Country Living Series

Friday, September 10, 2010

Divorce Agreement

This is a letter that was circulating the internet a few months back, allegedly written by a college student named John Wall.  I don't know and don't care if this is an urban myth or not - it's brilliant.
_________________________________

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem." I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine," "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing," "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World.”

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this?

If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.

28 comments:

  1. AMEN! Couldnt have said it better. Me, I am so sick of what has been happening to my country that I have longed for a hole just to crawl in and close up. But I like this idea the best.
    mwp

    ReplyDelete
  2. My name is Kyle Wilson. I'm an agircultural economist, a writer, a philosopher, dad, husband, and an agrarian. I'd like to commend you on the effort you’ve put into your blog and your agrarian lifestyle. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to review, link to, or even feature my blog on your blog. If I can do anything to reciprocate, please don't hesitate to ask.
    Many thanks,
    Kyle Wilson
    mragecon.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. A Christian-Libertarian response:

    "we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military."

    Actually, you can have the military and the cops. Pretty soon they'll be the same thing anyway.

    "We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street."

    Greedy corporations, huh? Since when did greed become a value that conservatives pursue?

    "We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks."

    There's that greed thing again.

    "You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security."

    I wonder what we would think if China "retained the right to invade and hammer places that threaten" their financial security. Because, let me tell you, we owe those people SO MUCH MONEY that we'd be #1 on their list.

    Also, the Founding Fathers wanted NO PART of providing their allies security. Frankly, neither do I. Some other countries interests aren't worth a drop of American blood or a dime of American money.

    "We shall be the friend of Liberty everywhere, but the defender of ours alone." --George Washington

    Also, would this new conservative America be funded by a central bank because I see no mention of that here. I also assume pornography, abortion, and homosexuality would be embraced in this new wonderland of conservatism, because this letter doesn't seem to want to anything to change that.

    Ron Paul is more right by the day. . . the GOP and the Conservative Movement has lost it's way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doesn't Ron Paul the libertarian want to legalize drugs and prostitution? So would those "enterprises" become part of the Christian Libertarian platform? Are they somehow better than homosexuality, abortion, and pornography? Just curious.

    Also, I find it quite interesting that Ron Paul won his elections by running as a Republican, while actually being a Libertarian, so perhaps he's not the righteous, honest, upfront guy so many of his followers believe him to be. I guess winning is all that matters no matter who the politician may be.

    I see shortcomings with all parties and with all politicians. Our Founding Fathers didn't even want politicians to be in office, they wanted citizen-statesmen - people who would have a job, leave it just long enough to do their civic duty, then return to their job. Professional politicians were to be avoided like the plague. Ron Paul has become a professional politician. Don't get me wrong, I agree with much of what he says, but I will never understand why drugs should be legal. I have seen what they can do to a town and I think legalizing them would speed up the decay of our society. (Although it is already decayed beyond recognition in many urban areas.) And I sure don't want to pay for some prostitute's abortions and STD treatment under Obamacare. Ron Paul can pay my share of that whole thing. Same for drug "rehabilitation" (what a joke that is).

    As a (terribly flawed) Christian Conservative, I'll keep the cops and the military, gladly. I'd see to it when they came over to my side of the country (after the divorce settlement) that the cops would no longer be social workers and mediators and the military would no longer be policemen and foreign aid distributors. The military would be used for defending America,period. With that point I agree. As for the letter mentioning "greed," I think that was a bit of sarcasm aimed at the liberal/progressive/Marxist portion of our population who never met a capitalist they liked. As Ayn Rand said, greed is good. Although she didn't mean it to be greed as in Madoff or Goldman-Sachs.

    George Washington spelled it out quite clearly for us when he wrote his Farewell Address to the People of the United States. It should be required reading in ALL American schools.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why divorce or divide the country? The marxists, progressives and socialists already have their utopias to go and live in: Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, China...more moderate socialists can go to France, England, Sweden, Canada. Those who want the open drug culture can go to Mexico. No need to stay in this horrible US of A and suffer with the backward conservatives. I for one am not stopping a single progressive, marxist, maoist or socialist from leaving. Heck, I'll help them load the moving van!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Crazy Christian,

    I'd like to suggest to improve your academic integrity when commenting on articles.

    1. References to "greedy" are sarcastic. Liberals and Marxists call corporations "greedy". The writer is saying, "Fine. Whatever you call them, we'll take them".

    2. Your correlating China's invasion of the U.S. for financial reason to U.S. attacking countries who blew up the World Trade Center is purposefully and obviously flamboyant. Do you seriously equate indebtedness with holy terror?

