The collapse of complex societies of the past can inform the present on the risks of collapse. Dr. Joseph Tainter, author of the book The Collapse of Complex societies, and featured in Leonardo Dicaprio's film The Eleventh Hour, details the factors that led to the collapse of past civilizations including the Roman Empire.
This is part 1 of 5 of a keynote talk delivered to the 2010 International Conference on Sustainability: Energy, Economy, and Environment organized by Local Future nonprofit and directed by Aaron Wissner.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The Lincoln myths
From: THOMAS DILORENZO
President-elect Barack Obama's historic journey to his swearing-in was underway when he hopped on a train in Philadelphia. As a tribute to President Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, who led the nation through the Civil War and ended slavery in the United States, Barack Obama traveled the same train route on a whistle-stop tour of 70 cities when he was inaugurated in 1861.
There is a good reason why the Lincoln legend has taken on such mythical proportions: Much of what Americans think they know about Abraham Lincoln is in fact a myth. Let's consider a few of the more prominent ones.
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.
President-elect Barack Obama's historic journey to his swearing-in was underway when he hopped on a train in Philadelphia. As a tribute to President Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, who led the nation through the Civil War and ended slavery in the United States, Barack Obama traveled the same train route on a whistle-stop tour of 70 cities when he was inaugurated in 1861.
There is a good reason why the Lincoln legend has taken on such mythical proportions: Much of what Americans think they know about Abraham Lincoln is in fact a myth. Let's consider a few of the more prominent ones.
Myth #1: Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves.
Ending slavery and racial injustice is not why the North invaded.
As Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"
Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.
The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.
Myth #2: Lincoln's war saved the Union.
Congress announced to the world on July 22, 1861, that the purpose of the war was not "interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states" (i.e., slavery), but to preserve the Union "with the rights of the several states unimpaired." At the time of Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) only the seven states of the deep South had seceded. There were more slaves in the Union than out of it, and Lincoln had no plans to free any of them.
The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect "the duties and imposts," and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.
Myth #2: Lincoln's war saved the Union.
The war may have saved the Union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. In the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, the states described themselves as "free and independent." They delegated certain powers to the federal government they had created as their agent but retained sovereignty for themselves.
This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.
This was widely understood in the North as well as the South in 1861. As the Brooklyn Daily Eagle editorialized on Nov. 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." The New York Journal of Commerce concurred, writing on Jan. 12, 1861, that a coerced Union changes the nature of government from "a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves." The majority of Northern newspapers agreed.
Myth #3: Lincoln championed equality and natural rights.
His words and, more important, his actions, repudiate this myth.
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races," he announced in his Aug. 21, 1858, debate with Stephen Douglas. "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." And, "Free them [slaves] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. We cannot, then, make them equals."
In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."
Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.
Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.
In Springfield, Ill., on July 17, 1858, Lincoln said, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." On Sept. 18, 1858, in Charleston, Ill., he said: "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes."
Lincoln supported the Illinois Constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state, and he also supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived the small number of free blacks in the state any semblance of citizenship. He strongly supported the Fugitive Slave Act, which compelled Northern states to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. In his First Inaugural he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would have prohibited the federal government from ever having the power "to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." In his First Inaugural Lincoln advocated making this amendment "express and irrevocable."
Lincoln was also a lifelong advocate of "colonization" or shipping all black people to Africa, Central America, Haiti--anywhere but here. "I cannot make it better known than it already is," he stated in a Dec. 1, 1862, Message to Congress, "that I strongly favor colonization." To Lincoln, blacks could be "equal," but not in the United States.
Myth #4: Lincoln was a defender of the Constitution.
Quite the contrary: Generations of historians have labeled Lincoln a "dictator." "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms," wrote Clinton Rossiter in "Constitutional Dictatorship." And, "Lincoln's amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal."
James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."
Myth #5: Lincoln was a "great humanitarian" who had "malice toward none."
James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."
Myth #5: Lincoln was a "great humanitarian" who had "malice toward none."
This is inconsistent with the fact that Lincoln micromanaged the waging of war on civilians, including the burning of entire towns populated only by civilians; massive looting and plundering; rape; and the execution of civilians (See Mark Grimsley, "The Hard Hand of War"). Pro-Lincoln historian Lee Kennett wrote in "Marching Through Georgia" that, had the Confederates somehow won, they would have been justified in "stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command" as war criminals.
Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery.
Myth #6: War was necessary to end slavery.
During the 19th century, dozens of countries, including the British and Spanish empires, ended slavery peacefully through compensated emancipation. Among such countries were Argentina, Colombia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, the French and Danish colonies, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. (Lincoln did propose compensated emancipation for the border states, but coupled his proposal with deportation of any freed slaves. He failed to see it through, however). Only in America was war associated with emancipation.
In sum, the power of the state ultimately rests upon a series of myths about the alleged munificence of our rulers. Nothing serves this purpose better than the Lincoln myth. This should be kept in mind by all who visit the new Lincoln statue in Richmond.
THOMAS DILORENZO is the author of "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" and a professor of economics at Loyola College in Baltimore.
The Southern Avenger presents a short subject film.
When South Carolina NAACP President Lonnie Randolph criticized Obama recently, comparing the president honoring Confederate soldiers at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day to paying tribute to Adolph Hitler, it was worth pointing out how Abraham Lincoln was much more similar to the Nazi dictator than Southern soldiers fighting for their country's independence.
In sum, the power of the state ultimately rests upon a series of myths about the alleged munificence of our rulers. Nothing serves this purpose better than the Lincoln myth. This should be kept in mind by all who visit the new Lincoln statue in Richmond.
THOMAS DILORENZO is the author of "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War" and a professor of economics at Loyola College in Baltimore.
The Southern Avenger presents a short subject film.
When South Carolina NAACP President Lonnie Randolph criticized Obama recently, comparing the president honoring Confederate soldiers at Arlington Cemetery on Memorial Day to paying tribute to Adolph Hitler, it was worth pointing out how Abraham Lincoln was much more similar to the Nazi dictator than Southern soldiers fighting for their country's independence.
Andrew Jackson’s resistance to the Bank
A little history, read as much as you can before you start to get ill.
Ill because this has happened before and the combatants are just as interesting as anything Shakespeare ever dreamed of constructing.
