Palin Around

As most of you are already aware that yesterday John McCain selected Governor Sarah Palin (R) of Alaska as his Vice Presidential running mate. Mrs. Palin is a first term governor, and former Mayor of her home city of Wallisa, Alaska. Her experience in the executive branch outweighs John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden’s experience in the executive seat combined. For some this is not enough, they claim that Mrs. Palin is not experienced enough for the job. But examine this, Mrs. Palin is 44 and began her political career in 1992 at the tender age of 28 as a member of the Wallisa city council. Senator Obama didn’t get involved until 1996 when he was elected to the State Legislator. In 1996 when Senator Obama was only a first term State Senator, Governor Palin was elected Mayor of Wallisa. Her experience in government was already four years ahead of Barack Obama, who claims that she is too inexperienced. In 2004 Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, two years later in 2006 Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska. For two years Governor Palin has governed the largest state in the union, while Barack Obama has simply held the title Senator. Governor Palin, between her last term as Mayor and entering the Governor’s house, was on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Clearly, the argument that Governor Palin is not experienced enough cannot be true when compared to the experience that Barack Obama possesses.

Others argue that the good Governor is just a beauty queen who is attempting to play at politics. While she was elected Miss Wallisa and participated in the Miss Alaska pageant, she is not some ignorant and base human. Governor Palin is an educated woman with a Bachelor’s of Science in Journalism and minor in Political Science from the University of Idaho. She is married to a commercial fisherman and has five kids; the youngest child has Down Syndrome and this has drawn the wrath of many women who criticize Palin’s choice to go through with having her youngest son despite knowing he would be born with Down Syndrome. Throughout her career in public service, Palin as been known as a whistle blower not willing to back down to the good ole boy system. In her time at the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Palin was responsible for calling out unethical practices by her fellow commissioners. She has a history of challenging unethical actions by members of her own political party, even going so far as to challenge Alaskan U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R) when he wished to build the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” Meanwhile, the Cult of Personality that is Barack Obama has bought into the good ole boy system by choosing Senator Joe Biden, who has been a member of the Senate at age 30, in 1973.

Governor Palin is a competent woman who is able to not only lead the largest most unappreciated state in the Union, but is able to serve as Vice President of the United States. Governor Palin is staunchly against Abortion, drawing more rage from Pro-Abortionists. She is a member of the National Rifle Association and is an avid hunter and sportswoman. Unlike her Democratic and Republican counterparts, Governor Palin is well aware of the benefits of drilling at ANWAR not only for this country, but for the economy of Alaska. Governor Palin was not timid to use her power to veto what she saw as unnecessary budgetary items; in 2007 she passed a $6.6 Billion budget while cutting $237 million worth of 300 construction projects and saved $1.6 billion on the budget in the process.

There have been others who argue she lacks the foreign policy experience that McCain harped on Obama for lacking. As Governor of Alaska, Palin is Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. She visited her troops stationed in both Kuwait and Iraq; she also visited wounded soldiers in Germany all last summer. Barack Obama has never been a Commander-in-Chief, neither has Joe Biden. When the U.S. Government calls up National Guard to serve over seas, it is the Governor of the state to adhere to the call up. She is well qualified to be the Commander in Chief of the United States should the situation present itself. However, John McCain has plenty of Foreign Policy experience and Sarah Palin was chosen for her knowledge of the budget, environment, and energy.

Beliefs that Sarah Palin is unprepared to ascend to the Presidency, should she be elected as Vice President, are unfounded. She has proven that she is able to handle pressure situations in the executive office whether it is on the city, or state level.  Palin’s uncompromising position on her beliefs have caused her opponents to slander her good name. Palin represents a fresh face for Washington when three of the four involved in the Presidential Race are Washington elites. She offers the best opportunity for women to secure for themselves one of the highest offices in the country. Conservatives have someone they can be proud of. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will run this country into the ground, raising taxes and abusing the trust of the people. John McCain and Sarah Palin will restore this country to it’s former greatness.

