On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail. It carried a total of 102 passengers, including forty Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, a contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of the new community, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? From the Bible. The Pilgrims were a people completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments. They looked to the ancient Israelites for their example. And, because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work. But this was no pleasure cruise, friends. The journey to the New World was a long and arduous one. And when the Pilgrims landed in New England in November, they found, according to Bradford's detailed journal, a cold, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, he wrote. There were no houses to shelter them. There were no inns where they could refresh themselves. And the sacrifice they had made for freedom was just beginning. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims -- including Bradford's own wife -- died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure.
When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper! This is important to understand because this is where modern American history lessons often end. Thanksgiving is actually explained in some textbooks as a holiday for which the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians for saving their lives, rather than as a devout expression of gratitude grounded in the tradition of both the Old and New Testaments. Here is the part that has been omitted: The original contract the Pilgrims had entered into with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belong to the community as well. Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives.
He decided to take bold action. Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of the marketplace. Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. And what happened? It didn't work! Surprise, surprise, huh? What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation! But while most of the rest of the world has been experimenting with socialism for well over a hundred years -- trying to refine it, perfect it, and re-invent it -- the Pilgrims decided early on to scrap it permanently. What Bradford wrote about this social experiment should be in every schoolchild's history lesson, every kid gets. If it were, we might prevent much needless suffering in the future. Here's what he wrote:'The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense...that was thought injustice.'
That was thought injustice. Do you hear what he was saying, ladies and gentlemen? The Pilgrims found that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. So what did Bradford's community try next? They unharnessed the power of good old free enterprise by invoking the undergirding capitalistic principle of private property. Every family was assigned its own plot of land to work and permitted to market its own crops and products. And what was the result?'This had very good success,' wrote Bradford, 'for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.'
Bradford doesn't sound like much of a Clintonite, does he? Is it possible that supply-side economics could have existed before the 1980s? ... In no time, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat themselves. ... So they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians.
The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. And the success and prosperity of the Plymouth settlement attracted more Europeans and began what came to be known as the 'Great Puritan Migration.'
Now, aside from this program, have you heard this before? Is this being taught to children -- and if not, why not? I mean, is there a more important lesson one could derive from the Pilgrim experience than this? What if Bill and Hillary Clinton had been exposed to these lessons in school? Do you realize what we face in next year's election is the equivalent of people who want to set up these original collectivists communes that didn't work, with nobody having incentive to do anything except get on the government dole somehow because the people running the government want that kind of power. So the Pilgrims decided to thank God for all of their good fortune. And that's Thanksgiving. And read George Washington's first Thanksgiving address and count the number of times God is mentioned and how many times he's thanked. None of this is taught today. It should be.
--See, I Told You So
Have a happy Thanksgiving, folks. You deserve it. Do what you can to be happy, and especially do what you can to be thankful, because in this country you have more reasons than you've ever stopped to consider.
--Rush Limbaugh
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
26 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
People.
Same reason we don't want to hand over trillions of dollars in massive guns and weapons of mass destruction to the State. We simply don't trust the State that much.
And so we can agree that we don't want the State owning our land.
Happy Tgiving to you as well, albeit a bit late.
Thanks for the well-wishing by the way... back at you belatedly.
I sorta don't think there's as many as I think YOU think there are. Perhaps there are those who are okay with the gov't providing more assistance in some areas than you are (and less in other areas), but that does not make them socialists.
Perhaps to say there are some who are slightly MORE socialist than you, that would be a fair statement. But Clinton, Kooch, Edwards, Bush, Cheney, etc, NONE of these folk are Socialists (in the classic sense in that they want the state to own their property and businesses.) Not that I've heard any of them suggest.
Not that any of them would out loud. But their constant sinking of their hands in the pockets of the wealthy and/or productive is a good indication. They may never use the word "socialism", but a turd by any other name still stinks. Consider all their suggested programs and means of paying for such and there is the start of it all.
Words have meanings and this one doesn't fit our elected representatives especially well.
IF one wants to complain that the welfare program is too "socialistic" for their tastes, or that the subsidized oil and motor industries smacks of socialism, that's fine. But that's different than saying that Clinton or Bush are socialists. They're just not.
We all choose what we find acceptable. Bush supports 'No Child Left Behind' and that most certainly smacks of socialism. "Smacks of" but is not "Strictly" socialism. No Bush isn't a Socialist. I'm not even sure BILL Clinton is either, but his wife is proposing policy that can only be described as "Socialistic."
GadZooks! I think I'm turning Libertarian!
I'd suggest that both could be considered socialistic (taking my money that I sure as heck don't want to surrender just to pay for more traffic - I'm a cyclist and a pedestrian, I don't need those big roads!), but neither rise to the level of making an advocate a socialist.
If you want to consider a particular policy "socialistic," I'm fine with that - the argument could probably be made. But only if you acknowledge that other programs that you support can just as easily be called socialistic.
And if you do so without suggesting those who advocate it are socialists.
Seems to me.
We will be going to the polls to make choices. What we say with the choices we make will have consequences, whether we want to admit it or not.
God is still in control and will allow us to make choices, but He is aware of our disobedient attitudes.