First you must understand Fractional-reserve banking, it is a concept that you must understand to grasp how deep and how old the background to our problems are - a massive fraud that is very, very old. Fractional reserve banking describes the actions of banks lending out more funds than received from deposit accounts, currently the amounts of fractional lending are astronomical. This is part of the reality of "real inflation" that is the increase of money without real value.
Now we can talk about the central banks, in particular I want to review the First and Second Banks of the United States.
A paradise for speculators, the bastard child of Alexander Hamilton. To achieve this an increase of the duty on imported spirits, plus a raise the excise tax on domestically distilled whiskey and other liquors, this was the origin of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was where Washington was tested and FAILED as a leader shackling us with the curse of Federalism of the Hamiltonian type. Hamiltonian Federalism would later prove to be the seed of that bloody tree that would cause the War of the States.
The Bank aided this boom through its lending, which encouraged speculation in land. This lending allowed almost anyone to borrow money and speculate in land, sometimes doubling or even tripling the prices of land. With such a boom, hardly anyone noticed the widespread fraud occurring at the Bank as well as the economic bubble that had been created.
Sound familiar?
The result was the Panic of 1819
This would lead to the Bank War where two men would fight over the nation's finances, the notorious banker fraudster Nicholas Biddle and Andrew Jackson.
The "Bank War" of 1832–36 was initiated by Biddle when he decided to apply for the Bank's re-charter four years before the charter was scheduled to expire. Until 1832, Jackson, for three years, had ignored the Bank and Biddle. But, once challenged, he decided to veto the bill to re-charter the bank he hated, and Jackson gained great support from the public for his veto.
In early 1833, Jackson decided to pull the government's funds out of the Bank. In response Biddle decided to shrink the money supply and cause a recession in 1834 in order to force Jackson to accept a re-charter bill. The Bank demanded that old loans be repaid and made no new loans.
Biddle had threatened to cause a depression without a re-charter of the bank, and there was a recession in the first half of 1834, but another bill to re-charter failed (partly because Biddle was caught boasting in public that he and the bank would crush the economy) and the Bank was doomed. Its charter expired in April, 1836.
In the spring of 1834, the House voted overwhelmingly against rechartering the Bank. This was followed up by an even higher percentage vote to set up a special committee to investigate whether the Bank had caused the crash.
When the investigating committee arrived at the Bank's door in Philidelphia, armed with a subpoena to examine the books, Biddle refused to give them up, nor would he allow inspection of correspondence with Congressmen, relating to their personal loans and advances he made to them. He also refused to testify before the committee back in Washington.
Biddle would die before all of the charges would ever come to the point to see his worthless carcass punished.
Ill because this has happened before and the combatants are just as interesting as anything Shakespeare ever dreamed of constructing.
First you must understand Fractional-reserve banking, it is a concept that you must understand to grasp how deep and how old the background to our problems are - a massive fraud that is very, very old. Fractional reserve banking describes the actions of banks lending out more funds than received from deposit accounts, currently the amounts of fractional lending are astronomical. This is part of the reality of "real inflation" that is the increase of money without real value.
Now we can talk about the central banks, in particular I want to review the First and Second Banks of the United States.
A paradise for speculators, the bastard child of Alexander Hamilton. To achieve this an increase of the duty on imported spirits, plus a raise the excise tax on domestically distilled whiskey and other liquors, this was the origin of the Whiskey Rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was where Washington was tested and FAILED as a leader shackling us with the curse of Federalism of the Hamiltonian type. Hamiltonian Federalism would later prove to be the seed of that bloody tree that would cause the War of the States.
The Bank aided this boom through its lending, which encouraged speculation in land. This lending allowed almost anyone to borrow money and speculate in land, sometimes doubling or even tripling the prices of land. With such a boom, hardly anyone noticed the widespread fraud occurring at the Bank as well as the economic bubble that had been created.
Sound familiar?
The result was the Panic of 1819
This would lead to the Bank War where two men would fight over the nation's finances, the notorious banker fraudster Nicholas Biddle and Andrew Jackson.
The "Bank War" of 1832–36 was initiated by Biddle when he decided to apply for the Bank's re-charter four years before the charter was scheduled to expire. Until 1832, Jackson, for three years, had ignored the Bank and Biddle. But, once challenged, he decided to veto the bill to re-charter the bank he hated, and Jackson gained great support from the public for his veto.
In early 1833, Jackson decided to pull the government's funds out of the Bank. In response Biddle decided to shrink the money supply and cause a recession in 1834 in order to force Jackson to accept a re-charter bill. The Bank demanded that old loans be repaid and made no new loans.
Biddle had threatened to cause a depression without a re-charter of the bank, and there was a recession in the first half of 1834, but another bill to re-charter failed (partly because Biddle was caught boasting in public that he and the bank would crush the economy) and the Bank was doomed. Its charter expired in April, 1836.
In the spring of 1834, the House voted overwhelmingly against rechartering the Bank. This was followed up by an even higher percentage vote to set up a special committee to investigate whether the Bank had caused the crash.
When the investigating committee arrived at the Bank's door in Philidelphia, armed with a subpoena to examine the books, Biddle refused to give them up, nor would he allow inspection of correspondence with Congressmen, relating to their personal loans and advances he made to them. He also refused to testify before the committee back in Washington.
Biddle would die before all of the charges would ever come to the point to see his worthless carcass punished.
The influence of Deist secularism in American freedoms
I wanted to present an exchange of some information I was involved in because I think that facts need to play precedent over wishful thinking or misplaced propaganda. If you love our American brand of freedom it is clear we need to understand it better labeling yourself a conservative does not make you a patriot any more than questioning the government makes you a terrorist (Former presidential opinion not counted).
Original questions or statements (some edited for length and from various participants) in red, my answers in black...
I hope you would not promote the idea that a non-Christian cannot be a patriot to this country, or that a non-Christian is in some way lacking in morality because they do not follow the Christian teachings..
I hope that you would not deny that a Deist or an Atheist can be a patriot, several of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheist by profession in their own writings.
While Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution he was instrumental in having the bill of rights passed in connection to attempt to control some of the Federalist abuses he could see from the implementation of the Constitution. Many documents such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration have strong direct influences from Thomas Paine an Atheist.