    3. Concerning porn, abortion, and homosexuality---sheesh, do you expect a witty article to cover ALL topics?

    Conservatism is a set of beliefs and values. The GOP is a political party that embraces the values that garner the most votes. It's important for you to understand the distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well...geee...I guess some of you folks would be making me go live on the other side based on some of this 'criteria'. I am quite conservative/libertarian in most of my beliefs. However, I also want to believe in ideals of world peace and love for fellow-man. Giving up the songs/ideals about that to the other side is just wrong. It was under the careful watch of progressives when Americans of German background were abused, detained and killed during WWI and the Americans of Japanese background during WWII. They are not about peace.

    I also happen to believe in taking care of our planet and trying NOT to poison it and the health of us and the coming generations. What is wrong with caring about the environment we are going to leave the next seven generations? I think that the extreme environmentalist, like ALGORE have it wrong, but the exact opposite is also foolish.

    Also, it is just plain wrong to think that people that are judeo-christian are the only conservative/libertarian people and everyone else belongs on the other side. Isn't America about freedom of religion? And that does not mean freedom FROM religion. It means that the government is not to establish a state religion. This letter sends everyone who isn't a jew/christian to the other side....that is not an American ideal, is it? That smacks of having a govt. establish what is allowed religion.

    I don't know....parts of this letter sounds patriotic and goes along with my views of individual rights and all, but then takes a wrong turn in a few places. I guess that I don't agree with this 'divorce' after all. I think the country needs diversity of ideals and beliefs. I also happen to agree with what Anonymous said...if someone doesn't like it here, they are free to go live somewhere else, and I will also help them pack.

    ReplyDelete
  8. We must keep in mind it was written tongue in cheek. Sounds like this hit a hot button....
    Thanks for the morning chuckle.
    P.S.
    Just make sure to let me know which half of the country the conservatives get so I can start potentially packing for the mass moving day.
    :)
    Tina

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am not advocating drug use by any means. But we are supposed to be able to enjoy life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. If what I do causes any one no harm then it would be my business. If my body really belongs to me I should be able to put in anything I want as long as it doesn't cause any one else any harm. If my body belongs to the goverment then it can say what I can put in it. if it bolongs to the goverment then this comunism to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have a better idea - you are all welcome in Western Canada - we are fighting the same fight

    ReplyDelete
  11. How can anyone over the age of 15 believe in world peace or think it is ever possible? Bad people exist and have to be stopped by the good guys. Prostitution has been awful nearly everywhere it is legalized, from child exploitation to enslavement, how can a good person turn a blind eye to that? I'm all for legalizing marijuana as it's less harmful than alcohol, but meth and things like that are just crazy and already greatly damaging our society.
    As for greedy corporations, what makes a corporation greedy exactly? If it's the drive for profit thus steady jobs for lots of people, what the heck is the problem with greed? Everyone is greedy to a certain extent, what do you think motivates people to be a fry cook at mcdonalds? It is not the love for the potato or as a way to selflessly serve the public, it is for the money(what some might call greedy). I also don't understand how anyone can believe we can either majorly harm, or heal the earth. The earth has bounced back from ice ages, major volcanos and nuclear bombs, how could insignificant humans change anything? I have faith that God created this planet and will continue to watch over us all, and that is enough for me. People that live closer to the earth generally care more for the earth, so I believe city dwellers are far more damaging to the planet than country folks depending on the land for sustenance. And finally, I totally agree with the divorce and it will happen at some point. The only thing saving us now is that we are still all mixed together. If clear battle lines are ever made there will be civil war, which is horrible but I personally think inevitable. Listen to the songs that were popular just before and at the beginning of the civil war. It's a little too close to the mark for me, what about you? And no, I'm not talking about slavery, but how people felt about their government, president, and fellow citizens. How can such opposing views (conservative vs liberal) ever live in peace when they have a shared bank account?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just read your editorial on the WND website regarding "A House Divided". It has begun to dawn on me also that ultimately Progressives and Conservatives have absolutely nothing in common and cohabitation is no longer a long term option. I know I will never be able to understand Prgressive logic and I fully understand Progressives will never understand my Conservative logic. You have certainly evaluated in depth the ramifications of splitting this country.

    Personally, I don't think the country can be divided geographically. In my mind there are two options; continue to ride this slide down into the inevitable Progressive Sewer, which is our current trajectory OR move to another country that does not embrace Progressive Insanity, that among other things, leads to a genuine hate of me and my kind, that being, responsible, hard-working, (increasingly ex)patriotic, conservative christian white male.

