The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Buy the Book

Do We Really Look That Peculiar?

By on 1.19.12 @ 6:04AM

A UK professor brings a foreigner’s perspective to “peculiar” U.S. institutions and finds us wanting.

The Founding Fathers vs. The People: Paradoxes in American Democracy
By Anthony King
(Harvard University Press, 242 pages, $35)

Some of the more cherished American articles of faith take a real beating in a new critique of U.S. institutions by a Canadian professor now teaching in Britain. Anthony King pulls no punches in his The Founding Fathers vs. The People: Paradoxes of American Democracy as he squares off against the U.S. system of government.

Foreigners such as himself, he asserts, are amazed, astonished and puzzled by Americans’ ability to run a country with such outdated and contradictory mechanisms — especially the musty, dusty old Constitution and the unelected private club called the Supreme Court. He predicts trouble ahead, and believes the Tea Party may be the first tremor.

King begins with a rather haughty disclaimer: His book is “merely intended to provoke Americans into thinking about aspects of their political system that they themselves might wish to criticize if they did pause and think about them.” His text is non-judgmental, he says, but is dotted with qualifiers such as “quite strange,” “very curious,” and “peculiar.”

In a word, King wonders when “they” can’t be more liked “us.” He also seems to be saying, “Wake up, America!”

King is a professor of government at the University of Essex, Colchester, England, and a media-friendly commentator for British newspapers and the BBC. He has never lived in the United States but he believes a foreigner “may notice important features of a society — any society — that the native overlooks.” There is a grain of truth in that. I see considerable strangeness in U.S. culture every time I fly in for a visit. Everyone does. I get the same cultural jolts when I go to Germany or Japan.

That said, King rather sheepishly acknowledges that despite a Constitution that seems, in part, undemocratic or even anti-democratic, such as the Electoral College, and “remarkably resistant to change,” the “overwhelming majority of Americans … are reasonably content with the [political] system as a whole.”

He attacks our alleged conflicts and contradictions by first lecturing the U.S. reader on how other countries do it and second by what can only be described as a taunt — claiming European institutions are generally more democratic than American ones. These claims will be hard for most Americans to digest even if they manage to swallow his rather laborious argumentation.

Seeking safety in numbers, he quotes extensively from other authors who have criticized the U.S. system, carefully picking books that agree with him and excluding others.

King chooses the potential earthquake metaphor as the unstable force underlying the U.S. system. One of the tectonic plates, he says, is those who believe in constitutional government and who live by an 18th-century document that needs more than amendments — it needs to be rethought and rewritten.

The primary opposing force is what he calls “radical democracy,” a concept “all but unique to America.” That strain is partially exemplified by the Tea Party and holds that only “the people” should rule, “not an in intellectual elite, not a body of aristocrats, not some bunch of political appointees, but the people.” What matters to these radical democrats, he says, is not an Ivy League education but “knowledge acquired in the school of life.”

King believes that the tension in American political life between these two groups accounts for most, though not quite all, the puzzling features of America’s current political system. His reasoning, even if flawed, is worth considering as these opposing forces become more active in an election year.

King is no impartial observer, however. In one of his more condescending asides, he asserts that the Tea Party overlooks the fact that one of the principal aims of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787 was to create a federal government with greatly enhanced powers. “Most Tea Party activists’ manifest ignorance of their own country’s early history strikes a foreigner as really rather touching.”

More to the point, he believes, “America’s two ideological tectonic plates strain constantly against each other, slipping, sliding and grinding, often yielding paradoxical results.”

