The American Evolution, not Revolution!

Since 1776, there have a many attempts by other countries to replicate what the Americans did that fateful year.  The French were the first in 1789, followed by others, including the Mexicans (1810), the Russians (1917), the Chinese (1949), and the Cubans (1959).  Unfortunately, rather than providing those nations with leaders such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison, these revolutions ended with tyrants such as Napoleon, Santa Anna, Stalin, Mao, and Castro.  In more recent times, as the former authoritarian regimes are replaced with totalitarian ones, the democratically inspired revolts in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria seem destined to share the same fate as the above mentioned revolutions.  

This begs the question, “Why did the American Revolution succeed where so many have failed?”

As I illustrate in my book, Liberty Inherited, the American Revolution was not really a revolution.  It was actually the next step in the development of a socio-political-economic system that evolved over the previous 1200 years in England.   As George Washington would write in 1783, the British Empire “was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and suspicion but in an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period.” 

And he was not alone.  In 1763, John Adams wrote in Novanglus No. VII:

[T]he British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition be just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government’s being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy.

And, as late as March 1775, Benjamin Franklin was hopeful that British America could remain part of the Empire, even to the point of offering his entire net worth to pay for the tea spilt in the Boston Tea Party if London would only address the colonists’ grievances.

It is clear from these few examples (and there are many more) that the Founding Fathers of this nation considered the British system of government—with its limited government and respect for the rights of the individual—the best in the world.  They did not consider it tyrannical, despotic, or authoritarian.  Even after the defeat of the Empire by the American colonists Washington still maintained a positive opinion of the system.  

Furthermore, through the colonial assemblies and the hands-off approach of London, the colonists had over 150 years of semi self-rule.  Each colony had an assembly based on the English Parliament (either unicameral or bicameral) with the now familiar executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.  The most common shape of a colonial government had the executive in the form of the colony’s governor appointed by London, a legislature in the form of an assembly elected by the colonists, and a judicial with locally elected judges and the Governor’s Counsel acting as a supreme court.  The colonies, with few exceptions, were free to create their own laws as long as the laws did not violate English Common Law.  These 150 years of experience created political traditions, customs, and culture that the colonies of the other colonial powers (mainly Spain and France) lacked.  

While it is true that the Founding Fathers established a congress rather than a parliament, an elected president rather than a hereditary monarch, and a federal republic rather than a constitutional monarchy, the American Revolution is less of a revolution than it initially appears to be.  The truth is that when the time came for British America to become America and establish its own government the Founding Fathers took the system they knew, respected, and envied and made it their own.  They used the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to justify their own actions; kept English Common Law as the basis of their legal system; and used the Declaration of Rights of 1689 (which guaranteed in writing the ‘rights of all Englishmen’) as the model and basis for the founding documents (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights).  So, while the mechanics of government were changed, the basic political principles and values of the English system—mainly limited government, individual rights, private property, and free market economics—remained at the heart of the system.  The ‘rights of freeborn Englishmen’ became the ‘rights and liberties of Americans.’

This is why the American Revolution was really more of an evolution than a revolution.  It is also why the Americans were able to succeed where so many others have tragically failed, often with great bloodshed and loss of life.  Real revolutions attempt to fundamentally change a society by imposing an unfamiliar political system (including values and principles) on the people.  This is traumatic for the society and results in the blood-thirsty tyrannies that often come out of the chaos they create. The Founding Fathers did not try to impose a system of government that was alien or offensive to the majority of the people.  In fact, the principles on which the new government was based on were quite familiar to most of the colonists because it was, in reality, an Americanized version of the British system. 

This does not take away from the fact that the American form of government was not a leap forward in the idea that the common man is capable of ruling himself.  But this idea did not develop out of thin air.  It developed out of the British system, which—just as the American system was leap forward from the British system—was a leap forward from the absolutism that condemned the common man to a life of poverty and servitude.  

This is what made it evolutionary, not revolutionary, and why the Americans succeeded where so many have failed.