    There is a third option, which is to stand and fight, but I don't see that as a real possibility either due to non-existent organization efforts beyond tea-party political efforts. Even if conservatives win in 2010 and 2012, the progressives will ratchet up their opposition via the Main Stream Media and the division will continue.

    Progressives are like Terminators, they are out there, they don't feel sympathy, they don't feel pain, they don't feel remorse, and they will never ever stop until they rip the heart out of this once great nation.

    Good luck. Keep your head down and your powder dry. Maybe with a little luck..."The South's goin' to do it again". Right Charlie?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Doesn't Ron Paul the libertarian"

    So now the guy is a libertarian despite the fact that he's been a Republican congressman for years and is the ranking Republican member on a few committees? But you don't like him so he's a libertarian. Does that make Lyndsey Grahm a democrat?

    ". . . want to legalize drugs and prostitution?"

    Drugs yes, prostitution no. He would oppose federal laws on both of these issues and so should you. As for your individual state laws, Paul's position is make whatever laws you want to in your sovereign state.

    "So would those "enterprises" become part of the Christian Libertarian platform?"

    No, we'd happily outlaw prostitution and other debauchery and would strongly discourage drug use as a personal policy. I personally would stop short of making laws preventing drug use because I think it's impossible to control. But others of my political leanings strongly disagree.

    "Are they somehow better than homosexuality, abortion, and pornography? Just curious."

    No, you're sarcastic. There's a difference.

    "Also, I find it quite interesting that Ron Paul won his elections by running as a Republican"

    Because he is a republican. Try to keep up.

    "while actually being a Libertarian"

    According to you. Sure he was in 1988, but since when has he been a libertarian since his 1990's return to congress as a republican?

    "so perhaps he's not the righteous, honest, upfront guy so many of his followers believe him to be. I guess winning is all that matters no matter who the politician may be."

    No, you say that since you're so used to loving these types of politicians (See: Romney, Mitch and Huckabee, Mike). Name one thing Ron Paul has lied or been dishonest about.

    "As a (terribly flawed) Christian Conservative, I'll keep the cops and the military, gladly."

    Good, you can have their repeated offenses against the bill of rights too.

    "I'd see to it when they came over to my side of the country (after the divorce settlement) that the cops would no longer be social workers and mediators and the military would no longer be policemen and foreign aid distributors."

    See, I'd believe that except it's people like you that have continually voted for "conservatives" that make the police more and more like the military and the military more like nation builders.

    "The military would be used for defending America,period."

    Right, kinda like how Bush used them to guard a border in Korea, occupy part of Germany, and do "humanitarian" missions all over the globe.

    Defending America. . . RIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT.


    "As for the letter mentioning "greed," I think that was a bit of sarcasm aimed at the liberal/progressive/Marxist portion of our population who never met a capitalist they liked. As Ayn Rand said, greed is good."

    You mean Ayn Rand the Atheist? That immoral and debase Ayn Rand who argues there is no God? Surely in rebuking me as a Christian here you wouldn't be appealing to her as an authority.

    Greed isn't good. It's sin. Period.

    "Although she didn't mean it to be greed as in Madoff or Goldman-Sachs."

    No of course she doesn't. See because when Greed looks bad. . . well, you don't mean that kind of greed do you? No, you mean the good kind of greed that we're called to in Scripture.

    RIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTT.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I'd like to suggest to improve your academic integrity when commenting on articles."

    Get a dictionary and learn what words mean before you use them. This is one of the most ridiculous accusations I've ever received.

    "References to "greedy" are sarcastic. Liberals and Marxists call corporations "greedy". The writer is saying, "Fine. Whatever you call them, we'll take them"."

    Whatever. The fact remains that greed is a reality in our world and conservatives embrace it. They shouldn't. It's sin, not good.

    "Your correlating China's invasion of the U.S. for financial reason to U.S. attacking countries who blew up the World Trade Center is purposefully and obviously flamboyant. Do you seriously equate indebtedness with holy terror?"

    Yes. Wars have been fought over far less than debt. Learn your history and you'd know that already.

    "Concerning porn, abortion, and homosexuality---sheesh, do you expect a witty article to cover ALL topics?"

    Nah, not really. But isn't it interesting the topics this person found important and the ones they didn't. I thought so.

    "Conservatism is a set of beliefs and values. The GOP is a political party that embraces the values that garner the most votes. It's important for you to understand the distinction."

