NEW ALAN STANG BOOK SAYS HOMOSEXUALS

NEW ALAN STANG BOOK SAYS HOMOSEXUALS
PERVERT REPUBLICAN PARTY

http://tinyurl.com/2cu3da
http://tinyurl.com/2cu3da

Ted Nugent’s Marine Claim

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889235/posts

Ted Nugent’s Marine Claim
FOX News Channel/The O’Reilly Factor
Posted on 08/31/2007 12:39:57 AM EDT by GunnyBob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889235/posts

Last night on TOF on FNC, Ted Nugent claimed he was a Marine. I can find no evidence to support this but I could be missing something.

Someone want to help me out here?

–Gunny Bob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889235/posts
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Larry Craig: Homosexual by Alan Stang

LARRY CRAIG: HOMOSEXUAL
by Alan Stang
August 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan1.htm

Now that Minneapolis cops have finally nailed Idaho Senator Larry Craig, let it be said that his proclivity is stale news. Craig has routinely been accused of sodomy for at least twenty five years. In fact, Craig’s reputation as a predatory sodomite is so well-established and redundant that I did not bother mentioning him in my new book, Not Holier Than Thou, about the homosexual takeover of the Republicrud Party. Instead, I focused on Republicruds whose homosexual résumés were not so well known.

We are talking about a species of satanic insanity, because buggery means spitting in God’s face, “improving” His work. Consider first Craig’s explanation. It was a “misunderstanding.” He normally assumes a “wide position” with his feet when evacuating. That was why his foot accidentally got into the next stall and touched the policeman. Because he “foolishly” tried to wrap the thing up without counsel, he made the “mistake” of pleading guilty.

Ask yourself: What would a normal man do if accused of homosexuality? What would a normal man do if accused of homosexuality in court? Would a normal man plead guilty? Would a normal man plead guilty even were he acting without counsel? No, a normal man would roar. A normal man would loudly proclaim his normalcy. Many accusers have wound up with black eyes. Some have even wound up dead. Now look at these two You Tube links:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXaaFbo6Oo

Here you see then Member of the House Larry Craig indignantly and righteously denouncing the usual charges in 1982 – twenty five years ago – when the charges included not just buggery but a suitcase full of cocaine. Convincing, wasn’t he? Believable. In fact, here he says something much akin to what you and I would say. Did you believe him? But now we know he was lying. Now he says this latest incident is a “misunderstanding” and a “mistake.”

But now here comes the ultimate horror. Larry Craig’s official U.S. Senate web site says he is married to the former Suzanne Thompson. I could find only one picture of that lady, the one on his site. It’s a bad picture, but she looks good. They have three children: two sons, Mike and Jay, a daughter, Shae, and “nine beautiful grandchildren.” Imagine – if you can – being one of these poor folks today. No one says anything to you, but you know perfectly well that everyone you meet knows your husband, father or grandfather has been arrested in a men’s room with his pants down.

Other commentators have probably told you all this. Craig was co-chairman in the U.S. Senate of the Mitt Romney campaign. Since the feces hit the fan, he has resigned that post and Mitt has pulled the video of himself and Craig together from You Tube. On the video Craig talks about morality and values. But the media have not told you what really ties them together. It is not religion. A few commentators have mistakenly labeled Craig a Mormon. He is in fact a putative Methodist.

As we now know for sure, Larry Craig is a homosexual. What ties them together is the fact that Mitt Romney is a homosexualist. In fact, Mitt is a flaming homosexualist. The term “homosexualist” satisfies an important need in nomenclature. Credit for devising it goes to Scott Lively, a California lawyer, whose book is Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, which suggests that Hitler was a homosexual prostitute in Vienna, and that homosexuality and Nazism are almost the same thing.

You know what a homosexual is. A homosexual is a bugger who buggers other males and is buggered. A homosexual is a male who, in effect, plunges his penis into a pail of excrement. A homosexual is a scumbag who often gives his unsuspecting wife serious diseases. And a homosexual is a male who gets himself arrested propositioning policemen in airport men’s rooms.

A “homosexualist” is an individual of either gender, who may or may not be a sodomite or a lesbian, but who does what he or she can to advance homosexuality. For instance, el presidente Jorge W. Boosh’s predecessor, the man who raped that lady in Arkansas while he was attorney general – I can’t recall his name – and then conducted presidential business in the Oval Office while an intern had sex, is obviously a homosexualist.

So is Jorge W. Boosh himself. Boosh has done at least as much as the rapist to advance the cause of sodomy. Boosh named Republicrud leader Mary Matalin, a ferocious homosexualist, as a top adviser. Mary is a heroine to the sodomite Log Cabin Republicans, whose mission is to do to the Republicruds what flaming faggots like Barney Frank of Taxachusetts have done to the Democruds. She has threatened to demonize anyone who opposes homosexuality and calls religious opponents “the Leviticus crowd.” It would be no surprise at all to learn that Mary Matalin is a secret bull dyke.

Again, Mitt Romney is a flaming homosexualist. You will find many pages documenting his homosexualist activities as governor of Taxachusetts in my new book, Not Holier Than Thou: How Queer Is Bush? Since he eagerly collaborated with Taxachusetts queers, there is every reason to believe that as President Romney would do the same on a bigger scale. Here from the book are some examples of Mitt’s homosexualism in action.

I have mentioned the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual group. They endorsed Mitt because he met with them many times and put at least two of them on his staff. An appendix to my book offers a fulsome letter of acclamation from Romney to Log Cabin. In 2002, during Boston’s “Gay Pride” events, the Romney campaign for governor distributed bright pink flyers wishing participants a “great Pride weekend.”

Romney supports every piece of federal legislation that would advance, support, protect and finance Organized Sodomy. In November, 2003, in Taxachusetts, he said he would support homosexual civil unions. In February, 2005, he told South Carolina Republicans that he has always opposed such civil unions.

There have been more than 2,500 cases of faggots infiltrating the Boy Scouts to molest little boys, a major felony, but Mitt says, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” The 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City were the only Olympics that forbade the Boy Scouts to participate. Mitt Romney, homosexualist, ran the Olympics that year and kept them out.

We also don’t need to wonder about whom a President Romney would appoint, because Governor Romney appointed many homosexuals to top jobs in Taxachusetts government. In April, 2005, he allowed, protected, encouraged and financed distribution of the Little Black Book to Middle School kiddos at Brookline High School.

In another appendix, Not Holier Than Thou reproduces a page from that document. It is not the worst page. To tell you the truth, I feared that, had I reprinted the worst page, you would have blamed me when you threw up. But the page I do reprint tells the middle school kiddos about fisting. I am not going to spell out what fisting is here. Were I to do so, you would no doubt start screaming that I am trying to drive you insane. Again, none of this could have happened without the imprimatur of Taxachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt told Taxachusetts Justices of the Peace that, if they refused to marry homosexual and lesbian couples, they would be fired. Romney thereby went far beyond what the law required. Again, these are just a few examples from the book. So, when Romney shows up in your neighborhood, tall, handsome, urbane, presidential, campaigning for your vote, remember that he is a lying, homosexualist skunk.

To order the book, simply go to alanstang.com and click on STORE, at the top, then scroll down to Not Holier Than Thou. The important thing to remember about all this is that it is not merely about a degenerate in high places, who has finally managed to destroy himself. The book makes clear that the true purpose of Organized Sodomy is quite literally to turn our country upside down, to destroy our civilization and our system. That is why Boosh does not enforce our borders. He thinks he has abolished them.

You can read the plan yourself in Not Holier Than Thou. The goal of the men behind that scheme is to submerge our country in a world government. They can do so only if we are thoroughly demoralized. And there is no more effective weapon of demoralization than the present homosexual assault. What happened in that airport men’s room in the Cities is not just about pathetic Larry Craig. It’s also about the abolition of America. It’s about Mitt Romney.

© 2007 – Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.

His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews.

Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.

Website: AlanStang.com
E-Mail: stangfeedback@gmail.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan1.htm
–

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg

---

Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg
Media ignores lurid history of snuff style sex scandals

Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Thursday, August 30, 2007

reddit_url=’http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/300807_larry_craig.htm’ reddit_title=’Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg’

digg_title = ‘Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg’; digg_bodytext = ‘Revelations about Senator Larry Craig that have mired the Republicans in another sex scandal over the past few days continue to rumble across the media spectrum – but the true scale of perversion, organized child sex slavery rings and their connections to the elite is uniformly omitted from polite conversation.’;

Revelations about Senator Larry Craig that have mired the Republicans in another sex scandal over the past few days continue to rumble across the media spectrum – but the true scale of perversion, organized child sex slavery rings and their connections to the elite is uniformly omitted from polite conversation.

Last year, Republican Rep. Mark Foley was investigated by the FBI after he sent sexually suggestive e mails to boys working as congressional pages. It later emerged that House leaders had known for months about Foley’s lurid behavior yet chose to look the other way. Foley was co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus.

Larry Craig, albeit on a lesser scale, has now been exposed as a pervert and the media treadmill continues to afford this individual case blanket coverage – a deluge of attention not received by the thousands of missing children and victimized young men who were and continue to be the victims of gargantuan forced child prostitution rings that operate to service political, corporate and media elites all across the globe.

Keith Olbermann sends up the Larry Craig pervert scandal. 

On June 29 1989, the Washington Times’ Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald reported on a Washington D.C. prostitution ring that had intimate connections with the White House all the way up to President George H.W. Bush. Male prostitutes had been given access to the White House and the article also cited evidence of “abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion.”

In July 1990 a Nebraska Grand Jury was convened to hear allegations that Lawrence “Larry” King, then manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union and a rising Republican party star, along with Washington lobbyists, had set up a child prostitution ring in which minors were transported around the country and forced to have sex with King, other top officials, and according to victims who some allege were later harassed into recanting, then-Vice-President Bush.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) was identified by victims as having engaged in the abuse and in a bizarre twist of fate, appeared on Bill Maher’s show last year and made jokes about the outing of Larry Craig as another homosexual Republican.

The Grand Jury dismissed the case as a hoax but former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp later investigated the claims and was horrified to learn that they were indeed legitimate.

Click on the enlargements to read the 1989 Washington Times expose.

The video which you can watch in full below, Conspiracy of Silence, was produced by British Yorkshire Television and was scheduled to air nationwide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. Despite appearing in TV guides, the documentary was pulled at the last minute. Key politicians implicated in the scandal intimidated Discovery into canning the program and it was never shown in the U.S.

The documentary team interviewed victims of the Franklin cover-up scandal and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Washington’s political elite had been involved in Larry King’s pedophile ring.

Connections between male prostitutes and the White House emerged again in early 2005, when James Dale Guckert, working under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon, was given privileged access to the White House despite his lack of suitable press credentials. Gannon first came under scrutiny when he repeatedly gave President Bush softball questions during press conferences – leading many to charge Gannon was a White House plant. Photos emerged of Bush embracing Gannon and appearing very affectionate towards him during meetings. It later came out that Gannon had previously placed ads on homosexual escort service websites.

In almost every case of human trafficking for child sex slavery, from Chile to Australia, to Bosnia, to Portugal, to Belgium, court proceedings get shut down or diverted when a clear connection to the elite arises.

In the mid 1990’s, convicted child rapist Marc Dutroux built a secret prison cell in his Charleroi basement where he kept abducted young girls hostage at the behest of what he called “a big crime ring,” which in the 2004 court case was thought by many to encompass some of Belgium’s top politicians, judges and policemen. The reason why it took so long to apprehend Dutroux was that he was being legally protected by these same individuals.

Material witnesses at the trial described “child sex parties involving judges, politicians, bankers and members of the royal family.” Victims that managed to survive (most were butchered snuff style after being raped) verified the claims.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
—————————————————————————————————————

Police actually visited Dutroux’s home and heard the cries of help from children concealed in his basement yet believed Dutroux’s explanation that the sounds were coming from kids playing in the street.

Dutroux was eventually convicted for his role in the pedophile ring but the involvement of the elite of the country was never properly investigated.

After Dyncorp and Halliburton contractors were exposed as having operated child prostitution rackets in the Balkans from the late 1990’s onwards (and more recently in the case of Halliburton), Rep. Cynthia McKinney attempted to get answers as to why the U.S. government continued to do business with these corporations.

On March 11th 2005, McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal and its protection by the U.S. government.

“Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?”

In late 2005, Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists worked in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors.

Where were the investigations and convictions in other cases of establishment orchestrated child slavery and prostitution? Like the NATO officials responsible for the mushrooming of child prostitution in Kosovo?

What happened to UN officials identified as using a ship charted for ‘peacekeepers’ to bring young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes?

The U.S. media largely failed to even report many of these cases at the time yet Larry Craig’s bathroom activities, which are without a doubt perverted, creepy and fully worthy of a disorderly conduct charge, are given a hundred times more press coverage than huge sex slavery scandals with ties to the elite that resulted in the abduction, abuse, rape and murder of thousands of children across the globe – many of which are still missing today.

In addition, Wikipedia allows the page detailing a list of such Republican sex scandals to be deleted by trolls as if no such scandals ever took place!

---

Copyright © Prisonplanet.com. All rights reserved.

Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/300807_larry_craig.htm

The Party Is Over — Again

The Party Is Over–Again

Posted on 8/30/2007

[Subscribe or Tell Others]

http://www.mises.org/story/2675#
In February, 2001, I saw the end of the credit-filled boom , as the stock market went bust, and predicted recessionary times, which soon followed. It seems, however, that Washington, D.C., is one great big toga party, and if it is true that Blutarsky of “Animal House” became Senator Blutarsky (as the film’s credits tell us at the end), perhaps that provides an explanation for the outright foolishness that has gone on with the Federal Reserve System for more than a decade.

However, the Fed and the rest of the D.C. crowd really did not need the hard-partying Blutarsky to set policy, as it seems that Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben Bernanke, were willing to shed their dark suits and starched collars for a toga made of bed sheets (or maybe some strips of old stock tickertape). Certainly, the policies that these two men and their agents have foisted upon this country since the heyday of the Bill Clinton Administration fall into that of one big party with the Fed spiking the punchbowl with easy credit.

It is hard to know just how far the current meltdown in the stock market and housing market will go, but we can say unequivocally that it will not be business as usual, or business that has been usual for the last many years. We can forget about a 14,000-point Dow for a long while, as economic law — something that politicians have assured us exists only in the minds of “kooks” — reasserts itself, and the results are not pretty.

In this piece, I will briefly point out some of the more egregious things the Fed and the financial system have done and why this monetary charade has been able to go on as long as it has. Before doing that, however, I will deal with one important aspect of economic theory: the relationship of production to consumption.

One of the continuing debates throughout modern economic history (modern meaning the past 300 years or so) has been that of the relationship between production and consumption, the source of what we call Say’s Law. This is what separated Say and his allies from Thomas Malthus, and the Classical economists from Marx and his followers. The debate went on into the 20th Century, with the Austrians taking one side, and the Keynesians the other.

The basics of the debate are this: One side (Say and those who followed him) says that consumption and production are directly related, and that consumption flows from production, or “supply creates its own demand.” The source of one’s consumption, they argue, is one’s production. On larger scales, economies that produce much also are going to be societies that engage in the most consumption of goods.

The ramifications of this set of beliefs are important, for if one holds to Say’s Law (as do the Austrians), one is acknowledging the efficacy of production and also the acknowledgement that in a market economy markets generally will work efficiently, as long as governments do not interfere with them. Adherents to Say’s Law do not disagree that there can be economic downturns; indeed, Say begins his famous Book I, Chapter XV, describing what we would call “recession” conditions. (I make this point because many critics of Say have accused those who hold to Say’s Law of believing that recessions are impossible. Socialists are fond of saying that “the Great Depression discredited Say’s Law,” which is simply not true.)

On the other side, beginning with Bernard de Mandeville and his 1714 “The Fable of the Bees,” it is held that because production of goods is not a guarantee that they will be sold (which in itself is true), therefore consumption must always be encouraged or economies will quickly stagnate into periods of “general overproduction” and fall into ruin. To combat this problem, they have argued, people should be encouraged to spend and spend and spend, as saving money ultimately means unsold goods, and unsold goods mean overproduction, and overproduction means layoffs and mass unemployment.

Karl Marx and others systematized this viewpoint to make the case that free-market economies are inherently unstable and if governments do not intervene to bring about consumption, the capitalist economies will implode. For Marx, the source of underconsumption was the profit-taking by capitalists, who had no right to that product which “rightfully” belonged to the “proletariat.”

John Maynard Keynes, in his 1936 General Theory, also “discredited” Say’s Law and held elsewhere that the creation of new credit by monetary authorities could “turn stones into bread.” The idea to Keynes was that private investment spending was unstable, and that that very instability, when coupled with the multiplier effect of investment spending, meant that a market economy was vulnerable to quick downward surges of general underconsumption and overproduction that would quickly lead to the dreaded “liquidity trap.”

Thus, his view — and the view that has dominated government economic policies for at least a century — is that government must act to prop up consumption through various actions of monetary creation through central banks, as well as massive spending on public works and transference of income from the non-consuming rich to the consuming poor. The idea was that wealthy people were unlikely to spend all of their income, displaying an unhealthy “propensity” to save, which meant that their spending habits would ensure general underconsumption unless some of that money was taken via taxation and given to those entities — individuals and government agencies — that would “responsibly” spend and keep the economy afloat. Just put money into the “hands of the people,” they will spend thusly, and from that spending, production will automatically occur, just as the Golden Calf allegedly rose from Aaron’s fire.

All of this hit me hard when I briefly chatted with an official from the Federal Reserve System at a recent economics conference in Seattle. When I spoke to him about the various bubbles the Fed has created over the past decade, he did not deny that point. Instead, he insisted that the bubbles were good, since unemployment is relatively low. My answer (that he admittedly said was hard to argue against) was that he was trying to tell me that without these bubbles, we would be worse off, economically speaking, something that is incredulous on its face.

While the Fed has been advocating credit for nearly anyone with a pulse, in reality it has been advocating the old Keynesian position that it must constantly create new “money” in order to facilitate commerce, and the Fed has not disappointed in that arena. However, despite the assurances of various Fed spokespersons, in reality a bubble is called a bubble precisely because it cannot be sustained over time.

The reason that the Fed has been able to get away with its monetary shenanigans for more than a decade has been the historical accident of the US dollar being a major world currency, and the rise of the Asian economies. The Asian central banks have been willing to hold dollars at levels well out of proportion to their real value, and Americans have benefited — temporarily, I will add — by the fact that the Chinese and others will accept US dollars for their relatively inexpensive goods.

Indeed, one can say that in one way, the Fed has succeeded (temporarily) in giving us the ultimate Keynesian economy, one in which the US government prints dollars and the Chinese accept them without question. All one has to do is find a way to get dollars in one’s hands — the lending and credit processes seeming to do the trick — and then sit back and consume, consume, consume!

Thus, whether it be the refinancing of one’s home (again and again) to put extra cash in one’s pocket, beating the latest stock bubble, or “flipping” a house, there has seemed to be no end to government schemes to direct money to people to enable them to live beyond their means. However, Say’s Law is not dead; indeed, the markets now seem to be catching on to the reality that Austrians and their fellow travelers have recognized for years, and that is that a policy of easy money cannot sustain itself. Someone has to pay the piper, and he has shown up at the door.

Americans my age and older have been down this road before. Following World War II, the dollar truly was the world’s reserve currency, and it was considered to be “good as gold.” Bolstered by the dogma of the “New Economics,” which was Keynesian garb in American academic robes, promoted by the high priests of US economists, Paul Samuelson and Walter P. Heller, the US government went on a spending orgy. (Compared to the government spending habits today, the “orgy” of the 1960s was little more than a tea party.)

By 1971, however, it was clear that the dollar by itself was empty, and when President Richard Nixon closed the Bretton Woods “gold window” on August 15, 1971, it was the official beginning of the stagflation that dominated the US economy for a decade. Only when the dollar was rejected by others was the folly of Washington’s endless economic toga parties fully exposed.

While I was roundly critical of the Clinton Administration for its irresponsible economic policies, nothing compares to what the George W. Bush Administration has given us, making Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter look responsible in comparison. The entire time this administration has been in office, it has given us the “economy by bubble.”

$25 George W. Bush makes Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter look responsible by comparison.

From the housing bubble to the latest brief upward explosion in the stock market, we are now faced with the hard reality that there is no place for this huge wad of cash to go. It is not the case that we have a “liquidity problem” because there is no money to lend; we have a “liquidity problem” because the outlets for borrowed money have shrunk drastically.

Furthermore, the Chinese are now beginning to realize that the dollar is not what it used to be, and bellicose talk from Washington is wiping out whatever good will has been present between China and the United States. The war in Iraq has turned that country into a charnel house, oil and gasoline prices have drastically increased, thanks to the war and government policies, and people are finding that Washington has nothing to offer, as if it ever did.

War abroad and fiscal and monetary irresponsibility at home gave us the infamous end of Bretton Woods 36 years ago. (I am not endorsing the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, which Henry Hazlitt knew from the beginning to be terribly flawed, but in retrospect, it was still superior to the current monetary madness that is the Federal Reserve.)

It now seems that the authorities have learned nothing from the financial disasters of four decades ago: they are determined to make the rest of us repeat them. Granted, many of us have benefited from this era of “easy money,” but that is going to change. Indeed, the party is over, the lights are out, and I don’t know when they will be turned on again. Please leave your togas at the door.

---

William Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Frostburg State University. Send him mail. See his articles. Comment on the blog.http://www.mises.org/story/2675#

 

–

“A Ron Paulian Blueprint?”

Rockwell’s Thirty-Day Plan

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

DIGG THIS

When Eastern Europe broke free in 1989, we all realized just how little thought had been given to the transition from socialism to capitalism. Mises had told us the collapse was coming, and we should have been prepared.

As America comes to resemble a command economy, we need a transition plan here too. Yuri Maltsev proposed a “One-Year Plan” for the U.S.S.R. We’re not in that bad a shape (yet), so we could do it in 30 days.

DAY ONE: The federal income tax is abolished and April 15th is declared a national holiday. The 40% reduction in federal revenues is matched by a 40% cut in spending. The budget is still almost twice as big as Jimmy Carter’s.

DAY TWO: All other federal taxes are abolished, including the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the gasoline tax, “sin” taxes, excise taxes, etc. Businesses boom, and the few legitimate federal functions are funded with an inexpensive head tax. People who choose not to vote need not pay it. (Note: this was a mainstream view in the 19th century.)

DAY THREE: The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities.

DAY FOUR: The minimum wage is reduced to zero, creating jobs for ex-federal bureaucrats at their market wage. All pro-union laws and regulations are scrapped. The jobless rate falls dramatically.

DAY FIVE: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, like the rest of the Labor Department, is sent to that big hiring hall in the sky. Without detailed economic statistics, future economic planners will be blind and deaf.

DAY SIX: The Department of Commerce is abolished. Big business has to make its own way in the world, without subsidies and privileges at the expense of its competitors and customers.

DAY SEVEN: The plug is pulled on the Department of Energy. Oil and gas prices plummet.

DAY EIGHT: All regulatory agencies, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission, are deep-sixed. Competition is legalized.

DAY NINE: HUD is squashed like a bug. There’s a building boom in cheap, private, apartments.

DAY TEN: The interstate highways reopen as private businesses. Road entrepreneurs price travel according to consumer demand. Using modern technology, drivers get bills once a month. Credit risks – and drunks and dangerous drivers – aren’t allowed on the road. Non-drivers no longer subsidize car owners.

DAY ELEVEN: Government welfare is wiped out. Bums work or starve. The deserving poor find a cornucopia of private services designed to make them independent. Private charity explodes, as the American people, already the most generous in the world, find their incomes almost doubled, thanks to the tax cuts.

DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.

DAY THIRTEEN: Federal deposit insurance is scrapped. All insured deposits are redeemed from federal assets, which include the personal assets of high-level government employees. The threat of bank runs forces banks to keep 100% reserves for their demand deposits, and prudent reserves on all other accounts. There are no more inherently bankrupt banks propped up by the government, at taxpayer expense, and no more bail-outs.

DAY FOURTEEN: The shaky fiat dollar is defined in terms of gold, with the ratio determined by dividing the government’s gold stock by all existing dollars on that day.

DAY FIFTEEN: The federal government sells National and Dulles airports to the highest bidder, and stops all subsidies to other socialist airports around the country. All constraints on airline prices and service cease. It costs more to fly during peak hours than off-peak, but overall, air travel drops in price.

DAY SIXTEEN: All government regulations that create and sustain cartels are abolished, including those for the post office, telephones, television, radio, and cable TV. Prices plummet, and a host of new and unforeseen services becomes available.

DAY SEVENTEEN: Centrally planned agriculture, as imposed by Hoover and Roosevelt, is repealed: there are no more subsidies, payments-in-kind, marketing orders, low-interest loans, etc. Farm prices drop. Entrepreneurial farmers get rich. Welfare farmers go into another line of work. The poor eat like kings.

DAY EIGHTEEN: The Justice Department shutters its anti-trust division. Companies, big and small, are free to merge – up, down, or sideways. Stockholders can buy any other company, or sell their stock to anyone else. Marginal producers can no longer battle their competitors with bureaucratic weapons.

DAY NINETEEN: The Department of Education flunks the constitutionality test, and is kicked out. Private charities set up remedial reading and writing programs for the former bureaucrats. Federally subsidized sex education and other anti-family programs go out of business. Local school districts become responsive to parents or close, pressured by a fast-growing private school sector (which many more parents can now afford).

DAY TWENTY: All federal monuments are sold, in some cases to non-profit groups based on the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, which owns and runs George Washington’s home. The VFW buys the Vietnam memorial. There is much bidding for the Jefferson and Washington monuments. Nobody wants FDR’s, so it’s torn down and the land sold to a farmer. (With the federal government cut back to its constitutional size, much of Washington reverts to productive uses like agriculture, as in late 18th century.)

DAY TWENTY-ONE: The computerized financial and political dossier maintained by the government on every American is erased. The public wanders through the federal offices to make sure, in a reprise of the East Berliners’ visits to Stasi headquarters.

DAY TWENTY-TWO: Equal rights are granted to all Americans, even members of non-victim groups. There is no affirmative action, no quotas, no set-asides, no public accommodations laws. Private property and freedom of association are fully restored.

DAY TWENTY-THREE: The EPA is cleaned out, with all “clean air” and similar big-government laws repealed. Ten thousand lawyers leap from their balconies. Private property is established in air and water. Americans harmed by pollution are free to sue the polluters, who are no longer protected by the federal government.

DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Americans are given complete freedom of contract, restoring rationality to malpractice and product liability law.

DAY TWENTY-FIVE: Government scrambles for more assets to sell (i.e., the National Zoo, also known as Washington, D.C.) to pay off the liabilities of the privatized Social Security system.

DAY TWENTY-SIX: Porno artists have to earn their own livings, as the National Endowment for the Arts tries to raise its budget through sidewalk painting sales.

DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Foreign aid is outlawed as unconstitutional, unjust, and un-economic. Foreign politicians have to steal their own money. The World Bank, IMF, and United Nations close their super-luxurious doors.

DAY TWENTY-EIGHT: The American people are given the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

DAY TWENTY-NINE: The Defense Department is reoriented towards defense. American troops come home from all around the world. We adopt a policy of armed neutrality, remembering the Founding Fathers’ teaching that we could not have an empire abroad and a constitutional republic at home.

DAY THIRTY: All tariffs, quotas, and trade agreements are put through the shredder. Americans can trade with anyone in the world, without barriers or subsidies. Japanese car prices drop an immediate 25%.

