More From Coolidge

I make no apologies for shamelessly quoting Calvin Coolidge these days. Calvin Coolidge is awesome. Here he is addressing the National Education Association on July 4, 1924:

By this I do not mean that there is in contemplation, or required, any change in our fundamental institutions. I mean, rather, that we are beginning to reap the rewards which accrue from the existence of those institutions and our devotion and loyalty to them. Some principles are so constant and so obvious that we do not need to change them, but we need rather to observe them. The world is fairly well agreed on the probable permanence of the first four tables of the arithmetic with which I struggled when I attended the district school. It is not thought that they need to be changed, or that we can make any progress by refusing to apply them. Those who seek to evade them in the ordinary business and procedure of life would undoubtedly find that such action would work either to the ruin of any commercial enterprise, or if it did not, the beneficiaries of such a disregard of the commonly accepted rules of addition would undoubtedly find that a very large majority of people would be old fashioned enough to charge them with fraud. The institutions of the Government and society may not always be susceptible of a demonstration which is as exact as those of mathematics, but nevertheless political relationship is a very old science which has been set out in theory and wrought out in practice through very many centuries. Its fundamental principles are fairly well established. That there could have seen gathered together a body of men so learned in that science, so experienced in its application, so talented and so wise in its statement and demonstration, as those who prepared, formulated, and secured the adoption of the American Constitution, will never cease to be the wonder and admiration of the profoundest students of Government. After making every allowance for a fortunate combination of circumstances and the ac complishments of human ingenuity, they have been nearly all forced to come to the belief that it can be accounted for only by the addition of another element, which we must recognize as the guiding hand of Providence. As we can make progress in science not by the disregard, but by the application of the laws of mathematics, so in my firm conviction we can make progress politically and socially, not by a disregard of those fundamental principles which are the recognized, ratified and established American institutions, but by their scrupulous support and observance. American ideals do not require to be changed so much as they require to be understood and applied.

More:

President Calvin Coolidge
President Calvin Coolidge

It was only as this work was accomplished, as these instruments were provided, these properties built, and these possessions accumulated, that there could be a reduction in the hours of labor, an increase in the rewards of employment, and a general betterment in those material conditions which result in a higher standard of living. The leisure for culture had to be secured in this way. Servitude of all kinds is scarcely ever abolished unless there is created economic opportunity for freedom. We are beginning to see that the economic development of our country was not only necessary for advancing the welfare of the people, but that we must maintain an expanding power of production if that welfare is to be increased. Business makes a most valuable contribution to human progress.

As we look back upon all this development, while we know that it was absolutely dependent upon a reign of law, nevertheless some of us can not help thinking how little of it has been dependent on acts of legislation. Given their institutions, the people themselves have in the past, as they must in the future, to a very large degree worked out their own salvation without the interposition of the Government. It is always possible to regulate and supervise by legislation what has already been created, but while legislation can stimulate and encourage, the real creative ability which builds up and develops the country, and in general makes human existence more tolerable and life more complete, has to be supplied by the genius of the people themselves. The Government can supply no substitute for enterprise.

Oh man that’s good presidentin’.

EVEN MORE:

For the most part our institutions are attacked in the name of social and economic reform. Unless there be some teaching of sound economics in the schools, the voter and taxpayer are in danger of accepting vague theories which lead only to social discontent and public disaster. The body politic has little chance of choosing patriotic of ficials who can administer its financial affairs with wisdom and safety, unless there is a general diffusion of knowledge and information on elementary economic subjects sufficient to create and adequately to support public opinion. Every one ought to realize that the sole source of national wealth is thrift and industry, and that the sole supply of the public treasury is the toil of the people.

Coolidge would be horrified to see what has become of his beloved nation today. Does anyone understand that the sole source of the wealth of the country is “thrift and industry” anymore? Does anyone connect that all that massive spending that happens in Washington D.C. rests on the backs of the people? Do young people graduate from high school (or even college) with a basic grasp of economics? If so, why is personal indebtedness so high? Why do we consistently vote for politicians who see no problem with massive deficits and debt?

Reactionaries

President Calvin Coolidge

Calvin Coolidge:

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

More:

Under a system of popular government there will always be those who will seek for political preferment by clamoring for reform. While there is very little of this which is not sincere, there is a large portion that is not well informed. In my opinion very little of just criticism can attach to the theories and principles of our institutions. There is far more danger of harm than there is hope of good in any radical changes. We do need a better understanding and comprehension of them and a better knowledge of the foundations of government in general. Our forefathers came to certain conclusions and decided upon certain courses of action which have been a great blessing to the world. Before we can understand their conclusions we must go back and review the course which they followed. We must think the thoughts which they thought. Their intellectual life centered around the meeting-house. They were intent upon religious worship. While there were always among them men of deep learning, and later those who had comparatively large possessions, the mind of the people was not so much engrossed in how much they knew, or how much they had, as in how they were going to live. While scantily provided with other literature, there was a wide acquaintance with the Scriptures. Over a period as great as that which measures the existence of our independence they were subject to this discipline not only in their religious life and educational training, but also in their political thought. They were a people who came under the influence of a great spiritual development and acquired a great moral power.