Related posts:

No 1776 without 1688

The Greatest Myth of the American Revolution

7 reasons why Rio 2016 may suffer the same fate as Tokyo 1940

The Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games are similar to presidential elections in that they both provide moments when one stops and considers whether things had gotten better or worse over the last four years.  Likewise, they force us to examine the next four years and to determine if they will be years that promise hope or trepidation.  I can say that when I watched the Closing Ceremony of the Olympic Games in Beijing I felt hope.  But this year, as I watched the Olympic flag pass from London to Rio de Janeiro, I did so with trepidation.  I wondered if Rio 2016 will realize its dream of being the first South American city to host the games or will it share the same fate as Tokyo did in 1940. 

 

The following is a list of seven very possible events or phenomenon that may turn Rio’s Olympic dream into nothing more than a wishful fantasy.

1)      Collapse of the Euro

Over the last few years the governments and central banks of Europe have attempted to prevent the collapse of the Euro.  With Greece no better off than before the bail out and the crisis spreading to Italy, Spain, and Portugal it appears that these attempts have done nothing but postpone the inevitable.  If a collapse should occur, its effects would be felt throughout the global economy, thus destabilizing an already unstable world. 

2)      Disintegration of the European Union and the rise of non-liberal forces

Either triggered by a collapse of the Euro or member nations just deciding that the union no longer serves their best interests, the disintegration of the European Union is appearing more likely every day.  Throughout the member nations anti-EU (and anti-German) sentiment is growing. 

Greece's Far-right 'Golden Dawn' Party

While the end of the E.U. is not in itself a threat to global stability, the form that it takes can be. If history is any indicator, we can expect to see an increase in the popularity of anti-democratic/anti-liberal political parties as the economic conditions worsen. This is what happened in the Great Depression of the 1930s, when totalitarianism replaced democracy as the most common form of government in Europe. And we all know what that led to.

3)      Muslim Extremism

Terrorism is no longer the only threat that Muslim extremism poses to the world.  As the Liberal Arab Spring turns into the Muslim Extremists Winter we can expect to see not only a less stable Middle East, but a less stable world.  Oil and Israel are the obvious two threats but we cannot discount the danger to Europe. With points 1 and 2 being real possibilities, there is a good chance that Europe may find itself politically fractured and economically weak. Although it is politically correct to highlight Christian European aggression against the Muslims (i.e. the Crusades) it needs to be remembered that Islam has attacked Christian Europe in just about every century and such an economically prostrate and politically disunited  Europe would present a very tempting target. A perusal of the rhetoric of many of the Muslim extremist fractions now obtaining power in formerly moderate Arab states clearly shows that this dream is not dead.

4)      Iran-Israeli War

With the rise of Muslim extremism comes a re-alignment of alliances in the Middle East. The once moderate Arab states, who were neutral on Israel, are now switching alliances.  We are seeing an aggressive and anti-Israel Iran gaining greater influence over the whole Middle East. With an ever growing number of her neighbors becoming hostile Israel cannot stand-by and let Iran become a nuclear power.  If the world is not willing to prevent this, then Israel will have to do it herself.  With oil being the life blood of the industrial world the resulting disruption—and the disruption of oil will be a prime target—would put the already weak global economy over the edge.  The instability this will cause cannot be understated.

5)      Militarized China

China's New Aircraft Carrier

For over two decades China has had the largest military on earth. But, as a recent article in The Economist points out, that military is now becoming a very large modern one capable of threatening the military power of the United States, which has served as a restraint on China’s expansionist desires.  As the power of this great nation grows will she feel emboldened enough to reclaim Taiwan or to return greater Asia to the hegemony of an Asian country? 