The very pillar of freedom OF religion is also the freedom FROM religion, many modern socialists and communists as evidenced in modern life seek to supplant religion with the "religion" of political correctness and the worship of the state, but the far right (of witch I am often identified with but I am more rightly a "l" libertarian Agrarianist) also can be tempted to wander into dangerous totalitarian territory using religion as a political tool.
I leave with quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against... Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance... religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.
- James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to
such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new
& successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
- James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I agree with your insistance that the Left (socialist/communists/neo-cons) are dangerous I would say that they want to replace God with worship of the state.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the US was founded on deistic principals or a more universal idea of the Masonic theme of "brotherhood of free men", freedom of religious choice and the prevention of oppression by the combination of the dangerous powerful forces of theocracy and governmental despotism?
The preponderance of Masonic adherents in the founding fathers cannot be ignore. Some of the founding fathers who espoused Deism as confirmed by their own writings were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James
Monroe.
Thomas Jefferson of course was fiercely anti-cleric. he was so suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that he rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible eliminating the Old Testament.
In fact Jefferson at the time was opposed by a large portion of the organized religious community. William Linn, (Dutch Reformed) went so far as to publish attacks on Jefferson's character. All of his attacks were on religious issues. Linn published the "Serious Considerations on the Election of a President" where he accused Jefferson of the "crimes" of not recognizing divine revelation and a plan to destroy religion forcing an era of "immorality'". He called Jefferson as an "infidel" and postulated that God would hate an infidel like Jefferson and God would never want him elected. "Serious considerations" has the last line- Christians to defeat the infidel from Virginia.
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland, among those pressing the hardest with anti-federalists for a First Amendment and for complete separation of church and state.
Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
(Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).
This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a Christian nation.
-Farrell Till
Lynn R. Buzzard, (director, Christian Legal Society) wrote.-
"Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian, but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776"
- Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81
"perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen
Americans was a church member" (p. 89).
- Historian Richard Hofstadter
At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a representative of Maryland pushed for the recognition of Christianity constitutionally -"it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." by vote the recognition was rejected leaving the constitution a secular document.
At the constitutional convention the only mentioned of religion in the final version was Article VI, Section 3, - no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.- If the delegates had intended to establish a Christian nation, odd it contains this and nowhere else refers to religion?
I'm afraid that far too many recognize the very real threat by the encroachment of the statist left and fail to see the threat of the theocratic right.
The left is clearly attempting to supplant "religion" with the worship of the state - a dangerous proposition in light of the rise of the communist supplanting of religion in Russia and the more recent example of Pol Pot.
Then we should also think about the dangers of allowing to heavy a power to the Fundamentalist right while we all have freedom of religion too much power to ANY religion is dangerous - we all hear and see the abuses by Fundamentalist Islamic sects, the same danger is apparent in the Christian Fundamentalist movement.
I grew up in the south I know that denominational hatred and conflict is possible, I have seen several city wide conflicts cumulating into physical fighting over even fractional denominational differences.
I do not trust that any religious leader with the convictions of God and congregation will not turn to despotism. I certainly would not want a combination of state power and religion in the hands of many Fundamentalists. While they may vehemently deny it, they are capable of using religion to justify burning "witches" and putting Catholics to the rack.
I watched in horror and shame when the guest of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala was the first Hindu ever to give the House invocation - and was shouted down.
Prayer in congress?
After several statements like this one... "Our founders expected that Christianity - and no other religion - would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship,"
- Family Research Council
That is not only showing a massive ignorance of the founding of this country but frightening if they are promoting that ignorant and obviously wrong political and religious view.
In fact in my last post I noted the view from John Leland a preacher who pushed for the first amendment and separation of religion and state because of the fresh oppression that the anti-baptists had received, a bit of self interest because of the resistance from several royal european governments to the anti-baptist Protestant denomination
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland
Have you ever heard of the inquisition? The Catholics put the protestants on the rack for several centuries... Did you ever hear of Torquemada, the inquisitor of Bardelona?
And... what if that religion is of an extremeist nature such as the muslim religion? Do we, as a people who tout freedom of religion, ignore the actions of these fanatics? Being politically correct is a luxury that we can no longer afford. With it being against the law to discriminate against religion, how does this fit our mould? If we can no longer 'profile' based on religion or ethinicity, it seems that we are destroying ourselves from the inside out.
In my reckoning, trying to be politically correct is how the far left is weakening our nation at an accelerated rate. Not to worry though, 'change' is coming!
Of course this adds to our problems, just what is an "extremist religion" certainly Christianity has and most likely will continue to have its own extremist members and sects.
The very real issue of Tomás de Torquemada, a Spanish Dominican "political climber" who is known for his fifteenth century abuse in the office of Grand Inquisitor of Spain. He strongly supported and made use of torture, yet strangely was regarded by even politically enemies as incorruptible, in other words he was able to justify his actions because of his religious convictions - in his mind he was forwarding the work of God on earth.
Of course witch burning torture was not only a Catholic past shame, Protestant abuses were also fresh on the minds of the Founding Fathers, they were very aware of the possible abuse when government joined with religion.
Far from politically correct I just like to point out that freedom is a two edged sword to gain freedom of religion we have to dispense it freely. Just as we know that the simple existence of the freedom of arms means that form time to time there will be abuse - but that is the price, yes some will be harmed and or killed but to be disarmed brings the despotism that kills thousands. I feel the same way with religion, I am willing to live amongst even the most repellent religious zealots as long as we can keep the zealots from forming a powerful alliance with government or the worship of the state become the requirement.
True, and it has become very politically correct to refrain from criticism of religion, of BOTH spectrums. This will bode ill for us in the end with the neo-cons using the Fundamentalist as a shield to attack and devolve freedoms at home and the encroachment of eastern theocracy.
Did we not arm the Mujahideen? Did we not contribute in the overthrow of Mossadegh? Did not the CIA organized coup successfully assassinate Qasim to bring CIA asset Hussein to power?
I would ask how have we avoided more trouble than we have had with angry religious fanatics?