But that is the point, Marshall. It IS silly to say that just because some elected official supports a program that you don't support that they are, therefore, socialists. It's ridiculous. Nuts. Childish. Churlish. Silly.
I agree completely.
And are you suggesting that people who disagree with your choice for Australia's leader are voting against God? Who'd they elect, Satan?
One could theoretically see the civil war as the decisive battle between the power of the states(South) and the federal government(North). That war decided that this nation is not just a confederation of individual states that band together for protection. We maintain States as political entities as a holdover from colonial and expansionist phases. Today we have problems and challenges that the original framers of our constitution could not have foreseen. It is only with a powerful federal government that we could deal with problems linked to trade and ecology.
The framers were geniuses in providing us with systems that would allow our country to change over time as the challenges we faced changed.
You cry for "States Rights" but you show no examples of how such changes would solve our national problems.
But I was just curious: Do you actually know something about Australia's president-elect that makes you think he represents evil? I'll be honest, I don't know a thing about the bloke - other than Howard (supposedly a conservative) lost the election to him and that supposedly, Howard's closeness to the Bush administration figured in to his loss.
Apparently the people of Australia feel that they are stepping away from a bad president to a more morally upright one - at least that's how I gather the news.
So, that's why I wondered what you knew about Rudd (Howard's successor) that I don't know. And why you brought it up in this post (but then, we're already off-topic, it seems to me, so no need to answer - I was just curious).
You cry for "States Rights" but you show no examples of how such changes would solve our national problems.
Well, I'm with Eric and any who champion reasonable states rights and strong and healthy local communities. (Although I'm agreeing with you that there is a legitimate reason and place for federal powers). I think it's a balancing act.
I'm of the mind that local choices and autonomy is generally best. If we have farms or factories in my neighborhood and the people who work there and who own it live in my neighborhood, then it will behoove us all to have strong, beneficial farms and factories BUT that they also respect workers and the environment.
The people who live here will often (not always, but often) have the best ideas about what works and doesn't work well in our particular area - better than some interferin' Federal policy wonks.
And, if the workers and owners all live there together, it is in all our best interests to not spew toxins into our streams or air and to have content, invested workers. And when they leave their work, they buy from strong local markets, supporting strong, local farmers who in turn buy their plows from strong local businesses.
THAT to me, is a healthy loop and the ideal. A strong and healthy local decision circle.
Now, when the Owner of the factory lives afar and doesn't care about spewing toxins into our local streams because it is cheaper than not creating the toxins in the first place - which thereby gives the Owner more disposable income with which he can bribe local politicians to weaken environmental laws, THEN! - then we need a strong federal presence to ensure individual and local rights.
But that doesn't always work, either. For instance, with the federal NAFTA laws (enacted by Clinton and a Republican congress), there are rules (Chapter 11) that give corporations power over local gov'ts so that if a local township wanted to disallow pouring toxins into a stream, the corporations could sue the township if it interfered with their profits!! And the corporation would win (and already have)!
That would be an example of the feds unduly usurping state's rights.
And so, all of that to say that to me, it should be a balancing act with localities having autonomy to act in their best interest (the best interests of the People, not of corporations) and the Feds standing by to step in when that isn't happening.
Sorry so long.
Me an El live in the corner of Alabama. Right next to Florida and Georgia. Without federal laws, then Atlanta's water needs would long ago have dried up the river that feeds Alabama businesses and Florida oyster beds.
I just get pissed when he asserts "states rights!" as if the disbanding of the federal government would suddenly make the air butter yellow and filled with cartoon bluebirds.
My point was that your examples are lame comparisons to the type of proposals a Hillary Robb'em Clinton would seek to impose. Roads are paid for pay all from whatever taxes each pays. It really doesn't matter what one pays but that a percentage is going to things like federal infrastructure, the military, and governmental operations. These things are all civic responsibilities and not federal largesse or philanthropy. Universal healthcare, OTOH, is and especially if the wealthy are tapped harder to pay for it. Income redistribution is a hallmark of her policy ideas and that is a socialistic bent one can't ignore.
The idea of reducing the federal government is a matter of eliminating or reducing those areas that are not really the business of the feds. Most subsidies, for example, could be done away with. Scholarships, research grants, the National Endowment for the Arts...things like this can be eliminated.
You are, of course, free to think so. I disagree. They are of the same nature. Supporting gov't involvement in health care solutions is not any more or less socialistic than supporting gov't involvement in infrastructure.
And supporting gov't involvement in propping up various industries like oil and automobiles is a good bit more grotesque a version of "socialism" (not that it IS socialism, but if we're going to call using tax dollars in ways we disagree with "socialistic," well, then the shoe fits).
The point remains, neither Clinton nor Bush are socialists.
On this, I can agree in part. It is not the Fed's business to keep specific industries afloat, to create policies that push the personal auto-solution, to have a military presence across the world, etc.
It IS the fed's business to have a responsible defense, to promote the general welfare (which could include reasonable transportation solutions, could include education - Thomas Jefferson certainly thought so - and could include various sorts of assistance, especially if it ultimately SAVES tax dollars).
It is NOT the Fed's business to prop up industries, though. Or, as some wag said, "If we're going to do away with welfare, let's start with the rich first."