History of Freedom

Recently, Ann Coulter was interviewed by Vivek Ramaswamy. Many took offense with Coulter’s statement that an understanding of freedom requires cultural history, so she would not vote for Ramaswamy to be President. Ramaswamy, with the poise he has become known for holding, responded with probative questions. I have never been a fan of Ann Coulter, but she raised some valid and interesting points that every Conservative must understand in order to make effective choices at the polls.

Can a person who was not raised in the privilege of freedom understand that privilege? Can a person whose parents were not raised therein understand the same? How many generations does it take to understand freedom? History can prove to be informative here.

The salient question here is “What does it mean to understand freedom?” Surely, our Founding Fathers were raised under British Tyranny and their fathers before them. However, they understood freedom. How could this be? The question lies in the history of French, British, and Indigenous Providence for this region.

For the first roughly 150 years of European occupation, the French and British were at constant odds with one another. It was difficult for either to take or hold territory. For these early years, before American Independence, the British were more lenient, more appreciative, and more passive. The British had to be because the American colonial subjects were fighting the French to hold the line. The amount of fighting warranted self-government because this was before telephone, radio, and internet. It took more than a month to get word from one side of the ocean to the other.

After the so-called French and Indian War, the dynamic changed. The French rulers were driven out of the land (although their system of Government and language persists to this very date). With the French gone, the fighting was lessened, but the people - who were still then British subjects - had a history of self-government and freedom that could not be stamped out.

The King proceeded to disband legislatures, install soldiers in homes, and engage in all manner of political violence against the colonial Americans. When the Americans asked why they should not be ruled by legislators of their own choosing as all men are born equally free, the King responded by dismissing the request and argument outright. He responded informing Americans that they were born subjects, so it was their duty to obey him; and he was born King, so it was his duty to take care of them. He explained nothing could abdicate either from these duties. Clearly he had missed the point entirely.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strongly held that George Washington went to Europe in an attempt to plead themselves out of war. The points of Washington were so misunderstood by the Crown that Washington, before the end of the meetings, sent a letter home informing America that the war would be waged.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strong that they wanted to abolish the institution of slavery, but in a compromise, instead, merely denounced it and attempted to legislate against the practice. Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in the Declaration of Independence; he was outvoted, and the passage was stricken. He, too, drafted numerous laws when he was Governor of Virginia before the time of his Presidency attempting to ban slavery, but those laws fell to the majority as well.

If we fast forward to the time of Lincoln’s leadership, we see similar effects but more pronounced. These effects were so outsized that a war broke out to determine the size of freedom afforded within these United States. Many of the North argued for the abandonment of the practice, many (including slave-owning blacks) of the South argued for its durability. Slaves, who had no cultural history of freedom, were difficult to free. Harriett Tubman is quoted (without proper verification) stating, "I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." We hope this quote is factual. It shows exactly what kind of mindset a person born into generational bondage held.

We see this generational bondage in China, India, Russia, Iran, and throughout the World. The fact of the matter appears to be, that an understanding of freedom is a cultural trait, not a learned ability. Of course there are outliers. There are people who are 7th+ generation in the US who would give their liberty to Government in exchange for security (we often call them Leftists). There are people who are multi-generational children of oppressive regimes who understand exactly why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written as they are: for example Lily Tang Williams and Garry Kasparov. these are, indeed, outliers.

I believe Ramaswamy understands liberty and freedom at a deep level. He may not have a history of freedom in his family, but his deeds show a deep and abiding commitment thereto.

Grassroots Failures

We, as Conservatives, fail, time and time again, to protect and support our grassroots. This is best explained through an explanation of our current issues.

On the Left, they have appointed Attorney Benjamin Crump as their Guardian ad Litem and other lesser known Attorneys throughout the nation his de-factor deputies. They are funneling their money and resources through this army of knowledgeable individuals to further their needs, push their goals, and protect themselves from all manner of scandal. We have nothing similar.

The Left does not care what a person’s past, present, or future looks like. If someone is in the public spotlight and it fits their narrative, the Left swoops in to the rescue. We should do the same. It does not take much. Dexter Taylor needs $400,000 to get out of the utterly unconstitutional situation he is in. If half a million people donated $1 he would be good to go with a little kicker to juice up the accounts while we are at it. Surely we can find $400,000 to support our 2A agenda. Surely. It does not take much, yet we fail to perform. Disgraceful.

