Adam KinzingerFeaturedhistoryTexas

Adam Kinzinger Tries to Dunk on Ken Paxton, Steps on the Rake of History – Twitchy

January 27, 2024
0 0
0
0
Adam Kinzinger Releases PSA Begging New Hampshire Residents To 'Reject Trump' and It's Hilariously Bad – Twitchy
0
Shares

One of the funniest things that can happen on TSMSFKA Twitter (The Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter) is when a person tries to get snotty with you, and trips and faceplants in the attempt. For instance, when a person says nothing of substance, but also declares ‘your an moron’ and you get to correct them, saying, ‘it’s ‘you’re a’ moron, moron.’ And while this author has mostly stopped caring about Adam Kinzinger, it is hard not to laugh when he attempts to get all big, calling someone else an idiot, while getting basic history wrong. And that is exactly what he did yesterday morning:

Of course, that is also already Community Noted and while Community Notes have been flat out wrong in the past, we think this one is fine, but it is a little milquetoast. Do we have to fill in the whole history? How originally Texas was part of Mexico, but rebelled against their oppressive government and was briefly its own country? Then, eventually, Texas joined the Union in 1845.

So, for those keeping track, that means Texas actually won a war and then voluntarily joined the Union. What Kinzinger was probably referring to was when Texas and several other states later rebelled against the Union, precipitating the Civil War, which Texas and the rest of the Confederacy eventually lost.

Seriously, this author has lived in Texas at two points in his life and we feel pretty confident that this is just basic historical knowledge. We don’t even think the Community Note needed a citation. It could have simply said, ‘Duh.’ We wouldn’t expect everyone in America to know all the ins and outs of that war, but we expect most Americans to know that Texas successfully rebelled against Mexico, became its own country, and then joined America. And we expect most Americans to know the basic story behind the Alamo. After all, there were two movies made about it, and we happened to think the 2004 version was actually pretty good, even if it didn’t do particularly well in the box office.

As for Paxton’s argument, his discussion is perfectly reasonable. We don’t think it is correct to think that the Constitution was ratified by states, or joined by any of them. While it is convenient to say, as we did above, that Texas joined the United States, the better way to think of it is that the only true sovereigns of Texas, the people, decided to leave Mexico, to briefly form their own country, and then chose to join America. But however you describe it, they did join America with certain understandings contained in the Constitution. And what does the Constitution say about this problem of our open border?

Recommended

Well, for one thing Article IV, Section Four says:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion[.]

The Constitution also empowers Congress to ‘[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,’ (Article I, Section 8), and allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of invasion (Article I, Section 9), 

And Article II, Section Three says this about the President: ‘he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ And Good L—d, Biden definitely isn’t doing that.

And while the Supreme Court correctly ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that the militia clause of the Second Amendment is an inoperative preamble, it still says that ‘[a] well regulated Militia’ is ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ This has no legal effect, but it tells you what the founders imagined would happen once the Republic was set up—that militias would literally be used to wage war to protect individual states from all enemies, domestic or foreign.

That is the context in which the Texans—and other Americans—became part of the United States.

In any case, let’s get back to pointing and laughing at Kinzinger:

Well, we Googled around, and, yes, he did apparently just move to Texas:

In fact, the article states that he moved to Houston. You know, the city named after Sam Houston, who led the Texians (as they were called back then) to victory at the Battle of San Jacinto and twice served as the President of Texas. All of which makes it even more embarrassing that Kinzinger didn’t know any of this history. Certainly, you aren’t required to know anything about a state before moving there, but how about showing at least a little intellectual curiosity? A person who actually seeks to learn throughout his or her life might say, ‘Gee, who is this Houston guy my city is named after?’

That’s quite a thing to say and … we are inclined to agree.

We honestly wonder if he knows what the term ‘Tea Party’ referred to. Did Kinzinger think it referred to a little girl’s playtime?

We’re honestly surprised that he didn’t. But we did take a screenshot just in case.

And this person didn’t apparently detect the error:

We all are.

Certainly, Paxton has a better grasp of history.

To be fair, at one point Mexico tried to ban immigration of Americans into Texas, before the Texas Revolution. They felt Americans were a bad influence with our belief in freedom, and the right of rebellion. In short, the Mexican government felt that with too many Americans coming into Mexico, that it was a tantamount to an invasion by people who would change the culture of the region and even possibly serve as a fifth column in the future. And, to be fair, they weren’t wrong.

That history naturally has no application to any issue today, right?

We were wondering that, too. The post was written at about 8:00 a.m. yesterday … so … probably!

After all, as they say, its always five o’clock somewhere.

Of course, we are joking. We have no idea if he was drunk. But if we were Kinzinger, we think we would rather have people think we were drunk instead of the other logical explanation: Kinzinger is amazingly ignorant and incurious.

So, Adam, you can plead ‘drunk’ and save some face—but make people think you are drinking waaaay too early for a Friday morning—or just let people think you are kind of a moron. The choice is yours.

***

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 50% off your VIP membership!



Source link

Related Posts

Load More Posts Loading...No More Posts.
© 2024 ariseright
© 2024 ariseright
Your text