University of Missouri Chooses Chelsea Clinton To Open New Women Hall of Fame With A Ten-Minute Speech Costing $65,000

I have long admitted that, as an academic dweeb, I have long been confused by events after the eighteenth century. However, this story has me entirely perplexed. The University of Missouri at Kansas City has opened a women’s Hall of Fame and was looking for a female leader to open the event. Their choice among the millions of women in this country from generals to jurists to CEOs to governors to journalists to writers? Chelsea Clinton. Not only that, but the university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton to speak only ten minutes under highly abridged appearance restrictions set by her handlers (in addition to other restrictions from a brief period for photos and water specifications).


The money goes to the Clinton Foundation, though critics have charged that the Foundation has served as a surrogate campaign platform for the Clintons (with the hiring of controversial politicos like Sidney Blumenthal) and have funded luxury travel for the Clintons.

The university actually started with Chelsea as the primary goal, but initially was told that she would not do the speech. They then tried for Hillary Clinton but was told that she would cost $275,000. They then considered “other” women besides Chelsea. That list was impressive, including obvious choices like feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000). You know, women who have made huge contributions not just to their gender but to the country. And they were substantially cheaper. What did Missouri decided? Pay more to get Chelsea for a ten-minute speech to tell people about what it is to be a female leader.

200px-University_of_Missouri_seal_bw.svgFor a university to engage in such low-grade celebrity shopping is a disgrace not just to this new hall and the University of Missouri but the academic as a whole. There are literally thousands of women who inspire both men and women with their lives and accomplishments. The University of Missouri reduced the history of female struggle to a cheap photo op with the daughter of a famous couple. They might as well have gone with a Kardashian and left it at that.

Mary Kay McPhee, UMKC Starr Education Committee chair, was thrilled by the choice and the opening ceremony even as many scratched their heads at the choice of Chelsea Clinton.

Of course UMKC is not alone. NBC was subject to withering criticism from journalists around the country for hiring Chelsea Clinton with a lucrative contract to do feel-good stories. The hire was criticized as something pushed by Clinton supporters inside the network; alienating real journalists, and producing dreadful television pieces.

Universities are supposed to be places of substance and intellectual honesty. While UMKC is not the first to take celebrity appeal over substance, this is not some Friday night concert or sports celebration. This is supposed to be a new university component honoring women who struggled and made real contributions to this world. UMKC reduced that moment to a ten-minute celebrity photo op.

Source: Washington Post

242 thoughts on “University of Missouri Chooses Chelsea Clinton To Open New Women Hall of Fame With A Ten-Minute Speech Costing $65,000”

  1. “I am interested in what makes America and Americans tick and I want America to succeed.”

    It’s called EDUCATION; try it.

    One simple question: Why should anyone listen to a word you say regarding OUR Declaration of Independence and OUR Constitution when you have PROVEN that you can tell them apart? You cite the DoI but claim it was from the Constitution and then you reference the Constitution as if it has been around since 1776.

    1. People will listen if a good case is made. And I’ve made a good case backed with evidence.

      In a Free Society I have the right to make a case and you have the right to accept it or reject it.

      But I am arguing that you need to take responsibilty and accountability for that decision.

      In other words Freedom without Responsibility leads to chaos – like your thinking as you have effortlessly revealed on this blog.

      I am arguing that this is the sort of thinking that needs to be identified and rejected at the polls.

      I have every confidence that if you can take time and really think about what I am saying without nit-picking you will begin to understand my argument. You may not agree with it, but you will understand.

      But I shan’t hold my breath….

    2. People will listen if a good case is made. And I’ve made a good case backed with evidence.

      In a Free Society I have just as much right to make a case on a global blog site and you have the right to accept it or reject it.

      But I am arguing that you need to take responsibilty and accountability for that decision.

      In other words Freedom without Responsibility leads to chaos – like your thinking as you have admirably revealed on this blog. The interesting thing though is you have absolutely no insight at all into the impression you are creating.

      I am arguing that this is the sort of thinking that needs to be identified and rejected at the polls.

      I have every confidence that if you can take time and really think about what I am saying without nit-picking you will begin to understand the argument. You may not agree with it, but you will understand.

      But I shan’t hold my breath….

  2. Well then, you have exercised that right to the extreme ninianpeckitt. Well done!

    Proof:
    – “Is there not just the slightest chance the slightest bit of Shame in the Constitution in 1776?”

    – Since it wasn’t written until 1787 fully ratified until 1789 then I doubt it.

    – “My issue with the constitution is that its rhetoric:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . ””

    – That’s some issue since those are the self-evident truths found in the Declaration of Independence and NOT the U.S. Constitution.

    ninianpeckitt,
    Go back to the books and actually read these two documents. And when you can actually tell them apart then come on back and we’ll have another discussion. In the meantime, all your colorful rhetoric is meaningless because you’ve already proven (see above) you have no idea what you are talking about.

    1. To Olly and Paul

      I’ve provided the evidence and grouped together issues as the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights which have a common thread. I’ve demonstrated that these great ideals have not been assimilated into American Society in 1776 but that this is happening slowly as in all other countries.

      You can protest all you want but this is what is happening and most Americans understand this.

      With respect to Freedom, to have this without responsibility and accountability leads to sterile and futile argument.

      I am interested in what makes America and Americans tick and I want America to succeed.

      I dont think anyone has learned anything from your viewpoint except how not to argue a case.

      This can only give bigotry a bad name

      💂

      1. ninianpeckitt – you are totally ignorant of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, as well as Americans. I probably read as many British papers as you do American and I do follow a lot of British programing, plus BBC News. I can tell you that England is going to hell in a hand basket and you should worry about that and not about us. You have made broad claims and said it was evidence. It is not. You have yet to make a claim you could back up.

        1. This is about lack of implementation of the ideas of your Founding Fathers effectively swindling the American Public of their roghts and your stubborn reactionary views.

          You have dodged every issue, for which the answer upsets your own personal conviction….. and you know it and so does everyone else.

          All I have done is to make key observations from a new viewpoint and ask peritent questions to challenge your fixed ideas, which you refuse to allow to be challenged at all costs – and all you have done is not answer them. So I have answered them for you.

          You are a person who cannot evolve and your views belong in a museum rather than in the modern world.

          And I thought it was the British who were supposed to be the Reactionaries.

          Behaviour is the mirror, in which everyone shows their image.

          Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

          1. ninianpeckitt – never answer a question for me. You have yet to ask a coherent question or make a claim based on evidence. When asked to back something up, you just ignore the post. I asked you to cite a specific post where you presented evidence for something. Your ignorance of American civics puts you at a first-grade level.

            Again, solve you own problems before you try to help us solve ours. And you can ask anyone on here, I have been nicer to you than you deserve.

            1. To Paul Shulte:

              Paul you need to answer for yourself.

              Instead you give an answer for which there is no question……

              1. ninianpeckitt – have they regulated your meds yet. That little screed to me does not make sense. I asked you again to supply evidence and again you dodge the issue. Is this the “English way” of debating? Never give the other side evidence when they ask for it. Instead, attack them.

