The Associated Press via AOL News headlined a story on Sunday which indicates that a group of history professors seem to think that John McCain's chances of winning the White House in '08 are about as strong as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's chances of being elected the national grand wizard of the KKK.
The professors offered a variety of explanations as to why they see a landslide victory for Barack Obama in the Fall.
But it seems the gentlemen and scholars forgot one simple fact that shapes their opinion. The latest survey of professors of history and English in U.S. colleges and universities shows that the overwhelming majority--over 90% in fact--are liberal Democrats.
So why, pray tell, did their latest 'political opinion' make headline news?
Showing posts with label U.S. History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. History. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Today, December 15, Bill of Rights Day
Today is perhaps the most important date in American history outside the day of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Today, December 15, is Bill of Rights Day--the date in American history that the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was ratified and added to the U.S. Constitution to protect the individual rights of citizens.
Below is a reprint of the article I wrote last year to commemorate this date.
On December 15 we mark one of the most important dates in American history, yet it is one with which I am sure many of you may not be familiar. The 'Bill of Rights Day' is celebrated on December 15, and the fact that this date in history is one of the most unnoticed and ignored speaks volumes about the U.S. educational system.
Since 1941 the ratification of the Bill of Rights has been commemorated in this country on December 15. Yet today, I am sure that the average guy on the street has no clue that one of the most significant events in human history happened on that day...thanks to the dumbing down of the educational system and the failure of modern politicians to give proper recognition to the basic rights we all are guaranteed in the United States of America.
The original Constitution, ratified in 1788, had no Bill of Rights. The fledgling young Republic had just managed to fight off the British for their independence and declare themselves a new nation united by a commonly accepted rule of law--the U.S. Constitution. Yet long before the Constitution was ratified many of the Founders insisted that the document would be woefully incomplete without protecting certain individual rights. One of these was James Madison, who was elected by Virginia to the first Congress upon the promise that he would work for a Bill of Rights.
George Mason, also of Virginia, refused to sign the original Constitution precisely because it contained no Bill of Rights. Mason had written a Bill of Rights for the state of Virginia which many other states used to adopt their own Bill of Rights.
Patrick Henry had originally opposed the inclusion of the Bill. Revisionist historians often use Henry as some sort of proof that the Founders were not in agreement about the rights that should be guaranteed to the citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. Henry also opposed the Constitution. But this was not due to anything other than his opposition to a centralized government of any kind, believing instead that such power should be reserved for the states.
It is also to be noted that in spite of Patrick Henry's initial opposition, he would later change his mind and work for both the U.S. Constitution and for the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Having succeeded in getting a Constitution approved by the states, the Founders went to work on a document that would protect the rights with which each citizen had been endowed by their Creator. The Bill does not 'grant' or 'give' rights. The rights are automatically inherent in our very existence. The Constitution PROTECTS these basic, inherent rights.
In 1789 the Bill of Rights was written in Federal Hall in New York City, which at the time was the capital of the U.S. The first Congress was made up of 26 Senators and 65 Representatives from the 13 states. On September 25, 1789, Congress passed 12 amendments to the Constitution which would be called the Bill of Rights. In October of that year President George Washington sent a copy of the 12 amendments to the states for their approval.
From October of 1789 until December of 1791 the thirteen states debated the amendments. By the time the amendments had made their rounds the original 12 amendments were whittled down to 10. On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify the 10 amendments, and thus, according to the provisions of amending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights became part of the supreme law of the land.
During these days when collectivist revisionists see no inherent individual rights in the Bill of RIGHTS, it is vitally important to note that the sole motivation of the Founders in insisting on the Bill was the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. It is impossible, for example, for someone to make a valid philosophical argument claiming that the 2nd Amendment does nothing but establish a militia, when the whole idea of the Bill to begin with was to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of citizens.
Thus, on this December 15 let each of us as Americans give thought to the basic philosophical premise that motivated the Founders--that each individual American is free, and as such, we are guaranteed the protection of certain specified individual rights. If no such guarantee exists, then the whole notion of establishing a free Republic was in vain.
Below is a reprint of the article I wrote last year to commemorate this date.
On December 15 we mark one of the most important dates in American history, yet it is one with which I am sure many of you may not be familiar. The 'Bill of Rights Day' is celebrated on December 15, and the fact that this date in history is one of the most unnoticed and ignored speaks volumes about the U.S. educational system.
Since 1941 the ratification of the Bill of Rights has been commemorated in this country on December 15. Yet today, I am sure that the average guy on the street has no clue that one of the most significant events in human history happened on that day...thanks to the dumbing down of the educational system and the failure of modern politicians to give proper recognition to the basic rights we all are guaranteed in the United States of America.
The original Constitution, ratified in 1788, had no Bill of Rights. The fledgling young Republic had just managed to fight off the British for their independence and declare themselves a new nation united by a commonly accepted rule of law--the U.S. Constitution. Yet long before the Constitution was ratified many of the Founders insisted that the document would be woefully incomplete without protecting certain individual rights. One of these was James Madison, who was elected by Virginia to the first Congress upon the promise that he would work for a Bill of Rights.
George Mason, also of Virginia, refused to sign the original Constitution precisely because it contained no Bill of Rights. Mason had written a Bill of Rights for the state of Virginia which many other states used to adopt their own Bill of Rights.
Patrick Henry had originally opposed the inclusion of the Bill. Revisionist historians often use Henry as some sort of proof that the Founders were not in agreement about the rights that should be guaranteed to the citizens. Nothing could be further from the truth. Henry also opposed the Constitution. But this was not due to anything other than his opposition to a centralized government of any kind, believing instead that such power should be reserved for the states.
