Since good historically accurate television docu-dramas, and their value as a means and instrument to enlighten a public illiterate on early American history, are on my mind today, here's one that I saw on the History Channel, Thanksgiving 2006. This particular documentary is based on the only reliable source available on the history of the founders of Plymouth Colony, Governor Bradford's own history "Of Plymouth Plantation."

I read Governor Bradford's history many years ago, so I was well prepared to identify any blatant historical inaccuracies that might be contained in the movie. It's been two years since I saw it so my recollection may be a bit skewed, but the overall impression that I formed of the movie at the time, as I recall, was very positive, and I've retained that sense to this day. Indeed, I looked for it last year at Thanksgiving on the History Channel, eager to see it again, but to no avail. I think this year, rather than count on a replay on the History Channel, I'll just purchase a DVD copy and let that be that.

Who says tv isn't a useful educational tool?

Anyway, here is one short review of the movie posted on the Amazon page linked above:

J.S. Kaminski writes:

Most Americans know the story of the Pilgrims and Mayflower...or do they? The History Channel has done a great job here, showing us that there is more to the story than we'd been taught. For example, who knew that many of the Pilgrims had actually moved to the Netherlands for an extended period (12 years or so) before deciding to try their luck in the New World? Or that there were actually two ships (the other being called The Speedwell), but the 2nd one was left behind because it was deemed un-seaworthy? Or that the Pilgrims landed first, not at Plymouth, but on Cape Cod, only to be driven off by the Native Americans there? These facts and many others are revealed in this interesting film.

Well, had you read the book, Mr. Kaminski, you would have known some of these otherwise obscure facts about the Pilgrims. LOL

Nah, Mr. Kaminski is right that these facts are not widely known today, and he's also right, if memory serves, that these facts among others spoken of in Bradford's history, such as the use of a "great iron screw" to repair a damaged main beam in the ship, are brought out in the movie. My only real beef with the docu-drama is that I personally feel that too much effort was expended in giving the ancestors of the natives an angry voice by which to demonize the Pilgrims. There are some very angry Indians out there, but that side of the story has been told for ... how long now? Hopefully the movie will lead people like Mr. Kaminski to read the book?

I don't recall the exact context so it would be hard for me to find the link, but we had a discussion a few years ago over at the AFB in which a couple of us were challenged by someone for "making the story of the Pilgrims out to be a "religious fairytale"", or something to that effect. I replied by pointing out to our opponent that the story of the Pilgrims -- Bradford's history of Plymouth Plantation -- which I had read several times sort of reads like one; that he ought to read it sometime and he would know exactly why our impression of the Pilgrims is what it is -- a religious fairytale if that's what you want to call it. The movie in question, again as I recall from seeing it two years ago, following Bradford's history closely, has the same basic effect. I highly recommend it for those who have yet to read or hear or see anything other than revisionist histories of our Pilgrim ancestors.

Addendum:

I thought that some of you may be unaware of this bit of historical 'trivia' related to Bradford's manuscript, and that you might be interested. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on the subject which relates the basic facts of the manuscript's century-long disappearance from the American continent, how it was discovered and returned:

History of the manuscript

After Prince's death, the manuscript was left in the tower of the Old South Meeting House in Boston. During the Revolutionary War, British troops occupied the church and the manuscript was lost for another century. After quotes from the missing book appeared in Samuel Wilberforce's A History of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, in the 1850s it was discovered in the Bishop of London's library at Fulham Palace,[2] and was published in print in 1856. Formal proposals to return the manuscript were not successful until the 1897 initiative of the Hon. George Hoar, United States Senator from Massachusetts, supported by the Pilgrim Society, the American Antiquarian Society, and the New England Society of New York.

