ANTI-ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPER
ANTI-ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPER
There has been much vilification of the Constitution by the Statists and the Libertarians. We shall ignore the Statists as being beyond remedial correction, for now.
It is the libertarian movement of Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, and the many others over at the Von Mises Ludwig Institute that concerns the supporters of Constitutional Federalism.
The Federalist Papers, written as individual freestanding essays, organized into a single volume with an underlying direction are well known. They appeared in newspapers throughout the young United States. Their purpose was clear; it was to make the case that the new Constitution was superior to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles created a very loose confederacy of sovereign states. The Central Government was absolutely a creature of the States. It could recommend that the States fund it. It restricted itself purely to being the interface of the united States and the rest of the world. The lower case “u” in “united” is not a typo. The Articles were an agreement among sovereign States that had agreed to present a common front to the world in regard to foreign policy, defense and trade. The weakness of this system was made manifest in the financial turmoil and terrible credit rating of the new nation. The Army was disbanded but for a small force to defend against Indians. Even so, the Army leaders were often bedeviled by the actuality of being made up of Thirteen Armies. The Congress could pass laws that required the States to fund the, but left the manner of collection to the states. In the final analysis many times the States welshed on promises made in the Congress. Though the call for the Constitutional Convention occurred before the outbreak of Shay’s Rebellion, this near anarchic state of affairs in western Massachusetts focused the delegates’ minds.
Shay’s Rebellion was due to the lack of circulating money and credit. The individual states were saddled by debt run up in the Revolution. Some states with land claims that were established in the early 1600’s claimed their western end was at the Pacific Ocean! Thus, Virginia Pennsylvania, and North Carolina were selling their western lands across the Appalachians, and paying down their debts. The New England States did not have claim to western lands. Thus Massachusetts, suffered high state taxation, and severe monetary contraction.
The Articles were clearly not working.
The States sent delegates to a Convention to “fix” the problem with the Articles. However, they voted themselves the authority to do away with it and start from scratch.
Once completed it had to be ratified by the States. The Constitution created a far stronger and a more robust Federal Government than many had expected. The fear of the replacement of the King of Britain by an American tyrant was hardly the reason the Revolution was fought! To allay these fears, and to support the case for the Constitution, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison in concert wrote a series of articles published in the newspapers of the day. They were read and discussed in taverns and Coffee Houses through out the United States. That the newspaper-reading public could and would read their lengthy arguments replete with historical references is an embarrassment to our present citizenry! Not even the New York Times today would be able to attract a readership for this writing style. (Or better, what the NY Times-readers think of themselves would be diminished if these articles were the talk of Starbucks!)
There never was an organized response called “the Anti-Federalist Papers”! Many dissenting voices wrote. Many articles appeared in many newspapers with dire warnings of a too powerful central government.
WIKI: “Major Anti-Federalist authors included Cato (likely George Clinton; Brutus (likely Robert Bates), Centinel (Samuel Bryan), and the Federal Farmer (either Melanchthon Smith, Richard Henry Lee, or Mercy Otis Warren). Speeches by Patrick Henry and Smith are often included as well.
One of the major points of the articles was the danger the new Constitution would bring without a statement of individual rights. Some of the Anti-Federalist concerns were addressed in the Bill Of Rights, which was added later. Historian Ralph Ketcham comments on the opinions of Patrick Henry, George Mason and others who were not so eager to give up the local autonomy won by the revolution:
Anti-federalists feared what Patrick Henry termed the “consolidated government” proposed by the new Constitution. They saw in Federalist hopes for commercial growth and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a “splendid empire” that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns. Uncertain that any government over so vast a domain as the United States could be controlled by the people, Antifederalists saw in the enlarged powers of the general government only the familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.
The Anti-Federalists (with their “a ‘splendid empire’ that, in the time-honored way of empires, would oppress the people with taxes, conscription, and military campaigns”) indeed seem to have been prescient. But to make the case that it was the Constitution as ratified to some degree through the efforts of Hamilton, Jay and Madison that is to blame is a facile argument.
The Von Mises; Neo-Confederate wing of the libertarians have vilified Alexander Hamilton. No matter is it that he was mortally wounded in a duel with the truly villainous Aaron Burr! As the Constitutional Regime became operative, the Ideal of Gentlemen Leaders rising up above the pettiness of self-interest to legislate wisely became less than obvious. However the United States lacked the numbers of truly wealthy Gentlemen of Britain. Collecting rental money on their landed estates and becoming leisured, refined and educated with the ideals of the Enlightenment, worked in Britain. Though Southern Plantation owners approached that level of “Gentility” they had to keep a sharp eye on the Tobacco markets, on their overseers, and on their slaves. They were not as independent of interests as the British squire. The Northern pretenders to Gentry were even more seen as poseurs.
The divide became between the Federalists and the Republicans. The concept of parties was at first resisted. Party was looked down upon from the lofty heights where men like President Washington existed. The idea that men fresh from the mechanic shop, the shoemaker, the tradesmen of all kind could have a political opinion was just so unexpected.
Though the anti-Federalists objected to the ratification of the Constitution, as mentioned above, much of their impetus was taken by the addition of the Bill Of Rights.
Thus the current habit of setting The Federalist Papers symmetrically against the Antifederalists is glib and false. For one, the former were a standard canon of essays by the three men; Hamilton, Jay and Madison. There was never any official canon of writings or writers ever organized into The “Anti-Federalist Papers”. The Complete Anti-Federalist, was written by Herbert J. Storing (1928-1977), a professor of Constitutional History and Law, The Federalist Papers, and, most notably, the Anti-Federalists. Prior to his death at the age of 49 he had completed most of his annotated seven-volume collection of Anti-Federalist writings, The Complete Anti-Federalist that was later completed by his former student Murray Dry.
Thus the “Anti-Federalist Papers” is a creation of the Twentieth Century. It is today becoming popular and is a rally point for the resistance to the overweening Federal Government.
The Financial Leviathan of the Fed and other Global interests are seen as the conspiring against individual Americans’ Liberties, and against the interests of the USA. This is something I agree with.
However, to trot out Alexander Hamilton as the demonic tool of International Banking is foolish.
The debates between Hamilton and Jefferson became enflamed even more by their opposing feelings on the French Revolution. Hamilton the Anglophile who admired Britain’s ability to fund its military and her allies against the French Revolutionaries and later against Napoleon, was despised by the Francophile Jefferson who was not adverse to the guillotine and revolution.