Some of his objections will seem odd to American citizens. He takes issue with restrictions on who can run for president, citing the age minimum of 35 and the proviso that candidates must be born in the United States. He writes approvingly of an essay in the Chicago-Kent Law Review labeling these points as “decidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the Constitution’s “stupidest provision.” By requiring a U.S. birthplace, the talent pool for candidates is substantially reduced, he believes.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Michael Johnson spent 17 years at McGraw-Hill, including six years as a news executive in New York. He now writes from Bordeaux in France. He also spent nine years on the board of the London International Piano Competition.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) |

RJ| 1.19.12 @ 7:19AM

If Professor King is concerned about the "inadequacy" of the Constitution, he might be surprised that the Federal government doesn't really follow it anymore. You cannot read it, know how it was viewed during its early history, and contrast the government's actions over the last several decades and come to any other conclusion. We can thank the Progressives for moving us away from Constitutional restrictions on government.

And of course historically, America is different from other countries. The Europeans who settled America in its early days, left their homes, their way of life and often their families to escape the status quo of Europe and faced a dangerous ocean voyage to an unknown and harsh wilderness, hoping that they could build a better life for themselves and their children. They excelled in initiative, hard-work, courage, personal responsibility and social cooperation and they treasured the right to live free.

What Professor King sees as a lack of democracy in America is really the preservation of personal autonomy, which we developed from the English commonwealthmen of the 1600s. Unfortunately, as we drift further from our American founding, we are becoming more like Europe, the societies which our ancestors left because of its lack of freedom and opportunity.

Mender| 1.19.12 @ 2:30PM

I grew up in London so I have a strong perspective on this. The major difference between the US and UK systems is that the US system creates a rather limited government whereas in the UK the government is acting on behalf of the king or queen who has 'chosen' them (long story). So they have much more authority and can do anything they like in a majority vote.

The UK also has no constitution and no laws binding over others, except treaties to which the UK wishes to remain a signatory. So any law replaces everything that came before it and nothing can be declared unconstitutional-with two majority votes and stepping outside a treaty if necessary, literally nothing cannot be declared illegal or legal inside a few days. The advantage of this is very little judicial activism and no filibusters, so the government can very quickly pass laws in response to a problem; the disadvantage is that the government can very quickly pass laws in response to a 'problem'!

Mender| 1.19.12 @ 2:35PM

Other issue-almost no earmarks, though that's more a cultural thing than a legal one: much less is done with primary legislation, and with both houses having 600 members and no filibusters, getting a majority to support you and insert them is almost impossible!

RJ| 1.19.12 @ 4:07PM

Hi Mender,

Thanks for your comments and I agree that historically, the US governmental system is more limited than Her Majesty's government.

I would like your views on the current role of the House of Lords. It is my understanding that its authority has almost been reduced to a ceremonial role in contrast with the House of Commons in terms of legislation.

Mender| 1.19.12 @ 4:39PM

That's mostly right. It can veto laws unless the Commons passes them several times in majority votes though.

Despite this, it is a deeply strange institution-something of a cross between the supreme court and the senate. All members are now seated for life (you could inherit membership until the 1990s!)-and it's an open secret that many of its older members see it as a convenient central London car park and little else. This does mean a bit of diversity though as it includes eminent ex-generals, businessmen, diplomats, scientists, writers and the like as well as older, often very eminent, politicians/cabinet members too old to treat government and representing a constituency (ward) as a day job. Older politicians are appointed to it in proportion to the electoral success of their party.

Because members are appointed for life, a problem exists when (as now, more or less) a new government takes office after 13 years of the other guys having been in power and appointed members to it throughout that time, and is in a minority in this house. The system there is supposed to be that the old guys don't vote down anything the new government have promised to do as a manifesto (party platform) commitment, but this has never been tested or formalised. Overall voting down laws tends to be a rare, highly symbolic action-and often suggests major dissatisfaction with laws as being populist or controversial-giving Ireland independence was a major example. This has included when the Conservative party moved sharply to the right in the 1980s and both many more liberal conservatives ended up voting against government-sponsored laws....

Mender| 1.19.12 @ 4:49PM

^both liberals and many older, more liberal conservatives.

RJ| 1.19.12 @ 6:04PM

Thanks and I would be remiss not to thank Great Britain for its historic leadership in advancing personal liberty (e.g. the common law) and economic prosperity. As I recall, many British monarchs frequently complained that their power was much more circumspect than the other monarchs of Europe.