In just 30 exhilarating days, we have established the outlines of free market. Radical? Maybe so. Me, I can’t wait until Month Two.

August 30, 2007

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty. This article appeared in The Free Market for March 1991.

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

Lew Rockwell Archives

Find this article at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

WHAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (PC)?

WHAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (PC)?

Let me ask you something. What is political correctness? To quote from Wikipedia, “The term “political correctness” is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, and was used to describe the appropriate “party line,” [7] commonly referred to as the “correct line.” [8] The term was used in communist countries, and by communist and Trotskyist parties.
Ref
Are We Teaching Our Children To Lie?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave82.htm

–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse…

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse…

Paul Joseph Watson on 29 August, 2007

Prison Planet  -

Ron Paul says martial law provisions in place to deal with economic discord

Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says that attempts to rescue an ailing stock market last week, during which the Fed pumped in billions in liquidity, were merely a stop gap measure – and that an economic collapse is all but inevitable.

“They think that they can control it but eventually they can’t, as powerful as they are eventually the markets are more powerful,” the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.

“The dollar can’t be kept in check because eventually it will come unwound,” he added.

“But I think the most significant figure we’ve heard in the last few weeks is the measurement between 2000 – 2005, the clear cut admission that real income has gone down, which is a reflection of the dollar.”

Paul explained that recent attempts to pump liquidity into the markets are only a temporary fix and that the long-term effects of doing so spell disaster for the economy.

“The dollar is plunging no matter what you read and hear about and no matter how hard they work to keep the bubble going the only way they can do that is creating more money….causing the dollar to go down even faster, the market seems to be reassured – there’s a contrivance to try to hold this together….but it won’t last, eventually it’s going to collapse,” said Paul.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist media – Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
—————————————————————————————————————

The Texas Congressman cited the repeal of the Insurrection Act as opening the door to a declaration of national emergency and martial law which could be instituted for any number of reasons, including civil disobedience in the event of an economic downturn and a run on the banks.

“If in 6 months or a year there is total chaos who knows what they might try to do,” said Paul.

The presidential candidate also slammed the abolition of Habeas Corpus as a “very dangerous sign” that plans were being laid for martial law.

“Why would they change them (the laws) if they didn’t plan to use them,” concluded Paul.

Suspicions were raised last week when a mystery trader risked billions of dollars after buying 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, in effect a speculation that the market would crash by a third before September 21st.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/print/257.html
–

MSM is Formally Accused of Felony Rico and Conspiracy Against Dr. Ron Paul

 

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/248.html

 

MSM is Formally Accused of Felony

<>Rico and Conspiracy Against Dr. Ron Paul

Clarence Malcolm -

 

What the public needs to understand is that FOX, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the other established *mainstream “mass media“/news sources [*see definition @ Wikipedia.org] are perpetrating criminal fraud (via omissions, distortions and  outright lies) and a deliberate censorship of Dr. Ron Paul in 2008 Presidential race—with malice and aforethought and evil intent to control the 2008 presidential elections.  This is an outrage and “We the People” need to organize against this dangerous plot and TAKE ACTION by filing  “class action” criminal charges and civil suits against the owners and executives of these news sources.    This illegal censorship is not only harming Americans because they wield the power to control the outcome of elections via the quantity and quality of the news coverage they provide the candidates; it constitutes an unAmerican and antiAmerican criminal enterprise; not to fail to mention a violation of the first amendment/freedom of the press. These accused individuals—the elitist media executives—exercise monopolized and Fascist-control over media/news sources with intent to get the candidate preferred by them elected while simultaneously wrongfully hiding and/or playing down the true facts, popularity and success of the Ron Paul campaign.

- 

Please spread this message and let’s get criminal charges and a class action lawsuit executed against this dangerous organized crime syndicate identified as the present mainstream media outlets which are collaborating in a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968; reference: www.ricoact.com] conspiracy to censor Dr. Ron Paul and control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election.  This is definitely “RICO” if it can be shown that any of the accused media executives have donated money to any of the other presidential candidates, directly or indirectly!  The accused individuals herein have wrongfully utilized their outrageous MONOPOLY over the media across America to injure Dr. Ron Paul and his millions of supporters; all Americans, in fact.  These accused individuals need to go to prison upon conviction.  They need to be criminally prosecuted and have their personal assets seized.  They need to have their Federal FCC licenses revoked for participating in this criminal conspiracy.    Help us spread this felony information far and wide.  Let’s get these elitist outlaws criminally prosecuted and civilly sued.

 

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/248.html
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Ron Paul Debates The War…

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul406.html

Ron Paul Debates the War
With Doug Casey, against Dinesh D’Souza and Larry Abraham

DIGG THIS

Buy a copy of Ron Paul’s
new book for $20.

See the Ron Paul File

August 28, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul406.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Will A U.N. Navy Defend America?

Will a U.N. Navy Defend America?
Cliff Kincaid

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1279776

Author: Cliff Kincaid
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 28, 2007

In September, the Senate will vote whether to join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). FSM Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid wonders whether allowing “foreign panels and courts” to tell us what we can do on the high seas is such a good idea.

 

Will a U.N. Navy Defend America?

 

By Cliff Kincaid

 

Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic Congressman from Indiana, reports in an August 27^th column in the Indianapolis Star that the Senate will vote in September whether to join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The treaty, the most comprehensive and potentially dangerous ever devised, would dramatically affect the ability of the U.S. to compete for oil and gas and precious minerals in the oceans of the world.

 

The New York Times is the latest liberal paper to endorse the treaty, arguing in an August 25 ^th editorial that “unless the United States joins up, it could very well lose out in what is shaping up as a mad scramble to lay claim to what are believed to be immense deposits of oil, gas and other resources under the Arctic ice – deposits that are becoming more and more accessible as the earth warms and the ice melts.” But something is fishy here. Since when has the Times been an advocate of the U.S. laying claim to and exploiting those resources? This is a paper that has consistently opposed President Bush’s limited plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

 

The Times’ endorsement of the treaty, by citing the real and pressing need for access to resources under the Arctic ice, is dishonest. If the U.S. ratifies the treaty and stakes a claim to those resources under it, the paper would be the first to oppose it. In fact, the U.S. already has valid and legitimate claims to the area without going through the treaty.

 

While there have been rumors that UNCLOS hearings will be held in September before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Hamilton column is the first indication that a vote will be held as well. That means the public only has days or weeks, at most, to understand what is at stake and influence their Senators. The treaty requires 67 votes for passage.  

 

Ironically, the Times editorial serves as a case study of what is wrong with the treaty.

 

Regarding the Arctic, for example, the Times says that “The Law of the Sea [treaty] will provide the forum for determining who gets what.” That is true if the U.S. agrees to ratify the treaty. But why should the U.S. agree to let a treaty negotiated under the auspices of the U.N. decide “who gets what?” The Times says that, “Claims and disputes will be resolved by arbitration panels established by the treaty.” Again, why should the U.S. delegate decision-making authority to international bodies? 

 

The complete failure of the Times editorialists to provide any answers to these questions demonstrates that a pro-U.N. media bias is at work here. The paper wants the treaty ratified simply for the sake of passing another treaty. This is the globalist mind-set exhibited by those opposed to America acting in its own national interest. The irony, of course, is that the Bush Administration, a frequent target of the Times for its conduct of foreign affairs, is backing UNCLOS.

 

Yet, it was Bush adviser Karl Rove who told Rush Limbaugh that “…if you have to wake up in the morning to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you got a pretty sorry existence.” Many conservatives are wondering why President Bush and Times editorial writers are on the same page. Perhaps they are both wrong.

 

The Times editorial describes the treaty as “solemn,” which is a fascinating word choice suggesting it has been handed down from on high and that God-like authority has been delegated to those enforcing it.

 

Indeed, consider what else the Times says about UNCLOS. “The law gives each nation control over its own coastal waters – an ‘exclusive economic zone’ extending 200 miles offshore,” it says. “The rest is regarded as international waters, subject to agreed-upon rules governing fishing, protection of the marine environment, navigation and mining on the ocean floor. A country can claim territory and mineral deposits beyond the 200-mile limit, but only if it can prove that the seabed is a physical extension of its continental shelf.”

 

The phrase “the law gives” is interesting and revealing. By passing the treaty, foreigners on panels and courts will then decide what we can do in “international waters.” So what happens if and when these foreign-dominated panels decide against America? Will the Times support the U.S. abrogating a “solemn” treaty that goes against our interests? Don’t bet on it. 

 

In the past, Karl Rove and other administration officials have defended the treaty on the grounds that the U.S. military supports it. An analysis of why this is the case shows that the dramatic decline in the number of U.S. Navy ships, from 594 under President Reagan to only 276 under President Bush, is driving the Pentagon’s endorsement of the pact. Under the sway of international lawyers, Department of Defense officials have concluded that a piece of paper that asserts some rights we already take for granted on the high seas is better than nothing.

 

The Pentagon is not immune to the influence of international lawyers. My recent report on this matter noted that Navy Commander James Kraska, who handled oceans policy on the Joint Staff of the Pentagon, was among those who paid tribute to Louis Sohn of Harvard, a writer of UNCLOS who co-authored a book, “World Peace Through World Law,” outlining a plan for transforming the U.N. into a world government. I also discovered a thesis written back in 1996 by a student at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, on the subject of establishing a U.N. Navy. British Professor Gwyn Prins, who served as a consultant in the Office of the NATO Secretary-General, has long advocated such a force.

 

This kind of thinking is why many conservatives argue that the Pentagon has gone dangerously off-course. They say the answer to UNCLOS is building up the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard and making our military once again into the “Law ON the Sea.”

 

On the other hand, if we want America to be defended by international lawyers and a U.N. Navy, rather than U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships, UNCLOS makes perfect sense.

 

# #
FamilySecurityMatters.org FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid is Editor of Accuracy in Media. He can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
read full author bio here

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Other Articles by Cliff Kincaid…
Will a U.N. Navy Defend America?
How Does the Law of the Sea Treaty Affect Our National Security?
U.N. May Give Black Gold at North Pole to Russia
The North Pole is Ours, Not Russia’s
Barbara Walters Funds U.N. Lobby Group
Administration’s Policies Promote Global Jihad
U.S. Troops Now Fighting for U.N. in Iraq?
Selling America to Communist China
The Fairness Doctrine is Not Dead
Last Stand for American Sovereignty
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1279776
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008

www.NewsWithViews.com
August 28, 2007
New Article

<>Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice in 2008

<>
Let’s cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal. No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious…….
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm
by Pastor Chuck Baldwin
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~

<>Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008

 

 

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 28, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm

Let’s cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often.

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP’s “top tier” candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated “lesser of two evils” philosophy. As they say here in the south, “That dog won’t hunt.” Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned “top tier” candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called “free trade” agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush’s amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the “whole package.”

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative’s support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as “Dr. No.” This moniker comes from both his “no” votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

See the Freedom Index here.

Ron Paul’s commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.” Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right’s pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year’s election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders’ records on the Second Amendment, click here.

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America’s responsibility to police the world. He believes America’s political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul’s principled position.

In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush’s preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine’s “just war” theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush’s “preemptive war” theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to “just war.”

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul’s testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, “I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush’s Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

CHESTY PULLER AND RON PAUL ALIKE?

CHESTY PULLER AND RON PAUL ALIKE?

It is said that when it was inquired of a Marine officer how many Marines we have like Chesty Puller, the officer responded…”just one, only the one.”
(paraphrased, no source cited here)

I think the if someone now asked, how many politicians and/or elected/appointed officials we have like Congressman Ron Paul, the answer would have to be, just one, only the one.
-RWG

Ron Paul Archives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

<a href=”http://www.spreadtheword2008.com“><img src= “http://www.spreadtheword2008.com/images/spreadtheword.jpg” alt=”www.spreadtheword2008.com” width=”200″ height=”90″ border=”0″ title=”www.spreadtheword2008.com” /></a>
~~~~~
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Tipping Point by Edgar J. Steele

Tipping Point by Edgar J. Steele

http://tinyurl.com/2sf2u9
Please Go To the above Link for the full article…

Excerpt:

There is No Hope

Do not look to the system for any sort of meaningful change.  Voting is rigged.  Everything is rigged.  Of the current announced Presidential candidates, only one would effect meaningful change:  Ron Paul.  I hesitate to endorse the man because I so like him. 

I firmly believe that, if the current media disinformation campaign fails and Ron Paul actually becomes a leading contender, they simply will kill him as they have so many before (Huey Long and Robert Kennedy come to mind).  If elected and he lives through to his inauguration and refuses to knuckle under, they simply will kill him then, just as they did JFK. 

Make no mistake – Ron Paul would make a great President, but it simply ain’t gonna happen, folks.  But, he says he wants the job, so he’s got my vote, regardless.

Possibilities

There are possibilities, but none of them are pretty. 

Perhaps America will get nuked into submission by a world tired of being bullied at every turn.  Once backed by gold, then by oil, the dollar today is backed by America’s nuclear arsenal.  Do what we say and use the dollar to transact international business or we will bomb you into rubble.  Just ask Iraq.  A nuclear exchange, finally, will pull America’s trump card.

http://tinyurl.com/2sf2u9
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886396/posts

After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy
GAMBLING 911 ^ | 25 AUGUST 2007 | JENNIFER REYNOLDS
http://tinyurl.com/3cvs57
Posted on 08/25/2007 10:00:25 AM EDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886396/posts

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. On the other hand, it does not show much honesty, integrity, or conviction. The latest test of this principle is to watch “1st tier” presidential candidate Mitt Romney start to emulate the political philosophy of “2nd tier” candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been in favor of small government since he became a Congressman. He has been in Congress for ten terms or twenty years. (Ron Paul is currently listed with 8 to 1 odds of becoming the next US President)

Throughout that time he has consistently advocated that we strictly adhere to the Constitution of the United States. He has written volumes of information on the topic and may be the most patriotic statesman this country has seen in generations. The mainstream media either ignores or ridicules Dr. Paul and his views, but lucky for us, there are two wonderful sources of finding these volumes of writings. The first is on the Lew Rockwell site. Visit the home page and look for the Ron Paul file in the lower left corner. There you can find many articles written by and about Ron Paul as well as a host of videos. Another source is the Ron Paul Library . For the well versed Ron Paul supporter as well as people new to his positions, I suggest that you look through his work. His writings and statements he has given on the House floor are truly inspiring.

Apparently, others are now finding Ron Paul’s writing inspiring too. Of late, a nod to Constitutional policy has been found in sound bites from the other candidates. One can attribute this to the surprising support that Ron Paul has seemed to garner. Surprising, that is, to all of the Neo-cons who were sure their pro-war nation building tactics would surely gather the most supporters. Not at all surprising to the rest of us who know the country is ready for Dr. Paul. As Ron Paul’s popularity continues to rise, the other candidates have tried to ridicule him or ignore him. Now, seeing the amazing support Dr. Paul is generating, some candidates are trying to be him.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Mitt Romney gave responses that were not just taken from a page out of Ron Paul’s book, but seemed to be taken right out of the good doctor’s mouth. Mr. “I will double Guantanamo Bay” has now decided that States have rights and perhaps we ought to consider ceding them more authority over certain issues such as education and abortion. Both of these are positions that Ron Paul has been stating for years (not surprising to those of us who have read the U.S. Constitution), yet Mr. Romney seems to have had a sudden epiphany as I have heretofore not seen nor heard him state these position. On January 30, 2006, over a year ago Dr. Paul wrote: “. . . the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. . . .Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy?” Today, August 22, 2007, Mr. Romney remarked: that states should “fashion their own laws with regard to abortion. That’s what I think the next step should be.” I wonder where he got that idea.

What this all shows, besides the fact that Mr. Romney has an amazing ability to learn to adapt as quickly as a chameleon, is that Ron Paul is having a major effect on the campaign. The man who everyone scorned, laughed at, made fun of, and generally ignored, is now the man to be emulated, copied, and listened to as closely as E.F. Hutton.

Ron Paul’s success has been frightening a lot of candidates. Despite continued low national polling numbers (many have consistently questioned the methods of the pollsters) Ron Paul did amazingly well this weekend in two straw polls. He won by a landslide in Alabama receiving a whopping 81% of the votes, while Mr. Romney received 5%. Dr. Paul also took New Hampshire by storm in the Strafford County GOP straw poll on August 18, 2007 receiving 73% of the votes cast. Two days earlier Dr. Paul came in third by a hair in the Illinois Republican Party straw poll. While on August 14, 2007 he came in first in the Gaston County, N.C. straw poll with 37% of the votes.

All this success is being ignored, as usual, by the mainstream media, but apparently not by his opponents. Ron Paul is beginning to run away with this race where it counts: in the voting booth. Ron Paul may become the only President in history to win the nomination while “polling” nationally at 1%.

The Ron Paul wannabees are now trying to jump on the Constitution bandwagon. Watch for more of them to parrot Dr. Paul’s ideals and positions as we get closer to the primaries. How can you tell the true blue from the copycats? Long ago, my mother taught me a way to test a man’s character that has held me in good stead. I hope it helps you. She told me: “You can trust that a man will behave in the future the way he has behaved in the past.” People who develop “instant” new positions can usually be counted on to be equally as flexible in the future: leaving you with no real idea of what they will do once in office. Let’s not forget George W’s speech about no nation building while he was campaigning. If you want a man who means what he says, lives what he espouses, and has been unwavering in his dedication to keeping the United States a free nation where people retain their liberties, then Ron Paul is your man. How can this be said with such conviction? Just look at his voting record and writings over the past decade.

Here is what Dr. Paul wrote back on July 20, 1997, over ten years ago, about the dangers of the Federal Government taking over the education of our children (one could choose from many more articles and statements made throughout the years as he has never wavered on his position):

An American statesman once said that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next. And thanks to the federal take-over of education, that’s a thought which should scare us all.

After all, the federal government has so invaded our classrooms, that daily our children are constantly bombarded with the message that everything good flows from the federal government, and that no one but the federal government has the ability to put right problems in our culture and world. On any given day, the federal government has more influence on the education of the average child than that child’s parents. . . .

As long as we accept the notion that the federal government has some sort of “right” to control education, we will never see this trend reversed. But the good news is, more and more people are awakening to the horrible things which have occurred since the federal government began taking over our schools. . . .

There is absolutely no authority over education given to the federal government by the Constitution, none whatsoever. Everything we see the federal government doing in education is outside the bounds set by the Constitution; not, of course, that many people any longer feel bound by the restrictions set forth in the highest law of the land.

So the real challenge for us is determining how to rescue our school kids from the clutches of the federal education bureaucrats.

Even though many people across the nation are tired of what they see the federal government doing in education, there are too many entrenched congressmen, senators and federal employees who are unwilling to eliminate this unconstitutional waste of tax dollars. Therefore it is unlikely we see the Department of Education abolished, as it needs to be, any time soon, nor will we see the myriad of education-related federal rules and regulations discarded.

I am confident that day will come, for history has shown us that big, centralized government systems always collapse. But until that days arrives we cannot sacrifice our children. In order to ensure our children and grandchildren are receiving the education they need, parents must be able to consider options for their kids other than, or in addition to, the government schools. But realistically, tutoring sessions, home schooling and private schools are options far out of reach for many people, simply because of the cost. . . .

I am absolutely convinced that the key to an educationally prosperous nation is found not in a federal government program, but in the right of parents – consulting with teachers and local administrators – to effectively utilize their moral responsibility for their children. By so doing, we will foster a philosophy of independence, self-reliance, and local responsibility; a philosophy which will permeate our classrooms and our government.

And that is a philosophy of which we are in desperate need not just for the next generation, but also today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886396/posts
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Gunny G’s Mailbag: Another New GyG Place…

The “G” Weblog @N54

http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302

(Also Known As…Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Click-Here For Previous Posts!!!!!

WHAT IS A WIKI?
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 2:25 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24661842>

IT’S THE PEOPLE vs. THE GOVERNMENT
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 2:04 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24661506>

Yes, OSS Was Riddled With Communists
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 1:46 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24661047>

The Clinton Crime Family
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 1:31 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24660711>

HuffPo Calls For Military Coup In USA
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 1:09 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24660174>

DON IMUS AND THE AMERICAN APPETITE FOR SHOCK JOCKS
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 8:31 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24653360>

AARON RUSSO: FREEDOM FIGHTER ­REST IN PEACE
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 7:57 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24652445>

After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 7:21 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24651758>

Tipping Point by Edgar J. Steele
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 5:37 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24648914>

CHESTY PULLER AND RON PAUL ALIKE?
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 5:14 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24647727>

Note to Muslims: We didn’t yield free speech on 9-11
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 1:35 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24639964>

PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING OTHER THAN MYSELF!
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, etc.
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking….Articles you just don’t see…Elsewhere!

The DeLorean Is Back!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884329/posts

Coolest Car News Of The Day – The DeLorean Is BACK! (And American Made Too Alert)
Debbie Schlussel.com ^ | 08/21/2007 | Debbie Schlussel
Posted on 08/21/2007 11:38:35 AM EDT by goldstategop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884329/posts

He may be gone–suave auto world genius John DeLorean died in 2005–but his namesake is back.

My favorite car ever, the silver stainless steel DeLorean with its gull-winged doors is making a comeback (details here and here). You remember it as the time-transporting car from the hit movie, “Back to the Future.” DeLorean Motor Company went out of business 25 years, but it has been reborn.

The Dashing, Brilliant Late John DeLorean

>p>
& His Namesake Automotive Invention

A new DeLorean will set you back $57,500 (today’s real dollar equal to the original $25,000 price tag) and will retain the original John DeLorean design. And they will be American made–hand-assembled in Humble, Texas at one or two DeLoreans per month, and mostly made from original DeLorean parts from the ’80s. That will begin in the third quarter of next year. There will be five U.S. dealerships and one in Europe.

One of my schoolmates parents drove a DeLorean, and it was very cool. Hard to fit the car in a two-car garage next to another car and still to be able to open the doors, though. About 6,500 DeLoreans from the original 9,000 are still in existence.

If I could afford to drive any car, DeLorean would be it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884329/posts
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

The Essence of Liberty #124, Chapter 3, The State As Aggressor

http://www.flyoverpress.com
editor@flyoverpress.com

The Essence of Liberty: Part 124

Compiled and Summarized by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Summary of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

The complete book is available for download at: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp
Chapter 3: The State
The State as Aggressor

Central to libertarianism is the opposition to any and all aggression against property rights. But, there is nothing unique about that since almost everyone opposes random violence against persons and property. However, there is a difference in emphasis. In the libertarian society there would be no “district attorney.” The victim would decide whether to press charges without having to convince the district attorney that he should. The emphasis would never be on “society’s” jailing the criminal. Instead, the emphasis would be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim. This would be in contrast to the present system where the victim is not recompensed and also pays taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker. Logically, this is nonsense.

On the other hand, libertarians would not interfere with a person’s right to be a pacifist. For example, if Jones is a pacifist and objects to defending himself by violence (and is therefore opposed to the prosecution of crime), then he would simply not prosecute. There would be no government mechanism for the trial of criminals against the wishes of the victim.

Libertarians regard a ll States everywhere as the ultimate organized aggressor against persons and property. The State is always considered above the general moral law. Service to the State is used to justify actions that would be immoral or criminal if committed by “private” individuals. To cover its crimes, the State cloaks its activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For example: mass murder is called “war,” enslavement is called “conscription,” and robbery is called “taxation.” The State need not be thought of as anything more than a band of organized criminals.

There are two crucial distinctions between government and all other organizations. First, all other persons or groups receive their income by voluntary payment. Only government obtains revenue by coercion and violence in the form of a threat of confiscation or imprisonment. Second, only government uses its revenue to commit violence against its own or the subjects of any other government. Only government aggresses against property rights in order to extract revenue in order to, in turn, impose its moral code or to kill people with whom it disagrees.

The absence of any check upon State depredation is another reason why State aggression is more important than private. There is no one to protect us against the State itself. The State holds the compulsory monopoly on protective services�e.g. a virtual monopoly of violence and ultimate decision-making. There is no other agency to which one can turn.

The uS constitution supposedly imposes limits on government. But, the constitution must be interpreted by men and these men (the Supreme Court) are the government’s own. The much touted “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” are, in reality, very flimsy. The reason is simple. They are all divisions of the same government and controlled by the same rulers.

John C. Calhoun warned of the inherent tendency of a State to exceed any limits of a written constitution. Assuming that any constitutional provision aimed at limiting power will be sufficient to prevent the dominant party from abusing its power is a large mistake. The minor (the party that would be in favor of the restrictions) would simply be overpowered.

Further, we are told that, in a “democracy,” � we� are the government.” However, the collective term “we” is nothing but camouflage. If we are the government, then anything the government does is �voluntary,� just and not tyrannical. For example, claiming nonchalantly that �we owe it to ourselves� conveniently obscures a huge public debt. Following this line of reasoning, the Jews that were murdered by the Nazis were not murdered. So, they must have “committed suicide.” There is no logical way out of such grotesque conclusions for those who view the State as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public.

So “we” are not the government and it does not “represent” the people. Furthermore, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the other 10%, it would still be murder and slavery. There is nothing sacred about a majority. Crime is crime, aggression is aggression.

The normal condition of the State is oligarchic rule by a coercive elite that has gained control of its machinery. This is for two reasons.

The first is the inherent inequality and division of labor found in the nature of man. This gives rise to an “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” Individuals differ in ability in all walks of life. This vast natural diversity within mankind flowers as civilization progress. As the process proceeds, leadership will be assumed by a handful of the most able in each field of endeavor. This �Iron Law of Oligarchy� is what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the �natural aristocracy.�

A second basic reason for the oligarchic rule of the State is its parasitic nature. It lives coercively off of the citizenry. The fruits of parasitic exploitation must be confined to a minority. Otherwise no one would be able to gain anything from it. Franz Oppenheimer identified the only two means of obtaining wealth. One is production and voluntary exchange, which he called the “economic means.” The other is robbery by violence. This one he called the “political means.” It is parasitic in that it requires previous production. In addition, it subtracts from (instead of adding to) total production of society. The State is the “organization of the political means.”

On the one hand, private crime is sporadic and uncertain and resistance of the victim can cut the parasitic lifeline. On the other, the existence of the State provides for legal, orderly and systematic predation. Thus its parasitic lifeline is certain, secure, and “peaceful.” Albert Jay Nock put it this way: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime�It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants�”

At first it may be startling for some to hear taxation referred to as robbery (and therefore government as a band of robbers). But anyone can easily envision what would happen if he should choose not to pay.

Hans Kelsen attempted to �scientifically� justify the State but came to a sticking point. What , exactly is it that makes the edicts of the State different from the commands of a criminal gang? His only answer was to simply claim that the decrees of the State are “valid.” By necessity, he did this without bothering to define “validity.” A useful exercise for doubters would be to ponder a way taxation could be defined which would make it different from robbery.

Lysander Spooner likened government to a highwayman. They both demand, “Your money, or your life.” But he went on to point out a significant difference. The highwayman takes total responsibility for the danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim or that he intends to use your money for your benefit. He is too sensible to profess to be your “protector.” In addition, after he takes your money, he leaves you alone and does not persist in following and “protecting” you by robbing you of more money. He does not brand you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy and shoot you down if you dispute his authority. He is too much of a gentleman to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The plunderers who constitute the ruling elite come in two forms: 1) the full-time apparatus� politicians, bureaucrats, etc and 2) groups who have gained special privileges, subsidies, and benefits. John C. Calhoun saw that the very nature of government creates two unequal and conflicting classes: those that pay the taxes (the “tax-payers”) and those that live off taxes (the “tax-consumers”)�and the greater the scope of government, the greater its fiscal burdens, the greater the artificial inequality between these two classes. Thus, every tax increase enriches and strengthens the one while impoverishing and weakening the other.

How has this oligarchic group of predators been able to maintain their rule over the masses? David Hume had the answer: In the long run every government depends on the support of the majority. Of course, this does not mean that these governments are “voluntary.” M ajority support does not have to be eager and enthusiastic. It only needs to be passive acquiescence and resignation.

Now, by necessity, tax-consumers are a minority (parasites can not outnumber their hosts). So, how can compliance and acquiescence of the masses be insured? Why do the bulk of the government’s subjects accept such a situation? These questions are answered in the next section of this chapter.

Next Previous

Copyright �2004, FlyoverPress.com

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

�Gunny� LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he �simply got tired of living a life of crime.�

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

� Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Curtailing the Pleasures of Driving and Privacy

Curtailing the Pleasures of Driving and Privacy

by Michael S. Rozeff

DIGG THIS

My first car was a 1939 Buick that had belonged to my cousin. He gave it to my brother who unofficially ceded it to me. After I left home, the car reverted to him and he sold it for $10. That was $1 for each mile per gallon of gas that the car got. But the car burned almost as much oil as it did gas. It needed a ring job that no one wanted to pay for. I should check up on this history, but to do that I first need to remember to check up on it.

The whole family used to fill up in those days at a Gulf gas station in the center of town. Gas was never more than 29.9 cents a gallon. Why can I remember the price of gas 52 years ago and not remember what I mean to buy once I set foot inside a supermarket? I think it’s the din of “music” propagated inside. The station owner I remember as a nice man. His eyebrows seemed to suggest he was always about ready to cry. Much later when I took my business elsewhere because my car didn’t seem to run right on Gulf gasoline, his feelings were hurt. I felt bad about this. It wasn’t just his eyebrows. He was really a sensitive man. A small town was not impersonal, which meant that exchange wasn’t so impersonal in those days. He traded at my family’s small meat market, and we traded at his service station.

I shared a bedroom with an older brother from birth until I left home when I was 16. My first year of college I had an upper bunk. Finally I got a cubicle as a college sophomore with three roommates. The back seat of the Buick had more room than my share of all my bedrooms. They made them roomy so they could double as bedrooms. You could lie down without encountering seat belts everywhere. Anyone who bought this car didn’t need an apartment. The car had running boards which were ideal for carrying gangsters with machine guns or for transporting an entire baseball team. This car fit right in with any Cagney or Bogart Warner Brothers tough guy picture of the thirties. I imagine seeing it when I watch the Untouchables episodes put out by Desilu.

Another customer of ours taught me to drive. He was the high school drivers ed teacher who doubled as an athletic coach. This was made necessary by the small size of the school. My class had 34 students. Driving permits were allowed at 15 years of age, so I have now been driving for 50 years.

Seven or eight years ago, I got my first ticket. It was for going 40 in a 25 mph school zone. This is allowable when the school is out of session, which I mistakenly thought it was at the end of June. But despite its being deserted, I was trapped. The hard-hearted officer refused any entreaty to keep intact my unbroken skein of police-free and accident-free driving. He was more interested in the $100 fine. He pointed to the wire fence around the empty playground, not yet barbed wire, and warned me that children could climb over it and run into the street in front of demon drivers like me. I wondered what would have happened had I been female. Such is my stereotyped mind. I bought a radar detector.

Safe driving means adapting to the conditions of the road at the time one is driving. On the same road months earlier, I drove much more slowly because there was a young biker ahead. And a good thing it was. With his earphone supplying him with sound, he was oblivious to my car as he swerved across the road in front of me. I was able to brake safely. He didn’t even respond to horn blasts.

Great Britain has an extensive camera and speed-monitoring surveillance system on its roads and streets. This amounts to a stealth tax that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It keeps drivers preoccupied with their speedometers, which diverts their attention from where it belongs, on road conditions. The result of the camera surveillance program has been to stop the long-term downward trend in fatal accidents. As penalties and prosecutions using speed cameras rise, fatalities not only do not drop, they are higher than what they otherwise would have been. The money spent on cameras takes away from money spent on appropriate human monitoring by police and improving roads to make them less accident-prone.

Driving can be a joyful experience, although traffic due to the government’s road mismanagement greatly diminishes the pleasure of it. But knowing that one is being constantly monitored and may suffer a penalty has to erase any residual pleasure from driving. Driving pleasure is a real phenomenon. Do social planners consider how much pleasure is curtailed by excessive monitoring of individuals driving their cars? My doubt that they do is monumental, and looking at a selection of Canadian web pages on social planning does nothing to alleviate my doubt. Monitoring individual driving is not simply a tax on driving. It is a tax on the pleasure of living and a tax on the pleasure of privacy.

New York City has announced its own surveillance program, in the name of anti-terrorism. Any number of stealth terrorists already are living in the U.S., and short of draconian measures, of which this is a step, there is no possible way to prevent them from traversing New York City or any of a hundred other cities by car or by some other means. At this point, it is access to and proper interpretation of solid intelligence that can uncover terrorist threats before they are realized. That and a long-run strategy of defusing the political reasons that underlie terrorism on U.S. soil may lower the risk of terrorist attacks. Is spending $90 million to monitor everyone’s number plates in Lower Manhattan the best that we can do? This can’t work unless one already knows what number plates to look for. And in that case, why not monitor those vehicles and individuals directly? As anyone who travels by air knows, the out-of-pocket costs of air travel are only the tip of the iceberg. Air travel used to be pleasurable. No longer. It looks as if the Department of Homeland Security means to make automobile travel as unpleasurable as air travel. Eventually, they will get down to internal travel passes as they morph into a homegrown Gestapo.

There is always some convenient excuse for such pork barrel spending and accumulations of power. Great Britain did not need the terrorism excuse when it began its program in 1995 and before. China has a different excuse, which is crime and immigration. An August 12, 2007 New York Timesarticle (available on news.com) reports that the government of China has introduced a pilot people-tracking program in Shenzhen, a city of 12.4 million people near Hong Kong. Chinese citizens already must carry national identity cards with basic information like name and date of birth. The upgraded computer chip on the card “will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial ‘one child’ policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.”

This is part of a larger picture, which includes camera surveillance. The city already has 180,000 cameras operated by businesses and government agencies. The city is installing 20,000 new police-operated surveillance cameras on roads and streets in order to spot suspects and criminal activity in-the-making; and it will have the power to tap into the other 180,000 cameras.

Is there any doubt that surveillance is a foot in the door leading to a big brother society? Cuba and other totalitarian societies operate with paid informants as well as neighbors and children ratting on parents. In this technological age, the authorities will try to accomplish the same using technology. All dogs and pets will have chips, and then all human beings, unless we stop this now. How do we do that? I guess we will all have to burn our ID cards or snip them in half or pass a strong magnet over them.

Pleasure and privacy are not a matter of teasing out abstruse rights from axiomatic foundations. They may not be there. Nor are they a matter that needs empirical study. Research suggests that driving pleasure has a component related to “responsiveness of the vehicle to driver manipulation of the controls, which means that the vehicle obeys and executes driver’s commands faithfully.” In other words, it’s fun to drive. We live in a society where we spend thousand of publicly paid dollars to show that well-fed plants are green. Do we need to fund research to show that human beings value privacy and freedom of action? That already loses the battle because it assumes that we cannot act without studying everything, and that assumes that to study everything we must have a crew of social scientists who will study it for us, and in turn they are assumed to know or be able to measure what’s good for us. To commission a study over such a matter is to lose the battle. It is to turn one’s life over to an interest group of high-paid sociologists or some other newly-minted category of social science.

Jurisprudence may have trouble discovering a lawful area of privacy, but that does not mean that privacy is not valuable to us. Jesus enjoined privacy in prayer and interacted with his disciples privately on any number of occasions. Privacy is as basic as one’s good name. It is as basic as inhabiting one’s body. We need instinctively and automatically to defend the integrity of all of these from intrusions that threaten them or undermine them: our good name, our privacy, and the safety of our persons.

August 16, 2007

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Michael S. Rozeff Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff162.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

“No American President Can Stand Up To Israel”

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152007.html

CounterPunch
August  15, 2007

The Peculiar Relationship

“No  American President Can Stand Up to Israel”

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

“No American President can stand up to  Israel.”

These words came from feisty  Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations (1967-1970)  and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1970-1974). Moorer  was, perhaps, the last independent-minded American military leader.

Admiral Moorer knew what he  was talking about. On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the American  intelligence ship, USS Liberty, killing 34 American sailors and  wounding 173. The Israelis even strafed the life rafts, machine-gunning the American sailors leaving the stricken ship.

Apparently, the USS Liberty  had picked up Israeli communications that revealed Israel’s responsibility  for the Seven Day War. Even today, history books and the majority  of Americans blame the conflict on the Arabs.

The United States Navy knew  the truth, but the President of the United States took Israel’s  side against the American military and ordered the United States  Navy to shut its mouth. President Lyndon Johnson said it was  all just a mistake. Later in life, Admiral Moorer formed a commission  and presented the unvarnished truth to Americans.

The power of the Israel Lobby  over American foreign policy is considerable. In March 2006,  two distinguished American scholars, John Mearsheimer and Stephen  Walt, expressed concern in the London Review of Books that the  power of the Israel Lobby was bending US foreign policy in directions  that serve neither US nor Israeli interests. The two experts  were hoping to start a debate that might rescue the US and Israel  from unsuccessful policies of coercion that are intensifying  Muslim hatred of Israel and America. The Israel lobby was opposed  to any such reassessment, and attempted to close it off with  epithets: “Jew-baiter,” “anti-semitic,” and  even “anti-American.” Today Israeli citizens who oppose  Zionist plans for greater Israel are denounced as “anti-Semites.”

Many Americans are unaware  of the influence of the Israel lobby. Instead they think of the  US as “the world’s sole superpower,” a macho new Roman  Empire whose orders are obeyed without question or the insolent  nonentity is “bombed back to the stone age.” Many Americans  are convinced that military coercion serves our interest. They cite Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are ready  to bring Iran and Pakistan to heel with bombs.

This arrogance results in the  murder of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of  men, women and children, a fate that many Americans seem to believe  is appropriate for countries that do not accept US hegemony.

Coercion is what American foreign  policy has become. Macho superpatriots love it. Many of these  superpatriots derive vicarious pleasure from their delusions  that America is “kicking those sand niggers’ asses.”

This is the America of the  Bush Regime. If some of these superpatriots had their way every  ”unpatriotic, terrorist supporter” who dares to criticize  the war against “the Islamofacists” would be sent to  Gitmo, if not shot on the spot.

These Bush supporters have  morphed the Republican Party into the Brownshirt Party. They  cannot wait to attack Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons.  Impatient for Armageddon, some are so full of hubris and self-righteousness  that they actually believe that their support for evil means  they will be “wafted up to heaven.” [see

It has come as a crippling  blow to Democrats that "their" political party is comfortable  with Bush's America, and will do nothing to stop the Bush regime's  aggression against the Iraqi people or to prevent the Bush regime's  attack on Iran.

The Democrats could easily  impeach both Bush and Cheney in the House, as impeachment only  requires a majority vote. They could not convict in the Senate  without Republican support, as conviction requires ratification  by two-thirds of Senators present. Nevertheless, a House vote for impeachment would take the wind out of the sails of war,  save countless lives and perhaps even save humanity from nuclear  holocaust.

Various rationales or excuses  have been constructed for the Democrats' complicity in aggression  that does not serve America. Perhaps the most popular rationale  is that the Democrats are letting the Republicans have all the  rope they want with which to produce such a high disapproval rating that the Democrats will sweep the 2008 election.

It is doubtful that the Democrats  would assume that men as cunning as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney  do not understand the electoral consequences of a low public approval rating and are walking blindly into an electoral wipeout.  Rove's departure does not mean that no strategy is in place.

So what does explain the complicity  of the Democratic Party in a policy that the American public,  and especially Democratic constituencies, reject? Perhaps a clue  is offered from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune news report  (August 1, 2007) that Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison will  spend a week in Israel on "a privately funded trip sponsored  by the American Israel Education Federation. The AIEF--the charitable  arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--is  sending 19 members of Congress to meet with Israeli leaders.  The group, made up mostly of freshman Democrats, has plans to  meet with Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and [puppet] Palestinian  President Mahmoud Abbas. The senior Democratic member on the  trip is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has gone three  times. . . . The trip to Israel is Ellison’s second as a congressman.”

According to the Star-Tribune,  a Republican group, which includes Rep. Michele Bachmann (R,  Minn), led by Rep. Eric Cantor (R, Va) is already in Israel.  According to news reports, another 40 are following these two  groups during the August recess, and “by the time the year  is out every single member of Congress will have made their rounds  in Israel.” This claim is probably overstated, but it does  show careful Israeli management of US policy in the Middle East.

Elsewhere on earth and especially  among Muslims, the suspicion is rife that the reason the war  against Iraq cannot end, and the reason Iran and Syria must be attacked, is that the US must destroy all Muslim opposition to  Israel’s theft of Palestine, turning an entire people into refugees  driven from their homes and from the lands on which they have  lived for many centuries. Americans might think that they are  merely grabbing control over oil, keeping it out of the hands  of terrorists, but that is not the way the rest of the world  views the conflict.

Jimmy Carter was the last American  president who stood up to Israel and demanded that US diplomacy  be, at least officially if not in practice, even-handed in its  approach to Israel and Palestine. Since Carter’s presidency,  even-handedness has slowly drained from US policy in the Middle  East. The neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime has abandoned even  the pretense of even-handedness.

This is unfortunate, because  military coercion has proven to be unsuccessful. Exhausted from  the conflict, the US military, according to former Secretary  of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin  Powell, is “nearly broken.” Demoralized elite West  Point graduates are leaving the army at the fastest clip in 30  years. Desertions are rapidly rising. A friend, a US Marine officer who served in combat in Vietnam, recently wrote to me that his  son’s Marine unit, currently training for its third deployment  to Iraq in September, is short 12-16 men in every platoon and  expects to be hit with more AWOLs prior to deployment.

Instead of re-evaluating a  failed policy, Bush’s “war tsar,” General Douglas Lute,  has called for the reinstitution of the draft. Gen. Lute doesn’t  see why Americans should not be returned to military servitude  in order to save the Bush administration the embarrassment of  having to correct a mistaken Middle East policy that commits  the US to more aggression and to debilitating long-term military  conflict in the Middle East.

It is difficult to see how  this policy serves any interest other than the very narrow one  of the armaments industry. Apparently, nothing can be done to  change this disastrous policy until the Israel Lobby comes to  the realization that Israel’s interest is not being served by  the current policy of military coercion.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury  in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the  Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of  National Review. He is coauthor of The  Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152007.html
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

BLACKWATER

Via E-Mail…

editor@flyoverpress.com

http;//www.flyoverpress.com