                1. My points are corroborated in the public domain and I posted links.

                  It’s easy to understand if you want to understand it.

                  You haven’t providea any evidence to refute the broad thrust of my argument as thete isnt ant evidence to counter the interpretation of what is going on and that the American ideal was not implemented in 1776. It’s really as simple as that.

                  There appears to be echos of agreement starting to be posted for my case by other bloggers who are using some of the same arguments.

                  That’s my position. Your position is you don’t want to know….

                  1. I want to know, I just want you to cite me to the comment where you posted the links.

                    1. For Paul Schulte

                      You don’t half like going round in circles. I don’t think you read anything that’s posted.

                      My case is that the American concept Declaration/Constitution/Bill of Rights was never really implemented. It certainly wasn’t anything to do with Freedom and it wasn’t Democracy either. But it is getting there slowly. It took another 90years to abolish slavery and it took a civil war. If that 90 year period from 1776 is an example of Freedom, and all men being equal you have no understanding of reality. You now have a democracy controlled by unelected rich elite and an American Aristocracy which based on wealth and also birth. This isn’t what the Founding Fathers envisaged, but its what you got. My understanding of your constitution or anything else has no relevance. This is about America not me.

                      You need to explain to me how men are equal in a country based on slavery and how this can possibly be regarded as Freedom. On a country declared as a Republic but not a Democracy. Its all absolute nonsense.

                      I am saying it was a start and that Freedom and Democracy evolved. You on the other hand have no idea what you are saying…… and that is sad because to make the country a success you need to engage and have a passion for making noble ideals a reality.

                      A Bibliography for those interested in understanding the arguments I have made in this blog.

                      Followed by a little test……

                      https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/1776.html?id=zc3iAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

                      http://spectator.org/articles/36541/why-we-should-give-thanks-british-empire

                      http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/416948

                      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4727956

                      http://www.redcoat.me.uk/Rev-War.htm

                      http://www.jstor.org/stable/25080688

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-American_War_(1776)

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

                      http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

                      http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

                      http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

                      http://billofrights.org/

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_colonization_of_the_Americas

                      http://ushistoryclassroom.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/british-empire-in-america-1660-1750.html?m=1

                      http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps1901.html

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire

                      https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance

                      https://history.state.gov/milestones/1776-1783/french-alliance

                      http://resources.saylor.org.s3.amazonaws.com/HIST/HIST211/HIST211-1.3.1-America%20and%20the%20British%20Empire-CCBYNCSA_files/HIST211-1.3.1-America%20and%20the%20British%20Empire-CCBYNCSA.html

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807

                      http://m.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205630.001.0001/acprof-9780198205630-chapter-20

                      http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_45.html

                      http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/cause_civil_war.htm

                      http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_111.html

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_under_British_rule_(1763%E2%80%931867)

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War

                      http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_was_France_going_bankrupt_in_the_French_Revolution

                      http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP3.HTM

                      http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy

                      http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracy

                      http://brainwashedamerica.com/

                      http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/62586

                      http://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Evolution-Of-American-Democracy-114789.html

                      And Finally:

                      A Little Test for you

                      http://www.historyteacher.net/USProjects/USQuizzes/BritEmpire1.htm

                    2. ninianpeckitt,

                      You might not be aware but this site only allows two full links per comment, else it is shunted into moderation. If you would like the readers to view more than two this may be accomplished through the use of additional comments.

                    3. np – If you took a course in American Civics, instead of blowing smoke up your butt, you would realize that you were wrong. First, the Declaration of Independence is just a statement of causes for the United States to become Independent. The Original Constitution lays out the forms of government and how they interact with each other. The Bill of Rights were generally protections for individuals from the federal government. Later amendments will make that from the state, free the slaves, give them voting rights, give women voting rights, give 18 year olds voting rights, etc.

                      Name me one thing in the Constitution or amendments, that has not been implemented. BTW, the Preamble is not considered part of the Constitution for purposes of implementation.

                    4. To Paul Schulte

                      You are now agreeing with the case I am making that the concepts were not implemented.

                      Today freedom and liberty are still elusive but American School kids are taught that from 1776 Freedom and Liberty were the cornerstones of the Republic. But it was not so by your own admission, but it was the goal. A dream. The American Dream. But it was not reality.

                      Has this dream be achieved? Not really. Like Godot he never comes.

                      My concerns are that real power in America rests with the unelected. This isn’t freedom for Americans or America

                      The second amendment

                      Arms are not defined but I am proposing this means weapons. So let me ask you to consider the following:

                      Suppose a citizen gets a nuclear weapon under the second amendment and suppose he /she uses it to defend his/her rights:

                      ● Freedom of thought
                      ● religious freedom
                      ● self defence
                      ● ☆☆☆ right to depose tyranny

                      Just to name a few potential justifications that might be made.

                      For the American System to defend these rights seems to be “unwise” for those, who dont share the radicalised “American Romantic Rhetoric”, that belongs in the history books and not on the Streets.

                      So I think America will be held back from reaching the admirable goals laid down by your founding fathers until romanticism is replaced with pragmatism.

                      And to be perfectly honest other countries are further ahead in this race for freedom and democracies. The UK is one of them and maybe one could argue, in the light of recent events, Greece is another.

                    5. np – the UK is falling so fast, to become a third-world country, that within your lifetime, they will stop being invited to power conferences. Still, I did not make your argument just because you say I did. And when the UK breaks up Canada is joining the United States.

                      Get that book I suggested.,

                    6. To Paul Schulte

                      I agree. I think that may well happen.

                      I would like to see the European Union strengthened as this has kept the peace for 70 yrs.

                      I would like to see the equivalence of a United States of Europe as I think this will bring the greatest prosperity.

                      I think that the history of Nationalism is very destructive and that in a Global World, the importance of national borders is now becoming obsolete.

                      I think if Canada split e.g. if Quebec voted to leave, up many Provinces would want to join the USA as they are not economically viable as separate entities.

                      But there again the future of the USA is not cast in stone. It would be interesting to see what would happen if certain States wanted to leave the Union. Would that cause another Civil War?

                      Who knows what will happen in the End? All we can be sure of is that it won’t remain as it is. Maps and borders change throughout history and we haven’t reached the end game.

                      Maybe things will become clearer when the oil runs out.

    1. To Olly:

      If you don’t engage you never learn anything, especially from the mistakes made by others.

      We all have rights and unfortunately that includes the right to be stupid.

  3. “Statue of Liberty / Uncle Tom. These are the only symbols I can think of that represents America.”

    Ninianpickett,

    After reading your posts these last few days I’m not surprised anymore at you what you can think of. If you truly want a symbol that represents America then look in the mirror. Seriously, If you want to know what America means to the rest of the world then look at how much effort YOU are taking to show how overrated WE are. Your pompous British pride won’t allow you to acknowledge Great Britain isn’t so great anymore and that lost colony across the Atlantic.is what you hoped your country would be. If we weren’t really all that then you would have come in here and hit with some snarky comment and left. Instead, you have gone overboard to make some point that has completely blown up in your face and you still don’t realize it.

