Replies

The interloper has not only fundamentally changed America, he has also fundamentally made the entire world less safe.

So the New World Order will be replaced with the New World Disorder?

Forget the world! My own neighborhood is no longer safe, and now they’re talking about wanting to take away our ability to defend ourselves from the ghetto thugs who are invading?

FUBO. FU straight to your Marxist Muslim, buttf$&%ing Hell!

And Kerry is nothing but a traitor, pure and simple!

Hanson says: "A theme of Western philosophy from Plato to Tocqueville has been the people’s preference for equality, rather than greater freedom and prosperity with the attendant cost of inequality. The idea of an America more or less the same as other countries — imperiled by debt, class tensions, and festering social problems, and without a global footprint — will be welcome news to most of the world, even as their own neighborhoods become much poorer and more dangerous places.

"Indeed, the worse the U.S. performs, and the lower the American profile abroad, the more the world likes Barack Obama — almost as if to say, “At last, they’re just like us.”

"Progressive" pundits yesterday gloried in President Obama's 2nd Inauguration emphasis on "equality."

Clearly, the oppressed individuals who have flocked to America's shores for over 200 years have not looked for "equality." Rather, they were on a search for the opportunity to exercise their Creator-endowed, therefore unalienable, individual right and opportunity, under a system of self-government, free from the restraints of artificial laws, to the "pursuit of happiness."

This Administration's attempts at selling "equality" as a proper goal of America's federal government reveals either extreme ignorance of America's founding principles, or it reveals an outright attempt to "change" the very limitations and prohibitions on government authority and power provided by the Constitution it swears to uphold.

Ordinary citizens in the founding period understood that an appeal to "equality" represents a threat to liberty and a grave danger of tyranny in a Republic--yes, as Dr. Franklin stated upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, "A republic. . . if you can keep it."

For verification of the level of understanding among citizens of that day "Of the Nature of Equality in Republics," we might consult "The Founders' Constitution," Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51, The University of Chicago Press here, click on "Equality," and then on #51--the Nathaniel Chipman essay by that name.

Reading Chipman, even a high school student might understand that the kind of "equality" envisioned by America's so-called "progressives" is not a legitimate goal of America's federal or state governments. Such "equality" requires coercive action incompatible with liberty. It is a limiting concept--not one that promotes opportunity or freedom.

Here are excerpts from Chipman's essay:

"Some of the most eminent writers on government, have supposed an equality of property, as well as of rights to be necessary in a republic. They have, therefore, prescribed limits to individual acquisition. The Reason given is, that riches give power to those who possess them, and that those who possess power, will always abuse it to the oppression of others. If this be a good reason for limiting the acquisition of riches, there is equal reason for limiting the improvement of bodily strength and mental abilities. Such a step would be an abridgement of the primary rights of man, and counteract almost all the laws of his nature. It would, perhaps, could it be reduced to practice, place the whole human race in a state of fearless quietude; but it would be a state of tasteless enjoyment, of stupid inactivity, not to be envied by the lowest tribes of the animal creation.
"If such be the principles of a republican government, it is a government out of nature. Those have made a wiser choice, who have submitted to the less tyrannical principles of absolute monarchy. These are not the principles of a republic. They are the principles of anarchy, and of popular tyranny."

. . . .

"Let us not, in a Republic, attempt the extreme of equality: It verges on the extreme of tyranny. Guarantee to every man, the full enjoyment of his natural rights. Banish all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honors. Leave free the acquisition and disposal of property to supply the occasions of the owner, and to answer all claims of right, both of the society, and of individuals. To give a stimulus to industry, to provide solace and assistance, in the last helpless stages of life, and a reward for the attentions of humanity, confirm to the owner the power of directing, who shall succeed to his right of property after his death; but let it be without any limitation, or restraint upon the future use, or disposal. Divert not the consequences of actions, as to the individual actors, from their proper course. Let no preference be given to any one in government, but what his conduct can secure, from the sentiments of his fellow citizens. Of property, left to the disposal of the law, let a descent from parents to children, in equal portions, be held a sacred principle of the constitution. Secure but these, and every thing will flow in the channel intended by nature. The operation of the equal laws of nature, tend to exclude, or correct every dangerous excess.
"Thus industry will be excited; arts will flourish, and virtuous conduct meet its just reward, the esteem and confidence of mankind. Am I deceived? or are these the true principles of equality in a democratic republic? Principles, which will secure its prosperity, and, if any thing in this stage of existence can be durable, its perpetual duration."

(End of excerpt)

He missed the war that is about to go hot any day. China verses Japan. US policies have placed Japan into a very weak position. The Chinese own lots of worthless US debt notes. They will take it out on Japan.

A sobering essay; thanks for posting.

There is, to be honest, very little that indicates that 0bama even has a foreign policy, or ever intended to. Agree or disagree with the Bush policies with respect to the Middle East, at least the observer has to admit that he had them. Whatever else we make of this hodgepodge in Libya, Egypt, and now Syria, a coherent policy is nowhere to be seen.

Part of this is that from day one 0bama treated foreign policy as a subordinate concern to be farmed out to an equally unqualified political opponent in Hillary Rodham Clinton, to be run as a fiefdom somewhere beyond the borders of progressive domestic policy. It could be worse, of course, and apparently in the nomination of John Kerry, 0bama is proving to the skeptics that it will be.

One article of faith held by the international Left is that a disengaged America will be somehow better for human rights than one engaged in Pax Americana. We are seeing that tested today, and so far the results appear somewhere between feckless and disastrous. As near as I can tell even the aims of the proliferation of international socialism are not being advanced, far less the aims of legitimate U.S. foreign policy. The thugs though, they're doing fine.