In retrospect who was right? What if Jefferson’s way prevailed. They nearly resulted in Civil War, in the crisis of 1807. The preceding Federalist, John Adams, was inherently disgusted at the violence ripping apart French society. He armed US trading vessels to fend off the attacks by France on ships bound to Britain. He was alarmed by the presence in the United States of French Revolutionaries. Jefferson had even put one on the Federal payroll at his State department, during Washington’s last term. Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Act out of a real fear that certain foreign intriguers were kindling the Revolutions sweeping Europe. This “proved” the fears of the Jeffersonian/ anti-Federalist party called the Republican-Democrat Party.
To conflate all this with Hamilton’s financial construction at Treasury is to miss the point.
It was Hamilton’s plan for the Federal Government to assume the debts of all the States incurred during the American Revolution. This debt had been discounted sharply as it became more and more evident that the government under the Articles would never be able to repay it. Indeed, “money interests” bought it up at sharp discounts. But when the US Constitutional Government agreed to make good on the entire debt, those who sold low hoping to save something from a bad investment lost out; because the Treasury paid face value, 100%. This actually did benefit the “money men”. But, it also benefitted the Credit of the USA. That Credit allowed for the greatest growth of national size, wealth and power in world history!
Let us not wring our hands over the tyranny in the Federal Government and leave it at the feet of Hamilton and the Federalists. Federalism stipulated checks and balances on the Federal and State Governments and between the Executive, legislative and Judiciary. What we have now is no longer Federalism. The fact is that Anti-Federalists if they had prevailed, the United States would never have become the greatest power in world history. Too many of the Lew Rockwells prefer a weak America, rather than an imperial one. However a weak America would have not survived the 1820’s let alone the Civil War. No coincidence that the Von Mises Club considers Abraham Lincoln a tyrant. They would prefer a multitude of weak independent states, perhaps involved with rival European powers, being passive in the world rather than the active America of modern history. No they do not long for slavery. But they believe the “sanctity” of States’ Rats supersede the benefits the Constitution have provided.
To go Anti-Federalist now is not to return the Federal Government back to its Constitutional size and mission. It will distract from the better chances of the return to the Constitutional checks and balances that allowed the USA to produce more wealth for more people than any other nation in all of human history!
The End Of The Republican Southern Strategy: The New Dixiecrats and Jonesies
I have become thoroughly SICK of Alex Jones and his clownish clones!
If American sovereignty requires anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic common-cause with the anti-Israel Code Pink, Samantha Powers wife of Cass Sunstein, Islamofascists and Paleo-right anti-Jews, then adios America!
It is uncanny that every major force in the world hates The State Of Israel. It is like the instant in time when the mutually antagonistic forces in Roman Palestine were able to collude in the matter of Yeshua.
Against Yeshua: The Pharisees; The Sadducees; The anti-Roman nationalist Zealots; the Hellenized Establishment Collaborating Jews, The Roman puppet king, and then the outright Roman Governor, The High Priesthood (Sadducees), Sanhedrin.
Against The State Of Israel: The professional Left: ala Flotilla Organizer Samantha Powers, whose tome “The Problem From Hell” is a history of modern Genocide based on her involvement in Yugoslavia’s death throws. She is an “expert” on Genocide but a rabid anti-Zionist. The entire “liberal/left” bends over backwards to paint every terrorist atrocity on Jews as unfortunate but (always a “but”) not without due cause. But they will castigate the IDF’s accidental infliction of collateral damage when responding to rockets launched from behind aprons and playpens! There are even many Jews, even Israelis in this sick category demanding suicidal scruples from Israel when dealing with those seeking its annihilation.
The Globalist Corporate System (666), like The Borg: must incorporate the one unique nation, which by definition, is Israel. There is no way that Israel will peacefully be swallowed up by the Global System. (Thus the USA and Israel are both under attack from the Globalists. America too considers herself exceptional, or at least used to. The modern “education” system has diligently been hammering away at that for 3 generations.)
The EU; there is a bit of a tug-of-war between the Globalist and the EU as center of the NWO. The EU is the final fruit of the Treaty Of Rome following WW2. Despite the anti-religious sentiment of its constitution, it nevertheless has been empowered and is empowered by the Vatican. Thus, the congruence between German and Vatican objectives in the destruction of Yugoslavia was the “return” of Catholic Slovenia and Croatia to “Europe”. These components of Yugoslavia were torn off from the German-speaking Austrian Empire after WW1. (Notice how Samantha Power’s efforts at demonizing the Serbs played into Clinton’s hands and his into the Germans’ hands? If the USAF did not bomb Belgrade, the German Air Force was ready to. The reappearance of German bombers over Belgrade was a thought too frightening even for the most Euro-Centric to allow. This is what forced Clinton’s hand. The collusion between the Vatican and Germany marks the reemergence of the Holy Roman Empire. And the US under Clinton was the midwife of this abomination.)
The Islamic World; I have nothing to add on this self-evident foe of the State of Israel.
The Paleo, and largely Catholic right: Pat Buchanan wing: the USA’s support of Israel is due to the manipulation by the Jew-media and bankers. Ayup. There is nothing new here.
The frightening revolution is the one within the so-called Neo-Conservatives; The descendants of the old Democrat Party of Dixie that became the backbone of Nixon’s Southern Strategy that has been necessary to every GOP presidential campaign since, is now in the process of being pealed away. These once staunch anti-Communist, Pro-American, Pro-Constitution, Flag-Waving patriots have been turned by the abuses of the Post 9/11 Security State. The growing US Tyranny is linked in the minds of The Resistance to the US support of Israel. Unfortunately, the Military Industrial Complex’s need for a new foe after the defeat of the USSR was behind the attacks on 9/11 or allowed them to happen. This new “war” on terror, happens to have many enemies in common with Israel. However, the linkage is not causal! Israel has NOT benefitted by the Egyptian Revolution. Nor has it through the Iraqi chaos. If anything Jews, Zionism, and Israel are all blamed for the perpetual war launched not for them, but for the Military-Industrial-Security-Intelligence Complex.
These Alex Jones indeed get some of the truth. They are 100% correct on their assessment of the fundamental anti-Americanism of NWO. American Liberty, the basis for the American Middleclass Republic is under attack. They err dangerously by misunderstanding the source of the attack as being from Israel. The baked-in-the-bones anti-Semitic suspicion of international capital, and Anglophobia of the old-time Dixiecrats has resurfaced and is seen in the deep hatred of Romney, Newt, Santorum and every GOP candidate whose last name is not Paul! Mark Levin got it right when he calls them Neo-Confederate, for indeed this is what they are. They are rabidly anti-Semitic, anti-Federal, and think that Alexander Hamilton was the Serpent in Eden! The brilliant but daffy-at-times Jefferson is idolized. Lew Rockwell who puts “slavery” in quotes when discussing the causes of the Civil War is their patron saint of revisionist history.
