-
Egypt Crisis and Oil
February 1, 2011 | 61 comments
-
Private Sector Saviors
September 12, 2005 | 0 comments
-
We Want Your Money
July 25, 2005 | 0 comments
Freedom Watch
In Defense of American Exceptionalism
Unfortunately, some politicians have either forgotten or chosen to ignore the glory of our founding.
There is no denying it: America is the greatest country in the world. We are blessed with unparalleled freedoms and boundless prosperity that for generations have inspired an innovative and industrious people. America is exceptional.
American Exceptionalism is the standard that our laws reflect the understanding that we are afforded certain God-given rights that can never be taken away. We know that God, not government, bestows upon us these inalienable rights, and because of that, they must not be compromised by the whims of man. This makes us a unique nation, a nation that remains, as President Ronald Reagan once said, “a model and hope to the world.”
Unfortunately, some politicians have either forgotten or chosen to ignore the glory of our founding. In April 2009, President Obama told a reporter in Strasbourg, France: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In saying this, the president implied that American Exceptionalism is nothing terribly special and instead simply chalked it up to the romanticism of patriotism.
Americans know better. We see American Exceptionalism not as an empty cry for nationalism, but instead, the blessings of God that keep our nation strong, independent, and free. We see the American story as one of tenacity and triumph, not as one inherently flawed and in need of rewriting. We recognize the times we have stumbled but are assured that it is not due to weakness of our foundation, but instead, the imperfection of mankind.
Most importantly, conservatives see America as exceptional because of our shared belief in the dignity and creativity of the individual. We know that it is innately human to work, to risk, and to dream. We understand that these virtues, coupled with the conditions American Exceptionalism provides, allow us to enjoy the economic and social mobility that other countries envy. Liberals lament that such success wasn’t guaranteed.
At its very core, progressivism rejects American Exceptionalism. Progressives view the Constitution as a roadblock, as they seek an unlimited federal government with more authority than the states and more power than the people. Because they strive for a limitless federal government, they are willing to sacrifice the rugged individualism that has made this nation exceptional in exchange for the collective salvation they believe a vast government provides. And the darling of the progressive movement is, of course, President Obama.
”Let me be clear,” President Obama: America is the greatest nation on Earth. We are not just any other nation, and we are certainly not analogous to our friends in Europe and elsewhere. Our exceptionalism is forever ingrained in our founding documents that spell out exactly the roles of the federal government in relation to individual rights and states’ rights.
Truth is eternal, and simply ignoring the truths of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution won’t make them go away. And frankly, there are enough Americans, including me, who love it and our country far too much to allow our exceptionalism to be bartered for further expansion of an already out-of-control federal government.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (237) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Herman Cain
More Articles From Freedom Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/03/in-defense-of-american-excepti
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Christopher Landrum| 3.3.11 @ 6:24AM
This is the best preaching to a choir I've heard in a long time, but I wonder if it can convince an entire congregation?
Alan Brooks| 3.3.11 @ 9:36PM
"There is no denying it: America is the greatest country in the world."
Not for long, it is going down slowly as ancient Rome did. And if you reinstate military conscription it will go down more quickly because you will be... removed.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.3.11 @ 6:44AM
Eloquent, to the point and eternal.
Alan Brooks| 3.3.11 @ 9:41PM
Yes, Will, they leave out how they want more guns, less butter, to maintain their families' power.
It's not what they say, it was they don't.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 6:56AM
What utter bollocks
Appleby| 3.3.11 @ 7:18AM
Ah, you have realized that Exceptionalism means WINNERS AND LOSERS, and you cannot stand the thought of having to exert yourself to win? In America, Winners get the prizes -- losers go home and figure out where they went wrong and try again. In America there is no prize for breathing.
PS: its UNalienable rights, not INalienable. Look it up.
Nancy in NC| 3.3.11 @ 7:38AM
But the meaning is the same. I know the original document had the UN, however IN is acceptable...more indicating the change of language over the years, just like the spelling of defense from defence, chuse to choose. However you say it the meaning is the same...they are not transferrable...however the government wants them transferred to them...no doubt about that.
Alan Brooks| 3.3.11 @ 10:58PM
"Ah, you have realized that Exceptionalism means WINNERS AND LOSERS"
The whole point is rightists want their people to be helped by the state, they are rightwing statists. And you are Canadian? if you are, then you watch from the sidelines, gaining from your buffered position.
However no one can claim you are not a Rightist, Appleby, you have it refined to an art. I know now it wont ever change, but let there be no peace of mind for you, either.
Melvin| 3.3.11 @ 8:26AM
How so, pls. explain yourself. It is one thing to say, "Bollocks," and another thing entirely to explain or rationalize your position.
Alan Brooks| 3.3.11 @ 9:46PM
"another thing entirely to explain or rationalize your position."
You want the state to maintain your postion, your kin's; friend's, too. There is no way out of it. This piece is just feel-good, as Marxism is feel-good.
A photo of the token black does not help, either.
Mike| 3.4.11 @ 8:25AM
Allen,
That "token black" would be the author. Your slip is showing.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Alan Brooks| 3.9.11 @ 10:59PM
"That "token black" would be the author."
We KNOW who Cain is, he is well known in Ga. But Carter came from Georgia, and Ga is tainted.
David W| 3.3.11 @ 8:35AM
Dare to explain the "bullocks" comment?
Hector| 3.3.11 @ 9:12AM
They must itch.
Doctor Right| 3.3.11 @ 11:26AM
Yes...Bollocks are something the Brits haven't had since Margaret Thatcher left office.
SpiralArchitect | 3.3.11 @ 12:18PM
The UK has been more than happy to bow down to all ever since the Ole' Battle Axe left office, she is what we need...
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 5:15PM
It's not what Cain wrote, it is how he used every single platitude he could possibly think of. He only left out 'rockets red glare', and 'the fruited plain'.
Cain reminds me of Dinesh D'Souza, who has to prove that though he is an immigrant from India he is more patriotic (nationalistic) than Thou.
Deborah D | 3.3.11 @ 9:07AM
"bullocks" -- that's generally a Brit way of saying BS. Well, we fought and won a war against them in case you don't remember. So, BS to you, Will, and Hear! Hear! to Herman Cain.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 12:50PM
Oh well done, you won a war against us over 200 years ago. I think Americans should be bigger than to use the revolutionary war to justify every argument.
JF| 3.3.11 @ 4:15PM
We also won a war on your behalf, or has WWII slipped your mind?
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:48PM
Oh God, not this myth again!
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:08PM
Myth? We suppied the UK with food, money, and men. Look up the comments of Winston Churchill on whether the Americans saved Britain in WWII. I would think your greatest PM would know. But I forget, you're Irish.
By the way, the demographic stats on Britain over the next 50 years extrapolated based on current stats (in 2005 more than 50% of births in London were to non-native women): (Thanks to Gates of Vienna---the hardest thing to find is the number of fertile Muslim and native English women---from there, the numbers are easy. Young men of military age---potentially dangerous men---are the vital statistic. Give you a hint---in the pessimistic scenario, severe problems arise before 2030---85% of rapes in Sweden are due to 1 demographic group. Care to guess?)
"The results for the three scenarios are below, in tabular form. Each scenario is played out until 2050, with the numbers displayed every five years. First comes the optimistic scenario, with the totals for natives and Muslims, then the neutral, then the pessimistic. All population numbers are given in thousands:
Scenario: Optimistic Group: Natives
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 60,000 12,294 43,794 6,720
2015 57,446 12,018 41,823 6,542
2020 55,763 11,745 40,630 6,458
2025 54,449 11,809 39,992 6,576
2030 53,291 11,498 39,453 6,416
2035 52,304 11,194 38,713 6,252
2040 51,363 10,968 38,018 5,800
2045 50,337 10,747 37,263 5,710
2050 49,204 10,427 36,423 5,614
Scenario: Optimistic Group: Muslims
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 2,200 505 1,366 343
2015 3,722 848 2,293 577
2020 5,405 1,214 3,308 848
2025 7,261 1,672 4,445 1,133
2030 9,309 2,141 5,707 1,416
2035 11,574 2,659 7,054 1,738
2040 14,065 3,200 8,537 2,051
2045 16,784 3,805 10,168 2,441
2050 19,751 4,475 11,951 2,876
Scenario: Neutral Group: Natives
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 60,000 12,294 43,757 6,714
2015 56,563 11,967 41,605 6,509
2020 54,035 11,644 40,237 6,397
2025 51,893 11,595 39,426 6,364
2030 49,875 10,931 38,349 5,874
2035 47,972 10,285 36,845 5,392
2040 46,060 9,722 35,407 4,682
2045 44,004 9,141 33,899 4,544
2050 41,776 8,434 32,253 4,362
Scenario: Neutral Group: Muslims
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 2,600 597 1,617 406
2015 4,556 1,008 2,726 686
2020 6,774 1,446 3,941 1,010
2025 9,283 2,004 5,303 1,373
2030 12,142 2,636 6,881 1,790
2035 15,424 3,362 8,662 2,289
2040 19,176 4,159 10,679 2,813
2045 23,447 5,096 12,970 3,438
2050 28,327 6,192 15,588 4,170
Scenario: Pessimistic Group: Natives
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 60,000 12,294 43,719 6,709
2015 55,681 11,916 41,387 6,475
2020 52,317 11,543 39,843 6,336
2025 49,361 11,382 38,860 6,151
2030 46,519 10,365 37,245 5,334
2035 43,773 9,382 34,983 4,538
2040 41,000 8,488 32,812 3,580
2045 38,061 7,569 30,574 3,417
2050 34,928 6,515 28,179 3,187
Scenario: Pessimistic Group: Muslims
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 3,000 688 1,868 470
2015 5,431 1,168 3,159 795
2020 8,251 1,678 4,574 1,173
2025 11,504 2,339 6,160 1,619
2030 15,319 3,157 8,075 2,195
2035 19,853 4,125 10,344 2,907
2040 25,213 5,226 12,973 3,693
2045 31,532 6,572 16,039 4,618
2050 39,037 8,218 19,679 5,746
To highlight some of the salient points from the above data, I calculated each Muslim population number as a percentage of the total population in each category. Within these I designated a “point of no return” and a “critical point” for three categories: population, voters, and dangerous young men.
Fifty percent is the “point of no return” for any of these categories, the point past which Islamization is guaranteed and cannot be reversed except through foreign intervention. These numbers are highlighted in red.
However, the critical point in each category will be reached long before the fifty percent mark. For the entire population, I took the example of India as a baseline: at thirteen percent, it suffers from relentless jihad attacks, with deadly terrorist incidents occurring nearly every day.
For voters, I set the critical point at ten percent. Since Muslims tend to vote in a bloc, when the number of Muslim voters reaches ten percent, they will be able to swing the result of any election, guaranteeing a dhimmi government, no matter the party. It may be that the current political establishment in Britain has already realized what lies ahead, given that all three of the major parties have abased themselves to the “Islamic community” in recent elections.