It is also to be noted that in spite of Patrick Henry's initial opposition, he would later change his mind and work for both the U.S. Constitution and for the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
Having succeeded in getting a Constitution approved by the states, the Founders went to work on a document that would protect the rights with which each citizen had been endowed by their Creator. The Bill does not 'grant' or 'give' rights. The rights are automatically inherent in our very existence. The Constitution PROTECTS these basic, inherent rights.
In 1789 the Bill of Rights was written in Federal Hall in New York City, which at the time was the capital of the U.S. The first Congress was made up of 26 Senators and 65 Representatives from the 13 states. On September 25, 1789, Congress passed 12 amendments to the Constitution which would be called the Bill of Rights. In October of that year President George Washington sent a copy of the 12 amendments to the states for their approval.
From October of 1789 until December of 1791 the thirteen states debated the amendments. By the time the amendments had made their rounds the original 12 amendments were whittled down to 10. On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify the 10 amendments, and thus, according to the provisions of amending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights became part of the supreme law of the land.
During these days when collectivist revisionists see no inherent individual rights in the Bill of RIGHTS, it is vitally important to note that the sole motivation of the Founders in insisting on the Bill was the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights. It is impossible, for example, for someone to make a valid philosophical argument claiming that the 2nd Amendment does nothing but establish a militia, when the whole idea of the Bill to begin with was to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of citizens.
Thus, on this December 15 let each of us as Americans give thought to the basic philosophical premise that motivated the Founders--that each individual American is free, and as such, we are guaranteed the protection of certain specified individual rights. If no such guarantee exists, then the whole notion of establishing a free Republic was in vain.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
The New Citizenship Test
The U.S. government has rolled out a new citizenship test to be given to those who desire to become legal citizens of the United States of America. Compared to the old test, this one comes up dreadfully short.
Patrick Henry is no longer considered required knowledge for those seeking citizenship. There is not a single question on Henry on the new test, compared to 3 on the old test.
Yet those who composed the new test must believe that knowing that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House is required knowledge. A question on the exam asks, 'Who is the current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?'
Understandably, there is a question on the exam about Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a part of the nation's history and is therefore part of our identity.
Nonetheless, the new test is short on U.S. history and long on 'current events.'
I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out how a knowledge of current events makes one a good U.S. citizen. A person can be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela and be fairly knowledgeable about current events.
The thing that makes a person a good citizen of the U.S. is a knowledge of and appreciation for our unique history, our form of government, our Constitution.
I would like to see prospective citizens answer questions such as, 'What are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution commonly called?' Another is, 'Name the four components of the First Amendment.' Yet another would be, 'What individual right does the Second Amendment protect?'
And then of course I would include a question concerning the one thing named within the text of the Constitution that indicates the only legitimate role of government.
It would be absolutely essential that prospective citizens know who were Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, along with their contributions to the Republic. Added to that would be questions about the first three Presidents.
Granted, such questions would make becoming a citizen much more difficult. I make no apology for that. We should demand that only those with a basic knowledge of American history and government be allowed as citizens.
There are far too many among the present citizenry who are alarmingly clueless concerning these vital facts. Perhaps all of us should be required to take the test periodically.
Patrick Henry is no longer considered required knowledge for those seeking citizenship. There is not a single question on Henry on the new test, compared to 3 on the old test.
Yet those who composed the new test must believe that knowing that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House is required knowledge. A question on the exam asks, 'Who is the current Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives?'
Understandably, there is a question on the exam about Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a part of the nation's history and is therefore part of our identity.
Nonetheless, the new test is short on U.S. history and long on 'current events.'
I'm sorry but I can't for the life of me figure out how a knowledge of current events makes one a good U.S. citizen. A person can be a citizen of Cuba or Venezuela and be fairly knowledgeable about current events.
The thing that makes a person a good citizen of the U.S. is a knowledge of and appreciation for our unique history, our form of government, our Constitution.
I would like to see prospective citizens answer questions such as, 'What are the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution commonly called?' Another is, 'Name the four components of the First Amendment.' Yet another would be, 'What individual right does the Second Amendment protect?'
And then of course I would include a question concerning the one thing named within the text of the Constitution that indicates the only legitimate role of government.
It would be absolutely essential that prospective citizens know who were Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, along with their contributions to the Republic. Added to that would be questions about the first three Presidents.
Granted, such questions would make becoming a citizen much more difficult. I make no apology for that. We should demand that only those with a basic knowledge of American history and government be allowed as citizens.
There are far too many among the present citizenry who are alarmingly clueless concerning these vital facts. Perhaps all of us should be required to take the test periodically.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Vast Ignorance of American History
Washington, DC (TLS). For one reason or another, the United States has produced a generation or two of persons who exhibit a vast ignorance of American history. This is partly due to the dumbing down of the U.S. educational system, which is reluctant to reward students on the basis of merit for the fear of harming their 'self-esteem.'
At any rate, vast numbers of Americans are woefully ignorant of our nation's history, the nature of its form of government and how that government is supposed to work, and the importance of the private sector in American life--including the importance of private property and private, free enterprise.
Today there are many out there who are all too willing to exploit this ignorance for either ill-gotten gain or for subversive purposes.
Walter Williams exposes these charlatans in this eye-opening article:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041807.php3
At any rate, vast numbers of Americans are woefully ignorant of our nation's history, the nature of its form of government and how that government is supposed to work, and the importance of the private sector in American life--including the importance of private property and private, free enterprise.
Today there are many out there who are all too willing to exploit this ignorance for either ill-gotten gain or for subversive purposes.
Walter Williams exposes these charlatans in this eye-opening article:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams041807.php3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)