The Battle of Puebla took place on 5 May, 1862, near the city of Puebla during the French intervention in Mexico. The date is observed in the state of Puebla to commemorate the Mexican army’s unlikely victory over French forces.
Although Mexican citizens feel very proud of the meaning of Cinco de Mayo, it is not a national holiday in Mexico, but it is an official holiday in the State of Puebla where the battle took place and in the neighboring State of Vera Cruz. However, all public schools are closed nation-wide in Mexico on 5 May.
μολὼν λαβέ Come and take them.
(to Xerxes when he was ordered to
give up his arms at Thermopyle)
Not many people know that the oldest civil rights organization in the U. S. is the National Rifle Association. Even fewer know of its informal working alliance with the NAACP in the South during the ’60s.
Here is a some history about how the NRA helped the members of an NAACP chapter in Monroe, NC, defend themselves. The money quote from the post (emphasis mine):
When the Klan arrived, instead of finding the good doctor alone with his family they found the house fortified with sandbags and guarded by armed men who knew how to use their weapons. A firefight ensued.
The Klan and their police support were no match for the local NRA members. The NRA members drove off the attackers inflicting unknown causalities on the raiders.
But, of course, these days we can always trust the government to protect us.
There’s a silly idea going around that since the Second Amendment was written in the 18th-century, it only secures a right to possess muskets. I suppose that folks who believe that must have slept through History class during the section on the American Revolution.
Yes, most of the soldiers in the Continental Army and most of the patriot militias were armed with smooth-bore muskets. Most. Not all. Indeed, the use of rifles by some militia units helped turn the tide of several key battles, the Battle of King’s Mountain, for instance.
So the Founders, when they wrote the Bill of Rights, understood that it was likely that the personal weapons of militiamen could be more advanced than the general issue weapons carried by Regulars.
I’ll let that sink in for a moment.
That idea that the militia’s personal weapons, i.e., those possessed by the general populace, would probably be better than those provided to the regular Army stands in stark contrast to the current notion that citizens have no need for equipment that is almost, but not quite, as effective as that issued to active duty troops.
If we were to take that approach to gun control, … Well, I doubt the anti-gun crowd wants to go there.
Matt Yglesias tweeted that the concept of property did not exist prior to the development of the state. What are they teaching kids these days? Those of us old enough to remember the earlier years of the holocene era clearly remember having property before any “state” existed.
Fortunately for Mr. Yglesias, Stacy McCain was awake in class and has reminded him of the teachings of the learned Prof. Iowahawk. Read the whole thing.
UPDATE–I am informed that Mr. Yglesias was graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. I’ve heard of Harvard. Back home in Nashville, we called it The Vanderbilt of the North.
And here’s a question for Mr. Yglesias to consider: If the concept of property requires the existence of a “state,” why do hunter-gatherer societies understand the meaning of words such as mine, yours, his, hers, ours, or theirs?
This is no time for men who oppose Senator
McCarthy’s Reid’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
I wish someone in the MSM had the good sense to go after Harry Reid as effectively as See It Now took on Joseph McCarthy.
UPDATE–Here’s a transcript of the 9 March, 1954, broadcast of See It Now.
UPDATE 2–John Nolte at Breitbart suggests that–GASP!–the MSM might be accessories to Reid’s lying.
If they wanted to, the media could end this McCarthyism by simply doing the right thing and laying this despicable behavior where it belongs — at the feet of President Obama.
But the media won’t here, because it’s all part of the plan.
UPDATE 3–Perhaps there are a few real reporters left. Real Clear Politics reports that when Ed Henry (Fox) and John Karl (ABC) tried to pin down WH press flack Jay Carney on what the President believes about Dingy Harry’s claims concerning Mitt Romney’s taxes, Carney dodged the questions. Video here.
Maybe the stink is getting too much for even the Chicagoans in the White House. We’ll see.