 6)     Decline in Anglosphere Influence

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world created by and in the image of the Anglosphere. During its 400 years of dominance the Anglosphere has spread the ideals and principles of the enlightenment, ushered in the industrial age, promoted free trade, opened the sea lanes for all, fought for democracy and championed human rights. It has defended the world against Napoleon’s tyrannical despotism, Hitler’s genocidal socialism, and Stalin's bloodthirsty communism. The unmatched power of the Anglosphere has been a stabilizing force in the world. Without the Anglosphere the world would have been a very dark and barbaric place.  Now, many are saying that we are witnessing the end of Anglosphere dominance.  If this is true, then we can definitely count on a very unstable world as the anti-liberal forces of authoritarian China and theocratic Islam make a bid to re-construct the world in their image.

7)      Global Economic Collapse

Although any one or combination of the above can trigger a collapse of the global economy, they are not required.  In fact, there may not be a need for a trigger at all.  The global economy may collapse on its own as central banks and governments experiment with theoretical and untested economic policies, which, as we have seen in point 1, have not been very effective.  Critics argue that these experimental policies have done nothing but postpone the inevitable and, by doing so, increased the impact of the collapse once it happens.  If they are correct then the world is headed for very dark and difficult times.

I know that this is a very gloomy view of our near future but I also know that I am not alone in sensing the danger the next four years may bring.  In a recent survey, 61% of Americans believe that there is a catastrophe of historical proportions lingering just beyond the horizon and I bet that a survey in other countries would produce similar results.  If, what they sense, does come to pass than I am afraid that Rio 2016 may not happen or, if the games do take place, it will do so in a world a lot less democratic and a lot more violent.

Modern Liberalism: The great deception

I remember that it was during the early part of the Clinton presidency when I first heard of ‘political correctness.’  Although I was still in my early twenties, I instantly recognized the term represented something to be despised for its wickedness.  My first instinct—and fear—was that it originated from my side of the political spectrum as I could not imagine anyone who consciously considered themselves as being ‘liberal’ embracing it, much less developing this contemptible concept.

Yet, two decades later, the intolerant and illiberal ‘liberal’ reaction to a person expressing his personal opinion, as evidenced in the recent Dan Cathy/Chick-Fil-A uproar, did not surprise me at all.  

The difference in my reaction to these two events is that I have come to realize that what is termed ‘modern liberalism’ is not liberal at all and is one of the greatest deceptions perpetuated on the American electorate.

Before I can explain what I mean by this, we need to examine what real liberalism is.  

Real or true liberalism evolved out of the enlightenment period that swept Western Europe in the 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th centuries and is considered by many to be the zenith in the history of liberty and the governance of man.  It is based on the belief that the average man could rule or govern himself without the oversight of some aristocratic lord directing his behavior.  This belief found a welcome home among both the enlightened intellectuals and the common people of England.  Over those three centuries, the English developed a political system based on this conviction.  At the heart of this form of governance, which has been conveniently renamed ‘classical liberalism’ by leftist academics, are four basic principles.

• Limited Government
• Individual Rights
• Private Property
• Free Contract Economics

The first two preserved political freedom while the last two guarded economic freedom.  [I should note here that Free Contract Economics refer to the freedom that individuals have to willfully engage with each other without approval of an aristocratic overseer.  It is not a license to rob, cheat, swindle, defraud, or steal.]

It is this philosophy and these principles that are represented in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, and, especially, the Bill of Rights.  Hence, it is also referred to as ‘Jeffersonian Liberalism.’ It is also the version of liberalism that I understood when I first reacted to hearing of the non-liberal concept of ‘political correctness.’

[If you doubt this understanding of liberalism, then please read the platform of the Liberal Party of Australia, which, to their credit, has remained faithful to the principles of true liberalism.]

The Deception Begins

As I noted above, in the early part of the 20^th century true liberalism was renamed classical ‘liberalism.’ This allowed Marxist-based Progressivism to usurp the name and the great accomplishments of true or authentic liberalism.

Unfortunately, modern liberalism has none of the trust in the average man that true liberalism does.  In fact, at its core is the belief that the average man cannot be trusted to make the correct choices or decisions.  Like the serf of the Middle Ages, the average person must be guided, controlled, and tempered by the ‘wisdom’ of the more educated, cultured and civil members of society.  This is why Faux-Liberals (my term for illiberal modern liberals) can not only embrace but can also originate concepts that are, at their core, the anti-thesis to the principles of true liberalism. 