    NP, we don’t need symbols, we need action. The results our actions are the only symbols we need. You go prop up your Queen and history, that’s nice but they are only things that can be knocked down. What America has that you will never get exists in our hearts and no matter how hard you or any other foreign entity tries, they cannot erase that from our hearts. No, the only way the United States will cease to be “that shining beacon” for the world is if we do it to ourselves.

    And that process is being actively worked on today. Stand by, your country might actually have to stand for something real after all. God help us!

    1. Americans continue to be deceived by unelected Spin. This isn’t the Movies it’s Real Time. John Wayne isn’t going to come galloping to your rescue with the Seventh Cavalry. If you are in trouble you will have to do it yourselves.

      The real problem is the total lack of insight; verging on the pathological – and there isn’t anything anyone can do about it because you are in constant denial no matter what anyone says. And it is this attitude that will create America’s Waterloo.

      It isn’t about Britain. But it is clear our past successes are annoying.

      It’s really about a lack of wisdom and statesmanship and an inability to practice what has been preached by America since 1776.

      It’s about a complete refusal to accept the facts. A debate with me is of no consequence whatsoever, but it will hopefully encourage some bloggers to think a little more about what us going on.

      Looking at the future, of the United States the sort of thinking you have displayed could be suicidal by its total absence.

      You have taken a good idea and completely wrecked it.

      The fact that you are completely incapable of discussing it is very telling. If you don’t sort these problems out some one like Chelsea Clinton or Sarah Palin will be given the poisoned chalice of national rhetoric.

      I have every confidence that, regardless of political party, America should be able to control its current lurch away from an elected democracy and that in time you will begin to understand what I am talking about especially if you read the bibliography I have posted.

      I am someone who wants America to succeed and some home truths can only really be raised by a foreigner as it’s too much of a hot potato to handle.

  4. And one final reference with respect to comments made about King Edward VIII I don’t mean to digress but this is a good story and some of it may be true.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/29/research.monarchy

    This explains a story related to Duke of Windsor and Mrs Simpson suggesting that the Duke passed information to the Germans about French defences which enabled Germany’s perfect invasion, and that Mrs Simpson had an affair with von Ribbentrop the Nazi Foreign Minister.

    FDR put the couple under surveillance during their visit to Florida and there are links to evidential documents.

    If this is true it explains why the British Government wanted to get rid of the King and Mrs Simpson at all costs. It probably had nothing to do with her being an American or divorcee X2. It was much more likely she was a security risk and a potential spy. And he was probably regarded as the same. It looks like Hitler planned to reinstate him as King when Britain was invaded…..

    Files on this matter are still closed in the UK even after 70 yrs

    One other thing: Edward’s younger brother George was killed in an air crash. He was also pro Nazi and may have had some sort of relationship with Rudolf Hess. George was supposed to be enabled route to Iceland on a secret mission but his briefcase handcuffed to his cold dead hand was full of Swedish Krona. So he must have been on his way to Sweden. And one fantastic theory which surely is not true – was that the real Hess died on the aircraft with him.

    Whatever the truth is it is yet to be revealed…..

    The story illustrates that the King doesn’t have the sort of power of a president. The Monarch is a figurehead like your Statue of Liberty or Uncle Tom that represents the image of the country. That is how the British view the Monarch.

    It is a great PR System for the UK. When anyone talks about the Queen they automatically think of Elizabeth II.

    When Princess Diana died there was a global reaction that the world has never really seen before.

    That’s why we have the Monarchy and why it is so popular……

    ……. even in America.

    1. ninianpeckitt – the Statue of Liberty does not have a family we have to support. Theoretically, it generates income.

      1. Statue of Liberty / Uncle Tom

        These are the only symbols I can think of that represents America.

        Because there isn’t any apolitical living person that fulfils this role of symbol as to what America is…… and is globally recognised, regardless of your political administration. So I was trying to be kind.

        You don’t have a Royal Family you see.

        And that just happens to be a weakness.

        It needs to be someone who is revered at home and abroad and then is replaced by another.

        As American as Apple Pie.

        But there isn’t really anyone….

        And you clearly have no idea what I am talking about.

        1. ninianpeckitt – the Statue of Liberty was a gift from France and Uncle Tom is a fictional character. If that is all you thing symbolizes America then you really should stay at the children’s table.

          1. Well I’m sorry that you or I can’t think of anyone else. Michael Jackson has passed away. So has John Wayne, Al Capone, JFK.

            It needs to be an apolitical position – someone that is alive and projects America with the support of everyone. Similar to the image of the Bald Eagle.

            There just isn’t anyone I can think of.

            You say it’s not important to have such a person. I disagree. It would really help America’s image and help regain the respect that has been lost especially in relation to disastrous foreign policy and the attitudes generated especially in the Muslim World. You can’t sit by and pretend it isn’t happening. I try and discuss these things with you and it makes you wild. That’s not the answer.

            At the moment the nearest person is the President but many Americans dislike him and a political person will always be treated in this way.

            Maybe a new office should be considered. Someone untainted by the corruption of commerce and is revered by the Country. He/She should have the presence of someone like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Martin Luther King. Someone who would be accepted and looked up to. This would help the Nation to Unite instead of being at each other’s throats and would project America abroad in a positive light. I’m sure there must be candidates it’s just that outside America they are unknown.

            What you need is the equivalence of a Constitutional Monarch and if this title is offensive call it something else. Maybe Chief Executive or Principal?

            I think you need to think clearly Paul and maybe swallow a little pride.

            I think most people want to see America succeed but I suggest that Chelsea Clinton probably isn’t the answer.

            1. ninianpeckitt – take care of your own backyard. The EU can’t even agree on things. You were able to name other people besides a statue and a fictional character to symbolize the United States. However, the United States has a symbol. We do not need your help.

              1. “. However, the United States has a symbol. We do not need your help.”

                Hold on Paul. I think I like that idea about the Minister of Good Tidings and Pleasant Thoughts.

                Sure beats that old cowboy image and reputation we have had to put up with all these decades.

                I tired of everyone in the wold thinking we all walk around in a sorry 10 gallon hat and s***t-kicker boots and a M1911 strapped on our hip.

                1. If you think about the things I have said – some of which is provocative in order to stimulate debate, if you decide everything is OK then that’s fine. You are right it IS none of your business.

                  But…..

                  If you aren’t happy

                  ● about freedom and democracy not really being implemented

                  ● about the electoral college not reflecting the will of the people

                  ● About courts in effect pushing legislation through instead of elected Congress

                  ● minority right’s taking precedence over majority rights

                  ● real power in the hands of the unelected

                  ● about affordable health care

                  ● about poor standards in medicine and mistrust in doctors

                  ● about lack of insurance cover for health care

                  ● about gun law

                  ● about the Image of America

                  ● about the patronising way politicians treat citizens

                  ● about the lack of a living apolitical head is state

                  You have the opportunity to do something about it through the ballot box.