Of all the haters of Jews/Israel and Zionism, it is this new Dixiecrat movement that is growing in virulence. Despite their hatred of the Soros-funded groups, their shared hatred of Israel is greater. Their shared hatred of Jews as international ”Banksters” surpasses their willingness to defend the Constitution from the OWS. They, Alex’s Clones think they can make common-cause with the anti-American anti-Constitutional OWS. Their hatred of America as it is, is the equal of that of the Soros-Left.
They put all their differences aside long enough to crucify Yeshua, and are doing so now in regard to Israel!
Two Shits Passing In The Night: Trayvon and Zimmy
No longer can the Government Approved Media command the narrative. Despite their best effort to put a halo around Trayvon Martin, and demonic horns on Zimmerman, the reality is that both were/are human beings: warts and all.
Trayvon conformed to the culture beamed out from all the myriad platforms, like HaSatan’s whisperings, 24/7. Black men are sell-outs if they are earnest in any endeavor. To be AUTHENTIC a black kid, must never appear earnest. He must strive to be seen as a shrewd, street-smart operator; “playing” people in what is a war of all against all. I am not saying this is what Trayvon was. I am saying this is the style that Trayvon sought to imitate. Apparently this maladaptive culture is now multigenerational. Do you know many Cardiac surgeons named Trayvon? No, neither do I. His parents, too, were authentic homies. Despite the All American Football Card image of Trayvon and “model” teen shown on TV, he was under a one week suspension from school the night he was shot and killed. When that bit of the story first came out, there seemed to be an attempt at whitewashing it. Now it is deemed “unclear” by the media whose job it is to make clear that which is not. But do not hold your breath. If we ever learn the reason for Trayvon’s suspension it will be from the alternative media. But just to set the ground work in case that does occur, already we hear “his” side’s strawman argument. Even if Trayvon was suspended for something more serious, that does not make him fair game to be hunted down and shot dead. Nope; I’d agree there. However, that is not the point. The point is that Trayvon had become that authentic-appearing Black gangsta. This was Trayvon’s choice. Everyone who emulates the Gangsta is not a criminal. Certainly no one deserves to be killed for selecting the demeanor of a rolling hoodie-cloaked street fighting man. However, it is one that will invite the looks of those sizing up possible criminal threats in a Neighborhood Crime Patrol. Why dress like a street thug and then when so considered be angry, or offended?
OK, so Trayvon probably rolled like he was a gangsta. He attracted the attention of a Street Watching Man.
Which authentic category did Zimmy seek to wear? I do not know much of him. His backstory has not been fully fleshed out by the Media yet. This will have to be a much more delicate and subtle production to make the narrative go just so. The media must make this racial. Thus the NY Times has already taken to calling Zimmy, a “white Hispanic“. It is obvious that The System wants racial animosity. They seek to protect and nourish this “spark” that was tragically lit on a dark, rainy night in inland Florida, far from the coasts and condos. They will cradle it carefully from the wind and rain. They will carefully add flammable material, and will strive to make this The News Story for the next few months. They will carefully choreograph this, adding combustibles when needed, tamping it down to maintain a smoky smoldering low flame to husband the story. Always keeping it ready to flame up in an instant when needed to create a dramatic backdrop or if “required” a handy cause for Marshal Law. This story gives on so much on so many levels that it is too much a gift to waste. It will also be applied to the arsenal of the War against an armed citizenry. So great is this gift that it must be carefully, very carefully be put to maximum use. Zimmy’s racial characteristics must be managed closely. The FBI has been given the 911 tapes to determine whether or not Zimmy used a taboo word. This word so powerful that adults must use child-like constructions to refer to it, for to speak it even to discuss it is intolerable. Like the name of God, the N-Word must now never be pronounced.
G-men will be digitalizing the “911” audio, and will try to isolate the signal and amplify it while damping the background. Oh yes, they will be hunting fastidiously for that taboo word!!! In the misty rain, did a half white Cubano shoot an angelic Black High School Honor Student? Are we down the rabbit hole; through the looking glass? One man was shot dead by another. The facts to be determined are whether he shot in self-defense; and whether his need for defense stemmed from his following a hoodie-cloaked character and giving the cops a call; (there is no Alice to ask, so she won’t know.)
If the High Tech Crime Lab determines that Zimmy said the N-word, does that seal his fate? Why? If Trayvon turned on the person trailing him in the rain and dark, and knocked him down with a nose-busting punch in the face, Zimmy’s suspicions would have been confirmed. Indeed the hoodie-cloaked character had knocked him to the floor. If he was frightened either before or after this attack, he might have used the Word; the Word that evokes the image Trayvon had studiously created for himself. And the word it isn’t love. Yes, Trayvon may have been friends with other Trayvons and may well have used the “N-Word” on each other. That is allowable. A black man can say “Yo nigga, wuzzup?” to another black person. That does not indicate homicidal intent. Nor does Zimmy’s use of the word if indeed he uttered the ineffable Name prove anything other than Trayvon’s persona was well conceived and he wore it naturally.
Zimmy is the son of Hispanic and white parentage. In Florida, Hispanic is likely Cuban. We do not know which parent was which, nor if his parents were wed when he arrived on the planet nor do we know if they are still together.
Zimmy, may have been one of those in-between types; trying to find his way between the various Official Categories of Authenticity: not Cubano enough for this; not white enough for that. Because he had no easy pre-packaged label to tag on himself, he gravitated to the society found in formal groups. By formal groups I am not picturing Tuxedo-clad gentlemen sipping Gin and Tonics at a Polo match. I mean formal, in the sense that the group has a name, a function, and at least some standard organizational structure. In this category I will put AA and other 12 Step groups. They take anyone, and by recognizing the steps one retains membership, even if one slips and returns to step 1. Other groups might include voluntary hobbyist groups, such as hiking clubs, biking clubs, community centers, and Neighborhood Crime Watch groups amongst others.
This is the tragedy. Our perverse media-driven society has convinced us that authenticity as a person is derived from one’s loyalty to their racial or ethnic identity. It is no surprise that having created the stereotypes of Ghetto gangsta, Macho Hispanic victim of Gringo, the rural white trash and all the rest of the bullshit categories, the Media mind-controllers are always on the lookout for stories to animate with their characters Trayvon and Zimmy human beings both, lost their lives as they knew them that night. But the Sharptons, Jacksons, Farrakhans and the rest of the Professional racialists like the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League (self-loathing Jews who defend those who would in a heartbeat drop the Zyklon B into the chambers below), NAACP et al. have found their cause célèbre; at least this month’s. But with proper spin control this could be made to grow and stretch out into summer riots and somehow pave the way for Obama Part II; a taste of which we were treated to already in the Hot Mic episode with the Russian, Medeved. When this tragic story first hit the wires, I am sure there was a happy bounce in some folk’s footsteps, while others went about cheerfully whistling while framing The Narrative. Others quickly obtained legal Trademarks on their dead son’s name and image, already appearing on tee shirts and stencil graffiti! Others, like the Vulture-Moths they are, have followed the bright TV lights, to avail themselves of free publicity. Still others seek proximity and have hopes of dipping their shirts in the kid’s blood. Jesse Jackson collects such shirts.