~~~~~

I am currently reading this book and can highly recommend it–especially to those who are unaware of the underhanded shenanigans that the uS government and those it subsidizes are capable of. I trained with Blackwater in 2004 and pretty well figured out for myself what was going on (see WHEN “PRIVATIZATION” IS NOT “PRIVATE”or How Neo-cons Are Like Liberals at http://www.flyoverpress.com/blackwater.htm). This book fills in the facts and gory details that support my general conclusions.

Scahill seems to be bothered by the fact that Blackwater (which is the largest of a multitude of companies like them) are essentially the president’s own private army. Well, I’ve got news for him. It is not the first. Contrary to common knowledge, the much touted “Delta Force” has been the president’s “Republican Guard” since its inception. Yep, other military units trace their chain of command all the way from squad leaders up through Company, Battalion and Division commanders and ultimately through the Sec Def and on to “El Presidente”. Delta Force don’t. The commanding officer of Delta Force reports DIRECTLY to the president.

Scary. Well, I don;t know about you, but it scares the shit out of me and I ain’t a scared a nuthin.

thegunny, 419

~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill

The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

Order Blackwater the book!!

• 
• Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army (Nation Books/Avalon) by Jeremy Scahill is now available! Order the book today!
• BUY THE BOOK FROM AMAZON
• BUY THE BOOK FROM POWELLS
• BUY THE BOOK FROM B&N

About the Author

• Jeremy Scahill is a Polk Award-winning investigative journalist. He is a frequent contributor to The Nation magazine and a correspondent for the national radio and television show Democracy Now!. Scahill has reported extensively from Iraq, the former Yugoslavia and Nigeria. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army is his first book.

Media Inquiries

• For media inquiries or to request a review copy of Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill contact:Anne Sullivan at Nation Books/Avalon Publishing: email: anne.sullivan (AT)avalonpub.com+1-646-437-1222

BEHIND THE BOOK

• Nation Books
• Avalon Publishing
• The Nation Institute
• The Puffin Foundation
• The Nation magazine
• Democracy Now!

Film/Foreign Rights

• Contact: Roam Agency

2007.04.28

Blackwater Book Tour in Cali: Two Upcoming Major California Blackwater Book Events

Saturday April 28
Oakland, CA, 7:30PM
KPFA Event
First Congregational Church
2501 Harrison St.
+++++++++++++++
Monday, April 30
Los Angeles, CA
Nativity Episcopal Church
7:30PM
6700 West 83rd St.
Westchester

Posted at 03:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.04.08

Blackwater Debuts at #9 on The New York Times Bestseller List

Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill has made its debut on The New York Times Bestseller List at #9. In a write-up on the book, the Times called Blackwater “muckraking” and a “crackling exposé.” Click Here to read the Times feature on Jeremy Scahill and Blackwater.

Posted at 02:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.04.07

Blackwater Book Tour Coming to California as Blackwater Comes Under Fire in the State

As Local Residents and Their Congressman Move to Block Blackwater’s Expansion Plans, Jeremy Scahill Author of NY Times Bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army Launches State-wide Book Tour of California April 26th – May 6th.

The San Diego Union Tribune reported the proposal by Blackwater USA to “build a training center on a 800-acre former chicken and cattle ranch in the rural-town of Potrero in San Diego County has torn apart the tiny community and brought protests by those opposed to the company’s government contracts in Iraq.”

San Diego County’s “Rep. Bob Filner says he is exploring legislation that would block a controversial proposal for a major defense contractor’s training camp in the backcountry community of Potrero.”

Scahill’s California Tour Dates:
Saturday April 28
Oakland, CA, 7:30PM
KPFA Event
First Congregational Church
2501 Harrison St.
+++++++++++++++
Sun April 29
Los Angeles, CA
LA Times Book Festival
2pm book signing
at Nation Books booth
+++++++++++++++
Monday, April 30
Los Angeles, CA
Nativity Episcopal Church, 7:30PM
6700 West 83rd St. Westchester
+++++++++++++++
Tues. May 1
San Diego, CA
Unitarian Church, 7PM
4190 Front Street
+++++++++++++++
Wednesday, May 2
La Mesa, CA 7PM
La Mesa Community Center
4975 Memorial Drive
+++++++++++++++
Thursday, May 3
Sacramento, CA 7pm
First United Methodist Church
Corner of 21st and J Street
+++++++++++++++
Saturday, May 5
Fresno, CA 6PM
KFCF Event
North Fork Town Hall
33507 Recreation Road
+++++++++++++++
Sun May 6
Chico, CA
Justice and Peace Institute
Chico State University
526 Broadway
Posted at 12:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.03.16

Bush’s Shadow Army

Jeremy Scahill’s new investigative article, “Bush’s Shadow Army,” hits newsstands this week as the cover story for The Nation magazine’s April 2 issue: “While the initial inquiries into Blackwater have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration’s Praetorian Guard.” READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Posted at 01:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Blackwater Author on VideoNation

Blackwater Rising:
Posted at 01:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.02.28

Blackwater Book Launch Set for March 21 in NYC

Posted at 03:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.02.11

Blackwater Author Jeremy Scahill Appears on CNN Report on Blackwater Congressional Hearings

Watch Andrea Koppel’s story on the February 7 Congressional hearing featuring Blackwater USA and the families of four of its contractors killed in Fallujah on March 31, 2004.

Posted at 12:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Blackwater USA Takes Congressional Hot-Seat as Landmark Hearing Probes Mercenary Firm’s Role in Iraq

On Wednesday February 7, Blackwater USA found itself in the Congressional hotseat as Rep. Henry Waxman launched the opening salvo in what could be a very long Congressional road for the Bush administration’s mercenary company of choice. For the first time, Blackwater was forced to face the families of four of its contractors ambushed and killed in Fallujah on March 31, 2004. The families of the four men have filed a ground-breaking wrongful death suit against Blackwater, alleging the company cut corners in the pursuit of greater profits, sending their loved ones into Fallujah under-staffed, under-armed and in Pajero jeeps instead of fully-armored vehicles. Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince had been invited to testify but instead sent an emissary, Blackwater legal counsel Andrew Howell. On February 8, the day after the hearing, Jeremy Scahill–who was in Washington for the hearings– appeared on the national radio and television program Democracy Now! to discuss developments in the case. Also on the show was Katy Helvenston, who is suing Blackwater. Her son, 32-year old Scott Helvenston, was one of the contractors killed in Fallujah. READ THE TRANSCRIPT, WATCH THE PROGRAM.

Posted at 12:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.02.04

Congress Begins Blackwater Investigation

In Washington DC this week, the Democratic Staff Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) will begin what some analysts and Capitol Hill operatives are saying will be a series of investigations into Blackwater USA. The hearings kick off on Tuesday when former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer III appears before the committee. Bremer, who served as the proconsul in Baghdad from 2003-2004, was protected by Blackwater under an initial $21 million no-bid contract. Blackwater subsequently won a $300 million State Department contract to provide diplomatic security and has guarded Ambassadors John Negroponte and Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as several regional occupation offices in Iraq. On Wednesday, the hearings will focus in on the high-profile ambush of a Blackwater convoy in Fallujah on March 31, 2004. Four Blackwater contractors were killed, their bodies burned and hung from a bridge. That event marked a turning point in the war that sparked multiple U.S. sieges of Fallujah and emboldened the Iraqi resistance that haunts occupation forces to this day. Appearing at the hearing will be the mothers of the four contractors killed. They have filed a ground-breaking wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater. Also asked to appear is Blackwater’s secretive CEO and founder, Erik Prince. Congressional sources, however, are predicting that Prince will send a representative instead of appearing himself. READ JEREMY SCAHILL’S ARTICLE ON THE LAWSUIT: “BLOOD IS THICKER THAN BLACKWATER.” At issue will also be the system of subcontracting in Iraq and who exactly the four Blackwater contractor’s were working for the day they were killed. In addition, representatives of the massive war contractors KBR and Fluor, as well as military officials will testify. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), chair of the Senate Foreign Rleations Committee, have both indicated in recent days their intent to investigate private armies and other war contractors.

Posted at 03:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.01.30

Jeremy Scahill’s Reporting Featured on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer

On Tuesday’s edition of “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer”, Jack Cafferty’s “Cafferty File Question of the Day” was based on Jeremy Scahill’s reporting on Blackwater USA.

Posted at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Blackwater Book Tour Dates

• Saturday April 28
  Oakland, CA, 7:30PM
  KPFA Event
  First Congregational Church
  2501 Harrison St.
  +++++++++++++++ Sun April 29
  Los Angeles, CA
  LA Times Book Festival
  2pm book signing
  at Nation Books booth
  +++++++++++++++ Monday, April 30
  Los Angeles, CA
  Monday, April 30
  Nativity Episcopal Church
  7:30PM
  6700 West 83rd St.
  Westchester
  +++++++++++++++ Tues. May 1
  San Diego, CA
  Unitarian Church, 7PM
  4190 Front Street
  +++++++++++++++ Wednesday, May 2
  La Mesa, CA 7PM
  La Mesa Community Center
  4975 Memorial Drive
  +++++++++++++++ Thursday, May 3
  Sacramento, CA 7pm
  First United Methodist Church
  Corner of 21st and J Street
  +++++++++++++++ May 5
  Fresno, CA 6PM
  KFCF Event
  North Fork Town Hall
  33507 Recreation Road
  +++++++++++++++ Sun May 6
  Chico, CA
  Justice and Peace Institute
  Chico State University
  526 Broadway
  +++++++++++++++ Monday May 7th
  Boulder, CO
  Republic of Boulder
  7PM
  1095 Canyon
  +++++++++++++++ Tuesday May 8th
  Denver, CO
  Mercury Cafe 7PM
  2199 California
  +++++++++++++++ Wednesday, May 9
  Albuquerque, NM
  KUNM Event, 7PM
  Outpost Performance Space
  210 Yale SE
  +++++++++++++++ Thursday, May 10
  Santa Fe, NM
  KSFR Event
  Greer Garson Theater
  College of Santa Fe
  +++++++++++++++ Friday, May 11
  Minneapolis, MN, 7PM
  Details to come
  +++++++++++++++ Tuesday May 15
  DeKalb, Illinois
  Northern Illinois University
  +++++++++++++++ Wed., May 16
  Evanston, Illinois
  Northwestern University, 7PM
  Harris Hall, Room #108
  +++++++++++++++ Thursday, May 17
  Oak Park, IL
  Barbara’s Bookstore, 7:30PM
  1100 Lake St.
  +++++++++++++++ Friday, May 18
  Chicago, Illinois
  Voices for Creative Nonviolence
  Grace Place, 7PM
  637 South Dearborn Avenue
  ***More dates and details to come***

About Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill

• MEET BLACKWATER USA, the powerful private army that the U.S. government has made its Praetorian Guard for the “global war on terror.” Blackwater has the world’s largest private military base, a fleet of twenty aircraft, and 20,000 contractors at the ready. Run by a multimillionaire Christian conservative who bankrolls President Bush and his allies, its forces are capable of overthrowing governments, and yet most people have never heard of Blackwater. That is about to change. READ MORE

Advance Praise for Blackwater

• “Thrilling” “Explosive” “A triumph of investigative reporting”…CATCH THE BUZZ ABOUT BLACKWATER

Blackwater Reporting

• Our mercenaries in Iraq-LA Times
• From Whitewater to Blackwater
• Blackwater Shot Down in Federal Court
• Mercenary Jackpot
• In the Black(water)
• Blood Is Thicker Than Blackwater
• Blackwater Down

Recent Posts

• Blackwater Book Tour in Cali: Two Upcoming Major California Blackwater Book Events
• Blackwater Debuts at #9 on The New York Times Bestseller List
• Blackwater Book Tour Coming to California as Blackwater Comes Under Fire in the State

Subscribe to this blog’s feed

Archives

• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007

–
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

TR and the Modern Presidency

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods79.html

Theodore Roosevelt and the Modern Presidency

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

DIGG THIS

According to the Associated Press, all the presidential candidates see themselves in Theodore Roosevelt. (Well, all but one, but you know the routine by now.)

This is precisely the problem. Theodore Roosevelt is responsible for devising and putting into action the philosophy of the presidency to which all modern presidents have subscribed. That isn’t a compliment.

With polls of historians classifying TR among the “near great” and political aspirants in both parties eagerly positioning themselves squarely within his model of governance, the prima facie case that the Rough Rider must have been a villain is pretty strong. Look closely at his record and that instinct is confirmed.

What follows here originally appeared in Reassessing the Presidency, John Denson’s edited volume from 2001. More about Teddy and his real history can be found in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.

In 1896, Brooks Adams wrote a book called The Law of Civilization and Decay. Like most late-nineteenth-century commentators, he believed that his country was nearing a watershed in its history. But unless America rallied around a strong leader, the center of world power, which he thought might be about to shift from England to the United States, would shift instead to Russia. In many ways, Theodore Roosevelt – who read Adams’s book with interest – would prove to be this leader, invigorating the executive branch in both the domestic and the foreign arenas. In so doing, he became the first modern president.