                  That should be the Greatness of America. So I am encouraging you to make it so.

                  Don’t let them take it away from you.

                  I think I must be a bigger rebel than many of you….
                  💂

                  1. ninianpeckitt – according to Justice Kennedy you have offended my dignity. You should be ashamed. You can make any claims you want for your ignorance, but I will not accept them.

                    1. We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us.

                      Friedrich Nietzsche

                  2. ninianpeckitt, I think you misunderstand some of the goals and desires of Americans. It is like you want us to think like Brits. I wish to address some of your bulleted points:

                    If you aren’t happy

                    ● about freedom and democracy not really being implemented

                    * Our government started out as a Republic, not a democracy. We have been moving further and further toward a democracy over time. About half our country does not like this direction. Many people do not know how to govern their own checkbook, so why should we include them in managing the nation’s checkbook? You seem to think that implementing democracy is the goal, and I am sure you think that because of our current President and others who want to further democracy. But in the beginning, it was freedom we were after and the consent of the governed. This is not the same thing as democracy, which is basically mob rule.

                    ● about the electoral college not reflecting the will of the people

                    * the idea of the electoral college was to prevent a pure democracy. The electoral college was designed to give weight to property ownership, and to help keep political parties from choosing the President. It also meant to help prevent the candidates from campaigning for office. This was during a time when it was considered that the office should seek the man rather than the man seek the office. We have moved away from this plan in many ways and evolved toward a more democratic method. Again, half the country is happy with this direction. The other half is not. I personally prefer a President not elected by the direct will of the people, but by wise and intelligent representatives who know more than the rest of the population.

                    ● About courts in effect pushing legislation through instead of elected Congress

                    * Yeah, I’m not happy with this at all. Only certain minorities are happy with it.

                    ● minority right’s taking precedence over majority rights

                    * We believe that minority rights should be recognized by the majority. The problem is when minorities force their will (not their rights, even if they cloak it as such) on the rest of the country.

                    ● real power in the hands of the unelected

                    * yeah, that is a problem.

                    ● about affordable health care

                    * Despite what the media and politicians fighting for centralized health care have said, we have had affordable health care. It has been administered by each county.

                    ● about poor standards in medicine and mistrust in doctors

                    * That is a problem, but not a problem for government to fix in my opinion. The free marketplace will fix it if government gets out of the way.

                    ● about lack of insurance cover for health care

                    * another problem caused by government interference, limiting coverage and creating way too many regulations.

                    ● about gun law

                    * another problem caused by government interference. Let the people be armed, as mandated by our Constitution.

                    ● about the Image of America

                    * I’ve traveled the world many times and think our image is greater than any other country that exists. I’ve been to countries where I did not know their President’s name, but the citizens knew my President’s name. That says a lot.

                    ● about the patronising way politicians treat citizens

                    * That is a problem. I agree. Power corrupts. We should fix this by making political positions purely voluntary service with no monetary rewards.

                    ● about the lack of a living apolitical head is state

                    * No, when this country was founded, we purposefully got rid of titles because we believed all men were created equal. We wanted no monarch or titles of nobility for anyone. Not even lawyers were supposed to have the name esquire attached to them. You see this as a negative. We see it as a positive because our nobility is supposed to be earned by each individual and recognized in his own heart. The purpose of this is so that we would seek the praise of God and not the praise of men.

                    1. Davidm2575

                      You are making many of the points I have tried to make. Especially

                      ● Republic and not Democracy

                      But if the people cannot govern themselves hence a Republic, how can everyone be born equal? How can this be Freedom? It isn’t but it evolved into freedom overy 200 years. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

                      “We believe that minority rights should be recognized by the majority”.

                      Now this is a very interesting way of looking at the issue. I have not heard it explained in this way. And it is a reasonable concept. But should the rights of the minority take precedence over the rights of the majority. If the answer is Yes this could facilitate undemocratic power bases as it did in Nazi Germany with loss of individual and collective rights in the end. This is the potential danger.

                      Health care is a contentious issue. The problem with private insurance is that restrictive practices can be just as harmful as state control. Control happens in the end either way and you don’t need insurance that doesn’t cover your disease.

                      Poor Medical Standards. I agree government can’t fix. The issue has to start with regain of trust and respect in doctor patient relationship. Defensive Medicine does not equate with Good Medicine.

                      Guns Gun Law will be introduced at some stage by the will of the majority. Recurring massacres are not acceptable.

                      Image of America is changing. It is losing support despite doing all it can to be the Good Guys. Something is going wrong. Twin Towers dreadful outrage. Maybe bad foreign policy choices? Maybe good idea to keep image under review.

                      Titles: I understand your argument against titles to recognise an elite. But America does have an elite which wields unelected power. So the idea doesn’t really work in practice. That’s the point I am trying to make.

                      The other thing is that citizens are honoured in America and a Good Thing it is too. It creates a culture of pride and recognition of service to the country. This can only be good for America.

                      Your figure head is the President which in itself is a Title with a First Lady. So you do have sort of titles but you don’t think of them as such. And that’s OK.

                      All I am saying is that an apolitical figure head who could be voted in to represent all that is America can only bring benefit as it has in other countries. I’m not talking about privilege. I’m talking about Service. Someone who will project everything that is Good about the United States and who is supported by Republicans and Democrats.

                      It”s just a thought…..

                    2. ninianpeckitt – if you actually knew how the government works you would not make the idiot statements that you make. I keep telling you, get an American Civics book and read it. Then get back to us. Right now you are not even at the kindergarten level of knowledge.

                    3. To Paul Schulte:

                      To understand the points I am making you need to read my posts.

                      You just don’t want to understand the points I am making…..

                      Other people seem to understand……

                    4. ninianpeckitt wrote: “But if the people cannot govern themselves hence a Republic, how can everyone be born equal? How can this be Freedom? It isn’t but it evolved into freedom overy 200 years. That’s the point I’m trying to make.”

                      You seem to think that the founders of this country followed this equality meme that is prevalent today. I do not believe that they did. What we see today perpetuated as freedom, equality, and democracy would have greatly offended the fathers of our country. It is a perversion of what they started.

                      When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, what was foremost in his mind was disestablishing the system of royalty and noble birth that existed. They saw that the concept of a monarchy and noble blood was a hindrance to society. The focus of government should be on the security of natural rights, and when government becomes destructive to these means, it is not only the right but the duty of citizens to abolish that government and replace it with one that will work properly.