It is Scylla and Charybdis and I am afraid that one or the other will cause the end of the Republic. I am not willing to concede freedom of others or myself for a small amount of temporary safety. Too many perceived threats have become excuses for empire, the results prove that the threats were only used as tools. An empire in its death-throws will make any perceived threats look inconsequential in comparison. I am not happy to be forced to "have my papers" just to "make us safer".
Scylla and Charybdis.
Original questions or statements (some edited for length and from various participants) in red, my answers in black...
This nation was founded upon Christian principles. The Left want to ban God, but nowhere in the Constitution is there the statement "Separation of Church and State". The First Amndment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The last paragraph of Article IV of the US Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This article is want many of the Left use to promote "Separation of Church and State", but Article IV means that one does not have to be a certain religion or any religion at all to hold office or be in the public trust, and as the First Amendment says that there will not be a state religion. Nowhere does it say that the state and religion will be separate.
I hope you would not promote the idea that a non-Christian cannot be a patriot to this country, or that a non-Christian is in some way lacking in morality because they do not follow the Christian teachings..
I hope that you would not deny that a Deist or an Atheist can be a patriot, several of the founding fathers were Deists or Atheist by profession in their own writings.
While Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution he was instrumental in having the bill of rights passed in connection to attempt to control some of the Federalist abuses he could see from the implementation of the Constitution. Many documents such as the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration have strong direct influences from Thomas Paine an Atheist.
The very pillar of freedom OF religion is also the freedom FROM religion, many modern socialists and communists as evidenced in modern life seek to supplant religion with the "religion" of political correctness and the worship of the state, but the far right (of witch I am often identified with but I am more rightly a "l" libertarian Agrarianist) also can be tempted to wander into dangerous totalitarian territory using religion as a political tool.
I leave with quotes from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison...
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against... Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance... religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.
- James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to
such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new
& successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.
- James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.
- James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.
- James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821]
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
I would never believe that a non-Christian could not be a patriot, or that they lack morality. The same feeling holds true of an Deist or atheist being a patriot. Christianity doesn't make a person moral. I think that any true Christian would believe that a non-Christian or atheist can be a patriot or be a moral person.
With this being said, it still doesn't change the fact of this nation being founded on Christian principles. Most of the Americans at that time had a strong faith and belief in God. Our Founding Fathers made sure though to protect the basic rights of the minority point of view in more than just religious matters....
What I see here in today's society and what I was posting on was the Left's wish to totally take God out of society.
I agree with your insistance that the Left (socialist/communists/neo-cons) are dangerous I would say that they want to replace God with worship of the state.
Would it not be more accurate to say that the US was founded on deistic principals or a more universal idea of the Masonic theme of "brotherhood of free men", freedom of religious choice and the prevention of oppression by the combination of the dangerous powerful forces of theocracy and governmental despotism?
The preponderance of Masonic adherents in the founding fathers cannot be ignore. Some of the founding fathers who espoused Deism as confirmed by their own writings were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James
Monroe.
Thomas Jefferson of course was fiercely anti-cleric. he was so suspicious of the traditional belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that he rewrote the story of Jesus as told in the New Testament and compiled his own gospel version known as The Jefferson Bible eliminating the Old Testament.
In fact Jefferson at the time was opposed by a large portion of the organized religious community. William Linn, (Dutch Reformed) went so far as to publish attacks on Jefferson's character. All of his attacks were on religious issues. Linn published the "Serious Considerations on the Election of a President" where he accused Jefferson of the "crimes" of not recognizing divine revelation and a plan to destroy religion forcing an era of "immorality'". He called Jefferson as an "infidel" and postulated that God would hate an infidel like Jefferson and God would never want him elected. "Serious considerations" has the last line- Christians to defeat the infidel from Virginia.
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland, among those pressing the hardest with anti-federalists for a First Amendment and for complete separation of church and state.
Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...”
(Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).
This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a Christian nation.
-Farrell Till
Lynn R. Buzzard, (director, Christian Legal Society) wrote.-
"Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian, but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776"
- Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81
"perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) and goes on to say that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen
Americans was a church member" (p. 89).
- Historian Richard Hofstadter
At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a representative of Maryland pushed for the recognition of Christianity constitutionally -"it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." by vote the recognition was rejected leaving the constitution a secular document.
At the constitutional convention the only mentioned of religion in the final version was Article VI, Section 3, - no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.- If the delegates had intended to establish a Christian nation, odd it contains this and nowhere else refers to religion?
I am just stating that I live in an area that is primarily ______church and we all have guns.
I am not against non-christians, and anyone in my book can be a patriot. No matter what you may call God or your beliefs, this is the land of the Free, because of the Brave
I'm afraid that far too many recognize the very real threat by the encroachment of the statist left and fail to see the threat of the theocratic right.
The left is clearly attempting to supplant "religion" with the worship of the state - a dangerous proposition in light of the rise of the communist supplanting of religion in Russia and the more recent example of Pol Pot.
Then we should also think about the dangers of allowing to heavy a power to the Fundamentalist right while we all have freedom of religion too much power to ANY religion is dangerous - we all hear and see the abuses by Fundamentalist Islamic sects, the same danger is apparent in the Christian Fundamentalist movement.
I grew up in the south I know that denominational hatred and conflict is possible, I have seen several city wide conflicts cumulating into physical fighting over even fractional denominational differences.
I do not trust that any religious leader with the convictions of God and congregation will not turn to despotism. I certainly would not want a combination of state power and religion in the hands of many Fundamentalists. While they may vehemently deny it, they are capable of using religion to justify burning "witches" and putting Catholics to the rack.
I watched in horror and shame when the guest of Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Venkatachalapathi Samuldrala was the first Hindu ever to give the House invocation - and was shouted down.
Prayer in congress?
After several statements like this one... "Our founders expected that Christianity - and no other religion - would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship,"
- Family Research Council
That is not only showing a massive ignorance of the founding of this country but frightening if they are promoting that ignorant and obviously wrong political and religious view.
In fact in my last post I noted the view from John Leland a preacher who pushed for the first amendment and separation of religion and state because of the fresh oppression that the anti-baptists had received, a bit of self interest because of the resistance from several royal european governments to the anti-baptist Protestant denomination
"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence; whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [Muslims], Pagans and Christians. Test oaths and established creeds should be avoided as the worst of evils."