For dangerous young men, the critical point is reached at fifteen percent. Once again, Muslims tend to act cohesively as a single group when confronting non-Muslims, who are usually fragmented and prone to factional disputes — Lebanon is a case in point. Muslim youths are more likely to be violent than young white men, so fifteen percent seems a reasonable guess as to when Muslim fighters will control the streets.
Critical points are marked in blue in the numbers below:
Scenario: Optimistic
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 3.5% 3.9% 3.0% 4.9%
2015 6.1% 6.6% 5.2% 8.1%
2020 8.8% 9.4% 7.5% 11.6%
2025 11.8% 12.4% 10.0% 14.7%
2030 14.9% 15.7% 12.6% 18.1%
2035 18.1% 19.2% 15.4% 21.8%
2040 21.5% 22.6% 18.3% 26.1%
2045 25.0% 26.1% 21.4% 29.9%
2050 28.6% 30.0% 24.7% 33.9%
Scenario: Neutral
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 4.2% 4.6% 3.6% 5.7%
2015 7.5% 7.8% 6.1% 9.5%
2020 11.1% 11.0% 8.9% 13.6%
2025 15.2% 14.7% 11.9% 17.7%
2030 19.6% 19.4% 15.2% 23.4%
2035 24.3% 24.6% 19.0% 29.8%
2040 29.4% 30.0% 23.2% 37.5%
2045 34.8% 35.8% 27.7% 43.1%
2050 40.4% 42.3% 32.6% 48.9%
Scenario: Pessimistic
Year Population Breeders Voters Dangerous
2010 4.8% 5.3% 4.1% 6.5%
2015 8.9% 8.9% 7.1% 10.9%
2020 13.6% 12.7% 10.3% 15.6%
2025 18.9% 17.0% 13.7% 20.8%
2030 24.8% 23.3% 17.8% 29.2%
2035 31.2% 30.5% 22.8% 39.0%
2040 38.1% 38.1% 28.3% 50.8%
2045 45.3% 46.5% 34.4% 57.5%
2050 52.8% 55.8% 41.1% 64.3%
You’ll notice that the point of no return doesn’t appear in these figures except in the pessimistic scenario: for the dangerous it arrives in 2040, and for the population as whole in 2050.
However, the critical point arrives surprising early, even in the optimistic scenario — 2025 for voters, and 2030 for dangerous youths and the population at large. In the pessimistic scenario, Britons will face the debilitating effects of Islamization in less than ten years."
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:09PM
Sorry---supplied)
tonypal| 3.3.11 @ 10:52PM
I don't know what's more frightening, the contents of your post or the fact that you actually typed all that out.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 12:09AM
Tony: Cut and paste plus speed reading and quick editing skills are important. Go to The Gates of Vienna Blog and ignore the racism. I couldn't caere less about skin color---I only care about allegiance or opposition to sharia.
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 5:19PM
Will,
tell these gentlemen how Germany (and Japan) won WWII economically. If that was losing a war then every country should lose a war and have a Marshall Plan to build them back up to economic health.
Gr0w1er| 3.3.11 @ 9:29PM
Myth?!? If it weren't for us, you'd be speaking Deutsch right now. Wanker.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:34PM
This is a fact. Too bad my grandfather fought for these ingrate bloody (bluh-ee) wankers just so they could spit in our face 65 years later.
Alan Brooks| 3.3.11 @ 10:51PM
So America could botch up Vietnam, Nixon could screw up with Watergate,
and you wasted 12 years with the Bush dynasty?
Thanks for NOTHING.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:14AM
You were not gaining strength in 1941, you were losing it---your Army was a wasting asset. It would be nice if you bothered to read Churchill's history of the second world war, you know, the Nobel Prize Winning Classic. We supplied you, fought for you, and saved you.
In short, my view of Brits---and you certainly hit the mark---pompous worthless asses who pontificate on crap they don't know, and clainm a false superiority they don't have. By the way, france and England were on the verge of LOSING WWI when the Americans came. Or don't you remember the German offensive of early 1918, stopped by the Americans in the Ardennes and Belleau Wood? (Go Devildogs!)
You betrayed our secrets to the Soviets during the Cold war through your OxBridge traitors, and you were an exhausted hulk during the 50s and 60s.
In short, Will, sorry---I appreciate your attempts to argue, but you demonstrate very eloquently why your country is doomed---because of worthless young men like you, unwilling to defend freedom.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 8:49AM
In 1941, the threat of invasion had passed, and the Germans had invaded Stalingrad. I had this exact same argument with somebody further down, so just have a look at that, cos I can't be arsed to write it all out again.
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 5:22PM
Am writing this again so you can't miss it, Will:
Germany (and Japan) won WWII economically. If that was losing a war then every country should lose a war so to benefit from a Marshall Plan building them back up to economic health.
And we LOST in 'Nam, it wasn't a "tie".
Alan Brooks| 3.16.11 @ 5:25PM
... doesn't matter the reason for losing, we lost in Nam.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 11:58AM
It's bollocks because, although the constitution was an undoubtedly revolutionary and wonderful document, it had its flaws as does any such document. Black people being 2/3s of a human being, for example. The founders were great men, many of whom owned slaves, and they soon embarked upon a war of virtual extermination upon the Indian population.
And do you really believe that God cares so much about America? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and America was founded in 1776. Everybody, in every place, has a god-given worth and integrity, no matter in what country they were born. That fact will exist long after America is a footnote in history. Jesus did not encourage this kind of nationalism- far from it, indeed.
Be patriotic, by all means. I certainly am. But all nations are exceptional in their own ways, all nations have pasts full of both glory and shame, and the USA is no different. Love your country, but don't try to pretend that God inspired the constitution or that He has a unique mission for this country.
SpiralArchitect | 3.3.11 @ 12:21PM
Ignorance is bliss.
I wont tell you how misguided you are as it will likely only upset you. Further I believe you will not smell the roses no matter how many are present(ed). - enjoy
Steve A| 3.3.11 @ 2:45PM
Will, you sir, are a fool. The motive of the fraction in the Constitution was not as you claim. Yes, the native americans got decimated, largely because of a failure of morality, greed & government excess. Read some history.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 3:22PM
By a government immediately after the revolution, a time which, according to fetishists of the constitution, was pure and good and living up to Jeffersonian ideals.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 3:57PM
You idiot... Don't you know that the southern democrat slaveowners fought the 3/5ths clause because it would have given the south a LARGE population majority??
So in that case, you complaining about the 3/5 clause (not 2/3, idiot) sounds an awful lot like the slaveowners you claim to despise.
DRed| 3.3.11 @ 6:36PM
hahahahahaha. Oh lord. Not that it's relevant at all, but the Democratic party didn't exist in 1786. You're getting your crackpot revisionist histories mixed up.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:39PM
You really should have kept your mouth shut. Just sayin'. 3/5 compromise drawn up at philadelphia convention of 1787. Thanks for providing the audience with the founding year of the dummy democrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....compromise
OWNED!
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:01PM
Will: Slavery was legal in the American colonies because it was legal in the British Empire.
So your attack on American slavery, as a Brit, is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
Slavery was only outlawed by Britain long after the American Revolution, thanks to the heroic efforts of William Wilberforce, in 1806.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:08PM
Yes, I know. 60 years before it was banned in America, and 160 years before civil rights brought an end to the discriminatory practices of the Southern States.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:10PM
And after the Brits blocked Holocaust survivors from settling in Israel.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:21PM
Well, Haganah were blowing up our troops in Palestine, so it was understandable. Britain gave enormous diplomatic support to the state of Israel during its foundation, but we didn't want that foundation to become a chaotic land grab, which is unfortunately what it proved to be.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:08AM
And why were you blocking resettlement DURING WWII, when the Haganah was fighting WITH you?
Jay Dee| 3.5.11 @ 7:02PM
And why did the Brits leave early, leaving their guns and ammo for the Arabs?
Great Britain giving "diplomatic support" to Israel is a farce. You were anti-Semitic then as you are now.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:43PM
That's false, the brits banned the "slave trade" and their navy enforced it. Either way, it was neither nation, but the christian thinking man who questioned the ethics of it all first. It was the christian conscience that defeated slavery, eventually.
JF| 3.3.11 @ 4:28PM
Did you know that the 2/3rds figure was inserted by slave-owners in order to give the south more political clout? Had slaves been declared total non-entities, as the north wanted, the Civil War would have been fought much sooner. Your grasp of US history is shallow. The founders also had nothing to do with extermination of the Indians. That began with Andrew Jackson and continued with the westward expansion.
Barack Obama smokes - a legal habit - but in this country smoking is generally vilified by the libs. In the same way, many of the founding fathers owned slaves - perfectly legal - but Thomas Jefferson, knowing that freedom is the birthright of all people and also prescient in his belief that abolition of slavery was inevitable, voluntarily emancipated his slaves even though financially, he was in deep debt and could have sold them for profit. Once again, a little knowledge on your part is a dangerous thing.
There is no evidence that God "inspired" the Constitution, nor has any claim been made to that effect. God inspired the founding fathers to craft a document that has withstood the test of time, and has served to inspire other nations to institutionalize the freedoms we take for granted. Britain, on the other hand, has devolved from an empire to a sorry socialist state.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:40PM
Are you seriously suggesting that political clout was sufficient justification for owning other human beings? The expansion began before Jackson, though in a limited sense, and anyway he was a participant in your foundation myth, the revolutionary war.
Just because slavery was legal doesn't make it right- my point is that the founders made it legal. And just because Jefferson sold his slave, that doesn't make up for the fact that he owned them for quite a long time.
And if a decent universal healthcare system, greater equality, greater educational success and a more humane welfare system is socialism, so be it. Although, the City of London is the centre of the financial world, Britain comes higher than the US in most "ease of doing business" surveys, and we have a much lower corporation tax level than you. And a lower deficit, although we are dealing with it, and you aren't.
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:16PM
Will;
Please read the article from earlier this week about how the U.K. has committed national suicide by essentially scrapping their navy. Notice I used the word "their", not "your". I did this because you are not a Brit; at least not one of the many I have known for the 40 years I have lived in London on and off. You write like an American moronic lib.
Of the hundreds of REAL BRITS I have known for years, not one sounds remotely like you. You, sir, are a liar and a coward hiding behind another nationality. You betray your ignorance of all things British with each keystroke. Go back under the bed where you belong. You are not worthy of being here and attempting to reason with you is like teaching an alligator ballet. You're just not capable of anything more.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 8:46PM
Erm, I am British, born and bred in Slough, about 20 miles West of London (made famous by the Betjeman poem beginning "come friendly bombs and drop on Slough..."). I like bitter, fish & chips, curry, rugby, cricket and the BBC.
I'm not sure what the thing about the Royal Navy has to do with anything, although I do think that the defence cuts are a disgrace.
Since you didn't respond to any of the points I made, that is all I will say.