Roosevelt was well suited for this role. Philosophically he was the consummate Progressive, determined to bring efficiency and coordinated intelligence to bear against the trusts, against despoilers of the natural environment, and against international disorder. He was, as one historian put it, “the first great president-reformer of the modern industrial era.” [1] He therefore had little patience with federalism and indeed with most of the constitutional impediments that stood between him and the construction of a new American state. Politically he was a committed nationalist. He thus could barely bring himself to speak of Thomas Jefferson, whom he loathed; and as late as the 1880s he was still condemning Jefferson Davis as a traitor. The Confederate cause, since it denied that a large consolidated nation was its own justification, enraged him. Roosevelt brought to the presidential office a thorough and consistent philosophy of the presidency. What a previous president may have done hesitatingly or without fanfare, Theodore Roosevelt made a matter of principle. He deserves credit for innovation even, paradoxically enough, in cases in which he was exercising an executive prerogative that one of his recent predecessors had in fact pioneered.

Presidential scholar Edward Corwin has spoken of the “personalization of the presidency,” by which he means that the accident of personality has played a considerable role in shaping the office. And indeed it is hard to think of a stronger personality than that of Theodore Roosevelt who ever served as president. One presidential scholar observed that Roosevelt gave the office “the absorbing drama of a Western movie.” [2] And no wonder. Mark Twain, who met with the president twice, declared him “clearly insane.” In a way, Roosevelt set the tone for his public life to come at age twenty, when, after an argument with his girlfriend, he went home and shot and killed his neighbor’s dog. [3] He told a friend in 1884 that when he donned his special cowboy suit, which featured revolver and rifle, “I feel able to face anything.” [4] When he killed his first buffalo, he “abandoned himself to complete hysteria,” as historian Edmund Morris put it, “whooping and shrieking while his guide watched in stolid amazement.” His reaction was similar in 1898 when he killed his first Spaniard. [5]

He loathed inactivity. At one point during the 1880s he wrote to a friend that he had been working so hard lately that for the next month he was going to do nothing but relax – and write a life of Oliver Cromwell. Henry Adams said that

all Roosevelt’s friends know that his restless and combative energy was more than abnormal. Roosevelt, more than any other man living within the range of notoriety, showed the singular primitive quality that belongs to ultimate matter – the quality that medieval theology assigned to God – he was pure act. [6]

One of his sons is said to have remarked, “Father always wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.” [7]

Bringing such a personality to the presidency, Roosevelt increased very significantly the visibility of the office and the popular fascination with the person of the president. One presidential historian explained it this way:

As no president in memory and probably none up to that time, Theodore Roosevelt became a “personality” – a politician whose every action seemed newsworthy and exciting. His family, his friends, his guests, his large teeth, his thick glasses, his big game hunting, and his horseback riding – all were sources of media attention and delight. In a way that Washington and Lincoln had not done, and even Jackson avoided, Theodore Roosevelt became a very visible tribune of the people, a popular advocate whose personality seemed immediate, direct, and committed to their personal service. [8]

The modern tendency to micromanage even affairs that clearly belong to the care of civil society, to refer even the most trivial issues to the discretion of the executive, with the implicit presumption against the ability of individuals and intermediate bodies to manage their affairs, also finds substantial precedent in the Roosevelt administration. The classic example occurred in 1905 when Theodore Roosevelt assembled athletic personnel from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale at the White House to reform the rules of college football to make the game safer. The 1903 season had witnessed several dozen deaths from excessively rough play. Roosevelt’s small convocation was a minor incident, to be sure, but it was the first step in a long series by which the presidency would assume an aggressive and visible presence in the life of the nation, and by which the American people would grow accustomed to entrusting to the person of the executive even the most trivial aspects of everyday affairs.

This was the kind of energy and vigor that Theodore Roosevelt brought to his office and that he used to promote his distinct philosophy of the presidency. “There inheres in the presidency more power than in any other office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy of modern times,” Roosevelt once remarked. But far from deploring this state of affairs, he went on to say, “I believe in a strong executive; I believe in power.” [9] “I don’t think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man’s hands,” He argued elsewhere, “provided the holder does not keep it for more than a certain, definite time, and then returns it to the people from whom he sprang.” [10]

He agreed with Andrew Jackson, who had argued that the president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a unique claim to be the representative of all American people. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people,” he maintained. He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under this interpretation of executive power, I did and caused to be done many things not previously done. . . . I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.” [11]

The cry of “executive usurpation” had hounded Andrew Jackson during the 1830s when he attempted to put a similar theory of the presidency into practice. “What effrontery!” John C. Calhoun had exclaimed in response to the suggestion that the president was “the immediate representative of the American people.” “[T]he American people are not represented in a single department of the Government,” Calhoun insisted; “the people of these States [are] united in a constitutional compact . . . forming distinct and sovereign communities,” and therefore, “no such community or people, as the American people, taken in the aggregate [exists].” [12] Calhoun was characteristically perceptive when he pondered why Jackson would put forth such a theory.

But why all this solicitude on the part of the president to place himself near to the people, and to push us off to the greatest distance? Why this solicitude to make himself their sole representative, their only guardian and protector, their only friend and supporter? The object cannot be mistaken. It is preparatory to farther hostilities – to an appeal to the people; and is intended to to [sic] prepare the way in order to transmit to them his declaration of war against the Senate, with a view to enlist them as his allies in the war which he contemplates waging against this branch of the Government. [13]

Calhoun’s remark applies equally well to Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, as we shall see, convinced he was doing the will of the people and what was best for the country, did not hesitate to disregard the Senate or the Congress as a whole. He honestly believed himself to be doing the people’s will, and his solemn responsibility to see that will vindicated overrode concerns regarding the separation of powers. He remarked privately that in the United States,

as in any nation which amounts to anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work of governing; and insofar as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands. [14]

Roosevelt’s innovations in the area of domestic policy were more subtle than those he introduced in foreign affairs. Previous presidents, following both American tradition and the spirit of the Constitution, had not entered office with an extensive legislative program whose passage they vigorously prosecuted. They deferred instead to Congress, the branch which, it was generally understood, was to retain the initiative in such matters. But Roosevelt found a certain virility in bold leadership, and in situations in which decisive action seemed called for he considered deference to Congress or to other legal restraints on executive power as a sign of pusillanimity and decadence. He wrote in his Autobiography:

In theory the Executive has nothing to do with legislation. In practice as things now are, the Executive is or ought to be peculiarly representative of the people as a whole. As often as not the action of the Executive offers the only means by which the people can get the legislation they demand and ought to have. Therefore a good executive under the present conditions of American political life must take a very active interest in getting the right kind of legislation, in addition to performing his executive duties with an eye single to the public welfare. [15]

Although the political parties of Roosevelt’s day, as in our own, shared a great deal in common, political discourse in the United States was still fluid enough that matters of real import were still discussed within the halls of Congress. Thus Senator Isidor Rayner, aghast at Roosevelt’s approach, remarked in 1906:

Here we were day after day struggling with questions of constitutional law, as if we really had anything to do with their settlement, laboring under the vain delusion that we had the right to legislate; that we were an independent branch of the Government; that we were one department, and the Executive another, each with its separate and well-defined distinctions, imagining these things, and following a vision and a mirage, while the president was at work dominating the legislative will, interposing his offices into the law-making power, assuming legislative rights to a greater extent than if he were sitting here as a member of this body; dismembering the Constitution, and exercising precisely and identically the same power and control as if the Constitution had declared that the Congress shall pass no law without the consent of the president; adopting a system that practically blends and unites legislative and executive functions, a system that prevailed in many of the ancient governments that have forever gone to ruin, and which today still obtains in other governments, the rebellious protests of whose subjects are echoing over the earth, and whose tottering fabrics I hope are on the rapid road to dissolution. [16]

The annual presidential message read to Congress in December 1905 – the “State of the Union,” having fallen into disuse since Jefferson’s tenure, would be revived by Woodrow Wilson – contained a lengthy plea from Roosevelt for a series of regulatory legislation. The significance of Roosevelt’s program was not lost on his political opponents. The New York World, a Democratic newspaper, called it “the most amazing program of centralization that any president of the United States has ever recommended.” [17] One disgruntled commentator remarked after the legislation was passed that Roosevelt’s policies betrayed “a marked tendency toward the centralization of power in the United States and a corresponding decrease in the old-time sovereignty of the states, or of the individual.” [18]

Roosevelt’s top legislative achievements, such as the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Hepburn Act, reflect the president’s confidence in expert commissions and, more broadly, his stewardship theory of the executive branch. As one scholar put it, these acts, taken together, “might well be considered as marking the birth of the modern regulatory state.” [19] Not everyone was especially sanguine at this prospect. One conservative Republican observed that the president was “consciously, or unconsciously . . . trying to concentrate all power in Washington, to practically wipe out state lines, and to govern the people by commissions and bureaus.” [20]

It is fashionable in historical circles to describe Roosevelt as a conservative because he advocated domestic reform in large part simply to keep at bay more radical initiatives. [21] So, for example, he called for legislation to regulate the railroads in order to counter calls for outright nationalization. Historians of the New Left have gone even further, arguing that since big business itself frequently played a role in agitating for and even shaping the emerging regulatory apparatus, the ostensible effort by Roosevelt and his successors to rein in business interests was a sham. New Left scholars have, indeed, added a necessary corrective to the previously existing literature, and their claims certainly hold water in such obvious cases as the Federal Reserve System. The Fed, which, while perhaps still not as centralized as some bankers may have wanted, clearly served bankers’ interests by socializing risk and by helping to coordinate the inflationary policies of member banks, thereby reducing the risk of runs. [22]

But it is too hasty to conclude from this that all regulation, even when corporate interests themselves may have played a role in its passage, ultimately works to the benefit of big business. That a government–business alliance characterized the emerging American regime at the turn of the century is beyond dispute; but New Left historians fail to acknowledge that the state always maintained the upper hand in this partnership. The New Left critique stems partially from the fact that its partisans would have been satisfied with nothing short of nationalizing or dismantling large interests; and from such a perspective Roosevelt can indeed seem the reactionary.

The battle over railroad regulation and the Interstate Commerce Commission provides a good example of the shortcomings of this thesis. Roosevelt supported further railroad regulation in addition to that already on the books, and ultimately signed the Hepburn Act of 1906 – which, while not as radical as what he had sought, he considered satisfactory. The Act increased the number of members of the Interstate Commerce Commission and gave it the authority to set “just and reasonable” rail rates. Whatever rates the Commission decided upon were to take effect immediately. Although the railroads had a right to appeal to the courts, the burden of proof rested on them and not on the Commission.

The results were devastating. In a book that earned the Columbia University Prize in American Economic History in 1971, Albro Martin described the situation in detail. His thesis, stated simply, is that Roosevelt’s Hepburn Act, combined with subsequent regulatory enactments – in particular William Howard Taft’s Mann–Elkins Act of 1910 – deprived the railroads of the rate increases they needed, an especially debilitating handicap in an inflationary atmosphere. The railroads needed investment capital following the reorganizations of the 1890s if they were to preserve their capital stock, to rebuild, and to modernize. In other words, they needed to be left alone. Instead they got policies that both increased labor costs and refused the rate increases they needed. The result was that by 1911 profits had vanished, and the collapse of the system of private management of the railroads followed soon afterwards. [23]

One historian who concedes that railroad regulation ultimately proved destructive attempts to exonerate Roosevelt by claiming that the president had wanted a Commission that would be fair rather than punitive; but Roosevelt can hardly be held blameless for having adopted, uncritically, the standard Progressive faith in the disinterested rationality and overall benevolence of expert commissions. [24] Indeed, Roosevelt never bothered to explain how the granting of rate-setting power to a board of supposed experts who were completely divorced from the actual operation and ownership of the railroads, and for whom rational economic calculation was therefore impossible, could have yielded anything but arbitrary decrees.

This arbitrariness, this apparent belief that seeing vindication of his iron will was an adequate substitute for a sober assessment of a situation, was a central feature of Roosevelt’s personality, and it appears time and again in his dealings with big business. Unlike some Progressives, whom he dubbed “the lunatic fringe,” Roosevelt did not consider business concentration a trend to be avoided or reversed. He saw it as an inevitable and even beneficial development of industrial society, albeit one that had to be regulated in the public interest. It is also true that Roosevelt’s reputation as a trustbuster has been exaggerated; historians rightly point out that the Taft administration initiated twice as many antitrust suits in its one term than Roosevelt did in his two. But at issue here is not so much whether Roosevelt was especially severe in this or that area, or whether he was an outright radical. The question is whether he dealt justly with the private sector, what kind of precedents he set for the future, and how he helped to strengthen the executive beyond what the framers had envisioned.

In early 1902, Roosevelt ordered Attorney General Philander Knox to file an antitrust suit against the Northern Securities Company, a holding company that had taken over two railroads that stretched from Seattle to St. Paul, the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern. [25] This is the case that almost single-handedly earned Theodore Roosevelt his trust-busting reputation; but again, in a desperate effort to portray Roosevelt as judicious and moderate, most historians have belittled its significance. Roosevelt himself pinpointed its importance:

From the standpoint of giving complete control to the National Government over big corporations engaged in interstate business, it would be impossible to overestimate the importance of the Northern Securities decision and of the decisions afterward rendered in line with it in connection with the other trusts whose dissolution was ordered. The success of the Northern Securities case definitely established the power of the government to deal with all great corporations. [26]

The decision at last overthrew what he called the “vicious doctrine” of the E.C. Knight case of 1895, which had severely limited the scope of the Sherman Act. In that case, the Supreme Court had ruled that, although the American Sugar Refining Company held about 95 percent of the American sugar market after buying the E.C. Knight Company, they had committed no actionable offense since they had done nothing, strictly speaking, to restrain trade. “This decision,” Roosevelt said with some satisfaction, “I caused to be annulled by the court that had rendered it.” [27] The argument that Northern Securities was neither restraining trade nor preventing other lines from providing transportation along the same route – an argument its architects had been led to believe, on the basis of the precedent in Knight, the federal government would consider unimpeachable – suddenly no longer held water.

Before advising Philander Knox to initiate the case, Roosevelt neglected to ask himself some fairly obvious questions. For one thing, did the new holding company in fact substitute a monopolistic arrangement for a previously existing state of competition? In fact, it did not. The Great Northern and the Northern Pacific may have appeared to be two alternative lines between St. Paul and Seattle, but in fact, as Balthasar Henry Meyer points out, price wars between the two lines were a thing of the past, and for twenty years the railroads had lived in “comparative peace.” “It was assumed that competition had been stifled without first asking the question whether competition had actually existed; and whether, if competition could be perpetuated, the public would profit by it.” [28] According to Dominick Armentano,

Both railways had maintained joint rates, and the consequent backloading and even flow of freight realized from such arrangements had increased the efficiency and economy of each line, and allowed a generally low level of rates that would have bankrupted other roads.

The idea for the holding company originated partly from a desire to put the arrangement on a more stable footing and partly from concerns surrounding the designs of E.H. Harriman, who in early 1901 had tried to get a controlling interest in the Northern Pacific. In a mere four days, its common stock rose from $144 to over $1000 per share. The holding company would put both rails beyond the reach of Harriman, and, thus, prevent him from undermining the economic advantages that obtained from the close relationship that existed between the two lines. Naturally, these advantages paid dividends to the consumer: rail rates declined on the Hill–Morgan lines between November 1901, when the Northern Securities Company was incorporated, and 1903. There had been a chance, following Knight, that the arbitrariness of the antitrust laws might to some degree be mitigated; Roosevelt helped ensure that they would continue to be leveled against corporations that simplistic, static models deemed monopolistic but which nearly always brought benefits to the consumer.

In domestic affairs, then, Roosevelt greatly accelerated the process by which the executive became the de facto originator of legislation, and in other ways, such as his increasing use of executive commissions, set in motion a trend toward presidential supremacy. As Forrest McDonald explains in his own study of the presidency, “Roosevelt’s showmanship in pretending to be the fountain of reform legislation transformed the expectations Americans had for their presidents and thus opened the door for the emergence of the legislative presidency.” [29] That his legislative record was not more impressive was not from lack of trying. But he paved the way for his successors, who would build upon Roosevelt’s foundation.

Theodore Roosevelt made even more significant contributions to the modern presidency in the area of foreign affairs. In domestic affairs, Roosevelt explained, Congress could generally be trusted to come around to the correct position. But in the conduct of foreign policy, senators, who were, as he put it, “wholly indifferent to national honor or national welfare” and “primarily concerned in getting a little cheap reputation among ignorant people,” could interfere with the conduct of an honorable course abroad. [30] “More and more,” Roosevelt declared to Congress in 1902, “the increasing interdependence and complexity of international political and economic relations render it incumbent on all civilized and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of the world.” [31] The contention that Congress was the more popular branch of government and, therefore, even prescinding from the constitutional question, deserved special deference in matters of peace and war, would not have dissuaded him. He had privately called public opinion “the voice of the devil, or what is still worse, the voice of a fool,” and in a calmer moment, speaking in particular of foreign affairs, he observed that “[o]ur prime necessity is that public opinion should be properly educated.” [32] Hence, while he favored executive supremacy in all areas of governance, the need for it in foreign policy was correspondingly greater.

Roosevelt’s fascination with war is corroborated both by his own testimony and by that of those who knew him. A college friend wrote in 1885, “He would like above all things to go to war with some one. . . . He wants to be killing something all the time.” [33] Roosevelt told another friend a few years later:

Frankly I don’t know that I should be sorry to see a bit of a spar with Germany. The burning of New York and a few other sea coast cities would be a good object lesson in the need of an adequate system of coast defenses, and I think it would have a good effect on our large German population to force them to an ostentatiously patriotic display of anger against Germany. [34]

Over and over again Roosevelt insisted that the country “needed” a war. “He gushes over war,” wrote the philosopher William James,

as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . . One foe is as good as another, for aught he tells us. [35]

One of the top scholars of Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy has explained that the Rough Rider “sought a big navy because it would prevent war, but also because it was such fun to have a big navy.” [36]

So attached was Roosevelt to the issues of national readiness and the martial virtues that after leaving office, Roosevelt suggested adapting some of the wartime model to the needs of peacetime. He became an advocate of “universal obligatory military training” and, in a comment that unwittingly reveals the rarely acknowledged link between universal suffrage and universal conscription, Roosevelt declared: “Let us demand service from women as we do from men, and in return give the suffrage to all men and women who in peace and war perform the service.” When it came to men’s training, Roosevelt pointed to the U.S. Army camps as the standard to be imitated.

I believe that for every young man . . . to have six months in such a camp . . . [with] some field service, would be of incalculable benefit to him, and . . . to the nation. . . . [M]aking these camps permanent would be the greatest boon this nation could receive. [37]

This attachment to war, combined with the various manifestations of imperialism during his presidency, earned Theodore Roosevelt the scorn of New Left historians, after having enjoyed a period of tremendous popularity during the 1950s. The pendulum has since swung back in Roosevelt’s favor. Nearly every historian of Roosevelt since the late 1970s, with the smug self-satisfaction that comes from seeming to overturn the conventional wisdom, has argued that notwithstanding his reputation and his personal bellicosity, Theodore Roosevelt was actually much more restrained in foreign policy matters while in office than might have been expected. The only way to make this interpretation of Roosevelt’s conduct in foreign affairs persuasive is to downplay or to eliminate altogether any mention of the discomfiting fact that both as vice president and as president Theodore Roosevelt presided over a vicious and brutal war of suppression in the Philippines. It is simply not possible to pretend to assess Roosevelt’s tenure as president without examining this ugly episode in American history. This is in fact what most of these historians, to their everlasting shame, have done.

The United States obtained the Philippines during the Spanish-American War in 1898, when Commodore George Dewey, under instructions from Theodore Roosevelt himself (then assistant secretary of the Navy), attacked the islands a few days after the opening of hostilities in Cuba. Shortly after the war’s conclusion, when it became apparent that the United States had no intention of granting independence to the islands, guerrilla warfare broke out, spearheaded by Emilio Aguinaldo, the head of the rebels. The size of the American effort to suppress the Filipino nationalists has rarely been fully appreciated: some 126,000 American troops saw action in suppression campaigns, and an incredible 200,000 Filipinos lost their lives. [38]

While the fighting was going on, the Philadelphia Ledger featured a front-page story by a correspondent covering General J. Franklin Bell’s campaign that read:

The present war is no bloodless, fake, opera bouffé engagement. Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, a noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to “make them talk,” have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-riddled corpses.

This correspondent might seem to be a critic of American policy. In fact, he joined Roosevelt’s generals in pointing to the primitive and uncivilized Filipinos as an excuse for disregarding the norms of civilized warfare. “It is not civilized warfare,” he admitted, “but we are not dealing with a civilized people. The only thing they know and fear is force, violence, and brutality, and we give it to them.” [39] Roosevelt’s own views on race, which would take an entire chapter to describe in detail, only encouraged this kind of barbarism; and more than once he insisted that he had no intention of dealing with peoples he called backward with the same treatment he afforded civilized countries. He told Rudyard Kipling how irritated he became with those who dared suggest that a country like Colombia “is entitled to just the treatment that I would give, say, to Denmark or Switzerland.” The very suggestion was a “mere absurdity,” he told another correspondent. [40]

Only after American conduct in the Philippines was given embarrassing publicity at home in 1902 did Roosevelt take any action at all, ordering the court-martial of General Smith and Major Glenn, and, even then, he seemed clearly displeased that the subject had been broached at all. At the same time, he denounced lynchings in the South – acts, he claimed, which were “worse to the victim, and far more brutalizing to those guilty of it,” than any atrocities that may have been committed in the Philippines. [41] Charles Francis Adams, who suspected that the brutality of the American side of the fighting enjoyed at least the president’s benign acquiescence, had predicted earlier that year that Roosevelt would “be very severe in words – on outrages; but no one will be punished.” He was right: Glenn ended up being fined fifty dollars, and Smith was “admonished.” Theodore Roosevelt’s utter lack of interest was made especially manifest when, immediately following his court-martial of General Smith, he wrote General J. Franklin Bell to congratulate him on his conduct of the war in Batangas. Bell was a man whose methods Henry Cabot Lodge himself had described as “cruel,” and it was well-known that Bell had ordered 100,000 Filipinos into concentration camps. [42] In 1906 Roosevelt went even further, and appointed General Bell as his chief of staff. [43]

Roosevelt’s approach in the Philippines was only the most spectacular indication that the content of his foreign policy left much to be desired, and it inaugurated a century of humanitarian violence that would be couched in the saccharine language of idealism and justice. Even more important from the point of view of Theodore Roosevelt’s contributions to the presidency as an institution, however, is the more procedural question of how he actually carried out his policy. It is here that he demonstrated his most brazen contempt for the legislative branch.

An excellent example concerns Roosevelt’s decision to take over the customs houses in the Dominican Republic. In what has become known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Theodore Roosevelt had declared in 1904 that although the United States had no territorial ambitions in its own hemisphere, cases of “chronic wrongdoing” on the part of a Latin American country that might invite occupation by a European power could force America’s hand. To forestall European occupation, the United States would intervene to restore order and to see that all just claims were satisfied. When it looked in early 1905 as though one or more European countries might intervene in the Dominican Republic to recover outstanding debt, Roosevelt put the Corollary into effect for the first time by declaring that the United States would administer the Dominican Republic’s customs collections to forestall any such foreign intervention.

From the beginning, Theodore Roosevelt seemed to have hoped to be able to avoid consulting the Senate at all. The agreement reached with the Dominican Republic was set to take effect February 1, 1905, a mere eleven days after it was signed – obviously too short an interval to allow for Senate discussion or approval. The administration had a change of heart after it found itself the subject of severe denunciations in the Senate, even among supporters of the president. Senator Augustus Bacon, not unreasonably, objected:

I do not think there can be any more important question than that which involves the consideration of the powers of the president to make a treaty which shall virtually take over the affairs of another government and seek to administer them by this Government, without submitting that question to the consideration and judgment of the Senate. [44]

For his part, Senator Henry Teller added:

I deny the right of the executive department of the Government to make any contract, any treaty, any protocol, or anything of that character which will bind the United States. . . . The president has no more right and no more authority to bind the people of the United States by such an agreement than I have as a member of this body. [45]

After the treaty was finally submitted to the Senate, a special session closed without taking a vote on it. An exasperated Roosevelt simply defied the Senate, drawing up what today we would call an executive agreement – by which, he later noted in his autobiography, “I went ahead and administered the proposed treaty anyhow, considering it as a simple agreement on the part of the Executive which could be converted into a treaty whenever the Senate acted.” The Senate finally did approve a modified version of the treaty two years later, but Roosevelt later wrote, “I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress.” [46]

Forrest McDonald observes that before Theodore Roosevelt’s accession to power, the last time a matter of real significance had been carried out by means of an executive agreement was the Rush–Bagot Agreement of 1817 between Britain and the United States that limited naval armaments on the Great Lakes. But even here, President Monroe eventually sought the opinion of the Senate as to whether it required ratification; and while that body gave no answer, it did approve the agreement by a two-thirds vote. It fell to Theodore Roosevelt to convert the executive agreement into a major instrument of American foreign policy, and he did so without hesitation or apology. These included “agreements to approve Japan’s military protectorate in Korea, to restrict Japanese immigration into the United States, to uphold the Open Door policy in China, and to recognize Japan’s ‘special interests’ in China.” [47]

One of the classic combinations of Roosevelt’s belligerence and his contempt for Congress was the Rough Rider’s decision to send the entire battle fleet on a worldwide tour, the aim of which was to impress all nations, but in particular to intimidate Japan. As presidential scholars have noted, the manner in which Roosevelt carried out this exhibition was perhaps as significant as the act itself. Congress objected immediately, threatening to withhold funds for the tour. Roosevelt saw their bluff, and warned Congress that since he had the money to send the ships to the Pacific, their refusal to fund the return trip – and therefore to strip the East of its defenses – was a political decision he would leave to them. [48]

Indeed, Congress (and even Roosevelt’s own cabinet) looked on impotently as much of Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy was conducted. “I took Panama without consulting the Cabinet,” Roosevelt later recalled. “A council of war never fights, and in a crisis the duty of a leader is to lead.” Upon sending his Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, to restore some kind of order in Cuba, he told the future president, “I should not dream of asking the permission of Congress. . . . It is for the enormous interest of this government to strengthen and give independence to the Executive in dealing with foreign powers.” [49] When the Senate insisted on modifying the language of a series of arbitration treaties between the United States and nine European countries and Mexico so that the right of the president to reach a “special agreement” with a country with whom the United States was entering arbitration would instead become the right to enter a “special treaty” – thereby requiring the president to secure the Senate’s consent – Roosevelt rejected the treaties altogether on such a basis. [50] Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Shelby M. Cullom, meanwhile, later explained that the Senate had had no choice but to “assert and uphold its rights as part of the treaty-making power.” [51]

Many of Roosevelt’s contemporaries favored a strong executive and an expansionist foreign policy because they had become convinced that American business needed to seize foreign markets for their unsold surpluses. Roosevelt seems to have shared this view, but his primary concern in expansion was a geopolitical one: to elevate the United States to the great-power status to which it had an increasing claim. In fact, as Emily Rosenberg has pointed out, Roosevelt only became interested in the economic issues involved in foreign affairs when he perceived matters of national honor at stake, when a foreign power was not showing the United States the respect he thought it deserved. Thus, in 1905 Roosevelt was prepared for a direct confrontation with China when that country cancelled a railroad concession it had granted to J.P. Morgan. It was not without reason that the Chinese ordered the cancellation: in five years Morgan had completed a mere twenty-eight miles of what was ultimately supposed to be an 840-mile track, and they also claimed certain violations of contract on his part. Morgan himself, perhaps recognizing the flimsiness of his case, accepted the settlement, which included a handsome compensation package for profits foregone. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was furious. He later remarked privately that if Morgan had decided to fight, “I would have put the power of the government behind them, so far as the executive was concerned, in every shape and way.” [52] No wonder that a half-century later, when the proposed Bricker Amendment, which among other things would have limited the executive’s free hand in foreign affairs, came up for discussion, big business was one of its most vocal opponents. [53]

Looking back on his years in office, Roosevelt told his son in 1909: “I have been a full president right up to the end.” [54] And just as he promised, Roosevelt had seized all the power that inhered in the presidency, and through his actions in office permanently strengthened the executive for his successors.