-Baptist preacher John Leland
Have you ever heard of the inquisition? The Catholics put the protestants on the rack for several centuries... Did you ever hear of Torquemada, the inquisitor of Bardelona?
And... what if that religion is of an extremeist nature such as the muslim religion? Do we, as a people who tout freedom of religion, ignore the actions of these fanatics? Being politically correct is a luxury that we can no longer afford. With it being against the law to discriminate against religion, how does this fit our mould? If we can no longer 'profile' based on religion or ethinicity, it seems that we are destroying ourselves from the inside out.
In my reckoning, trying to be politically correct is how the far left is weakening our nation at an accelerated rate. Not to worry though, 'change' is coming!
Of course this adds to our problems, just what is an "extremist religion" certainly Christianity has and most likely will continue to have its own extremist members and sects.
The very real issue of Tomás de Torquemada, a Spanish Dominican "political climber" who is known for his fifteenth century abuse in the office of Grand Inquisitor of Spain. He strongly supported and made use of torture, yet strangely was regarded by even politically enemies as incorruptible, in other words he was able to justify his actions because of his religious convictions - in his mind he was forwarding the work of God on earth.
Of course witch burning torture was not only a Catholic past shame, Protestant abuses were also fresh on the minds of the Founding Fathers, they were very aware of the possible abuse when government joined with religion.
Far from politically correct I just like to point out that freedom is a two edged sword to gain freedom of religion we have to dispense it freely. Just as we know that the simple existence of the freedom of arms means that form time to time there will be abuse - but that is the price, yes some will be harmed and or killed but to be disarmed brings the despotism that kills thousands. I feel the same way with religion, I am willing to live amongst even the most repellent religious zealots as long as we can keep the zealots from forming a powerful alliance with government or the worship of the state become the requirement.
Being politically correct is a luxury that we can no longer afford.
True, and it has become very politically correct to refrain from criticism of religion, of BOTH spectrums. This will bode ill for us in the end with the neo-cons using the Fundamentalist as a shield to attack and devolve freedoms at home and the encroachment of eastern theocracy.
Do we, as a people who tout freedom of religion, ignore the actions of these fanatics?
Did we not arm the Mujahideen? Did we not contribute in the overthrow of Mossadegh? Did not the CIA organized coup successfully assassinate Qasim to bring CIA asset Hussein to power?
I would ask how have we avoided more trouble than we have had with angry religious fanatics?
It is Scylla and Charybdis and I am afraid that one or the other will cause the end of the Republic. I am not willing to concede freedom of others or myself for a small amount of temporary safety. Too many perceived threats have become excuses for empire, the results prove that the threats were only used as tools. An empire in its death-throws will make any perceived threats look inconsequential in comparison. I am not happy to be forced to "have my papers" just to "make us safer".
Scylla and Charybdis.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Its too late to apologize, a bit of music history
For something a little different.
"(Tyrants) have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
"(Tyrants) have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."
- Congressman Ron Paul, June 27, 2006
Banking - the real reason for the American Revolution (and in the end WE lost as Hamiltonian politics allowed banking the upper hand AGAIN) - it was competitive banking.
(T)he real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." - Benjamin Franklin
Banking - the real reason for the American Revolution (and in the end WE lost as Hamiltonian politics allowed banking the upper hand AGAIN) - it was competitive banking.
(T)he real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." - Benjamin Franklin
Sunday, April 3, 2011
FDR and the beast of International Banking
FDR
Now that this is long past - see how much of this was BS and how much of a worthless bastard that snake was.
Social Security was then and is now the biggest ponzi scheme in the nation's history.
Understand NOW that Social Security money was STOLEN from you! It is not that I do not think that you don't deserve your money back, but damn folks you have to understand you were defrauded out of your money.
You are not going to get it back!
Watch "Money as Debt" then listen to this snake spew, listen closely.
Note how the justifications sound just like the justifications for the Bailouts. Oh, that line about the money is not fiat currency is a hoot - It is not the gold, but your faith, your confidence - read that as "you must become sheep, stupid enough to believe that this worthless script is actually money. Were your grandparents that stupid - well, at least the supporters of FDR were. (Greatest Generation, how about Greatest Gullibility).
How to use a currency crash, artificially to tie international banking into the giant fraudulent system it is now.
May that slimy bastard fade into history known as the traitor he was. (see: Bretton Woods International Monetary Conference)
You must understand this, we cannot afford - your children cannot afford for you to keep bastards like we have in government in their places. There is no middle ground - fail and your grandchildren will be born into slavery, not just the debt slavery you have now but a full force "Brave New World" slavery they will not even understand is slavery.
NO MERCY, NO COMPROMISE
Now we have to deal with the "conservative" side screwing us while over a barrel - the neocons are your enemy, the enemy of this country and our freedom.
Now that this is long past - see how much of this was BS and how much of a worthless bastard that snake was.
Social Security was then and is now the biggest ponzi scheme in the nation's history.
Understand NOW that Social Security money was STOLEN from you! It is not that I do not think that you don't deserve your money back, but damn folks you have to understand you were defrauded out of your money.
You are not going to get it back!
Watch "Money as Debt" then listen to this snake spew, listen closely.
Note how the justifications sound just like the justifications for the Bailouts. Oh, that line about the money is not fiat currency is a hoot - It is not the gold, but your faith, your confidence - read that as "you must become sheep, stupid enough to believe that this worthless script is actually money. Were your grandparents that stupid - well, at least the supporters of FDR were. (Greatest Generation, how about Greatest Gullibility).
How to use a currency crash, artificially to tie international banking into the giant fraudulent system it is now.
May that slimy bastard fade into history known as the traitor he was. (see: Bretton Woods International Monetary Conference)
You must understand this, we cannot afford - your children cannot afford for you to keep bastards like we have in government in their places. There is no middle ground - fail and your grandchildren will be born into slavery, not just the debt slavery you have now but a full force "Brave New World" slavery they will not even understand is slavery.
NO MERCY, NO COMPROMISE
Now we have to deal with the "conservative" side screwing us while over a barrel - the neocons are your enemy, the enemy of this country and our freedom.
The oddest of Gun law debates
This is a post on the minutiae of historical nitpicking, how two historians can pick apart any subject and can even resort to acting like spoiled toddlers.