Brian Mc| 1.19.12 @ 7:24AM

The author fails to realize that this is NOT a democracy. The last thing we need is votes that count, for every issue that comes down the pike, from individuals who don't know how to pull their pants up and use a belt. And we surely don't need more democracy. What we need is an educational system that 'educates' vs. one overtly impassioned with indoctrination. It's easy to give up something you didn't know you had to begin with. And for this one reason alone, our educators should be rode out of town on a rail.

ncatty| 1.19.12 @ 10:23AM

Correct. The title of the book sets up the straw man that we are a democracy then proceeds to knock it down. We are a representative republic.

Appleby| 1.19.12 @ 7:32AM

He ought to come and live in one of the more conservative states and then rewarite his book. I would suggest Alabama. I took a Canadian guy I was considering marrying at the time (fortunately he dumped me whenhis mechanic agreed I was right about what was wrong with his car) home to my parents In Alabama, and just listening to him try to suss out what he was seeing and hearing was quite an eye-opener for all of us. I also spent a summer working in Appalachia as a volunteer, living in the community and discovering a part of my own country that considerably startled me and changed my thinking by the time I got home. It's easy to write fatuous books about people and places when you have never lived among them. Tell him to emigrate and live under American laws in Tea Party World and then write that book again.

vb| 1.19.12 @ 7:36AM

Europeans fail to realize how much their cultures are still influenced by feudalism, with intellectuals now replacing the lords of the past.

As to our democratic shortcomings, I suggest checking out the whole EU mess. Someone who lives in Europe, like Mr. Johnson, is confronted daily with Europe's contradictions.

tsd| 1.19.12 @ 7:43AM

Here is another pseudo intellectual moron university professor who is filling the heads of our kids with crap. I have watched the other forms of government in action, lets' see, Canada, England and the whole Euro zone.... is that what he feels we should emulate? Most are broke and broken socialist based systems that are a mess, much worse than our system. The problem we have today is directly related to the socialist/ Marxist traitors we have violating the constitution and attempting to turn us into a socialist democracy and then a dictatorship...for our own good. Why do all these elitist intelligentsia think we give a s**t what they think.

Keith | 1.19.12 @ 7:45AM

Please don't invite him here. We have enough America haters already in the current administration.

P.Smith| 1.19.12 @ 7:54AM

The US is not supposed to be a democracy, but of late it has shifted that way. It was originally founded as a Republic and those remaining vestiges have helped carry it along.

As for King’s complaints on restrictions on the President, I wish there were more. Here some I would like to see: Raise the minimum age to serve to fifty (disclaimer, I am under the age of fifty). Those that are serving in the Senate or the House would not be able to run for President until they are out of office say ten years. He cannot have lived out of the country for more than a year, even as a child, except in the line of duty for the military. He cannot have a law degree, practiced law or been an attorney general. He must have served in the armed forces. He must have come from a two parent household (no divorce) as either a natural or adopted child.

Mender| 1.19.12 @ 1:47PM

So:
-He can't have built up a business expanding an American company into a foreign country.
-He can't have had significant long-term exposure to any non-American political system which might make him question whether it's really the best way to run things. Heresy! (Disclaimer: I do not believe that Obama wants to turn the USA into Indonesia-though Hawaii is another matter)
-He can't be the writer of this article (how very generous of you!)
-Someone rising above a difficult family background to become a leader is not allowed.
-Any single parent who tries to bring their child up must accept that their child can never be president.
-Escaping domestic violence means forgoing your child's right to be president.
-But two gay parents who adopt are fine in your book?

Agreed with you on the lawyer point though.

P.Smith| 1.19.12 @ 5:01PM

..."significant long-term exposure to any non-American political system which might make him question whether it's really the best way to run things"...

When the president takes the oath of office he swears to uphold the U.S. Constitution, so he has no choice in the matter on the best way to run things.

Amend: He must have come from a two parent household (a mother and a father with no divorce) as either a natural or adopted child.