Published in: on August 30, 2008 at 15:40  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Doctrine of Self Preservation

In the Summer of 1763 John Adams undertook the writing of an essay entitled “On Private Revenge.” The turmoil of the French and Indian War was only freshly over and the British Parliament in that same year adopted the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation granted control over the lands won through the Treaty of Paris to the British government, not the colonial governments. Within a decade the Parliament would go on to do more to seek retribution from the Colonies for the assistance England provided during the war. This enraged the passions of colonial Americans, specifically in New England in and around Boston. Adams’ essay can be viewed only in the light of these events. In his traditional style, Adams calls for law and order to persevere over chaos and anarchy.

The first paragraph of the essay sets up the plan Adams has laid out for his argument. In the Politics, Aristotle asserts that man outside of the city is either a beast or a god. Adams argument is that man is distinguished from other animals because of his ability to unite and entire into society. The natural attributes of man are not enough to make him superior to other animals, but in fact Adams believes they would make man weakest of all other animals. It is found alone in his ability to unite that man is made the superior animal; thus agreeing with Aristotle partially by stating man outside of society is nothing more than a beast such as, “the bear or the tiger.” Within this man, like other animals, Adams argues, “As he comes originally from the hands of his Creator, self-love or self-preservation is the only spring that moves him.” Locke argues that the law of nature is only known through reason, with the exception of the first law which is that of self preservation. Hobbes too argues that within society the Magistrate is capable of ordering his subjects to do whatever he wishes, except if he desires to kill them in which case they are obligated by the Law of Nature to defend their life. And thus Adams has created his argument; man is superior to other animals because he is able to unite himself within society. However, like other animals man has implanted in his soul self preservation, which calls upon man to defend his life whenever it is threatened. How does one preserve his life and at the same time allow himself to exist in society? The law of self preservation appears to grant man the authority to execute the law of nature. Society limits this ability and grants that authority to an impartial third party.

Adams description of a state of nature comes closer to the description provided by Rousseau. He describes that in this state man as he is propagated, food is found on “the banks of clams and oysters”, weapons for war are present, and animal hides are used for clothes. Yet this society is void of friendship, trade, and human bonding unless instinct calls for it. In essence, man is truly free and independent without any other above him or below him. Adams defines the virtues of the “savage state, courage, hardiness, activity, and strength.” Take these four virtues and compare them to the four classical virtues, “Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance.” By many the virtue of courage is seen as among the basest virtues, in fact Aristotle in the Ethics describes it almost immediately, indicating that it is the most base of all virtues. The man who is in charge in this society is the one who can kill the best, or run the fastest. This is the basis for tribal leadership, and possibly the roots of how one became king in ancient England, France, or Germany. This basis for determining who is superior will also result in the usage of revenge over justice; the man who perceives himself to be stronger and is beat by another will take it as an insult and attack the other man. Adams even argues that the idea of allowing a third party to mediate the situation is viewed as an acknowledgement of the deficiencies of the savage state. It is clear that Adams views revenge as the hallmark of a savage state. New Englanders within a few years of this essay will attempt to overthrow the established system and seek revenge for the ills done to them by the British parliament. Adams, in a possible prophetic statement argues that when a horse treads over a gouty toe, our passions are so excited that we feel we must kill the horse. The horse is a symbol of Aristocracy in philosophy, which can lead one to see the prophetic nature of the comment. The horse represents the British Parliament, which does end up stepping on the gouty toe of the colonies, who never really recover from the French and Indian War. Adams finishes this section by saying:

For the great distinction between savage nations and polite ones, lies in this,—that among the former every individual is his own judge and his own executioner; but among the latter all pretensions to judgment and punishment are resigned to tribunals erected by the public; a resignation which savages are not, without infinite difficulty, persuaded to make, as it is of a right and privilege extremely dear and tender to an uncultivated nature.

A stark contrast between the savage state and the polite state has been established as in the one man is his own executioner while in the other he is not. Rousseau argues in the Social Contract:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces in man a very remakable    change, by substituting in his conduct justice for instinct, and by giving his actions the moral quality that they previously lacked. It is only when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulse, and law succeeds appetite, that man, who till then had regarded only himself, sees that he is obliged to act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.

Rousseau’s sentiments are similar to Adams, in that when man passes into civil society he is expected to give up those habits which were present in him in nature.

