American-Manifesto.com In Defense of American Exceptionalism

The following was a letter submitted to the Inquirer in response to this letter.

A recent letter challenged anyone who has studied history to identify even one founder who would have agreed with Justice Scalia on guns.  I’ve studied our history and here are just a few.

James Mason: “to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them”.  Thomas Jefferson: “no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms” and “let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks”.  Samuel Adams: “the constitution should never be construed to prevent the people…from keeping their own arms”.  John Adams: “arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self defense”.  That just scratches the surface.   The founders, in fact, had a rather strong opinion on the subject.

It is also worth noting that the letter’s author clearly never read the Heller decision.  Scalia does not assert an unlimited right.  The decision explicitly states that some restrictions are constitutional.

A story on FoxNews.com opened with this:

The White House called for a “simple up-or-down” vote on health care legislation Sunday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama’s chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers.

There’s only one thing to say to that:

Ave, Obama, morituri te salutamus!

Borepatch has a nice post on progressivism (hat tip to Newbie Shooter).  Here’s my current summary of progressive agenda:

1. Guarantee an expansive and virtually unfettered right of individuals to pursue all the meaningless distractions that modern life has to offer.
 
2. Restrict and regulate the areas of life that actually have real significance (freedom of expression, freedom of religion, economic freedom, property rights, etc.).

The Western world spent centuries fighting to establish the liberty of the individual.  Progressives seem committed to the idea that this was a big mistake and that the commoners would be much better off if they just submitted to the tender mercies of the progressive government. 

I think I’ll stick with real, old fashioned liberty of the sort that pretty much only existed in (gasp) Western Civilization, thanks.  If that means gentry liberals look down their noses at me, well, so be it.

I recently came across an interesting comment in an examination of the influence of Voodoo on Haiti’s culture.

Part of the allure of idol worship is if you just perform the right ceremonies you can behave as poorly as you want without consequence.

Do you notice the interesting parallel with Progressivism?  If a Progressive makes the right incantations (political correctness) and prostrates himself (literally in the case of Obama, rhetorically in others) before the right idols he can get away with all kinds of bad things both personal and political.  It puts an interesting twist on the notion that Progressivism is a religion that’s substituted God for Government.

Free speech?  Not with knuckle-draggers on campus and the Israeli Ambassador speaking.  The left tells us all cultures have equal value.  Hmmm….really? 

Give the faculty member who speaks up credit.  He doesn’t hold back.  Hat tip to Power Line.

A simple observation to mark the occasion of Snowpocalypse II: I received a delivery today from UPS but not the Postal Service.  Both are unionized but only one has the ethos of a for-profit company.

Coming on the heels of multiple huge snow storms, with another whopper on the way (to say nothing of the ClimateGate scandal, a now steady stream of revelations of errors in the IPCC plus potential ethical and legal problems among climate priests), the geniuses in the Obama (mis)administration are proposing to create a Climate Change Agency.  This is one of those special ideas that’s so obviously worthy of ridicule that you can just let it speak for itself.

New Jersey is a shining example of this.  And there is finally some recognition of the fact that NJ is losing many of its wealthiest residents for blindingly obvious reasons: the taxes are too high and the business climate too hostile. 

The left, of course, continues to be in denial about a basic fact of the modern world: businesses, people and capital can and will go where they are put to the best use.  The left thinks it can raise taxes and expand government and the economy will continue to prosper.  But the fact is that in Blue States like New Jersey, California, New York and much of the Northeast, as government has become more “progressive”, their economies have become more European: high unemployment and low growth.

Yes, there is still a great deal of wealth there.  But it’s a legacy of a dynamic economic past.   The power of compounding interest is a wonderful thing.  Over time though, the wealth will be spent down if it is not replenished.  The free economies and limited governments that allowed the creation of wealth gradually became “progressive” and these regions have been fooled into believing that once-wealthy means always-wealthy. 

A number of years ago I told Mrs. Manifesto that barring a radical rekindling of an earlier ethos in the “progressive” Northeast, I suspected at some point we would likely relocate south or west to a more dynamic area of the country because that’s where the opportunities will be.  I have seen nothing to change my mind yet.

If anyone finds some of that elusive global warming could you let me know where it is?  As we receive our second 2-feet-or-so snowfall in about a month and a half I could really go for some AGW.

There have been two types of complaints (examples) about Justice Alito’s reaction to Obama’s criticism during the State of the Union address that the Citizens United decision overturned a century of law and couple open elections to involvement by foreign entities. 

