WEBSTER'S BLOGSPOT

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Legislating from the Bench

Here's a story brought to us from the folks over at CitizenLink. It seems like the Maryland judiciary consists of a number of judges who believe that their opinions supersede the acts of the State legislature, and that they can overturn Maryland State law whenever they deem it to be unconstitutional.

Now, I don't know how this law was passed; whether it was passed by the legislature of the State of Mayland, or by popular referendum, or whatever; I simply do not know the internal workings of the State of Maryland. But whenever you've got a situation where the judiciary believes itself to be the final lawmaking body within a State, or the nation, for that matter, you don't need a constitutional amendment to protect the law from the legislature. What you need is a convention to redefine the boundaries of the respective powers of government, and to whom, and under what conditions, you are delegating and entrusting those powers, with punishments for the violation thereof.

Self Critique

For the 100th entry to this blog, I've decided to do a little self critique on the efforts put forth to date. It's not by any means an exhaustive critique, nor is it intended to be one. But it serves well enough, I think, to illustrate where I think this blog can make some vast improvements...

First, I got off to a bit of a slow start. Having never operated a personal blog, all of my previous blogging efforts had been restricted to what little I'd done over at the AFB. In my first post here at Webster's, A New AF-Blogoventure, I explain to some extent what the idea behind having personal blogs entailed, and why the idea came to me to begin with. The truth is that I had, just prior to Webster's coming online, broken out of my shell and had begun to discover the Traditionalist Conservative blogging hemisphere.

That discovery, coupled with the fact that I usually have a lot to say on a variety of subjects that the AFB doesn't necessarily lend itself to, convinced me that a personal blog would be a good outlet for expressing those ideas and opinions more frequently, and for getting to know some of the other traditionalists who were already out there, and who had already become pretty well established as far as the blogosphere goes. Indeed, I had been living in such a bubble that I was not even aware of the traditionalist blogging movement. So much so that VFR had even escaped my radar.

The content of this blog is nowhere near where I'd like it to be as yet. So far it is not well defined, nor has it lived up to its billing as explicated in the blog description section. It is still the primary mission of this blog, as was announced from the beginning, to propagate and advance the ideas of Balanced Government which developed over at the AFB. It is, in short, to advance the concepts of returning to a national-federal structure of government overall, as the founders originally designed the framework of this government.

The process begins with the presupposition that something has gone seriously awry; that that something is reducible to a singular primary cause from which all other posthumous causes are really effects of either the primary first cause, or effects of some other secondary cause, which itself is an effect of some other cause. In other words, it recognizes the cause-effect relationship, and seeks to explain the conditions under which we now live thereby.

As I've said one way or the other so many times, what is evident on the surface is just that, surface scum. Examining this surface material should give us some insight into what lies beneath. And what lies beneath the surface is vastly more important than what is on the surface. The surface material only has value as it relates to and instructs us on the true nature of the underlying material.

But the key to it all is that we have to realize and own that the surface material itself is merely indicative of what is at the core. As long as we're treating the symptom and not the disease, we will ever continue to take more steps backwards than forward steps. It is my firm conviction indeed, that hopelessness is a well placed emotion whenever our whole approach to a given problem involves the process of attempting to limit the effects by dealing only with the effects and not the cause.

I hereby make the following commitment. From this day forward I will make a conscious effort to get to the heart of the matter on anything, any subject for which I choose to discuss on this blog. Recognizing my own limitations, I already know full well that I shall fail in this endeavor on numerous future occasions. But I hope that with my off-blog extra-curriculars, conversations and consultations with other traditionalist thinkers, the incorporation of more study and reflection, and etc., I will meet the requirements of this commitment to a fuller extent than has thus far been shown. In the meantime, I hope you'll bear with me as I continue to dust off my brain so that I can see things a little more clearly, and seeing them more clearly, thereby being equipped to express them more clearly. That is my commitment; that is the task before me. It is the very reason that I'm currently re-visiting so many volumes of material concurrently, and as we speak.

I appreciate everyone's patience, and I hope to make this blog better as time goes on.

Departing Post?

When I said in my last entry that it was a departing entry, what I meant to say was that it was the last entry for the day as I would be indisposed the rest of the day Friday. I did not mean that I was departing for good, or for the next four or five days, or indefinately, as my lengthy absence may have suggested to some of you. No; I suspect this blog, irregardless of how popular it is or isn't, becomes or doesn't become, will remain up for quite some time to come...

And besides, this entry is my 99th entry since first starting this blog. There's no way I would ever stop short of posting the 100th. Speaking of which, I reckon I should post something special for the century post at Web's, but at the moment I still haven't come up with anything that seems just right. Notwithstanding that fact, the 100th post will definately be posted by tomorrow morning.

I do owe y'all an explanation for my absence, however. First, I've been busy with other pressing items. Second, I've been experiencing some real problems with my remote server. In fact, I could not even get online most of the day today. Third, I've been working on several things relevant to this blog behind the scenes. Today, as a matter of fact, I had a nice lengthy phone conversation with my fellow AFBer, Mike Tams, wherein we discussed several items of import related to the AFB, and to this blog, and to Balanced/Constitutional government in general -- how do we get there? I appreciate Mike's willingness to hear me out on the number of points I raised, as well as his kind words, which were very encouraging. If you ever get the chance to talk to Mike over the phone, here's my advice: jump on it!