                      The concept of equality also meant that all are equal under law. The King was subject to law the same way that the peasant was. This is what equality meant. Now it has been perverted to mean that everybody is the same. The black man is the same as the white man, the woman is the same as the man, the homosexual is the same as the heterosexual, and same sex unions are the same as opposite sex unions. All of these assertions are contrary to the truth. They are contrary to nature. This principle is contrary to the very same natural laws that allow us to recognize natural rights. The truth is that there are racial differences and gender differences, despite all the calumny claiming otherwise. Yes, there are other countries ahead of us in establishing this errant idea of equality and democracy, Greece being one of them. Many of us are hoping we turn around and avoid going in that direction. Many of us hope we never become like the UK that stifles free speech. You didn’t like Tony Blair, but many of us loved him. Our differences are not as you perceive them. I can understand how you think that it is taking 200 years to achieve what was originally founded by our forefathers, but the truth is that what has happened over 200 years has been mostly a destruction of what was established. Note that you will get a different perspective from our current President and other progressives who think they do society a service by pushing for direct democracy and their concept of equality upon the rest of society.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “… should the rights of the minority take precedence over the rights of the majority. If the answer is Yes this could facilitate undemocratic power bases as it did in Nazi Germany with loss of individual and collective rights in the end. This is the potential danger.”

                      The answer to this depends upon what those perceived rights are. If you are talking about the natural right to speak, then yes, they should be allowed to speak even if the majority find it offensive. If you are talking about a perceived right to health care or for the government to provide for them so they don’t have to work, then I would say no. Those are not their natural rights. Everyone should work, and the general principle is that if they don’t work, they should not eat. Every person should carry their own burden. At the same time, those who have abundance should give to those who lack, because in practice, some will fail and not carry their own burden.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “All I am saying is that an apolitical figure head who could be voted in to represent all that is America can only bring benefit as it has in other countries. I’m not talking about privilege. I’m talking about Service. Someone who will project everything that is Good about the United States and who is supported by Republicans and Democrats.”

                      That is exactly what the idea of a President is. The problem is that the process of election has evolved into something that makes electing someone supported by both political parties extremely difficult. Much of the reason for this is too much democracy. Universal and equal suffrage has led to a diluted vote whereby the ignorant and unsuccessful override the vote of the intelligent and successful. People vote not for a man of experience, success and character, but on whether the person is in their party or if that person supports their pet ideology. It is like trying to run a family where all the children vote. If that actually happened in a family, and the children outnumbered the parents, the household would soon be run into bankruptcy and eventually everybody would lose because the children do not have the wisdom and maturity to vote properly.

                      The idea of the electoral college was meant to restrict this bad effect of democracy. At one time the idea was floated that the President would be selected from the State legislature. For various reasons, the electoral college was settled upon as a way for representatives to select the President. These would be men more versed and knowledgeable about the candidates. However, democracy reared its ugly head and now those delegates basically just vote the way the people direct them to vote. So what the founding fathers attempted to avert came about anyway. Now a lot of people want to get rid of the electoral college because they don’t understand what it was meant to do in the first place. They think direct democracy is a good thing, but they are ignorant of history and how our founding fathers wanted to avoid a democracy.

                    5. Davidm2575

                      You are making the point I have been trying to make. It was a start not “a fete a complis”.

                      But it is not sold that way to the American Public. That’s the point I am trying to make.

                      “When Jefferson wrote that all men are created equal, what was foremost in his mind was disestablishing the system of royalty and noble birth that existed. They saw that the concept of a monarchy and noble blood was a hindrance to society.”

                      I understand this concept but this is not exactly what he said nor how it is interpreted. And a privileged birthright still exists in America to this day. In the UK our Monarchy is a constitutional Monarch. The monarch has no political power and ribber stamps the wishes of a democratically elected government. It is a system that works well – but in addition it works as an excellent public relations device. Americans don’t seem to understand this.

                      “The concept of equality also meant that all are equal under law”. This is an excellent point you are making. But it should have been written in this way if that was the real meaning. And it is important to understand that the concept of freedom contradicts the concept of equality you have eloquently described.

                      I think you are right that the concepts of 1776 are not synonymous with the interpreting of today. But it is sold to the American Public as if it is. I think you are agreeing with my hypothesis that the situation in 1776 did not deliver the goods but it was a start.

                      It is interesting that you think the UK stifles free speech. That isn’t appreciated over here or elsewhere. But it is appreciated that we do not have a perfect system but will continue to evolve. I want to see democracy develop as freedom with responsibility and accountability as freedom without these concepts lead to anarchy.

                      I understand what you mean about the President but this is a political figurehead not necessarily supported by Americans. There is evidence that an apolitical figurehead would be helpful if you consider how for example the British Royal Family has helped the popularity of Britain.

                      As for the Electoral College it is rather patronising to think that they know better than the American People. But it is the system currently chosen and nothing stays the same for ever.

                    6. David2575 wrote: “The concept of equality also meant that all are equal under law.”

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “This is an excellent point you are making. But it should have been written in this way if that was the real meaning.”

                      It is hardly necessary to expound upon the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence. One merely has to consult both the writings of Jefferson and that of his sources to understand his meaning. Jefferson’s concept of equality came from John Locke, who was one of his favorite three authors (the others being Bacon and Newton). Locke wrote following the English Civil Wars which were conflicts involving the Divine Right of Kings philosophy and its relationship to the role of Parliament. When we understand this historical backdrop, and we actually read Locke for ourselves, we can readily see what is meant by equality and the conclusion that government cannot rule without the consent of the governed. The context, both in Locke’s work such as Two Treatises of Government, and Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, is political. They concern what gives a particular man the right to be a sovereign over the life of another. Much of the concepts of equality came from the Bible and the idea that all of mankind is under one Creator and one Sovereign. Building upon the premise that reason is a faculty given by the Creator, Locke urges using rational thought to understand political power and what are the causes a state of war between people. Ultimately he arrives at the idea that violating natural law, which mandates that all men are created equal, is the reason for civil unrest and puts man in a state of war with others. From this idea follows the idea of limited government authority in the affairs of men.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “And it is important to understand that the concept of freedom contradicts the concept of equality you have eloquently described.”

                      I am not sure what you mean by this. Understanding equality as Locke and Jefferson used the term leads to the greatest amount of freedom. Perhaps you mean that the modern concept of equality, which has been diluted to mean sameness and denies the important function of diversity, is contrary to freedom. For example, the ideology of feminist activists and homosexual activists lead to demeaning gender by their wrongful use of the word equality. In their philosophical system, the woman does not need the man, nor does the man need the woman. They overlook the unique role of the woman and the unique role of the man in a marriage relationship. As a result, freedom and happiness are lost by their wrongful application of the word equality. They are like anarchists who use the word equality to argue that there is no need for government at all because nobody should have more power over another person if they are equal. In contrast, Locke’s exposition of equality explains why and when rightful power is given to government to punish someone who violates natural law.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “I think you are agreeing with my hypothesis that the situation in 1776 did not deliver the goods but it was a start.”