[W]henever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book – why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value. [55]

In both domestic and foreign affairs, that meant seizing the initiative, constitutionally or not, from Congress, and in international relations it meant that the United States would force its way onto the world stage to take its rightful place among the great powers. Long gone was the view of Charles Pinckney, who had said that

[w]e mistake the object of our Government if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad. Conquest or superiority among other Powers is not, or ought never to be, the object of republican systems. If they are sufficiently active and energetic to rescue us from contempt, and preserve our domestic happiness and security, it is all we can expect from them – it is more than almost any other government ensures to its citizens. [56]

Instead of this classical vision of the American republic, Roosevelt solidified trends toward centralization that had been at work since the 1860s and institutionalized what amounted to a revolution in the American form of government. His legacy is cherished by neoconservatives and other nationalists but deplored by Americans who still possess a lingering attachment to the republic the framers established.

Notes

[1] William Henry Harbaugh, Power and Responsibility: The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt (New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1961), p. 522.

[2] Clinton Rossiter, The American Presidency (New York: New American Library, 1960), p. 97.

[3] Walter LaFeber, “The Making of a Bully Boy,” Inquiry, June 11 and 25, 1979, p. 15.

[4] Emmet John Hughes, The Living Presidency: The Resources and Dilemmas of the American Presidential Office (New York: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan), p. 91.

[5] Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (New York: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan, 1979).

[6] Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (New York: Random House Modern Library, 1931), p. 417.

[7] John Milton Cooper, Jr., The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 69.

[8] Michael P. Riccards, The Ferocious Engine of Democracy: A History of the American Presidency, vol. 2, Theodore Roosevelt through George Bush (Lanham, Md.: Madison Books, 1995), pp. 5–6.

[9] Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States (Malabar, Fla.: Robert E. Krieger, 1982), p. 166.

[10] John Morton Blum, The Republican Roosevelt (New York: Athaneum, [1954] 1962), p. 122.

[11] Ibid., pp. 107–08.

[12] Calhoun’s remarks are taken from Register of Debates in Congress, 23rd Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1834 (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1834), pp. 1645–46.

[13] Ibid., p. 1646; see also Gary L. Gregg II, The Presidential Republic: Executive Representation and Deliberative Democracy (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 80–89.

[14] Theodore Roosevelt to John St. Loe Strachey, February 12, 1906, in Elting E. Morison, ed., The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, vol. 5, The Big Stick, 1905–1907 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 151.

[15] Theodore Roosevelt, The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt, Wayne Andrews, ed., (New York: Octagon, 1975), p. 282.

[16] Congressional Record, April 5 and June 19, 1906.

[17] Quoted in Lewis L. Gould, The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991), p. 158.

[18] Quoted in ibid., p. 169.

[19] William C. Widenor, “Theodore Roosevelt,” in Frank N. Magill, ed., The American Presidents: The Office and the Men, vol. 2: Lincoln to Hoover, rev. ed., (Danbury, Conn.: Grolier Educational Corporation, 1989), p. 185.

[20] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 198.

[21] See, for example, Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: Vintage Books, [1948] 1974), pp. 298–99.

[22] See Murray N. Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994).

[23] Albro Martin, Enterprise Denied: Origins of the Decline of American Railroads, 1897–1917 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).

[24] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 165.

[25] On the Northern Securities case, see Dominick T. Armentano, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982), pp. 53–55; Henry F. Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt: A Biography (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1931), pp. 252ff.

[26] Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 228–29.

[27] Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt, p. 253.

[28] Armentano, Antitrust and Monopoly, p. 54.

[29] Forrest McDonald, The American Presidency: An Intellectual History (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994), p. 358.

[30] W. Stull Holt, Treaties Defeated by the Senate: A Study of the Struggle Between President and Senate over the Conduct of Foreign Relations (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1933; Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1964), p. 221.

[31] Blum, The Republican Roosevelt, p. 127.

[32] LaFeber, “The Making of a Bully Boy,” pp. 15–16;Theodore Roosevelt to William Bayard Hale, December 3, 1908, in Morison, ed., Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, vol. 6, The Big Stick, 1907–1909, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 1408.

[33] On all this, see Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), pp. 36–38.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., p. 36.

[37] Matthew J. Glover, “What Might Have Been: Theodore Roosevelt’s Platform for 1920,” in Natalie A. Taylor, Douglas Brinkley, and John Allen Gable, eds., Theodore Roosevelt: Many-Sided American (Interlaken, N.Y.: Heart of the Lakes, 1992), pp. 488–89.

[38] Precise casualty figures are difficult to establish, in large part because deaths resulting from a cholera epidemic at the end of the war have often been conflated with those of the war itself. It is also unclear to what extent war conditions and American policy led to or exacerbated the spread of cholera. See Glenn A. May, “150,000 Missing Filipinos: A Demographic Crisis in Batangas, 1887–1903,” Annales de Demographie Historique [France] 1985: 215–43; Mary C. Gillett, “U.S. Army Medical Officers and Public Health in the Philippines in the Wake of the Spanish–American War, 1898–1905,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 64 (1990): 567–87; Ken De Bevoise, Agents of Apocalypse: Epidemic Disease in the Colonial Philippines (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995); Matthew Smallman-Raynor and Andrew D. Cliff, “The Philippine Insurrection and the 1902–04 Cholera Epidemic: Part I – Epidemiological Diffusion Processes in War,” Journal of Historical Geography 24 (January 1998): 69–89; Warwick Anderson, “Immunities of Empire: Race, Disease, and the New Tropical Medicine, 1900–1920,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70 (1996): 94–118. The figure of 200,000 deaths appears in McDonald, The American Presidency, p. 394.

[39] Stuart Creighton Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation”: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899–1903 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 211.

[40] Howard C. Hill, Roosevelt and the Caribbean (New York: Russell and Russell, 1965), p. 208.

[41] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, pp. 56–57.

[42] Daniel B. Schirmer, Republic or Empire: American Resistance to the Philippine War (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1972), pp. 238–39.

[43] Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation,” p. 260.

[44] Holt, Treaties Defeated by the Senate, p. 216.

[45] On all this, see ibid.; quotation on pp. 215–16.

[46] McDonald, The American Presidency, p. 390.

[47] Ibid., pp. 389–90.

[48] Riccards, Theodore Roosevelt Through George Bush, p. 19.

[49] Hughes, The Living Presidency, pp. 92–93.

[50] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 149.

[51] Shelby M. Cullom, Fifty Years of Public Service, 2nd ed. (Chicago: A.C. McClurg, 1911), p. 399.

[52] Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), p. 58.

[53] See “Bricker’s Battle I,” Human Events (January 13, 1954): 1; see also Duane Tananbaum, The Bricker Amendment Controversy: A Test of Eisenhower’s Political Leadership (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988), pp. 58, 127.

[54] Emmet John Hughes, The Living Presidency, p. 93.

[55] Theodore Roosevelt to George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908, in Morison, ed., The Big Stick, 1907–1909, p. 1087.

[56] Quoted in Felix Morley, “American Republic or American Empire,” Modern Age 1 (Summer 1957): 26.

August 14, 2007

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [view his website; send him mail] is senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the author, most recently, of 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask. His other books include How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (get a free chapter here), The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards), and the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

Thomas Woods Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods79.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

David Crockett To Bono: “It’s NOT Yours To Give”

<>David Crockett To Bono: “It’s NOT Yours To Give”

By Mary Starrett
August 12, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett73.htm

The Republican National Committee has signed on to endorse a proposal by Irish rocker Bono to commit American taxpayers to spending $30 million to “eliminate global poverty.”

As if any amount of tax payer funds would actually accomplish that goal. What usually happens is the money extracted from us to fund these wealth transfers first fills the pockets of foreign fat cat dictators while barely a trickle ends up lining empty food bowls.

History has shown us socialism does not work. Countries laboring under the delusion that Utopia can be achieved by making sure all have ‘what they need’ necessitates that relatively few must labor to provide for all. Bono’s ill-advised scheme is socialism. The Republican Party has agreed to consign Americans to the same fate as other socialist countries with its recent endorsement of Bono’s global goody bag.

Bono, the mouthpiece for environmentalism, global wealth transfer and socialist policy in general owns several opulent mansions throughout the world and travels by jet. The four engine behemoth he flies (while admonishing you to drive a hybrid) gets about 3 miles per gallon. (So much for the imperiled ozone, the Kyoto treaty and greenhouse gasses.)

What we now see is the GOP unabashedly aligning itself with a man who travels the world advocating taxpayers (especially the porcine capitalists in America) fund every bloated ostensibly humanitarian project the UN can cook up. Ironically, Bono has moved his lucrative music enterprise out of his native Ireland and to the Netherlands to offset a huge tax bill with nary a wimper about this Bono factoid in our liberal press.

With planes, mansions, off shore tax shelters and a world-wide bully pulpit to tell Americans how they should fund millions for tin pot dictators in far flung lands- Bono’s got it all figured out about how much and to whom you must give to charity.

And the Republicans have signed you up for this lunacy. The Republicans- the party of limited government whose control of the White House and/or both houses of Congress for a quarter century has resulted in quadrupled federal spending.

Would that time travel were possible; I’d introduce Davy Crockett to this bonehead Bono. Davy Crockett was a U.S. Congressman from Tennessee- not just some coon-skin capped fictional character. Based on the following story I suspect the fabled frontiersman Davy Crockett would have a few well-chosen- albeit sharp- words for Mr. Bono.

In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to give tax dollars to the widow of a well-loved military officer. Davy Crockett rose to address Congress after many speeches advocating the allocation. He said: “Mr. Speaker…. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. We have no…. authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend asked Crockett why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story: Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to campaign for his re-election. He encountered one of his constituents. The man told Crockett, “I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again.” Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done wrong. The man replied, “You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it.

The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions…. Last winter you voted for bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some who suffered because of a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. Everything beyond this is… a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point When Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People.”

Time travel not-withstanding Congressman Davy Crockett’s words hold as true today whether we’re talking to Bono, the RNC, the Democrats or well-meaning Americans. When taxed to fund charity we should respond:

“It’s not yours to give.”

For a downloadable copy of the Davy Crockett “Not Yours To Give” story click here.

© 2007 Mary Starrett – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

---

Mary Starrett was the Constitution Party candidate for Oregon governor in November, 2006, a TV news anchor and talk show host for 25 years and a radio talk show host for 5 years.

Executive Director, Oregonians for Life, Board of Directors, Christian Family Adoptions.

She is currently the Communications Director for the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is the fastest-growing minor political party (www.ballot-access.org) and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.

E-Mail: mstarrett@constitutionparty.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett73.htm
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Leaderless Resistance by Louis Beam

http://reactor-core.org/leaderless-resistance.html

LEADERLESS RESISTANCE
by Louis Beam
published in The Seditionist #12, February 1992
written in 1983

The concept of Leaderless Resistance was proposed by Col. Ulius Louis Amoss, who was the founder of International Service of Information Incorporated, located in Baltimore, Maryland. Col. Amoss died more than fifteen years ago, but during his life was a tireless opponent of communism, as well as a skilled Intelligence Officer. Col. Amoss first wrote of Leaderless Resistance on April 17, 1962. His theories of organization were primarily directed against the threat of eventual Communist take-over in the United States. The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded upon them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to everyone . The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of communism, but may, unhappily, remain long enough to see the last grasps of freedom in America.

In the hope that, somehow, America can still produce the brave sons and daughters necessary to fight off ever increasing persecution and oppression, this essay is offered. Frankly, it is too close to call at this point. Those who love liberty, and believe in freedom enough to fight for it are rare today, but within the bosom of every once great nation, there remains secreted, the pearls of former greatness. They are there. I have looked into their sparking eyes; sharing a brief moment in time with them as I passed through this life. Relished their friendship, endured their pain, and they mine. We are a band of brothers, native to the soil gaining strength one from another as we have rushed head long into a battle that all the weaker, timid men, say we can not win. Perhaps…but then again, perhaps we can. It’s not over till the last freedom fighter is buried or imprisoned, or the same happens to those who would destroy their freedom.

Barring any cataclysmic events, the struggle will yet go on for years. The passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that the government is the foremost threat to the life, and liberty of the folk. The government will no doubt make today’s oppressiveness look like grade school work compared to what they have planned in the future. Meanwhile, there are those of us who continue to hope that somehow the few can do what the many have not. We are cognizant that before things get better they will certainly get worse as government shows a willingness to use ever more severe police state measures against dissidents. This changing situation makes it clear that those who oppose state repression must be prepared to alter, adapt, and modify their behavior, strategy, and tactics as circumstances warrant. Failure to consider new methods and implement them as necessary will make the government’s efforts at suppression uncomplicated. It is the duty of every patriot to make the tyrant’s life miserable. When one fails to do so he not only fails himself, but his people.

With this in mind, current methods of resistance to tyranny employed by those who love our race, culture, and heritage must pass a litmus test of soundness. Methods must be objectively measured as to their effectiveness, as well as to whether they make the government’s intention of repression more possible or more difficult. Those not working to aid our objectives must be discarded or the government benefits from our failure to do so.

As honest men who have banded together into groups or associations of a political or religious nature are falsely labeled “domestic terrorists” or “cultists” and suppressed, it will become necessary to consider other methods of organization — or as the case may very well call for: non-organization. One should keep in mind that it is not in the government’s interest to eliminate all groups. Some few must remain in order to perpetuate the smoke and mirrors vision for the masses that America is a “free democratic country” where dissent is allowed. Most organizations, however, that possess the potential for effective resistance will not be allowed to continue. Anyone who is so naive as to believe the most powerful government on earth will not crush any who pose a real threat to that power, should not be active, but rather, at home studying political history.

The question as to who is to be left alone and who is not, will be answered by how groups and individuals deal with several factors such as: avoidance of conspiracy plots, rejection of feeble minded malcontents, insistence upon quality of the participants, avoidance of all contact with the front men for the federals — the news media — and, finally, camouflage (which can be defined as the ability to blend in the public’s eye the more committed groups of resistance with mainstream “kosher” associations that are generally seen as harmless.) Primarily though, whether any organization is allowed to continue in the future will be a matter of how big a threat a group represents. Not a threat in terms of armed might or political ability, for there is none of either for the present, but rather, threat in terms of potentiality. It is potential the federals fear most. Whether that potential exists in an individual or group is incidental. The federals measure potential threat in terms of what might happen given a situation conducive to action on the part of a restive organization or individual. Accurate intelligence gathering allows them to assess the potential. Showing one’s hand before the bets are made, is a sure way to loose.

The movement for freedom is rapidly approaching the point where for many people, the option of belonging to a group will be nonexistent. For others, group membership will be a viable option for only the immediate future. Eventually, and perhaps much sooner than most believe possible, the price paid for membership will exceed any perceived benefit. But for now, some of the groups that do exist often serve a useful purpose either for the newcomer who can be indoctrinated into the ideology of the struggle, or for generating positive propaganda to reach potential freedom fighters. It is sure that, for the most part, this struggle is rapidly becoming a matter of individual action, each of its participants making a private decision in the quietness of his heart to resist: to resist by any means necessary. It is hard to know what others will do, for no man truly knows another man’s heart. It is enough to know what one himself will do. A great teacher once said “know thyself.” Few men really do, but let each of us, promise ourselves, not to go quietly to the fate our would-be masters have planned.

The concept of Leaderless Resistance is nothing less than a fundamental departure in theories of organization. The orthodox scheme of organization is diagrammatically represented by the pyramid, with the mass at the bottom and the leader at the top. This fundamental of organization is to be seen not only in armies, which are of course, the best illustration of the pyramid structure, with the mass of soldiery, the privates, at the bottom responsible to corporals who are in turn responsible to sergeants, and so on up the entire chain of command to the generals at the top. But the same structure is seen in corporations, ladies’ garden clubs and in our political system itself. This orthodox “pyramid” scheme of organization is to be seen basically in all existing political, social and religious structures in the world today from the Federal government to the Roman Catholic Church. The Constitution of the United States, in the wisdom of the Founders, tried to sublimate the essential dictatorial nature of pyramidal organization by dividing authority into three: executive, legislative and judicial. But the pyramid remains essentially untouched.

This scheme of organization, the pyramid, is however, not only useless, but extremely dangerous for the participants when it is utilized in a resistance movement against state tyranny. Especially is this so in technologically advanced societies where electronic surveillance can often penetrate the structure revealing its chain of command. Experience has revealed over and over again that anti-state, political organizations utilizing this method of command and control are easy prey for government infiltration, entrapment, and destruction of the personnel involved. This has been seen repeatedly in the United States where pro-government infiltrators or agent provocateurs weasel their way into patriotic groups and destroy them from within.

In the pyramid type of organization, an infiltrator can destroy anything which is beneath his level of infiltration and often those above him as well. If the traitor has infiltrated at the top, then the entire organization from the top down is compromised and may be traduced at will.

An alternative to the pyramid type of organization is the cell system. In the past, many political groups (both right and left) have used the cell system to further their objectives. Two examples will suffice. During the American Revolution “committees of correspondence” were formed throughout the Thirteen colonies.

Their purpose was to subvert the government and thereby aid the cause of independence. The “Sons of Liberty”, who made a name for themselves dumping government taxed tea into the harbor at Boston, were the action arm of the committees of correspondence. Each committee was a secret cell that operated totally independently of the other cells. Information on the government was passed from committee to committee, from colony to colony, and then acted upon on a local basis. Yet even in these bygone days of poor communication, of weeks to months for a letter to be delivered, the committees without any central direction whatsoever, were remarkable similar in tactics employed to resist government tyranny. It was, as the first American patriots knew, totally unnecessary for anyone to give an order for anything. Information was made available to each committee, and each committee acted as it saw fit. A recent example of the cell system taken from the left wing of politics are the Communists. The Communist, in order to get around the obvious problems involved in pyramidal organization, developed to an art the cell system. They had numerous independent cells which operated completely isolated from one another and particularly with no knowledge of each other, but were orchestrated together by a central headquarters. For instance, during World War II, in Washington, it is known that there were at least six secret Communist cells operating at high levels in the United States government (plus all the open Communists who were protected and promoted by President Roosevelt), however, only one of the cells was rooted out and destroyed. How many more actually were operating no one can say for sure.

The Communist cells which operated in the U.S until late 1991 under Soviet control could have at their command a leader, who held a social position which appeared to be very lowly. He could be, for example, a busboy in a restaurant, but in reality a colonel or a general in the Soviet Secret Service, the KGB. Under him could be a number of cells and a person active in one cell would almost never have knowledge of individuals who are active in another cell. The value of this is that while any one cell can be infiltrated, exposed or destroyed, such action will have no effect on the other cells; in fact, the members of the other cells will be supporting that cell which is under attack and ordinarily would lend very strong support to it in many ways. This is at least part of the reason, no doubt, that whenever in the past Communists were attacked in this country, support for them sprang up in many unexpected places.

The efficient and effective operation of a cell system after the Communist model, is of course, dependent upon central direction, which means impressive organization, funding from the top, and outside support, all of which the Communists had. Obviously, American patriots have none of these things at the top or anywhere else, and so an effective cell organization based upon the Soviet system of operation is impossible.

Two things become clear from the above discussion. First, that the pyramid type of organization can be penetrated quite easily and it thus is not a sound method of organization in situations where the government has the resources and desire to penetrate the structure; which is the situation in this country. Secondly, that the normal qualifications for the cell structure based upon the Red model does not exist in the U.S. for patriots. This understood, the question arises “What method is left for those resisting state tyranny?” The answer comes from Col. Amoss who proposed the “Phantom Cell” mode of organization. Which he described as Leaderless Resistance. A system of organization that is based upon the cell organization, but does not have any central control or direction, that is in fact almost identical to the methods used by the Committees of Correspondence during the American Revolution. Utilizing the Leaderless Resistance concept, all individuals and groups operate independently of each other, and never report to a central headquarters or single leader for direction or instruction, as would those who belong to a typical pyramid organization.

At first glance, such a type of organization seems unrealistic, primarily because there appears to be no organization. The natural question thus arises as to how are the “Phantom cells” and individuals to cooperate with each other when there is no intercommunication or central direction? The answer to this question is that participants in a program of Leaderless Resistance through phantom cell or individual action must know exactly what they are doing, and how to do it. It becomes the responsibility of the individual to acquire the necessary skills and information as to what is to be done. This is by no means as impractical as it appears, because it is certainly true that in any movement, all persons involved have the same general outlook, are acquainted with the same philosophy, and generally react to given situations in similar ways. The pervious history of the committees of correspondence during the American Revolution show this to be true.

Since the entire purpose of Leaderless Resistance is to defeat state tyranny (at least insofar as this essay is concerned), all members of phantom cells or individuals will tend to react to objective events in the same way through usual tactics of resistance. Organs of information distribution such as newspapers, leaflets, computers, etc., which are widely available to all, keep each person informed of events, allowing for a planned response that will take many variations. No one need issue an order to anyone. Those idealist truly committed to the cause of freedom will act when they feel the time is ripe, or will take their cue from others who precede them. While it is true that much could be said against this type of structure as a method of resistance, it must be kept in mind that Leaderless Resistance is a child of necessity. The alternatives to it have been show to be unworkable or impractical. Leaderless Resistance has worked before in the American Revolution, and if the truly committed put it to use for themselves, it will work now.

It goes almost without saying that Leaderless Resistance leads to very small or even one man cells of resistance. Those who join organizations to play “let’s pretend” or who are “groupies” will quickly be weeded out. While for those who are serious about their opposition to federal despotism, this is exactly what is desired.

From the point of view of tyrants and would be potentates in the federal bureaucracy and police agencies, nothing is more desirable than that those who oppose them be UNIFIED in their command structure, and that every person who opposes them belong to a pyramid type group. Such groups and organizations are an easy kill. Especially in light of the fact that the Justice (sic) Department promised in 1987 that there would never be another group that opposed them that they did not have at least one informer in. These federal “friends of government” are intelligence agents. They gather information that can be used at the whim of a federal D.A. to prosecute. The line of battle has been drawn. Patriots are required therefore, to make a conscious decision to either aid the government in its illegal spying, by continuing with old methods of organization and resistance, or to make the enemie’s job more difficult by implementing effective countermeasures.

Now there will, no doubt, be mentally handicapped people out there who, while standing at a podium with an American flag draped in the background, and a lone eagle soaring in the sky above, will state emphatically in their best sounding red, white, and blue voice, “So what if the government is spying? We are not violating any laws.” Such crippled thinking by any serious person is the best example that there is a need for special education classes. The person making such a statement is totally out of contact with political reality in this country, and unfit for leadership of any thing more than a dog sleigh in the Alaskan wilderness. The old “Born on the fourth of July” mentality that has influenced so much of the American patriot’s thinking in the past will not save him from the government in the future. “Reeducation” for non-thinkers of this type will take place in the federal prison system where there are no flags or eagles, but abundance of men who were “not violating any law.”

Most groups who “unify” their disparate associates into a single structure have short political lives. Therefore, those movement leaders constantly calling for unity of organization rather than the desirable unity of purpose, usually fall into one of three categories.

They may not be sound political tacticians, but rather, just committed men who feel unity would help their cause, while not realizing that the government would greatly benefit from such efforts. The Federal objective, to imprison or destroy all who oppose them, is made easier in pyramid organizations. Or perhaps, they do not fully understand the struggle they are involved in and that the government they oppose has declared a state of war against those fighting for faith, folk, freedom and constitutional liberty. Those in power will use any means to rid themselves of opposition. The third class calling for unity and let us hope this is the minority of the three, are men more desirous of the supposed power that a large organization would bestow, than of actually achieving their stated purpose.

Conversely, the last thing Federal snoops would have, if they had any choice in the matter, is a thousand different small phantom cells opposing them. It is easy to see why. Such a situation is an intelligence nightmare for a government intent upon knowing everything they possibly can about those who oppose them. The Federals, able to amass overwhelming strength of numbers, manpower, resources, intelligence gathering, and capability at any given time, need only a focal point to direct their anger. A single penetration of a pyramid type of organization can lead to the destruction of the whole. Whereas, Leaderless Resistance presents no single opportunity for the Federals to destroy a significant portion of the Resistance.

With the announcement by the Department of Justice (sic) that 300 FBI agents formerly assigned to watching Soviet spies in the US (domestic counter intelligence) are now to be used to “combat crime”, the federal government is preparing the way for a major assault upon those persons opposed to their policies. Many anti-government groups dedicated to the preservation of the America of our forefathers can expect shortly to feel the brunt of a new federal assault upon liberty.

It is clear, therefore, that it is time to rethink traditional strategy and tactics when it comes to opposing a modern police state. America is quickly moving into a long dark night of police state tyranny, where the rights now accepted by most as being inalienable will disappear. Let the coming night be filled with a thousand points of resistance. Like the fog which forms when conditions are right and disappears when they are not, so must the resistance to tyranny be.

http://reactor-core.org/leaderless-resistance.html
–

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Gunny G: Is The Army Trying To Hide Its “Pogues”?