Otherwise, there are a few additional items here at Web's that some of you may or may not have noticed already. 1. I've added The Maritime Sentry blog to my blogroll. The founding father quotes over there, which it seems they put up on a daily basis, are great! Second, I've added yet another article to my Select VFR Articles section in the left sidebar. To my Links of Interest section, I've added a link to the Federalist Papers (Thanks for the suggestion, John!), as well as a link to the Federalist Patriot's Historic Documents page. One last item of note is that I've changed "Webster's Featured Entries" to Webster's Recommended Blog Posts so that I could add to that list entries from other blogs which I frequent. This idea I borrowed from John Savage over at BNWW, with his blessing. I'll be adding soon a section entitled Select AFB Posts as well, so be on the lookout for that.

Y'all look for the "century post" in the morning. I'll try to come up with something worthwhile.

What did you think of the President's speech on Iraq?

This is going to be a very short and departing entry wherein I leave the question to you in hopes that you'll express your opinion in the comments section.

My opinion is no opinion. By chance and chance alone, I had turned on the television last night just as the President was about to go on. I watched and listened to the speech for a few minutes before I dozed off to sleep. I was pretty tired to begin with, so I don't recall much of what the President said, if anything substantive at all.

I will point you the way of The Maritime Sentry blog, however, where D. Roman has posted Mike Huckabee's press release on the President's speech. With that I leave you to offer an opinion.

What does the constitution say about immigration?

The question has come up about whether a State in this Union has the right to create and enforce its own internal immigration laws, and I think this begs an answer...

I have my own view of the subject, of course, and this view of mine is liable to come out at some point along the way. Indeed, it has come out before elsewhere, but I'd like to discuss the topic here at Web's.

I'm definately not one of those "roll over and just take it, that's the way it is" kind of fellows, which is probably fairly obvious to some of you. So, when someone says to me that my State, for instance, cannot defend itself against an invasion by illegals because federal law prohibits it, I don't necessarily just accept that. I can give you a prime example here...

I recently sent an email to one of my State legislators (young fella, seems nice enough'n'all) asking whether he and the legislature were preparing to battle for our State's new immigration law. In reply he basically informed me that "the Legislature has done all it can do in crafting the law, now it's up to the courts to determine whether it'll stand." To me, this legislator has already conceded defeat. He is saying that we (the State Legislature) may suspect that the federal government has abdicated its responsibility, and if our suspicions are correct, then we have the authority to take up the slack for our citizens.

But who determines whether the State legislature's suspicions about the fed are correct? Apparently the fed, according to this legislator.

Now, I don't know whether this is the general position among the members of our State legislature. Since this individual is a democrat, and our State Congress is majority Republican, I would venture a loose guess that it's probably not the general view shared by the majority, at least not to the extent that this legislator seems to hold the view. But I certainly could be wrong.

Given that example, which is probably a pretty good measure of what State legislators believe across the country, on what principle do they found this belief?

The U.S. Constitution is deafeningly silent on the issue of immigration. In the original, Congress is given authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, Article I, Section 8. That being about the extent of what the constitution says concerning immigration, and that only by inference, it seems to me that we'd have to look elsewhere to determine whether what its silence seems to imply is in actuality the case.

Fortunately we're not left totally in the dark on the subject, or to our own devices in assuming that its relative silence on the subject means this, that, or the other. In Federalist #42, Madison discusses briefly what was intended by this phrase "The Congress shall have power...to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Says he:

"The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system, and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions. In the fourth article of the Confederation, it is declared ``that the FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States; and THE PEOPLE of each State shall, in every other, enjoy all the privileges of trade and commerce,'' etc. There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms FREE INHABITANTS are used in one part of the article, FREE CITIZENS in another, and PEOPLE in another; or what was meant by superadding to ``all privileges and immunities of free citizens,'' ``all the privileges of trade and commerce,'' cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of FREE INHABITANTS of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of FREE CITIZENS of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term ``inhabitants'' to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed. The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty, that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States."

(More to come later)

Is local control of naturalization "racist"?

According to a BBC story released yesterday, Switzerland's Federal Commission on Racial Discrimination believes that the Swiss method of naturalizing citizens is racist and discriminatory, and must incur far-reaching changes. The full story is posted below...

An official report into the process of naturalisation in Switzerland says the current system is discriminatory and in many respects racist.

The report, from Switzerland's Federal Commission on Racial Discrimination, recommends far-reaching changes.

It criticises the practice of allowing members of a community to vote on an individual's citizenship application.

Muslims and people from the Balkans and Africa are the most likely to be rejected, the report points out.

Switzerland has Europe's toughest naturalisation laws. Foreigners must live for 12 years in a Swiss community before they can apply, and being born in Switzerland brings no right to citizenship.

Under the current system, foreigners apply through their local town or village.

They appear before a citizenship committee and answer questions about their desire to be Swiss. After that, they must often be approved by the entire voting community, in a secret ballot, or a show of hands. This practice, the report says, is particularly likely to be distorted by racial discrimination.

It cites the case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim.

The report recommends that decisions on citizenship should be decided by an elected executive and not by the community as a whole. But such a move is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

Foreigners are a key issue in the run-up to Switzerland's general election next month.

The right-wing Swiss People's Party, currently leading in the opinion polls, claims Swiss communities have a democratic right to decide who can or cannot be Swiss.