                      Yes, I agree. There were competing forces that did not allow for delivery of the goods, but it was a start. For example, the Constitutional debates resulted in our U.S. Constitution protected the slave trade for 20 years. Jefferson worked to abolish the slave trade as soon as the Constitution allowed for it. But I probably disagree with you about what constitutes the ultimately goal. I believe in individual liberty and minimal government whose primary job is security. I believe in voluntary individual giving and charity, not government programs that enable people to leech off the labors of others in society.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “I want to see democracy develop as freedom with responsibility and accountability as freedom without these concepts lead to anarchy.”

                      The problem is, when we give an equal vote to irresponsible people, then we get weak and inefficient government. That leads to chaos the same way that anarchy does. Democracy ALWAYS leads to weak government, and a true democracy will fail. So why keep the mantra going about how we need to further democracy?

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “There is evidence that an apolitical figurehead would be helpful if you consider how for example the British Royal Family has helped the popularity of Britain.”

                      I can see your point here. However, having been to the England several times and observed firsthand the popularity of the royal family there in your own country, I would say it has a much greater effect in your own country than elsewhere.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “As for the Electoral College it is rather patronising to think that they know better than the American People.”

                      I don’t think it is patronizing at all. Most Americans are living their own lives and are unconcerned about politics and government. I like the idea of being able to elect a trustworthy representative who can dig into the issues more thoroughly and make a more informed decision. I look at it as saying to someone, “I like this man, but look into it more thoroughly and tell me who you think is the best candidate.” I do this kind of thing in business all the time. I tell an employee what I want to accomplish, but I don’t have time to do all the research to know what will allow me to accomplish it. So I tell an employee to research it for me and tell me what they come up with.

                      The problem with the electoral college now, however, is that the rules for it has changed, and it now does not really represent this ideal. The delegates are little more than political pawns and do not exercise the authority delegated to them.

                    7. To davidm2575

                      “It is hardly necessary to expound upon the principle of equality in the Declaration of Independence” Well if Freedom doesn’t mean Freedom which it obviously doesn’t in the context of your argument I can’t accept your reasoning. You are trying to make something fit in retrospect. I am thinking about the issue prospectively. I am arguing that Freedom was redefined to create a powerbase for the Elite at the time. And that isn’t freedom, not even in 1776.

                      Locke and Jefferson politically manipulated the used the term Freedom which was really an instrument of control. Now if this had been acknowledged as a start a genesis towards an ultimate freedom, I can buy into that, but it wasn’t so I can’t.

                      “The problem is, when we give an equal vote to irresponsible people, then we get weak and inefficient government. That leads to chaos the same way that anarchy does. Democracy ALWAYS leads to weak government, and a true democracy will fail. So why keep the mantra going about how we need to further democracy?”

                      I agree entirely with this analysis with one provision in that if you have Freedom with Responsibility and Accountability it can lead to Democracy with Teeth. And it is my case that it is this that takes the time. And it is something that all “Free Nations” strive to achieve. We may never get there but we shall continue to get closer. And that is a matter of faith rather than fact.

                      The weakness of democracy is that weak and feeble individuals have the same freedoms as the educated and strong. To curb this in any way is wrong in a State built on the cornerstone of Freedom and Liberty. You can’t have it both ways. It is a weakness but a weakness that has to be accepted.

                      The Electoral College is of an order of more importance than a job interview in a Company and has different implications for governmental probity. So we shall have to differ there.

                    8. ninianpeckitt wrote: “Well if Freedom doesn’t mean Freedom which it obviously doesn’t in the context of your argument I can’t accept your reasoning. You are trying to make something fit in retrospect. ”

                      I don’t think so. You apparently understand and define freedom differently from me.

                      My perspective of freedom follows the thinking of John Locke, where he says the following:

                      —–
                      To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

                      A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
                      —–
                      The Two Treatises of Government, Chapter 2, Of the State of Nature

                      How do you define freedom, and how do you see it differently from me?

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “I am arguing that Freedom was redefined to create a powerbase for the Elite at the time. And that isn’t freedom, not even in 1776.”

                      On what basis of reasoning do you make this assertion?

                      The primary focus of freedom at the time was freedom from the tyranny of England’s rule. It was about shaking off the abuses of a monarchy. That is why our Constitution abolished titles of nobility.

                      You may not see that as freedom, but I do.

                      ninianpeckitt wrote: “The weakness of democracy is that weak and feeble individuals have the same freedoms as the educated and strong. To curb this in any way is wrong in a State built on the cornerstone of Freedom and Liberty. You can’t have it both ways. It is a weakness but a weakness that has to be accepted.”

                      I see it a little differently. The weakness of democracy does not come from giving freedom to all, but from being tied to universal and equal suffrage. If you perceive voting as a freedom or right, then your line of thinking follows. I do not see voting as a right, but rather as a privilege that comes with responsibility. A weighted voting system could result in freedom for all, so you could have the consent of the governed measured without diluting the important wisdom of educated and successful leaders. If men of character, honesty, and integrity ruled, then everybody could have the same freedom. The key is realizing that benevolent and wise rulers are what make good government work. Some people in society are especially gifted with understanding how to make good government work. Many in society do not have this understanding or gift of knowledge. This is why pure democracy, which is government by the whole population, ruins good government.

                    9. np – The is the Declaration of Independence. At no point does it mention freedom.

                      The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

                      IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

                      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

                      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

                      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

                      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
                      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
                      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
                      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
                      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
                      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
                      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
                      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
                      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
                      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
                      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
                      He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
                      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
                      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
                      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
                      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
                      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
                      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
                      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
                      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
                      For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
                      For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
                      He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
                      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
                      He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
                      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
                      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

                      In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

                      Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

                      We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

                    10. Paul, the DOI does mention liberty, a free people, and the right for the United Colonies to be free and independent States. But I do see how you might think ninianpeckitt is moving the goal posts in the discussion.

                    11. david – he isn’t just moving the goal posts, he isn’t even on the same field.

                    12. To Paul Schulte

                      So you finally agree with me

                      Freedom is an illusion presented to the masses to facilitate their control

                    13. “Freedom is an illusion presented to the masses to facilitate their control”

                      Didn’t they do that in a tv series ‘The Prisoner’ with Patrick McGoohan?

                      All I want to know is who and where is number two?

                    14. Bigfatmike

                      Haha that’s very good 😄

                      If you want to know about “number twos” you better ask your Mom
                      🚻

                    15. Paul Schulte:

                      We may be poles apart but the seed of freedom has been planted and hopefully will continue to develop in the so called “Free World”.

                      At least you understand that American concepts of freedom are not universally accepted

                    16. np –

                      At least you understand that American concepts of freedom are not universally accepted

                      So? British cooking is not universally accepted.

                    17. To Paul Schulte British Cooking

                      Ha ha 😃

                      There is a saying that the French live to eat and the English eat to live.

                      There’s probably a lot of truth in that and that’s why I married a Chinese girl.