It takes Anti-American, Leftists less than a day to rescue people who burn down entire cities in the name of Black Lives Matter. We cannot rescue this man whose 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendment Rights were stripped from him? The Judge, from the Bench, stated that the 2nd Amendment does not exist in her Courtroom, for Christ’s sake, and we cannot put up a couple of bucks a piece!? Why do we even convene meetings? Why do we even try?

This is but one example. Every day the Left is putting their considerable power behind random people in the community. It is time we do the same. Our grassroots are inactive, and that is everyone’s fault. We are failing to meet the moment where the moment must be met. We are faced with a struggle to emerge. We can do better. We must do better or lose the nation to tyranny.

Family Court

Family Courts are an indication of a decaying society. The entire notion thereof is ludicrous. A family should never bring Government into its home. Ever.

If one parent commits a criminal act against another parent, the police, prosecutors, and criminal courts can handle the matter outside the home. Assault, parental alienation, neglect, abuse, and all manner of criminal matters can be handled without bringing the Government into the home, into the family, and into child-rearing.

Family is the greatest threat to Government. Government is the greatest threat to Family. Strong families, who stick together and can support one another lack a dependency upon the Government that families with weak ties rely upon. Strong families band together into larger communities who rely upon each other further minimizing the need for Government. If a child is situated without his birth-given caretakers, the community - if sufficiently strong and well-connected - can step in to fill that gap.

The fact that we, as a society, have so often turned to Government to manage our familial ties that a category of courts unto itself has arisen in the family’s stead is remarkable. Where are the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins? Where are the lifelong friends? Where are the fellow parishioners? What kinds of communities are we building if any at all?

This state of affairs harkens back to our first Supreme Court upon which Mr. Justice Iredell sat. He stated in the case of Fries:

"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description; but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people."

Has this passage come to falsehood? I understand only a knavish and foolish society could abide Government child-rearing; yet, we have Government child-rearing. We, the Parents, should be raising children. If the Parents are unaccounted for, then the duty falls to We, the Families. If the Families are unaccounted for, then the duty falls to We, the Communities. If the Communities are unaccounted for, then surely we are lost, and the case is without remedy.

If Family Courts are necessary, then our children are living in solitude among the indifferent.

Reason and Passion

These two (very broad and general) senses were of top importance to the founders of our great Nation. They taught that these two forces were constantly at play within the human spirit causing us to act upon the world to both good and bad effect.

Reason ought to prevail in matters of general welfare and, thus, in matters of Government. Passion hasn’t much place in the Government. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are among the best political writings of all time. They in great deatail explain the necessary, the sufficient, the negative requirements as well as productions of the systems of Government under which humans had lived to that point. They, then, explain - also in great detail - a new system of government that would become the system under which we live today in these United States.

Our founders surmised that pure Democracy devolves into a constant swinging of statutory measures. these swings move with the Passions of the ever-changing majority leading to the tyranny of the many. Our founders also concluded that the pure Republic could lead to the tyranny of the few. Of course, a feudalistic, aristocratic, theologic, noble, or royal Government would fall to similar Passions and devolve into Tyranny. They supposed there must be some way to take the good parts of all forms of Government and give Reason the best chance of prevailing. Here, our form of Government is born.

To bring Reason ahead of Passion, we combine all systems in clever ways. We use the Democracy to give Reasonable consent to be governed. If the majority wants a Government, then a Government shall exist; if the majority wants anarchy, then so too we shall have it. We use the Republic to give a distilled and Reasonable voice to the Passions of the people. The people elect by majority a representative; that representative is then sent to the Halls of Government to voice the collective opinions of the constituency. In so doing, we have taken the ever-swaying Passions of the people and separated those Passions from the Government under the authority of the Legislature.

When power becomes necessary to hold order and protect individuals, we take from the more Tyrannical forms of Government to uphold law and order. A lawful order from a Police Officer places a person under a strict and abiding suspension of Civil Rights and Liberties. If the system calls one to Justice, one must answer; this is the Government side of the Doctrine of Equal Protection Under the Law. To balance this, we have provided for the doctrine of Due Process of Law to allow one so called to Justice to defend oneself against a potential Tyranny conducted by Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is Passion and Power based under authority of the Executive, Due Process bends only to Reason behind Judge and Jury under the Authority of the Judiciary.