I do not make this accusation based on their words since the manipulation of the language is the basis of deception, and, as the redefining of liberalism illustrates, Faux Liberals are very competent in language manipulation.  It is their actions and the results of those actions that provide basis of my charge.  All one needs to do is to compare some of the core objectives and policies of Faux-liberalism to see that it has very little in common with being liberal and is more akin to ideologies that have lead to tyranny and despotism:

•  From the support and acceptance of ‘political correctness’ to the practice of silencing opposing opinion we see the disdain Faux Liberals have for the rights of the individual, including the freedoms of thought and expression.
• By using government as an instrument of change, often referred to as ‘social engineering,’ we see a complete disregard for the principle of limited government
• Through the redistribution of wealth schemes we witness complete contempt for private property. 
• The attempt to regulate all business and control economic activity violates the principle of Free Contract Economics

Now, I do not have a problem with people supporting or being in favor of these policies—after all, disagreement is the product of a free society—but I do take exception with people who are deceptive about their beliefs and ideology. This is exactly what Faux-liberalism does. It is an ideology claiming to be liberal when its actions are the complete opposite. Additionally, its adherents continue the deception by chastising others for lacking tolerance, understanding, and compassion when they continually fail demonstrate those values themselves.  This leads to some very interesting questions:

Why must a political ideology or movement use deception in order to gain support for its objectives?

Why must it feel compelled to usurp the title of a political philosophy that is the anti-thesis of everything it stands for?

Why did its adherents not choose a label that properly reflected the ideology’s true values and principles?

Why must it resort to language manipulation to get people to support its causes?

And, more importantly,

Why the deception?

What is it hiding?

I know at this point you may be thinking, “Well, conservatives are no better” and to a degree you are right since both sides have done an exceptional job of eliminating true liberalism from America’s political landscape. The difference is that conservatives did not take the term and redefine it to suit their needs or to mislead people. On the contrary, conservatives tend to use phrases, such as traditional values, American values, free market economics, etc to accurately reflect their ideology and beliefs. This is what makes modern or faux-liberalism the greater of the two evils.  Its use of language manipulation, which is designed to deceive a well-intentioned, although not well-informed, electorate, is by any measure loathsome and should generate the feeling of revulsion in anybody who truly values freedom, liberty, and individual rights.

References:
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism
http://www.whatisliberalism.com/
http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Our-Beliefs.aspx#FederalDirector

Romney, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Misinformed

The recent hullabaloo over a Romney adviser stating that Romney understands better than President Obama the special relationship between Britain and the United States demonstrates a total lack of historical understanding of what the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ means.

What uninformed people do not realize is that long before the term was usurped by ignorant racists such as the KKK, it was used to describe a political system that is the basis of the English-speaking world.  

 As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, Britain, and specifically England as an island nation, developed much differently than mainland Europe. As early as 500 A.D., with the Anglo-Saxon invasion led by the Germanic brothers Hengist and Horsa, we can identify the beginning of a cultural--not racial--character that continues to this day. As Churchill explains in the History of the English-Speaking Peoples, the Saxons created a “strong strain of individualism based upon land-ownership [private property]” that was to “play a persistent part in the politics of England.” In The English Constitution and Legal History Colin Rhys-Lovell explains that as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.  This was reflected in their laws and government, which established that

• All decisions in the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just the majority.
• The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation.
• Power was disbursed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. 
• Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.
• They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote.
•  They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges. (Incredibly, as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons had the legal practice of trial by jury)

This highlights what Walter Russell Mead writes in God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World, “The Anglo-Saxons in the seventh and eighth centuries were free people, and that England owed its liberty and its most important institutions to these ancient traditions.” 

