Omakase

Amazon Search
«  
  »

7200 Words

By lex, on February 11th, 2012

An outsider’s take on our Constitution, and our Republic, contrasted against the goal towards which our elites would move us.

Twenty-seven and a half minutes, and time well spent.

Share
February 11th, 2012 | Tags: | Category: Politics and Culture

42 comments to 7200 Words

  • Pixelkiller
    February 11, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Thanks Captain.
    I needed that.

  • Minga
    February 11, 2012 at 5:59 pm

    He’s right

  • Vigilis
    February 11, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    From the biased video presented above and related comments, I take it that while socialists and like-minded escapees from erstwhile feudalism may not be frequent guests, the First Amendment is well practiced here for the benefit of all, including the #$@%&^* pinkos.

  • Padre Harvey
    February 11, 2012 at 6:45 pm

    Alas, the firewalls of the 54th Signal Bn here in ARCENTland have blocked access to this.
    *harumph*

    • Quartermaster
      February 12, 2012 at 5:23 pm

      Dave, I got a few books I’ll get off to you sometime this week.

      4 titles: The Gladiators, History’s Most Deadly Sport, The Dinosaur Heresies (by the consultant to the move Jurassic Park), Sea of Glory (about the US Exploring Expedition led by Charles Wilkes of Wilke’s Land and Trent Affair notoriety), and the High Cost of Peace by
      Yossef Bodansky.

      That’s the take for this week. I’ll see what I can do in two weeks. There will be a letter in the box with the books.

  • SteveC
    February 11, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Yes, “the Elites”. But I would add: “liberal and moderate” as a qualifier to that title. In any event, the Elites would include, presumably, Supreme Court Justice Ginzberg, who just this week recommended to someone in Egypt that they NOT use the US Constitution as their model, and instead suggested that they look to the South African model since it, paraphrasing, ‘is more focused on basic human rights.’ The Elites, to the extent Justice Ginzberg is a usable example, are ‘not of us.’ Unfortunately, they are in charge for now.

  • Chap
    February 11, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    Time well spent. Thanks.

  • Edward
    February 11, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    There were a whole series of great speeches at the CPAC.
    Rubio, Jindal, Palin, Breitbart, Coulter were ALL good.

    I think that Palin delivered the best speech of her life at CPAC.
    Rubio and Jindal were awesome.
    Breitbart and Coulter were strong.

  • Kid
    February 11, 2012 at 9:20 pm

    There’s just no way that the people who Need to listen to this would ever do so.

  • fliterman
    February 11, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    I could write a long post about this paid for pep rally guest. But thankfully, one of the comments saves me:

    “Hannon promoted, endorsed, advocated, salivated over Obama in 2007, 2008, 2009, and helped Obama get elected.
    Keep that in mind when you watch this theater.”

    If that isn’t enough, I’ve got more…

  • Hogday
    February 12, 2012 at 5:17 am

    Like it or feel uncomfortable with it, but Mr Hannan could probably lead a charge up Whitehall given the support he has spread across our Nation.

  • Airmail
    February 12, 2012 at 7:19 am

    Thanks, refreshing comments indeed.

    I’ve found that there are some places better than others to post political views and while I am a conservative and generally agree with Lex’s posts, there are places (Facebook) where posted content draws strong reactions and negative comments from personal friends that have left me feeling like a bullseye. The unexpected negative energy raining in from Facebook friends following a right wing conservative post was startling and unwelcome. I found myself at odds with friends who I never suspected of being so passionate about politics or worse, acusing me of being insensitive to their political views and taking exception to my posts with a nasty tone. I’d rather not post on FB than receive that kind of feedback. I never thought of FB or other social media as a place to win an election however I may have formed my opinion too soon.

    So I’ve concluded that FB is not the place for me to express political views as I’ve got friends I’d rather not get fired up over liberal vs. conservative issues; and that yes, my life is richer for having so many people in my sphere of influence who have opposing points of view.

    So what does all this mean to the NepLex community? I come here to read intelligent commentary, learn how to speak like a Naval Aviator, exchange thoughts with people who have similar interests, have a better understanding of readyroom humor, get higher level insight and rebuttal to issues, share with others knowing the gloves can come off within reason and finally, becuase the starting point of all that goes on here is from a writer I respect and have time to read and listen when he offers up. Kind of like a church it is.

    • Hogday
      February 12, 2012 at 8:56 am

      Airmail: I agree, I find the abuse here is even handed and non selective. In fact, even as a Brit with a passport recognising my dual (Canadian) citizenship, I sometimes log off and its ages before I realise I may have been insulted, by which time I’ve ceased to care anyway!

