Some thoughts I’ve been having about a document lately of interest…
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
What the Declaration is, is a petition for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. It converted the armed insurrection in the colonies into a War for Independence — a war to secede from the British Empire.
Today it is commonplace to be told there are no rights to revolution, nor to secede — that any question about a right to secede was settled by Union victory in the Civil War. Yet the existence of the United States is a prima facie rebuke to that argument. The Union could not by force of arms annihilate that very resort that created it. A man might as well claim that by killing his pregnant sister he proved he did not gestate in, and emerge from, his mother’s womb.
There are reasons why it was good that the Continentals won their war for independence, and there are reasons why it is good that the Confederacy did not win theirs — but the claim of a right to secede from a parent government cannot stand unqualified as a reason in favor of one and against the other. If the Confederacy was wrong about this in the 1860s, the Continentals must also have been wrong about it 90 years earlier. And the Continentals were not wrong.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
In this day and age one of the concepts we most urgently need to stress is the unalienability of true rights; they are neither granted nor subject to removal by the State at whim.
It’s also important to note that the rights explicitly named are “among” the unalienable rights with which we are endowed. This makes it clear that the listing is incomplete. As broad as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” may seem, the members of the Continental Congress that adopted this declaration were quite comfortable with the idea that the rights to which we are entitled, by sole virtue of our humanity, extend even further.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Governments are instituted not to grant rights, but merely to secure those which we already have.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
More right to revolution — and here is explicitly described the overthrow of a delegitimized government, rather than merely the removal of a portion of its people from its reach. Here the Declaration lays out a basis whereby the people of Great Britain, had they deemed it necessary, could have overthrown the House of Hanover — if not the monarchy itself. The armed overthrow of a sitting monarch is a common theme in British history, while the outright overthrow of the monarchy had only happened once, but more recently to those alive in 1776 than 1776 is to us in 2015.
What follows in the Declaration is the listing of grounds for the divorce being sought. I’ve seen a lot of comparisons over the last 20 years or so between that listing and the sorts of things our own federal government has done; anyone who would like to reprise such a comparison can certainly do so — personally, I think we’re past the point of needing to.
The government schools have failed to teach the founding documents effectively. If you are a Christian who feels called to witness for Christ, you can understand when I say we all need to witness for our constitutional republic. If you are not one of those Christians, this is your chance to understand their calling.
Clearly, sir, you are a nutcase.
And, since I agree completely, so am I.
I guess I’m an all-out, 100% USDA nutcase, then.
Damn well put, McGehee. Heck, you even touched Eloquence there – who wudda thunk it?
For a long time, up until, well, now, I thought that Lincoln did the right thing, but that it violated the spirit of the Founding and the Constitution. But it seems that far from violating the spirit of the Constitution, it validated the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. While I consider the States Sovereign and they should be free to leave the Union if they so choose, I think it would be a terrible mistake and I think you make that case.
Thanks.
It should be a last resort. After all, the last two secessions — the successful and the thwarted — were bloody.
Huh, now I gotta update my self identification. I’m a born again classical Christion, evangelical constitutionalist, and family man.
I like it. “conservative” has kinda lost its flavorI think. Might even say it’s ‘stained’…
Crap. Link.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/11718563/Republicans-cast-into-turmoil-as-Donald-Trump-rides-the-populist-surge.html
Sorry, should have been ‘scarred’.
We got problems when a guy that’s not even conservative is making the self avowed conservatives nervous about all the conservitusm.
And I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an obvious hit peice. The pictures are hilarious, but the misrepresentation of his words is downright disturbing.
Insty’s USA Today column addresses this.
Mostly to say that the DoI should keep the powerful awake nights.
Which, yes.
link
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/05/declaration-of-independence/29734667/
We don’t need to take ownership of every clown that declares himself or herself a Republican.
The left wants us to do that, of course. That’s a good reason not to.
Also, we are NOT the conservatives any more. We don’t want to keep the crap currently in place, we want to be rid of it.
We are the radicals.
The re-revolutionaries.
>We are the radicals.<
or the fundamentalists?
i would like to see a more fundamentalist: america, christianity, and islam.
2 of the 3 are for the individual.