What a typical American Media circus; a feeding frenzy of the Culture Change Agents, the profiteers, the publicity hounds, ….sad, and predictable.
A Letter From America Town
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/asians-fastest-growing-race-united-states-census-finds-195956005.html
“Asians”? Since we MUST not use the “derogatory” word “Oriental” it is impossible to ascertain if this includes what were called ” the Mongolian race” in the Blumenbach schemata; or all Asians; from Lebanon to Korea? The latter “category” is so variegated as to be no category. Political Correctness is actually impeding accurate communication! (No doubt as it is meant to do.)
I recall as a child growing up in Long Island, seeing Chinese people outside of the cleaners, and my mother telling me not to stare. Truth; 100%!
A Turban-headed Sikh or Burqa-clad Muslim would have made my eyes bug out! NOW, my hometown East Meadow hosts the Long Island Muslim Association.
My in-laws live in Queens. Where there was once Bloomingdales on 188th St. in Fresh Meadows, and a well-to-do Jewish and mixed community of garden apartments, there is now Kohl’s struggling after a long vacancy. There is one Jewish woman left in the neighborhood. When we visit her, I often will head across the street and around the block to Starbucks. There, I am frequently the ONLY white English-speaking person. Once, in the far back of the addition, (they took over an adjacent storefront) I sat in an easy chair, downloading my Pod Casts, (when visiting both our families there are NO computers). Looking up, and around I noticed that around this one round table at the far back wall, fiddling with various Wi-Fi gadgets were four other middle-aged slightly “heavy” remote-European-ancestry Americans, natives of the outer boroughs. The entire store was otherwise filled with young, wealthy, ambitious, energetic Asians, from Arabia to Korea. And, kind of cool most were second generation and spoke English. Better English than the few remnant vestiges of white Queens; recall, “All In The Family” took place just north of this part of Queens. Nevertheless, though the lot seemed to be heading for successful American lives; I wondered how much of America is being lost? These yutes, no doubt A+ students in Math, Engineering and actual hard Sciences, will have little interest in learning American History. And why should they, when our society itself seems avid to lobotomize its National Memory?
Demographic changes of this magnitude in the past have been seen only in association with defeats in wars, and being conquered. Has there been a War that I missed; one that was lost? …
YES! It was The War of the Michael Stivaks against Archie Bunker of Queens, NY. The college-Indocucated geniuses, the know-it-all utopians have marched through Academe. After living off of Archie’s largesse, while bad-mouthing his morality, they have turned their ungrateful eyes on him, as hyenas look at prey.
To get to 188th Street one must exit the Long Island Expressway at Utopia Parkway. I kid you not. And if you pass it going east you will see Oceania Street, (our own Superpower in George Orwell’s 1984).
There must be consequences attached in going from a fairly homogenous society, to becoming a tiny minority in an Asian majority borough. And despite the change in the identity of the upward bound, the “barristers” are Puerto Rican or black. The “help” in all of the stores is same; except in those stores owned by the newly arrived Asians. These newly arrived are not the huddled masses of yesteryear. Their grandparents did not work and claw their way up from the Lower East Side. No, they arrived by air, with capital and opened their own stores.
Why would America so completely open its doors to Asia? It is not possible for the low fertility rate of affluent whites to keep up with immigration from Asia! Just as there has been a deliberate attack on our culture in order to demolish any non-governmental societal source of norms; so too has there been a mass immigration foisted upon us. As just one minority of a nation of minorities American-Americans are disenfranchised from the continent our forebears settled. And that’s the plan, man.
On “Rush and the New Black List”: The Left Completes the Circuit
http://buchanan.org/blog/rush-and-the-new-blacklist-5039
Pat Buchanan’s column today “Rush and the New Blacklist” is a sobering look at the creeping totalitarianism that has now become a torrent. It is as if Satan The Dragon is cast down to earth and is full of rage for he knows his time is short.
“To control the politics of a nation, control of the culture is a precondition.” That is the crux of the matter.
The post-modernist Left has worked for half a century to be able to reverse that equation. Until the Civil Rights Movement revealed the intrinsic power the government has to change the culture, this direction was never considered before, in the English-speaking world anyway. The presumption that certain opinions are just not legitimate developed in the crusade against Jim Crow. There were many voices warning about the loss of freedom to associate, and the freedom to choose how to runs one’s business. The warnings were dismissed as “coded racism”. In some cases, perhaps they were; but certainly there were some voices speaking honestly about the danger of using the coercive power of government to change private attitudes.
Implied in this is the assumption that one’s motives are to be taken into account in determining whether the rights of property owners, business owners, or even bus passengers are legal or illegal. Never before was the presumption of knowledge of motive intrinsic to legal findings. What difference did it make if a thief stole from a citizen because of the citizen’s race, or sex, or religion, or wealth? None! The entire thrust of Justice was aimed at removing all extraneous information in order to determine whether or not the accused acted against the Law. The only consideration was the external, the action. Yes; or no; is there a reasonable case pointing to his guilt or not?
The Civil Rights Movement opened the Culture Wars. The proper role for Government in correcting pernicious anti-black discrimination in the South, and throughout various parts of the nation should have been limited to alleviating the burden added to it by the Governments at every level; Federal, State, County, City, Town, etc. Opening the electoral system to blacks in association with whatever physical protection was required to allow for this would have lifted of the legal basis of Jim Crow’s more blatant nastiness. Government at every level should legitimately be forced to be colorblind. The fact that one has no choice as to whether or not to live under the law of the various jurisdictions in charge of the place where one happens to reside or be at any given time, there is no option to remove oneself to a different jurisdiction than where one is desirous of being; therefore the Governments of the jurisdictions are obliged to treat everybody under their law equally. If this were the route taken, the fact of demographics of southern towns and cities would have very quickly removed Jim Crow laws from the books. Once removed from the legal code, blacks would be free to operate their own businesses in the security that no racist group could use the machinery of government against them. If blacks had the vote, municipal bus companies would no longer be able to force anyone to the back or under the bus. If the bus companies were private, either they would decide that the blacks that might be on the City Council might be offended, or voluntarily cease racist seating policies, or perhaps newly confident blacks would open competing bus companies. I bet free markets would have eradicated Jim Crow once the governments were out of the racist’s hands. It may have taken a bit longer, but would not have cost us our Constitutional rights of Property and Freedom of Association. But that was but the opening wedge. Instead of taking that organic route to equality, the power of the government was drafted into forcing whites to associate or serve blacks or close their clubs or businesses. This, at a stroke put the entire concept of being sovereign over one’s business and property moot. The Government decided it had the right to determine if one was discriminating against blacks or any other group on one’s own property or in ones own business. Inherent in this power was the presumption to discern motive. If a prospective employer hired a white man instead of a black man, it was presumed to be proof of racism. Of course there has to be at least a rough equivalence in the required skills to do the job well. So the crime of Racist Employment Practices depends upon if they were deemed to be equally qualified! And of course the Left does the deeming. But, hear that: it is a crime to be a racist in one’s own business. Racism is a Thought Crime!
The Left realized that the War against Jim Crow was a cultural one more than a mere legal one. They learned if a cause could be made to seem equally as just as Civil Rights, then attribution of motive could be applied as well. If the absolute sovereignty of property rights is compromised through its usage in a racist manner, it is no longer so sovereign! If the absolute right of Freedom of Association breaks down if racism is involved in the choice of associates, then the right is not so absolute.
One little chink (please, no anti-Asian racism implied) in the rights of privacy, property, and personhood has been thoroughly exploited by the Left.
They have succeeded in creating a circuit! Working from the original “To control the politics of a nation, control of the culture is a precondition” they have made a corollary, “to control the culture of a nation control of the politics is a precondition!” The left has used politics to selectively enforce laws to favor certain cultural groups. This has increased the political power of these groups. Increasing the political power of certain “aggrieved” groups will increase the cultural acceptance of that which was once unacceptable. Gay Pride Parades grow in numbers every year. Today, rather than the media covering them as News, they are covered as just one more strand of a city’s “rich cultural heritage”. Once the culture has been changed, the next step is to legalize “Gay marriage”. In the not so distant past, within my life, the idea of two men or two women marrying was inconceivable, and if conceived at all, it would be as a joke. Then, openly Gay men and women are to be allowed to join the military. Gay Marines? Was Gomer Pyle a forerunner?
Now we are a totally lawless society. We have absolutely zero sense of what is or is not to be considered normal in our own culture. We feel we must guard our tongue and carefully speak when discussing anything of any interest or importance. Why? Because the culture has been conquered by the political left; and now they are fortifying their positions. Hate Crimes, anti-bullying laws, presumed racism or sexism behind every case of outcome inequality, all are consequences of an occupied culture. The cultural lawlessness necessarily results in political tyranny, or anarchy. And as the Left is quite aware anarchy frightens the middleclass more so than a vague creeping socialism.
Obama ran on a platform that included the creation of a domestic defense force, every bit as well funded as the Pentagon! He filled the ranks of TSA with SEIU union members. This nucleus of Brownshirts is beholden to him, and to the “Dictatorship of the Aggrieved”, the current version of Marx’s “Dictatorship of The Proletariat” (necessary because the deindustrialization of America has wiped out any incipient proletariat.)
The mainstream media war against all dissidents is now obvious to any who would see with open eyes. In past year, Glenn Beck, Judge Napolitano, Pat Buchanan, all with major ratings were pulled. Andrew Breitbart had a fatal event occur on the day he was to release a damning video of our Commie-In-Chief as a Yute. I hear Mark Levin making comments to his producer, “Mr. Producer” he frequently asks “Is this too confrontational or is it conversational?” That he asks is to say he has been advised to dial back his strong dissenting voice to the Obamanation of America.
Michael Savage openly admits that the current atmosphere is so alarming that he travels with bodyguards, and broadcasts from several different locations and stays at several different residences to make a harder target of himself.
We have come a long way down this road; the road that lead from outlawing “racism” to outlawing “climate change denial”, to taxing “Conspiracy Theories”, to apparently experimenting with the frontier of outlawing certain radio personalities all-together. All based on the governments new sense of telepathy and omniscience,
Saint Torum: The EuroConservative
The question was, is Santorum a false Conservative? No, he is indeed a conservative. The problem is with our definitions. The Constitution and the Republic are the only thing new under the sun. An American Constitutionalist is Liberal. We need to reclaim our language. John Locke was a Liberal. Thomas Jefferson would have said he was a Liberal, too.
The current definitions of Left/Liberal, vs Right/Conservative do not really apply in America. These are descriptions having to do with one’s position on the French Revolution. Our American Revolution was the only true revolution in history that did not substitute a new, and usually worse boss than the old boss.
Conservative means pro-established Church, pro-landed aristocracy, pro-privilege (in its true sense of “private law”, in which the several discreet classes were under different legal systems), pro-Military (Aristocracy made on an Officer, so theirs was the Glory, and if captured they’d be treated as a fellow nobleman by the enemy nation). It also included the ignorant peasantry who were enthrall to the smells and bells of the established Church, and were gaga over the Nobility.
To be a Liberal, once meant, being in favor of the Revolution. The confiscation of Nobility and Church lands, the disestablishment of the Church, the murder of its priests, and was made up of the newly emergent Middle Class. In France it was the wealthy middle class that demanded representation since they were being taxed or forced to make loans to the Military Glory State.
The USA was lucky in that the British had had their Class War in the previous century. The outcome was the legitimacy of the Middle Class (in Parliament) with some loss of power of the Crown, and the Landed Aristocracy relegated to the House of Lords. Our Revolution was not about the resolution of the problem of the Middle Class. America has always been a middle class nation. There has never been a Landed hereditary Aristocracy or an established Church with its own wealth generating land with claim on tithes. (The Antebellum South came close to resembling the Landed Aristocracy of Europe. In that sense the Civil War was the last act of the English Civil Wars.) There had never been a Standing Army led by strutting peacocks.
Our unique Constitution separated Government from Nation. WE were Americans first; and then we became Independent, and then we, through our States created a binding relationship of the parts with the center. In Europe the entire difference between the Political/Legal System and the Nation was blurred. The King was the nation incarnate.
America separated the Government from Society. There was clear sense that we as a Society voluntarily created our Government to serve our interests. The Government was created and caged; allowed to impact upon very circumscribed arenas.
The default was LIBERTY; religious, moral, political, etc; exception being only when one’s actions impact on another citizen’s.
This is not a Conservative Position. Thus St. Torum is indeed a true Conservative on the European model. He is not willing to keep the Government neutral within cultural conflicts; he seeks to use the power of the state monopoly on force to restore the morals that have vanished over the past two generations. A Government within the bounds of the Constitution cannot do this.
I agree with his morality. But, he puts the cart before the horse. We were a moral people and thus had a moral government. But one cannot use the Government to force the people to be moral. First off, forced morality is not true morality. Morality is all about making choices. To outlaw the immoral is to deny the ability to demonstrate one’s morality. And second, since the Government is the servant of the people, if the people have become immoral how can a Constitutional Republic pass laws that the majority do not wish to be bound by? If Congress passed Morality Laws that an immoral people rejected, the politicians would be gone in the next election; or they would necessarily stay on as Tyrants.
The question remains, what is an American Conservative? Is that not an oxymoron if we use defined terms? If a Conservative merely wishes to conserve older values,than yes Santorum is a Conservative. But, since the Constitution is much more libertarian than he, Ron Paul conserves the radicalism of the Constitution better. Only in America can we make state such an oxymoron as Ron Paul conserves the radicalism of the Constitution.
The Hall Of Presidents Painted
The media-whores will see a racist and “sophomoric” (they love that word) political cartoon. Like every other thing they say and believe they are wrong. They probably mock Trumbull’s “naive” work as propaganda to elevate “slave-holding” white men to sainthood.
There seems to be three overlapping groups. There are those whose concern is for the American people, as the man on the bench might be seen as representing. There are those (fewer) who seem to be focused on the Constitution being trampled. To Obama’s left side, applauding the spectacle are Clinton, Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt and Wilson. Woody seems smugly proud, but his racist hands are ambivalently out of sight so we cannot be sure if he is willing to applaud Obama, or merely his success in imposing the Mastermind Utopian’s “progressive” anti-Constitutionalist Dreams. LBJ is back there (behind JFK) approval on his face. JFK is looking unhappy and pointing to the Constitution.
There is a space opened to the right of the painting behind Madison. George W, Bush smirking, is ambivalently in the same “Amen Corner” with Clinton, the Roosevelt cousins and Wilson, but still pointing towards the man on the bench. (Does the artist believe W.’s policies were misguided attempts to help the people?) That diagonal space running backwards and towards the right side of the painting contains Nixon, George Bush Sr., Harry Truman, Ford and others unidentifiable to me. Probably they are unidentifiable because they are of little importance. Nixon seems merely self-concerned. GHW Bush is looking solemnly at the man on the bench. Ford is directed at the man. Ike, at Washington’s left shoulder and Truman (between Nixon and LBJ) are looking non-too-happily at the Constitution stomper. In the left foreground is Lincoln, Reagan, Jefferson and Washington, all apparently primarily concerned with the welfare of the people, though Washington and Lincoln are also concerned with the Constitution and Obama’s stepping on it. Andrew Jackson too is staring in disbelief at the man stepping on the Constitution. Surprisingly (and erroneously, I think) Jefferson is fully engrossed in the impoverishment of the people, without the concern for the Constitution evidenced in Madison and John Adams, who from behind Reagan’s left shoulder looks mournfully at the loss of the Constitutional Republic he dedicated his life toward. Excellent painting. The liberal media will pan it as an overdone political cartoon. But a newspaper political cartoon may make one either snicker or angry momentarily before turning the page; but this conveys a powerful emotion. The strength of the emotion is directly related to the strength of the viewer’s sense of American greatness and Exceptionalism. Thus the media pundits and “Art Experts” will truly be honest in their dismissal. They see America as just another nation, perhaps more hypocritical, violent and racist than most. We, The People see the power of the painting because we see the Power of the idea of America.
FACEBOOK INTELLEKTCHUALS AND ANTI-SEMITISM (For Judith)
FACEBOOK INTELLEKTCHUALS AND ANTI-SEMITISM
Anti-Semitism is increasingly obvious and there seems to be less and less attempt at disguising it. For instance today on a Tea Party FB Page that has become a running battle of Pro and Anti-Paulists (Ron Paul). Mixed with hilarious insults, that seem to be so exaggerated as to be in sport, however also posts darker comments. The Ron Paul contingent is, to me, unduly obsessed with Israel as the source of the New World Order. The thousand-year-old meme of International Jewry, and its tentacles sucking the life blood out of the Pure Races of the world is being refurbished. Rather than the typical Hydra-headed Jewish Conspiracy, I find a Hydra-Headed anti-Zionist beast.
Its many heads ironically are mutually hissing at each other though they find common cause in regard to Israel:
1. The Leftist Code Pink, and other Soros funded groups and their solidarity to the Palestinians;
2. the formerly Conservative American patriot that has joined the Blame-America-Firsters (as long as they blame Israel for leading America by the nose) of the Alex Jones type and unfortunately though not of Ron Paul’s type, but of his supporters’ type;
3. The Muslims and their useful idiot apologists, who kiss CAIR’s ass;
4. The “Christian” Left, like Rev. Wrong and the “Church at the Checkpoint” meeting in Bethlehem to enlighten Zionist Christians that Israel is an Apartheid State;
5. Roman Catholic Conservatives who have never quite internalized the papal dropping of the charge of Christ-Killer leveled on the Jews, and neither has the Vatican’s cherished plans for an Internationalized Jerusalem been given up.
Everyday I find one or more of these mutually exclusive groups on Face Book attacking Jews and Zionists.
Again today once more Connecticut Tea Party patriots are mud wrestling over Ron Paul. Once more the Paulists have succeeded in driving me away from supporting him; not for what he has said or done, but more for what they say and write, in what they perceive to be in his support. This was again demonstrated by several “likes” which were given uncritically by those who were happily swallowing a skewed “summary” from the Wikipedia article on Neo-Conservatives. The “Jewess” Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and the “Orthodox Rabbi” Scoop Jackson were included in the term “Neo-Con”. I had almost forgotten these folks, whose positions I admired back in the mid seventies in dark of the Carter régime.
The poster quoted one of many writers whose opinions were cited in the Wikipedia article on Neo-Conservatism. Namely the critic of Neo-Conservatism, Michael Lind, was quoted to the exclusion of many, many others.
“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.”
The informative Wikipedia Article was well-written and afforded much information to those seeking it. Unfortunately it also provided good ammo for those whose interest is in seeking support for their pre-conceived ideas rather than seeking knowledge for its own sake.
The FB poster limited his Wikipedia research to the quotes that filled his needs.
Before I puke let me just address the worshipful attitude to Woodrow Wilson by Lind. “Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as Palestinians“. Wilson was the most damaging president we have suffered until this current one. He was a self-righteous Academic who was one of the masterminds of Progressivism. His naiveté shocked the leaders of the Allies, and he betrayed the Germans. He had promised a peace without victory or defeat. The German Army having fought the West to a standstill in France and Belgium had never been pushed back to Germany, let alone defeated in the field. Their diplomats arriving in Paris for te negotiations were stunned to learn that the Armistice demanded unconditional Surrender and full admission that the war was totally their doing. (The British naval blockade continued and starving civilians in Germany were defeated, but not the army.)
Wilson’s demand for self-determination” was only for Europeans. He was a racist to the core and a believer in the White man’s superiority. He never noticed the colonialism of the Allies as being opposed to the very sense of “self-determination”. And worse, his demand for self-determination in Europe mixed with the dismembering of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires set the stage for Hitler’s attraction to Germans. German minorities that were now stranded in newly self-determined nations; like the Germans in the Sudetenland now in a new country called Czechoslovakia, and Memel in Lithuania, and Austria and finally in the Danzig corridor, were not afforded self-determination.
Mrs. Astor a wit in English High Society when asked where Hitler was born quickly answered Versailles.
That is Wilson: a racist, academic, Progressive mastermind.
Now to the rest of WIKI article that did NOT fit your pre-determined research:
Leo Strauss:
Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.”[36] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[37]
Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose.” Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work.[38] Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes.[citation needed] For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[39] O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss’s influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[40] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.[41][42]
NOW, I happen to hold John Locke in high regard; so I would strongly disagree with the totality of this view.
BUT A MIND OPEN TO LEARNING IS ABLE TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM HERE AND SOMETHING FROM THERE. I LEARNED JUST NOW THAT JOHN LOCKE WAS NOT RESPECTED BY ONE GROUP OF THE NEO-CONS. Mature intellects do not condemn an entire concept by a demand for 100% agreement on every point.
But I agree with Strauss here absolutely with his understanding that the West is doomed to decline as long as it is alienated from its roots, Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman.
It makes learning much more interesting when one is open to learning and not merely looking for proof or support for one’s preconceived notions!
ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
NOT ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE CREATED EQUAL
The idea that Libertarianism is monolithic must be corrected. It is also important to point out that extreme Libertarianism in international affairs differs from Globalism in no particular manner.
(“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace”)
The Radical Austrians perceive international borders to be illiberal impediments to people, capital, goods and services.
(“You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one”)
Many Ron Paulistas dream the same dream. I am surprised, however that the most fierce of foes of sinister globalism, Alex Jones, and his clones are Paulistas.
Libertarian Constitutionalists agree on the premise that the Constitution as the Framers conceived it is the best hope of maintaining a Liberal republic. It is the Constitutional piece that is required to maintain liberty; and unfortunately I am detecting a nascent anti-Constitutional, or anti-Federalist contingent within the Libertarian ranks. The rise of those who would exhume Alexander Hamilton and exile him from the Pantheon of American Founders is an ominous sign of how far down the path of Anti-Federalism the Austrian Schooled radical libertarians wish to go. Coupled with the sudden urge to “honestly” deal with Abe Lincoln, and declare him a Tyrant, by some of the supporters of the movement behind Ron Paul is concerning. It becomes evident that even if the Constitution were to be fully restored there would remain legitimate differences in the policies that various interests would seek. Indeed, when the Federal Government no longer is in charge of picking winners and ameliorating the losses of certain losers, there would remain a legitimate diversity of interests that would still need to be sorted out through deal-making and compromise of Representatives and Senators. The return of legitimate Constitutional government would represent the beginning of new political debates; and this is good. But it will raise the question of: now, what shall our reinvigorated Liberal republic do; how shall it conduct itself in the society of other sovereign nations and states?
How shall the Federal Government use the legitimate powers conferred upon it to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”? These are political issues that are legitimate debates within a constitutional republic. However, Dr. Paul and his followers have taken particular stances on some of these issues and have made them into tests of loyalty to Libertarian Doctrine, which they aren’t.
What if someone who is less enamored with the Constitution than another candidate, but the other candidate reflects one’s own opinion of a policy that is believed to be superior to the Constitutionalist’s proposed use of Constitutional power?
For instance: Trade Policy.
Trade Policy is to be set by the Congress: Article one; section 8; third paragraph “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.
The dogmatic Radical Austrian ideological libertarian insistence upon Free Trade as a logical corollary to individual liberty is at odds with the Constitution.
So if a candidate A is in favor of a nationalist trade policy, (Dr. Paul admits that setting Trade Policy with foreign states is a legitimate Federal power in “End The Fed”) but believes it to be illiberal, and not only bad on a practical level, but evil for its reduction of liberty, what to do?
Unfortunately there is no candidate A! (That would have been the Pat Buchanan Constitutionalist that never showed up for this campaign season; it might have been Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin. Alas.)
And if candidate B is in favor of a very forward Naval defense policy (as Constitutionally laid out in Article One, section 8, paragraph 13: “To provide and maintain a Navy;” to ensure American preeminence over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans; the God-given moats that will forever guarantee our Independence, then I ask what of the equally Constitutionally minded Dr. Paul’s evisceration of America’s forward and yes, offensive control of the Seas? Agreed, that the very idea of a single pair of “boots on the ground” in the middle of Central Asia is as absurd as landlocked Mongolia investing in a Navy! But, America has evolved from the antebellum days. No longer divided into a Northern modernizing commercial republic producing wealth through increasing industrialism, agricultural but becoming a major player in international commerce; and a Southern fossilized remnant of Cavalier Britain before their Civil Wars. The Cavaliers, or Royalists were based upon a landed gentry with aspirations to nobility. They derived their wealth from agriculture and rentals. They scorned the upstart Middleclass with their Reformed Protestant chapels. They, the new Bourgeois, or Middleclass, were represented by Parliament. They were the shop keeps, the craftsmen, the merchants that represented the dawn of The Modern Age. The final act of the British Civil Wars took place in Appomattox Court House Virginia. America has moved on. No longer is half the nation ruled over by aristocratic families set upon White Columned Mansions upon a well-tended lawn, surrounded by monoculture cotton for export. And no longer are “servants” (southern for “Slaves”) used as beasts of burden and fed and clothed by the products of the plantations themselves. This medieval landscape had to die before the United States of America could come into its own. The Confederacy for all its talk of “states rats” was essentially fighting against the triumph of the “bourgeois shopkeepers”. It was men like Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis who like Napoleon before them scorned the fighting spirit of the crass bourgeois Anglo-Saxon “shop keeps”. In case some have not noticed or have come to regret the fact, the North won. And the results were not the South and the new west becoming a greater New England but instead an entirely new USA becoming a Continental Constitutional Republic of wealth, and power, on a level unseen in history. The New World, Atlantis perhaps, saved western Europe three times and continues to do so.
It is now no longer feasible to be as supreme as once we were. The inevitable occurred as new continental-sized states were ruthlessly unified by means of the various Isms’ of the Twentieth Century. Now, there are nations the size and might of which have never been seen stomping over the face of the planet. The Great Powers we reckoned with as a young nation were France, Britain, Spain, and Germany was not yet even a unified state yet. The Framers never dreamed that nations with fabulous names from a mythic past, like Persia, India, China, or a backwards Russia would trod the earth like Behemoths. There are Chinese cities whose names we do not even know that have more people than Portugal, or Spain!
Yet, still the Atlantic and Pacific moats protect us. But we will require the forward offensive Naval and Air Power to project our frontiers to the far side of those oceans. The Constitution requires in Article One, section 8, paragraph 13: “To provide and maintain a Navy”, and if they could envisage such a thing as an Air Navy, the Framers would surely have added that to the paragraph. Constitutional Libertarians need not be non-interventionalist in foreign policy. The USA has evolved from a small group of semi-autonomous states clinging to the eastern seaboard to a Continental power with interests spanning the globe. There is no example in history of a major power reaching an apogee and deciding that they shall step back a pace or two so as to “not be over there”. Nations are like Dylan said about people, only more so, they are either “busy being born or busy dyin’”. Major nations continue to strive or they begin to collapse. There is never any middle course. Maybe, President Paul, will thread that needle. But, I would not trust his Austrian School fanaticism that sees all international borders as purely “illiberal” and arbitrary lines on a map. They are Constitutionalist (but only maybe, it appears the Articles of Confederation are starting to seem more to their liking!) yet they do not abide Congress restricting the flow of labor, capital, and goods flowing unimpeded across our borders. The Constitutional right of Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” though admitted by Dr. Paul, was said by him to be unwise policy. I disagree. There are those Austrian Scholars who giggle that we should be grateful to those people who wish to sell us the consumer goods we want for a price lower than American companies could provide. The Doctor giggles, ‘should we ask them to charge us more?’ Problem is that the cheap imported goods are not so cheap, no, not so cheap at all. Drive from Green Bay, down the western shore of Lake Michigan, past derelict plants. Then visit South Chicago, where our current president prepared for the office by organizing the urban street. Round the bend to Gary, Indiana, proceed through to Detroit, Toledo, Erie, across New York State past Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica; one long rusting blight of what was once the source of the might that created the wealth that when needed became the arsenal of democracy. It lies like a bleeding corpse. Perhaps a new “Industrial Ruins National Park” will revitalize the region? This is the cost of ~giggle~ the Chinese not charging us enough for the goods we want. Libertarianism in international affairs differs from Globalism in what particular manner? Our Alex Jones’ friends, so vigilantly on guard against The New World Order Globalists, have somehow anointed Dr. Paul. Yet he would do his best to facilitate freer trade if that were possible. H would allow the last remnant of industry to be sucked out to China, and he would also reduce the size of our Navy facing this same hyper-industrializing China.
Dr. Paul’s unwavering loyalty to the doctrine of Free Trade is not the typical pragmatic Anglophone Way. (It is interesting how Anglophobic paranoia fills Alex Jones’ clones; just as it did the isolationists in the early twentieth century. Anglophobia unites illiberal attacks on the Modern Age both from the right and the left!, but that thought is for another time). Even Jefferson knew that theories must come second to the reality of statecraft. He went beyond the Congress’ authority to purchase New Orleans and took up Napoleon’s offer for the entire Louisiana Territory. Would an ideologue make that compromise?
Would Dr. Paul have looked beyond his ideology to base his decision on statesmanship?
As China begins to grow militarily into a potential major challenger to American dominance in the Pacific, the good Doctor prescribes harsh cuts in military spending. When China pushes past the First Island Chain, if we allow the “Finlandization” of Japan, Taiwan, The Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam, we shall have a new border. Not only will we be ineffectual at the southern border, with Mexico, we should then have a western border with China in California.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact, Lincoln commented. Nor is Constitutional Libertarianism a philosophy dependent upon the generosity and peaceful intentions of others. Radical Austrian Libertarianism would be, it ought to be discarded as just one more Utopian Ism. Does he suggest private ships with Letters of Marque instead of the US Navy patrol the western Pacific? Is he crazy? We can and ought to be libertarian within our borders, but maintain supremacy in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. And we also need to protect our people from having to compete with coolie labor in a race to the bottom.
Ironically, Hamilton, and Lincoln, now considered fiends by the Lew Rockwell, Ralph Raico, Von Mises intellectuals of the Austrian School are believed to have injected a virus of International (Jewisssh) Bankers into the United States. Yet, they are the ones who were assassinated! Imagine the conspiracy theories if Hamilton shot and killed Burr, or Jefferson! Or if it was Jefferson Davis assassinated instead of Lincoln! Finally, the last straw for me, was the vile Jew hatred spewed last week by former CIA man Scheuer, a standard on Judge Napolitano’s show. The Judge a Paulist and an Austrian, proved to me how essentially un-American Radical Austrian School Libertarianism is last week. The vile anti-Semitic comments on the websites of Alex Jones, and on Facebook pages discussing St. Paul shows who these Theories attract. No, I cannot blame Jones and the Facebook Pagemasters for the comments of their followers. But, it would be foolish to pretend there is no connection between the Ism of Radical Libertarianism and the vile anti-Zionist, anti-Jew tide of filth. The psychosis in the US between the Leftists worshippers of Obama, on the one hand and the spitting spew of anti-Jewish hatred on the anti-Globalist side is leaving a narrow almost untenable path. Glenn Beck seems to be the sole guardian there. Mark Levin is not a Libertarian, so though a Constitutionalist on many points, he is willing to use the Federal power to fight the drug war. Forced to choose between the two “opposites” this country is committing suicide.
“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.”
I am:
a lover of Liberty, of the ideals of America, of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Bible clutching and scientific! Bible Prophecy Seer ( as in one who sees), I have studied History and have sought and found God’s Hand in the grand sweep of nations, rising and falling, of Empires expanding and imploding, and the continual persistence of The Remnant. If you have ears to hear and eyes to see, then I betcha (drives Palin-hating media parrots crazy) you too are of The Remnant! Find out!
-
Recent
- FACEBOOK CENSORED
- ANTI-ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPER
- The End Of The Republican Southern Strategy: The New Dixiecrats and Jonesies
- Two Shits Passing In The Night: Trayvon and Zimmy
- A Letter From America Town
- On “Rush and the New Black List”: The Left Completes the Circuit
- Saint Torum: The EuroConservative
- The Hall Of Presidents Painted
- FACEBOOK INTELLEKTCHUALS AND ANTI-SEMITISM (For Judith)
- ALL LIBERTARIANS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
- THE ABORTION TRAP AND THE CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS
- 4th Reich and Seventy Years Ago
-
Links
