From The Greatest President... Ever
How could we have lost our way so quickly?
The best description of "Equal Opportunity" I've ever read.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. "
"Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
9:04 PM
9 Comments:
Um. Disagree entirely.
1. Teddy Roosevelt was NOT the greatest president ever. He was one of the worst. Granted, he wasn't as bad as the tyrants Lincoln and FDR, but he was awful. He turned the presidency into a populist office and meddled in everything that was outside its constitutional sphere--even going so far as to host a summit on rough play in college football. He set the stage for his nephew FDR to finally and fully immasculate the states, disregard and foolishly alter the Constitution, and ultimately destroy the concept of limited government. He was a bastard, through and though.
2. My temporal allegiance is divided, and proudly so. I am first a Christian and a subject of the Holy Father, and Bishop Robert W. Finn. I am second a member of my family. I am next citizen of my state and would stand and defend it in rebellion against federal tyranny, if the moral criteria for rebellion (including having "a reasonable hope of success") are met. There are a number of other allegiences I have, including to the Radio Shack battery club, and to the rightful King of England, Henry of Bavaria. Somewhere after that I suppose I do have an allegiance to our masonic, corrupt and unconstitutional federal government.
Yeah, I agree with Curmudgeon for the most part. I understand and share in the contempt for the Masonic/Diest/Protestant roots of this nation, however I think that a Catholic can morally operate within the context of the Constitution as it was written. We had an interesting discussion on this same quote last week at Happy Catholic. The comment thread is a little lengthy, but I think just about everything that could be said was.
I should pooint out that Julie's initial post was here.
Um. Disagree entirely.
TR turned this nation from an agrarian society to a world power. Btw, the whole 'football summit' was concerning the scores of college kids who were getting killed every year. He was the greatest president we ever had, through and though.
'Mudgie, my friend... I stated that TR was the greatest President we ever had. Not the greatest Vicar of Christ, not greatest Bishop of Rome, not the greatest Successor of Peter, etc, etc.
With all that said... Mudgeriffic, do you disagree with TR's quote?
(Damn, I like it when Cermudgeon posts! Keep 'em comin', bro! But then Rick had to show up and be the Voice of Reason!!!) *insert evil grin here*
You're not the first person to call me a stick in the mud. ;)
FWIW, I can accept that quote if it is taken in the context of a Catholic confessional state or possibly if this nation was not hostile to Catholic morality and the Church itself.
However, I think that quote as intended was a direct assault on Catholic immigrants. The assimilation expected by TR was that they abandon their Catholic culture and become materialist Protestants or completely secular. He said just about everything except, "Catholics need not apply!" I know many read the above quote in the context of the problem with an influx of Mexican immigrants and leftist "do-gooders" expanding their base by coddling them by getting them "public assistance" and pushing the multi-lingual stuff, but that is not what was happening in TR's day. He was talking about Italian, Irish and German immigrants whose loyalty was questioned because they were loyal to Christ and His Church first.
Let me ask you this Caveman, what is wrong with an agrarian society?
(I accept the here and now, and try to apply Catholic morality to the circumstances in which we live - after all, I can't very well undo the industrial revolution, the World Wars, etc. However, it seems to me that an agrarian society would be more grounded and in line with Catholic morality.)
The greatest president ever was William Henry Harrison. He died before he could do much harm.
I do disagree, both for the implications in the context of a speech by an overreaching man who headed a tyrannical government (although it was a "soft" tyranny at that point), and for the particular ideas in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
And the biggest bitch I have is that we would praise a man who took our country from an agrarian society to a world power. World domination is not a morally acceptable or Constitutionally permissible objective, Mr. Caveman.
As for the rest, it'll have to wait.
Rick... buddy... pal... GOOMA! I was complimenting ya! (but I think you know that!)
Anyhow, I've read quite a bit on TR. I've never read where he put a blanket question mark on all Catholics concerning "divided loyalties". Granted, the Democratic Party of the turn of the 20th century was a heavily Catholic political party... but again, I never read anywhere where TR blanketly questioned American Catholics.
I do know that he he was personally in favor of the possibility of (at the time) that Bishop John Ireland be elevated to Cardinal.
Also, the following quote from TR during the 1902 Coal Strike, "I added to the Arbitration Commission, on my own authority, a sixth member, in the person of Bishop Spalding, a Catholic bishop, of Peoria, Ill"
Lastly, after the US had gained possession of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War, TR was quoted as saying "we have been endeavoring in all these matters to meet the wishes of the Catholic population of the Phillipine Islands". (emphasis mine)
None of above mentioned instances sound much like the words or actions of an anti-Catholic.
And all this begs the question; was the initial quote somehow anti-Catholic? I think not, especially in light of the this little portion below;
for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin
Oh, and agrarian societies are just fine. My outlook is that if one hopes to be a world power, then the nation must be agrarian as well as industrial. And also take the bull by the horns as ACT like a world power. TR did that.
-----------------------
Mr Curmudgeon,
The greatest president ever was William Henry Harrison. He died before he could do much harm. made me laugh out loud!
But anyhow, World domination is not a morally acceptable or Constitutionally permissible objective, Mr. Caveman is way off base. "World domination"? Hardly. World leader is more like it.
If this nation stayede an agrarian state, which flag would you have prefered flying over this land... The Rising Sun, The Swastika, or the Hammer and Sickle?
If it were not for TR, Japanese Imperialism, National Socialism, or International Communism would have long ago made the United States of America simply a foot note in the very revised history books.
God bless ya, Teddy! (Ouch, I know that's gonna bring on a napalm run or two!!) *you can still insert an evil grin HERE*
Where did my long rant against the ideological right, the Bushies, go? I hit "publish"?
the Bush clan is the 'ideological right'? Nahhh... I think the correct word is RepubliCrats.
Them and the Clintons. Not much difference when you get right down to it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home