Thus, based on its Anglo-Saxon heritage, England became the birthplace of the principles that are (or were) the foundation of liberty—liberty the English-speaking world now takes for granted.  Additionally, it is the foundation of what was to become known as ‘Liberal Democracy.’

In fact, I argue that there would be no such thing as human rights if not for the Anglo-Saxons since their principles of individual rights, rule of law, and the limited power of government were alien to the system of government that developed on the continent or anywhere else in the world. It must be noted that at the time the system of government that was established on continental Europe evolved from the absolute rule that the Roman Emperors enjoyed. Under that system an all-powerful prince owned everything including all the land and the people within his realm.  (Note: this is why England (Britain after the unification of 1707) never has had a Napoleon, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Franco or a Stalin.  It is contrary to their culture.)

Additionally, which may surprise many of us in the English-speaking world, much of the non-English speaking world sees the glaring similarities rather than subtle differences between our countries.  In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the United States and the British Empire were often jointly referred to as the “Liberal Democracies” or the “Anglo-Saxon powers.” (Note: Liberal in this case refers to the authentic Classical Liberalism, not the faux-modern liberalism of today)  Even as late the 1960s, French President and World War II hero Charles de Gaulle always referred to the United States and Britain jointly as “les pays Anglo-Saxonnes” (the Anglo-Saxon countries) and the term is still used by such enemies of liberty as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

So, in it original form, “Anglo-Saxon” is a political—and not racial—term that describes nations that are based on the Anglo-Saxon principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics.  With President Obama’s contempt for most, if not all, of these principles and his scorn for the anything remotely English it is hard to believe that he would have a deep understanding of the special relationship that exist not only between the U.S. and the U.K., but also between all the English-speaking nations that comprise the Anglosphere. 

It is regrettable that the Romney adviser stated that Romney’s understanding of the ‘special relationship’ was due to his “Anglo-Saxon heritage” (as opposed to his worldview) since it denotes the commonly, yet ill-informed, understanding of the term as being racial.  Otherwise, what he said was 100% on target!

Book Review: Attack State Red by Col. Richard Kemp

I usually do not do book reviews—actually this is the first one—but I have recently read a book that I believe needs to be recognized. It is titled Attack State Red and, although it has been out since 2010, most people outside of the UK are probably unaware of this exceptional piece of military literature.

Written by British Army Col. Richard Kemp and journalist Chris Hughes, the book details the Royal Anglian Regiment’s six month deployment to Afghanistan and is a reminder there are more than American servicemen fighting and dying in that worn-torn country. From page one, the book grabs your attention and never lets go. The first chapter starts the book off with a page turning firefight that is reminiscent of We Were Soldiers (another compelling book written by Colonel Hal Moore and journalist Joseph Galloway about the Vietnam War).

Overall, the book is an excellent read for anyone interested in gaining an accurate understanding of what our servicemen go through while in Afghanistan. It takes the reader through the tactics and down to the level of the individual soldier. It shows men in combat as they really are. It does not attempt to be politically correct by glossing over the joking and kidding, at times morbid, that is the norm of all fighting men or the pride a soldier feels after successfully terminating a bad guy with a well placed shot. Nor does it overplay the sadness over the loss of one of their own. What it does do in exemplary style is to give credit to the professionalism of the young soldiers who, while suffering the death of one of their brothers-in-arms, still manage to “crack on” and get the mission done.

This is what makes it a compelling and touching story that leads the reader through the full spectrum of emotions. You will not be able to stop smiling as you read about the young soldiers playing with plastic army men while in the middle of a battle zone or with their play stations while back at their bases. In the end, it is these human touches that takes you beyond the dry tactics and makes you feel part of the story…a member of the team. As a result, you will not be able to resist shedding a tear when you read of one of these brave soldiers losing his life to a mine, sniper, or even friendly fire.

In this regard it reminds me of Cornelius Ryan’s work (The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far) in that it highlights that life goes on even in a warzone. That, as human beings, we have an immense capacity not only to endure, but to make the best of a bad situation, to laugh in the face of adversity and even death.