I want to start this with a few quotes that I think help explain my personal pro-gun position and my Jeffersonian-Agrarian libertarian politics:
“There is no sport that, like boxing, promotes the spirit of aggression in the same measure, demands determination quick as lightening, educates the body for steel-like versatility.” - Adolf Hitler
“To me, boxing and jiujitsu have always appeared more important than some inferior, half-hearted, training in shooting.” - Adolf Hitler
"The strength of the state depends on physical prowess, not on arms. The folkish State has to fight for its existence. . . . [T]he best protection will not be represented in its arms, but in its citizens; not fortress walls will protect it, but the living wall of men and women, filled with highest love of the country and with fanatical national enthusiasm.” - Adolf Hitler
Now in contrast:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" - Thomas Jefferson
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." - Thomas Jefferson
"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson
Here are links to the two PDF files written by the - at least partly - opposing historians.
Note that current legal Supreme Court rulings were made after the two papers linked below were written.
Bernard E. Harcourt - Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, political theory Princeton University, law degree Harvard Law School, Ph.D. political science Harvard University
ON GUN REGISTRATION, THE NRA, ADOLF HITLER, AND NAZI GUN LAWS: EXLPODING THE GUN CULTURE WARS
Stephen P. Halbrook - Attorney at Law, business Florida State University, law Georgetown University, Ph.D. philosophy Florida State University
NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT
Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months. Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly. These requirements—which constitute the first known gun registration scheme—remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership. -Page 13
Bernard E. Harcourt - Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, political theory Princeton University, law degree Harvard Law School, Ph.D. political science Harvard University
ON GUN REGISTRATION, THE NRA, ADOLF HITLER, AND NAZI GUN LAWS: EXLPODING THE GUN CULTURE WARS
Stephen P. Halbrook - Attorney at Law, business Florida State University, law Georgetown University, Ph.D. philosophy Florida State University
NAZISM, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, AND THE NRA: A REPLY TO PROFESSOR HARCOURT
In his paper Mr. Harcourt spells out his reluctance to have to illuminate on this subject German gun control laws, but insists that historical review is necessary. His reluctance is partly due to the fact that he is Jewish and his foray into the "culture war" puts him at odds with some faulty use of historical evidence.
From his paper:
Both prior to and after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights, there were a number of gun regulations in place in England, including registration requirements. In 1660, for instance, all gunsmiths were ordered to produce a record of all firearms they had sold and of all their buyers from the past six months. Gunsmiths were then required to report this information weekly. These requirements—which constitute the first known gun registration scheme—remained in place after the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which declared that “the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Prior and subsequent English history reflects a long and steady tradition of substantial statutory limitations on gun ownership. -Page 13
Later in the paper.
Nevertheless, if one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear.
First, the Nazi regime reenacted in 1938 strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements.
Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic.
Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic.
Four, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating
weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population. -Page 23-24
weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population. -Page 23-24
Note the less than subtle connection - it is not the tool, the firearm, but rather something evolves, a SELECT population that is given preferential status. (This is an important distinction) and that a clear comparison of the laws and changes in the laws show that the earlier Weimar laws and even more restrictive and earlier post-war laws were clearly lessoned, but for a select group.
Now I have the sad task of reviewing the article from Mr. Halbrook and I have to admit that I found an immediate collection of MSM style of backhanded insults and distortions! I am going to break this up to make it more clear how I was startled by this clear bias from Mr. Halbrook and what I would term "deliberate disinformation."
'The Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” controversial enough as a domestic constitutional issue, becomes an extraordinarily provocative enigma when viewed in light of historical experiences of foreign governments." (So far so good)
"This is particularly the case when the state analyzed is Nazi Germany, which invariably (and justifiably) gives rise to negative comparisons."
"A revisionist view now has been boldly asserted that Hitler was friendly to perhaps the most dangerous freedom in the Bill of Rights." (Boom, there it starts, we have the first attack, using the word "revisionist" to discredit the competitive historian. In no way would I consider the paper by Mr. Harcourt to be "revisionist" it is simply a partly dispassionate historical review)
"Professor Harcourt began by pointing to and disputing this author’s statements that totalitarian regimes disarm their subjects so as to prevent resistance," (No, that is not what the paper reported, it was more pointing out possible "culture war" distortions)
"that German firearms laws played a prominent role in disarming Jews, and that Germany
had no equivalent to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." (Here again, this is a distortion, Harcourt was pointing out the SELECT nature of the changes. Harcourt was pointing out that a general disarmament of the population was not necessary, nor was he in any way defending totalitarianism. I understood that the point was that once a part of the population was disenfranchised and stripped of rights, the general population need not be molested for the goals of the government to be achieved) "Recognition of a right such as this (the Second Amendment rights) anywhere in the world in any historical epoch must acknowledge that “the people” must mean the peaceable populace at large without regard to race, religion, or creed." (Not just wrong but very wrong, if anything the NSDAP government and the English before them prove this point with their history. If given sufficient reason to believe they have a superior status the select of any population will ignore the abuses of the non-select, that is simply the sad fact of the biologic encoded group-exclusive behavior of the human as a species)
"However, Professor Harcourt embraces American neo-Nazi William L. Pierce, who asserts, “German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens . . . .”
Harcourt asks, “How is it, you may ask, that I . . . would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard?” Harcourt further concluded that “the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic . . . .” (Boom, did you see that? Halbrook reflexively uses the fallacious "Godwin's law" or Reductio ad Hitlerum by directly associating Harcourt of "embracing" a "neo-nazi")
So to be fair, lets compare the above mis-quote to the actual quote in context...