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:06PM
Will wrote: "justification for owning other human beings".
The "justification" was the fact that slavery was legal in the British empire until the "Slavery Abolition Act" of 1833. America got slavery from Britain, so you may want to dismount your high horse.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:13PM
Glad to hear about those surveys---the cost of living in the UK is SKY HIGH compared to that of the US, because NZ is cheaper than UK, and NZ is SKY HIGH compared to the US.
Ease of doing business for billionaires does not translate to ease of business for start-ups. And Quality of food, clothes, etc. the US is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Britain. Sorry.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:23PM
Better food! From the land of MacDonalds and processed cheese! Ease of doing business isn't about billionaires, it is about all business.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:47PM
You wouldn't know what to do with the real food in this country, boy. Why do you think we're an overweight country? The food is second to none here, son. All I know is if "fish and chips" was THAT good it would've caught on here. We like red meat around these parts, rookie.
Don't talk to the fattest nation of people about food. We own this, rookie.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 8:51AM
I think the French, for one, would dispute the link between quality of food and weight.
CV| 3.9.11 @ 10:48PM
@JF, I'm afraid you are wrong about Thomas Jefferson. The only slaves he freed were in his will, and they were Sally Hemmings and her children. Sally was his dead wife's half sister and more than likely, he fathered her children. Check out Ancestry.com for the latest in DNA research. However, Thomas Jefferson did know that slavery was evil and had to end, he compared it to the wolf that you had by the ears and dare not let go of. There were other founders that never owned slaves (John Adams) and some that did free theirs. I've been to Monticello and you're wrong on Jefferson's slave history. He died with his estate in debt and the slaves were sold to clear the debt, except for the Hemmings.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 4:36PM
I apologize on behalf of the tax payers for the deficient and damaging public education that you received. Everything from your comments about a 2/3 human being to American exceptionalism and western history is a gross misunderstanding..and that's putting it kindly. Your comment really is an excellent example of the product of a post modern, anti-american, moral relativistic education or more accurately indoctrination. It should be framed and placed in the classroom as a learning tool. They could spend an entire semester just on it. Unfortunately, you will respond with a denial and an accusation that I provided no facts in my retort and you would be absolutely correct. Sadly, the reason is, like others have stated, that it would be a waste of time and you would not hear a single word. This is because the Left has succeeded in creating a whole generation of useful idiots that have been immunized to reason, fact, logic, and taught to believe that truth is not obtainable, there is no objectivity, and everything is relative. Your comment reeks of it. I guess I too am to blame for this. My sincere apologies.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:42PM
Without "reason, fact and logic", am I? A useful idiot? This would be opposed to the people who believe that God has great designs for the US, and that the founders were inspired by Him when they wrote the constitution.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 5:06PM
You are an English atheist raised in a socialist state hostile to all religion except one which wants to destroy you. Very logical. I would expect nothing less from you..of course, you don't get it.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 5:12PM
Let me add if you are actually from England and want to debate American's regarding their history it helps if you actually know something about it. The arrogance astounds me. I would not even contemplate the idea of going out to the Telegraph and spouting off without having read several books on english history and getting all my references absolutely correct. Me thinks you are an American liberal troll posing as English.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:49PM
Lmao!
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:17PM
He Does, and They do.
Sorry, Will, but the US is the best place on earth to be Jewish, and the Jews easily outscore the Brits in the Nobel Prize competition. And the US has been kind to Jews in ways Britain NEVER matched, and certainly now will never do so.
My wife and I debate whether to go to the British Museum before the barbarians sack it in, say, 30 years. You Are The Dead, Will. A Corpse walking.
I've worked with many Brits in my time in the Commonwealth.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:36PM
When did I start talking about treatment of Jews! This is a pretty long way from American Exceptionalism!
Britain had a terrible history with Jews in the Middle Ages- in 1190 most of the male Jewish population of York were massacred, and in 1290 Edward I signed the Edict of Expulsion which kicked all Jews out of England. Medieval Europe was a highly anti-semitic place- some countries were better than England, some worse.
However, Cromwell actively encouraged Jews to return in 1657, during the Protectorate. This was at a time when they were being viciously persecuted by Catholic European countries.
And, lest we forget, we ended up with a Jewish Prime Minister in Benjamin Disraeli, whilst the US is still waiting.
Britain provided a haven for Russian Jews fleeing the revolution, and for Polish Jews in WW2.
Currently, the Jewish community, though large by international standards, is smaller than many others (Irish, Muslims, Hindus, even Sikhs). There has been a worrying rise in anti-semitic crimes, particularly in London. However, it remains the fact that Jews are far better off than almost any other minority group, and are prominently represented in business, politics, civil society etc. The Leader of the Labour Party (and God willing our next PM), Ed Miliband, is the son of Jewish refugees from Poland and Belgium, for example.
And Britain fought a war against a power that actively endorsed the wholesale slaughter of Jews. Britain stood alone, until American deigned to get involved, against the power of the Luftwaffe, while French collaborators were enthusiastically loading Jews into cattle trucks and sending them East to be killed. Had Britain capitulated, I doubt that there would have been a Jew left in Europe.
Sam Levi| 3.4.11 @ 9:17AM
"However, Cromwell actively encouraged Jews to return in 1657, during the Protectorate. This was at a time when they were being viciously persecuted by Catholic European countries."
Cromwell may have encouraged Jews but they by no means were afforded full protection of the law. They were not even allowed to have surnames.
"Britain provided a haven for Russian Jews fleeing the revolution, and for Polish Jews in WW2."
Two different time periods here. Jews wound up fleeing England because of England's love affair with Russia in the early 1900s. It's why I am an American and not an A*Hole (pardon the shorthand.)
"Currently, the Jewish community, though large by international standards, is smaller than many others (Irish, Muslims, Hindus, even Sikhs). There has been a worrying rise in anti-semitic crimes, particularly in London. However, it remains the fact that Jews are far better off than almost any other minority group"
I so call bullshit on this one. We are still villified. Our minority status has been revoked and we have been lumped in with caucasians like all other "Arabs or those of Middle Eastern Descent."
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:50PM
@occam hilarious!
cv| 3.9.11 @ 10:51PM
The founders were undoubtably inspired by God to write the Constitution. They believed they were inspired by God, and they left numerous writings to support their belief. How sad that you are unaware of this.
They also used the writings of Plato and Cicero, as they were classically educated.
Vern| 3.3.11 @ 4:14PM
"bollocks"? What language is that from Will? I take it you were meaning to be distainful of a well thought out and insightful letter, but you failed badly by coining a word. I imagine you meant bollix; "to make a muddle of; bungle; botch" but if so, that doesn't fit either. Check your dictionary next time and perhaps you won't look so foolish.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:43PM
It's from British English. Or, more accurately, English.
It means "testicles", by the way, and is a term of derision, if you hadn't noticed.
Monty.Crisco| 3.3.11 @ 5:43PM
Saying "Bollocks" to Herman Cain's editorial. Well, I knew the Brits were RACIST, but that really takes the cake. Racist.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 6:11PM
I take it you're being ironic.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:19PM
Actually the OED states it is a castrated bull---Bullock. Sorry, you use "fanny" to refer to the genitals.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:38PM
"Bollocks" has nothing to do with "bullocks". They are completely unrelated words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:15AM
Sorry. Stand corrected. excuse me whilst I shag some fly balls.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 7:52PM
Why Bullocks? We're not talking about British exceptionalism.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:51PM
Lmfao
Alan Brooks| 3.3.11 @ 11:38PM
"What utter bollocks"
Don't take it seriously, Will, the guy is an Uncle Tom with a radio show; dime a dozen-- even Oliver North and Gordon Liddy got on the airwaves! this one wants to prove he is red white and bluer than Thou.
Mike| 3.4.11 @ 8:53AM
Uncle Tom: A hijacked term that used to mean a Black person that was subservient to a white person but now is understood to mean a Black person who does not toe the liberal dogma line. Leftist in America routinly use it to disparage any Black person who would DARE to think for themselves thus revealing the left's inherent racism.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 7:47AM
Our deep national "Malaise" is directly related to the basic premise that supports the existence of ANY organization of human beings, be it a family, a social organization, a company, or, at the highest secular level, a nation. Because, at the end of the day, it's not the "WHAT" that keeps us together willingly and productively, but the "WHY". If we do not have a nearly universally accepted "WHY", or, alternatively stated, a REASON to be, then we can much more easily be convinced that we really don't have to be together at all. The "WHY" is the GLUE that holds every human social oeganization into a coherent "WHOLE".
America, as organized by our Founding Fathers has been an ongoing experiment for the whole 230 some years of our existence. The bonds that have held our nation together have been tested several times, sometimes by external factors and sometimes by internal divisions. However, throughout our history, these bonds were tested and found strong enough to keep the Country going because our struggles and problems ended up making us stronger and more coherent. At those times we faced our worst danger, our bonds saw us through potential disaster and resulted in a stronger, not weaker nation. From the Revolution, the War of 1812, European interference in our affairs, the horrors of slavery and the Civil War we fought, in part to end that practice, and two world wars; we passed the test under fire and emerged stronger.
Today we are facing our most dangerous times; and, just when we need these same strengths that saw us overcome potential disaster in the past, barack obama and his fellow far-left disrupters are doing everything they can to rip us apart with the expressed intent to bring us down. I don't know all the reasons that obama hates the Country he was elected (?) to lead; but the fact that he has NEVER been one of us is a good place to start. But, what's even worse than obama (Caps intentionally deleted since they are a sign of respect.) is all the NATIVE BORN AND RAISED Americans around him who also clearly share his despicible hatred for our Country. Obama cannot even bring himself to pledge allegiance to the United States of America. (What would the lying, biased media be doing if a Republican did the things obama is doing?)
We have been held together all these years by our shared history and traditions, which obama does not share.. He does not share our Judeo-Christian beliefs. He does not share our work ethic. He does not share our life forming experiences and transformational events because HE DID NOT GO THROUGH THEM. He was living somewhere else, or being indoctrinated by proven and CONVICTED traitors like the bill ayres! And, most seriously, he does not share our nearly universal belief and dependence on God that our Founders recognized as the source and legitimacy of our individual rights and the just base and use of governmental powers. No wonder he is not only an abject failure, but the single most dangerous individual in our Country. What could possibly have motivated people to give their precious vote to such an unworthy, and deadly dangerous, individual? As usual, I must ask, yet again, BARRY! WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?
(Many thanks to Ken the Texican for his help with this.)
Deborah D | 3.3.11 @ 9:16AM
MikeD -- I believe those who voted for him only saw (and many continue to see) only what they wanted to see. I think many Democrats see someone with a "D" after their name, and that's all they need. They also voted for him because he was black, and they felt good about themselves for voting for a black man. If those same idiots haven't been paying attention to what he's been doing (as many, many do not) then he could very well be re-elected. Our country will be lucky to survive the next two years. We won't survive another four. We desperately need the good Lord's intervention.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 4:07PM
Amen, Deb.