Additionally, it takes you beyond the headlines and into what is really going on in Afghanistan. Its firsthand account will surprise even those who think they know what is ‘really’ going on in that conflict riddled country. It also details the realities of modern day warfare. It is not clean, perfect, nor precise and, no matter how much we try, innocents will die and soldiers will get hit with friendly fire.

Lastly, as an American, I recognize that we shamefully hear too little of what our allies in Afghanistan are doing. We hear too little of the losses they suffer while fighting alongside our own servicemen. In fact, the book details cooperation between the American and British military, which is quite impressive. For example, the respect that the British ‘Tommies’ have for the ‘Yank’ Apache pilots will make any American proud of the men and women of our armed forces.

Final verdict: I recommend Attack State Red to anyone who is interested in military history, tactics (especially small unit), men in combat, and what the everyday life of our soldiers in Afghanistan is like.

The book is available worldwide from Amazon.  Click on the book's image above to view its Amazon page.

Still an Amazon Bestseller

12 weeks after its debut in the Kindle format, Liberty Inherited still tops Amazon bestseller lists!

When education becomes indoctrination

Once upon a time the prime objective of education was to teach individuals to be self-thinking adults.  This was achieved by focusing on what were commonly referred to as the 3 Rs; reading, writing, and arithmetic.  These three subjects were regarded as crucial to one’s development since the goal of educators of the time was much nobler then preparing the student for a job.  They recognized that democracy could not exist without a solid citizenry made up of independent thinking individuals.  It was their goal to create such a citizenry by teaching:  

• Reading: If a person can read he can independently learn without being told what to learn.  He can develop his own way of thinking without being told what to think.  In other words, it leads to education while avoiding indoctrination.
•  Writing: By developing the ability to communicate in verbal and written language the individual can effectively communicate his ideas, thoughts, and opinions with others.
• Arithmetic: It has long been accepted that math develops analytical skills.  Increasing math ability also increases a person’s ability to think analytically.  

Once mastered and applied, these three skills gave the individual the foundation to learn any subject he wanted, communicate what he has learned, and, most importantly, to think critically for himself.  This resulted in unleashing the creativity, originality, vision, and ingenuity of the individual person, which benefited not only the individual but also the society as a whole.

Unfortunately, over the last several decades the 3 Rs have lost favor with the elites that direct what our schools are teaching our children.  

In his book the Lonely Crowd, David Riesman (considered the father of American sociology) points out that the education system has consistently moved away from developing educated self-thinking individuals to creating citizens who can relate to others.  As a result the 3 Rs have been replaced by 

• Conformity
• Sensitivity
• Thinking “correctly” 

Although his book was written in the 1950s, the process of getting students to think “correctly” started nearly a half a century before.  As the Commissioner of Education under President Taft, William Harris, wrote:

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident, but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual. - The Philosophy of Education (1906)

Four generations later, John Gatto, the recipient of New York City’s 1990 Teacher of the Year award, would remark on how thorough the collectivist transformation of the education system has been.  In a speech, he observed that “schools are intended to produce through the application of formulae, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.”

As recently as 2008, a California appellate court re-affirmed this collectivist approach to education when it ruled that the “primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”  [If this does not scare you, nothing will!]

Note that in each of these examples, there is no mention of creating self-thinking individuals.  In fact, the quotes seem to imply that the modern method of education sees individualism as something that needs to be discouraged or even eliminated.  Neither is the revered Gifted (or Gate) program a safe haven for the individualistic and self-thinking youngster.  In his biography of Winston Churchill, renowned historian William Manchester notes that the standards teachers use to select bright students “would have excluded Churchill, Edison, Picasso, and Mark Twain.”  

When does education become indoctrination? 

I believe that the line between the two is crossed when we start teaching what to think instead of how to think. The sad truth is that we are no longer teaching our children how to think.  Instead, we are telling them what to think.  Our schools have passed through education and onto indoctrination.  Until that is changed, our education system can never be fixed; regardless of how much money we throw at it.