My only question is this, doesn't any naturalization process imply discrimination? If it doesn't involve some level of discrimination, it's not a naturalization process at all is it? Interesting also that there's no "birthright" citizenship in Switzerland, not even for natives. I have to say, that's pretty appealing to me.

Public Service Announcement

I received a message to my inbox from the Oklahoma GOP which informs me that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will be making two stops in Oklahoma this Friday. And that these events are FREE and OPEN to the public.

My response?:

Whoopti-doo!!

Amending to do away with the threat of Islam

Go check out VFR's suggestion for what we should do about the Islamic plan to take over America, uncovered by the Justice Department.

I've said before, and I'll say again that fundamentally the threat of Islam on these shores comes down to a problem with our form of Government. The fact that our form of Government was fundamentally changed by the incorporation doctrine, where all power must ultimately reside in the central authority, is what gave rise to leftist liberalism, which in turn gave rise to the Islamic presence in this country...

However, short of an immediate "return to constitutional government," which is impractical, the United States is left vulnerable by the lawful presence of Islam in this country, due to its subversive doctrines and practices, and something has to be done about it.

Auster has offered an interesting solution to amend away the threat posed by this presence. If we could push such an amendment through, we may thereby be afforded an opportunity to concentrate our efforts on returning to constitutional, or, balanced government, soberly, reflectively, and free of the fear and subversive influence of Islam.

If the practice of the religion of Islam continues to be treated as a protected religion by the first amendment, meaning that it is equally protected with the religion of Christ, then the internal threat from Islam will continue to grow, and we will be left to fight both it, and the political doctrine most responsible for giving rise to it as itself a viable and growing political force in this country. The battle against leftist liberalism is itself difficult enough without our having to fight both it, and this political holy jihad subversively waged against us by adherents to the religion of Mohammed.

It's an interesting approach that deserves to be taken seriously.

Jefferson on Balanced Government

In his autobiography Thomas Jefferson makes his case for Balanced Government.

Jefferson writes:

But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into states, that division must be made, that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly, and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. It is by this partition of cares, descending in gradation from general to particular, that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all. ...

In a letter to Justice William Johnson, Jefferson writes:

The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. (emphasis mine)...

Jefferson continues:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

[...]

Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the general government, at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory?...Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on inference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob's ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a licenteousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union.

[...]

"The States supposed that by their ninth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers..."(emphasis mine)

Balanced/Constitutional Government via Article V?

With the direction the postings here at Webster's have taken the last few days, with no small thanks going out to Mr. Auster of VFR, I'd like to begin a discussion on how to effect Balanced Government, as we over at the AFB would describe it, and a return to constitutional government, as Mr. Auster at VFR has described it...

Yes; essentially I think that the AFB's Balanced Government, and VFR's return to constitutional government, are the very same things stated differently. But how do we get there? This is the question I'd like to investigate, and I invite everyone to join into the conversation.

To begin the discussion, I will simply point to an aspect of Article V of the U.S. Constitution which I do not believe to be widely known among this citizenry. That aspect, or provision of Article V is what I termed several years ago for my own purposes, the state initiated method of amendment. That said, I would direct you to the text of Article V itself, as well as Federalist #85. And I will let you draw your own conclusions.

I will definately be adding to this post later. Stay tuned.

Toward Amending the Constitution with pinpoint accuracy

(Note: In addition to the VFR Article linked below, see also Austers entry from today, How to drive a stake into the heart of modern liberalism, which provides some background information on Auster's original proposal, as well as his recent amendments to it.)

I've mentioned before the Enumerated Powers Amendment proposal offered by the folks over at the Federalist Patriot, and some of the reasons for which I think it a good and a necessary amendment. And truly, I thought I'd never see an amendment proposal that is as good, or that could better that one.

However, Lawrence Auster from VFR has introduced me to an amendment proposal that may well outclass that of the EP Amendment. Now, I've put little reflection to Auster's amendment proposal to this point. So I'm not going to offer any reasons as yet for why I think this one may be a better proposal. Except to say that instead of going after judicial activists and judicial activism, as the EP amendment does, what Auster is proposing is to get to the very heart of the matter which tends to this kind of activism on the part of the federal judiciary. (I have mentioned that the final sentence in the EP amendment does bother me, and this is primarily why)

One thing that has, for a long time now, bothered me about the fourteenth amendment is that its language more or less lends itself to faulty interpretations, and thus to faulty and unauthorized applications. Berger's book, Government by Judiciary, which came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster himself, deals specifically with the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment, which is very helpful to someone like myself who has seen some real problems with the fourteenth, but did not have the scholarly background to determine what the real intent of the framers actually was.

What Auster is suggesting in his amendment proposal, and in light of Berger's excellent scholarship, is that the language of the fourteenth be clarified so as to be consistent with what the framers intended by that language, not what meaning may be squeezed from the text, as Jefferson so aptly put it.

Here's the thing, I'm not endorsing Auster's amendment in this post. What I am endorsing, and emphatically so, is his willingness to explore ways of overcoming the evils we experience at the hands of the federal judiciary, via its long practice of ascribing meanings to certain phrases in the fourteenth which all the evidence shows was not originally intended by the framers of the amendment.