  5. Next step for her is to accept money from Saudis, Iranians, Russians, Chinese, indians and sell the country once in for all when she becomes the president

  6. NP,
    It’s been enjoyable watching you butcher American civics but I’m not spending my 4th of July teaching you remedial civics. You don’t need to know it anyway. I suggest focusing on your own country as it is on the verge of becoming Great Britianstan. So you have far more immediate concerns to deal with over there. Thanks for playing and for God’s sake, take a moment and actually thank the United States for defeating your country because we have proven to be a far more valuable asset as Americans than we could have ever been as Brits.

    1. The defeat of Britain by the Americans and their allies, but especially France, eliminated effective competition by France during the creation of the British Empire.

      France became bankrupt.

      So you are right the British should be thankful for that.

      We are also thankful for US assistance especially when Britain stood alone for the principles of democracy.

      1. ninianpeckitt – you didn’t stand alone for the principles of democracy. Hitler really did not want to invade England. If Churchill had been more mallable, he could have ended England’s part. Churchill and Roosevelt manipulated the two countries into war against Germany and Japan.

        1. WW2

          There were moves in Britain to make peace. The Duke of Windsor and Mrs Simpson met the Fuhrer and some of the British Aristocracy were pro German.

          But Britain did stand alone……

          and survived.

          The ultimate price they paid was the loss of the British Empire.

          Was it worth it?

          Yes….. absolutely !

          Nothing is more valuable than Real Freedom and True Democracy.

          Are we there yet?

          No of course not…. but we are still on track.

          The difference between the USA and the UK is that you think you have got there and we know you haven’t….

          1. ninianpeckitt – they sent the Duke of Windsor and Mrs. Simpson to the Caribbean to keep them out of the way. They had no official capacity in the government. You cannot make a deal with someone who does not have the power to make a deal.

  7. Paul,
    That has become apparent to everyone except NP. The phrase, “Keep on Truckin” comes to mind. I’m still not sure if he is aware he quoted the DoI as the Constitution. It’s easy to do ONLY IF you have no idea what either of them was written to accomplish. Piled on top of that is the British arrogance to think that the United States needs to be lectured on how to make our form of government work by the very country we defeated. That’s hilarious!

    1. Olly – we had to financially bail them out of two wars and the result of two wars.

      1. If I remember the US came into the war in 1917 after the sinking of the Lusitania and in 1941 after a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour

        And the USA ended the war richer than when it started especially after 1945

        1. ninianpeckitt – we came into WWI after the Zimmerman Telegram. The Lusitania was England’s fault, they had loaded the ship with illegal war material. The Germans put notices in the newspapers and posters on the docks not to sail on the Lusitania.

  8. “Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner”.

    James Bovard, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty

  9. Well, this is long, but worth the read:

    The Declaration of Independence
    in American
    by H. L. Mencken
    1921

    WHEN THINGS get so balled up that the people of a country got to cut loose from some other country, and go it on their own hook, without asking no permission from nobody, excepting maybe God Almighty, then they ought to let everybody know why they done it, so that everybody can see they are not trying to put nothing over on nobody.

    All we got to say on this proposition is this: first, me and you is as good as anybody else, and maybe a damn sight better; second, nobody ain’t got no right to take away none of our rights; third, every man has got a right to live, to come and go as he pleases, and to have a good time whichever way he likes, so long as he don’t interfere with nobody else. That any government that don’t give a man them rights ain’t worth a damn; also, people ought to choose the kind of government they want themselves, and nobody else ought to have no say in the matter. That whenever any government don’t do this, then the people have got a right to give it the bum’s rush and put in one that will take care of their interests. Of course, that don’t mean having a revolution every day like them South American yellow-bellies, or every time some jobholder goes to work and does something he ain’t got no business to do. It is better to stand a little graft, etc., than to have revolutions all the time, like them coons, and any man that wasn’t a anarchist or one of them I.W.W.’s would say the same. But when things get so bad that a man ain’t hardly got no rights at all no more, but you might almost call him a slave, then everybody ought to get together and throw the grafters out, and put in new ones who won’t carry on so high and steal so much, and then watch them. This is the proposition the people of these Colonies is up against, and they have got tired of it, and won’t stand it no more. The administration of the present King, George III, has been rotten from the start, and when anybody kicked about it he always tried to get away with it by strong-arm work. Here is some of the rough stuff he has pulled:

    He vetoed bills in the Legislature that everybody was in favor of, and hardly nobody was against.

    He wouldn’t allow no law to be passed without it was first put up to him, and then he stuck it in his pocket and let on he forgot about it, and didn’t pay no attention to no kicks.

    When people went to work and gone to him and asked him to put through a law about this or that, he give them their choice: either they had to shut down the Legislature and let him pass it all by himself, or they couldn’t have it at all.

    He made the Legislature meet at one-horse tank-towns, so that hardly nobody could get there and most of the leaders would stay home and let him go to work and do things like he wanted.

    He give the Legislature the air, and sent the members home every time they stood up to him and give him a call-down or bawled him out.

    When a Legislature was busted up he wouldn’t allow no new one to be elected, so that there wasn’t nobody left to run things, but anybody could walk in and do whatever they pleased.

    He tried to scare people outen moving into these States, and made it so hard for a wop or one of these here kikes to get his papers that he would rather stay home and not try it, and then, when he come in, he wouldn’t let him have no land, and so he either went home again or never come.

    He monkeyed with the courts, and didn’t hire enough judges to do the work, and so a person had to wait so long for his case to come up that he got sick of waiting, and went home, and so never got what was coming to him.

    He got the judges under his thumb by turning them out when they done anything he didn’t like, or by holding up their salaries, so that they had to knuckle down or not get no money.

    He made a lot of new jobs, and give them to loafers that nobody knowed nothing about, and the poor people had to pay the bill, whether they could or not.

    Without no war going on, he kept an army loafing around the country, no matter how much people kicked about it.

    He let the army run things to suit theirself and never paid no attention whatsoever to nobody which didn’t wear no uniform.

    He let grafters run loose, from God knows where, and give them the say in everything, and let them put over such things as the following:

    Making poor people board and lodge a lot of soldiers they ain’t got no use for, and don’t want to see loafing around.

    When the soldiers kill a man, framing it up so that they would get off.

    Interfering with business.

    Making us pay taxes without asking us whether we thought the things we had to pay taxes for was something that was worth paying taxes for or not.

    When a man was arrested and asked for a jury trial, not letting him have no jury trial.

    Chasing men out of the country, without being guilty of nothing, and trying them somewheres else for what they done here.

    In countries that border on us, he put in bum governments, and then tried to spread them out, so that by and by they would take in this country too, or make our own government as bum as they was.

    He never paid no attention whatever to the Constitution, but he went to work and repealed laws that everybody was satisfied with and hardly nobody was against, and tried to fix the government so that he could do whatever he pleased.

    He busted up the Legislatures and let on he could do all the work better by himself.

    Now he washes his hands of us and even goes to work and declares war on us, so we don’t owe him nothing, and whatever authority he ever had he ain’t got no more.

    He has burned down towns, shot down people like dogs, and raised hell against us out on the ocean.