This brings up the next point. If society should ever come to the point where we will give up our polite and noble nature, we will become worse than the Goths before becoming Christians. He compares the individual who believes that when offended one should draw his sword to that of the fowl, the bull, and stallion. The image of these three animals are simple, the bird can represent bloodshed, the bull destructive force, and the stallion life and death. It should be noted that he does not use horse, but rather stallion which indicates not the symbol of aristocracy specifically. Instead, the stallion represents the wild, unbridled passions of man and specifically can be seen as a symbol of life and death, which horses are known to symbolize. After initially using fowl, in his ending sentence of this paragraph Adams states, “But are cocks and bulls and horses the proper exemplars for the imitation of men, especially of men of sense, and even of the highest personages in the government!” The cock more specifically than fowl represents the underworld, passion and pride, and thus we arrive at how man is outside of nature: Prideful, passionate, destructive, and wild.

And finally Adams attacks the point that such images of gallantry have been argued from the military. Adams argument begins by stating that such images are not praised by the military, nor have they ever been. Instead, the dregs of society have idealized the Cock, Bull and Stallion as exemplars for man. He argues, “For every gentleman, every man of sense and breeding in the army, has a more delicate and manly way of thinking, and from his heart despises all such little, narrow, sordid notions.” Of these he mentions specifically Divines, Lawyers and Physicians. Divines represent religion, God; Lawyers represent the law; Physicians have a philosophic meaning behind them, in that whenever a Physician appears it represents healing of the body politic. In this instance though it is much more likely that Adams is speaking that Physicians heal the body and therefore praise themselves above all others such as Divines and Lawyers do. It should be interesting to point out that Adams himself was a lawyer. The other set of professions he mentions include: husbandmen, manufacturers, and laborers. They lack the virtue of magnanimity and are instead short sighted, little minded individuals believing their professions are the best in the world. It is likely then, that soldiers of lower ranks are just as likely to believe them superior to any other order. They are, as a result, prone to the, “principles of revenge, rusticity, barbarity, and brutality…” which are described earlier as the principles upheld by the savage. However, soldiers who are superior in their senses recognize the authority not only of their superiors but also of the civil society. Once again, in a similar prophetic nature as before, these soldiers recognize the superior nature of English law. Moving away from calling them soldiers, it is evident at this point that Adams is specifically referencing men in general, not just those who serve in the Army. England, being an image of the polite society, is superior to the savage society; some of his fellow New Englanders wish to rebel against English rule, thus stooping to this level. A truly polite and decent man would recognize that the doctrine of self preservation as indignant.

Adams having completed his argument has demonstrated that man who seeks the doctrine of private revenge has no regard for civil society, and therefore is only as good as a tiger or bear. Only within civil society is man able to full perfect his nature, which is where Adams demonstrates the Enlightenment principle that nature is created imperfect. It is man’s responsibility to perfect nature by building upon it, making things, and this is only possible in society. Likewise, man is only able to be fully man within society under the constrains of law and order which is characterized by justice; whereas man outside of society and in total chaos is characterized by the doctrine of self preservation, or revenge.

Published in: on August 30, 2008 at 01:11  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Joe and the Technicolor Kool-Aid

Anyone who saw Joe Biden’s acceptance speech after being nominated as the Democratic party choice for Vice President of the United States might have noticed an error or two in his speech. I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t watch the Senator’s speech, but rather caught a few highlights from Foxnews and immediately turned off the TV and came here to write. Biden believes that Barack Obama will help bring back the people of America’s trust in our Federal government. This is the same Senator Biden who currently serves in the United States Senate with Senator Obama and the other majority Democrats with one of the lowest approval ratings for Congress in history. That’s right, Senator Obama is so good at bringing back the trust that has been misplaced by our Federal Government for the past-century I’d say-that he belongs to a Congress that has one of the lowest approval ratings ever.

A quick glance at pollingreport.com reveals that Congress’ highest approval ratings during Bush’s last term were in 05 when the routinely hit above 40%. However, since the week of April 12-15, when ABC/Washington Post reported the approval rating at 44%, Congress has failed to reach 40%. Since the week of April 25-May 1, Congress has managed to only reach an approval rating of at least 30% a few times (that week they reached 39%.) Since 2008 began Congress has only reached an approval rating of 30% once, reported once again by ABC/Washington  Post for the week of January 30-February 1.The most up-to-date poll by Diageo/Hotline RV show an approval rating of 16%.