STLtoday.com

http://tinyurl.com/38eqns

“Stripping away the branch insignia makes soldiers more like Marines.”
~~~~~

The Army is rooting out its branches
By Harry Levins
POST-DISPATCH SENIOR WRITER
Saturday, Aug. 11 2007

Now that we’re at war, you see something you rarely saw in peacetime — soldiers
wearing field uniforms in airports and hotels.

And if you look closely at Army officers, you may notice that the new uniforms
lack something found on older uniforms — branch insignia.

Time was when an officer wore his rank on his right collar. On the left collar,
he wore his branch insignia — crossed rifles for infantry, for example, or a
castle for engineers.

Now, the collar is bare. The rank has been moved to a tab dangling down the
shirt’s front. The branch insignia is nowhere to be seen.

The result: It’s impossible to “read” an officer’s field uniform.

I called the Department of the Army to ask why. Nobody had an answer, although
they agreed (off the record) with my own theory:

Stripping away the branch insignia makes soldiers more like Marines.

Back when Army officers still displayed their branches, I asked a Marine
colonel why his service made it so hard to “read” a uniform. Aviators excepted,
Marines show no clues to their military specialities. Why?

“Because we’re all plain-and-simple Marines,” the colonel said.

He explained, “If you ask a soldier what he does, he’ll say, ‘I’m infantry,’ or
‘I’m airborne,’ or ‘I’m a tanker.’ If you ask a Marine what he does, he’ll say,
‘I’m a Marine.’”

I suspect that the Army’s decision to strip away the branch insignia is a way
of prodding officers to see one another as soldiers first and specialists
second.

Back in my soldiering days as a lieutenant in Germany in 1964-65, I proudly
pinned the crossed rifles of the infantry on my left collar tab and donned a
scarf that was colored the powder blue of the infantry.

Mind you, few of us going through the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., had
wanted to be in the infantry.

But even though few wanted the infantry, everybody respected the infantry. For
the first time in my life, I was macho. I could look down my nose at captains
and majors wearing the insignia of, say, the Finance Corps, or the
Quartermaster Corps.

I’m guessing that the new uniform is an effort to dampen branch rivalries and
get soldiers to thinking of themselves as soldiers.

Oh — those colored scarves are long gone. Too bad. On the day I learned that
I’d drawn the infantry, I said, “Infantry? Aw, (bleep)!”

I was unaware that standing behind me was a major of artillery from the ROTC
faculty.

He leaned over my shoulder and said with a malicious grin:
“Look at it this way, Levins — the scarf will go good with your eyes.”

http://tinyurl.com/38eqns
–

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Drawing The Wrong Lessons From The Mpls Bridge Collapse

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/41774.html

Liberty & Power: Group Blog

David T. Beito
Drawing the Wrong Lessons from the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse

As they did with Katrina, the politicians and public have taken it for granted that the Minneapolis bridge collapse illustrates the need for bigger government. In record speed, Governor Tim Pawlenty recanted his previous opposition to a gas tax increase for bridge and road repears. Few have even considered that the collapse might illustrate the dangers of relying too much, not too little, on governments for infrastructure.

One hundred and fifty years ago, the citizens of Nevada, who faced an even more daunting infrastructure crisis, came to a different conclusion. An example was the Placerville State Road, a government-maintained mountain artery on the section of the Overland Trail. It “was literally lined with brown-down stages, wagons, and carts, presenting every variety of aspect, from the general smash-up to the ordinary capsize. Wheels had taken rectangular cuts to the bottom, broken tongues projected from the mud; loads of dry goods and whiskey barrels lay wallowing in the general wreck of matter; stout beams cut from the roadside were scattered here and there, having served in vain efforts to extricate the wagons from the oozing mire.”

Instead of assuming that these problems proved the need for more government, Nevada’s politicians and voters turned to the private sector. They granted dozens of charters to companies and individuals to construct and maintain roads. Between the 1850s and 1880s, local entrepreneurs financed, built, and operated more than one hundred toll roads and bridges. This represented an enormous amount of activity in an area with so few people.

While some grumbled about paying tolls, even the sternest critics acknowledged that privatization brought dramatic improvements in quality. Referring to the Placerville Road, one observer commented that “a narrow, dangerous, wretched trail [which] was scarcely fit for the passage of sure-footed pack-mules” had been transformed into “a broad, compact, well-graded highway, which might be fairly be likened to an old Roman road.”

For more on the rise and fall of Nevada’s toll roads and bridges, see my article (co-authored with Linda Royster Beito), “Rival Road Builders: Private Toll Roads in Nevada, 1852-1880,” Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 41 (Summer 1998), 71-91.

Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM | Comments (0) | Return

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/41774.html
–

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Ron Paul, Iowa and The Presidency…Karen Kwiatkowski

http://tinyurl.com/ysw6nc

Ron Paul, Iowa and the Presidency

Karen Kwiatkowski

Posted August 11, 2007 | 02:30 PM (EST)

A lot of people are frightened of Dr. Ron Paul’s possible presidency. They’re scared to talk about it, to consider it, or recognize its possibility. Like so many frightened people, they are putting their heads in the sand, and hoping it will all just go away.

Give us a snarky political professional like Guiliani or Clinton, or a nicely coiffed white family man like Romney or Edwards. Give us a nice neoconservative grandpa like Fred Thompson, or a grouchy neoconservative grandpa like McCain. Give us an Obama — for a change of pace in everything but currently established domestic and foreign policies.

But by golly, don’t dare threaten the establishment with Jeffersonian democratic vision and Washingtonian non-interventionism. Don’t boldly challenge the NYC/DC axis of politics with sheer constitutionalism. Better yet, don’t remind us that the American president is not the commander-in-chief of everybody but a narrowly defined and legally constrained institution that is only equal — and certainly subject — to our judicial and legislative bodies.

Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are the only candidates who seem to understand this. They are also the only candidates who will quickly, if not immediately, end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Wait a sec — I mean end it peacefully. Ultimately, Iraqis and their supporters around the world will bring down the American occupation — but they will do so limb by limb, heart by heart, and soul by soul. They will kill thousands of us and themselves before it reaches that inevitable point of non-occupation and honest political independence. Only Paul and two underfunded Democratic contenders offer wisdom to Americans across the nation who are hungry for wisdom, at least in foreign policy.

However — it is in domestic policy where Ron Paul completes the package. Unlike the democratic longshots, and the candidacy of GuiliClintoRomnObamThomEdwaCain, Ron Paul is about real freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to live, freedom to decide for ourselves. He offers freedom from excessive government mandates, excessive rules and regulations, excessive confiscation of our life and property. In this, Paul is the only real conservative in the group, and yes, perhaps the only radical.

Social planners of all sorts — some more Marxist in orientation, others more nationalist — present themselves as the American presidential front runners. The media focuses cameras on their faces, murmurs over their every word, and wonders if America and the world will really like them as Most Supreme Leader of the World.

Ron Paul, humbly and simply, honors the Constitution — and perhaps this makes him boring to mainstream media. When asked recently how he would use the great power of the executive office, circa 2009, Paul indicated he’d use his power to restrain the natural temptation to abuse that mostly unconstitutional concentration of power. He’d then work to restore a constitutionally established presidency — in part by revoking the many executive orders to which we have all become inured.

Ron Paul may not excite the mainstream press, establishment policy cheerleaders, big investors in government programs, or the military-industrial complex. But Ron Paul really excites a whole heck of a lot of regular people — and puts the scare in the rest of them.

Ron’s latest odds in the Iowa Straw poll are 8 to 1 — and the big Republican candidates who represent all-spending, all-war, all-the-time are worried. So worried, many of them aren’t even coming to Iowa.

Those who wish to discredit Ron Paul as a viable candidate don’t point out his popularity among traditional Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They don’t point out that his “Don’t Tread on Me” libertarian streak is shared by half the adults in this country, and three quarters of the teenagers. They ignore his grass roots support, the money and the passion that flows steadily into his campaign.

The Republican Party, its Democratic emulators, and mainstream media are living dinosaurs. All refuse to pull their heads out of the sand and face the issues that really touch Americans, and to deliver what Americans really want for themselves, their families and their government. And unlike in previous elections, nobody in American really, truly, cares what mainstream media thinks. It’s not that Katie Couric and her ilk aren’t nice people. It’s just that times have changed.

These dinosaurs — and the theropods that report the news — are increasingly irrelevant. I believe that the other contenders for the Presidency will soon begin to adopt Paul’s message and attempt to promote his agenda of freedom and peace, or they will become politically extinct. As a peace and freedom-loving American, I can’t wait.

http://tinyurl.com/ysw6nc

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Ron Paul’s Online Support Put To The Test?

<>http://tinyurl.com/2bjam6

Ron Paul

Paul’s Online Support Put to Offline Test

Though he’s bigger on MySpace, Rep. Ron Paul did work the Iowa crowds the old-fashioned way at the Iowa state fair. (AP).

Today’s Iowa straw poll isn’t merely a test for Mitt Romney, who leads in Iowa in the latest Washington Post/ABC news poll and has easily outspent the rest of the GOP field.

It’s also a test for the Paulites — the undeniably loyal and undeniably Internet-savvy followers of Rep. Ron Paul.

His YouTube videos are the most viewed of any presidential candidate — yes, more than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has more MySpace friends than Romney, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former senator Fred Thompson combined. His online followers, many of them live-and-let-live libertarians, were essential to his second quarter fundraising haul of $2.37 million, which easily surpassed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

And the big question on many a online political operative mind is: Can Paul translate all that online enthusiasm into offline results?

Five months before the Iowa caucuses, the straw poll is a non-binding test of a candidate’s organizational mettle. Voters are scheduled to pack Iowa State University’s Hilton Coliseum, in summer heat, to show their support. Paul’s Iowa operation lags behind Romney’s, no doubt. Paul just opened his headquarters in Iowa on Thursday, and his aides said the 400 or so members of his Iowa Meetup groups have been working the phones, passing out campaign literature and stuffing mailers in recent days. “We don’t have any lofty expectations,” Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said. “We just want to prove that we can run with the pack.”

To some Republican online political operatives, it does look like the Paulites are running with the pack. Patrick Ruffini, head of the Republican National Committee’s online department, views Paul’s chances in Iowa optimistically,

“I think Paul could place as well as second in the straw poll, if the enthusiasm that he’s generating online translates to actual bodies on the ground,” Ruffini said. “If it doesn’t, then you might begin to question the effectiveness of his online support. I mean, if he can’t translate it in Ames, then where can you translate it?”
–Jose Antonio Vargas

Posted at 7:00 AM ET on Aug 11, 2007  | Category:  Ron Paul
Share This: Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.

“I mean, if he can’t translate it in Ames, then where can you translate it?”

Possibly somewhere that votes are not so blatantly purchased by the one with the most money. How representative is it to only have people who are able to pay $35 to cast a vote? I suspect many Dr. Paul supporters, the most principled and independent people around, would have a hard time participating in such a sham. They may wait till they can vote for free, in the real primary, rather than a fundraiser for the GOP.
Posted by: lizviering | August 11, 2007 08:19 AM

Or the real caucus even…?

Posted by: Boutan | August 11, 2007 08:59 AM

I live right by Ames and would love to go and support Ron Paul but unfortunately i have to work 2nd shift. You see being recently single plus the cost of living and taxes i have to work over time just to eat. Like lizviering said up above Maybe most of his supporters are the working class Americans who don’t have time or the money to enjoy daily life.

Posted by: alldayworkn | August 11, 2007 09:21 AM

Look it is clear. 30% of Republicans do not like what we are doing in Iraq (and Ron Paul is VERY clear in his position on Iraq). 10% of the population is libertarian. And everyone can vote in Iowa, even the Democrats (for free if they take up ALL the candidates offers!!) to mess with the Republicans selections or even if they do not like any of the candidates better except Ron Paul.

The question is have ALL of these folks been paying attention. Have they heard of Ron Paul? Do they have any clue of how good he is? After all at first glance he IS a politician AND it is 15 months before the real election AND we have been disappointed for 27 years since we last had a statesman running, who was charismatic.

This is a real test for Ron Paul:
Can he get HIS base to the polls in a state that loves the federal government and where a profit is made by the state in return on taxes paid to Washington and dollars back from the feds. If he can NOT get 3-4000 votes or 10%, then in my opinion we are in trouble as a country!

There have to be that many people, only 10% in Iowa, who have not given up on America. Hopefully? Please.

Go Ron Paul!!

Posted by: RamseySt | August 11, 2007 09:43 AM

Ron Paul seems to be a combination of Howard Dean in 2004 and John McCain in 2000. He is appealing to a great # of independent and idealistic voters. However, the primary process is controlled by other forces. Translation, his support is a mirage. His signs are everywhere in my state and his support is loud, but his likely chances of scoring any real victories is long. Like Dean (2004) and McCain (2000), his supporters are unlikely to have any real impact over a closed primary process that tends to strictly favor the the establishment’s candidates of choice.

Posted by: m_guszak | August 11, 2007 10:42 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com’s articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Click Here to post a comment. You may be asked to sign in first.

Comments:

 

http://tinyurl.com/2bjam6
–
**********
SEE ALSO:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879736/posts

Paul’s Online Support Put to Offline Test
Washington Post ^ | Aug 11, 2007 | Jose Antonio Vargas
Posted on 08/11/2007 11:10:49 AM EDT by indcons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879736/posts

Today’s Iowa straw poll isn’t merely a test for Mitt Romney, who leads in Iowa in the latest Washington Post/ABC news poll and has easily outspent the rest of the GOP field.

It’s also a test for the Paulites — the undeniably loyal and undeniably Internet-savvy followers of Rep. Ron Paul.

His YouTube videos are the most viewed of any presidential candidate — yes, more than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has more MySpace friends than Romney, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former senator Fred Thompson combined. His online followers, many of them live-and-let-live libertarians, were essential to his second quarter fundraising haul of $2.37 million, which easily surpassed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

And the big question on many a online political operative mind is: Can Paul translate all that online enthusiasm into offline results?

Five months before the Iowa caucuses, the straw poll is a non-binding test of a candidate’s organizational mettle. Voters are scheduled to pack Iowa State University’s Hilton Coliseum, in summer heat, to show their support. Paul’s Iowa operation lags behind Romney’s, no doubt. Paul just opened his headquarters in Iowa on Thursday, and his aides said the 400 or so members of his Iowa Meetup groups have been working the phones, passing out campaign literature and stuffing mailers in recent days. “We don’t have any lofty expectations,” Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said. “We just want to prove that we can run with the pack.”

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com …

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879736/posts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

THE DEATH OF FREEDOM Part 2…by Joe American

 

 

THE DEATH OF FREEDOM

Part 2

 

 

Joe American
August 8, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/American/joe1.htm

 

“Those who read, study and learn from history Form the foundation Of tomorrow’s victories

Because they understand Where they’ve been And know where they are going.” — Joe American

Preamble: Did you read the “Declaration of Independence” or the U.S. Constitution since we last chatted? Probably not. But if you did, thank you.

Rome’s Emperor’s understood the importance of bread and circus’. The empire knew that if they kept their population in a perpetual state of war, provided cheap bread and offered the spectacle of the Roman Circus in the Coliseum, they could rule with an iron hand and no one would complain. It worked for nearly five-hundred years. Yet Romans thought themselves “free.”

Today, the grain provides cheap beer instead of bread and the “circus” has become television. Just like Imperial Rome, Imperial America has been in a state of perpetual war since 1861. The Civil War, the “Indian wars”, Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf War One, Gulf War Two, and the War on Terror. Then there were uncounted mini-war interventions around the world. For good measure, we also had the War on Poverty and the Drug War. Always it seems, there is room for more war, because war is good for distracting people. It adds to the “circus” atmosphere.

Roman Bread and Circus’s and perpetual war.

American Beer and Television, and perpetual war.

My-oh-my, how little really changes in this world.

Let’s look at another example of repeating history.

The National Socialist German Workers Party, better known to history as the Nazi Party, came to power on January 30, 1933 when Adolph Hitler was sworn into office as Chancellor of the German Weimar Republic. Twenty-eight days later, the Reichstag (The names of Germany’s congressional building and Congress), was destroyed by a deliberately set and very fast moving fire.

The day after the fire, the German press was printing headlines that sound ominously similar to today’s headlines: “This act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Communists in Germany” and “The government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation exists.”

Thirty days after that, the Reichstag passed the “Enabling Act” which gave Hitler the authority to rule by decree. He was now a dictator.

How fortuitous for Herr Hitler that a simple minded, homeless Dutch drifter named Marinus van der Lubbe was found near the Reichstag soon after the fire was put out. Van der Lubbe had past ties to the Communist Party and eventually confessed to setting the fire, but historians disagree as to whether his confession was freely offered or delivered under torture. But what is known is that near military grade incendiary fuel was used throughout the Reichstag to burn the building quickly to the ground.

Where would a homeless, foreign drifter get that type of incendiary fuel? How did he get inside this important Government building late at night? Why did he wait for the police to arrest him before the fire was even put out? Was it just fantastic police work?

And if van der Lubbe’s confession was the result of torture, who really started the fire?

The Reichstag fire was the excuse Hitler and the Nazi Party used to declare a State of Emergency in Germany that lasted until Russian troops entered Berlin in 1945. Hitler called upon the patriotism of all Germans to support what needed to happen to save the “Reich.” What was needed, according to Chancellor Hitler, was for Germans to relinquish their constitutional freedoms, to allow the harsh measures necessary for the State to be able to act in a unilateral manner, to find those people responsible for Germany’s troubles and bring them to (German) justice. Sound familiar to anyone?

Let’s look at recent American history and see how things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse here at home during the past 15 years. In particular, since 1993 Americans have watched a steady stream of events that bode an ill wind. We have seen the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. We have also watched Federal authorities burn down a Texas church, cremating the 76 men, women and children inside it, and witnessed the assassination of a young Ruby Ridge, Idaho mother, shot in the head by a Federal sniper, while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her infant child and posing no threat to anyone. That sniper received a commendation for bravery. The trend is not good and getting worse.

Let’s take a look at Tim McVeigh, convicted and executed for the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh was “caught” by lone Oklahoma State Trooper Charles J. Hanger after he was stopped because his vehicle didn’t have a license plate. McVeigh had a fully loaded semi-automatic pistol in a shoulder-holster when he was taken into custody without resistance by this lone Trooper, on an isolated rural road.

Starting to sound familiar? Again, what fantastic police work! Once more, yeah, right.

Let Me ask you these questions:

-If you were smart enough to build a bomb and could destroy a steel reinforced modern American concrete building, would you drive away in a vehicle without a license plate?

-If you were cold hearted enough to have just detonated a bomb, destroying a Federal Building, killing 168 people, would you allow yourself to be taken into custody on an isolated road by a single police officer, when you could just have easily shot him and driven away?

Either McVeigh had nothing to do with the bombing or he was part of a larger plot and thought he was going to be held until his control agent got him released. Since he was executed, if he was an agent, his trust was misplaced. If he was not involved, his trust in the American legal system was misplaced.

McVeigh was considered John Doe number one in this case, Terry Nichols was John Doe number two. But what ever happened to the three other men seen, in now missing video surveillance tapes from neighboring buildings, walking away from the Ryder truck that housed the bomb? Didn’t hear about them? Wonder why.

Some suggest that the government was involved in a conspiracy, even planned the attack in order to justify persecuting right-wing organizations in a manner similar to Nazi prosecutions of left-wing political parties after the Reichstag fire. Terry Nichols maintains to this day that McVeigh was being directed by high ranking FBI agents.

In 1995, demolition’s and explosives expert Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (Ret.) issued an exhaustive analysis of the destruction to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. From the General’s report:

 

“The media and the Executive branch reported that the sole source of the devastation was a single truck bomb consisting of 4,800 pounds of ammonium nitrate, transported to the location in a Ryder Truck and parked in front of the building. It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb alone.

 

“To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several support column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.”

 

And then there is the curious absence of FBI agents in the building, along with all their children being absent from the day care that was destroyed in the explosion. All the agents and all their kids did not show up for work or school on this particular day? Makes me curious why. What about you? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, every bit the symbol of American economic power and freedom, much the same as the Reichstag was a symbol of German political freedom, succeeded with dramatic results, killing 3,000 people.

The destruction of the World Trade Center also occurred soon after George W. Bush was sworn into office as President, and also provided a pretext for changing the nature of our government in much the same manner as Chancellor Hitler changed Germany.

Even if you believe it was a group of determined foreign nationals who succeeded in flying those planes into the twin towers, how is it that a modern superpower like the United States was caught so completely off guard?

What about all of the reports from various foreign or alternative intelligence services and news sources that claimed the FBI, CIA, NSA, among others, indeed had advanced knowledge of not just of a plot, but specifically of this plot to attack these buildings? Why was nothing done? Why has no one been held accountable for, at the very least, bad judgment in burying these reports?

Instead we got the USA Patriot Act, or as I like to call it, the “Death of Freedom Act.” Anyone remember the circumstances and speed with which this law make it through Congress?

Forty-six days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, with virtually no discussion by Congress, this Act was passed into law. Anyone who has ever had any experience with how things work in Washington, D.C. knows that this “Act” could not possibly have been written in response to the attacks in New York.

That means it was already written and waiting, before the attacks occurred. Think about what that means. Don’t believe it? Okay, so don’t believe me. Go check out the facts for yourself. Go online and search the words “patriot act” and see what comes up.

And lest we forget, the USA Patriot Act’s follow-up, “The Real ID Act,” is set to go into effect on January 1, 2008. Cap both of these off with Public Law 109-394 “The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ and you have everything in place for a Presidential declaration of Martial Law. In simple language, dictatorship, right here in America.

It took 30 days after the Reichstag fire for Hitler to be given dictatorial power by German Legislators. It took just forty-six days for Congress to give it to George W. Bush.

The USA Patriot Act identifies/creates the justification, the Real ID Act provides the tracking tool and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act provides both the authority and the funding for this act of total aggression against the American people.

What I am telling you is real. It is happening right now and if you ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

This is not a time to mince words. This Republic does not have much time left. Those of us who see what is happening must reach out to our fellow citizens and do whatever we can to raise their awareness of this pending disaster. But we face a tremendous problem. That problem dear reader is you. But as I said in Part One of this article, you still have a chance to make a difference, but it won’t be easy.

The good news is, since you have read this far, it must be for some reason. You are now either very angry at me, or you have become very afraid of your government. Of course you could also be scoffing at everything you have just read, which would indicate to me that you are very tired and probably need to lay down.

If you are mad at me, good. At least you can still get mad. Now you can make a true choice for yourself. Like I said earlier, prove me wrong. Use the internet. I used wikipedia.com for my source information. Look up these issues yourself and prove to everyone that I’m just a nut.

You will have to use our mind to do so, and that too is good. Just maybe you will learn something about the world you live in. And then maybe you can become a person who will make a difference.

On the other hand, if your are afraid of your government, good. You should be. I am. But don’t you see, that is not the way any American should feel? If you are so afraid of your government that everything I have told you is not enough to convince you to become involved with other people whom you trust to talk about these issues, then nothing ever will.

But if you are so moved, don’t wait too long. This country has only until the next “terrorist” incident until the velvet glove comes off the iron fist Congress gave to the President and the Executive Branch of Government when it passed the three anti-American Acts I’ve listed above.

The only reason these extra-constitutional authorities are needed, according to President Bush, is for Americans to temporarily relinquish their constitutional freedoms, to allow the harsh measures necessary for the Federal Government to be able to act in a unilateral manner, to find those people responsible for Germany’s (oops, I meant America’s) troubles to bring them to (German) justice.

It sounds very familiar to me, but then I read history books.

Oh yes, if you are still sound asleep, good night.

Noblesse oblige; Veritas vos liberabit

© 2007 J.O.E. American Foundation – All Rights Reserved

 

 

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

 

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

 

 

---

These series of articles by J.O.E. American are written by a current elected official in a fairly high position. Person’s name and state in which this person is currently serving is withheld for fear of retribution. Joe American was honorably discharged from the US armed forces, and served as a law enforcement officer. Anyone wishing to send Joe American a letter may send it to the following address, and if possible, we will try to forward those letters.NewsWithViews.com
c/o JOE American
P. O. Box 370
Merlin, OR. 97532

---

 

Home

http://www.newswithviews.com/American/joe1.htm

The Death of Freedom, Part 1
http://www.newswithviews.com/American/joe.htm
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Congress Grants Bloggers Rights? No, NOT ALL BLOGGERS!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts

Congress Grants Bloggers Journalistic Rights (Free Flow of Information Act–Protected Sources)
Womnibus Blog ^ | 8/9/2007

Posted on 08/10/2007 9:12:48 AM EDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts

In a move that diminishes the legal distinctions between bloggers and journalists, on Aug. 1 a congressional panel voted to protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources — and specifically included professional bloggers in the measure.
While casual and hobby bloggers will not benefit from the newly revised Free Flow of Information Act, those that earn either all or part of their income from blogs will be able to enjoy the same protections as their journalist counterparts. Bloggers, many of whom consider themselves journalists whether or not they’re officially recognized as such, feel that they should be entitled to the same rights and protections as reporters and applauded the measure as a step in the right direction.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts
~~~~~~~~

Note:
GyG Response #7….

“Hmmm…
It always just boils down to…$$$, doesn’t it!
Shouldn’t matter whether or not the individual makes a buck on it or not—it’s the rights of the individual that counts, not the price or lack thereof!”

7 posted on 08/10/2007 11:51:13 AM EDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts
–
**********

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Cracks In The Constitution

 

NEWS YOU WON’T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

“Cracks in the Constitution”

A Review By Stephen Lendman

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18143.htm

08/08/07 “ich” — – Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 – 1995) was a 20th century economist, journalist, historian and author of such books as The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today; The Myth of Democracy; Politicians and Other Scoundrels; and the subject of this review – Cracks in the Constitution.

Lundberg’s book was published twenty-seven years ago, yet remains as powerfully important and relevant today as then. Simply put, the book is a blockbuster. It’s must reading to learn what schools to the highest levels never teach about the nation’s most important document that lays out the fundamental law of the land in its Preamble, Seven Articles, Bill of Rights, and 17 other Amendments. Lundberg deconstructs it in depth, separating myth from reality about what he called “the great totempole of American society.”

He does it in 10 exquisitely written chapters with examples and detail galore to drive home his key message that our most sacred of all documents is flawed. It was crafted by 55 mostly ordinary but wealthy self-serving “wheeler dealers” (among whom only 39 signed), and the result we got and now live with falls far short of the “Rock of Ages” it’s cracked up to be. That notion is pure myth. This review covers in detail how Lundberg smashed it in each chapter.

The Sacred Constitution

Lundberg quickly transfixes his readers by disabusing them of notions commonly held. Despite long-held beliefs, the Constitution is no “masterpiece of political architecture.” It falls far short of “one great apotheosis (bathed) in quasi-religious light.” The finished product was a “closed labyrinthine affair,” not an “open” constitution like the British model. It was the product of duplicitous politicians and their close friends scheming to cut the best deals for themselves by leaving out the great majority of others who didn’t matter.

The myths we learned in school and through the dominant media are legion, long-standing and widely held among the educated classes. They and most others believe the framers crafted a Constitution that “powerfully restrained and fettered” the federal government and created “a limited government (or a) government of limited powers.” It’s simply not so because through the power of the chief executive it can do “whatever it is from time to time” it wishes. In that respect, it’s no more precise and binding than The Ten Commandments the Judaic and Christian worlds violate freely and willfully all the time. Even so-called “born-again” types, like the current President, do it, along with Popes, past and present, and the former Israeli Sephardi chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu, who advocates mass killing by carpet bombing Gaza to save Jewish lives.

The “supreme Law of the Land” here deters no President or sitting government from doing as they wish, law or no law. The Constitution is easily ignored with impunity by popular or unpopular governments doing as they please and inventing reasons as justification. Lundberg is firm in debunking the notion that America is a government of laws, not men. It’s “palpable nonsense of the highest order,” he said. Governments enacting laws are composed of men who lie, connive, misinterpret and pretty much operate ad libitum discharging their duties as they see fit for their own self-interest.

It was no different in 1787 when 55 delegates
(privileged all) assembled for four months in the same Philadelphia State House, where the Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years earlier, to rework the Articles of Confederation into a Constitution that would last into “remote futurity,” as long as possible, or until others later changed it. None of them were happy with the finished product but felt it was the best one possible under the circumstances and better than nothing at all.

The document is “crisply worded” and can easily be read in 20 to 30 minutes and just as easily be totally misunderstood. The sole myth in it is stated in its opening Preamble words: “We the people of the United States….do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In fact, “the people” nowhere entered the process, then or since.

At its beginning, “the people” who mattered were established white male property owning delegates and members of state ratifying conventions who rammed the ratification process through, by fair or foul means, in the face of a “largely indifferent and uncomprehending populace” left out entirely. They were elected to do it by eligible and interested while males comprising only from 12.5 – 15.5% of the electorate at the time. Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn’t vote and many or most qualified voters didn’t bother to and still don’t. The process, and what it produced, showed “Democracy operatively is little more than a fantasy.”

The American revolution was nothing more than secession from the British empire changing very little with one-third of the colonists favoring it (not upper classes), one-third opposed (mainly upper classes) and another third indifferent to the whole business. From then to now, the country is no nearer “government by the people” than under monarchal or autocratic rule. The latter types rule by application or threat of force whereas sovereign people are manipulated by other means with naked force held in reserve if needed.