The first objection is on substance.  Some people agree with Obama’s assertion and feel Alito has no grounds for grousing.  However, even the NYT’s Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse recognizes that Obama was off target.  So, the complaint on substance doesn’t hold up.

The second objection is on style.  They complain about a breach of protocol by Alito.  So let me get this straight, the president who bows to foreign monarchs, bashes the previous president while overseas, gives a gift of improperly formatted DVDs to a head of state, returns a bust of Churchill to England and gives the Queen of England an iPod is being defended over someone else’s supposed breach of protocol?  Seriously?

There is just nothing I can say to prepare you for this.  Enjoy.

The Inquirer, like most lefty newspapers, usually makes at least a feeble attempt to make its partisanship seem non-partisan.  Today, however, they didn’t cover their tracks very well.  They ran a front page story about how former Philadelphia Eagle Jon Runyan receives a tax break (an agricultural exemption) on part of his 20 acre property.

Several points:

1. The article describes him as a “Republican candidate” for the house.

Is he, in fact, a candidate?  I’m not so sure he actually is.  He definitely said back in November that he’s going to run.  But I don’t see anything since then indicating that he has officially declared.  An insignificant detail? Perhaps.  Or maybe this is an article that would never be run about a non-candidate and they think his “candidacy” provides some cover against charges of publishing a hit job.

2. The headline on the Inquirer’s website reads “Donkeys give GOP’s Runyan a Tax Break”.  The dead tree version’s headline reads “A few donkeys help N.J. Republican qualify for farmland”.

Jon Runyan is certainly a well known local sports figure.  But you’d have to be a bit of a news junkie to be aware that he is (or is going to) run for Congress.  Particularly since his final football season just ended last Sunday and he hasn’t done any campaigning yet, most people know him as a sports figure not as a politician.  So wouldn’t a non-partisan headline describe him as “Former Eagle” rather than a Republican?

3. Where’s the story?

There’s no allegation of illegal activity, unethical activity, insider deals, influence peddling or any other kind of funny business.  It’s a front page story targeting one person who is making use of a legal and common feature of the NJ tax code to lower his tax bill.  This is newsworthy…how?

4. Where were they before?

Where was the Inquirer when Obama was busy appointing people, like his Treasury Secretary, who actually broke tax laws?  Did they report on it?  Yes, a little.  But did they give it equivalent billing given the relative prominence of their roles?  Um, no.  Did they scrutinize or harass Gov. Corzine’s tax returns?  He was a very wealthy guy.  I can guarantee he used all kinds of legal tax techniques to reduce his tax bill.  Funny, I don’t recall such a story.

Scott Brown has scored a stunning upset victory in the Massachusetts senate race. We’ve all seen the elements of the shock factor: Massachusetts until now had an all Democrat congressional delegation, the Senate seat had been held by Ted Kennedy, John Kennedy or a hired temp since the 1950s, Scott Brown was down in the polls by almost 30 points only a few weeks ago, his opponent Martha Coakley was elected the Massachusetts Attorney General with 70% of the vote the same day Obama won 60% of the vote, the list goes on. So what does it mean?

What Obama’s advisors will tell him tomorrow, ironically the first anniversary of his inauguration: “Mr. President, Coakley ran a terrible campaign. When Ted Kennedy died, it gave the voters an opportunity to loosen up their allegiance a little. It was a race dominated by state-specific personalities. It had nothing to do with your agenda in general or healthcare in particular.”

What the American people really said: “Mr. President, welcome to the first day of the rest of your presidency. We look forward to its conclusion.”

I have seen repeatedly in the healthcare debate an argument from the left along the lines of “someone who is sick and uninsured isn’t really free”.  I always thought that was a bizarre assertion.  Well I recently read an article on the Progressive giant, John Dewey and that very formulation played a big role in his thought.

Basically the idea is that the human spirit needs to be nourished for a person to reach their full potential and only when that potential is reached are they really free.  You can easily see the next steps from that….and therefore we need XYZ government programs to guarantee nourished spirits and expand human freedom.

This is, of course, complete and utter bunk.  It is precisely the kind of sloppiness that permeates the left now.  Freedom is not subjective.  Yes, there are shades of grey but even the tones are objective. 

The Soviets believed they were the heroes of the People.  They thought they were nourishing the human spirit by providing the basic necessities of life (and in Soviet Russia they were very basic indeed).  So were the Russian people free?  Not even a little bit.

Even if you take out the worst oppression from the Soviet model, there’s still a nagging problem with the “freedom through collectivism” model:  who decides what you need?  If the government’s job is to nourish you and guide you, what if what you want isn’t what the progressive social engineers think you should want?  In case it escaped your notice, progressive social engineers don’t tolerate dissent well. 