When dividing the parties, we come to different numbers. The Harris Poll shows currently that only 22% of people polled believe the Democrats in Congress are doing a good job. Republicans received 21%  of people believing they have done a good job.

The President on the other hand currently has a 30% approval rating, for those who can’t do math that means he is 8% higher than Democrats in Congress, 9% higher than Republicans in Congress, and 24% higher than Congress in general. For a man who is routinely made out to be the bad guy, President Bush has managed to maintain at least a 20% approval rating in 2008. In 2007 Bush failed to have at least a 29% approval rating only five times, the lowest not even dipping beneath 25%.

The Supreme Court has the highest approval rating to date at 39% of Americans who approve of their job. This was taken by the Quinnipiac University Poll for July 8-13. When asked by the same people for the same week if the Court was moving in the right direction, 33% of those polled answered yes. The Gallup Poll back on the week of June 9-12 asked how those polled viewed how the Court was handling it’s job, 48% of those polled said they approved.

It is hard to imagine that Mr. Biden really believes that Barack is the man who will bring trust back to the Federal government. If this were true then his own party wouldn’t have had threats of schism all the way up through the historic nomination of Mr. Obama earlier tonight. If Obama can’t even have assurance that his own party will stand unified behind him, why does Mr. Biden believe that this will be true for the whole nation? At this point I find it hard to imagine that any man, woman or child could possible regain the trust of the American people for a flawed Federal government. If the Federal government desires to regain our trust they must be willing to earn it, and it won’t come by electing a self proclaimed Messiah. Remember Mr. Biden, not even Jesus Christ had the support of most of the world until after he was executed for high treason.

After Senator Obama announced Senator Biden as his running mate, the masses did not flock to Obama as experts had predicted. In fact, Biden has actually caused Obama to lose ground in the early stages of this Presidential election. How could he or anyone claim that Obama is the Messiah we have been promised to help return the lost children of America to her bosom? Obama couldn’t even get a spike in the polls, which is traditional after a candidate has announced his running mate. It would appear that the hopes and dreams of the Democratic party rest in who Mr. McCain will choose as his running mate. Either way, Joe Biden must be drinking from the same pitcher of kool-aid as Jim Jones. I can only hope that there are those out there that will not fall into the trap, because certainly in this election year the Democrats have been full of crap at their Convention.

Published in: on August 27, 2008 at 23:19  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Good of the City and Man

Some in history have attempted to associate the good of the city with the good of man. In ancient times the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle argued this very notion. The city, according to Aristotle, is developed to assist man in reaching the complete human life through the administering of the daily and non daily needs. Thus what is good for the city must in the end is ultimately good for man. Man’s own good is tied to the city because it is through the city that man is able to live the complete human life. Initially what develops is the family, which is unable to provide for the non daily needs of mankind. Thus families enter into compacts with others to form villages, which are unable to provide for the daily needs of man. Finally villages are forced to join to form cities, which are capable of providing both the daily and non daily needs and thus is the only order capable of allowing for the complete human life. The ultimate struggle at the root of Socratic dialogues of both Plato and Xenophon, and the treatises of Aristotle, is the question of whether or not it is better to live of life of activity (politics) or the contemplative life (studies.) The breaking point comes between the politician and the philosopher but it is never truly clear as to which is better. We are only left with the evidence that only in the city are both lives possible. Thus what is good for the city must ultimately be good for man as well.