No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren sceptre in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshiped.

There was a time when American political leaders knew how to speak and did so fearlessly. Oh, for a rebirth of these traits…

It’s Simple: Obama and His Allies are Filthy Liars

This was obvious to many during the 2008 campaign, but unfortunately not the majority.  And now we have a massive health-care “reform” disaster, all based on misinformation, obfuscation, and (mostly) outright, bald-faced lying.  For instance, all throughout the process of shoving Obamacare through Congress, Obama and his cronies insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate did not represent a tax increase.  Obama repeatedly and emphatically stated as much when he was confronted by George Stephanopoulos in an interview on ABC last year.  But, as everyone now seems to be realizing, Obama is a filthy liar.  This is evidenced by the fact that

…under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

DOJ argues that the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And according to the Times, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.” Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

That’s from Peter Wehner, who goes on to note the following:

This is just one example of a systematic pattern of misinformation and disinformation related to the health-care campaign. We have seen similarly dishonest claims related to funding abortion (ObamaCare is doing exactly that), bending the cost curve down (it will bend it up), lowering premiums (they will rise), and to allowing Americans to keep the coverage they currently have (many won’t).

In many respects, the Obama administration has shown itself to be thoroughly postmodern; words have no objective meaning. Reality can be molded to the whims of the most powerful. We can each construct our own narrative.

In the case of the president, the narrative is fairly simply: whatever advances his own aims and objectives is defensible. The ends justify the means. If false claims have to be used to advance a larger truth, so be it.

The scum in Congress that passed this travesty should be thrown out of office.  And we can only hope the the leader of this contingent of lying filth – Obama himself – will pay dearly for all of his “accomplishments” at the polls in 2012.

I’m Not Ashamed To Admit That I Openly Wept When I Read This

Harvard Sucks
Another example of discrimination against Harvard assholes

Professor John Evans Evans-John of the Harvard School of Harvard Asshole Studies at Harvard University offers a heartrending peek behind the veil of discrimination that so oppresses the Harvard Asshole American community:

Supreme Court vacancies are only one area in public life where Harvard Assholes face a daunting glass ceiling. As hard as it is to imagine, anti-Harvard Asshole discrimination is even worse in America’s non-lifetime appointment job sector. Harvard graduates regularly find themselves all but blackballed from participation in some of our society’s most prestigious and highest-paying professions. One need only look at the curriculum vitae of America’s country music singers, NBA all-stars, and lingerie supermodels to realize that entire swaths of society have hung out a de facto ‘Harvard Assholes Need Not Apply’ sign. The message from the Old Boys network may be transmitted in silence, but it comes through loud and clear: “You’re good enough to run our FCC, Harvard boy, but not good enough for a hiphopper recording contract. We’ll let you design our GM bailout plans, but don’t even think about driving our Nascarmobiles.”

Deep, sincere thanks to Iowahawk, who, with the warm generosity of spirit that we’ve come to expect of him over the years, graciously stepped aside from his post as the greatest living satirist in the western world in order to give Professor Evans-John access to his mighty web-publishing empire and publicize the desperate plight of Harvard Assholes everywhere.

The Interstate Commerce Clause And You

Considering that under Obamacare, Congress has asserted that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution should be interpreted so broadly as to allow Congress the power to require you to engage in commerce, the question arises:  What isn’t “interstate commerce”?  Is there any area of your life that Congress can’t regulate?

So under present Court precedent and legal doctrine, the Constitution consists of five words: Congress shall have the power. That’s it. That’s all there is. It is difficult to imagine anything further from the intent of the Framers.

It amazes me that we have reached such a low point in American history.  How could we have ceded so much of our liberty to our supposedly “limited” government?  Never before have I been so anxious about the state of the nation and the future of liberty.  I hope and pray that the people still have it within them to rise up and rekindle the spirit of the founding of this country.

Is Slaughtering The Bill Constitutional?

Since the reprehensible Nancy Pelosi has decided to pursue the route proposed by the disgusting-yet-aptly-named Louise Slaughter and “deem” the Senate health care bill “passed” if the House votes to approve the “fix” bill that goes along with it (I’m still confused as to how this solution would shield the Dems from responsibility for passing Obamacare, which they are trying to dodge but would be the result of the vote on the “fix”), it might be worth taking a look at how badly this legislative chicanery would rape the Constitution upon which our republic is supposed to be based.  Would it be just a minor assault, or a full on rape-and-murder?  The Volokh Conspiracy ponders:

Can the House vote to adopt a rule which “deems” that a particular bill has been passed, even if that particular bill has not been passed? If so, are there any limits to the adoption of House rules which eliminate voting on bills? For example, could the House at the start of a session adopt a rule which states that there will be no voting by individual members, and that the House during the next two years will “deem” to have been passed whatever the Speaker of the House deems to have been passed? Is the question justiciable?

Presumably, the Dems will just respond that the Constitution was hanging out on the Mall late at night wearing a pretty provocative outfit and was just “asking for it.”  Then, while walking out of the room, they’ll suggest that the battered document just “put some ice on that.”