“Value-Charged”

A panel, the Texas Education Agency, that is “advising” the Texas State Board of Education wants to deprecate matters related to the Alamo and its defense by a band of heroic Americans (yes, I used those two terms.  Both of them).

The 7th grade social studies curriculum used to teach the defense of the Alamo currently uses the phrase siege of the Alamo and all of the heroic defenders who gave their lives there.  This panel told the SBOE to use only siege of the Alamo.  “Heroic,” they insist, is “value-charged.”

You bet it’s a value-charged characterization.  We shouldn’t hesitate to point out, even to emphasize, to the children to whom we’re teaching our history the trials, the costs, the lives paid by—the heroism of—those who defended us.  Here is a concrete example of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he described the fertilizer of our tree of liberty.

Far beyond that, we should celebrate our heroes.  Here is a concrete example of Benjamin Franklin’s meaning when he said that our republic can stand only if we are a virtuous people.

This group of alleged experts—they’re represented to be educators and historians—didn’t stop there, sadly.

They suggested deleting the Travis letter because they think when teachers talk about the Alamo they will absolutely mention it, but not having it outlined specifically just meant teachers would spend less time on it.

Why on earth should less time be spent on a letter, Travis’ Victory or Death letter, so central to the defense of Texas?  Why should our children spend less time learning their Texas history and this critical episode in their American history?

This is the letter—which I was taught way back when I was in junior high and ‘way up north in Iowa—that these personages consider too trivial to teach our children [emphases in the original]:

Commandancy of the The Alamo

Bejar, Feby. 24th. 1836

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World—

Fellow Citizens & compatriots—

        I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna — I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours & have not lost a man — The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken — I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls — I shall never surrender or retreat.  Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism & everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch — The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days.  If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country — Victory or Death.

William Barrett Travis.

Lt.  Col. comdt.

P.S. The Lord is on our side — When the enemy appeared in sight we had not three bushels of corn — We have since found in deserted houses 80 or 90 bushels and got into the walls 20 or 30 head of Beeves.

Travis

This performance of this panel of “experts” is shameful.

A Townhall Campaign Event

This one in Navasota, Texas.  Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas Beto O’Rourke is running against first-term incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, and O’Rourke had his townhall event at the VFW hall in Navasota.

This is what drew my eye to what would otherwise have been a rather ordinary campaign event.  VFW Post #4006 Commander Carl Dry:

[T]hey wanted to take the flags down, I didn’t only say no, I said hell no, you don’t take the flags off the wall. I can’t believe any American would ask us to do that and I don’t know why he wanted them down or what he was going to put up instead.

Yeah.  Why on earth would anyone claiming to want to represent Texans want to take American and Texas flags down from the VFW hall’s walls?

O’Rourke is making a habit of being contemptuous of our nation’s flag; now he objects to our State’s flag and those of the other States, too?  Just who does O’Rourke really represent?

Another Miss

This time by The Wall Street Journal.  In an op-ed about the coward’s piece in The New York Times (if that individual actually exists, otherwise it’s the cowardice of the NYT editorial staff), the WSJ closed with this remark.

The tragedy of this Presidency is that his rants and insults—even toward people who work for him—threaten to overwhelm his policy achievements.

This is true only because the persons of the press choose to enable that. It’s their conscious editorial choice to give emphasis to President Donald Trump’s rants and insults over his policy efforts and achievements. It’s their carefully deliberated editorial choice to give primacy to form over substance.

“Trump is a symptom, not the cause”

Ex-President Barack Obama (D) said that in his Friday speech at the University of Illinois.  I agree with him, but not for the reason he might think.

President Donald Trump might have triggered our economic recovery with lower taxes and reduced regulation.  He might have begun restoring our nation’s position around the world with his firm rhetoric regarding responsibilities and his refusal to apologize—indeed, his willingness overtly to celebrate—American uniqueness and greatness.

But his election, and his performance in office, are symptoms of the malaise under which our nation labored during eight years of Obama’s economic failures, constant apologies for our nation’s historic successes around the globe, and timidity in enforcing even the most glibly offered red lines.

The Trump administration is the result of Americans’ disgruntlement with the dysfunctional policies of the prior administration.

Unitary Executive

Senator Ben Sasse (R, NE), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that held hearings last week on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, had an op-ed in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal that opened with this.

Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water. He’s been declared an existential threat to the nation.

He’s also accused of favoring a unitary Executive and thereby ceding dangerously broad power to the President.

What the accusers carefully ignore is that it’s Congress that has so broadly expanded the power of a unitary Executive, while eliding the fact that our Constitution’s Article II created the unitary Executive in the first place.  It is, after all, Congress that has created all of the Agencies and Cabinet Departments that are in the Executive Branch.  It is Congress that has delegated all the power to those facilities by ceding to them rule-making authority.  All the Executive can do is hire and fire the facilities’ management teams–the only check he has on an overreaching Congress and its abuse of power.