      • Quartermaster
        February 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm

        HD, we certainly do not discriminate here. We hate and abuse everyone equally.

        So, you’re a Canuckistani as well? We’ll have to put that in the magazine for future use. :-)

        • Hogday
          February 13, 2012 at 8:37 am

          QM, yup, looking out for more of that homespun friendly abuse. Guess that dual-nationality could make me Colonialist Imperialist with a tiny liberal streak who’s not averse to selling a dodgy 2nd hand car (or submarine or four) to a member of his family :) but I speak and type with an English accent.

    • virgil xenophon
      February 12, 2012 at 9:17 am

      “Kind of like a church it is.”

      Indeed.

      But, Airmail, I feel compelled to say that it would seem from your description of your “friends” reactions to some of your FB posts that their comments reveal themselves not to be “friends” at all, but more in the general realm of mere “associates.” True “friends,” even though they be of a differing political persuasion, would hardly personally attack one and would be too polite to be viciously vituperative. “Insensitive?” Sounds like it’s all a one-way street with them, n’cest-ce, pas? Harsh accusations directed towards you, but don’t harsh my mellow for them..

      • virgil xenophon
        February 12, 2012 at 9:42 am

        PS: (on a roll/rant here) See, that’s the diff as between those “on the left” and those of us “on the right.” The collective left talks and preaches about such matters as “civil discourse,” “ethics” etc., but rarely actually practices them. Again a one-way “for-thee, not-for-me” street, their actions belying their words. Those of us on the right, by contrast, being FAR more likely to practice what the left preaches in terms of “civil discourse.” (Which is what gives the left such an advantage in the national debate. They feel totally unconstrained by such ethical restrictions while guilt-tripping/”blacktopping” the right as immoral racists spewing “hate speech,” i.e., views they don’t want to hear or to prevail). We’ve got to stop walking on egg-shells over such concerns and FOREVER apologizing for our views and say to hell with it. “Bring a gun to a knife fight” says Obama? I say we bring a verbal howitzer and take the polite gloves off! At least UAMA grads should understand this approach; isn’t their yearbook named the “Howitzer?” :)

        • Ron Snyder
          February 12, 2012 at 9:56 am

          Well, at least the USMA one is named “The Howitzer”. ;)

        • Edward
          February 12, 2012 at 10:46 am

          VX,

          You have succinctly captured the essence of the asymmetrical liberal and conservative dialogue.
          Since the liberals will not change, it is time for the conservatives to turn the flame up on their side.
          That is why I liked the remarks by Breitbart and Coulter. They take the fight right back to the other side when the other side is not civil. Lots of conservatives must learn to do this.

          • virgil xenophon
            February 12, 2012 at 10:56 am

            Edward/

            True story. Once circa 2000-2003 (geezer memory fades) Ann Coulter was in New Orleans on local conservative talk-show host Jeff Coeur’s show. I called in and, when put on air my VERY FIRST words to Ann straight out of the box (no hello, how are you’s) were “I wanna propose marriage.” (as in marriage of the minds :) ) She laughed good-naturedly and said “Why how sweet!”

            LOVE that gal! (metaphorically speaking)

      • Airmail
        February 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm

        VX,

        I think your spot on with the comments and that these friends and I have grown apart and are now acquaintences. Fact is we used to hang around a lot together in high school(early 70′s) and now communicate exclusively through FB after many years without any interface. C’est la vie.

  • fliterman
    February 12, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Now why would Hannon ever apologize, if he didn’t support Obama?

    From the horse’s mouth as he changes his tune:

    “I admit it: I was wrong to have supported Barack Obama”

    Casey, you should know by now that I don’t make this stuff up… even though you may not like it.

    • Edward
      February 12, 2012 at 10:53 am

      Flit,

      Of course Hannon was fooled. Consider the news coverage of The Won. Somebody on the other side of the Atlantic has only that by which to judge the candidates. Our Fourth Estate had failed to do due diligence. The Won was never vetted by the media and thus the American public. The Won was a cypher, mouthing empty phrases that could be interpreted by everyone differently according to their own hopes and fears.

      Hannon had the courage to apologize now that he sees a bit more of The Won. I await similar apologies from all those who supported Him. But I won’t hold my breath.

      The candidacy of The One also played into the British and European trope of America finally having the chance to atone for the blot of slavery. I await Europe’s loud condemnation of the practice of slavery carried out today by various peoples, most of whom share a particular religion.