We all know the old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." In this case of the fourteenth amendment, this seems to be strikingly appropriate and fitting. And I absolutely agree with Auster when he says that whether it is likely that we can effect such changes via such an amendment proposal, it is nevertheless vitally important that we discuss it. And I would add that it is vitally important that we discuss, or explore ways, or means, in which there is some real potential for reaching the goal of "returning to constitutional government." The AFB deals particularly with that.

Look for more to be added to this entry later. And in the meantime, go read Auster's proposal, and tell us what you think. As I understand it, this is still a work in progress. So if you can think of something that may be added or taken away, do not hesitate to let Auster know. But on just a little reflection from this end, it looks like he's got the makings of a very good amendment here. Indeed, this may well eventually make its way into the section here at Webster's, Select VFR Articles.

The less religious we are, the more religious they see us

And I would be remiss if I did not throw a prop Hermes's way regarding his excellent entry, Freedom is slavery; increasing secularism is increasing theocracy.

My brothers over at the AFB and I have talked about this weird phenomenon before. Why is it that the less religious we become, the more the left wants to associate any mention of a return to a morally sane order, with what it perceives to be our wishing to establish a theocracy? And what makes them think that we could establish one even if that were our desire? I don't know how leftists define the term, but my definition suggests it's an impossibility outside the direct influence of God himself. By a correct definition of the term -God rule- what society has ever existed, with exception of the Israelites, that can in truth be denominated a theocracy? And please don't bore me with the conventional Roman example under Constantine's rule. Give me a break!

I should rather think that the secularists have made their secularism into a quasi-religious fanaticism. So essentially what they're vying for is a secularocracy. You want to cast about meaningless and arbitrarily defined terms, there ya go.

And by the way, this gets back to the main point of the post entered immediately beneath this one. Leftist perceptions are so utterly skewed by their view of the world that to put any serious stock in the idea that they can be relied upon to experience a timely perceptive revelation that their efforts have moved to the arena of counter-productivity, is to put our faith in a vain hope.

When will liberals shed their dhimmi masks?

Savage has an interesting entry up where he post's an excerpt from Zippy Catholic's recent entry over at What's Wrong With the World.

I commented on an assertion attributed to Zippy wherein he basically says that as long as liberal perceptions are that their acting submissive to Islam is producing net gains to their ideology, then they'll continue to act dhimmi, but not a moment longer...

In my comment to the post I was really just being facetious. I think that if what we have to rely on from liberals in joining the fight with us against Islam is their perceptions to convince them that liberalism is incurring net losses due to their feigned dhimmitude, which is more or less what Zippy is suggesting, then we may as well write them off right here, right now. With friends like leftists, who needs enemies?

Zippy may be right when he asserts that there's nothing inherent to liberalism which would have them allying themselves with Islam, but has he considered well the implications of his very thoughts on the matter, i.e., that liberals are willing to shed the specious mask of dhimmitude not a moment sooner than their perceptions inform them that they've made all the advances for liberalism that their donning of the dhimmi mask is capable of allowing.

In other words, we're to trust that liberals (who aren't particularly rational, by the way) are going to finally wake up and smell the coffee, realizing (or perceiving) at that moment that Islam is all of a sudden more of a danger to their ideology and all the advances they've made with it, than traditional conservative Americanism is. Comforting thought.

P.S. I see that Auster has posted a lengthy comment to Savage's entry at the bottom of which he provides a couple of links to VFR articles on the subject. I would also recommend this VFR entry from a few days ago where Auster explains at length two likely scenarios which relate to this topic.

Civil Rights for Minors?

(Note: This post has been expanded to include a couple of items which need to be addressed.)

Lawrence Auster over at VFR has put up an entry involving a discussion that he and I had yesterday concerning a VFR entry from 2006 he had sent me a link to in reply to a message I'd sent him regarding his entry Who and What rules America.

First of all, Note to Mr. Auster: I'm not a sponge! The "brief selection of VFR articles about liberalism" you sent me amounts to, by my calculations, 18 separate articles. It may be a "brief selection" by VFR standards, but it is not a "brief selection" by my standards! lol

Nah, just kidding y'all, I appreciate Auster's willingness to make me aware of, and provide me with the links to these articles. I've actually read several of them now. But to get to the point...

My question to Auster may be summed up in the final sentence of my initial correspondence with him on this topic where I ask:

"On what grounds did this child threaten and ultimately bring this lawsuit against his school?"

Mr. Auster's answer can be summed up in this sentence of his reply to me:

"Once you have turned schools into ideological battle grounds, you have fundamentally distorted them and the situation cannot be made right."

For a fuller understanding of the discussion as it took place, please click on the link to the VFR article, Should minors be allowed to sue their schools, even in a conservative cause?

Thanks to Mr. Auster for indulging me, and taking time to answer my question.

**********

A couple of items I need to address:

First, Auster and I seem to be in complete agreement as to what the only real and lasting solution for the problem here identified is, namely, a return to constitutional government. But this begs for an explanation as to what constitutes, to our minds, constitutional government. If the only real solution is a return to constitutional government, then we need to define in some detail what such a return would ultimately mean, or look like, or involve. I have asked Mr. Auster whether he has ever dealt with this question in a more particular way, and he informs me that he has not dealt with the question beyond the general terms in which he expresses them in his answer to me.