Walking Horse| 3.3.11 @ 5:59PM
Stipulated, and an excellent illustration of a fundamental defect of warm-body democracy - allowing people to vote who have no skin in the game. There is no instance in history where a nation that fancied itself a democracy failed to suicide. This is also why people on the left are desperate to ensure the people forget this is a Republic.
Richard Baker| 3.3.11 @ 8:13AM
Will:
If that's so then why not leave this flawed country and go to the utopia you seek? The rest of us would be glad to be rid of you and, noting the word you used that you may live in Europe, are you jealous? If England, I hope you enjoy the Islamic dictatorship coming your way.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 12:52PM
Well, there isn't a utopia (not for nothing does it mean "nowhere" in Greek), but American Exceptionalism tries to cast America as that utopia. My whole point is that there aren't any, and that the US (though better than a great many states) isn't one either.
REDANDRIGHT| 3.3.11 @ 2:51PM
Mike,
I see no such claim that America claims to bpie liUtopia. If you ouve in the US I suggest you listen to the stories of the immigrants, and how this country afforded them unparalleled opportunity to succeed, to worship freely, free of the class system that to this day bedevils other countries. We do not believe that God "smiles" on us more than other nations.
We believe that God loves all, but that people must take what God offers, and make the most of it.Of course while the world is populated by humans there will always be cruelty, suffering, dictatorships.
What makes America exceptional is the incredible sanctuary it has offered the lowest of the low. Maybe that's why we get a little misty eyed about our country.
Never in the history of the world has there been such a nation as America. The world is a better place for it, warts and all.
REDANDRIGHT| 3.3.11 @ 2:58PM
Please excuse the typos, and addresing my reply to Mike instead of Will. The gremilins are in my keyboard, and I was unable to edit prior to it posting.
REDANDRIGHT| 3.3.11 @ 2:58PM
GREMLINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Will| 3.3.11 @ 3:24PM
It's wonderful ideal, but as I pointed out, it has fallen down many times. I know that America was built on immigration. I also know that America is the most unequal country in the developed world, so don't talk about the class system.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 4:02PM
Wow.. Sheer ignorance.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:15PM
Erm, how? Do you deny the inequality of the USA? Using the Gini coefficient (from the CIA world factbook, so don't say that I'm just a commie manipulating the numbers), the US is less equal than almost every developed country: Sweden, Norway, Austria, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Italy (Italy!), Spain, Canada, France, the UK, New Zealand, Japan and Portugal.
You are even less equal than Russia, a host of African states, Egypt...
The only OECD countries less equal than the USA are Mexico and and Chile.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 4:19PM
Those are commie stats. We measure "equality" a little different over here. This is part of this whole "American Exceptionalism" thing. We measure "equality" on "equal opportunity." You measure equality on "Equal entitlement"
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:27PM
Well clearly equality of opportunity ain't working, because it ought to lead to greater equality of outcome, if everybody has the option to do well in life. You can't tell me that in modern America people who don't get on do so simply because of their own deficiencies, rather than external circumstances, i.e. the existence of a massive underclass.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:28PM
Actually, it doesn't. For example, I'm much brighter than you, Will. I also make much more money, I'm certain. Ken's brighter than me, and makes more money than me.
It's equality of opportunity, not outcome. I'm richer and smarter than my dad, who was lower middle class when we were growing up. I went to college on a full academic ride. Med school was paid for almost entirely by me. Will, you're a peon. Sorry, European. Same difference.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 8:53PM
Anecdotes don't prove much. My central point, which is that the US has massive inequality and therefore does not have enough equality of opportunity. Of course there will always be plenty of inequality in a capitalist state, but no developed state rivals the US in this regard. Is that because there is a much larger share of Americans, rather than, say, Germans, who are stupid, feckless and lazy?
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:23PM
Have you lived and worked in the Commonwealth and the US, Will. I have. I have been a senior Medical Consultant in both the US and Nzed. My anecdotes are based on expert experience.
It costs much more to live in England than the US, as England is more expensive than Nzed, and Nzed is much more expensive than the US. Try pricing milk and orange juice, for example. Let me know when you find something cheaper in the UK, besudes pinheads. I'll wait.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 8:53AM
I' m not talking about cost of living, I'm talking about inequality, as you well know. Stop moving the goalposts because you know it is absurd to deny how unequal America is.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:31PM
Yes, we can. I actually have done clinical work with the underclass, Will---I was the psychiatrist for the Alabama Chain gang. My conclusions closely mirror my Conservative UK colleague, Theodore Dalrymple. Read his stuff and learn something.
Walking Horse| 3.3.11 @ 6:01PM
Equality of opportunity does not imply everybody has the same stuff, except in Barackistan.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:25PM
Sorry, I lived in New Zealand, and was recruited to run for Parliament....
New Zealand power costs, telecommunication costs, food costs, clothing costs, drug costs (Vitamin B12 tablets $40.00 for 30 tabs), book costs, tax costs, housing costs, automobile maintence costs, shoe costs, jean costs greatly outstrip those of the US. The tax on bank interest in 39.5%! Cost of mortgages was over 9% in 2007! Gas costs less in the US now than it did in NZ in 2006!
Perhaps your statistics are screwed. It's also more expensive to live in Denmark and the UK than the US. And that INCLUDES the costs of our health insurance.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 8:49PM
I'm not talking about cost of living (although I would point out that the average American has to shell out around $8,000 a year on healthcare, compared to less than $3,000 for the average Brit), I'm talking about inequality.
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:59PM
Will, at $3,000 for your shitty healthcare, you're being robbed. Government cannot do anything that private enterprise can do better. And, with that, I'm tired of wasting energy on a moron. Nitey-Nite.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:12PM
Well, we live longer than you, we have better infant mortality rates than you, we have far better preventative healthcare than you and absolutely everybody is covered. Not for us the 45 million people without health insurance, or the others who are presented with a choice between their giving up their homes and losing their health insurance. No Briton with a pre-existing condition has to pay through the nose for insurance.
It is true, though, that in some respects (e.g. cancer survival), the American system gets better results. That is a consequence of the NHS being starved of funds under the premiership of your idol, Margaret Thatcher.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:24PM
No, they don't. Much of the cost of healthcare is absorbed by employers. For example, I pay $130/month for my family of 4.
You don't know stuff, Will. That's the problem. You don't know the intracacies of how things work. When you grow up, you may, but I doubt it.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:53PM
And of course the cost absorbed by employers will, as much as possible, be passed down to the employee in the form of slightly lower wages, wages which, for the American middle class, have largely stagnated over the last 5 years.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 12:56AM
Will: two things---history and costs---
The Brits did practically nothing to help the Jews in Europe. Kindertransport was about it. The war was fought over the Poles, not the Jews. And then you blocked the Jews attempt to get into Palestine after the war. Disraeli was a convert; he never would have become PM unconverted. And, without the USA, you would have LOST WWII.
Now, let's look at some comparative costs: gasoline---$3.34 in my local gas station (small town midwest)---at least twice that in UK. Milk: $6.00 equivalent for 4 liters in UK, $3.00 US. Eggs: 1 pound 80 pence a dozen. US---$2.33 for 18 (and I can buy thirty, cheaply in walmart).
House: upper midwest small town: 2.5 acres of land, 300 sq meter house---&270; K USD. Cost of mortgage: refinjancing under 5%, currently 5.625%. I'm refinancing for under 4.5%---it will be locked for the full 15 years of the loan. My current one is, as well. Yours gets refinanced every 5 years---I was familiar with that crap from N-Zed.
Cost of Wrangler Jeans UK---$25 pounds. Cost of Wrangler Jeans US---$15.00 at Walmart. EVERYTHING in UK costs twice what it does in US. Or more. Our dollar in the US buys MUCH more than a pound does UK.
You obviously have never lived here, and if you visited, visited LA, NYC, or SF---the priciest places in the US. I lived in Rotorua, NZ, and it was more expensive to live there than Chicago. let's look at the Amazon.com Kindle as a consumer item. Very popular in the USA---the simple model (wifi only) is $139 in the US, and $180 equivalent in the UK.
Medical textbook (I'm an MD, and, by the way, your specialists are rancid in my field. Sorry, I worked with many of them. Worthless, the majority of them.)---Kaplan and Sadock Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry and Oxford Shorter Textbook of Psychiatry (Kaplan is American, Shorter is Brit)---K and S in US is: $259.41, and in UK $295.00 at Amazon.com.uk.
Shorter textbook: $82.49 in US, $63 in UK. Wow, actually cheaper. Also, 5 years old. Oops.
Corporate tax gets passed on to the consumer. Despite our higher corporate tax, we still have a much lower cost of consumer items than you. HMMM...
By the way, I make $350,000 USD. That's more than I would in the UK, and I get better schools, much better hospitals (our longevity stats are skewed by death rates from illegal aliens who give birth here but get prenatal in Mexico---1/2 of all kids born in LA are born to illegal alens, for example. We have a huge border.)
The quality of your school system is wretched compared to ours outside of slum areas. In high school, every one of my instructors has a Master's in the area that he/she taught; two had Doctorates---I went to a public school in the US sense. My senior year was taken up with College English, Calculus, and Chemistry, along with Honors history. Other than your very top Universities, you have no university system that can match the USA. By the way, my final training was at UCLA, ranked internationally number 30. I know about elites. My father, incidentally, when I was going to college never made more than $40,000 USD a year. I was $80,000 in debt when I graduated residency. I paid it all back within 18 months by incredibly hard work in a rural area. I practice now in a small town where the winter temp gets down to minus 30 farenheit. Again, now I make $350K. It is possible to do very well in the USA if you work hard. And our quality of life is infinitely better.
Life expectancy is an interesting thing---yours is longer for reasons that have nothing to do with your medical care---subtract our gun deaths and traffic deaths overage (before arrival at the hospital), focus on things that doctors actually treat, and we do MUCH better than you. One could argue that we are too fond of our guns (I wouldn't), but the difference in life expectancy is not due to medical care. I was a senior consultant in the NZ NHS, closely modelled on yours, and most of my colleagues were British trained. Sorry, Will, they were wretched in comparison to, say, Mayo clinic. And the wait times are outrageous.
It would help if you had even ever seen the USA. I, at least, know about the Commonwealth and have worked in an NHS modelled on the UK with UK trained specialists (Nowhere near as good as me, sad to say, but I'm UCLA.)
W| 3.3.11 @ 8:45PM
I take it, Will, you will soon move you, and your childern, to Egypt or Russia?
Listen, moron, being equal in those countries means they are all at the same low income level because there is not much opportunity, so they are all stuck at one level. get i? in the USA our poor peopole are better off than the middle class of your favorite countries, such as Egypt and Russia.