An opinion, it appears, not shared by all:
The Voxian should stay in the UK and enjoy the unrivaled right to non-defense and move there permanently for the coming sharia law.
Oh this is good too on the DoI.
Vox’s disapproval settles the matter: Canada should have come away with us.
I can go with that.
God save the queens!
Cranky wrote:
Actually…no.
We do not seek Revolution, but, rather [and like the Founding Fathers], a Restoration of our Rights as Americans.
So: we are conservatives.
Radicals wish to tear-down the existing Society and all of it’s institutions and it’s Culture and build a new order [ala: as happened in France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, etc.].
What happened in America in 1775 was not a Revolution. As E.J. Payne [the Editor of Edmund Burke’s Papers] put it so succinctly and accurately, what happened here was ‘a revolution not made but prevented’.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn had an interesting take on our War For Independence [emphasis mine]:
[Source: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/02/14/the-exile-returns#%5D
As Russell Kirk remarked:
[Source: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/08/a-revolution-not-made-but-prevented.html%5D
We don’t need to take ownership of every clown that declares himself or herself a Republican.
The left wants us to do that, of course. That’s a good reason not to.
Meanwhile they have no problem – nor does the MSM (BIRM) – pretending that Democrat extremists are just one-offs who have nothing to do with the party as a whole, nor of any of the policies advocated therein. Never mind how close the Venn diagrams might be, they are not representative of their party.
Such as Westboro Baptist Church (created by, manned by and run by Democrats), the KKK (the militant arm of the Democrat Party), the Gaystapo (not a single Republican anywhere to be found), Code Pink (ditto), Occupy {fill in the blank}, etc., etc.
And as far as Trump goes, he may be an asshole. He may be rude, crude, socially unacceptable and politically incorrect. He may not be Presidential (although after having the bar set so low due to the current occupant, that is debatable). He even has a crappy toupee. I would never, ever vote for him.
But he’s RIGHT. Every single one of the illegal immigrants flooding the border are criminals, and many of them are violent felons, up to and including rape and murder.
Damn well put, DW.
One small quibble: The Gaystapo does have a GOP Branch – example: try having a civilized conversation with most Homosexual Republicans about fake marriage.
The phrase ‘hissy-fit’ comes to mind in many cases or they have no problem with the way fake marriage was just imposed by a Tyrannical Supreme Court of The United State.
There’s nowt so queer as folk as gay libertarians as well. There is one fellow I know who even once ran for office on the Libertarian ticket. When it comes to gay marriage he is all for any anti-constitutional government/court involvement to get it legal.
He does not care much for “anti-gay Christians” but, is against the mob tactics against Christian bakers etc. So, I’ll give him that.
The courts can define marriage as they wish. I will not join their delusion.
I know Tracy won’t lose sleep over it, and I encourage her not to. I’ve politely refrained from commenting on the unions of other gay acquaintances, and will continue to do so, but anyone who attempts to pressure me to refer to them by the M word will get pushback — gentle at first.
[…] at Protein Wisdom, McGehee has published a fine analysis of, and musing on, the meaning of The […]
If you want to see some REAL venom-fueled gnashing of teeth from a Starboard-side gay man, read Bill Quick.
Who has bought into one of the most pernicious lies that our culture tells: prior persecution of your tribe (whether you were personally there or not) gives you the right to destroy your putative enemies, whether they were personally there or not.
That’s right, Bill: “First they came for the Christians, but the bastards deserved it, so I joined in. And I liked it.”
That’s one thing I was never taught growing up: the persecutions of my ancestors were recounted over and over, no holds barred, but it was never to foment resentment or to keep wounds open or plot revenge.
EVER.
It was always to illustrate what Christian discipleship is likely to cost you and to express admiration for the strength of their faith and to take the example, i.e., if your ancestors could stand strong in the face of that, then you can stand up to your stupid friends when they invite you to smoke doobies behind the shop building.
So here’s the general principle: Intense personal pain on your part—including pain that was inflicted by utterly unjust, socially approved means, over a course of decades or generations—does not entitle you to do jack to anyone else.
After all, Hitler was right about Versailles.
Just for fun, some LDS scripture regarding government’s role vis-a-vis freedom of conscience.
“We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. …
“We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime,but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
“We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, … and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience”
Not a word of that entire statement (at the link) was controversial when it was written in 1835, nor was it ever until about a year ago.