By the time of the Renaissance philosophers began to look at the question of the city differently. In the 17th and 18th centuries England produced two of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke helped to redefine what the city is and man’s relationship to the city. No longer was the city a natural order which helps man attain the complete human life. Rather, now the city is looked upon as an escape from the natural order. For Hobbes this natural order is a state of war because the only law is that of survival. Without a government to maintain order and ensure everyone obeys the laws of nature and maintains their contracts it is left to the individual to secure their rights. If you imagine the world before pan-national organizations like the United Nations or NATO you see this principle at work. Nations exist in a state of nature with each other, and thus in a state of war. There is no governing body able to enforce the laws of nature or maintain the contracts between two nations. Instead the nation becomes the judge, jury and executioner leading to a state of war. John Locke attempts to appear less savage than Hobbes but essentially reaches the same conclusion. Man exists in a state of nature, which is a state of pure freedom. Through reason man is able to know the law of nature. Yet in the state of nature man is responsible for enforcing the law of nature and contracts. Life is truly short and brutish in a state of nature as Locke states. Ultimately this state of nature dissolves into a state of war causing man to seek to escape nature and enter into society. For the moderns nature was something to be conquered and therefore society cannot be viewed as natural as the Greeks viewed it. Society is formed to allow for an impartial judge, and a common law which is enforced by an outside force. Outside of these responsibilities, society is useless to man. Hobbes defines society, as a Leviathan, the modern view of society is not as man’s friend but as his enemy. Unchecked society can do whatever it pleases whether it is for the good of man or not. For Hobbes the magistrate can do whatever he wants to his citizens and they must obey, save of course when one’s life is in danger and you are obligated by the law of nature to defend yourself. Thus for our Founders, students of men like Hobbes and Locke they would have viewed society, our Constitution, as a necessary evil.

Yet in recent times, namely the end of the 19th century, a new understanding has developed which does not exclude the Leviathan nature of society but does not reject society’s ultimate benefit to mankind either. The men who were associated with the German school of thought developed by men like Marx and Nietzsche associated society with being able to advance man. The central concern of Nietzsche is breaking man out of his “all too human” nature and the creation of the ubermensch. Marx viewed society as a tool to help advance man along the historical timeline to a period where no government would be necessary. In America we call the men and women associated with this line of thought the Progressives. It was their belief that in order for man to be moral the government had to instill that morality. For the moderns, morality was already present in the form of the law of nature. In order to understand morality one merely needs reason to understand the law of nature. Yet the German Historicist school of thought rejected a universal morality outside of the confines of the society. This notion was what helped spur on the Prohibitionists who believed it was government’s responsibility to ban alcohol to help better mankind. What developed was a notion similar to the ancient understanding that what is good for the city is good for man. Unfortunately, they were unable to temper the Leviathan and encouraged it to grow to control every aspect of human life. Through this belief came the rise of the Totalitarian states of Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Spain, and Nazi Germany.

What makes the Progressive era different than the Enlightenment? The Enlightenment believed it was the responsibility of the government in a way to enforce the moral code. Yet the Enlightenment had the law of nature, which dictated right and wrong to society. Society was obligated to create laws in accordance with the law of nature or face being deemed illegitimate—they were able to hide the notion that really morality is whatever the majority willed. With the destruction of God by German philosophers came the destruction of the law of nature (ultimately rooted in the Divine Law.) Now it is whichever faction with the biggest guns makes the morality. The society for the Enlightenment is only charged with the safety of the people. Their complete perfection is left in the hands of the individual person. As Locke argues in his Letter on Toleration, society is permitted to promote religion but not religious beliefs—in other words it is man’s responsibility to find his way to salvation by whatever means he thinks best, but society is able to promote a religious lifestyle and prevent dangerous factions from existing within society. The Progressives were less worried about safety and more with perfection of humanity. The Ancients throw a wrench into the wheel of both movements by encouraging the notion that the city provides safety (non daily needs) and that the city provides for the complete human life. However, that safety doesn’t mean that the city should be ignored as in the case of the Enlightenment where individuals can essentially live and let live. Political activity was central in the Ancient understanding of the city. A man who refused to engage in Politics was called an idiot by the Greeks. Their definition of the complete human life had nothing to do with the divine—the idea of man’s salvation and perfectibility would have been lost on Aristotle in the Progressive sense. Rather, complete human life tends towards two arenas: Politics or Philosophy. Both lives potentially can lead to the complete human life. The obligation to be involved in the political life, more than merely casting a vote, is at the heart of why the city’s goods are good for man. By the Enlightenment man’s obligation to society was vested in merely voting. The interests of man at large are often mixed with the passions and interests of the individual. Progressives would view that it is important to have experts in positions of authority, so that their own private passions and interests are eliminated. Man is no longer able to make his own decisions, but is left to the dictates of supposed experts. Thus, since society should be dictated by those of superior intellect (experts in a given field), what is good for the city and man are intrinsically connected.