The reason for inequality in income is you can make lots of money in the USA. Look at obama and clinton, they wrote a couple of books and became millionairs. just because there is a difference in income levels does not make it unfair, because our poor are still better off than most people in the world.
i suppose your statistics must be the reason for the mass immigration to the countries you like.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 8:51PM
For God's sake, my favourite countries are not Russia or Egypt. I was responding to a post stating that at least the USA had no class system, so I responded by pointing out how massively unequal the USA is, with a high gdp per capita and lots of rich people, but an enormous underclass.
You can make plenty of money in all the Western countries I listed, but they are less unequal than the USA (or Britain). In some cases they are richer than the US as well, such as the Scandinavian countries.
Mike| 3.4.11 @ 9:22AM
Will
I can no longer stand it. Yes, there is what you refer to as an underclass in America. I would not refer to it as such but then I am an American who truely believes in American Exceptionalism. There is an underclass everywhere in the world.
Here is the big difference. In America you can work your ass off and leave the underclass for the upperclass, something you cannot do in most other places. You can also be a lazy dolt and work yourself from the upperclass to the underclass here. Also something you cannot do in most places.
In America you are not bound to the class you are born to. Marco Rubio, son of a poor Cuban imigrant family is now a U. S. Senetor. Only in America.
Equal opportunity not equal outcome. If it is more important for you to watch Jerry Springer than to work at improving your lot in life I have no problem with that. Just don't expect me to pay for it for you and stay the hell out of my way.
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Will| 3.4.11 @ 3:31PM
You can do it in any other developed country! Social mobility is not a uniquely American concept. Not "only in America".
cv| 3.9.11 @ 10:58PM
Bollocks!
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:20PM
Huh? Compared to Britain---I don't think so. Let me know when a Jewish guy in Britain runs for very high office. Disraeli was a Convert.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:42PM
Ed Miliband, current leader of the Labour Party, son of Jews fleeing fascism from Belgium and Poland. Quite possibly our next Prime Minister. There's one, straight off the bat.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 12:58AM
Cool. And very nice, if he lives. The amount of antisemitism in Britain is staggering.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:54PM
Thanks guys. My stomach is cramping up from laughing so hard.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:25AM
Most welcome, Phil. You know what they say...Against Human stupidity, the Gods Themselves contend in vain...
I thoroughly understand why American officers in WWII thought the Brits were "overly mannered, with no manners at all..." it's the pompous declaiming of authority on a situation in which the poor Brit is unfortunately quite gormless....I remember an idiot Scotsman lecturing me on the lack of emotional connection of Americans to pro Football Teams because of the money involved. I didn't want to spoil it for him by pointing out that 'Bama, a mere college team, has a larger stadium for football than any I've heard of for soccer in the UK (Bryant-Denny seats over 120,000 people, and FILLS, in a state with a population of less than 5 million. That's about two percent of the population of the entire state in the stands when 'Bama faces Auburn.)
Dear Lord, save us from our allies. By the way, Ed Milliband is anti-Israel. Some Jew. He would have helped those who would have killed his family. Scumbag.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 9:12AM
Scotland's largest two teams, Celtic and Rangers, played the other night. Celtic won 1-0, 3 players were sent off, the Celtic manager and Rangers assistant manager had a fight, a pub got smashed and around 200 people were arrested.
For a Scotsman, that's what "emotional attachment" to a club means. I doubt anything that brutal (or, frankly, funny) has ever happened at the University of Alabama.
Miliband is not anti-Israel, he's just not anti-Palestine. A good friend of Israel would point out to them that if they persist in denying the Palestinian people a state (although Hamas is also guilty on that score), they are just storing up trouble for the future. Israel was founded on the idea that it would be both Jewish and democratic, and if the Palestinian people continue to be denied a state, it will lose at least one of those characteristics.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 10:56PM
So unequal that we have a black President? Please let us know when the UK gets a PM of a different color...we'll all be standing by...
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 7:56PM
No utopia, but a place where one can advance far based on talent as opposed to birth. Hey, as a Jew, I can only say that this is the safest place to be a Jew on Earth. Certainly much safer than the graveyard which is Europe, or the land of the Terrorist catamites who run the UK.
Quite frankly, except for the US and a few other countries (Oz and Israel come to mind, perhaps Canada) the rest of the world is a cesspool, and there's a good reason only 15% of Americans have passports. Why bother travelling to a craphole? (That was my experience of Denmark and New Zealand)
W| 3.3.11 @ 8:46PM
great, OT
Will| 3.3.11 @ 4:04PM
Oh, I forgot to respond to your "Islamic Dictatorship" theory.
Just two numbers you might like to think about- UK Muslims, 1 million. UK non-Muslims, 60 million.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:08PM
UK Muslims---organized and giving a damn about what they believe. UK non-Muslims---poorly organized and worthless. UK non-Muslim birth rate---under 1.5 kids per woman---1 generation per 40 years. UK Muslim birthrate---4.2 kids/woman---3 generations in 40 years (13 year old moms quite common). 2060 extrapolation (current Moslem population 2.4 million---your data is from 2001, mine is from current Wikipedia, which trends Liberal). Assume, since average age of Muslim women younger and more generations per 40 years---assume 3 generations compared to 1 by non-Muslim Brits---- 2060 extrapolation, given 500000 fertile women to start (underestimation)---8-10 million. Mostly under the age of 30. 40 million non-Moslem Brits---mostly over age of 40. At cutting edge of young men---figure maybe 2:1 or less numerical superiority---assuming NO emigration of non-Muslim Brits. Assimilation is, and, given death threats, can be expected to be minimal. As things get weird, expect your youngest and brightest non-Muslims to emigrate.
That's the problem, Will. A product of the poor UK educational system, you can't do math.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:29PM
Non young men, by the way, have minimal military value. Might want to read the masterpiece Caliphate, by Tom Kratman.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 8:57PM
I prefer to use census data, though I accept your 2.4 million figure is closer to the mark. We have a census taking place this year, so that will show an exact picture, likely to be over 2 million.
The problem with crude extrapolation is that it is, well, crude. Non-EU migration into Britain is dropping precipitously due to government controls brought in during the last 3 years, so that discounts much more Muslim immigration, for example.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:27PM
Look at pure fertility figures, Will. Calculate based on that, and remember only young men count for force purposes.
It may be crude extrapolation, but, given lack of assimilation, social isolation, and pressures for large families, do the math. The numbers are against you, Will. You're a dead man walking, like the rest of Europe.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:00PM
This has been all over the UK media...but perhaps Will hasn't heard. The most popular name for boys born in the UK last year? Mohammed. Most popular...as in...used the most...to name children.
Teaghan| 3.3.11 @ 8:15AM
Mike D, I NEVER capitalize barry's name. Never.
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:22PM
Amen! It's a movement! (Of course, when I think of barry, I'm reminded of another kind of 'movement'.) Keep it up and let's see if we can get a few million to do the same. It could be our little protest, kinda like the "Kilroy Was Here" during WW2.
Ret. Marine| 3.3.11 @ 8:48AM
I am an individual, made in the image of God, with the full respect for others and their own desired driven will and strengths) which makes me an American citizen, not a subject for the transformation of a belief system I not only refuse to recognize but, in fact will take any and all opportunities to take you to the shed for your disrespect of my belief of being a disciplined and self made Man in this Republic. Justice for all, equal treatment under that law, truth, freedom and the American way is all I know to be true, hence my allegiance to the flag, my country men/ladies. I know of nothing else which makes me happier on a daily basis that many millions upon millions more have my six. In the cause of freedom some gave little, i.e. socialist/progressive/marxist/islamist/elitist and took anything and continue to take that which is not bolted down with lock and chain, including millions upon millions of innocence who had but one desire, freedom from those who would desire to imprison them to their evilness and personal ideologies. Some gave their all, died in defense of these God given choices to screw the pooch or act and be held solely responsible for my actions. I am an American which makes me exceptional and personally don't give a rats behind what this impostor calling himself president, I voted for the confirmed American citizen, thinks, says, or tried to do to further erode my God given rights and freedoms. This Nation in my belief was granted the right to stand up against oppression and evil doers in this world. That alone makes this Nation and its founding fathers in their God given wisdom to recognize the documents ( the Bill of Rights-Constitution) they conceived to be Just in God's eye. We are of Judeo-Christian belief system, under God, says it all and needs no further explaining. That in of itself is reason to believe in our exceptional ism. Semper Fi.
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:25PM
MARINE!
Well stated, as usual. Of course, I still have my little problem with the 'retired' part. As a Marine, you will never be retired. (At least I'm consistent!)
SEMPER FI!
Ret. Marine| 3.4.11 @ 7:59AM
Retired in status only, yes you are consistent and we both know and yearn of others of the same traits, it would be a very different world indeed. Thank you once again for your kind re post. Semper Fi.
Hillel| 3.3.11 @ 9:13AM
Curiously enough, "American Exceptionalism" is a relatively new LEFT WING coinage. Most Americans just accepted that we were exceptional.
The phrase was first used against Earl Browder when he was purged from the Communist Party USA with Stalins ending of the "Popular Front" "Communism is just 20th century Americanism...etc" Now we Americans use the term with pride as we don't worry as the Reds did that the US worker never accepted Socialism.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 9:27AM
Get 'em Herman!
Does it occur to anyone else that the republican party is overloaded with candidates that would destroy Obama in a debate?
On this go-round, Obama won't be able to rely on lofty rhetoric and promises as he did in 2008. Its time to face-up to that policy record.
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:27PM
I wonder if the refusal to allow him to use a teleprompter during the debates will be greeted with screams of "Racism!" He'll actually have to answer questions without one. I wonder if anybody will have the balls to ask him what he's hiding?
Deborah D | 3.3.11 @ 9:30AM
Alexis de Tocqueville in his book, Democracy in America, said that "The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional..." and he related it to America as a religious nation (one reason so many on the left want to tear religion apart in order to tear the country apart.)
"Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country." Tocqueville
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.3.11 @ 9:35AM
Mr. Cain,
Thank you. Sometimes the choir needs a sermon too.
Well spoken.
Michael Tomlinson| 3.3.11 @ 9:36AM
A Cain-Ryan ticket looks good in 2012.
loulou| 3.3.11 @ 10:31AM
I'll vote for that ticket!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 4:04PM
Got my vote!
Sam Owens | 3.4.11 @ 4:44PM
Get involved! Get busy! To to http://www.draftcain.org and sign up to help Herman. He's running for President and needs your help. Voting for him is good, but won't be enough. The establishment Republicans will do everything they can to stifle Herman and push him out of the race.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:02PM
Amen!
VBMax| 3.3.11 @ 10:20AM
Mr Cain certainly gets what it is all about. And appears tough enough to weather the slings and arrows. He has my support.
John Carnal| 3.3.11 @ 11:15AM
Announce Herman announce. You are the General Patton our Republican party needs to win back the country our founders had in mind.
Doctor Right| 3.3.11 @ 11:30AM
Dear Mr. Cain,
I suspect that you wrote this article to try and woo grass-roots Conservatives (the kind of Conservatives who read The American Spectator) and gain their support for your Presidential campaign in 2012.