The speed of change is a vortex, me hearties, such as they use to trap zebra and herd them into a truck: the farther down the curtained path, then narrower it gets.
Insufficiently Independent to Hold an Independence Day Parade
I’ve said it before, Bill’s a crank. There but for the grace of Someone whose existence Bill denies, goes LGF boy.
As for tribal grievances, I may be wrong but doesn’t BQ claim to be a libertarian? His identity grievance issues seem to belie such a claim.
I’ve got plenty of ancestors who would have had ample reason to hate the English. But those ancestors and their persecutors are dead now. One way or another their grievances are long since settled. We Americans don’t do “corruption of blood.”
At least, not legally.
Bill Q has lost his mind. Apparently he has lost a significant percentage of his readers over garriage, and he wants revenge for every slight ever suffered by any homo since Moses came down from the mountain. His main form of commenting consists of calling people stupid or bigots or evil or a all three.
A nasty peice of work, in short.
Dear Bill Quick: You’re Wrong In Every Claim You Make, and You’re Enlisting Yourself Out as an Enemy of Freedom
How to insult a “progressive”
A big problem with identity politics is every negative experience in life is attributed to persecution of your tribe. Like that stupid senator that said a white baby cried when he saw her because she’s black, and advised the parents to let the baby (18 months) be around more black people.
My 16 month old granddaughter whom I hadn’t seen in two months cried when she saw me! For cryin’ out loud!
And as if the stupid outrages aren’t enough, it’s pretty much the same with legitimate outrages. A guy gets called a nigger because that’s what will piss him off. If he wasn’t black, then he’d be fatty, or dumbo ears, or fag (whether he is or not), or slut, or nerd, or whatever. We ALL gotta deal with assholes.
The best defense is keep your dignity. Our culture went a different way…
That Steyn column ought to mandatory reading. It’s everything that Tocqueville predicted about democratic man.
Quick once wrote that I was a butt-licking lap dog for Stacy McCain.
I’d rather be that than a butt-licking lap dog for Ideology.
Yeah Ernst, it’s like the USA never happened. We’re right back to being euro-trash subjects of the crown.
I just have to say, if it weren’t for Cruz and Walker, I would vote for Trump. If there is any single issue that, er, trumps the rest, it’s immigration policy.
Second for me (rember, we’re talking POTUS) is national security and foreign relations. Sounds like Trump has a good handle on that, given his rhetoric on Mexico.
I don’t care really about his views on social issues, the president has little influence on abortion and garriage anyway. What we need is a man that loves America and can lead. If the choice is Trump or Shrillary, I’ll have way less regret voting for Trump than I would Jeb.
In fact, I’ll never vote for Jeb.
Or Chistie. Or Romney, or Rubio.
Party hacks all…
Now ESPN pulled a golf tournament from a Trump course.
I’m canceling their ass.
Trump is a stalking horse for Hillary.
This.
Although still, if by the time of the Georgia primary the only ones left are The Toupee That Ate Manhattan and
JebChristieMittHuckabeeKasich, and if I have some other office where I want to vote in the GOP primary…
Why not make history again with the first Toupee-American president?
Maybe Darleen, but that ain’t why the establisent has the long knives out, is it?
Lee
I don’t give a rat’s ass what the establicans feel about The Donald
He’s there to make trouble for any who challenge the Clintons. Any outrageous thing he says, he knows will end up as “What all Republican candidates really think” as carried by the Democrats PR arm (aka “mainstream” media).
Especially as his — reported — poll numbers go up.
Maybe so, Darleen, but, so far, he’s saying what needs/must be said.
This is the dilemma for us.
Ted Cruz is handling Trump’s comments in an interesting way. The rest of the drones are being weak and cowardly.
What needs saying again? The nation is in the midst of a crisis of regime change and what needs saying is insupportable triviality? Whoa. Off the rails? Seems hardly likely when there are no rails.
What needs saying is what Trump is saying about illegal immigration and Mexicos culpability. Unless, like all the rest of the candidates save Cruz you think an invasion over our southern border is not worth talking truthfully about. In that case dismiss him as a chump and hope Bush is right about all the love.
Because Jeb-Jeb and Hell Toupee are the only choices.
