This country was built by people that wanted to be citizens and not subjects. Like most leftards, Barky Hussein had no clue what made American exceptionalism possible. Hell, he didn’t even have a clue that it existed:
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
With this statement, he betrayed his belief that American exceptionalism was just pride in the nation, instead of a tangible thing. The fact is that American exceptionalism took 3000 miles of wilderness and turned it into the premier superpower on Earth with the highest standard of living for its people in just 200 years. Not being able to define it, of course he would have no idea what drives it, just like every other anti American leftard.
American exceptionalism is driven by LIBERTY and the rejection of the European idea that “that is not permissible” applied to practically every aspect of life. So when the UK government ignores a massive petition in response to an unpopular policy, they’re merely telling their subjects, the ones remaining after all the others looking for liberty have left the country, that it’s not permissible for you to stop this, an you’re getting it anyway.
The word “exceptionalism” is a two edged sword.
You have the good kind cited above and then you have something like Communism and Islam that have excelled in the creation of misery, poverty, and murder wherever they get established.
I prefer the good kind thank you very much.
Hey, as long as you’re all right. Screwing up is something we all do too often. Missing posting due to lots of other reasons is OK, sometimes encouraged if it’s that big of an event. Getting too sick to post is what we won’t wish on you.
L.Neil Smith held that that should have been “…the unanimous consent of the governed”.
He also said that without that word, “consent” becomes two wolves and a sheep voting on what- or who– is going to be lunch.
RAH said that “majority rule” meant that fifty percent plus one of the voting public could do whatever they damned well pleased to the other fifty percent minus one. (See Take Back Your Government.)
Add in the post-modern love of “groups” and tribalism, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I hold that situations like that tend to end up with a nation-state needing a Cromwell.
No nation-state should want to go there. As England found out the hard way from 1642 to 1651.
I am very much afraid that we are just about there.
And yes, the present President, or his Number Two, could very well be our Cromwell.
For your sakes, I hope not!
Cromwell was a fascist (look up the actual meaning) military dictator who presided over what was essentially a rule of terror of the population of Britain. He would have made Stalin proud.
October 9, 2025 at 4:45 pm
eon
GregS;
Actually, Cromwell’s “terror campaign” was mainly against the Irish nobility to convince them to stop hiring out their soldiers as mercenaries to the real fascist in the mess- Charles I.
The New Model Army was pretty much all volunteers drawn from the peasantry and yeomanry. Pretty odd for a “fascist”.
Cromwell was an unpleasant so-and-so, but he was far from being a Stalin. The Long Parliament, by comparison, was all set to become a Politburo when he told them “for the love of God, go!”
Schools from K-12 on up to universities do a very poor job of teaching history these days.
14 Comments
Signing a petition in the UK (or a blue state) just tells the rulers who to round up first.
clear ether
eon
Making a list, checking it twice…
This country was built by people that wanted to be citizens and not subjects. Like most leftards, Barky Hussein had no clue what made American exceptionalism possible. Hell, he didn’t even have a clue that it existed:
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
With this statement, he betrayed his belief that American exceptionalism was just pride in the nation, instead of a tangible thing. The fact is that American exceptionalism took 3000 miles of wilderness and turned it into the premier superpower on Earth with the highest standard of living for its people in just 200 years. Not being able to define it, of course he would have no idea what drives it, just like every other anti American leftard.
American exceptionalism is driven by LIBERTY and the rejection of the European idea that “that is not permissible” applied to practically every aspect of life. So when the UK government ignores a massive petition in response to an unpopular policy, they’re merely telling their subjects, the ones remaining after all the others looking for liberty have left the country, that it’s not permissible for you to stop this, an you’re getting it anyway.
Good and hard.
They are lost until the next English Civil War.
True.
Incoming…
The word “exceptionalism” is a two edged sword.
You have the good kind cited above and then you have something like Communism and Islam that have excelled in the creation of misery, poverty, and murder wherever they get established.
I prefer the good kind thank you very much.
Hmmm… no email toon today…
It’s late because I was late and screwed up the date on the today’s toon.
Hey, as long as you’re all right. Screwing up is something we all do too often. Missing posting due to lots of other reasons is OK, sometimes encouraged if it’s that big of an event. Getting too sick to post is what we won’t wish on you.
Amen to that. That was what I was thinking about this AM.
Stay well, CM.
cheers
eon
American Exceptionalism is right there in our Declaration of Independence.
“That to *secure these rights,* Governments are instituted *among Men,* deriving their just powers from *the consent of the governed,*”
L.Neil Smith held that that should have been “…the unanimous consent of the governed”.
He also said that without that word, “consent” becomes two wolves and a sheep voting on what- or who– is going to be lunch.
RAH said that “majority rule” meant that fifty percent plus one of the voting public could do whatever they damned well pleased to the other fifty percent minus one. (See Take Back Your Government.)
Add in the post-modern love of “groups” and tribalism, and you have a recipe for disaster.
I hold that situations like that tend to end up with a nation-state needing a Cromwell.
No nation-state should want to go there. As England found out the hard way from 1642 to 1651.
I am very much afraid that we are just about there.
And yes, the present President, or his Number Two, could very well be our Cromwell.
clear ether
eon
For your sakes, I hope not!
Cromwell was a fascist (look up the actual meaning) military dictator who presided over what was essentially a rule of terror of the population of Britain. He would have made Stalin proud.
GregS;
Actually, Cromwell’s “terror campaign” was mainly against the Irish nobility to convince them to stop hiring out their soldiers as mercenaries to the real fascist in the mess- Charles I.
The New Model Army was pretty much all volunteers drawn from the peasantry and yeomanry. Pretty odd for a “fascist”.
Cromwell was an unpleasant so-and-so, but he was far from being a Stalin. The Long Parliament, by comparison, was all set to become a Politburo when he told them “for the love of God, go!”
Schools from K-12 on up to universities do a very poor job of teaching history these days.
cheers
eon