"How is it, you may ask, that I—the faithful and loving son of a Jewish refugee who escaped his native France in June 1940 thanks to the magnanimity of a Portuguese consul who illegally signed thousands of visas for Jews and other refugees—would end up agreeing with a white supremacist leader of the National Alliance and National Vanguard? This is the truly bizarre, surprising, and somewhat uncomfortable product of culture war. It is the often unexpected, but utterly fascinating result of the fragmentation and fracturing of apparently monolithic identity groups and world views—or what might be called “cultural orientations.” It reflects both the strange alliances and the unanticipated conflicts between and within identities. Here, in effect, is the ultimate irony: The pro-gunners are probably right, the Nazi-gun-registration argument is probably wrong." - Harcourt
While there is much to agree with in Mr. Halbrook's article, I found it painfully clear that there was some deliberate misdirection and more than a few not-so-thinly veiled attacks on the character of Mr. Harcourt. Resorting to fallacious arguments including appeal to emotion, ad hominem, and reductio ad Hitlerum or "playing the Nazi card." and in this case it becomes so clear and shows such a reduction to the absurd due to the fact that Harcourt is Jewish. Clearly Harcourt is uncomfortable with the subject because of his ethnic background, finding himself on the "wrong side of the tracks."
Halbrook continues:
No, here is what Harcourt wrote:
Halbrook continues:
No I don't see that as the driving force behind the paper. I don't see disproving the viability of an armed citizenry as a central point. My personal view from reading the paper is: First, general gun confiscation is unnecessary if you have an ignorant enough population that has become propagandized enough to allow the government to target groups. Second, that fact (read as truth) is infinitely more important than propaganda... and - that "pious fraud" pisses me off even when used in defense of a concept I believe in!
In then end it simply seems that Professor Harcourt ended up stepping in a big steaming pile, noted this and pointed it out, Halbrook took personal offense and ended by continually attempting to smear Harcourt in his rebuttal. I find this strange because in the lowest point in this argument - they agree! Reading further into Halbrook's paper you will note that it begins to sound like a small dog chasing his tail (and a bit self-aggrandizing) while he continually pounds on the same repetitive point (saying Harcourt was denying the issue of the SELECT nature - something he was NOT) the without addressing the main issue touched on by Harcourt - the use or mis-use of history in the "culture war" and how propagandizing abuses the simple facts.
How did I end up defending Harcourt? with some leanings I would find myself at odds with? I guess I find myself in the same uncomfortable situation in the "culture wars" - would not be the first time.
I think that I may have to start an award - the Glenn Beck ambush journalism award, for folks I want to like but cannot, whom I may have a majority agreement with on almost all subjects, but for some reason finds a way to just make things worse.
I wonder who should be first?
Thoughts on Jeffersonian type Agrarianism
Jeffersonian though is characterized by the following elements, which the Jeffersonians expressed in their speeches and legislation: (This is my personal modification from some web sources)
Modern Agrarianism understands the weaknesses and flaws in the current Constitution and that far more restrictions on government and freedom and protection for the individual should be enumerated.
1. The core political value of America is a legally (Constitutionally) controlled and limited democratically elected representative government. Citizens have a civic duty to aid the community and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy, this could be translated to corporatism and elitist oligarchy today.
2. The yeoman farmer, and in current modern times, the skilled craftsman best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting populist (formally seen as corrupted and greedy urban populism) social influences. Government policy should be for the benefit of the individual as well as the community. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the cesspools of corruption, and should be discouraged and minimized.
3. Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the ideas of enlightenment theory "Empire of Liberty” to the world, but should avoid "entangling alliances," that is, increase the desire for freedom by example not by war or manipulation (read as CIA/NSA type covert actions).
4. The national government is a dangerous and possibly temporary necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and severely circumscribed in its powers.
5. The wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention and corruption by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion must be kept from government to prevent the despotism of theocracy the most dangerous of all oligarchies.
6. The federal, state, and local governments must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme, protection for personal property, access to justice, and individual freedom must be paramount.
7. The federal government must not violate the rights of the (nation) states (the regional communities).
8. Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government. Monopolies in media should be suppressed and foreign involvement in media and entertainment should be rejected, exposed, and suppressed. Personal media such as a free internet should be protected and encouraged.
9. A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo and use of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Protection of the national borders is the only legitimate use of any military forces, the Government should be restricted from use of any military forces outside of the borders of the nation.
10. The amendments to the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, along with the limitations enumerated in the Constitution were written in the sprit of ensuring the freedom of the people. The Bill of Rights was a stop-gap addition added to attempt to control the obvious problems with the Federalist Constitution. A strict view of how and why the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written should be kept. However, society can not make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. Flexibility should always be given to the living generation, so long as all individual rights remain the primary focus in guarantee.
Modern Agrarianism understands the weaknesses and flaws in the current Constitution and that far more restrictions on government and freedom and protection for the individual should be enumerated.
1. The core political value of America is a legally (Constitutionally) controlled and limited democratically elected representative government. Citizens have a civic duty to aid the community and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy, this could be translated to corporatism and elitist oligarchy today.
2. The yeoman farmer, and in current modern times, the skilled craftsman best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting populist (formally seen as corrupted and greedy urban populism) social influences. Government policy should be for the benefit of the individual as well as the community. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the cesspools of corruption, and should be discouraged and minimized.
3. Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the ideas of enlightenment theory "Empire of Liberty” to the world, but should avoid "entangling alliances," that is, increase the desire for freedom by example not by war or manipulation (read as CIA/NSA type covert actions).
4. The national government is a dangerous and possibly temporary necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and severely circumscribed in its powers.
5. The wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention and corruption by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion must be kept from government to prevent the despotism of theocracy the most dangerous of all oligarchies.
6. The federal, state, and local governments must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme, protection for personal property, access to justice, and individual freedom must be paramount.
7. The federal government must not violate the rights of the (nation) states (the regional communities).
8. Freedom of speech and the press is the best method to prevent the tyranny of the people by their own government. Monopolies in media should be suppressed and foreign involvement in media and entertainment should be rejected, exposed, and suppressed. Personal media such as a free internet should be protected and encouraged.
9. A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo and use of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Protection of the national borders is the only legitimate use of any military forces, the Government should be restricted from use of any military forces outside of the borders of the nation.
10. The amendments to the United States Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, along with the limitations enumerated in the Constitution were written in the sprit of ensuring the freedom of the people. The Bill of Rights was a stop-gap addition added to attempt to control the obvious problems with the Federalist Constitution. A strict view of how and why the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written should be kept. However, society can not make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. Flexibility should always be given to the living generation, so long as all individual rights remain the primary focus in guarantee.
Crime and the not-so Wild West
The Supreme Court found that LEOs have no legal duty to protect an individual,
EVEN IF THERE IS A RESTRAINING ORDER. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Dispatch 911 - it's only been two minutes...