I therefore appeal to Mr. Auster to consider putting his talents to this important task. Some of you already know that my fellow AFBers and I have been working on, and have developed some models of what a return to constitutional government would look like, as well as what we believe the effects would be. Indeed, the whole idea of Balanced Government follows this theme of returning to constitutional government. The authority for the idea, we derive from the founding fathers and their writings on the subject. Particularly, the Federalist Papers, Washington's Farewell Address, and even Mr. Jefferson has something to say in extreme preference to governmental balance. As to Jefferson's preference to Balanced Government, I'm planning on doing a full post on it later on. As to Washington's, I already have a post up dealing with that, though it is by no means his last word on the subject.

But again, recognizing, as I do, the talents of Mr. Auster, I can see where his exploring of this subject in more detail in an article specifically intended to deal with the subject of a return to constitutional government on that level, might have the potential for some very fruitful and productive dialogue.

Second, in one of my replies to Mr. Auster, posted in the comments to the article, I say that this seems to me to be a case of the unprincipled exception. Auster replies to that statement in bold, saying that he's not sure this is a case of the UE. I did reply to his expression of doubt, wherein I explained how that I had concluded this to be a case of the UE. My reply to Auster's doubt is entered below, and italicized:

By the way, my invoking of the unprincipled exception (which I saw that you had questioned in bold) was/is based on the very principles of the unprincipled exception itself as you've defined them, or as I understand them, which state in part that liberalism does not allow for a direct attack on the principles of liberalism. So we end up dealing with the effect, rather than the cause.

This affects the nature of our conversations and our dealing with the problems of liberalism in a variety of ways, one of which, to my mind, is the customizing of our language and our rhetoric so as not to offend people (conservatives included) who are more or less liberal. This can become excessive, or extreme, and the whole point of our challenge to liberalism can be, and often is, distorted thereby. Thus, the message being distorted, the effect of the message results in minimal gains to the conservative cause.

Auster replies that he expressed doubt because I was expressing it (the UE) in an unfamiliar way. That makes a lot of sense because I've been known to do this kind of thing before in order to save space and time, and it usually ends up being a mass of confusion. For an example of what I mean here, go to the comments section of the AFB post, Why Libertarians have it Wrong, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Repairing the Breach through Balance; Checking the Extremism of Liberalism

While my mind seems to be consumed with these kind of thoughts of late, I may as well ask you to go back and re-read my entry from a couple of days ago, Washington's Farewell Speech, wherein I have added some additional relevant links, and a few other thoughts on the matter.

I'll probably add some additional thoughts, as well as some additional links to this post later.

Top Ten men of the Millenia

VA has a great post up today concerning who are the top ten men of the millenia. I put up a comment just a few minutes ago where I displace one of VA's top ten with the name King James as one of my top ten, and my reasons why. Y'all go check it out and drop her a comment on who makes your top ten list.

Now, I have to go do some research to back up (or not) my assertions about the man responsible for the KJ version of the Holy Bible.

But what a great post!

Washington's Farewell Speech

(Note: This post has undergone some minor editing so as to include the link to the full speech from whence the excerpted portion posted below was taken. And also to add just a few more thoughts, and a couple more helpful links.)

Below is posted a long excerpt from Washington's Farewell Speech. Never dull reading for yours truly.

I have highlighted in bold text portions of the speech which struck me on this, the latest of the many times I've read it. I know that many of you would highlight other portions of the speech, and indeed it's hard to pick above others certain phrases to highlight. Nonetheless I've done so here as they relate in no small way to our current situation and how to go about fixing it.

Somewhere around the house here I have a copy of the speech which I printed from the computer wherein I broke the speech down into sub-headings and cross-referenced some of the principles I have highlighted in bold below with my copy of the Federalist Papers. I need to locate that copy, and/or, print off a new one and redo the work I so laboriously engaged way back when. I think I'd rather find the old one and see whether I need to add something, rather than retracing all of those steps. Not that retracing them doesn't have its advantages too.

And by the way, a great online resource for finding many relevant historical documents associated with the story of liberty, from the Magna Charta to the Mayflower Compact; from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and to Madison's Proposal for the Bill of Rights and beyond, is provided here.

One more link I would add is to an AFB post I did apparently back in October of '06, Expanding Upon the Concept of Balance. This entry, along with its sister post, Why libertarians have it wrong, though not particularly well done, nonetheless has relevancy in this context. The discussion that ensued upon both of these postings is in some ways more helpful than the actual entries themselves.

**********

Washington writes:

[...]

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now near to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand, Turning partly into its own channels the sea men of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined can not fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and imbitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing the parties by geographical discriminations - Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western - whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.

The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have seen in the negotiation by the executive and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of 2 treaties - that with Great Britain and that with Spain - which secure to them everything they could desire in respect to our foreign relations toward confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the off-spring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; the facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of persons and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual, and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep live the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party, but in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives; but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that toward the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! Is it rendered possible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government, but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to use have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest, but even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish - that they will control the usual current of the passions or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good - that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the impostures of pretended patriotism - this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.

In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe my proclamation of [1793-04-22], is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of your representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.

After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined as far as should depend upon me to maintain it with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.

The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all.

The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without anything more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity toward other nations.

The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after 45 years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government - the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers."

Books I'm currently reading, cont.

(Note: this post has been edited from its original, and is likely to undergo other revisions shortly.)