Lundberg explained the minimum function of government, ours or others, should be to insure the public welfare is being broadly served. It’s stated in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 that “The Congress shall have power to….provide for….(the) general welfare of the United States” – the so-called welfare clause. Lundberg let scholar Herman Finer (with more detail on his ideas below) dispel the notion from the constitutional flaws he found and some of the many “social and political evils” he recounted as a result through the middle 20th century decades – rampant crime, unsafe streets, lack of justice, political corruption, dishonest police, racketeering labor officials, corporate fraud in pursuit of profits, raging unresolved social problems and lots more. Only government can address these issues and unless it does successfully it fails. Our is a long history of failure overall with only feeble attempts to fix things.

Lundberg reviewed popular misconceptions about the Constitution saying so many are embedded in the American psyche it’s hard knowing where to begin. He noted the document is called “The Living Constitution” saying, in fact, it’s “whatever government does or does not do” or uses in whatever way it wishes. The Constitution defines itself as the “supreme Law of the Land” in Article VI, Section 2 which it is and includes all amendments, enacted statutes and treaties made with the concurrence (not ratification) of the Senate. The people are left out of the process entirely with Lundberg saying “government of the people, by the people and for the people” is a “nonexistent entity. The people don’t govern either directly or through ‘representatives.’ The people are governed.”

In sum, although the Constitution served many of the purposes its designers and supporters envisioned, in light of the majority populace’s great expectations of it, “it has been, quite plainly, a huge flop.” That’s made clear below.

“We the People”

Lundberg destroys the romanticism and enthusiasm felt today about the Constitution and the revolt against Great Britain preceding it. He began by reviewing the establishment of state constitutions at the time and the enactment of the Articles of Confederation adopted by the Second Continental Congress November 15, 1777 with final ratification March 1, 1781. None of these events had electoral sanction. “They were strictly coup d’etat affairs, run by small groups of self-styled patriots many of whom bettered their personal economic positions significantly” from the revolution and events before and after it took place. Despite what’s commonly taught in schools, most people opposed the Constitution when it was ratified. So by getting it done anyway, the framers (with the conservative Federalists spearheading the effort) went against the will of the people they ignored and disdained.

It wasn’t easy, though, as only by promising amendments did it happen. The anti-Federalist opposition demanded and got the “oft-hymned” first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. In fact, they “made no great difference,” and did little to dilute the 1787 document. More on that below.

Lundberg explained that most anti-Federalists weren’t particularly happy either with the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. These men were mostly privileged property owners (all white, of course) squabbling over the means to get pretty similar ends and having a generally hostile attitude about the majority population overall. In other words, everyone was not considered “We the people,” which is how radical English Whigs felt and whose traditions colonists adopted. “The illiterate and underprivileged (elements) were not much considered” with the “people” again being the privileged male property owners in charge of everything and out only for their own self-interest.

Lundberg cited voting patterns earlier, up to his time, and clearly now as well, to explain how people are left out of the political process. Whether franchised or not, most don’t vote in presidential elections and even fewer show up for congressional, state and local ones. It indicates the will of the people needs considerable qualifying because most of them aren’t interested, don’t want to bother, don’t think it matters, don’t understand the whole process, and decide to opt out and act like nothing’s going on. “Although repugnant to ideologists of democracy,” Lundberg stated, “this conclusion is quite true.”

In sum, the relevance of this to the Constitution is that its opening words are meaningless window dressing. They neither add nor detract from the document which served as a “screen and launching pad for practically autonomous, freely improvising politicians (like any others in the world)….the gentry….sustained (in whatever their endeavors were) by the constitutional structure” they created for their own self-serving purposes.

What the Framers Thought

This section covers who these men were below as well as more about them in the section to follow. Here, first off, the record needs to be set straight about what these very ordinary men (contrary to popularized myth about them) thought about their creation we extoll today like it came down from Mt. Sinai. In fact, it was the result of wheeling and dealing in likely smoke-filled rooms the way deals are cut today with lots of real and figurative smoke to go along with the usual mirrors. When they finished in September, 1787, there was no joy in Philadelphia. The framers disliked their creation, some could barely tolerate it, yet most signed it.

They understood its defects, that it was full of holes, thought it was the best they could do under the circumstances, felt it was a mess, but, nonetheless, believed they could live with it for the time being, hoping it wouldn’t come back to bite them. Lundberg said they likely “kept their fingers crossed.” One other thing was clear, though, despite “crowd-titillating campaign oratory” about their creation ever since. Not a single framer suggested “a sheltered haven was being prepared for the innumerable heavily laden, bedraggled, scrofulous and oppressed of the earth.” On the contrary, they intended to keep them that way showing not a lot is fundamentally different then than now, and the so-called founders were a pretty devious bunch, not the noble characters we’ve been taught to believe.

As already explained, the deal got done with the usual kinds of wheeling and dealing, and, in the end, a lot of opponents being won over by agreeing to tack on the so-called Bill of Rights that was deliberately left out at first. The dominant elements behind the convention were what today are called nationalists. More precisely, they were “centralizers who were continental and global in their thinking.” The opposition consisted of “localists,” later called “states-righters,” who preferred a decentralized government. The “centralizers” wanted a single or central national capital run by superior people by their definition – the rich and better-connected regardless of ability. Men like John Adams and John Jay (the first High Court chief justice) felt government should be run, in Adams’ words, by “the rich, the well born, and the able.” There was no disagreement on that notion.

There were no populists in the bunch, no anti-property party, and even the most vocal civil libertarians, like Jefferson and George Mason, were slave-owners. Washington, for his part, contributed no pet constitutional ideas other than wanting to protect the new nation from drifting toward disunion which, in fact, happened with the outbreak of the Civil War in
1861. Lundberg described him as “the very top dog of the Philadelphia accouchement (the constitutional birthing process).” He understood the key reason for adopting a flawed document, no matter how bad it was or how the framers felt about it. Accepting it was the way to prevent disunion and resulting confusion that might have prevailed if public consideration entered the equation to become accepted policy and law.

Conflicting ideas of concern at the time visualized three central governments consisting of the New England states, middle Atlantic ones, and those in the South with likely new entries to follow in the West. The framers worried this arrangement might cause endless bickering and wars as well as rivalrous agreements and arrangements with other countries. In one stroke, the Constitution produced a united front against an ever-encroaching Europe and internal struggles.

Lundberg spent much time on who the founders were this review can only touch on. It’s enough just to put a few faces on a group of crass opportunists who today are practically ranked along side the Apostles. But who’s to say those few were any better than others of their day the way myths are constructed and passed on through the ages unchallenged in mainstream thinking. And don’t forget that, in his first term, George Bush might have been aiming for sainthood by claiming he got his orders directly from God who told him to “strike at Al-Queda….and then…. to strike at Saddam.” Even the framers didn’t claim that type heavenly connection.

They did have Lundberg’s focus beginning with Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s wartime aide-de-camp, first Secretary of the Treasury and acknowledged leader of the Federalists. Here’s what this noted man thought of the Constitution in 1802. In a letter, he called it “a shilly shally thing of mere milk and water (and) a frail and worthless document.” This is from the man, more than any other in Philadelphia, who was its most articulate and passionate champion. Franklin, too, had doubts as the grand old man, but mere enfeebled figurehead at the convention, who also signed the final document. He was against two separate chambers, disapproved of some of the articles and wanted others that weren’t included.

Then there’s James Madison miscalled “The Father of the Constitution,” which he expressly repudiated and a year later wrote “I am not of the number if there be any such, who think the Constitution lately adopted a faultless work…..(It’s) the best that could be obtained from the jarring interests of the states….Something, anything, was better than nothing.” Madison’s disaffection went even further, in fact. At the convention, he was an ardent “centralizer,” but 10 years later he reversed himself by aligning with those wanting to recapture more state power. He also spent most of his life disagreeing with the way the document he helped write was used.

Lundberg covered a few other framers most people know little or nothing about but played their part along with the better known ones. They included men like Nicholas Gilman from New Hampshire, William Pierce and William Few from Georgia, Pierce Butler and Charles Pinckney from South Carolina, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris (no relation) and James Wilson from Pennsylvania, Jonathan Dayton from New Jersey, and James McHenry from Maryland.

Of the total 55 delegates attending, 39 signed and 16 didn’t, but doing it or not was just a pro forma exercise as only the states had power to accept or reject it. None of the framers believed the Constitution was the glorious achievement people ever since were led to believe – quite the opposite, in fact, but most still went along with it as better than nothing. The nation’s second and third Presidents, Adams and Jefferson, were abroad and didn’t attend the convention although Adams was considered the leading constitutional theorist at the time. His views had weight and were strong ones. Lundberg noted for the rest of his life until 1826 he consistently criticized the document in private correspondence.

Jefferson overall was just as unhappy. Until it was added, he objected to the omission of a Bill of Rights. He also disliked the lack of any requirements for rotation in office, especially the office of the presidency he wished to be ineligible for a succeeding term. In 1801, he was involved with others proposing a menu of changes to strengthen a document he believed was flawed. He also didn’t think any constitution could survive the test of time, unchanged forever, able to meet all legitimate needs, and as a consequence wanted a new convention every 20 years to update things and fix obvious problems.

Lundberg felt Jefferson and Adams’ main objection was they had no part in writing it or were even consulted on what should go in it. They had a point. Adams, as noted, was the leading constitutional theorist of the time and Jefferson (in Lundberg’s view) was the most consummate politician in the nation’s history, but by no means its best President.

The convention ended September 17, 1787 “in an atmosphere verging on glumness.” Delegates signing it were just witnesses to the actions of state delegations, not as individual endorsers, and despite their public approval, nearly all had “inner qualms.” James Monroe from Virginia, a future President, was one of them. He voted nay with 15 others that included important figures like George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and Edmund Randolph.

Southern delegates were won over for ratification by strengthening chattel slavery. The Constitution forbade the federal government from emancipating slaves until Lincoln acted in a meaningless 1862 politically motivated Executive Order. It wasn’t until Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and enough states ratified them, that the law changed freeing the slaves and giving them nominal rights they never, in fact, had in the South at least for another
100 years. Lundberg noted the “slavocracy was not terminated….for moral reasons; it committed suicide for political and economic reasons, blinded by simple greed and vaingloriousness, and long after slavery was abolished in most places elsewhere.”

Who the Framers Were

Lundberg asked: “Who were these men about whom so many
(unjustifiably) have rhapsodized? Fifty-five in total showed up in Philadelphia in 1787 out of 74 authorized by state legislatures. A fourth of them stayed only briefly, another quarter checked in and out like tourists, and no more than five men carried most of the discussion with seven others playing “fitful” supporting roles.

Further, they didn’t, in fact, come to write a new constitution. They were congressionally authorized only to propose amendments to the prevailing Articles of Confederation. Little did they all know in May what would emerge in September, or maybe the ones who counted most did.

Of the 19 non-attending delegates, 11 wanted nothing to do with the affair, were opposed to it, distrusted it, and thought it rigged from the start. The other eight had various excuses – illness (political or real), focused at home with other business, not having their travel expenses covered, and reluctant to make such a long trip to be away from home and hearth for months.

Of those showing up, 33 were lawyers, 44 present or past members of Congress, 46 had political positions at home, including seven as former governors and five high state judges. These were men of note and economic means who promoted their own financial interests and parallel activity in government. In a word, they were movers and shakers or as Lundberg called them – “wheeler dealers.”

He described the group as a “gathering of the rich, the well-born and, here and there, the able (with that quality being the exception).” Washington and Robert Morris were reputed to be the richest men in the country with property holdings in most cases being their main component of wealth at the time along with slaveholdings on it. Directly or indirectly as lawyers or principals, these men were an assemblage of “planters, bankers, merchants, ship-owners, slave-traders, smugglers, privateers, money-lenders, investors, and speculators in land and securities” – essentially a group of powerful figures not much different from their counterparts today. With a few exceptions, Lundberg said they’d now be called a “Wall Street crowd.”

In their mind, “The clear aim of the Constitution was to launch a system that would protect, and enable to flourish, the general interests there represented.” With Great Britain removed, a vacuum was created. The Constitution, with a new government, was created to fill it restoring the same essential British commercial and financial system under new management, or as the French would say, everything changed yet everything stayed the same. Republican government simply removed British monarchal wrappings to operate pretty much the same way. Lundberg quoted Daniel Leonard saying “Never in history had there been so much rebellion with so little real cause” and so little change following it. As for the ingredients of the Constitution, Lundberg explained nearly all of them could have been “stamped with the benchmark ‘Originated in England.’ Only the mixture was different.”

Further, 27 delegates were future members of Congress, two were future Presidents, one a future Vice-President, one a Speaker of the House, and five future High Court justices. They produced a Constitution generated along predetermined lines by the government itself by “a small self-selected elite at the center of government affairs.” They did it in deliberately general, vague, ambiguous language, the product of consummate self-serving insiders. The “people” were nowhere in sight then or for the later future amendment ratifications, all of which were done solely by similar-minded self-serving later officials for their own political purposes. It’s always been that way from the beginning, of course, and is strikingly so today.

Lundberg then reviewed the political background and record of the delegates starting off with the elder statesman in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin, the wisest of the bunch. In 1787, he was an octogenarian, attended as a mere figurehead, signed the final document, but was too enfeebled to address the convention at its end, so he enlisted a friend to read his rather notable and prescient remarks to the others saying:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults….I think a General Government (is) necessary for us (and) may be a blessing….if well-administered; (I “farther” believe that’s likely) for a Course of Years
(but) can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall have become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” Imagine such a dark prophecy at the nation’s birth by a man who never met George Bush but was wise enough to know he’d arrive sooner or later. Franklin today would surely say “I warned you, didn’t I.”

Other notable signers were less insightful, or if they were, didn’t let on. Two of them, John Dickinson and William Johnson were members of the 1765 Stamp Act Congress. Six others were members of the mainly conservative First Continental Congress of 1774 – Thomas Mifflin, Edmund Randolph, George Read, John Rutledge, Roger Sherman, and George Washington.

Other important attendees were Elbridge Gerry, Roger Sherman, George Mason, John Langdon, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris (no relation) and William Livingston. Lundberg called Langdon, Livingston, Randolph, Rutledge and R. Morris political power bosses or power-brokers of their day, and Robert Morris was known to his friends and enemies as the “Great Man.” He was the unmatched financial giant of the era with Lundberg saying “his brain would have made two of Hamilton” and that his economic and political power at the time were unrivaled matching that of the House of Morgan in the early 20th century combined with New York’s Tammany Hall.

According to Lundberg, however, this was no “all-star political team” compared to other more distinguished figures not there – Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, John Jay, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry and many others. Apart from two notables, Washington and Franklin, as well as Robert Morris, few later became prominent nationally. In 1787, Madison and Hamilton
(Washington proteges) were virtual unknowns.

Lundberg noted nothing on record shows this assemblage to have been extraordinarily learned, profound in their thinking or even unusually capable. Only 25 attended college, and “the one man who held the convention together by the mere force of his presence”….Washington, never got beyond the fifth grade. Franklin was mostly self-taught and Hamilton was a college dropout his first year. Robert Morris, the JP Morgan of his day, and George Mason also never attended college. Of the 25 college attendees, only Madison, Wilson and G. Morris were contributors of note.

In point of fact, colleges in those days were quite rudimentary and graduated students at a much earlier age, often as young as 16, and a bright student could master the law for a degree in a matter of weeks the way Hamilton did. The same was true in England at the time with Oxford and Cambridge not then considered distinguished educational centers as they are now.

Most of the attending delegates also had military backgrounds, but writing about them kept that information secret. Lundberg stressed it saying “the gathering took on the complexion of the general staff of the war of the revolution.” Why not, the boss himself was there, Washington, along with his leading officers. In all, 27 delegates served under him in the war. He knew them, most of the others, and all of them stood in awe of him as a larger than life figure. He was “always the nonpareil,” assured he’d be the new nation’s uncontested first president. He had no party affiliation, ran unopposed twice and got all the votes for two terms in a process more like coronations than elections.

He and the other delegates came to Philadelphia, assembled, did their work and went home in many cases to pursue “their eclipse.” Lundberg explained “As a collection of supposedly highly sagacious men, the post-convention careers of the framers raise a big question mark.” Ten went bankrupt or became broke, several were involved in financial scandals, two died in duels, one became a shattered drunkard, two “flittered” with treason, one was expelled from the Senate, one went mad, others quarreled bitterly among themselves about politics and interpreting the document they created, and most switched political sides for convenience in their subsequent quests for office. Washington himself, likely died from medical malpractice, the victim of a bloodletting procedure, after he took ill, when he needed all he had.

Other framers began dying off as well, a number of them right after the convention and at ages considered very young today for some. Robert (JP Morgan) Morris went bankrupt speculating in public lands and securities, owed millions as a result, served three and a half ignominious years in debtors’ prison, and died broke in 1806. Other framers also speculated and lost heavily in their financial dealings.

Hamilton was one of the few Philadelphia delegates to achieve a notable post-convention record as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury and Federalist Party leader. Noteworthy as well was Gouverneur Morris, no relation to Robert. Finally, there was James Madison who was neither the Constitution’s father or its indispensable or principle source. He, in fact, had no original or unique ideas to bring to the convention. In this respect, he was like all the others.

Madison did perform a hugely important function as an “amanuensis,” dutifully and painstakingly recording the convention proceedings in what historians today call an accurate and complete stenographic record, the best available. It was not until 1840 that it became public after Congress bought it from his estate. He documented what Lundberg called “startling” – that the convention delegates were “a group of men intent upon securing various special economic interests” and weren’t the “philosophically detached cogitators they had been held up in propaganda to be.”

Madison’s report shattered the view that these men came together to devise the best possible government. From the start, they knew what they wanted (at least the key ones there) and set about getting it. Madison was also a powerful advocate on the convention floor of widely discussed views. Unlike the others, he had no considerable property or means, but he lived to age
85, outlasted all the other framers, and served as the nation’s fourth President. In total, eight delegates at most can be considered weighty. The rest were “routine or parochial or both,” and that conclusion is astounding for a group of 55 leading men of the day who “participated in the formulation of a reputed deathless document” and are revered in classrooms and society as larger-than-life icons.

The Gorgeous Convention

Lundberg stared off saying “The constitutional convention of 1787, an historical event of first-class importance, was itself an entirely routine, utterly uninspiring political caucus….it produced absolutely no prodigies of statecraft, no wonders of political
(judgment), no vaulting philosophies, no Promethean vistas.” In point of fact, as already stressed and repeated, what happened contradicts all we’ve been “indoctrinated from ears to toes” to believe that’s pure nonsense. Lundberg called the main fantasy the popular conception that the Constitution is “a document of salvation….a magic talisman.” The central achievement of the convention, and a big one,
(at least until 1861) was the cobbling together of disparate and squabbling states into a union that held together tenuously for over seven decades but not actually until Appomattox “at bayonet point.”

As mentioned above, the delegates came to Philadelphia merely to amend the unwieldy Articles of Confederation so what it did was, “strictly viewed, illegal.” The finished product emerged as an amalgam of the existing Maryland, New York and Massachusetts constitutions dating respectively from 1776, 1777 and 1790, the latter one written almost entirely by John Adams in a few days. Even though he was abroad in London at the time, the finished Constitution was largely the product of his earlier work. Of those attending, no individual theorist dominated proceedings, but two dominant personalities held things together as its “living core.” Without the force of their presence, Lundberg explained, the whole process “would almost surely have foundered.”

Those men were George Washington, the larger-than- life victorious general of the revolution, and “Great Man” Robert Morris, the JP Morgan-type figure who later went bust because even financial whizards can succumb to excess greed. Gouverneur Morris also was prominent in the proceedings while Madison and Hamilton, as already explained, were virtual unknowns.

Lundberg called the convention “very much a prefabricated group affair” with internal differences over concentrating power in the President or Congress. Then, there were the “tight nationalizers, those generally wanting a national government, and lastly in the minority “states-righters” believing no state power should be surrendered to a federal authority. “As for flat-out democrats,” said Lundberg, “there were none in sight.” In terms of what they achieved, he called it “Old Wine in a Fancy New Bottle” with a new name under new management. The purpose of the convention was to gain formal approval for what the leading power figures wanted and then get their creation rammed through the state ratification process to make it the law of the land. On that score, and after much wheeling and dealing, they achieved mightily.

The convention began in May, went on through three phases for 120 days, and concluded in September after dozens of parliamentary-type votes to postpone, reconsider, amend, etc. with a document produced and turned over to a committee of detail in late July. The final phase ran from August 6 to September 17, nine states were needed for ratification with the larger, more populous ones, granting concessions to the small ones to win the day.

Several scenarios or plans were proposed, one of which was the Virginia Plan envisioning a central national government with a bicameral legislature that, of course, was adopted. All the plans were “strongly rightist” or conservative. Members of the lower house were to be elected by the people and those in the upper body by members of the lower one. That became the law and stayed that way until the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed the people of each state to elect their own senators.

Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court at the top, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments in them all. In addition, the finished Constitution included proposals for amendments and much else including terms of office and staggered elections to prevent too many officials being unseated at the same time. The final product was what one academic observer called a “bundle of compromises” from beginning to end.

Lundberg described the delegates as “flinty hard-liners, determined to have their way, never to yield on anything substantial….willing to make purely political compromises (over) the means of carrying on government (but) adamantly resistant….when it came to (its) ends.” Those were primarily economic and social, and those were left as they were when ties with Great Britain were cut.

Thinking then was much like today with provisions in the Constitution targeting the discontented. Congress was empowered to raise revenue through taxation, always hitting the less advantaged hardest. It was authorized to borrow money without limit meaning the people would have to service the debt. It was given power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce assuring the rich their interests would be served, and much more. In sum, the document created “was the means by which the traditional establishment….was re-establishing itself” leaving out of the mix the interests of the “common man (who) in point of fact was going to be allowed to remain….common (with) the Constitution, contrary to political blarney (offering) him no bonuses for it.”

Lundberg titled one sub-section: “Down with the People.” In it, he caught the mood of the delegates as expressed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut who said “The people should have as little to do as may be about the government.” Elbridge Gerry then denounced the evils stemming from “the excess of democracy,” and debating delegates drubbed democracy and “the people” repeatedly. That’s how Alexander Hamilton saw things in his view of “mankind in toto (being) wholly depraved” disagreeing with Thomas Paine’s notion of government being depraved and people being inherently good. Paine wasn’t a delegate so he had no input into the proceedings and couldn’t argue against the central interest of property as a requirement for voting and holding office.

Even Jefferson accepted this idea but hated the word enough to use another expression for it in the Declaration of Independence he authored. His substitute language for “property” was “the pursuit of happiness,” meaning the same thing. While Jefferson abhorred that “word,” the attending delegates (Madison and Hamilton among them) found it their “favorite
(one), often brought to the fore as a matter of deepest concern.” Also brought up was the “minority,” but not “any minority or all minorities. It was the minority of the opulent.”

The far-sighted among them foresaw a bonanza coming from the revolution that came about when the states passed confiscation acts, putting properties up for sale at bargain prices, still only affordable to the affluent. It sounds very much like the way corporate predators planned to pillage and plunder Iraq and have done a pretty good job of it.

There was also plenty of graft to go around, again just like in Iraq and at home as well. Lundberg noted “the other big bonanza of the revolution was the trans-Allegheny domains in which patriot speculators made and lost fortunes.” The well-off had their eyes on thousands of parcels of land and buildings wrested from their lawful owners. They also wanted to assure that never happened to them.

Then there was the ratification process itself that turned out to be a tussle as soon as the Constitution was sent to Congress. Lundberg reviewed the arduous give and take process of compromise that finally got the document passed by 13 states with three others rejecting it.

This was when adopting the Bill of Rights made the difference. The ones adopted in the first 10 amendments weren’t for “the people,” nowhere in sight, but to provide them to property owners who wanted:

– prohibitions against quartering troops in their property,

– unreasonable searches and seizures there as well,

– the right to have state militias protect them,

– the right of people to bear arms, but not the way the 2nd Amendment is today interpreted,

– the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition, all to serve monied and propertied interests alone – not “The People,”

– due process of law with speedy public trials, and

– various other provisions worked out through compromise to become our acclaimed Bill of Rights. Two additional amendments were proposed but rejected by the majority. They would have banned monopolies and standing armies, matters of great enormity that might have made a huge difference thereafter. We’ll never know for sure.

Lundberg stressed the importance of the amendments adopted. Without them, the movement for a second convention likely would have prevailed that might have derailed the whole process or greatly changed the Constitution’s structure. That possibility had to be avoided at all costs and was by this compromise that had nothing to do with granting rights to “The People.”

Government Free Style

Lundberg destroyed the popular myth of a government constrained by constitutional checks and balances. In fact, it can and repeatedly has done anything judged expedient, with or without popular approval, and within or outside the law of the land. In this respect, it’s no different than most others able to operate the same way and often do. It’s done through “the narrowest possible interpretations of the Constitution,” but it’s free to “operate further afield under broader or fanciful official interpretations” with history recording numerous examples.

Many presidents operated this way. Lundberg noted Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Wilson, T. and F. Roosevelt, Jackson, could have named Lincoln, and didn’t know about Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and, most of all, GW Bush when his book was written.

A key point made is that “government is completely autonomous, detached, in a realm of its own” with its “main interest (being) economic (for the privileged) at all times.” In pursuing this aim, “constitutional shackles and barriers (exist only) in the imaginations of many people” believing in them. Regardless of law, custom or anything else, sitting US governments have always been freelancing. They’ve been unresponsive to the public interest, uncaring about the will and needs of the majority, and generally able to finesse or ignore the law with ease as suits their purpose. As Lundberg put it: “forget the mirage of government by the people,” or the rule of law for that matter, with George Bush only being the most extreme example of how things work in Washington all the time under all Presidents.

Lundberg went on to explain the Constitution effectively confers unlimited powers on the government. He cited Article I, Section 8, Sub-section 18 allotting to Congress power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution….or any department or officer thereof.” It’s up to government, of course, to decide what’s “necessary” and “proper” meaning the sky’s the limit under the concept of sovereignty. The power of government is effectively limited only “by the boundaries of possibility.” Special considerable powers are then afforded the President, dealt with in a separate section below, and another on the Supreme Court.

Lundberg explained how the “three divisions of the American government operate under the immoderately celebrated system of checks and balances” with the framers believing too much power in the hands of one person or group of persons was a potential setup for tyranny. Lundberg believed the theory was false, used the British model to make his case, but he never met George Bush who might have given him pause.

In Britain, the legislature and executive are inextricably linked, a single House of Commons runs the government, the upper House of Lords is only advisory, the courts can only apply the law the legislature hands them, all laws passed become part of the constitution, and new elections are generally called if a sitting government loses a vote of confidence.

In the British parliamentary system, the government consists of a committee of the House of Commons called the Cabinet presided over by a prime minister elected by his party members. He and all cabinet members are elected members of parliament (MPs) and can be voted in or out in any general election with all members standing at the same time. It’s a vastly different and much fairer system overall than the convoluted American model even though, in theory, a British prime minister has much more control of the parliament than a US president has over the Congress with two parties and numerous disparate interests.

In practice, many US presidents get their way, despite the obstacles, and George Bush gets nearly everything he wants, takes it when it’s not offered, and hardly ever faces congressional objection. The section below on the power of the presidency shows how the Constitution makes it so easy to do with Presidents, like Bush, taking full advantage on top of all the enormous powers he has under the law.