Then, at final cause our Founders have provided that any powers not so invested into the Government are retained by We, the People. The Government is positively empowered rather than negatively weakened. That is to say, their powers are strictly enumerated rather than strictly taken. This gives to We, the People, and the States all the powers that the Federal Government is not given by express, written permission. these are our 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.

Humans are full of Reason and full of Passion. There are times when either may be of good use. Governments and laws should change only on Reason; protection and duty may be more deftly applied through the use and application of Passion. Our system of Government allows the expression and temperament of both these human motivations toward a great end.

Culture Gap

With all this talk about the "wealth gap" (which is a lie in this nation) we miss the more fundamental and far more important culture gap. This has been exemplified by Howard University and expressed as politely as possible by one of their Deans:

"Because of the size of the room, and because our relatives sometimes do not know how to act, the Fire Department is now here to shut us down." - Gina S. Brown, Dean, Howard U. College of Nursing

The phrase "don't know how to act" is commonly used by blacks to distinguish us from those who bear a title less prudent than can be stated here. This culture gap is an issue of paramount importance; so much so, that it being left unchecked for decades has caused it to cancel a graduation. Ridiculous.

These kids did not walk for High School because of COVID. Now, they walk not for University because they have failed to withhold invitation from those who - for the sake of decorum - needn't arrive. Part of maturing is leaving behind those chains that bind you to your sophomoric past. I do not care whom they might be, if they are of the class of citizens who "don't know how to act," do not bring them to these places. Let this lesson be one learned, and learned well.

More generally, if we look at black persons in this nation we see this divide, this very clear divide, between the haves and the have nots. Racism cannot be a cause of such a divide because we’re all black. Birthright is also not to blame as the data show immigrant blacks performing just as well as well-off American blacks. Something else must be at cause. It is the culture and one’s capacity to leave that culture.

Using this latest Howard University debacle as a backdrop, we can see several key issues with certain cultural traits that are selected against.

• The first and most obvious is punctuality. These people outside the ceremony had arrived after everyone else had already been seated; they were thus denied entry.

• Second, we have entitlement. What right do they have to disrupt a private ceremony? None! Go home!

• Third, there is a disregard for the rule of law. These people do not get to trample the rights of others simply because they have been inconvenienced. This behavior is indicative of a weak and childish culture.

• Finally, we have selfishness. This ceremony was for the graduates and their instructors. Guests are not nearly the focus thereof. These acts - slamming doors, yelling, chanting, breaking glass, etcetera - are the acts of a self-important 7-year-old, not of well-governed adults.

No wonder the fire department shut the event down. These tyrants just outside the doors would be quelled only at the event’s cessation. I try to look on the bright side. The beauty of this event is that it cannot be swept under the rug by Leftist race-baiting. It should cause the black community to come together in the hopes of finding a solution to the cultural problem; it likely will not, but it should.

What would it look like to be rid of these cultural traits and retain the good parts? This is a solved problem and has been answered time and time again. We see it in the careers of Calvin Broadus Jr., Andre Romelle Young, and Curtis Jackson III. One can certainly create and consume Hip-Hop without having to act it out. One can certainly have locs, twists, and cornrows without being consumed by infantile madness. One can certainly be black without having to jettison morals, etiquette, and civility.

Not much in a free society can be done to directly cure this defect. The framers of our nation taught that ruling can be done by words or by power; we choose words. We can do nothing but speak and write about better a way, it is up to those in need to take up the lessons. The children of these juvenile adults are likely to become themselves juvenile adults. This is how gaps and disparities form and continue. This is the culture gap.

Adoptive Fathers are not Mothers

Yesterday was Mother’s Day. Although I do not speak with my mother, I respect that she raised me. I respect all mothers who raise their children. Full stop.

There has been a recent usurpation of motherhood by men. This trend is tragic and silly. When men who pretend to be women celebrate themselves on Mother’s Day, one more thing is taken from women. Women used to have their own sports - no longer. Women used to have their own bathrooms - no longer. Women used to have Sorority houses - no longer. Women used to have Mother’s Day - no longer. How many more things should we take from women that they must share with men?

Happy Mother’s Day to the real mothers - the real women - who sacrifice every day for their children.