George S. Patton, Jr., was an Olympic athlete. He participated in the Modern Pentathlon in Stockholm one hundred years ago. A cavalryman, he did well in the equestrian event, riding a perfect performance but coming in sixth because of time.
Then, you were rich if you owned an automobile.
Now, you’re thought to be rich if you own a horse.
Gasp! Some folks are seeing potential raaaaacism in a remark by Mitt Romney referring to America’s Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Let’s see. Essentially all of the Founders were either immigrants from or the descendants of immigrants from the British Isles. They fought a revolution against a king who was not honoring their rights as Englishmen. We call England “the Mother Country.” Our laws are based on English Common Law. Our national common language is English.
Sure, people from all over the world got stirred in to the melting pot, the basis of the brew is Anglo-Saxon.
Recommended Reading: A History of the English Speaking Peoples by Winston Churchill.
If we elect a President who actually understands our shared history, maybe the Brits will again lend us that bust of Churchill that used to be in Oval Office.
Is it November yet?
UPDATE—The Romney campaign is saying that the Anglo-Saxon quote is bogus. Rats! I wish he had said it.
UPDATE 2—At least Romney would like to have the bust of Churchill back in the Oval Office.
In the same speech in which he told small business owners that they didn’t create their business but that federal government “investments” did, President Obama said, “That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover Dam.”
That’s only half true. The federal government did build Hoover Dam. However, the Golden Gate Bridge was funded by a $35 million dollar bond issue by the six counties in the Golden Gate Bridge District. It was a state-authorized project built by a partnership of local governments.
While that error is not as egregious as the Romney-as-felon nonsense, you’d thing that someplace in the White House or campaign staff there would be a fact-checker. They take credit for the Internet but don’t seem to have heard of Google.
Is it November yet?
UPDATE–This post explains some of my interest in bridges.
Jacob Sullum has an essay over at Reason called Fair-Weather Federalists in which he argues that both Progressives and Conservative should be opposed to an overreaching federal government. While reading it, I was struck by how what is “progressive” and what is “conservative” change with time. Here’s the paragraph that triggered my thought:
Two Supreme Court cases decided during George W. Bush’s second term further illustrate how federal involvement can jeopardize progressive causes. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause authorizes the federal government to enforce its absolute ban on marijuana even in states that allow medical use of the plant and even against patients who grow their own. The decision arguably went even further than Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 ruling that said Congress has the authority to stop a farmer from growing wheat for his own use because such self-reliance reduces aggregate demand, thereby exerting “a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
Prohibition, first of drugs with the Harris Act and then of booze via the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, were major Progressive achievements of the first quarter of the 20th century. Let me repeat that. Drug prohibition was originally a Progressive cause. Drugs, you see, are bad for you, almost as bad as a 17 oz cup of soda (Why do you think they call it Coke?), and Progressives want to care for you. That’s why they support nannystateism—until they get caught in their own nappies. When they started smoking dope, prohibition became a bad idea.
Conservatives are no better. We have our own hypocrisies. The French got it right when they created their proverb ”Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
In June, 1989, the Communist Party decided that the protests in Tiennamen Square should end, and they sent in the PLA. The world remembers one man, known as The Tank Man, because he had the bravery to face down a column of tanks. Alone. This is the image most of us remember.
This is what he was really facing.
The Original Velvet Revolution notes that we don’t know much about The Tank Man, but know some things about what he wasn’t.
He wasn’t some pampered, latte-drinking hipster with a smart phone riding the 2/3 down to the Village while ostentatiously “reading” a copy of Kapital and denouncing the “injustice” of the West.
But he wasn’t Jason Bourne or the Terminator either. So we know basically what happened to him: he made his last stand that day.
A true hero.
There’s a new blog out there called Velvet Revolution. It’s not one of
Brett Kimberlin’s Lord Voldemort’s scams. It’s about the Velvet Revolution. The real one. The one led by Vaclav Havel.
Brett Kimberlin, and his associate Brad Friedman, do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. They do not, and cannot, claim trademark or copyright protection in the term, because in the realm of politics, where Kimberlin and Friedman seek to meddle, the term “Velvet Revolution” is more generic than “Jell-O”.
Likewise, we do not own the name “Velvet Revolution”. No one owns the term. The Czechs and Slovaks who put their lives on the line in 1989 have a pretty strong moral claim, but they’re all in MittelEuropa. The Czechs and Slovaks have bigger problems than one terrorist moonbat making a mockery of a First Amendment that they don’t have anyway.
So we’re taking the name back, for them.
UPDATE–Other folks are picking up on this new site. Bob Belvedere. Michelle Malkin.
Get ‘em skeered and keep the skeer on ‘em!
UPDATE 2–The real Velvet Revolution is asking bloggers to link and blog roll the site (and put it on Twitter and Facebook) in order to move it up above Lord Voldemort’s site on Google, Bing, and the like. It is now in the Hogewash! blog roll. As The Right Sphere notes:
It’s easy, effective, and will work if enough people with blogs, Facebook pages, and Twitter accounts do it. Part of Kimberlin’s strategy has to be SEO based. This is why he’s so afraid of people writing about him. The more people write about him, the higher those stories – instead of his preferred links – get listed on search results. And the more people see who Kimberlin is the more people will know that he is trying to shut down free speech.
This really isn’t a partisan thing. Every blogger should be condemning this attack on our right to speak.
Enough is enough. We will not be silenced.
James Piereson has a thought provoking essay posted at The New Criterion on the possibility of a forthcoming political revolution. He points to three previous revolutions that bought lasting institutional and cultural change to America. They occurred in 1800, 1861 … 1865, and 1932.
The first brought the end of the Federalist regime and was dominated by the Jefferson/Jackson Democratic party. The second brought the end to slavery and the beginning of serious industrialization. It was dominated by the post-Civil-War Republicans. The third was the New Deal, dominated by the modern Democratic party.
Each of these revolutions was preceded by a breakdown of the old order’s ability to effectively govern. Jefferson’s revolution was sparked by the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln’s was set in motion by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. FDR launched his via the Great Depression.
The New Deal and it’s understanding of how government runs society has led to our present structural mess caused by so many rent-seeking hands in the public till. As the system runs up against the limits of Thatcher’s Law (The problem with socialist governments is that they eventually run out of other people’s money.), the likelihood of another radical change in institutional forms increases.
Read the whole thing.
Winston Churchill, who was made an honorary citizen of the United States by Congress, once remarked in a speech to that body that if his father had been American and his mother English, instead of the other way around, that he might have gotten there on his own. Among his American ancestors, he had a member of the Iroquois tribe.
It turns out that he was 1/16 Iroquois. That’s twice the imagined Cherokeeness of Elizabeth Warren, but I have difficulty believing that he would have ticked any boxes on a minority preference form. He strikes me as the sort who would have gotten there on his own.
Karl has a post over at Hot Air about Jonah Goldberg’s new book, The Tyranny of Cliches. The post deals with the use and misuse of the Marxian term “the right side of history.” (I’m in the process of reading Mr. Goldberg’s book, and will have some review comments of my own when I finish. It’s taking me longer than I thought because I’m savoring the text!) Mr. Goldberg notes that progressives use this cliche as a way of saying:
[H]ey, look, you’re going to lose this argument eventually so you might as well quit now and stop complaining.
We’re told we should not oppose X because in a 100 years X will be the norm. We don’t want to go down in history as the bozos who opposed X, do we?
Well, yes, if X, for instance, is abortion, I’m willing to stand on the “wrong side of history” against it. I really don’t care what the norm is 100 years from now. The taking of an innocent life is immoral.
The “right side” of history over the last century has included Fascism, National Socialism, Stalinism, Maoism, disco, the AMC Gremlin, and other equally scatterbrained and/or evil nonsense. I’ll stay over here on the “wrong side,” thank you.