Some might say that's a very cynical ploy.
...But I'd say "Well done!"
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 4:16PM
LOL.. Agreed! We're suckers for a good ole Reagan-esque pep-talk.. But then again, after two years of "The Apologist", who doesn't like hearing this stuff? Nevermind, liberals don't.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:10PM
Truth is a good wooing tactic. Good going, Mr. Cain.
NeilBJ| 3.3.11 @ 11:46AM
Can we claim we have unparalleled freedom if we are listed ninth on the Economic Index of Freedom?
http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
Missouri David| 3.3.11 @ 11:56AM
Hear Hear
Glad to see what is true, Wasp's aint bad, We need to give due to God what Belongs to GOD, and to Ceaser what he can get! It is a gov't of the people! ande we need to turn off the TV, get off the couch and PUT the Bible back in our school
Die if we must
Cause it is just and this be our motto
In GOD is our trust
and say do that flag yet wave...
Defund planned parenthood,
Get the NEA(biggest Fed Lobbyist)out of our schools
and dedfund NPR Nat'l Pub'l Radio
Merry Christmas!
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 11:56AM
Sometimes people need to be reminded of who they truly are particularly when they are in a depressed maliase about themselves. This is what great leaders do like Mr. Cain. Ronald Maximus did the same. It's not preaching to a choir nor a pep rally but rather the act of speaking the truth..a life saving truth. This country will be great again when the whiners shut up and men of truth, vision, and exceptionalism step up again to the plate.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 10:58PM
Agreed, but a small typo, sir. Its RONALDUS MAXIMUS! LOL
Sam Owens | 3.4.11 @ 4:45PM
Get involved! Get busy! To to http://www.draftcain.org and sign up to help Herman. He's running for President and needs your help. Voting for him is good, but won't be enough. The establishment Republicans will do everything they can to stifle Herman and push him out of the race.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 12:14PM
Recently I was watching a video of a young Sweedish economist who was explaining why he thought his country has been so successful over the last 100 years. To my surprise, he did not believe that it was due to the country's experiment with socialism nor the social democrats per se but rather the free market mechanisms, capitalism, and the unique cooperation of the trade unions with corporate management. He also went on to say that even though they had cradle to grave social welfare, the efficiency of the use of the tax dollar was astounding. Eighty-five percent on the dollar was returned to the average citizen in a lifetime. Their government was extremely efficient and tried to minimize waste. Incentives, choice, and merit were also built into the educational system. When asked if the US should continue shoving its money into the government and its programs, his answer was a resounding No! It would be a waste of the tax payers money because we are incredibly inefficient. Odd, is it not that we can not get these lessons through the heads of our American Liberals. America is indeed exceptional but is being weighed down by a class of people without common sense and unwillingness to face the truth and do something about it.
Mike Gabel| 3.3.11 @ 1:56PM
Message to President Obama:
I am white, Herman Cain is black and I would vote for him for president. This simple truth should dispel your delusion that whites who do not support you are racist.
Mr. Cain's principles and beliefs are genuinely American, unlike yours.
Mr. Cain clearly loves the United States of America, where you have proved your contempt for it.
Mr. Cain has admiration and respect for our founders, our founding documents and our rule of law. Your behavior and policy proves your disdain for these things.
Mr. Cain and like minded people, whether they be white, black, male, female, rich, poor, gay, straight, private sector, public sector, union or non-union, give me great hope for our country. You and your like minded followers promote misery and disincentive.
So you see, Mr. President, its not a race thing, its strictly about love of country.
Dennis Collins| 3.3.11 @ 1:56PM
Thank you Mr.Cain. Very well said and keep on saying it. I sure wish you good luck and Godspeed on running for President. Character, not color, is what counts!
mister Z| 3.3.11 @ 2:08PM
President Obama is an exceptional president...just like Jimmy Carter was exceptional, or Woodrow Wilson was exceptional. Exceptional in their failures.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 3:33PM
Or George W. Bush
Terri Cagle| 3.3.11 @ 2:19PM
Awesome Mr. Cain!! Thank you for what you are doing!!
gary siebel| 3.3.11 @ 2:30PM
The usual error... the term is "his Creator," in the Declaration of Independence. God is not mentioned. Indeed, the fact we are created equal means our rights come from our forefather's, not God.
Rights do not flow from religious principles. In fact, religion is mostly about restricting rights, rather than enlarging them.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.3.11 @ 2:44PM
Sorry gary siebel,
We just don't have the tools to fix stupid here.
Steve A| 3.3.11 @ 2:50PM
gary, I am really unable to recall viewing a string of words that reveals more ignorance. You win first place.
cuban pete| 3.3.11 @ 3:34PM
Steve A,
By awarding gary first place you have upset him.
Folks of his ilk do not believe in competition. By making him a "winner" you have done damage to all other liberal interlopers self esteem.
To make amends I suggest you go listen to a Peter Paul and Mary or Joan Baez CD. Better yet send Michael Moore some money because I'm sure you make too much.
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 4:11PM
LMAO!
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:31PM
Gary: please read the document before stating what is in it. I suppose you are just repeating the lies of your socialist public school teacher. For the record, here is the text:
"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."
Note that God is referred to explicitly in the first paragraph. Also, your parents do not "create" you, and are not your "Creator".
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:54PM
and don't forget the last paragraph:
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world..."
I suppose Gary thinks the "Supreme Judge of the world" is his forefathers.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:04PM
Totally wrong. You need to study the founder's writings...especially their personal letters. Our rights come from God and Nature...they can not come from Man. If your rights come from man, they can be removed by man. They must come from God, that is what makes them inalienable. Go to the rear of the class please.
PattyMor| 3.3.11 @ 2:59PM
But everything that was successful about our country has been destroyed or marginalized. Equal treatment under the law has been changed. There are all kinds of minority advancement schemes, minority set asides, plus "hate crimes".
Eric Holder has told us that Blacks can not be prosecuted for voter intimidation. Soldiers and sailors are routinely denied the right to vote. Congress routinely pass laws to benefit one corporation at the expense of others.
Religion, especially Christianity, is being marginalized and pushed out of the town square, town halls, and public schools. Next comes the persecution. Meanwhile politicians go around telling us that Islam is a "religion of peace", when it is no such thing. The gay agenda is being pushed down our throats. Movies are trash. TV is trash. Schools teach kids how to apply condoms to bananas. They're told abstinence is just too hard. Abortion was pushed on us by a corrupt Supreme Court....as well as the whole raft of welfare programs.
Obama used TARP money to buy two auto companies and destroyed bankruptcy law, stiffing the bond holders. Now he is strong arming banks to write off a portion of loans. Not to mention that the Community Reinvestment Act pushed banks to make loans to people who could not possibly pay them back.
Then there is welfare that destroyed families, especially black families. Now intercities have vast swaths of drugs and despair.
Public schools are being used as indoctrination centers. Barack Obama um, um, um.
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:32PM
Yes, and the "free exercise of religion" now means exactly the opposite. Their reasoning is that if the Government lets you exercise your religion, then they are somehow establishing a religion. Sheer stupidity - or rather, malice.
Johnie Bentley | 3.3.11 @ 2:59PM
I have met this man and have spoken to him face to face one on one. He is a good articulate gentleman and I encourage you to watch him as he continues to build his base and move toward an announcement. At this point he certainly deserves your consideration and attention. jb
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:34PM
Whatever will barry and his fellow dem thugs do if a Black man runs for president? Not a mongrel "whatever he is", but a real Black Man. Of course, the whole concept of race is a liberal construct used to beat the really stupid white libs over the head for their votes. We are part of one race, HOMO SAPIENS. Any subset of that is just a recent evolutionary adaptation to climate and availability of food and mates.
I realize that will not slow barry and his race baiters down one bit, but I like writing it every once in a while. Maybe even Will might be able to read it... Nah, I won't hold my breath.
Richard Baker| 3.3.11 @ 3:17PM
Will:
This country wasn't founded upon the idea of being a utopia but a new start in history. Regardless of your wordplay, there's a reason that the world wants to come here or hadn't you noticed? Again, if American Exceptionalism so offends, I'll pay for your 1st Class one-way airfare to wherever you think perfection exists. I await your request for it.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 3:29PM
As I've already said, I don't think perfection exists anywhere. However, American Exceptionalists try to pretend that the USA IS perfect, or at least that it was perfect at its foundation, and has strayed from that perfection. This is untrue.
I know the world wants to come to America, but the world also wants to come to Britain, France, Canada, Australia etc.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 4:45PM
The word exceptional does not imply perfect..you said that..we did not. Your beef is masked in that you do not think it is perfect nor exceptional. To deny it is exceptional really is a denial of history, reality, and truth. Ken, is right, stupid really can not be fixed.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 5:03PM
I don't deny it is exceptional- every country is exceptional. Each has its own exceptional culture, history etc. But "exceptional" in this context is taken to mean "better". I'm not so sure that's true in many cases.
MikeD| 3.3.11 @ 8:42PM
In 1982, Britain was still an exceptional nation, not in the mealy-mouthed way you're attempting to state. But, then the U.K. contracted a terminal case of "The Stupids". (Want some living proof?)
Ever since then Britain has reverted to Chamberlain's time and embraced politically correct cowardice. Yes, America, led by barry and his thugs, is lurching in the same direction; but people like those posting on this site (with certain exceptions!) are working furiously to 'right the ship of state' and get rid of the useful idiots temporarily sitting in the White House. We got back the House in November, and the Senate, and White House are next.
Lady Thatcher, and her precedants, are weighed down by the shame the current crop of dolts are inflicting on Britannia. The heart has stopped, but the nerves are in their final death throes. What a sad passing. People like YOU took Britain to her grave through sheer stupidity.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:02PM
Well, we are around a third richer now than we were in 1982, for one thing.
Explain the Chamberlain analogy, given that Britain went with you into Iraq, currently has 10,000 men in Afghanistan (nearly 400 have died), single-handedly prevented genocide in Sierra Leone using military might and forced the international community to stop a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo.
Your apocalyptic vision for the UK is quite funny, but sadly parted company with sanity quite some time ago.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:29AM
Your country is a dead man walking. Talk to me in 2028. I'll be retiring in safety in the rural USA, on a pension of about $150,000/year, with my house paid off, my kids through school, and no debt. You will be living in a CCTV society with frequent terrorist attacks and filthy cities that all look like Detroit.
Your miliotary is being cut to ribbons, and Labour will accelerate the process. How's Obama working out for Britain? You idiots wanted him elected over McCain.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 9:20AM
I assure you that not even the most deprived British city looks anything like Detroit.
Well done, you went from an ordinary background to becoming rich. So do lots of people in this country. It is hardly a phenomenon unique to America, and I wonder how many black kids growing up in Detroit today will ever achieve that.