Published in: on August 26, 2008 at 15:18  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let the truth reign over you

Since Michelle Obama, wife of Barack Obama, apparently doesn’t know her own husband very well, I think it my duty to correct the lies Mrs. Obama propagated at the Democratic National Convention during her speech. She claimed that Barack came from similar blue collar roots as she did. Apparently the Barack advisers want to down play the Uncle Tom appearance he has received in recent months by doing what is so common among rappers. Let no one be fooled, Obama is not from humble beginnings.

Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan who split when Barack was only two. For a man born into tribal Africa, Barack’s father was given the opportunity to study in the United States and met his second wife at the University of Hawaii. In 1963 the elder Obama and wife divorced when he was accepted to Harvard University and moved to Massachusetts. Obama returned to Kenya and worked in the Ministry of Transportation as an Economist. Meanwhile, Barack’s mother was born into a military family in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. She went to the University of Hawaii where she eventually received her PhD.

Does this sound like the middle class lifestyle to anyone else? A father who received a job in a government and had advanced degrees and a mother who had advanced degrees?

Barack’s mother, Ann, married her second husband named Lolo Soetoro who was Indonesian. Lolo and Ann met at the University of Hawaii and quickly moved to Jakarta, Indonesia where Lolo took a job with Mobil Oil after a period as a geologist. Tell me ladies and gentlemen does this sound like the life of a middle class blue collarr family?

Barack wished to attend school in America and his mother reluctantly sent him back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. He was enrolled in Punahou School, a private school, where he graduated in 1979. His grandmother Madelyn helped pay for his schooling with some tuition assistance. His grandmother was the Vice President of The Bank of Hawaii. After graduating Barack attended college initially at Occidental College in Las Angeles; Occidental is a Private Liberal Arts college and currently charges $1,076 per semester for tuition and room & board is $210 a week. Barack transferred to Columbia University after 2 years at Occidental. For those unfamiliar with Columbia, it is the oldest school in New York City and is Private. Columbia college for undergraduates per year currently charges $18,735 for the year. Tack on the additional charges colleges hit you with and you’re looking at close to a $30,000 a year school for someone who grew up in a blue collar family.

In the years following graduation from Columbia, Obama worked for the Business International Corporation, and New York Public Interest Research Group. He moved to Chicago and worked as the Director of the Developing Communities Project. During his time at the DCP, Obama helped the organization group from a staff of 1 to 13 and built up an annual budget that was $70,000 when he started to $400,000 by the time he left. When he finally left he traveled to Europe for three weeks and then went to Kenya. Does this sound like blue collar work to you?

Following these adventures Senator Obama attended non other than the Mecca of not only colleges, but of Education in general in the United States: Harvard. Not only did he attend Harvard for just education but for law school. For those who don’t know Harvard is a private university founded in the 17th century by the Puritans and is the oldest university in the United States. Just for a little perspective once again, Harvard Law’s tuition per year is over $40,000 not including other fees. Upon graduating the University of Chicago offered Obama a fellowship to write his book. When the book took longer to write than expected, Michelle and him traveled to Bali. Obama went on to teach Constitutional Law at the renowned University of Chicago for twelve years.

I hope this has enlightened those who fell into the democrat trap of lies about their new Messiah. Barack Obama was never a blue collar worker, and he didn’t grow up in a blue collar home. He has lived a privileged life from the start and it is impossible to believe that it is any different. Do we honestly want a man in the White House who has to lie about where he comes from in order to gain the support to win the office? His attempts to court the black community are sickening because he is lying blatantly to people he calls his own. He would rather lie than be called an Uncle Tom and watch the black community not support his bid for the White House. He is trying to gain the support of the underclass in the United States and trying to play the part of the Harry S. Truman Democrat when he is more like the JFK Democrat. The era when Presidential nominees were expected to be born in log cabins and come from humble roots is over Mr. Obama.

Barack Obama is unable to tell the truth about where he comes from. What makes anyone who supports this man think that he will be able to tell the truth about the important things? We have spent the last sixteen years with two men who were unable to tell the truth and Democrats want us to vote for another four years of lies.