    He hired whole regiments of Dutch, etc., to fight us, and told them they could have anything they wanted if they could take it away from us, and sicked these Dutch, etc., on us.

    He grabbed our own people when he found them in ships on the ocean, and shoved guns into their hands, and made them fight against us, no matter how much they didn’t want to.

    He stirred up the Indians, and give them arms and ammunition, and told them to go to it, and they have killed men, women and children, and don’t care which.

    Every time he has went to work and pulled any of these things, we have went to work and put in a kick, but every time we have went to work and put in a kick he has went to work and did it again. When a man keeps on handing out such rough stuff all the time, all you can say is that he ain’t got no class and ain’t fitten to have no authority over people who have got any rights, and he ought to be kicked out.

    When we complained to the English we didn’t get no more satisfaction. Almost every day we give them plenty of warning that the politicians over there was doing things to us that they didn’t have no right to do. We kept on reminding them who we was, and what we was doing here, and how we come to come here. We asked them to get us a square deal, and told them that if this thing kept on we’d have to do something about it and maybe they wouldn’t like it. But the more we talked, the more they didn’t pay no attention to us. Therefore, if they ain’t for us they must be agin us, and we are ready to give them the fight of their lives, or to shake hands when it is over.

    Therefore be it resolved, That we, the representatives of the people of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, hereby declare as follows: That the United States, which was the United Colonies in former times, is now a free country, and ought to be; that we have throwed out the English King and don’t want to have nothing to do with him no more, and are not taking no more English orders no more; and that, being as we are now a free country, we can do anything that free countries can do, especially declare war, make peace, sign treaties, go into business, etc. And we swear on the Bible on this proposition, one and all, and agree to stick to it no matter what happens, whether we win or we lose, and whether we get away with it or get the worst of it, no matter whether we lose all our property by it or even get hung for it.

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/decind.html

    Author’s Note

    When this was reprinted in A Mencken Chrestomathy, the author added the following note:

    “From THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE. THIRD EDITION, 1923, pp. 398-402. First printed, as Essay in American, in the Baltimore Evening Sun, Nov. 7, 1921. Reprinted in THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE, SECOND EDITION, 1921, pp. 388-92. From the preface thereof: ‘It must be obvious that more than one section of the original is now quite unintelligible to the average American of the sort using the Common Speech. What would he make, for example, of such a sentence as this one: “He has called together bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures”? Or of this: “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolution, to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise.” Such Johnsonian periods are quite beyond his comprehension, and no doubt the fact is at least partly to blame for the neglect upon which the Declaration has fallen in recent years, When, during the Wilson-Palmer saturnalia of oppressions [1918-1920], specialists in liberty began protesting that the Declaration plainly gave the people the right to alter the government under which they lived and even to abolish it altogether, they encountered the utmost incredulity. On more than one occasion, in fact, such an exegete was tarred and feathered by shocked members of the American Legion, even after the Declaration had been read to them. What ailed them was simply that they could not understand its Eighteenth Century English.’ This jocosity was denounced as seditious by various patriotic Americans, and in England it was accepted gravely and deplored sadly as a specimen of current Standard American.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. Olly’s Video

    Very clever ……😂

    I wonder if he got out of San Francisco in one piece?

    O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
    (O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.)

    Robert Burns, Poem “To a Louse” – verse 8
    Scottish national poet (1759 – 1796)

  11. To Paul Schulte

    “To stay in politics”

    In the USA to be president you need money and lots of it to run your campaign. If you don’t have this no one can vote for you. That’s Democracy Amercan Style.

    So don’t say your votes aren’t bought.

    1. ninianpeckitt – actually, what you say about needing a lot of money is not true. Because the President is elected by the Electoral College, he just has to get enough votes from enough delegates to win. There has been more than one attempt to sway Electoral votes and there is nothing that says that Electors have to vote for the candidate they swore to vote for. It would take some doing, but it could be done. You could not spend any money and theoretically be elected President of the United States.

      Practically, the 2016 Presidential campaign will probably cost each major candidate 1 billion dollars. Hillary has amassed $45 million plus $20 million from George Soros in a Super Pac.

      1. To Paul Schulte

        “Practically, the 2016 Presidential campaign will probably cost each major candidate 1 billion dollars. Hillary has amassed $45 million plus $20 million from George Soros in a Super Pac”.

        So who says democracy is not bought in the USA?

        Just take a deep breath and listen to what you are really saying.

        If Eddy Izzard understands, I don’t see why you cannot see the light.

        You are describing a self centred country of complete delusion.

        The nation is run by cartels.

        America has taken a good idea of Freedom and wrecked it.

        1. ninianpeckitt – you have no idea what you are talking about. Your ignorance is stunning. I sure hope you know more about your own country’s political system.

          1. To Paul Schulte:

            My arguments are backed by hard evidence.

            “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt”
            Mark Twain

            1. ninianpeckitt – I have asked for evidence, have seen NONE. Put up or shut up!

              1. To Paul Sculte

                “Put up or Shut Up”

                “The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it”.

                George Bernard Shaw

                1. ninianpeckitt – George Bernard Shaw, great playwright, lousy historian. Still not seeing that evidence.

                  1. Paul Schulte

                    George Bernard Shaw was also Irish…..

                    The evidence is posted. You need to read it

                    1. ninianpeckitt – give me a thread and time that you post the evidence.

  12. Olly, this is hilarious.

    The part I don’t follow, is where the protagonist implies historic Western expansion was evil but contemporary Eastern expansion and confiscation (i.e. redistribution) of wealth is justifiable, ney, imperative as axiomatic filling of a vacuum. Where Asians, who are native only to Asia and are, in fact, illegal aliens without documentation, came to the Americas without permit or documentation and ceaselessly fought with neighboring tribes while abducting, torturing and murdering many victims. And how Indians can be considered peaceful and docile when their own texts reveal murderous and violent wars that appear to have involved something akin to nuclear weapons, even as they antagonized the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis to the point of secession (there was no psychotic religious zealot, Abraham Lincoln there to conduct and unconstitutional war of aggression against peaceful, law-abiding southern states).

    Oh yeah. The West and Westerners are the source of evil.

    P.S. Those Asian illegal immigrant Mayan priests, who cut the hearts out of 10,000 hapless tribe members in one day, allowing their blood to flow down the temple steps and flood the streets, were angels.

    P.P.S. Do you know, by the way, how ownership is secured without surveys and deeds. This “comedian” states that people in an area were the owners simply by standing on the land. Presumably, in that case, if one moves, one has quit the land he occupied previously and become the owner of the new land he occupies. That would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the next visitor to occupy your house will be the houses new owner.

    P.P.P.S. Conclusion: Comedy is funny and fictional. I fear the vulnerable, fickle and mutable minds in his audience.

    1. P.P.P.P.S. Sometimes comedy is funny. Depends on your age and taste.

  13. “The author must have read my blog.”

    Yes NP, he’s the one. He told me he cannot wait for your next gushing of wisdom and hopes you get back to it real soon.

Comments are closed.