If the model citizen becomes one who let’s the progressives tell him what choices to make, where’s the freedom?

I have grown increasingly impatient with the sloppiness, self-importance, condescension and intolerance that has come to characterize the left.  Two recent letters in the Inquirer were so grating that I have decided to inaugurate an award for those who exemplify the most obnoxious affectations of the left.  It will be given out whenever I choose to whoever I deem worthy (high standards, right?).  Winners will receive the joy of discovering themselves to be the butt of well-deserved scorn and ridicule the next time they do a vanity search on Google.

Philip wrote:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the very short time she has been on the court, has asked more questions than Thomas has in the many years he has been there.

I voted for President Obama because I knew he would not nominate justices with such limited intelligence. We deserve and should have better than a seat-warmer.

Philip gives no indication that he’s ever read any Supreme Court decision, let alone one by Clarence Thomas.  He gives no hint that he has any interest or expertise in constitutional law.  He never mentions what constitutional scholars think of Thomas.  Nor does he seem to have any awareness that only a fraction of the time the justices spend on a case actually involves oral arguments.  And, of course, he seems oblivious to the possibility that Thomas might have very valid reasons for observing rather than participating.  But, by gosh, he sure knows that Clarence Thomas is of “limited intelligence”!

For that, Philip Lustig, I award you a Preening Twit.

Bud wrote:

For too long have Republicans let their party be a home place of bad science. Their reactions to “Climategate” and the recent cold spell demonstrate a lack of understanding of climatology…

Is Bud a practicing scientist of any flavor?  Does he have any training, expertise or actual understanding of climatology himself?  Or is he just regurgitating the usual things that any sophisticated intellect such as he is supposed to repeat as proof that they are such impressive and independent thinkers.  Wow, Bud, repeating the usual leftwing mantras…what great insight!

You too, Bud, are awarded a Preening Twit.

It seems to me that one of the big mistakes that supporters of gay marriage make is that they begin with the assumption that gay marriage and traditional marriage are equivalent and interchangeable.  In other words, they simply begin with a civil rights argument without ever establishing its applicability.  And I actually agree, if gay marriage was interchangeable with traditional marriage then it probably would be a civil rights issue. 

However, it is not self-evident that gay marriage is interchangeable with traditional marriage.  Men and women are not equivalent just as mothers and fathers are not interchangeable.  

A majority of the American people recognize this.  And I think a lot of people don’t appreciate being told they are bigots for expecting a political faction to make a convincing argument before agreeing to their platform.  I think gay marriage supporters ought to step back and focus on honing their logic rather than heaping abuse on people who disagree with them.

Mrs. Manifesto and I had the opportunity to see Invictus over the weekend.  I was not entirely sure what to expect but I have to say this is a great movie.  I’m not interested in doing a movie review but I wanted to briefly note that there is a very conservative theme to it.

The movie’s title comes from a poem by William Henley.  Here’s the poem.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

The poem and the movie are very much about choosing not to wallow in self-pity and choosing not to let circumstances run your life.  To me, this is the great dividing line between left and right.  Conservatives believe you control your life and your choices are the primary determinants of your fate.  The left believes you are not in control of your fate and that external forces that you cannot personally influence will determine what happens to you.

It’s refreshing to see something coming out of Hollywood that promotes the conservative perspective.

To the multitude of differences between Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama we can add: their preferred vacations.  Pres. Bush would famously go to his Texas ranch and do manual labor around the homestead.  Pres. Obama, on the other hand, has gone off to a vacation home in ritzy Waikiki Beach, where his manual labor consists of 18 holes at a beautifully manicured golf course. 

Do you think all that bowing Obama’s been doing was just stretching out for the golf course?

In that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.   An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with fear.

The angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.   And this will be a sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.”

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

Not really, of course.  This is a case of correlation not causation but there is a very clear pattern to state-by-state happiness data published recently in Science.  The Wall Street Journal published a summary (here is their chart).  The happiest states overwhelmingly voted for McCain in the 2008 election and the least happy states unanimously voted for Obama.

Here’s the breakdown:

Notice particularly the top and bottom quintiles.  Of the 10 most happy states, only 3 voted for Obama.  Of the 10 least happy states, every single one voted for Obama.  Miserable policies for miserable people.

This really should not come as a surprise given the left’s fixation on class, envy and jealousy.  It’s also consistent with their dismissive attitude towards religion and private charity.  And let’s not leave out the alignment with the right’s views on personal responsibility, industriousness and individual autonomy versus the left’s blame-shifting, dependence and state control.  Basically most of the characteristics that make you less happy align neatly to the left wing worldview.