POST American| 1.19.12 @ 8:26AM

ALAS, the ever put upon Brits.

Would that they turned some unflinching
quality awareness and attention on their
unspeakably long corrupt USURY control
cabals.

----------------Globalism is TREASON-----------------

--Just look at Britain! ----even during the
heyday of the 'British' empire.

Even Englels himself said the life of the
African slave was preferable to what enclosure, Poor Laws,
Corn Laws, child labor and work houses
wrought on the English, Scots, Irish and
Welsh.

Take a good long look. ALLLLL brought to
pass by elites operating through the I.D.alls
of actuarial psychopathy.

And notice further, while the entire planet
is going through the motions of competing
with the psychopathic-Globalist creation
that is RED China ---NO concerted and
sustained call from anywhere in the PC
establishment that China and the world
abide by a generally accepted minimum
wage, or enforcement of child labor laws.

---THIS is USURY/Gobalism---and the most
unimaginably hideous EUGENICS standing
at the helm of the entire world.

Still not convinced, spend a couple of
hours getting the lowdown on GMO
and banking big agra's power grabs
underway right now in India ---the third
world.

A reported 250,000 small farmers
in India alone, unable to 'adjust' to the
enforced shakedowns --uh--- we meant
shake ups ---have committed suicide.

Back in London, the prim, owned financial
papers lament another casualty of 'global
warming'.

--------Dear Britain ---DO your inventory!

----------------IN THE NAME OF GOD-----------------

LaneyB| 1.19.12 @ 8:34AM

Yes, The Constitution is an eighteenth century construct. It was assembled by the finest group of minds to ever be in one room together. It codified how a disparate group of people could create the most productive nation the world has ever seen. Whoever this pygmy-brained seer is who wrote this book, I am gratified to know he will stay in dysfunctional England and not be on our shores anytime soon.

Should Have Impeached| 1.19.12 @ 4:54PM

Without a Constitution we would just float along with the socialist tide… or whatever ideology of the day captured the “democratic” fancy. In short, there would be no core values. Some Europeans never understood us. It’s not by accident that so many OTHER Europeans (and others) came here and helped build the greatest nation in history! Looks like they understood our vision, one that I daresay hasn’t died with a supposedly increasingly “irrelevant” Constitution--thanks to the Tea Party and like hearts.

Ken (Old Texican) | 1.19.12 @ 8:34AM

Heh, the old fart should spend a month in Texas.
We are still what the US used to be.
...including rifle racks in virtually every Pickup truck.

Stuart Koehl| 1.19.12 @ 9:16AM

Can't see Jefferson in an F150, myself. Seems more like a Landrover Discovery type to me.

albert constantine jr.| 1.19.12 @ 9:28PM

I thought he was more of a francophile; I wouldn't see him in a British ride. I do think he'd look good in my Jeep Commander, though.

PaulC| 1.19.12 @ 9:47AM

Britain should follow our example and elevate an incompetent black man to the position of prime minister.

Mazzuchelli| 1.19.12 @ 1:56PM

Heh.

Dai Alanye | 1.19.12 @ 2:35PM

The UK is doing just fine with incompetent white PMs, thank you.

It never ceases to amaze me how unself-aware some people are, of which this King is a fine example. He's living in a nation on the verge of anarchy, loaded with ancient institutions that don't work, and modern institutions which aren't allowed to work, yet he thinks WE should emulate THEM. Just the other way around, of course.

There is this to say in King's behalf, however -- a book slamming America will sell far better than one slamming the UK or Europe. Not only they but we ourselves will buy it by the thousands.

PaulC| 1.19.12 @ 2:52PM

Yes, I agree, they are doing very well in that department.

David March| 1.19.12 @ 9:52AM

Am I the only one who found this article, rather underwhelming? I havent read Kings book, but really Im sure its a more interesting critique than this bit of fluff.

ayrnieu| 1.20.12 @ 4:06AM

After Albert Jay Nock's "What the American Votes For", which is a short article rather than a book, this does sound fairly underwhelming.