In the last 10 years, 53 British people have been killed by terrorism. I wonder how many Americans have been killed by guns since that time? Oh yes, 10,000 per year, so 100,000. I'd rather have the tiny chance of being blown up (and our excellent intelligence agencies have foiled plenty of attacks since then) than the rather more likely chance of being shot by some lunatic.
p.s. for reference, gun deaths in the UK last year. 42. So during your idyllic retirement, keep the back door locked.
Will| 3.4.11 @ 9:21AM
And as far as terrorism goes, I haven't forgotten that the IRA killed 2,500 people over the course of The Troubles. A lot of them were killed with US weaponry, supplied by people whose granddaddies came from Ireland in Boston and New York.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:20PM
Wow, I can't believe I forgot the freedom to keep weapons! The ultimate example of American exceptionalism. In order to preven a tyranical government, as well as provide for individual and common defense. Each man is equal and has the equal right to a weapon. No nanny state here that will protect us until it decides to become a police state and threaten it's own citizens. Yep, I'll take the accidental and criminal gun deaths over my loss of freedom.
John Navratil| 3.3.11 @ 8:59PM
And all the children are above average!
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:15PM
Exceptional...as in:
Electricity
Airplanes
Computers
Movies
Telephone
Lightbulb
Nuclear power
Written Constitution
Representative Republic
First man on the moon
The most charitable nation
America has shaped world history in a way few countries have. The British Empire was powerful, but the Roman Empire has had much more far lasting influence on the world.
I give my vote for the Roman Empire and America as being truly exceptional...and as for improving the world's standard of living...America.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:28PM
Not as much.
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:38PM
I dumped Canada for the U.S.A. The business opportunities in Canada are pathetic. Salaries are lower and Taxes are higher. And then they rammed man-man marriage down our throats (along with child porn) and took "Mother" and "Father" off the birth certificates. Canada does have some nice mountains though, but the U.S. has more.
Obama wants America to be like Canada. No way you guys! Fight!
Gary| 3.3.11 @ 3:17PM
Having lived for years in Europe and being born in "Jolly old England" I am often amused how Europeans look down their ancient noses at America. I have been afforded the luxory of seeing both sides of the issues. It's completely Assnine, Gob Smacking and utter Bollocks to feign some type of superiority when Europe itself has been the architect of some of the most horrendous periods of history. If you are going to point fingers swallow a little pride and chew on some of your own guilt before you get all high and mighty. Europe is not the catch all place for bright ideas. It certainly is one of the causes for some of the worst ones...
Will| 3.3.11 @ 3:33PM
For God's sake, I am not looking down my nose at America! As I have already said, every country has good and bad in its history (we abolished the slave trade before any other country, but just look at our record in Ireland over the last 8 centuries, for example).
The problem with American Exceptionalism is that it presumes America to be superior to all other nations. I don't believe it is. I don't think it is inferior either. I just don't like this kind of silly nationalism, especially one which claims that God is on its side.
Oh, and some of the worst ideas to come out of the UK- parliamentary democracy, the English language, the rule of law, trial by jury, excellent beer, and almost any major sport worth playing.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 4:57PM
Oh, so you are not an American. Fine. Believe what you will. We happen to believe we are exceptional for a myriad of reasons. To be honest, I do not expect you to agree nor do you have to agree. By the way, what are you doing here? If I came across an article in the Telegraph about England's exceptionalism I am sure I would not be trashing England or blogging on their site arguing about their national pride. In fact, we owe a great deal to our mother country and with all its flaws..it is one of the greatest countries in the world. No, not all countries or cultures are equal or great either. Yes, some are indeed superior than others...if you disagree with that then move to Saudi Arabia and put your mouth to the test.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 5:08PM
Well that's the point- I have never read an article in a British newspaper, or magazine, or website for that matter, proclaiming that our's is exceptional, the greatest country on earth. Patriotism should be deeper and more subtle than that, and should not need to endless proclaim its superiority. When articles like this are written, quite frankly it smacks of insecurity.
simon templar| 3.3.11 @ 5:21PM
No, it smacks of a nation that is sick of the lies, historical revision, and self hatred that is destroying itself. It's an affirmation of its identity, vision, and past. It is a willingness to not only look at its flaws but it's greatness and it's achievements, it's exceptional achievements. It smacks of a healthiness and a new beginning. Yeah, you have not read anything like that since Churchill was alive..God rest his soul...a great man who believed in his nation and it's exceptionalism..perhaps you should honor him and stop whining. Me thinks you are a troll not a Brit.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:19PM
Simon, he's Irish--- a country that preferred Hitler to Churchill and so didn't fight in World War II but helped Hitler instead.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:03PM
Believe me, I'm not Irish.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:05PM
My Ireland reference was to British meddling in Ireland ever since the 12th century, which has at times been tragic. I acknowledged one of the many good points in British history (abolishing the slave trade, 60 years before the US got round to it), and the bad points, for example Ireland (although the actions of the Blair government in bringing peace to Northern Ireland were heroic).
Unlike you, you see, I have the ability to give a balanced and mature view of my country's history.
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:44PM
American Revolution: 1776
American Constitution: 1787
British "Slave Trade Act" 1806
British "Slavery Abolition Act" 1833
America had trouble ridding itself of the British
practice of slavery because it was a union of independant States. In some of those American States, slavery was illegal before it was illegal in Britain. (Or someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that last statement.)
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 11:03PM
Spot on, sir. Thanks for doing the leg work on that one.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:17PM
No. It speaks of an absence of indolence and decay. Churchill knew Britain was special. Will, you conflate cowardice and gutlessness with sophistication. But, then again, so do the worthless Irish leaders, among the biggest scum in the West.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:33PM
That's because it no longer is. When it was, you had Kipling.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:24PM
But there were plenty of those claims when it was the British Empire...and at that time, it was the most advanced...now it's not anymore, so those claims aren't made.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:13PM
Ah, yes, Ireland---where the Head of Government went to the German embassy in 1945 to give his condolences on the death of Hitler.
You owe the US for your freedom, Will. But it's OK---you will be crushed under the Will of Allah soon enough. You do not treasure your freedom enough to keep it, and neither do your worthless co-nationalists.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:06PM
I'm not bloody Irish!
And I don't owe much freedom to anybody except the people in the history of my country who fought for democracy, the 1.3 million Britons who died in two world wars, and I suppose the Ancient Greeks for coming up with democracy.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:30PM
Sorry, you pointed out "here in Ireland." Won't make that horrible mistake again.
You owe Americans for your freedom. Read Churchill. Without us, you would NEVER have beaten Germany. Your historical ignorance is appalling. The US won WWI for you, and then we won WWII for you. Sorry, Will. You might as well be Irish.
DRed| 3.3.11 @ 9:36PM
Actually, 'here in Ireland' only appears on this page in your post, Occam. I'm not why you conservatives are so happy to trash an Englishman, but then you all go and get your knickers in a twist because Obama replaced a bust of Churchill with one of Lincoln.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:49PM
The US turned up late for WW1 when we and the French had everything covered. Wilson just wanted to be present at the negotiating table after the war.
America joined the war in December '41. The war began in September '39. France fell in June '40. The Soviet Union was not invaded for another year. For that year, the Nazis threw everything they had at Britain, and they lost. American help with provisions, the Destroyers for Bases deal etc. certainly helped, but it was us who stopped them.
Western Europe could never have been liberated without the USA, that is an absolute fact. Possibly the Soviets would have rolled through Berlin and Germany into France, and been in possession of the whole of continental Europe by 45/46. American intervention was vital and wonderful, and you will forever have the thanks of Europeans for it (so long as some of the more obnoxious people here never go to Europe).
But, the idea that Britain was saved from Germany by America is a myth. By Pearl Harbour, the threat of invasion was long past, and Britain was gaining in strength.
Will| 3.3.11 @ 9:50PM
Sorry DRED, didn't mean to reply to you, I meant to reply to OT, pressed the wrong button. You made an important point, which is that I'M NOT IRISH!
tonypal| 3.3.11 @ 11:56PM
Will, I'm just jumping into this, so I'm working on the assumption you're an Englishman. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Over the course of your many posts, you make many valid points and it's clear that at the very least, you hold no animus towards America. I would also tell you that I have great respect for the British fighting spirit. I'd take one Brit over five Frenchmen to be on my side any day of the week if I was in a fight.
I figured I'd get that out of the way because I have some serious disagreements with you. I think you make the common mistake that a lot of foreigners make in assuming that the idea of American exceptionalism is borne from arrogance. It most assuredly is not, even if we sometimes seem a little too self assured. The source of it was identified by Herman Cain. Go back and read the article and find the true source of our exceptionalism, the fact that we have rights given to us by God. There is no other country that can lay claim to such a legacy.
Do you ever wonder how a nation that is 235 years old can be the most powerful, wealthiest and productive nation in the history of mankind? It's not due so much to the people of America as it is to the promise of America. We as individuals possess no greater innate abilities than individuals from any other country. What we have is the truly magical gift of our birthright. That, in a nutshell, is how I see American exceptionalism.
As for your contention that the British would have held off the Nazis regardless of our intervention, you conveniently overlook a few things. First, if not for the enormous industrial might and incredible generosity of this nation, England might have been pulverized prior to Pearl Harbor. Recall that America shipped enormous amounts of military supplies to Britain through the Lend-Lease Act. What exactly would wartime Britain have done if not for the constant flow of supplies from this country? Throw in the fact that our navy played a vital role in dealing with German U-boats and it becomes fairly obvious that American involvement was substantial and absolutely vital.
Second, without American involvement, it's very likely the Germans and the Russians would have had an eventual stalemate. It would have been in each others interests to achieve their respective goals and call it a day. The Russians would have claimed all the Eastern European territories and left both Western Europe and Northern Africa to the Germans. So with Germany now possessing the vast resources of an area of land comparable in size to the US, what do you suppose they would have done next? German airbases would have popped up all along the coast of France, giving the Germans an incredible vantage point to attack Britain. You would have been annihilated.
The third possibility is Russia, with its vast resources and unlimited manpower, wears the Germans down and conquers all of Europe. Is it plausible to think Stalin let's Britain off the hook?
Lastly, as to a brief mention earlier that the Constitution counted blacks as 2/3's (it was actually 3/5's and wasn't specific as to blacks). As an attorney, I spent 3 long years studying the Constitution in law school, so I really understand this stuff. Your reference is to what was known as the "3/5th's compromise" and it was necessary in order to ratify the Constitution. The southern states would have walked and you would have had 2 separate nations living side by side with utterly incompatible values. Heck, it might have even caused a war.
What many people fail to grasp is the true genius of the founders. Embedded in the text of the Constitution were the mechanisms to ensure the ultimate freedoms the slave owners and their federal representatives were denying. But much more than that, it had the effect of reducing the Congressional representation of southern states. Under the Constitution, congressional apportionment is dictated by population. The more populous the state, the greater its representation in Washington. Southern states were heavily populated with blacks due to the slave trade. Although slaves, they were nonetheless counted in the constitutionally mandated census taken every ten years. I can't tell you why southern representatives didn't understand the folly of signing onto the 3/5's compromise, but it was a very sly and ingenious maneuver by the authors of the Constitution.