In a hierarchy of needs the drowning man doesn’t want for a drink of water. But look to a man like Trump, a genuine vulgarian to make sure the drowning man will have it, if only because so doing is good for Trump, who after all is said and done must come first. Guiding Americans back to an embrace of their one time shining political order, and away from the contempt now instituted for it, needn’t be required of a great man like “The Donald”.
Trump is helping the Jeb-Jeb camp portray anti-amnesty in caricature, because Trump likes being a caricature.
Meanwhile it won’t matter what anyone else says against amnesty because Trump is happily sucking away all the oxygen.
Trump talking about amnesty is every bit as helpful as running against Obamacare with Romney.
Too rich to be bought? Don’t you believe it — at his level the currency isn’t cash.
So if a clown is the only one speaking the truth, disregard the truth ‘cuz of clowns.
Trump is exposing the bullshitters.
The truth – ahahaha – and Donald Trump, wedded as one. Yes, clown indeed to put up against the ClownComprehensiveCatastrophe. Good one.
Fine. But don’t bitch about the establishment anymore, it sounds as if nothing less will do.
Maybe restrict the primaries to career politituons, just as the founders invissioned. That’s the ticket.
Keep squealing, it just makes people support him more.
I think I broke my spellcheck…
Don’t bitch about “the establishment”? I’ve not said a word about the establishment, you pimple on the ass of humanity. Take a look at genuine statesmen like Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, why don’t you? Find any resemblance to Donald Trump at all? No? Fancy that.
Reagan is dead, but I rember people calling him a clown too.
Also, insults don’t make you sound smarter.
Insults are for the purpose of getting your attention Lee. Think harder. Start with the words.
You do remember 1979, right? Reagan the actor that did chimp movies. Yup. You make Trump sound like a genius compared to what Reagans detractors had to say.
I made it clear (I thought) Trump is not my guy. All I’m saying is he is speaking the truth about illegal immigration, and exposing the liars on the issue. Hi Romney, Jeb, Rubio, and Perry. You are all now bigger clowns than Trump. Own it bitches.
That’s your takeaway from all this? Seriously?
In a way that helps the pro-amnesty side.
On purpose.
Donald Trump is a billionaire. One does not become a billionaire by being a fool — he just plays one on TV. He is a master showman and marketer, who always looks exactly the way he wants to look.
And right now he wants to look like a buffoon so he can take the anti-amnesty crowd for a ride.
How does he help the amnesty side speaking the truth about what is happening?
Kinda like how Rush helped Obama by saying “I hope he fails”?
“Because Jeb-Jeb and Hell Toupee are the only choices.”
That’s what you took away from whatI I said? Seriously?
How does he help the amnesty side speaking the truth about what is happening?
Because when you wrap that corn kernel of truth in a bunch of shit, everyone recoils from the shit.
What shit?
I guess you have to throw out Cruz. He didn’t recoil in horror from what Trump said.
Big brush of “nothing but criminals” shit coming from Mexico and never the word “illegal” in there at all.
Mexican = criminal whether legal or illegal.
Donald is not stupid, he made those remarks deliberately so all the leftist asswipes can point and say “see? see? told you so! bunch of xenophobic racists!”
Donald will be sitting pretty on his money, redeemed and welcomed into Hillary’s White House and parlay that into even more $$$$.
Lee
I want people to IGNORE the Donald. Quit giving him oxygen.
I like Cruz a lot, but WTF is he doing saying SCOTUS rulings can be ignored by the states?
geez, of all people!
You didn’t know he was talking about illegals?
I guess it is like “I hope he fails”.
Did you know a third of our prison population is illegals? Hey, cream of the crop those American lovers crawling under the fence…
When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. –
Where’s the word illegal, Lee?
and NO this is not “I hope he fails”. At all.
Geez, Lee, like I know nothing at all about illegals and how they effect the legal system.
Also, he’s talking about the Mexican government. You know, those noble folks that teach Mexicans how to sneak into our country, while pursuing totally different conditions going the other way. And running such a shit hole a quarter of their citizens illegally come here.
Fuck’em in the neck if they can’t stand the truth.
When Trump announced, I made some comment to the effect that some anti-Establishment Republican candidate needed to address the issues Trump addresses with similiar resonanance before Trump sucked all the oxygen out of the field and left us with Bush.