Published in: on August 25, 2008 at 22:37  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Locke’s First Treatise: Sovereignty by Creation

Quotes taken from Locke: Two Treatises of Government edited by Peter Laslett

At this point John Locke takes to task Sir Robert’s attempt to give Adams sovereignty of the world and man by his creation. The first struggle Locke faces is Sir. Robert’s assertion that to suppose natural freedom in mankind means to deny Adam’s creation. However, this is a subtle use of words that Locke writes concerning this assertion by Sir Robert. Locke states, “For I find no difficulty to suppose the Natural Freedom of Mankind, though I have always believed the Creation of Adam…” Anyone who reads this passage cannot help but notice the use of suppose and believed and how different they make the meaning of his thought. Supposition comes from the use of one’s reason while belief does not. To suppose implies that one can logically think it through and find proofs while belief does not. Therefore, Locke is stating contrary to Filmer that Natural Freedom of Man Kind cannot be denied because reason can attain them whereas reason cannot attain the creation of Adam.

Next Locke presents the second issue,  that by Appointment Adam was made governor of the world by God. There are three instances in which Locke states this Appointment was possible: “Providence orders, or the Law of Nature directs, or positive Revelation declares…” Of these he denies that Providence could have been the appointment of Adam, which will be discussed momentarily. The Law of Nature and and positive Revelation are two interesting terms for Locke to use. We can simplify and attempt to understand this better if we change positive to it’s other meaning: law. The Law of Nature we know is a bastardization of the Natural Law and of the Natural Right, which proceeded the Law of Nature in previous epochs. The most direct ancestor of the Law of Nature is Natural Law, which St. Thomas articulates in his Treatise on Law. The Natural Law is the way in which the Eternal Law, or Providence, participates in human reason. By denying Providence, Locke has denied that God participates in the reason of man all together. Positive Revelation, or the Bible or Divine Law comes directly from the Eternal Law and informs and corrects both the Natural Law and the Human Law.  The Law of Nature removes the Eternal Law and Divine Law and supplants it with a temporal understanding.  Locke excludes a discussion of Adam’s sovereignty by Creation by denying both the Eternal and Divine laws as a source of political authority.  If Adam’s sovereignty was granted to him prior to creation through Divine Providence, then it would mean Adam would have been governor from the moment the Eternal Law came into be. It would be silly he asserts for Adam to have received his governorship over the world by Providence, because there was nothing to govern.

Locke then looks at Sir Robert’s assertion from the Law of Nature perspective. Locke argues that to assert Adam’s governorship by the Law of Nature is like saying that Man is governor over his children by right of nature. However, in this instance Locke points that Adam could neither be governor of the world, nor father when he had no government or children to make him governor of the world or father by right of nature. However, Sir Robert’s responds to this by asserting that Adam was not governor in fact but in habit. Yet, let us look at the problem of making Adam governor of the world by his creation through a different method.

Locke asserts Adam could not have been made governor of the world by his creation because he has no government; government does not come until the Fall, which is long after Adam’s creation. In fact, if one looks at the Book of Genesis they will find that government does not exist among Adam, Eve and their two sons. In fact government is not created until Adam’s son Cain slays Abel and is banished to the land of Nod by God. Cain is the founder of the city, not Adam, which makes Cain-a killer- the founder of the City according to Moses. This is why Sir Robert’s assertion that Adam gains governorship over the world by creation. Cain, not Adam, is the first governor that we encounter in the Bible. In fact, the children of Adam reject government until the Jews insist God give them a king. They are enslaved by the greatest government of the day- the Egyptians. A murderer, a betrayer to his family and his God is the founder of the City. The City is founded  upon sin according to the Bible.

Adam was made king of the world by his creation, not a king in fact, but a king in act which according to Locke means he was no king at all. This same argument, made by Sir Robert Locke will argue, means that Noah too was king of the world by his creation because it was his destiny to outlive his brethren. Belief in Adam’s creation and to suppose Natural Freedom of Mankind do not counteract each other according to Locke. Because Adam’s creation did not mean he was absolute ruler of the world as has been shown, one can still suppose the Natural Freedom of Mankind.