Anyway, a tagline for the book: America's founders paid closer attention to the French Revolution than France itself, or its immediate neighbors!

gearjammer| 1.19.12 @ 10:03AM

That " school of life " is a bitch Mr. King.
we just call it reality. And, it daily urinates on the dreams and schemes of those big thinking know it alls of the ivy league, and all the rest. Let me put it bluntly. If your kind keep peeing on us we will cut it off.

The Bruce| 1.19.12 @ 10:09AM

***Yawn.*** I wasn't aware that I was supposed to care would some elitist Euro-Cannuck-a-crat thinks.

Stefan Stackhouse| 1.19.12 @ 10:12AM

A few random thoughts:

1. It says right in the preamble ". . . to create a more perfect union. . ." The Founders inserted that word "more" because they fully realized that what they were creating was not absolutely perfect. That is also why they included the amendment provisions of Article V. They fully intended the Constitution to be a continuing work in progress, which is exactly what it has been. That may very well be the main reason why it has stood for so very long without being replaced.

2. If European nations are more "democratic" today, perhaps that is because they have tried and become fully acquainted - at the cost of millions upon millions of lives - with the shortcomings of the monarchical and authoritarian alternatives. They are doing democracy because they have exhausted all the alternatives.

3. Yeah, the 2000 Presidental election was a fiasco. Of course, there are never any problems like that in parliamentary systems. Just ask the Belgians! (After all, it only took a little over a year for them to form their government after their last election.)

loulou| 1.19.12 @ 10:13AM

Have the Brits straightened out their dentistry problem yet?

They have a different standard of beauty apparently--brown snaggleteeth are desired in the UK.

Sorry, I just don't like criticism from Brits or any European for that matter.

Gary| 1.19.12 @ 7:18PM

Is this why the late British comedic actor, Terry Thomas had a huge gap between his front teeth?

crooked wren| 1.19.12 @ 10:22AM

I'd just as soon he stay home -- but STOP teaching young, impressionable minds about "democracy" in the US.

Democracies crumble rather quickly, historically-speaking.

The Founders were forming a Republic; they tend to last longer and tend to avoid the tyranny of the majority, just one of the rocks upon which democracies founder.

Ah, but he has every right to sneer and look down his nose at the 'peculiar' Americans about whom he lectures and pens books. He's from one of the more enlightened places on earth -- you know, one with a rather pesky record when it comes to health care.

SuffolkVA| 1.19.12 @ 10:25AM

One of the great misconceptions about America, especially held by Americans themselves, is that we are or should be a popular democracy! Direct democracy is an impossible form of government. We are, as designed with genius by the Founders, NOT a democracy in the popular sense of the word. We are a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. There's a world of difference there.

Perhaps Mr. King should get things squared away in England and Europe before he comes over here pontificating with his haughty ignorance of what makes America great... i.e., the very features of our Founders' wisdom that he criticizes.

How many times do we have to save Europe's butt before they start to see the light?

Paul Kotik| 1.19.12 @ 10:40AM

The guy's a twerp. You can find dozens of 'em in any airline lounge in Europe.

Not interesting.

If he really had any influence, he'd be an effective advocate for the withdrawal of the European military presence that's been keeping the peace in North America and the Western Pacific for the past 60 years. The threats from Canada, Mexico and Papau New Guinea are long gone. It's time for the Eurotroops to come home.

Joe D.| 1.19.12 @ 11:04AM

First off we need to get something straight. We are not a democracy even though we are being taught this lie in our own schools. Our founders hated Mob rule and would never have set that up.

Our country is a representative republic with a foundational law called the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Judges are not our rulers and we should not be listening to them when they make law. According to the constitution they have no law making rights. These are reserve for congress (our representatives). They all (The President, Congress and Judges) work for us. And Judges can be removed by congress at any time for lack of good behavior. Congress just has to have the guts. They do this one time and the Judges would be back in their constitutional line.

Joe D.| 1.19.12 @ 11:11AM

By the way, Mr. King knows nothing about the 10 amendment. We did not, and still do not want and all powerful federal government.

As for the age requirement (maturity) that he obviously lacks. And born here, Obama is a perfect example of why we need this. We don't want to be like stupid Canada or Europe.

A. C. Santore| 1.19.12 @ 11:11AM

Two points:

1. The Obama crowd will absolutely love that book.

2. The most important paragraph in the review is the last:

"King's somewhat second-hand opinions on the U.S. system might seem less peculiar if he tried two things: first, compare American shortcomings with British or other European shortcomings. (I live in France and wouldn't know where to start, the strangeness is so omnipresent.) And second, go see how the U.S. hodge-podge actually works. He just might like it enough to do a Christopher Hitchens and take up naturalization."

Joe D.| 1.19.12 @ 11:17AM

Obcoarse being the Socialist the King is he fails to mention that the Judges followed the law and that no matter how many times the votes were recounted 6 times by 9 liberal/socialist org. Bush won.

He fails to mention on how Kennedy stole the 1960 election. Or how Clinton may have in 1996 using the media.

So we will just write this latest idiot off as well an ill informed idiot.

fundamentalist| 1.19.12 @ 1:38PM

The writers of the Constitution feared democracy as much as they feared kings. They saw democracy as tyranny of the majority, or mob rule. They meant the Constitution to reign in the will of the majoirty as well as the federal government.

The main principle of the Constitution is that liberty consists in the rule of law, not the arbitrary rule of men, especially not the arbitrary rule of the majority.

Of course, today we have little liberty left because we have become a democracy and suffer from the tyranny of the majority who demand that the government control every aspect of life while handing out favors to everyone.

King is under the delusion that Americans share the same idolatry over democracy as Europeans do. Most do, but a few of us don't. We prefer liberty, which can only exist under a republic.

Mazzuchelli| 1.19.12 @ 1:52PM

No, no, no. I like him fine across the pond or above the 49th. He's another small-minded academic riven with envy.

davelnaf| 1.19.12 @ 2:20PM

Does anyone else think Professor King looks like the new James Bond villain Mr. White? Maybe I’m just seeing things; maybe its the red I see each time a foreigner tells us our Constitution is the only thing standing in the way of us being just like them? What is it with these people? They seem to have a little bit of an obsession thing over our system of government. As long as they aren’t asking us to fix their messes too often we could care less how they’re governed. They’re really going to be pissed at us when we get rid of one of their own this November. Maybe that's what Mr. White's book is really all about.

JP| 1.19.12 @ 2:21PM

The Europeans so love thier parlimentarian democracies that they decided to replace the with the world's largest unelected bureaucracy - the EU. Now that it is imploding, perhaps Professor King will re-think his categories.

Gary| 1.19.12 @ 7:14PM

The U.S. is not Britain, France, Italy, or Belgium. It is continental nation with varying geography, climate, ethnicity, and different economic geography. Radical "democracy" would result in the heavily populated areas likely exploiting the rural farming and energy producing areas. We also have a different history of self reliance, innovation, and distrust of an overpowering central government. Our recent ancestors were immigrants and/or pioneers and we derive our ethos from that back round. The esteemed professor derides our form of government as being behind the times unlike our European counterparts. Let me inform said professor that the U.S. for a long time has had the most dynamic, innovative private sector in the world and this has been largely due to the fact that our "outdated" system encourages it and allows it. Last time I checked Europe isin the decline with Asia becoming an economic force in the world so the professor should take note. He may get his wish, however, since Obama is doing his level best to make a a Euro clone via executive fiat and the health care abomination.

kyartist| 1.19.12 @ 7:24PM

Exactly...why?...does some fop from the United Socialist Kingdom think he has an insight concerning our political processes. I've been there a number of times and if this snooty academic is an indication.....the Brits sure have a sense of humor.
By the way professor...
"the Constitution's "stupidest provision"...as best I remember taking words through the superlative...there is no such word as "stupidest"; it is, in fact "most stupid"....unless the language has been corrupted alongside the politics.

Tony in Central PA| 1.19.12 @ 8:37PM

Another fool telling the statists we need to be more like Europe. Come back in twenty years when western Europe is a collection of collapsed states in the process of implementing sharia.

Leveut| 1.19.12 @ 9:16PM

I'm sorry...no not really...Anthony King is yet another arrogant Eurosnot dickhead who doesn't know which end is up.

Richard Baker| 1.20.12 @ 2:42AM

Who bloody cares what this Brit thinks? Big fat hairy deal. Listen to Stuart Varney and HIS comparison of the two countries and why he elected to come here. That impresses me. I also thank Mr. Varney for choosing my country.

Roy| 1.20.12 @ 2:50AM

US has outdated traditions? Wow, that's something England wouldn't tolerate for a second, oh wait.

Richard Baker| 1.20.12 @ 6:34PM

Roy:
Touche'.

Timely Renewed | 1.20.12 @ 7:29PM

If only we adhered as closely to the Constitution as Professor King claims! There would be substantial democratic participation if we followed the Constitution and placed most government activity on the state and local levels. The problem is a federal government which has taken on powers far beyond what would be allowed under the original Constitution. Similarly, the Supreme Court, which is deeply anti-democratic as the Professor contends, only has the power that it does because it has unconstitutionally usurped power from the states and the elected branches.

If constitutionalists want to permanently restore our Constitution's original meaning and structure, we should re-invigorate the constitutional amendment process. Constitutional amendments restating the original constitutional meanings (and requiring judicial adherence to them) is the only way to permanently restore our national government to its originals limits and bounds and to restore rule by the people in their states and local communities as originally intended by the Constitution. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

POST American| 1.20.12 @ 10:30PM

---BEYOND even America or Britain--

"The Federal Reserve has pumped
so many BILLIONS into [--NAZI--]
Germany that they dare NOT name
the TOTAL."
-Rep. Charles McFadden
(1935)

" USURY --is-- deviant economy."

i.e. unaccountable, psychopathic USURY
works treasonously ---and begets EUGENICS.

African slavery

---Napoleon's Global police state power grabs

-----Old China/ opium et al

-------Bolshevism

---------Stalinism

---------the 'Great Depression'

-----------Hitlerism

-------------Maoism

---------------'Globalism'

-----------------------ALWAYS-------------------------

"All ye know, and all ye need to know."

-------------------------------------------------EVER!

------------HUAC/ Nuremberg 2012------------

Richard Baker| 1.21.12 @ 12:15AM

Speaking of Terry Thomas. In the movie "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World his character had a funny line about us. "You Americans and your infantile preoccupation with bosoms" was an interesting observation after Jane Mansfield, Marilyn Monroe, and Sophia Loren.

MariettaGirl| 1.21.12 @ 7:37PM

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. We have a Republic. That is thee wolves and a sheep deciding what for dinner and the sheep is armed.

POST American| 1.22.12 @ 10:48PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

A little REALITY CHECK for where
it's going, and where it's at:

"Reports inform us that now 16% of all
the mercury in the air of Britain is
from the dental work in burning
corpses. ---'ECO-friendly' internment
if you will."

Meanwhile, we also find the RAND
corporation and others have, for
a decade, had digging technology
that can bore through solid rock
at 5 miles a day!----AND YET no call
for simply cr creating catacombs
to deal with the space issue
humanly and effectively.

-----------------NONE-------------------

More Articles by Michael Johnson

More Articles From Buy the Book

Treasure State Treasury

May 17, 2013 | Bill Croke

Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority

May 13, 2013 | John R. Coyne, Jr.

Self-Righteous Republic

May 8, 2013 | Aram Bakshian, Jr.

Ruthie’s Way

May 2, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

A Free and Indivisible Union

April 25, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/19/do-we-really-look-that-peculia

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|142 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|78 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.