Armed victim, stop it... bang, bang, bang - end of problem, after SIX reports of personal attacks to the police, begging them for help, the citizen was forced to defend HERSELF.
There is no debate about the FACT that areas with more gun ownership in the United States have a lower crime instance than areas where there is restrictive gun control.
My solution, make open carry legal and "normal" everywhere. Statistically armed citizens are far less likely than "trained police/LEOs" to make a mistake in a shooting. (+1 armed citizens)
Then we hear from the typical ignorant feminized elitists "if we have open carry it will be like the wild west where everyone is shooting up the town! - oh my!" - Bullshit, in fact as you will see the "Wild West" was far from wild, and open carry contributed to the safety of the average citizen.
1. Countries with the strictest gun-control laws (with similar racial and cultural mixtures) also tended to have the highest homicide rates. - Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
2. Fact: only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 % of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. - victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter... In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder, for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.- Roger Lane, Murder In America: A History - Ohio State U. Press (Translation - bad people cause crime, not guns and intoxicants aggravate the problem)
3. The American West (from 1830 to 1900) is perceived as a place of great chaos... Our research indicates that this was not the case: property rights were protected and civil order prevailed - The not so Wild, Wild West TL Anderson/PJ Hill, Dept. Economics, MSU.
4. "The Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today" - Frontier Violence: another look, W.Eugene Hollon
5. Of the five major cattle towns for the years 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides reported - an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. Abilene reported to be the wildest cow town, had no homicides 1869-70. Reporting the break in the peace when officers of the law were employed - The Cattle Towns, Robert Dykstra, AAK NY
Facts
1. Countries with the strictest gun-control laws (with similar racial and cultural mixtures) also tended to have the highest homicide rates. - Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.
2. Fact: only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 % of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. - victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter... In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder, for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.- Roger Lane, Murder In America: A History - Ohio State U. Press (Translation - bad people cause crime, not guns and intoxicants aggravate the problem)
3. The American West (from 1830 to 1900) is perceived as a place of great chaos... Our research indicates that this was not the case: property rights were protected and civil order prevailed - The not so Wild, Wild West TL Anderson/PJ Hill, Dept. Economics, MSU.
4. "The Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful and safer place than American society is today" - Frontier Violence: another look, W.Eugene Hollon
5. Of the five major cattle towns for the years 1870 to 1885 only 45 homicides reported - an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season. Abilene reported to be the wildest cow town, had no homicides 1869-70. Reporting the break in the peace when officers of the law were employed - The Cattle Towns, Robert Dykstra, AAK NY
The flawed Constitution and The Hamiltonians
The Hamiltonians won.
The Constitution is flawed, we do know that much of the Constitution was written under the intent and direction of the Federalists who with the participation of individuals like Hamilton took a clear mercantilist bent so we have the flaws in the constitution, many possibly deliberate.
Simply the theft of private property by government should have been prohibited, specifically placed into the law. Property taxes by a homeowners association, city, county, state, and federal monster are all examples of theft and all are unethical and odious. If you can take something then the "owner" is not a real "owner" this is just as we have in the US now, there is no real right to property, don't pay the pirates their plunder (taxes) and see WHO owns that land... a clear flaw in the current constitutional system.
Don't fall into the fallacious trap of dualistic political thinking that criticism equates to a contrary/competitive position... ie. you do not have to be a democrat to find flaws and criticize the republicans.
So lets review ideas in modern politics in contrast to the Constitutional era.
I do not completely support individualist anarchism because a system of this sort will never happen it would become a vehicle for even more destructive and evil oppression. Parasitic predatory humans and their willing lickspittles are normal, common, and part of the human heard. Parasitic predatory humans will NOT stop trying to harm others for their own benefit, I don't argue that we have a frightful servant that has become a horrid master, but the "non/zero-aggression principle" and individualist. Anarchism just does not appear to have a realistic solutions to simple social injustices and problems, it only tends to support narcissism and juvenile thinking and opens the path for predatory parasites.
I am often asked "what is a viable solution to these inherent problems?"
A good question, and sadly I am not sure I have a good answer for this question...
I would have thought of my self as a constitutionalists in the past, then an Agrarian of the Jeffersonian bent (where I think I am now) but that leads to the consideration of Individualist Anarchy (as Jefferson had that leaning also).
Here are my problems:
Humans produce (naturally) a proportion of parasites, predators, manipulators, statists, lickspittles, and sociopaths (and combinations) I don't think human genetics will ever eliminate that. I believe that the proposed anarchist systems and "non/zero-aggression principle" proposals do not adequately address this weakness.
Humans are herd animals the above predators and others will always use this to create systems that are far worse forms of control, we can see the proof in this with the lack of controls in the constitution - I do believe the constitution has flaws, the reason we are here with the problems we have now.
My solutions (an even better question I am not sure I have an answer, at least a complete one):
Stronger language in a law based system where government power is limited and in effect crippled as much as possible. The system must address the power of the biological oligarchy and it's influence must be marginalized. I think a familiar and constitutional system in nature may work but with more controls on the government, clearly the constitutional government we have now was simply the transfer of power from the royal/religious oligarchy (only partly) to a Masonic modeled oligarchy (and then the Masons were promptly marginalized) where mercantilistic power holders became the new oligarchy.
I have sympathy for the anarchist philosophy and to some extent what is identified as "objectivist" but only partly and with much reservation (more reservations to the cult of the "objectivist" as I think that Rand was both unoriginal, narcissistic, and racist and therefore very flawed).
The curse of Hamilton, Lincoln, and other statists
The most candid and compelling summary of this perspective doesn't come from a right-wing revisionist, but rather from Columbia Law School Professor George P. Fletcher, an establishment academic of an unabashedly Marxist bent.
In his valuable book The Secret Constitution, Fletcher acknowledges that the war waged by Abraham the Annihilator was not an effort to "preserve the Union," much less to restore the pre-war constitutional order. Instead, that war was intended to consolidate the united States into a unitary state governed by what Fletcher calls a "New Constitutional Order." In the New Order, writes Fletcher, the founding premise is that "the federal government, victorious in warfare, must continue its aggressive intervention in the lives of its citizens."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)