Published in: on August 8, 2008 at 01:52  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Further Thoughts on Conservatism

One might be inclinded to ask whether or not all conservatives are created equally, they are not. The beginnings of conservatism are locked in the confines of the Enlightenment. Classical Liberalism is really the parent of all conservative thought in a strange, round about way. Today there can be found Classical Liberals on both sides of the political spectrum.

The split in conservatism came with the writing of Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, where he praises the American revolution and bemoans the French. Burke was one of the few members of Parliament who supported the American colonies in their attempt to free themselves of British domination. In America the split was much sooner, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson while friends were bitter enemies at one point. John Adams can be considered the founder of American Classical Conservatism, while Jefferson falls into the Classical Liberal strain. For more information in the differences between these two classical schools, please look to my post titled “Thoughts on Schools within Conservatism.”

Today we see Paleoconservatism and Neoconservatism, both are remnants of what is called the Old Right which fell apart in the 1960′s. The Old Right, which encompassed other groups such as Southern Agrarians, was a non-interventionist, anti-war party which disagreed with the New Deal and opposed World War II. With the failed attempt by Barry Goldwater in 1964 to secure the Presidency of the United States, the New Right eventually was formed. These Neoconservatives disagreed with the Old Right’s stance of anti-war, and anti-intervention. It wasn’t until the 1980s that the term Paleoconservatism was actually coined, however they are really the remains of the Old Right which did not form the New Right. We might ask whether or not the Old Right, and subsequently the Neoconservatives and Paleoconservatives come from the Classical Liberal or Classical Conservative school of thought. The Old Right encompassed both, with Southern Agrarians and the actual Old Right being primarily Classical Liberals. There was some Classical Conservative elements to the Old Right coalition; namely the Traditionalists. The Southern Agrarians favored a return to the pre-Civil War, small federal government philosophy. Today one might associate this with Paleoconservatives, while Neoconservatives are seen as big federal government and less states rights. Many Paleoconservatives actually reject the notion of strict laws, while a Classical Conservative would favor strict laws as they believe in liberty through law.

Today’s disagreements with Conservatism stem from the 1960′s when the movement broken apart into Neo and Paleo movements. Unlike Liberalism, the Conservative movement is very diverse which makes it difficult to specifically outline their thoughts and history.  These two groups today still disagree with America’s stance on war, immigration, and the spread of “Western” ideals to non Westerners. However, within the Paleoconservative movement there are multiple splinters. We can look to the movement to find that different values have helped create multiple schools, which ultimately find themselves linked back to Paleos or Neos. For example, Traditional Conservatives can be said to be Paleoconservatives but look to the Western Traditional for their guidance and do not necessarily adhere to the southern beliefs of Paleoconservatives proper. The Religious Right places more importance on the values supported by their specific religion (namely Christian Religions) which differs slightly from Paleoconservatives. The Religious Right is made up primarily of alienated Southern Democrats. Unlike many other Paleoconservatives, however, the Religious Right supports the war in Iraq and supports Israel.But due to the traditional view in small government of the south, Religious Right can’t be said to be Neoconservatives.

Ultimately, the Neoconservative movement is the most unified movement in conservative thought. Yet, Paleoconservatives can truly claim to be the correct heirs to the movement despite their splintering off. The closest movement to traditional American political beliefs of the conservative persuasion is Traditionalists. The Religious Right bridges the gap between Neocons and Paleocons. Ultimately, Classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism are essential in understanding the Paleo and Neocon schools. With the founding of America, and the influence of John Adams on the foundation of the American regime, America became a conservative nation. With the election of Abraham Lincoln, there was a split in the American conservative movement. Southerners maintained an anti-centralist stance, while the Abraham Lincoln Republicans supported such a movement. The Old Right has its origins with the interwar period, where Conservatives took an anti-war, anti-interventist approach to the Second World War. It has eventually evolved in the 1960′s with the creation of the New Right/Neoconservativism. Today’s Paleoconservatives, by those I mean they who adhere to traditional southern beliefs, take on a Classical Liberal approach. While other Paleos, namely the Traditionalists, adhere to the Classical Conservative approach. This brings conservativism in America full circle; as it was at the beginning of the American experiment, so it is today.

Published in: on August 1, 2008 at 02:31  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,