So there you have it. I look forward to your comments.
DRed| 3.4.11 @ 12:41AM
"I can't tell you why southern representatives didn't understand the folly of signing onto the 3/5's compromise". I'll tell you why-money. Before the passage of the 16th Amendment, the amount of direct tax that could be levied on a state depended on the state's population. And since only 3/5ths of the slave population was counted, that meant the slaves states paid proportionately lower taxes. So they got to keep their slaves, and pay lower taxes.
It worked well for a while, but then there was that whole civil war thing. Given that there wouldn't have been a united states without some sort of compromise, it's understandable, but I don't think it was as ingenious as you think it was. After all, it didn't work.
simon templar| 3.4.11 @ 1:00AM
DuhRed: What I do know and you will never be able to historically revise is the fact that nearly 360,ooo men gave their lives to end slavery and keep this republic intact. That blood and sacrifice..you know that civil war thing..was no compromise. It was something you will never understand.
tonypal| 3.4.11 @ 8:53AM
DRed, your first paragraph is correct with regard to taxes, but then you completely contradict yourself because the tax issue is further evidence of the ingenious nature of the 3/5ths' compromise. The south didn't want the slaves counted for purposes of taxation, only for congressional representation. The north wanted them counted for both. Thus, the north won on both scores, with a smaller southern congressional representation coupled with southern states paying higher taxes as a result of people they didn't even consider to be human beings. As I said, ingenious.
DRed| 3.4.11 @ 12:57PM
Why would the north want slaves counted for congressional representation? That just gave white voters in the south disproportionate electoral power. Neither side 'won'. They compromised. It was probably the best deal they could have made at the time, but in the long run it was a failure, and it took hundreds of thousands of dead Americans to get rid of slavery.
tonypal| 3.4.11 @ 2:09PM
DRed, I'm not really sure what you're missing. The south wanted slaves counted for purposes of representation, but they didn't want slaves counted for purposes of taxation. Essentially, they wanted "representation without taxation." Are you with me so far?
The northern states wanted the taxes but didn't wanted the slaves counted for purposes of representation because they rightly concluded that the slaves were not in fact receiving any benefit from southern congressional representation. Thus the 3/5ths compromise, whereby the south got a break on the taxation side but had to give in on the congressional representation side.
I really hope you get it now. Unfortunately, I can't draw pictures on this site, so this is about as elementary as it gets. Hope it's clear now for you
DRed| 3.4.11 @ 3:09PM
"The north wanted them counted for both." That's what you wrote that confused me, because it's wrong, as you just now argued. So I guess we agree with each other.
simon templar| 3.4.11 @ 12:50AM
tonypal, excellent, superb response to Will. Thank you. What happened to our limey friend?
"We as individuals possess no greater innate abilities than individuals from any other country. What we have is the truly magical gift of our birthright." That's it, well said!
tonypal| 3.4.11 @ 8:54AM
Thanks.
cv| 3.9.11 @ 11:28PM
Again with the revisionist history. Go watch The Gathering Storm. Winston Churchill had a vastly different opinion on Britain's chances without the Americans. There is absolutely no way you would have won without us. So in your scenario...you would have fended off German invasion for a time, then they would have gathered strength and invaded you. We were supplying the Brits before we became involved in the fighting. Without our supplies...forget it.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 9:32PM
Oh, and you WILL be crushed under the Will of Allah. Enjoy the next 20 years in Britain, Will---as the forces of fascism grow ever more populous, vicious, and violent, and your freedom dies.
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:46PM
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Don't hate the Irish for liking the Germans for hating the British.
Occam's Tool| 3.4.11 @ 1:43AM
Sorry, Will, we are. Certainly MUCH MUCH better than Britain.
WWII began as a result of WWI, in which Britain sacrificed the flower of its youth (it had fewer casualties in WWII, by the way) FOR NO REASON AT ALL! I have never read a coherent explanation of why Britain had to go to war in WWI. Even Churchill couldn't explain it.
This left you so physically and emotionally exhausted that when the real threat came with Hitler, you hid from it until it was right in your face. The USA, far from being imperialistic in the uinterwar period, let its army slip below Portugal. Yes, we should have intervened sooner, but if you Brits had showed a smidgen of common sense (only Churchill and to a lesser extent Eden had a clue), Hitler need not have come up at all!
I used to like the Brits, until closer experience with them made me despise them---my cousin is a British Knight (Sir Jonathan Miller).
Incidentally, basketball is a purely American invention, Cricket doesn't bear much resemblence to American baseball, and American football is much more fun to watch than rugby (my dad played high school football against the greatest American football defender of all time---Dick Butkus, and I lived in NZ---I can fairly compare the two sports).
Can't argue with the English language, although modern Brits mangle it, trial by jury is nice, your beer is piss warm, and Ruth's Chris has fantastic steak that beats the crap out of NZed, which is a source of much of your finer produce. McDonald's is "fast food." It doesn't resemble, for example, my mother in law's cooking (Southern Country Omygoodness).
I admit, many of our cheeses could use work, but we import quite a few at Walmart, including my favorite, Danish cheese (did I mention that my sister holds dual citizenship with Denmark?).
I think basketball is definitely worth playing and I like our football and baseball. Hockey is fun, too, and I don't note a large British contribution to that game.
However, the USA, to conclude, is much more comfortable to live in than Britain, and much cheaper. For cryin' out loud, Winnie Churchill, who was born in Blenheim Palace, was shocked at the concept of mingling hot and cold water streams together that he found in RUSSIA!
PhilTheCapitalistPig| 3.3.11 @ 3:51PM
I don't know about you guys, but I REALLY hope Herman runs and wins the nomination just so I can call liberals "racist" when they disagree with his position like they did us with Obama. LOL
Sam Owens | 3.4.11 @ 4:48PM
Get involved! Get busy! To to http://www.draftcain.org and sign up to help Herman. He's running for President and needs your help. Voting for him is good, but won't be enough. The establishment Republicans will do everything they can to stifle Herman and push him out of the race.
John| 3.3.11 @ 6:25PM
America without doubt has done great things on so many multitude of dimensions. However on many occasions it has fallen from what we would describe today as high ethical standards. It is important to judge nations by what they do rather what they say or by some founding document. In the ME ( also latin america etc) we have not seen America at its best. Your continued support of arpatheid and tyrants in ME does you no credit. in these aspects you have been found not to be particulary exceptional.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:14PM
John---go away, troll.
Occam's Tool| 3.3.11 @ 8:15PM
I know. Such a shame when the Shah left, because what replaced it was so much better.
I was a student and a friend of a very HIGH official in the Shah's government (the former head of Mental Health). The Shah was a good guy.
Frisbee| 3.3.11 @ 9:49PM
What would be really exceptional would be to defund Planned Parenthood (and criminalize it).
All American Buckeye Gal| 3.3.11 @ 7:55PM
OH MY GOODNESS!
Herman Cain said "American Exceptionalsim!"
That's like holding up a Cross to a vampire to the Toddards, Timmies* and Red Philips'.
Gee. where are they?
Herman Cain~~ YOU ROCK!!!
Nite| 3.3.11 @ 9:06PM
I hope Herman Cain runs for President too. I am extremely interested in a number of his positions that were not addressed in this article. I will look forward to reading future articles.
Dee See| 3.3.11 @ 9:24PM
--Also exceptionally dense in the matter
of sellout and treason, surpassed only by
the ever benighted, ever put upon Brits.
Remember kids! 'Free Trade', Globalism
and EUGENICS (and we should add
TREASON) --are always intertwined.
ALWAYS!
Timely Renewed | 3.4.11 @ 12:29AM
One of the most important aspects of American exceptionalism is the founding wisdom of the Constitution. However, the federal government has grown in scope, size and power far beyond its constitutional limits. To preserve this most important of America's exceptional qualities we must pull down the federal leviathan by restoring the original constitutional limits on the federal government. The only way I can see to do that is constitutional amendments restoring the Constitution’s original meaning and structure.
However, the federal Congress is not going to approve by two-thirds vote constitutional amendments limiting federal power. Therefore, we must first amend the amendment process itself to eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and permit grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com
Alamitos Bay| 3.4.11 @ 2:23AM
What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!
But the Democrats believe in "statism" --- not "liberalism."
They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology ---- we say "the government" here in the USA ---- rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism ---- this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.
Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government ---- it is a constabulary ---- and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago ---- and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.
It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners ---- by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.
Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?
Friends of freedom! Friends of peace-through-strength! And friends of prosperity! Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then ---- and kick over the bloody coffee tables --- and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2012!
John Locke| 3.4.11 @ 2:25AM
This was a great article!
Richard Baker| 3.6.11 @ 12:14PM
My fellow American Spectator readers:
Will seems to display all the ignorance and condescension peculiar to Euro-trash. Wonder if he has his prayer rug and Koran ready? Churchill weeps.
Michael| 7.26.11 @ 8:56AM
Nice information, many thanks to the author. It is incomprehensible to me now, but in general, the usefulness and significance is overwhelming. Thanks again and good luck!
Yatra.com
Byron Mullet| 9.4.11 @ 7:53PM
The mature Locke developed into a radical proponent of religious freedom, individual liberty and conscience. Hardly anyone in our time really understands nor articulates the real American Exceptionalism.
Candidate Obama campaigned against the most common misconception of it, when he told voters they couldn't make it in America without him and big, bigger and broke biggest government. Most conservatives, just believe in a slower smaller big financially stable government where you can achieve your dreams without big daddy war bucks government.
But real Exceptionalism has to do with your conscience. The idea of self governance begins with the notion of each person governing his own actions. This is where freedom of religion takes effect. Each person has the right and responsibility to live according to his/her conscience. It was assumed back then everyone had one, so the Christian virtues were taught to children. Virtue appreciation empowers the conscience. This becomes the basis for civility, order and civilization itself. The founders advanced this notion "to Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Us and our Posterity." They wisely invented a nation God in his Providence could bless.
The degree to which a people honor their conscience is the degree to which virtues are unleashed, creating order, civility and the freedom and liberty that generations have enjoyed and fought to preserve. In a representative self government virtuous people make honest politicians with integrity. Bankers make good loans, Wall street is honest and fair, men and women stay married and have stable well adjusted civilized children who grow up to be good citizens and businessmen. In this environment ownership, rights and laws are upheld with timely justice and free enterprise flourishes. This interpretation of American Exceptionalism I believe John Locke would agree with.
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 6:07PM
Uncle Tom: A hijacked term that used to mean a Black person that was subservient to a white person but now is understood to mean a Black person who does not toe the liberal dogma line. Leftist in America routinly use it to disparage any Black person who would DARE to think for themselves thus revealing the left's inherent racism.