    Right, and it's important you understand the fundamental difference. The GOP is not conservative, does not align with Christian values, and mostly is not worth the vote of Christians.

    Most of you will give them your vote anyway, but that doesn't make it right.

    It's important you understand that distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Call me a sunny optimist, but I think we can pray our way out of this mess. We need to pray for humility and grace when dealing with those whom we disagree. We need to pray for more Americans to turn to the Author of our existence and seek His forgiveness, as well as seeking forgiveness for ourselves. We need to pray that our Lord will stand with us and overcome our enemies, both foreign and domestic, that we might glorify Him in our nation once again.

    If we lack the courage to condemn the same things that God condemns, we're to be condemned ourselves. If we seek after God and His ways, what challenge is too big for Him to overcome on our behalf?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous 9/11/10 9:43PM,
    I'll pray, but I'll keep my powder dry, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for posting all of these recent posts; now I know to take you off my blog reading list.

    Have a nice life and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The real problem in America is that America has no centralising Authority, and no local Autonomy, that is actually agreed to by all. In Theory there is the Constitution, but the Constitution is made of Paper, and while it is a written and fixed (Unless Amended) Document, it is subject to Interpretation. The difference between Liberals and Conservatives is more in their understanding of the world, and the difference in how they interpret the Constitution reflects this.


    Really the whole ideal presented in the Enlightenment was Liberal, so we don’t even have fights between Liberals and Conservatives, but between two branches of Liberalism. Anyone who stands for Americas Founders and their vision stands for 18th Century Liberalism. People like me who openly criticise them, though, are seen as insane. Still Americans stand divided and at each others Throats.

    To the Conservatives here I am a Liberal. I came months ago and told I was a Monarchist and was told I wanted rule by Elites like Stalin and Mao. That was insulting, and bizarre given that Mao had marched on the Forbidden City to capture the already defunct Emperor, just because of his Hatred of Monarchy, and Stalin was part of a Revolutionary Movement which killed the Tzar in Russia.


    This has become a popular slur, conservatives claiming the Liberals are Monarchists. It plays on the hatred of Monarchy and Liberalism by saying they are the same thing, and the poor Historical understanding of most Americans on the Revolution, which was not against Monarchy in and of itself, but against Tax Polity. (Which was also Ironically not actually set by the King. The Britannic Monarch was Constitutionally limited in Power in 1776.)

    You Imagine Monarchy as a top down, centralised force, in which huge Bureaucracies exist to micromanage us, the Ultimate liberal Ideal. Never mind that Liberals want a Social Democracy, and that Monarchy is the Antithesis of that.

    Still, I’ll present my ideas, knowing I’ll be ladled a Communist for ideas that oppose Communisms core Values.


    I believe that we should have a King, or Queen. The Monarch should be given real Power. This power should not be Absolute, but should be real. As real as the President’s.

    I believe the Senate should not be Elected, and either go back to being appointed by the State Legislatures or else be Unelected Lords. The House of Representatives should remain about the same.

    I believe in the model in which he King owns the Government, for ownership always increases responsibility, and the Crown would then have incentive to do a good job to leave his property in a better state, to increase his own base and to leave a legacy for his Heirs.

    The biggest problem is that the Government is a Public entity, not a Private one, and this is were our Problems lie.

    To Ce Continued.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I’d also let each State have a King, or Prince, or Duke, to head them.

    These Authorities would not be unquestionable, but would be unselected, so as to better serve to unify us. It is better to allow someone to rule by right, than to rule by mere Popularity contest.

    I’d let each State make its own Laws, under a broad Charter of basic Laws. I’d let each State rest in internal Sovereignty.

    I’d allow the basis of the Governments to be in the Ownership Principle and the Principle of Subsidy. This Principle states hat all Government should be Local for as much as possible, with outside authority serving the interests of a union, and as outside enforcers to prevent abuse of those who live locally. By making this arrangement, and protecting as Inviolable the right of ownership, especially over property, we’d have a society that is on a much more firm foundation.

    I’d also have a State Church, in all 50 States, though which State Church it was would depend on the State, and a Federal Church. These Churches would not be controlled by the Government but free to make heir own Internal Policies and to serve as a Check on the Power of the Governments other branches. No one would be forced to participate in the Federal or State official Church, it would exist instead to Coronate the Kings and Lords, and to serve as a Unifying Moral Voice for the Society, with seats in the Legislatures.


    I‘d also allow other Religious groups seat sin Legislature and on a Counsel, to make sure their views are represented.