10 Steps to Preserving American Liberty

In the ten days leading up to Independence Day I wrote a series of posts that listed 10 steps that are needed in order to preserve our liberty.  These 10 steps were taken from my book, Liberty Inherited, and are followed by some additional comments.  Since each post was an individual post the reader had to search each one out.  It was suggested that I create a post linking the series together.  So, by demand, here is the list of the blog posts that made up the series.  

Click on the title to read the entire post. 

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

When we consider that men have been forming civilizations as long ago as 4500 BC it becomes clear that 60 years of liberty and freedom does not guarantee the world will continue to embrace those principles.

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

3. English must be the language of the United States

By not learning English individuals are limiting their ability to become Americans in their hearts and minds.

4. Understand what America means to people around the world

There is no other country that can match the United States’ history of liberating oppressed people all over the world.

5. Be proud of being an American

I urge each of you to hold your head up and proudly proclaim that you are an American.

6. Respect individual sovereignty

The first is that an individual receives those rights and the second is that other individuals are obligated not to trample on the rights of others.

7. Continue to educate yourself

It is not enough to rely on the history you were taught in school, even if you were one of the few who paid attention.

 

8. Understand America’s classical liberal philosophy

Classical liberalism was the basic philosophy of this country until the turn of the 20th century.
 

9. Return America’s exceptionalism to the schools

Instead of educating our students on European political philosophies we need to be teaching first and foremost the philosophy that was at the heart of this country’s foundation.

 

10. Vote responsibly

As individuals in a representative democracy the biggest weapon we have is our right to vote.

Countdown to Independence Day: #10 Vote Responsibly

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Today's posting covers the 10th and final step.  I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 9.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.

10.   Vote responsibly

As individuals in a representative democracy the biggest weapon we have is our right to vote. But this right does not guarantee preservation of our freedoms unless it is exercised wisely. Too often it is tempting to take the easy way and allow political parties or special interest groups to decide who we are going to vote for. At this point in time in our country's history we cannot afford to take the lazy approach to voting. It is also not enough to make sure you are voting for the correct political candidate. Nowadays with judges having so much power and ability to shape our country it is essential to understand who is asking for you to confirm or reconfirm him as a judge. 

Unfortunately, most of these people do not even have enough respect for the voter to supply a brief statement of why you should vote for them.  Therefore, it has been nearly impossible to determine whether they deserve your vote or not. Now with the Internet this is no longer the case and in most states you can at least get a bio of the person. This bio will often provide you information about a person’s experience on the bench, his career path to become a judge, and if he was appointed, by whom. You will be amazed how easy it is to discern a person’s political views from this information.

Since 2008 it has become painfully clear that relying on political parties has done nothing but jeopardized our liberties and freedoms.  It is no longer sufficient to vote for the candidate with the right initial (D or R as the case maybe).  It is also no longer sufficient to vote for who is going to be in the White House.  Now more than ever we must give equal consideration to all offices, including those at state and local levels.  As the recent Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare illustrates, judges need to be properly vetted.  This should be the role of local news media but, like the national media, they are negligent of their responsibilities.  So it falls on the individual voter to discern who deserves his vote.  

The problem is, as I state in the book, many of those seeking judgeship and/or local office have so little respect for the voter that they do not even bother to provide any details for the voter guides.  In my opinion, this contempt for the voter should automatically disqualify anyone asking for your vote.  If, while trying to get your vote, he does not have enough respect for the voter to provide some basic information  how much respect will he have once in office?  

Unfortunately, voters cannot rely on the parties nor the media to assist us.  Therefore, we must do the work ourselves.  We can no longer put into office politicians whose idea of sacrifice is turning their backs on the people and undermining the nation while lining up funding and support for their next campaign.  The nation deserve better and we the people deserve better.  Voting is not only a right but also a weapon to be used by the people against an unresponsive government.  If we want to preserve our liberty and America's exceptionalism,  then being lazy and careless is not an option.