This thread has certainly become a performative of my point. Because the only thing agreed on in this thread post Trump: Clown or Idiot-Savant? is that we’re not going to vote for Bush or Christie or any other GOPer with the Establishmment taint. Which of course benefits Hillary Clinton.
A country that would nominate Jeb as the opposition deserves Madame President. At this point, what difference does it make?
There are at least 8 Rs running that I’d be happy to vote for; as such, I’m positive that I will not be given that opportunity.
Reminding us of an important truth that the Deciders would rather we left forgotten:
namely, that the doctrine of Judicial Review, the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, is not to be found in the Constitution.
Personally, I’d like to see some states ignore SCOTUS.
“, the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says, is not to be found in the Constitution.”
Especially since only five Supremes are actually deciding in all these sketchy rulings.
To bad we couldn’t get 25-30 states to collectively tell the SCOTUS they don’t have the necessary authority in the constitution to infringe on states rights.
We’re going to need a restoration of federalism by some means to bring back America. The next president can not do that, it has to be by the will of the states. I’m not opptimistic. If we can’t even agree illegal aliens are a scourge on our land what hope of getting control of our own out of control government?!
The media propaganda and government school indoctrination has been too powerful and now half the country are socialists and have the other half confused and cowed. I find it disturbing.
>I like Cruz a lot, but WTF is he doing saying SCOTUS rulings can be ignored by the states? <
+At the very least, Cruz knows enough about the separation of powers to make the bold suggestion that some states have a legal basis to ignore or resist the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision legalizing gay marriage. …
Politico goes on to say that “Cruz’s statement may be technically true,” which is another way of saying that Cruz is right, isn’t it? Well, not quite: the last four words of the previous paragraph—“absent a judicial order”’—are crucial. It is a mere formality for someone to go into federal district court and ask for a writ to overturn a state’s laws restricting marriage to one man and one woman, and lower court judges will have to apply the holding of Obergefell.
But that isn’t the end of the story. Cruz is on to something larger here. He’s trying to channel Lincoln’s attempt to confine the damage of the Dred Scott case in his first inaugural address:+
link
Ernst, towards what you said regarding Trump, for that plan to work the rest of the field would have to be weenies, best to find that out now.
I’ll say again, as far as I know Cruz is the only one not tripping over his
sanctimonious bumper lipfeet distancing themselves from hard, cold truth.To be fair, I haven’t heard all 47 candidates comments on the plain talking clown.
Ernst wrote: Personally, I’d like to see some states ignore SCOTUS.
Me too, because the ensuing controversy could bolster the efforts to get an Article V Convention Of The States [only] going.
One of Mark Levin’s suggested Amendments is:
Our side has to start being bolder and throw caution to the wind.
You need 34 states to at least agree to consider the proposal, and then 38 to ratify it.
Trump is a faux populist pandering to people’s baser instincts. It’s easy for him to embrace the audacity of the outrageous soundbite –money’s no object for him. Other candidates don’t have that luxury, so I woldn’t necessarily equate reticence with insipidness. Someone is going to have to find a way to identify the problem in a way that challenges people to join together in achieving a solution in a way that’s more than merely blaming different people for being a part of the (or even the problem itself.
I should also add that, when we’re accustomed to having the Elites inflict insult and injury upon us on a regular basis, it’s all too easy, in that moment of schadenfreude while watching the Elites themselves sputter for a change, to not want to see Trump for the demogogue that Trump is.
That was a long winded way of saying I like Walker because he offends all the right people for all the right reasons. Trump offends all the right people too, but I’m not sure it’s for the right reasons –at all.
Yeah, I’m thinking of a stand rather than a legal process.
You aren’t gunna see limited government again without another, actual, revolution. Red glare, bombs bursting, the whole nine yards. The Feds just ain’t going to do it otherwise.
And now on topic!
Oh, that was for your 7:46…
A Cruz/Walker is my dream ticket.
“But I’m not sure it’s for the right reasons –at all.”
I don’t even care why Trump is telling America the way it is. I’m just happy he is. He’s turning out to be a great exposer of closet RINO’s.
>
Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both.
Section 75
<
linkhttps://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer