BY PAUL E. SCATES
re•pub•li•canism - (noun) the belief that the supreme power of a country should be vested in an electorate - Encarta® World English Dictionary
Noah Webster is one of the most influential of the Founding Fathers, although you may only know him as the writer of a dictionary. In 1783, Noah wrote his own textbook, A Grammatical
Institute of the English Language, and it became the most popular American book of its time. For over 100 years this "Blue-backed Speller" taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words.
In 1806, at age 43, Webster published A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, the first truly American dictionary. He wrote it because Americans in different
parts of the country spelled, pronounced and used words differently, and he thought that all Americans should speak
the same way. Immediately thereafter he went to work on his magnum opus, An American Dictionary of the English Language, for which he learned 26 languages, including Anglo-Saxon and Sanskrit, in order to research the origins of his own country's tongue. It was published 22 years later, when he was 70 years old, and embodied a new standard of lexicography. It was a dictionary with 70,000 entries that was felt by many to have surpassed Samuel Johnson's 1755 British masterpiece not only in scope but in authority as well.
This wise man also had plenty to say about politics. Here, written in 1833, is one Truth he expressed that has stood the test of time –
“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, “just men who will rule in the fear of God.” The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws. Intriguing men can never safely be trusted.” - Noah Webster, “Advice to the Young,” Number 49, Chap. XIX, History of the United States, 1833
The “man on a white horse” has long been a staple of literature and movies: the mysterious stranger who comes out of nowhere to rescue the maiden, the town…and now, our nation. These works of fiction align with world history in revealing the danger of trusting a smooth-talking, self-assured stranger to take over the responsibilities that must rightly rest with the people. Barack Obama is but the latest and most rhetorically gifted of these “intriguing” men.
But he is not the first U.S. Senator to play this role. After serving only two years in the Senate, the articulate, exciting and youthful John F. Kennedy overwhelmed this country with charm and charisma (not to mention some creative vote-counting in Cook County, Illinois) to win the presidency from the “old” and un-exciting Richard Nixon.
Kennedy’s legacy? Vietnam, the Great Society (a basically socialist agenda pushed through by Kennedy successor LBJ on the strength of sympathy for the fallen president), the brink of nuclear war and, for all its good intentions, the simmering racial animosity between black and white Americans that is the bastard stepchild of the Civil Rights movement. (That you can’t oppose Obama’s candidacy without being tarred with the charge of “racism” simply reinforces this point.) All of these began with the greatest of intentions, the most noble-sounding rhetoric and the promise of “hope and change” for the future.
Despite the “Camelot” images fostered by the fawning news media, many historians today rate Kennedy as the worst president of the 20th century.
Yet today we’re once again presented with a youthful, glib and exciting candidate who offers only a vague “hope,” an un-defined “change” and the ability to speak well and charm his listeners. An “intriguing” man, to be sure…but one with whom you’re willing to trust the future of our nation in this age of terrorism? I urge you, my fellow American…think before you vote.
Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.
6 comments:
Great article.
This article isn't great! It's closed minds like this one that keep this country held back! What you said about homosexuals not having the right to be in a room with a their partner that is on their death bed is completely ridiculous. If you are in a relationship with someone and they are about to pass on from this world, they deserve to be with their partner. A power of attorney should not have to be the length that has to be taken to "get this taken cared of". You say a homosexual relationship has done nothing for society? Well what has a heterosexual relationship done for society? Especially one that that does not give back to the community and does not have children because, hello reality check, not all heterosexual marriages produce children. And as far as homosexual couples being denied marriage because they do not produce children, then infertile couples and elderly couples should not be given the right of marriage because they do not produce children either. To sum this up, don't talk about something before you have done your research. This article is offensive, if anything, but definitely not great!
I don't think this article even mentioned homosexual behavior. But since you brought it up...
Two guys having sex together does not constitute a relationship which provides a positive benefit to society, i.e. a married couple.
A married couple can create children to carry on society; even if all sex organs are functioning correctly, homosexuals can NEVER create children.
With homosexuals' high rate of AIDS, STDs, hepatitis, depression, substance abuse, suicide, and domestic violence, their home also makes a terrible place to put even adopted children.
By the way, I have done my research...and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is redeeming about homosexual behavior, and nothing valuable is provided to society by it.
So by your definition the only thing that constitutes a contribution to society is having children?
Did I say that? I didn't say anything even remotely like that. Remember, the context here is relationships.
By the way, this is way off topic for this post, so no more comments will be accepted unless they are on-topic.
This article was quite thought provoking, and very insightful as to how enlightened our founding fathers really were.
Our constitution is in serious jeapardy after today, I have sensed a real distaste for it from our new "President Elect"
Post a Comment