I just received my copy of Government by Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Raoul Berger, yesterday. My copy is the second edition, hard-bound, and new, though the book is currently out of print. This book came highly recommended to me by Mr. Auster, whom I thank. I sat down and read about six chapters yesterday evening, and indeed, Auster was right when he said I would be in for an "experience."

In addition to that book, I'm still reading the two I mentioned the other day. Also, with all the discussion on Islam, I've gone back to re-read Secrets of the Koran, by Don Richardson. Richardson's book deals with the unique nature of Islam to preclude any attempt to reach its converts by the redemptive analogy method.

One other work I've been lately revisiting is Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, which encompasses four volumes. Another work of Geisler which is complimentary to, well, all of the aforementioned books is Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. As to the latter two books in particular, I began a system of cross-referencing them a couple of years ago, and it's proving very helpful to me in my current pursuits.

All of these will find their way into many of my upcoming posts. Indeed, they've inspired several posts I've already prepared yet haven't yet put up. Y'all stay tuned.

What's Wrong with a liberal being Right?

This question, in one form or another, has long been one I've thought about, but particularly of late has the question arisen very often. Stated another way it might be asked "is a liberal ever right, for the right reasons?" I acknowledge that liberals are sometimes on the right side of a question, but again, is this ever for the right reasons? It seems to me that people can be on the wrong side of a question for the right reasons, as well as being on the right side of a question for the wrong reasons. Some people are on the right side of a question for the right reasons. But is this latter possible with a liberal?...

Some of us have it, some of us don't, part 2

If you haven't been following the thread over at VFR concerning what is required of Christianity, I would strongly urge you to do so. There, Kristor L. offers us one of the most excellent pieces of Christian Apologetics I have ever had the pleasure of reading. In fact, I think I'm going to add Kristor's initial lengthy comments to my newly added feature in the left sidebar of this blog, Select VFR Articles.

In Kristor's latest, he dismantles the arguments of his critics with a skill and a precision that is rarely to be seen these days.

We've argued these things before over at the AFB and elsewhere. And often times, when I'm asked how I know God exists, my reply is simply this: "I know God exists because of the existence of evil." Which is not to say that I believe evil is a real thing; I don't. Rather, I believe evil is a deprivation of a real thing, absolute good. But the key to it is that by simply being able to distinguish between good and evil, I must have some idea of what pure goodness is, elsewise, how could I make the distinction? In a purely physical universe (devoid of a transcendent God), where all of our observances of the phenomena of nature are marked by imperfections, how could we know that these imperfections are indeed imperfections without some idea of that which is all-perfect?...

Note to Commenters

Some of you may be wondering why I'm not responding to certain comments right away, or in a timely fashion. The reason is simply this: with the new Recent Comments section added in the right sidebar, if I answer immediately, no more comments than I generally get, my comments will dominate that section, which would sort of defeat the purpose. I guess there are drawbacks to anything, and of course, that's just on trial anyhow. Of course, if I had more commenters, and/or, comments from the readers (hint, hint)...;)

Welcome Back!, and a good question

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch is back from his short, but I'm sure needed vacation, and it seems to me he hasn't missed a step in the interim. As an example of what I mean, check out this entry.

John writes:

"I'd like to ask the question: "Does it ever benefit us to claim that liberals are being hypocritical if they don't want to destroy every sexual taboo?" For example, even liberals are often viscerally grossed out by incest. Some right-leaning pundits have criticized them for not taking their position to the logical extreme and calling for an end to laws against incest. But is that a smart way for traditionalists to talk?"

And here is one way in which I would answer it:...

Perhaps some of you are aware of the recent contentious incident between a traditional church in Dallas, Tx., and the homosexual community in the area? I read the story in the Dallas Morning News, and what happened according to the story was basically this:

The church in question volunteered its facitities and its services, at no cost to the family, to host the funeral of a church member's deceased brother. The church agreed to the family's putting together of a multi-media slide show depicting the deceased's life with the understanding that church officials would view the slide-show before approving it. The issue came about in this viewing where the family had inserted photos highlighting the deceased's homosexual behavior and lifestyle. Concerns were raised with the nature of the material and brought before the family, but the family would not agree to have any of it edited. No acceptable terms could be reached, and the church reneged on its promise. But what I'm getting at here is the goofy way in which the church's spokesperson handled the questions coming from the media. He said something to the effect of:

"What if the church were to volunteer its services to host the funeral of a murderer? Would it be required of us, or would it make any sense for us to allow depictions of that aspect of the person's life to be shown in our sanctuary?"

Obviously this is a ridiculous comparison to make. And all it accomplishes is to bring into question the credibility of the church and its reasoning, or its ability to take a reasonable position on anything. I mean, this person is its spokesperson, right? You can imagine how the homosexual community in the area reacted to this explanation of the church's position. You can imagine how liberals would react to this; not very favorably.

But here's the deal. The spokesperson from the church could have strengthened the church's position and its credibility immeasurably by simply responding to the media's questions in a way that people can understand and relate. For example, he could have said something like this: "What if a homosexual church in Dallas (of which I'm sure there are several) agreed to host the funeral of the straight brother of a member of that church? Would the church allow to be shown in their sanctuary depictions and images of the deceased working to inhibit the progress of the homosexual agenda in the Dallas area? Would the church leadership not reject such material based on what it perceived to be hostility toward homosexuals of which the congregation in question is made up? Furthermore, why would the family expect it to? Why would the straight community expect it to? Is any organization bound to honor a commitment to another party when certain pre-established and known boundaries have been crossed and no acceptable compromise can be reached?"