    In this way we’d have a much stronger tie to Morality.


    And I’d ensure that the Government can promote ( But not enforce) morality and drop all this needless “Separation of Church and State” rubbish which poisons the world right now.

    So call me a Liberal Communist, I still think we’d be a more united and less contentious people under this system. And we’d have more Freedom. Contrary to what is believed nowadays, the Kingdoms of the Middle Ages allowed you greater Freedom than today’s Secular Democracies afford you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I’d also let each State have a King, or Prince, or Duke, to head them.

    These Authorities would not be unquestionable, but would be unselected, so as to better serve to unify us. It is better to allow someone to rule by right, than to rule by mere Popularity contest.

    I’d let each State make its own Laws, under a broad Charter of basic Laws. I’d let each State rest in internal Sovereignty.

    I’d allow the basis of the Governments to be in the Ownership Principle and the Principle of Subsidy. This Principle states hat all Government should be Local for as much as possible, with outside authority serving the interests of a union, and as outside enforcers to prevent abuse of those who live locally. By making this arrangement, and protecting as Inviolable the right of ownership, especially over property, we’d have a society that is on a much more firm foundation.

    I’d also have a State Church, in all 50 States, though which State Church it was would depend on the State, and a Federal Church. These Churches would not be controlled by the Government but free to make heir own Internal Policies and to serve as a Check on the Power of the Governments other branches. No one would be forced to participate in the Federal or State official Church, it would exist instead to Coronate the Kings and Lords, and to serve as a Unifying Moral Voice for the Society, with seats in the Legislatures.


    I‘d also allow other Religious groups seat sin Legislature and on a Counsel, to make sure their views are represented.

    In this way we’d have a much stronger tie to Morality.


    And I’d ensure that the Government can promote ( But not enforce) morality and drop all this needless “Separation of Church and State” rubbish which poisons the world right now.

    So call me a Liberal Communist, I still think we’d be a more united and less contentious people under this system. And we’d have more Freedom. Contrary to what is believed nowadays, the Kingdoms of the Middle Ages allowed you greater Freedom than today’s Secular Democracies afford you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. oh my gosh...my head is swimming reading these comments.
    There is no quick and easy fix for what is happening to this country. Talk all you want about dividing the country, I don't think that is a viable option. No one is going to want to give up what is their's. I for one, don't relish the thought of leaving my home and property to move ( to live on the polical side of my choosing) so I don't think that will work.
    Also, we fought to be free of a King once ...why go back to that ?

    The solution "seems" so obvious that it is scarey:
    What ever happened to just being decent, fair, honest, hard working people with moral fiber
    ( verses liars, cheats , swindlers and lazy butt heads)and raising your children to do the same ?

    Get back to a few basics people .....I realize for people to have these ethics they need to be exposed/ raised in that type of environment...hence the pickle our country is in.
    Look back at the type of people our founding fathers were. They were not perfect by any means
    ( Thomas Jefferson and his mistress) , but for the most part ,the exceptable moral codes of that time called for people to be honest and forth right or atleast they tried to be ....as we all falter at times .( did you key into the "exceptable" part there? another kink in the problem we face..... what we ALLOW to be exceptable behavior )

    Men need to get back to being men. They need to raise their sons to step up and be leaders . Maybe they won't growup to be leaders in a political way , but they need to be leaders for their families( for starters. )

    Woman need to raise their daughters to have expectations for themselves, but also they need to know how to care for their potential families that one day will be the future. Kids these days are expected to raise themselves
    ( latch key)and have no good role models. They learn what they live....welfare becomes expected by those that are raised on it etc....Children raised in violence think it is the norm...this is the down slide of our society. This environment forms their mindsets.

    Solve this dilema and I think the country will have a fighting chance. We need to, as a whole, focus on the children and their upbring.( and no, I don't want the Gov't to step in and help out with this....they are not deemed part of the whole in my book) To this end , someday we can sway the moral values in this country so that we treat each other with fairness and rspect and everyone has a work ethic that drives them to provide for their own families .
    Notice I did not say sway political views....I said moral VALUES, as I believe that your set of values help shape your polical views.