When Bishop of London Frederick Temple learned of the importance of the book, he thought it should be returned but because it was being held by the Church that approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury was needed. By the time the formal request from Hoar's group reached England, the Archbishop was Frederick Temple. The bishop's Consistorial and Episcopal Court of London observed that although how the book got there was not known, the marriage and birth registry in the back of the book should have been deposited with the Church, that this library was the proper place for it, thus the book was a church document and the Diocese of London had proper control of it. The court went on to observe that when the Colony declared independence in 1776, the Diocese of London was no longer the proper place because London's registry was no longer the proper repository for such a registry. The bishop's court ordered that a photographic copy of the document be made for the court, and the original be delivered to the Governor of Massachusetts.

Read More

Obama Speaketh, and the church sayeth Amen!

Here's a story from ABC News on Caesar Obama's 2006 statements which are now, two years ex post facto, the focus of so much media attention. (Hat tip VA)

I could take several different approaches to the topic if that were my desire, but they'd all boil down to the obvious singularity: Obama is indeed, as Dr. Dobson has stated, a "fruitcake", unfit to be president of the United States. And he has a sizeable contingency of lesser fruitcakes who fawn over his every word, to wit:

The speech delves into Obama's view of the constructive role religion plays in society, beseeching "work that progressive leaders need to do" on the subject, followed by his views of "what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge." (emphasis mine)

That included "the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice," Obama said, as well as "the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

First of all, someone pointed out in a comment to the article that the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. In a response to the comment another commenter asked the question "so what do you think is meant by the "establishment clause" of the first amendment? Well, obviously, by the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," the founders meant to say that Christians in particular can't, uh, well, uh ... let's let someone with authority to speak on the matter answer that; here are his credentials:

I am a pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in the U.S.

Whoa! You got my attention Pastor. Proceed.

I see nothing wrong with Obama's comments as quoted in this article. In fact, I applaud them.

Ok, fair enough. But why do you qualify your support for Obama's statements with the phrase "as quoted in this article?" You're not trying to leave yourself a little wiggle room just in case it turns out that your boy truly is what he truly is, are you? Never mind.

The good Pastor continues:

Leaders who are unable to embrace our nation's pluralism are out of touch and risk establishing a theocracy.

Tripper, you wouldn't, perchance, be Dr. Charles Stanley would you, In Touch pastor in one of the largest mainline Protestant denominations in America as you are and whatnot? Well, anyway, I think you've coined a new phrase soon to be as popular in America as the oft repeated "our democracy" -- "our nation's pluralism." Congratulations. But I'm confused, how is it again that our out-of-touch founders rejected the notion of "our nation's pluralism" and yet avoided, in the very midst of a comparatively non-pluralistic society, establishing a theocracy? Wait, you said this is a "risk", albeit one directly connected to a rejection of pluralism, not necessarily an absolute surety. You're good; you are good! What other pearls of wisdom have you for us poor ignorant biblically and historically illiterate laymen?:

Pluralism is much more of a strength to celebrate rather than a liability to fear.

Wow! Pluralism, excuse me, "our nation's pluralism" is not merely more of a strength to celebrate, but much more of a strength, ummm, much more to be celebrated. Nice touch. Now as the verse of the song in the hymnal says (page 101): "let's all celebrate and have a good time." But before we start, we need you to drop us another pearl'r two:

Christians can/should be completely faithful without legislating morality or theology.

Oh, I see. According to our in touch pastor, there's some sort of mystic power in Christianity which enables us believers to divorce our religious persuasions (or the lack thereof) from our political beliefs. And in addition, Christians, ummm, I mean "in touch" Christians, can and should do the impossible, i.e., avoid legislating their peculiar brand of morality. Do I need to demonstrate for the gazillionth time that all laws are based on morality, someone's morality? Even Obama, as idiotic and self-destructive as his statements which inspired the good pastor's approving statements are, was not so foolish, at least in this particular case, as to assert that the impossible is possible, even for Christians.

Let me say it again for the benefit of those who missed it the other gazillion times I've stated it: ALL laws are founded in a moral perspective, someone's moral perspective. Which is to say that all laws are created on the basis that a thing is right or it is wrong, that it is good or it is evil; that it is moral or immoral. To demonstrate this, I've used the example of abortion before. Yes; laws that favor abortion are founded on a moral perspective. If you doubt me, ask someone who favors abortion laws why they favor abortion laws. Invariably you're going to get an answer based in their particular idea of morality; generally they favor abortion because they think it is wrong (i.e., immoral) to deny a woman the "right to choose" over her own body, and that it is right (i.e., moral) to grant her this "inalienable" right. I don't care how you look at it, that is a moral perspective, and any law which has its basis in such a perspective is a moral law. And as I said, all laws have their bases in this kind of moral reasoning. Therefore, it is literally impossible to not "legislate morality," someone's morality. Question is, for the gazillionth time, whose morality are we going legislate? The great champion of diverse cultural and moral clarity, the benevolent leader for change Augustus Obama provides us the answer. Mr. Obama:

Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

In other words, whatever we once were (a Christian nation, for those who missed it), we are now an admixture of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, non-believers and etc., and whatever collective morality this odd collection produces, that is the morality that will be legislated. But with the "increasing diversity of America's population," says Augustus Obama, "the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater." One could rightly conclude from this statement that as diversity continues to increase in this country, so too will the dangers of sectarianism continue to increase, and that therefore, as the dangers of sectarianism, which are a direct result of increases in diversity, increase even beyond what they are now with further increases in diversity, it is our increasing diversity which spells our ultimate doom. And yet, according to our trippin' pastor, who sees nothing wrong with Obama's statements and in fact applauds them by the way, this diversity, religious and otherwise, is more, much more to be celebrated than to be feared. Which begs the question: what kind of junk is Pastor Tripper tripping on?

Read More

Dual citizenship, or dueling loyalties?

In a new entry titled American Exodus, Vanishing American attempts to broach the subject from at least a couple of different angles. It's a good post, and I heartily recommend that you read it in its entirety.

VA writes:

This is all well and good for those of recent immigrant stock, as apparently many European countries will accept immigrants with ancestry (even grandparents or great-grandparents) from that country. Still, that doesn't help people like me whose ancestors have been in this land for quite a few generations.

The article gives the impression that some of these people who are seeking dual citizenship have rather shallow loyalties to this country, and who are actually 'hyphenated Americans' with one foot in the 'old country.' So in that sense, they may not be bellwethers of 'White flight'. They seem to be opportunists, in many cases, who think their economic chances are better in Europe, and they have somewhat weak ties to this country. (italics added)

Yes; yet despite their weak ties to this country which it seems to me would only tend to get weaker in proportion to their distance and time away, they presumably would retain the strength of their political ties -- their U.S. citizenship -- once having established permanent residency in Europe! Nuts!

My concern here is with this whole issue of "dual citizenship". As to VA's italicized comments above, I personally have always thought that this was a given with "Americans" who are dual citizens of America and of a distinct foreign country with distinctive foreign interests.

I've written about this before and I've consistently maintained that dual citizenship in the United States and the country of one's ancestral origin, Western European or otherwise, does by definition divide one's loyalties between the two. Therefore, I think that dual citizenship should be prohibited by law.

Personally I don't even like the idea of dual citizenship for native Americans, because I think, again, that there's a division of loyalties inherent to the concept of dual citizenship, which is self-destructive. This is the reason, for instance, that someone found to have a conflict of interests is disallowed from serving on a jury. It is commonly understood that such a person cannot be unbiased in his judgment, or, stated differently, he cannot act solely in the interest of justice because he has an interest which conflicts with impartial justice.

But at least in the case of native Americans they are persons whose conflicting loyalties are not between the United States and a foreign state, but between the United States and the given Indian Nation, both confined within the same broad borders. Nonetheless, I believe that native Americans should be forced to make the choice between United States citizenship and all the priveleges and immunities that go with it, and of the tribe to which they belong. There should be no conflicting loyalties, nor any opportunity for those loyalties to conflict.

While I'm not saying that American interests are altogether distinctive from, say, Great Britian's; that the two countries do not at times share the same interests, I am saying that they also have distinctive interests which often conflict with the interests of the other. And it's on this basis that I reject the idea of dual citizenship, not just for cultural incompatibles like Muslims, but for everybody. Where am I going wrong?

Read More

Select VFR Articles; it's there for your perusal

When my son and I returned home from the football game last night (our team lost 6-3), we got on the computer and went to Webster's. Something was mentioned by one of us about the quality of the commenters over at VFR. At which point I recalled probably the most outstanding VFR comment I've ever had the good fortune to read...

That's right, I'm speaking of Kristor L's Christian apologetic which I personally cannot get enough of, and which I put up a permanent link to some weeks ago under Select VFR Articles in the left sidebar.

Indeed, as my wife, my son and I were discussing this topic, I said to them, "ya want to see a prime example of the quality of the comments over at VFR?, let me read this to you," and I began reading aloud Kristor's statements. Though they (my wife and son) seemed somewhat uninterested at first, I didn't get much further than the first couple of sentences before I knew I had their full and undivided attention, and I kept it throughout the entire reading, er, rather, Kristor kept it throughout, all I did was read.

Now, I'm not sure that I can nail down a single statement in the post, or even a couple of them as my favorites. The entire article is so good and so powerful that it is best read and studied as a whole before you break it down to its elements. But one portion which struck me as I was reading last night, and which I put a lot of emphasis on (and by the way, Kristor's skill in writing comes through as the sentences leading up to a particular point lend themselves very well to emphasizing the point in a climactic sort of fashion) during my audible reading was this paragraph:

Kristor writes:

That I am Christian makes me, not more like some other Christian--Lawrence, say, or St. Francis or Mother Teresa--but more like my own better self. At the same time, the more Christian I become, the more I will express Christian virtues, as Lawrence, Francis, and Teresa also all variously do. So with cultures. The effect upon any culture of conversion to Christianity should be, not its destruction, but that it should begin to learn how best to express its truest, best essence. If Christianity is the religion of Truth, then conversion thereto should make Greece a better, truer Greece, Russia a better, truer Russia, China a better, truer China. The reaction of any culture to Christianity should be to evoke and appropriate to itself from the whole body of universal catholic Truth those aspects thereof most pertinent to its parochial predicaments. The whole Truth is necessarily adequate to any creaturely situation. Any creature orienting itself properly in respect to the Truth cannot but find itself ennobled and more perfectly individuated thereby. And to the degree that any culture is truly converted, this beneficial effect should permeate it, down to its most trivial mundane details. Ceteris paribus, any Christian nation should find that it becomes ever happier, healthier, more prosperous--not because it is seeking these values, but precisely because it has, properly, sought first the values to be found in the Living God, of which all other values are derivates. When the landlord's values come first, the vineyard prospers, and likewise the laborers. This, even though they may suffer tortures and die martyrs.

This is just one of the several outstanding paragraphs of Kristor's apologetic writing. It is indeed that I've pointed out myself many times (though not nearly as eloquently as Kristor), when someone points to the goodness of America for instance, that yes, America can be said to be "good" and even the "best nation on earth" if the standard by which we measure her goodness is the "inferior goodness" other nations. But as Kristor so rightly notes, our nation's "goodness" is not to be measured by the "badness of," or relative to other nations. If that's the standard of measure, then all we can accomplish is to fool ourselves into believing that America, as she is now, is the ultimate in national goodness. Rather, our standard of measure for America's goodness should be America's better self. And when we hold ourselves up against that standard, our relative lack of goodness is immediately revealed to the honest observer. Furthermore, God, being the essence of goodness, it is his goodness that we should seek to emulate, as individuals as well as in our collective capacity.

End of initial post.

Read More