Good article.
The snowflakes look upon the 5’ 7” Shapiro as if he’s Godzilla.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEJo7x9y3D4
And, today, my contribution is from John Quincy Adams’ “Jubilee” of the Constitution Address in New York City - April, 1839, an excerpt from which is quoted below:
From time to time , the question arises as to whether this Constitution structured a “democracy” or a “republic.” Many generally understand the difference, but on this day, we might explore that question again—especially for the benefit of our youth.
What if we had an answer on the “democracy/republic” question from an original source who actually lived through the Revolutionary Period? What if that source also provided the Framers’ rationale for the underlying principle and the reason for Benjamin Franklin’s purported response to the question as to what kind of government they had given us. His response, “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”
John Adams’ son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, 20 when the Constitution was framed, and from his teen years, served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive on the subject at hand.
In 1839, John Quincy was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the “Jubilee” Address (www.lonang.com) honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. After all, he had served in many capacities under that Constitution, including Ambassador, Sec. of State, President, and Congressman. He delivered that lengthy discourse which should be read by all who love liberty, for it traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government. His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source for understanding the kind of government the Founders formed than those of recent historians and politicians. He addresses the ideas of “democracy” and “republic” throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
“Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
“It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
“1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
“2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitled them.
“3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
“4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
“5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
“6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
“7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
“8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
“9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
“10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
“11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
“And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide.”
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
“But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained.”
______________________ (End of excerpt)
And, finally, an Excerpt from the “Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon” (1886) (of Declaration of Independence) by a Black Ohio Legislator and A.M.E. Bishop Benjamin W. Arnett on “The Greatness of America” - Note that this Sermon is delivered only a few years after the end of the Civil War by this outstanding scholar/legislator/Bishop.
“Let us see what it is that makes us so great; wherein lies our strength. What has made us one of the greatest powers of the earth, politically and intellectually? Have we come to the conclusion that it is Righteousness that exalteth a nation? We have met to-day at the request of the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, and also the Governor of our beloved State, Rutherford B. Hayes. For what? Why call us from our homes? Why come to the house of God? Why not go to the hall of mirth and to the places of amusement to-day? No that is not what they want us to do. We are commanded to go to our ‘several places of worship, and there offer up thanks to Kind Providence which has brought our nation through the scenes of another year, and blessed the land with peace, plenty and prosperity.’ Then as Americans we have reason to rejoice and congratulate ourselves on the greatness of our beloved country; at this the close of the first hundred years of experimental government of the people, by the people, and for the people. To be a citizen of this vast country is something, and to share in its privileges and duties is more than something.” - Dr. Benjamin W. Arnett, 1876 “Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon” - Library of Congress - African-American Section
It is ironic calling a Jewish guy a Nazi. What foolish sheep these Antifa snowflakes.
>>Is it true that, across the country, a dangerous spirit of white nationalism is on the rise? Absolutely, and it has helped trigger an equally ugly response from the left (along with a dangerous black nationalism).
BS! Any “rise” in nationalism, white or merely American, is largely due to the agenda of the Left and their plantation voters. They triggered us, and we don’t hide in a safe space when we get triggered. We get behind real triggers!
This seemed surprising for Michael Barone - he is listed as the author at Townhall, but if you look up the book, it is authored by Michael Brown. My guess is he is the one who wrote this - sounds a lot more like his style than Barone’s
Here is our progressive, "spiritual", tolerant, inclusive, opinion
- now you shut up and agree to disagree...
you nazis!
[IDIOTS REACT TO MAN WITH SIGN]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL0tRHvBlQQ
[The Architects of Western Decline: A Study on the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism]
His sarcastic title masks an important message.
Pleasantly surprised!
“I personally hope that many millions of Americans will make an effort to “taste and see” that God’s ways are best. Yes, the radical, Jesus-based cure to our self-centered, narcissistic mentality is life-giving, liberating, and even culture-transforming.”
That statement surprised me. I don’t know why but I always thought Michael Barone was agnostic when it came to religion. Regardless, good for Michael. May God bless him.
Traumatized UC Berkeley students were offered counseling if needed.
“Is it true that, across the country, a dangerous spirit of white nationalism is on the rise? Absolutely, and it has helped trigger an equally ugly response from the left”
Total BS.
He has it exactly backwards. If there’s a rise in white nationalism it is due totally to the vile antiwhite violence and propaganda from the left. At some point you need to defend yourself.
You are not what you are, and things are not what they are, both are what The Narrative requires them to be. Once you grasp this you understand why progressivism is so profoundly anti-freedom, anti-truth, anti-thought.
No AntiFa, no AntiFa violence, no public expenses associated with quelling their violence.
We know who it’s lefties when they chant “hey hey ho ho.”
Traumatized UC Berkeley students were offered counseling if needed.
I listened to his talk, up until the barely intelligible question period.
He is smart, articulate, and an asset to conservatism.
It is through younger people like him, that conservatism can once again be taught, instead of resting on laurels since Reagan’s time.
I note the professional left just realized their Antifa associations were harming, not helping them, so they broke the ties, at least officially.
Absolute total B.S.
I'd say a MAJOR PROBLEM in the United States these days, is that when people try to defend the right, for some stupid (...and ignorant, and misguided, and betraying, and undercutting, and destructive) reason(s), they stipulate Leftist ideological propagandist tenets to be true when they aren't, thus reinforcing their big lies.
White nationalist racism is not on the rise. Please, where is the evidence? There isn't a smidgen of it.
This is like saying banks are evil for hiring more security guards when there's a very large increase in bank robberies in an area. Whites could easily be expected to react to racist/xenophobic actions against them. In truth, this happens entirely too infrequently even now. It almost never happens in a meaningful way.
This guy bought the Charlotte chicanery. The Left hoodwinked him.
Read that last part there. "It helped trigger..." NO IT DIDN'T! This is tantamount to putting the blame on the woman who was raped. She caused it. No, there is no excuse for rape, and in this instance Whites didn't cause a thing. The left started the BLM efforts and Whites did nothing to instigate it. Where is the White movement that resembles this? Crickets! Where is the corresponding Conservative movement to equal ANTIFA? Crickets!
Please author, tell us how we're guilty for cause ANTIFA too while you're at it. Good freakin grief!
A White officer was beaten by a Black man, and when the Black man returned to the scene to finish the job (a very reasonable fear of the officer), the officer shot him dead.
Whites did not cause any of this.
If people are gong to piecemeal reinforce Leftist lies in their otherwise reasoned articles, I'd really appreciate it if they'd go fishing instead of publishing.
Where has your loud voice from the bully pulpit of media whores, been for calling out the thugs, anarchists, commnists and black nationalists before now?
There are white supremacists but Shapiro is not one of them.
More likely a liberal, a leftist or Democrat.