If you're going to accuse someone from another perspective of being hypocritical, you need to be able to show examples of their hypocracy. Otherwise, don't make the accusation to begin with if you're not able to back it up.

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...

What's Wrong with Democratization?

This question has been raised many times across the blogosphere, and I've ventured into it many times myself. I've only touched on it vaguely here at Webster's, so I'd like to do a fuller investigation into the matter for the sake of the archives.

One of the main arguments I've always made concerning the question of democratizing anyone is that democracy (and I really don't even like the term democracy because it indicates mob-rule) is not a suitable form of government for some peoples and cultures. I would say that pure democracy is not a suitable form of government for any people, but I digress. Somehow we've come to believe that because we find what we call democracy suitable to our liking, that that automatically means it is equally suitable to the liking of others, they just don't know it yet. But we're bound and determined to educate them on this point and bring them to the light that what they really want and desire above all is to be free. But what is it they want to be free of?...

Let's see whether we can put together a suitable analogy here for the sake of providing some clarity to the question. Let's say that at the age of 18 some young American is accused of a violent crime resulting in the death of some other young American. Let's say that the accused is charged and found guilty of the crime, and that he is given a life sentence in prison as punishment for his alleged crime. Now, what I want to point out here is that it does not matter whether the youngster is actually guilty. What matters is the fact that he's been found guilty by a jury of his peers, and he is sentenced to life in prison. That's all that matters in this context.

Now, let's say that thirty years after the fact, all the while the accused maintaining his innocence while being confined to prison and prison life, new evidence comes out that proves his actual innocence and exonerates him of any wrongdoing. He is immediately released from prison and sent to live back in society. Does it not make sense that this person is going to have a difficult time adjusting from life in prison to a life of freedom in a free and open society? How much more so when you do the same thing to whole societies of people?

Think about some of the things this person, innocent as he is of any crime, had to learn and adopt simply to survive within the confines of an American prison. He would be continually looking over his shoulder and watching his back. Not to mention that he would have little understanding or experience with what it means to govern oneself and live peacefully among others, and so on and so forth.

If we take the truth of this and apply it to, say, Iraq and the Iraqi people, I think it is fairly evident that, whatever their innermost desires may truly be, democratizing them is a virtual impossibility, particularly in the short go. As I've said so many times before, given enough time I suppose virtually anything is theoretically doable. But I see no wisdom at all in this idea of trying to democratize peoples and cultures who are not accustomed to exercising or living under any form of freedom as we know it. And besides that, what makes us think that our own modern ideas of freedom are not themselves found wanting, and resulting in progressively less and less of the same?

Additional Items of Note

You'll note that the face of Webster's has changed just a bit. In particular the Star Spangled Banner section has been moved from the right sidebar to the left sidebar. This was done to make space for some additional items we added yesterday.

In the left sidebar, just below the American flag, you'll notice a section titled "Select VFR Articles." The articles listed are permanent links to the respective articles at the VFR site. I'll be adding more to these as I have the opportunity to read more of Auster's works on subjects which interest me, and hopefully interest you. For instance, I know that he's done quite a bit on the fourteenth amendment, one of my favorite subjects. I'm going to go through some of those articles and see what I can find to put up under that section.

Also, I've added another blog to my blogroll. For the time being I want to keep my blogroll pretty short, so I'll be adding to it very sparingly. Though I've had some extra time on my hands lately, that is soon to change and the amount of time I'm going to be able to devote to the blog will accordingly be decreased. There is also the element involved that I'm not accustomed to doing this, or to blogging. So until I get my feet under me better, I'm not really looking for a huge amount of traffic or anything like that. I want to take this slow and easy, and let it happen rather naturally. That seems the best way for me.

As always, thanks to all of you who take the time to come by, especially those of you who leave interesting comments.

The Sufficiency of Christianity

I've said innumerable times in the past that we are not to compare ourselves with others who are worse, or appear to be worse than we are to establish our "goodness." This method falls short every time because we can always find someone who possesses and exhibits qualities worse than our own until finally we arrive at the ultimate evil and the father of it, Satan. Compared against Satan, the consummate personification of pure moral deprivation, or evil, we're all righteous. And that's exactly the road we lead ourselves down when we mistakenly compare ourselves with people and nations worse than our own to establish our relative goodness.

I'd like to direct your attentions to yet another entry posted at VFR where Kristor L. establishes that the correct way, and the standard of measure we should apply in all cases is indeed the exact opposite of the above. Indeed, we are to measure ourselves against the ultimate in goodness and righteousness, the necessary Creator God. This method will never fail to shed a bright and glaring light on our deficiencies, and is the only way for societies, and those who make up society to improve themselves.

Indeed, Christianity is sufficient.

Some of us have it; Some of us don't

I know the Bible teaches us not to covet, but I can't help but covet the talent that others have with the written word. I want you to go over to Rick Darby's blog and read what Mr. Auster has to say about the beauty of disease. I don't know how many times I've attempted to express this exact kind of thought on the non-existence of evil and evil things. They are not things in themselves, they are rather deprivations of something real. But never have I been able to put it in words as beautiful and simplistic as these. What a treat!

The Dual Threat of Islam and Liberalism

I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet, and to move you in the right direction as I said what I needed to say in my entry to the AFB this morning.