  • fliterman
    February 12, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Anywhere else but CPAC, saying: “Rejoin the white Anglo sphere and the community of free, English speaking nations,” could get Hannan in a lot of trouble, don’t you know?

    The nostalgia of many for a return of a British Empire-like America is to me astonishing. People forget we were once a British Colony, were exploited by it, and rebelled violently against it. For our first hundred years, the very thought of expanding our influence beyond our shores was anathema. We were different. We were better. We were exceptional. Indeed our forefathers were even against a standing army, much less an empire.

    Alas over time, we have become what we once abhorred in our nation’s earlier time. What would Tocqueville say today?

    • Edward
      February 12, 2012 at 12:16 pm

      Flit,

      Ours has been the most benevolent “empire” in history. There was a power vacuum and it would be filled. Which of the viable candidates would you rather have filled it?

      The transition from the British Empire to the American was as gentle and benign as could be. Never before had a transition taken place without intense conflict. Even after the War of 1814, wherein Britain burned the White House (and the entire city would have burned if there had not been a hurricane the very next day) and attempted to dissect the fledgling United States, and even after British support of the South during the Civil War — Britain and the US recognized that it was better policy to not come to sword’s point as so many European nations were doing.

      The world is a better place for the US filling the power vacuum. Never has there been a victorious nation so forgiving of its mortal enemies. Japan, Germany, and even Russia!

      If the US shrinks back to become an isolationist bit player on the international stage, I fear for the survival of mankind. The next century will be the most dangerous yet, and it is folly to think that we can sit back and not be impacted.

      I ask again, if not the US, which of the players would you have preferred to fill the power vacuum?

    • Peter
      February 12, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      Actually, Hannan said “wide” not “white”.

    • Jeff Gauch
      February 12, 2012 at 2:55 pm

      Flit, try reading a history book or two. We have always been an expansionist nation.

      He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

      Sound familiar? It’s just that for our first hundred years we limited our expansion to the North American continent, much to the consternation of the indigenous peoples. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that our overseas expansion began shortly after the closing of the frontier.

      We did rebel against the first British Empire, for good reason. They were, to be blunt, acting like a pack of jackasses. They did, however, learn their lesson. That’s why Canadians and Australians, among others, are still loyal subjects of the Crown.

      As for the charge that we were ever an empire, what territories have we ever exploited? What ports have we ever closed to non-US shipping? You have a preconceived notion of the moral turpitude of the US and will bend, fold, spindle, and mutilate any facts as necessary to fit them into your twisted faith.

      • Quartermaster
        February 12, 2012 at 5:36 pm

        Seward stated rather succinctly to the Brits that the US was an empire. Rather strange, that. Particularly given statements about manifest destiny and such like.

        The Lincolnians changed the nature of the country. Many historians, the honest ones, say that Lincoln and his minions refounded the country. I think it’s fair to put it that way.

        I know of few people that want us to become an isolationist country. That includes Ron Paul who recognizes that we have interests we must protect. He simply doesn’t like us going into wars like Iraq and Transcanistan for the purposes of nation building. It would be nice if he’s be a bit more clear about these things. It would also be nice if the fever swamps would really report his statements accurately, but that’s a bit too much to ask, I guess.

        • Jeff Gauch
          February 12, 2012 at 10:35 pm

          I suppose that if you go by the strictest definition of empire, and count state/regional differences as distinct cultures, you could argue that the US is an empire today. However, I would argue there is enough cultural commonality that nation-state is more appropriate. Back in Seward’s day the cultural assimilation of the Amerind peoples would have been significantly less advanced, making empire a valid characterization. Though I would say that the American empire was more assimilative than exploitative. Closer to the Roman model than the British.

          Lincoln didn’t remake the country, he simply gave teeth to Article IV, Section 4.

          One could argue (and several have) that 9/11 is a result of our failure to nation-build in Afghanistan following the Soviet pullout. It is certainly the case that nation-building in Iraq is a necessary phase in the larger war we are in. And nation-building served us in good stead in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. I don’t understand why nation-building became such an epithet.

    • RonF
      February 15, 2012 at 10:16 pm

      It did seem to me that he said “white”, not “wide”. But I’d have to listen again.

      If so, that is a highly unfortunate choice of phrase. It might be technically accurate – I can’t think offhand of a black-majority country that is in the Anglosphere and – or even, or – preserves “life, liberty and the pursuit of happniess”. But I see no need to emphasize race in such matters, everyone’s blood runs red.

      In any case, it does not invalidate any of the truths he told or the points he made. It seems to me that we have a great many people in this country who have been convinced by others that they are victims and they deserve support not because they have need but because of their very identity. Those others, in turn, are determined to become our masters and theirs as well, thinking it is theirs by right because of a supposed basic superiority in intellect and moral code. They justify this on the basis that people who do not agree with them are thus demonstrating inferiority to the point of an inability to run their own lives.

      Their contempt for the First Amendment is legendary. Find me a stage where a left-wing speaker has been shouted down, driven from the microphone or assaulted with food or waste material or paint or plastic bits (let me throw a handful of glitter in your face unexpectedly and see what happens to you) or blows. “Hate speech” has been invented to chip away at wrong thinking, just like in their instruction book 1984. Look at the assault not on Christianity but religion in general. “Freedom of religion must mean freedom from religion” is their cry. The Supreme Court has already rebuffed this Administration once. I hope it will do so again.

  • Ron Snyder
    February 12, 2012 at 11:57 am

    Virgil, Ann is a great gal -LOL when I read your “proposal” to her.

    Ann rubs people the wrong way sometimes (o.k., often) because she doesn’t BS and she is smart as a tack. Plus she agrees with me often. :)

  • fliterman
    February 12, 2012 at 1:11 pm

    Edward – So the American Revolution was “gentle and benign?”

    May I point out that we were not very “benevolent” to the Native Americans, who if we didn’t kill them, we stole their land and put them on a reservation. Nor were we quite so benevolent when we used a border dispute for a trumped up war to increase our empire by stealing half of Mexico’s land. Similarly the press inflamed the public in another trumped-up war of empire, the Spanish American War. A result was the Philippines, not wanting to become an American colony, rebelled. So we killed 10 – 20,000 Pilipino to crush their revolution. The Bay of Pigs invasion, as well as Vietnam did not turn out so well, as some others.

    Power vacuums? More imagined by many eager belligerents than real I think. The lack thereof does not necessarily define a sucking need.

    We do like to fight! And we will usually invent a reason if need be.

    • Edward
      February 12, 2012 at 2:09 pm

      Flit,

      Please — don’t try the usual liberal tactic of changing the subject of the conversation.

    • Edward
      February 12, 2012 at 2:12 pm

      And…

      The enemy of the Good is the “Better”.

      There is no chance of perfection in human society. Look at the murderous trail of all those who sought to create the “perfect society”. Beware of those who attempt to create Heaven on Earth. They will stop at nothing to achieve their purpose — after all, one must break a few eggs to make an omelet.

    • RonF
      February 15, 2012 at 10:30 pm

      Why yes – some great sins have been committed in the U.S. I don’t believe that any country can say differently, however. The U.S. is founded on the basis of ideals, both human and divine. It will never meet them perfectly. But it is the country giving them the best effort. In another country slaves were consumed in one or a few harvests, or sent down into mines until they died. The American Indian would have been slaughtered to the last person. What square inch on Earth is not occupied by someone whose ancestors somewhere along the line didn’t kill or drive off by force the previous tenant?

      In the end the U.S. was founded by men and women, not gods. They set themselves a goal and have been working to achieve them. The shame of some of the aspects of the path doesn’t invalidate the endpoint being sought.

  • SCDave
    February 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    Three quotes from Alexis deTocqueville, in no particular order…

    “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

    “I do not know if the people of the United States would vote for superior men if they ran for office, but there can be no doubt that such men do not run.”

    “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

    This last being the most important.

    • Quartermaster
      February 12, 2012 at 5:39 pm

      The context of that last statement was entirely about Religion in the US. The Church today is a shadow of what it was then. Consequently, America has ceased to be good. It could be again, but the chances of it are rapidly receding.

  • Douglas
    February 12, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    I listened to it like a podcast while playing a game (which I do with lots of podcasts I’m subscribed too). Well worth the listen. Thanks for the head’s up, Lex.

  • -Jas
    February 13, 2012 at 12:32 am

    “…and placed that flag on the moon.” Very nicely said. Never thought of it. Should’ve. Thanks, Cap’n.

  • -Jas
    February 13, 2012 at 1:03 am

    While the USA (which is to say many or most of you regular readers–thank you for your service) was protecting Europe from being invaded and incorporated into the USSR, Europe was turning itself into something very like the USSR. While sneering at our lack of sophistication. The irony.
eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats