Tucker’s Mistaken On Why the U.S. Was Founded

He puts the cart before the horse and pretends the United States was founded for ideals and not for people.

Growing up as a kid in France it was interesting to see the French attitude towards their Constitution. When I was living there, there was some discussion about rewriting it yet again (they didn’t in the end). Grok tells me the French have had 15 different Constitutions since the founding of La Republique. What’s interesting is that they never stopped being French no matter how many times they rewrote the Constitution.

Coming back to the United States and going to High School, we were taught reverence for the U.S. Constitution as if it were a religious document. I always thought that was silly. Constitutions are written for people, not people for a Constitution.

Liberia supposedly copied the U.S. Constitution almost verbatim. It didn’t help them. It’s still a failed state.

So, I do enjoy listening to Tucker Carlson, but I disagree with him on a lot of things. For one, he says he is against identity politics even while everyone else (other than white people) seems to be practicing it. More than once, Tucker has made claims about the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that it is the foundation of this country.

““It is, in fact, the foundation of this country, not only its laws, but its culture, and that we should protect it.” (From “Tucker Carlson LIVE: The End of Free Speech”).

O.K., I got a problem with that, a very big problem with that.

It reminds me of a discussion (argument) I have had online with others before. Some people say that to be an American means swearing allegiance to our Constitution and nothing more. If that’s the case, if our Constitution is so glorious, then why don’t more countries adopt our Constitution and save themselves the trouble of immigrating to the United States. They can even amend the Constitution to take out the parts they don’t like, such as the Second Amendment entirely, and in the First Amendment, they can make an exception for banning “Hate Speech”.

My perspective is different because my ancestry got here in colonial times. I’m a Mayflower descendant and so a portion of my family was in the colonies (mainly Massachusetts) for 150 years before the American Revolution even broke out.

Nathaniel Philbrick in his book, “Bunker Hill: A City, A Siege, A Revolution” was trying to make sense of why the Revolutionaries in the sticks were so passionate at fighting the British at Lexington and Concord. These weren’t the merchants and shopkeepers in Boston, these were the farmers largely unaffected by a tax on tea or on anything else. Philbrick came to believe that the only way he could explain it was that the Americans had come to see themselves as a separate people from the British. They didn’t seem to be that concerned with “Taxation without representation”. In fact, if you read Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, the grievances he lists almost all have to do with unjust laws and courts. He doesn’t get around to “For imposing taxes on us without our consent” till the 13th complaint that starts “He has…” and even then, taxes is not mentioned till the third phrase after that. Taxes does not appear to have been foremost on his mind. “Taxation without representation”* is a catchy simple slogan that allows people to pretend they know what caused the American Revolution. (It sort of reminds me of “Kids in cages”, or, “Deporter-in-Chief”. Easy to memorize and say even if false).

The book “The Lessons of History” starts off in the first chapter almost sounding like it was written by Charles Darwin. The only thing that survives is that which reproduces. If you look at what the Founding Fathers wrote, they put in the preamble to the Constitution that they were writing it for “…ourselves and our posterity…” They were focused on their own survival as a people, not about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, false confessions or anything else.

I tell people that if we were still under the Articles of Confederation, I would still be American. In fact, it was the Articles of Confederation that first officially used the term “United States of America”. Before that, we were just 13 separate colonies of England. We fought and defeated the British under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation lasted 8 years from 1781 to 1789. (It was actually finalized by Congress on November 15, 1777, but didn’t come into full force until all 13 former colonies ratified it. So, technically you could add on three years and a month and a half). The Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution occurred on September 3, 1783. So the Articles of Confederation lasted almost six years after we were already the United States of America. No one fought the American Revolution for freedom of speech. They fought the British Empire for blood and soil nationalism. They fought it for a people who had grown apart from their mother country.

Technically speaking, George Washington was not the first President of the United States. He was the first President under the current Constitution. Samuel Huntington was the first person to serve a full term as President under the newly ratified Articles of Confederation (before that there were other Presidents, but the Articles hadn’t been ratified yet).

When the Founding Fathers got together for the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, a lot of them thought they were just going to make slight alterations to the Articles of Confederation, not write a whole new document. There were three non-signers of the U.S. Constitution with different reason for not signing; Elbridge Gerry, George Mason and Edmund Randolph. Among other reasons for not signing, Elbridge Gerry didn’t believe slaves should have been represented at all.

The Bill of Rights came into being because a lot of the delegates were worried that, now that the new Constitution had a powerful executive, they needed to place limitations on what the executive and legislative branches could do. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified till December 15, 1791. By then, the Naturalization Act of 1790 (Nationality Act of 1790 for some) was already the law of the land and it limited immigration to “free white” persons of “good character”. They were clearly protecting their own genome and didn’t consider black people to be citizens. By today’s standards, they would all be considered racists, even the ones who didn’t own slaves.

Alexander Hamilton wasn’t even for having a Bill of Rights at all, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” (Paragraph nine).

My point is simply that the Revolutionaries were clearly not fighting for some abstract piece of paper when they were freezing their tail bones off at Valley Forge. They were fighting what they saw as oppression over their people by a foreign government.

The revisionist look that Tucker Carlson espouses is simply false. This country was founded on the very “Identity Politics” that he claims to despise.

*Edit. After initially writing this article, I came across this article in Breitbart on the battles of Lexington and Concord. It contains this marvelous quote:

“Years after the Revolution, Captain Levi Preston was asked why he fought in the Battle of Lexington. Was it about the Stamp Act? ‘I never saw one of those stamps.’ Was it about the Tea Tax? ‘I never drank a drop of that stuff; the boys threw it all overboard.’ The interviewer then asked him about several esoteric concepts, which Preston dismissed. He then responded, ‘Young man, what we meant in going for those Redcoats was this: we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.'”

=======

This brings me to two things that are in the news today; Birthright citizenship and the DIGNIDAD Act.

For the Supreme Court, we already know where certain Justices will vote. Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to be in favor of birthright citizenship for foolish reasons. She has said that stealing from someone in Japan would make the thief subject to the jurisdiction of the Japanese government. Do you have to break a law to be subject to the jurisdiction of another country? She is political and is voting with what she sees as her identity.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor will vote to protect her brethren. She will be in favor of birthright citizenship because that means more of her people will be in the U.S. Identity politics.

Justice Kagan is Jewish. After World War II, many Jews believed that countries that are all white are a threat to Jewish people, so, she will vote for more Third World invasion.

Justice Clarence Thomas is a throwback to the old school Republicans and Democrats. The ones back in the 90s who could both agree that illegal immigration was bad. The Barbara Jordans of the world who correctly foresaw that low skilled immigration harmed the poorer members of our society who are often non-white. He seems to realize immigration is bad for those of us already here regardless of race. He also realizes the 14th Amendment was written for newly freed slaves.

Justice Alito will also vote against birthright citizenship. Whether he is considered an originalist or not, his past rulings have been conservative and he can use common sense to see what granting birth tourists’ babies citizenship would entail. It makes a complete mockery of what it means to be an American.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett will likely come down on the side of allowing birthright citizenship. She adopted two children from Haiti which is frankly more reminiscent of liberal white ladies who like to virtue signal how noble they are. She appears to have been conservative on abortion and nothing else. (Almost the exact opposite of me).

Chief Justice Roberts with his comment that it is a new world but the same old Constitution is signaling he will vote for keeping birthright citizenship. Or, at the very least, kick it over to Congress for Congress to clarify because that would be the unprincipled coward thing to do.

As for Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, they are the two unknowns. Will they embrace the survival of the people already here, or, will they go for a huge incentive for every immigrant (legal or not) and every tourist to have a child in the U.S.? The very survival of the United States depends on that.

Is the U.S. Constitution a suicide pact after all?

========

Speaking of survival. What this country needs is an immigration moratorium so that we can see what we’ve already allowed to invade our shores. With the shamelessly titled “DIGNIDAD” Act, Representatives Maria Elvira SALAZAR (R-Florida), and Representative Veronica ESCOBAR (D-El Passhole) show that identity politics means something to them even if white cuck Republicans can’t see it.

They can scream over and over again that this is not an amnesty, but illegal immigration is sort of a unique crime. Earlier in commenting on illegal aliens being granted bond, I said it was sort of like being accused of Grand Theft auto, showing up to court in the stolen vehicle, getting granted a small bond, and then driving off in the very vehicle you stole. In the case of immigration, the crime is being in the country illegally. The remedy is being removed from the country, not being granted a bond and allowed to stay.