But the core of the issue is this, we face a dual threat which comes in the forms of Islam, and liberalism. Both ideologies are extreme at the core. Both must be dealt with in a way that extinguishes the threat each of them pose us or we face the threat of being consumed by them, and are, in a word, dead.

In an attempt to find a way of dealing with the dual nature of this crisis, I put the question to Lawrence Auster of whether his separationist strategy for dealing with the threat of Islam might as well be capable of dealing with the threat of liberalism, which I see as just as much a threat to our safety and existence as is the extreme ideology of Islam. And here Mr. Auster answers me.

For a better understanding of where I'm coming from here, click on the link to the entry I put up this morning over at the AFB. And if you have any ideas about how to apply the principles of the separationist strategy to liberalism, do make them known to Mr. Auster.

Featured Features

How do you like that creative play on words? ;) I just wanted to make you all aware of the new features added to Webster's. All of these are added in the right sidebar and include Featured Entries, Recent Comments, and one other that's been up a while now yet I've failed to mention, the Table of Contents feature.

As to the latter, if you'll click on the button so named, the entire list of entries posted to Webster's to date will come up in the center post column of the blog. It can be a useful feature for anyone wanting to go through the complete list of posts in search of a specific topic.

As to the Featured Entries, these will be updated from time to time, so keep your eye out for that. And this is a feature I've wanted to add for a while now but didn't simply because I was waiting until I'd built an archive that contained some posts with some degree of meat to them.

In any event I hope you find these additional features useful. If not, please don't hesitate to let me know, and if I get enough negative feedback on something, I'll consider removing it. We spent a lot of time in the beginning making this blog attractive on its face. Now's the time to make it as useful as we possibly can without of course overdoing it. I need to discuss this with some friends, but one thing I'd like to add here is some permanent links to articles others have written on a given subject that compliments the overall purpose of this blog.

Thanks to all of you for remaining faithful, and I'll continue to try to improve on what we've done so far. And as always, thanks to CTO for helping me out with these new features.

The Bigotry of (using) the lower-case Alphabet

(Note: The word "using" has been added to the post title since it was first put up because with the addition the title more accurately reflects what the post is about. The parenthesis is there to distinguish between the original title and the new one.)

This morning I was involved in a discussion with someone whom I highly respect concerning the capitalizing of proper names. The issue was raised when I sent a message containing the words “islam,” and “muslim” purposely not capitalized, which I was informed should be capitalized because they are proper names. In reply I explained that this was a method of mine to discountenance these terms and what they describe. My opponent replied that this should never be done as it, in short, is a form of bigotry.

I acknowledge that there is an element of truth to this. And I understand that we need to be careful about the image we project. On the other hand, I think we tend to take things like this too far sometimes. If I say, for instance, that Islam is evil, or it is a false religion, or if I even imply these things about the Muslim faith, then how much more degrading to a devout follower of Islam can describing him as a muslim be?...

What if I call the Devil by the name satan, refusing to capitalize his proper name as an expression of my protest against him and his evil works? What if I refer to Mohammed as mohammed in the context of denouncing his supposed authority and prophethood? In referring to mohammed in this way, is this worse than identifying him as a false prophet, or comparing him with Christ as a 'farthing candle and the Sun,' if that were my choice of expressing it? Are these properly forms of bigotry on my part? To be fair to my counterpart here, I don't think he's objecting to this method of protest because he thinks I'm truly a bigot, but more based on concern for the image that methods like this tend to project. But he may speak for himself on that point.

I admit that I have an extreme dislike of and bias against the Islamic religion because, as I explained to my counterpart, the religion itself makes God out to be a liar and the father of it. It makes the unchangeable God out to be in fact changeable, and allows that he can in fact contradict himself. As most of us know, this is not possible with God, He being pure simplicity with no potentiality; we being complex beings with a great capacity for potentiality (getting better or worse).

I want to make clear that when I refer to Islam or Muslims in the lower case, it's not the people who wrongly accept this false doctrine that I'm objecting to, it is the false doctrine itself, or the religion that I object to in the form of de-capitalizing the proper names. I do the same when I refer to democrats, by that name or by their personal names many times, as many of you are by now thoroughly aware. Does this mean that I'm a bigot toward certain individuals who hold to liberal-democrat beliefs? I guess one could conclude that, yes. But I think that the evidence pretty well shows that it is the belief system I'm protesting against by this method, not the individual holding it.

So, I ask you (and please be honest) am I wrong in this? Do we not risk, in strictly observing the rules laid down by my counterpart with no departure from them allowed, censoring our very defense against the religion of Islam. What I mean is, if we accept that it is simply not allowed under any circumstances to refer to Islam in the lower-case because it seems like bigotry, then what will be our next censorship of an expression of disapproval of the religion of islam?

-DW

Webster's Recommended Blog Posts

Recent Comments

Blogs, websites and links of Interest

Label Cloud

Blog Archive

The Star Spangled Banner

Select AFB Articles

Select VFR Articles

On Islam

About Me

Blog Description

Countdown

Subscribe via email

Site Statistics

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Friday, September 14, 2007

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Monday, September 10, 2007

Sunday, September 9, 2007

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Friday, September 7, 2007

Thursday, September 6, 2007

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Monday, September 3, 2007

Sunday, September 2, 2007

Saturday, September 1, 2007