    Tina

    ReplyDelete
  22. To the above, in answer, you asked why we would want to go back to a King I we fought to be Free of a King. My answer is simple, the King was not really Tyrant. The American Mythos today depicts him as such, and certainly he was called this by the Revolutionaries, but King George the Third was actually a good man and good King. It should also be noted that unlike how he is often imagined, he was not an Absolute ruler who made all the Laws and personally ordered the Oppression of the Colonies. In fact, he was a Constitutionally Limited Monarch who held only Executive Powers. The Initial protest formed by the Sons of Liberty were actually aimed at Parliament, not the King. Believe it or not, the Sons of Liberty saw King George the Third as a Hero, and placed all of their Animosity upon Lord North the Prime Minister, and upon Parliament, for they sought Representation.

    The Kingdom of Great Britain actually had a Parliament that made all the Laws, including the Tax Laws. it’s not like King George the Third made all the laws himself and personally imposed all the Taxes.

    Besides, the Tax Codes in the Colonies were the Lowest in the Civilised world, not some enormous burden that we like to think of it as, and despite the whole claim of having no voice, all of the Takes had been repealed upon Colonial Protest.

    Also, the Revolution was not fought over Republican Ideals. It was not at all Certain that America would be a Republic if it won h Revolution, and they had actually contacted some men who they thought would make good kings, Including the Exiled Jacobite Pretender Charles Edward Stuart, who they actually sent emissaries to. He was chosen as they could claim to be Legitimists who rejected Parliamentary Authority to pick the King, and it would be a Restoration of the House of Stuart over the British Colonies of America. They decided against letting him be King because he was a Staunch Catholic, which is why the House of Stuart had been removed from the Throne in the First place. America was not really an open society, and Catholics were strongly distrusted. So much so that one of the complaint sin the Declaration of Independence was that King George th Third had allowed the Quebecois to maintain French law and Customs, including the Catholic Faith.

    A large reason why America chose to pursue a Republican Ideal was because of the Pamphleteer work of Thomas Paine, and the statesmanship of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had been greatly influenced by John Locke, who had been a Minister in Cromwell’s Republic of England, which had tabernacle after the Civil War between Parliament and King, and which had seen Saint King Charles the first beheaded by the Roundheads.

    But not all were particularly Republican. Alexander Hamilton was a Monarchist, and while John Adams was initially a Republican, pr at least claimed to be to win Political Favour with the new movement, he had become a Monarchist when he met the King as an Ambassador, and grew to admire him, realising him less a Tyrant in person than he could ever be shown as on the Pamphlets.

    I believe that the American Revolution was wrong. The Taxes they fought against were low, and they simply overthrew a Just authority that was willing to negotiate. I also think the Political Philosophy of Republicanism is a Mistake, regardless of whether the Revolution was justified or not. Liberalism has been the disease eating away at our society for the last 200 years, and Republicanism, whether one likes it or not, is ultimately a Liberal idea.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Glad you know all this to be fact Zarove...some info maybe partially accurate but I think much is speculation on your part. One can only surmise what people were like :" the King was not really Tyrant. The American Mythos today depicts him as such, and certainly he was called this by the Revolutionaries, but King George the Third was actually a good man and good King."

    Unless of course, you were around back then and speak from first hand experience?

    I stand by what I said. I live in the here and now...things that are current. Things that I can attest to from personal experience. Not spectulate on what might have been ( or not). It is good to learn from the past , I just don't want to live there.

    Tina

    ReplyDelete
  24. But TIna, your question was why would we want to go back to a King if thats what we fought to break from. That does require History.

    As to mine being Speculation, why do you not Challenge all those who say King George the Third was a Tyrant, and his Tyrannies were growing worse over time, and thus America had to revolt? They state this as fact, too, do they not? Yet you seem far less interested in asking them if they were around back then.


    As to being current, I am. I think Monarchy is a current idea. Republicanism,w hen proposed in the 18th Century, had been dead for a long time, nearly 2000 years. it was understood as something out of Antiquity. The fact that today we are Republican makes us see the same in Monarchy, but it doesn't mean it too can't make a comeback.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would like to say something about the person who is misguided about Ron Paul. Ron Paul doesn't want to legalize drugs and prostitution, he just understands the constitutionality of the problem. The constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to legalize these things or not. The bible is for that. I would venture to say that 90% of what the federal government is involved in these days...they don't even have the authority to do so?! I am not saying that Ron Paul is the savior for the federal government, because I believe it is way far too gone to reverse and get back to the constitutional republic of states we once had. Ron Paul's views are so foreign to people and even Christians these day because they have lived with and been trained to be slaves to our government. Wake up people, it is not about Republican and Democrat and even Libertarianism, it is about individualism and collectivism. It is about being a slave under a tyrannical government or being free. I choose the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Enjoy this rant..except Wal Mart weakens America..BUY USA

    ReplyDelete