Britain has another interesting feature unheard of in Washington that would be refreshing to have. Once a week, there’s a question period when the prime minister and his cabinet are held to account by the opposition and must answer truthfully or pretty close to it, at least in theory. Also, theoretically, a minister is supposed to face certain expulsion if an untruth stated is learned. In the US, in contrast, Presidents routinely lie to Congress, the public and maybe themselves to get away with anything they wish. They face no penalty doing it, under normal circumstances, with exceptions popping up occasionally like for Richard Nixon’s serious lying and smoking gun evidence to prove it and Bill Clinton’s inconsequential kind that was no one else’s business but his own.

Lundberg then reviewed the labyrinthine US system the framers devised under the Roman maxim of “divide and rule” as follows:

– a powerful (and at times omnipotent) chief executive at the top;

– a bicameral Congress with a single member in the upper chamber able to subvert all others in it through the power of the filibuster (meaning pirate in Spanish);

– a committee system ruled mostly by seniority or a by political powerbroker;

– delay and circumlocution deliberately built into the system;

– a separate judiciary with power to overrule the Congress and Executive;

– staggered elections to assure continuity by preventing too many of the bums being thrown out together;

– a two-party system with multiple constituencies, especially vulnerable to corruption and the power of big money that runs everything today making the whole system farcical, dishonest and a democracy only in the minds of the deceived and delusional.

This is a system under which Lundberg characterized the US electorate – left, right and center – as “the most bamboozled and surprised in the world” and leaves voters “reduced to the condition of one of Pavlov’s experimental dogs – apathetic, inert, disinterested.” It got Professor J. Allen to say “A system better adapted to the purpose of the lobbyist could not be devised,” and that remark came long before the current era with things in government totally out of control leading one to wonder what Lundberg would say today if he were still living and commenting.

Court Over Constitution

Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court saying only: “The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress is explicitly empowered to regulate the Court, but, in fact, the Court “seems to regulate Congress.” Lundberg believed it was to allow those unelected on it to be blamed for unpopular decisions getting them off the hook. Congress, if it choose to, has the upper hand, and even Court decisions on various issues only apply to a specific case leaving broader interpretations to other rulings if they come.

As for the common notion of “judicial review,” it’s unmentioned in the Constitution nor did the convention authorize it. This concept is derived by deduction from two separate parts of the Constitution: In Article VI, Section 2 saying the Constitution, laws, and treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land” and judges are bound by them; then in Article III, Section
1 saying judicial power applies to all cases implying judicial review is allowed. Under this interpretation of the law, appointed judges theoretically “have a power unprecedented in history – to annul acts of the Congress and President.”

Lundberg then reviewed some notable examples of judicial power, first asserted in the famous Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. It established the principle of “judicial supremacy” articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall meaning the Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not the law. He set a precedent by voiding an act of Congress and the President. It put a brake on congressional and presidential powers, theoretically, but Presidents like George Bush act above the law by ignoring Congress and the Courts and usurping “unitary executive” powers claiming the law is what he says it is. He gets away with it because the other two branches do nothing to stop him.

In 1776 and at the time of the convention, few in the country believed in judicial review with theoreticians like Madison and James Wilson zealously opposed to it. They wanted legislatures and the executive to be the sole judges of their own constitutional powers. Lundberg then said “Judicial review….is just one of the usages of the Constitution that sprung up in the course of jockeying among the divisions, personalities and factions of government.”

Lundberg then reviewed numerous other notable Court cases, including the shameful Dred Scott decision when claimant Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom on justifiable grounds and lost due to the tenor of the times.

A few others were:

– Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 that stabilized the law of property rights, especially regarding contracts for the purchase of land;

– Dartmouth College v Woodward in 1819 with the Court holding charters of private corporations were contracts and as such were protected by the contact clause;

– McCulloch V Maryland also in 1819 with the Court ruling a state couldn’t tax the branch of a bank established by an act of Congress;

– Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 when the Court upheld the supremacy of the United States over the states in the regulation of interstate commerce;

– Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 with the Court affirming discrimination in public places;

– a number of cases, including US v. EC Knight Company in 1895, in which the Court vitiated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 while at the same time keeping “hot on the trail of labor unions” as conspiracies in restraint of trade in violation of Sherman in Loewe v. Lawler in 1908;

– Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in
1886 when Court reporter JC Bancroft Davis wrote what the Court refused to refute, thereby granting corporations the legal status of personhood under the
14th Amendment with all rights and benefits accruing from it but none of the obligations. In this writer’s non-legal judgment, this decision above all others, adversely changed the course of history most by opening the door to the kinds of unchecked corporate power and abuses seen today. It stands as the most far-reaching, abusive and long-standing of all harmful Court decisions now haunting us.

Lundberg ended this chapter with a section titled “The Corporate State” citing what’s pretty common knowledge today in the age of George Bush. The US is a corporate-dominated society run by near-omnipotent figures within and outside government. They believe in an “individualistic economy,” with the law backing it, based on the inviolate principles of free private enterprise, with them in charge of everything for their self-interested gain. In a zero-sum society, it means their benefits harm the rest of us, and that’s pretty much the way things are today with things far more out of control than when Lundberg wrote his book.

Even so, his comments pre-1980 observed how giant corporations arose “under the ministering hand of government officials, especially in the courts (and there emerged) wealthy dynasties of successful corporate intrepreneurs, insuring a line of (future) Robber Barons.” With the Constitution forbidding “the granting of titles of nobility,” corporate titans, in fact, had all the “material substance pertaining to European nobility (making) Money per se….ennobling in the American scheme.”

Gross disparities in income and personal wealth, far more out of proportion now than three decades ago, are largely the result of these earlier events with government and business conspiring to make them possible. Earlier, and especially now, “successful wealthholders in almost every case had an omnipotent lever at their service: the government, including Congress, the courts and the chief executive.” The constitutional story comes down to a question of money and money arrangements – who gets it, how, why, when, where, what for, and under what conditions. Also, who the law leaves out.

This story has nothing whatever to do with guaranteeing, as they say, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; establishing justice; upholding the rule of law equitably for everyone; promoting the general welfare; or securing the blessings of freedom for the general public unconsidered, unimportant and ignored by the three branches of government serving monied and property interests only, of which they are part.

This was how it was when the Constitution was drafted, it stayed that way through the years, and is written in stone today with Lundberg concluding “It seems safe to say (this way of things) will never be rectified.” Never is a long time, hopefully on that count he’s wrong, but how insightful and penetrating he was on the constitutional story he revealed equisitely so far with more below, beginning with the crucially important next section. George Bush will love it if someone reads it to him or this review.

The Veiled Autocrat

Lundberg’s dominant theme here is that the US President is the most powerful political official on earth, bar none under any other system of government. “The office he holds is inherently imperial,” regardless of the occupant or how he governs, and the Constitution confers this on him. Whereas under the British model with the executive as a collectivity, the US system “is absolutely unique, and dangerously vulnerable in many ways” with one man in charge fully able to exploit his position. “The American President,” said Lundberg, stands “midway between a collective executive and an absolute dictator (and in times of war like now) becomes in fact quite constitutionally, a full-fledged dictator.”

A single sentence, easily passed over or misunderstood, constitutes the essence of presidential power. It effectively grants the Executive near-limitless power, only constrained to the degree he so chooses. It’s from Article II, Section 1 reading: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Article II, Section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically permits this practice. More on that below.

Lundberg said the proper way to understand the Constitution is to view it as a “symphony” with big themes being like separate movements. Theme one in Article I, Section 1 says “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Theme two is the dominant one on the Executive in Article II, Section 1 cited above. The final movement or theme three deals with “The judicial power.”

Lundberg then continued saying “to understand the inner nature of the United States government (the key question is) What is executive power? – aware all the time that it is concentrated in the hands of one man.” He also reviewed how Presidents are elected “literally
(by) electoral (unelected by the public) dummies” in an Electoral College. The process or scheme is a “long-acknowledged constitutional anomaly.” They can subvert the popular vote, never meet or consult like the College of Cardinals does in Rome to elect a Pope, so, in fact, its use is “a farce all the way.”

Now to the issue of executive power covered in Section
2. It’s vast and frightening. The President:

– is commander-in-chief of the military and in this capacity is completely autonomous in peace and a de facto dictator in war; although Article I, Section 8 grants only Congress the right to declare war, the President, in fact, can do it any time he wishes “without consulting anyone” and, of course, has done it many times;

– can grant commutations or pardons except in cases of impeachment. Nixon resigned remember before near-certain impeachment;

– can make treaties that become the law of the land, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate (not ratification as commonly believed); can also terminate treaties with a mere announcement as George Bush did renouncing the important ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union; in addition, and with no constitutional sanction, he can rule by decree through executive agreements with foreign governments that in some cases are momentous ones like those made at Yalta and Potsdam near the end of WW II. While short of treaties, they then become the law of the land.

– can appoint administration officials, diplomats, federal judges with Senate approval, that’s usually routine, or can fill any vacancy through (Senate) recess appointments; can also discharge any appointed executive official other than judges and statutory administrative officials;

– can veto congressional legislation, with history showing through the book’s publication, they’re sustained 96% of the time;

– while Congress alone has appropriating authority, only the President has the power to release funds for spending by the executive branch or not release them;

– Presidents also have a huge bureaucracy at their disposal including powerful officials like the Secretaries of Defense, State, Treasury and Homeland Security and the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department;

– Presidents also command center stage any time they wish. They can request and get national prime time television for any purpose with guaranteed extensive post-appearance coverage promoting his message with nary a disagreement with it on any issue;

– throughout history, going back to George Washington, Presidents have issued Executive Orders
(EOs) although the Constitution “nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power (to make) new law” by issuing “one-man, often far-reaching” EOs. However, as Lundberg explained above, the President has so much power he’s virtually able to do whatever he wishes, the only constraint on him being himself and how he chooses to govern.

– George Bush also usurped “Unitary Executive” power to brazenly and openly declare what this section makes clear – that the law is what he says it is. He proved his intent in six and a half years in office by subverting congressional legislation through his record-breaking number of unconstitutional “signing statements” – affecting over 1132 law provisions through 147 separate “statements,” more than all previous Presidents combined. In so doing, he expanded presidential power even beyond the usual practices recounted above.

– Presidents are, in fact, empowered to do almost anything not expressively forbidden in the Constitution, and very little there is; more importantly, with a little ingenuity and a lot of license and chutzpah, the President “can make almost any (constitutional) text mean whatever (he) wants it to mean” so, in fact, his authority is practically absolute or plenary. And the Supreme Court supports this notion as an “inherent power of sovereignty,” according to Lundberg. He explained, if the US has sovereignty, it has all powers therein, and the President, as the sole executive, can exercise them freely without constitutional authorization or restraint.

In effect, “the President….is virtually a sovereign in his own person.” Compared to the power of the President, Congress is mostly “a paper tiger, easily soothed or repulsed.” The courts, as well, can be gotten around with a little creative exercise of presidential power, and in the case of George Bush, at times just ignoring their decisions when they disagree with his. As Lundberg put it: “One should never under-estimate the power of the President….nor over-estimate that of the Supreme Court. The supposed system of equitable checks and balances does not exist in fact (because Congress and the courts don’t effectively use their constitutional authority)….the separation in the Constitution between legislative and the executive is wholly artificial.”

Further, it’s pure myth that the government is constrained by limited powers. Quite the opposite is true “which at the point of execution (reside in) one man,” the President. In addition, “Until the American electorate creates effective political parties (which it never has done), Congress….will always be pretty much under (Presidents’) thumb(s).” Under the “American constitutional system (the President) is very much a de facto king.”

Lundberg cited examples such as Franklin Roosevelt, considered one of the nation’s three greatest Presidents along with Lincoln and Washington. He “waged (illegal) naval warfare against Germany before Pearl Harbor.” During the war, he stretched his powers to the limit and functioned as a dictator. Truman atom-bombed Japan twice gratuitously and criminally with the war over and the Japanese negotiating surrender. He also went around Congress to wage a war of aggression on North Korea when its forces attacked the South after repeated US-directed southern incursions against the North. Lyndon Johnson attacked North Vietnam February 7, 1965 using the contrived August, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification even though there was none. The examples are endless, Presidents take full advantage, and nearly always get away with it.

The only thing Presidents can’t do, in theory, is openly violate the law. But since he can interpret it creatively, it’s up to Congress and the High Court to hold him to account, and that rarely happens. Nixon was forced to resign to avoid impeachment because there was smoking gun evidence on tape to convict him on top of his being roundly disliked making it easier to act. But what he did overall wasn’t unusual except that he paid the price for it.

As Lundberg put it, “highhandedness, unpalatable doings (and) scandals” are part and parcel of politics from top to bottom in the system at all levels of government. Jethro Lieberman showed this type behavior “is a steady occupation at every level of government” in his pre-Watergate book – “How the Government Breaks the Law.” At the executive level, he showed government proceeds “pretty much ad libitum outside the stipulated rules at all levels.” In other words, the nation was always infested with Nixons at all levels, but most got away with their offenses and today that’s truer than ever.

As for impeaching and convicting a President for malfeasance, Article II, Section 4 states it can only be for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Based on the historical record, it’s near-impossible to do with no President ever having been removed from office this way, and only two were impeached, both unjustly.

Lundberg quoted John Adams on this issue saying he was right believing it would take a national convulsion to remove a President by impeachment, it hasn’t happened up to now, which is not to say it never will with no President more deserving of the “distinction” than the current sitting one who almost makes Richard Nixon look saintly by comparison. It’s long past the time to smash the inviolate notion of presidential invincibility, and given the growing groundswell, it could happen against all odds. If it does, it will be a first, and if he were still living, it would also make Lundberg rethink his final comment on the subject that it’s “virtually impossible to remove a President
(and) His security in office….is but one facet of his power.” Still remember, an exception, when it happens, only proves the rule, so Lundberg’s assessment is still valid.

Presidential power since WW II is also reinforced by their own private army through the vast US intelligence apparatus and much more. The CIA is part of it and today functions mainly as a presidential praetorian guard and global mafia-style hit squad operating freely outside the law as a powerful rogue agency backed by an undisclosed budget likely topping $50 billion annually. And since January, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security functions as a national Gestapo about as free to do as it pleases as CIA that also operates outside its mandate on US soil along with the equally repressive FBI. They mainly target disaffected political groups and individuals publicly standing against government policies with enough influence to make a difference.

The Risks in One-Man Rule

Lundberg quoted noted political scientist Herman Finer
(1898 – 1969) again reinforcing what’s covered above that “there is (virtually) no limit to the Chief Executive’s power.” In six and a half years in office, George Bush proved he was right and then some. Finer, even in an earlier less complex era, portrayed the President as overweighted with responsibilities while having enough concentrated power in his hands to make irresponsible, rash or dangerous decisions with potentially immense repercussions.

Finer proposed a way to improve the presidency by relieving one man of more responsibility than anyone can handle alone and minimize incompetency or villainy at the same time. His idea was for a collective and supportive leadership formed around the President, including a cabinet of 11 Vice-Presidents elected in combination with the chief executive every four years.

The framers structured the government to frustrate and confuse the electorate. They did it through staggered elections to avoid a clearly visible line of authority as well as maintain a continuity of governance whatever else the public might prefer. Finer wanted to correct these kinds of faults in the current system. He also understood that Presidents are plucked out of almost anywhere because of their perceived electability, not from their ability to govern effectively in an office enough to overwhelm anyone no matter how able and dedicated.

His idea was for Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be required to have served in either house of Congress a minimum four years to learn how Washington operates that can be quite different from a state or the military where former generals of note, like Dwight Eisenhower and others, went on to become very ordinary or failed Presidents. Only George Washington was the exception proving the rule, and being a new nation’s first President (governing a population smaller than Chicago today) was quite different from how things are now.

Finer also wanted the President and his cabinet to sit in the House of Representatives to make them more visible and responsible like the British model. His main concern was that too much responsibility lay with one man, with too much power to discharge it, and far too often that man turns out to be incompetent, venal or both. Under the present system, the President is near-omnipotent, operates in secrecy, is most often the wrong one chosen, and is able to spring surprises at will, often with potentially disastrous implications like today under George Bush.

He was also concerned about Presidents having secret ailments, impediments or becoming seriously ill enough to be unable to govern yet still be able to retain the power of the office. Woodrow Wilson was a case in point as he suffered a severe stroke and paralysis on his left side 17 months before his second term of office expired. His principle biographer said he was “either gravely ill (his last year in office) or severely incapacitated at the time the country needed his leadership most.”

Wilson never should have been allowed to run at all as it was known seven years earlier he was a bad health risk. He did it because the information was concealed from the public even though Wilson himself thought he might die at any moment, was blind in one eye, suffered episodes of depression, dyspepsia, colds, headaches, dizziness and feelings of dullness and numbness in one hand the result of diseased nerves. In short, he was a physical and emotional basket case running the country and unable to do it much of the time and not all late in his second term.

Franklin Roosevelt is another prime example. At age
39, eleven years before being elected President, he was stricken with what was thought to be polio and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Yet, he kept his condition secret and (before the age of television) was never photographed in a wheelchair in public. In his third term, he was advised not to run for a fourth time because of his health. He did, of course, and won, but in 1941 his blood pressure was high and rising, his heart was enlarged, and he suffered from congestive heart failure from which he finally expired in April, 1945. By early 1944, he was in marked decline and a dying man.

With the most calamitous war in history in its late stages and the power of the chief executive most needed, Lundberg described FDR as “a burned-out matchstick” barely able to function. It showed in some of his irrational decisions at the end. Yet, he was still in charge as commander-in-chief and the most powerful leader on earth as the war in Europe and Asia still raged, and he alone was calling the shots.

With future Presidents just as vulnerable to serious health problems, Lundberg’s view was as the presidency is now structured, “the American people are sitting on a bomb….likely to explode (unexpectedly) at any moment.” The problem, he said, isn’t just about an imperial presidency, but an “anarchic,” “wild-cat” or “Protean” one under which “anything can happen.” Drawing an analogy to a modern-day corporation, he explained the obvious. No large publicly-owned corporation would ever operate this way. It would never put its chips on a single person or “choose its chief executive (as) nonchalantly as does the United States.”

Wilson and Roosevelt weren’t the only Presidents who served in office while experiencing serious illness. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks along with other health problems, and Kennedy “was a walking bundle of ailments” with much of it concealed. Lyndon Johnson, as well, was in trouble from the start, suffered a massive heart attack before winning national office, and (unknown to the public) was never judged physically or mentally sound while President.

His actions proved it and give pause to what may be afflicting George Bush, kept secret from the public. A disastrous six and a half year record conclusively shows this man is unfit to serve in the nation’s highest office or in any responsible capacity. Because he’s there taking full advantage, all humanity is held hostage to what’s coming next at the hands of a venal, incompetent and possibly mentally unbalanced or deranged US chief executive.

For all the above-stated reasons along with the examples just cited, Finer believed the office of the President was ill-structured and should be drastically changed for the betterment of the country (and all humanity). As far as achieving any of what he proposed or any other type broad brush makeover of the system, Lundberg believed it’s near-impossible. Doing it would involve amending the Constitution and in a wholesale way. With certain opposition in enough states, there’s almost no chance these type changes can happen.

How did this happen, and were the framers at fault, Lundberg asks? To some degree, but not entirely. It’s pure fantasy to imagine any group of men, even if they’d been the most talented and far-sighted, could have met in 1787 to produce a Constitution, elaborate, detailed and ingenious enough to “anticipate and provide for every facet and contingency of the nation” that would eventually encompass 50 states and grow to a diverse population exceeding 300 million. It was impossible then and now everywhere. Furthermore, they made the amending process extremely hard to do even though it was subsequently accomplished 17 times after the Bill of Rights was added to get the Constitution ratified in the first place.

At a much simpler time, the framers didn’t understand that governments fundamentally act in their own self-interest whatever the law says. The Constitution complicates it for them by consisting of a “set of incomplete prescriptions, ostensibly frozen in time except as subject to an almost impossible amending process.” So to get around the problem or ignore it, governments function ad libitum with one man at the top calling the shots even though this isn’t what the framers had in mind.

So all the “patriotic praise….heaped upon the Constitution in schoolbooks….is simple nonsense, pap.” How well the country is served at any time depends on the pure luck of the draw to get a really first-rate capable leader as President. It rarely happens, and Lundberg cites only the three example of Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. None of the others matched them, and far too many were abysmal failures or worse with one candidate just cited standing out prominently as the overwhelming choice for the worst and most dangerous ever.

On top of all the other flaws and faults, “the people” were deliberately and willfully left out of the process proving “democracy is not recognized in the Constitution,” shocking as that notion is to most people reading these words. Lundberg had hopes, however, that a future time would come that would embrace constitutional improvement on a significant scale. As he put it, this document, “as it stands, is by no means the system the United States is ultimately fated to embrace (forever). For there is a great deal of room for improvement – a great deal” (indeed, and then some).

A Renewed Call for a Second Convention

With the need so much greater now than 30 years ago, in the age of George Bush, it’s time we went about the process Lundberg advocated in the title of this section. Doing it, however, is infinitely harder than achieving relatively simpler amendment tinkering here and there, even though Article V allows for such a procedure. With everything in mind from what’s covered above, it’s easy to believe, whatever the Constitution allows, convening a convention for constitutional change is near-impossible given the way the country is now run, by whom and most importantly for whom – the immensely powerful monied interests sitting in corporate boardrooms running the country, the world and our lives.

They’ve got everything arranged their way, it’s taken decades to get it, they engineer elections to get the best “democracy” they can buy, and it always turns out that way, more or less. The bankers and Wall Street even own the Federal Reserve giving them the most powerful instrument of government – the right to print and control the nation’s money supply and charge interest on it. By so doing, the government (and the public) must pay interest on its own money that wouldn’t happen if it printed its own as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says only the government can do.

It relinquished that power when Woodrow Wilson betrayed the public by signing the most disastrous piece of legislation in the nation’s history willfully after Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in the dead of night December 23, 1913 with many of its members away for the holiday and most others unaware of what, in fact, they were signing.

Today, with a virtual stranglehold on state power, in league with Democrat and Republican governments in their pockets, why would corporate giants ever give up what took so long for them to get. They never will, Lundberg knew it, too, and said the chance for real change from a second convention “is almost nil….if
(these pages) have shown anything, (it’s clear as day) the government (backed by the power of money) controls the Constitution,” not the other way around or “the people” either, left out completely from the start.

Lundberg didn’t say it but surely believed achieving the kinds of democratic changes he wanted would have to come from the bottom up. Only an aroused public, en masse and undeterred, fed up with the state of things and committed can make it happen. Impossible as it seems, history at times surprises, and if it does this time, it will be the greatest one ever….and not a moment too soon.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .

Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com  and listen Saturdays to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com at noon US central time.

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

Comments (23) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18143.htm
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

We Are The Enemy

NEWS YOU WON’T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

We Are The Enemy By Marcus Karr

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18144.htm

08/08/07 “ICH ” – — It has scarce escaped the notice of the wise, that this, our precious land of liberty, is sinking swiftly into tyranny. The executors of the American coup d’etat have been hacking at the Head of State the Constitution since the inauguration of the Republic: bruising it here and there, breaking the skin on occasion, or, if failing to cause lasting damage, then at least drizzling bits of venom and acid spittle. Yet since the new millennium these efforts have been redoubled and intensified, to the effect that large chunks of flesh are now flying everywhere; and lo! we find our glorious Head hanging tenuously, tenaciously by mere strands of tissue. It is only a moment now before the damned thing is torn clean off.

How elegantly simple and effectively deceptive the method of revolution really is! All it takes is to convince the people of a serious and imminent threat, and then, with panic and fear sown in their hearts, they will hand over their liberties without thought or hesitation. The ’serious and imminent threat’ of the hour, which is naught but hallucinated menace, has heretofore been of the strange and external variety: ‘They’ are ‘over there’, where we must meet them with courage and conviction, lest ‘they’ come ‘over here’ once again, and do us real harm. This myth has served its purpose well enough – we are occupying Iraq, after all but it has nearly run its course. For the people are developing a tolerance for falsehood, and the only cure is a larger and more potent dose. Next time, as we shall see, the threat will not come from far off places. Rather, it will be from right within our midst, and the old myth will be supplanted by newer and far graver forms.

Do you doubt that I tell the truth? For verily I say to you: the next attack on this soil will come from allies of the antiwar movement. It will come from those who use the Internet to communicate and mobilize. It will come, dare I say it, from those who entertain conspiracy theories to try to explain the world. The next terrorists, in short, will be indistinguishable from you and me. And because of that sad and scary fact, it will be necessary for our saviors in the New Federal Government to come down, like angels in the time of Judgment, to weed out the unfaithful and throw them into the fire.

Now why on earth do I spew such madness? Quite obviously it is because I am mad. For these eyes have seen it written (1), that the President has given himself authority to ‘block the property’ of those American residents who hamper ’stabilization efforts in Iraq’. Can this possibly be the product of a sane mind? Certainly not! – for it is apparent to all that These eyes have seen it written, again (2), that the terrorists ‘exploit the Internet’ to disseminate ‘conspiracy theories’ and bolster recruitment. But I must have hallucinated this in a dream state, because I searched all over for the popular websites – I meant to send them a nasty letter – and yet I couldn’t find a single one! (I was, however, assured and assuaged to remember that our sworn protectors are ever vigilant ‘against the emergence of homegrown terrorists within our own Homeland as well’.)

Mine eyes have seen it written, further (3), that in the event of another national emergency – like Hurricane Katrina or September 11 – ‘the President shall lead…the Federal Government’ and ‘coordinate’ the judicial and legislative branches as he sees fit. I knew deep in my heart that this could not be so, for my civics teachers etched there long ago, that the three branches of government were created separate and co-equal. Still, my psychosis only continued to deepen, for I imagined that a Representative on the House Committee on Homeland Security asked the White House for details on these post-emergency plans – and he was denied! Clearly this could not happen in reality, for the President is a good Christian man, and everyone knows that only the guilty have something to hide. Besides, I thought I heard the Representative say, ‘Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right’ (4) – and that is straight out of Bizarro World!

Now at this point my poor demented brain really took a turn for the worse. For I thought I saw a Top Secret document smuggled out of Iraq (5), which reported on the ’serious potential of dissident American groups rising up against constituted authority’, due to ‘growing dissatisfaction with the course and conduct of the war in Iraq, the chronic inability of Congress to deal with various pressing issues and the perception of widespread corruption and indifference to public needs’. All that bit about popular dissatisfaction I admit might have some grounding in actual fact – but an honest-to-goodness uprising?! A scattered, disaffected, atomized, and demoralized populace. . . organizing spontaneously into a serious threat to the status quo? ‘Pure nonsense!’ squeaked the last vestiges of my rational mind. And yet the vision went on.

The document I saw purported to outline the proper methods for a ‘counter-insurgency’ in these United States, and first among the imperatives listed as necessary for a successful operation was the ‘establishment or reestablishment of a “legitimate government”‘. Upon seeing that very phrase, I realized that my illness must be one of those unique schizo-affective sorts, since my hallucinations were not random and irregular but marked by a coherent internal consistency: for the ‘reestablishment’ of government was precisely what I had earlier imagined the President to implement in the event of a national emergency!

But the parallels did not stop there. For I saw also in the document that it would be prudent to ‘execute cordon and search operations’, to ’screen and document the population’, and to ‘detain personnel’. That last item really caught my attention, since expected ‘overcrowding in police jails’ would necessitate the occupation of ‘key facilities’ such as ‘prisons and other places of detention’. ‘Detention’, a-ha! The word triggered my recollection of a nightmarish psychotic episode from long ago, in which a Halliburton subsidiary was awarded a Department of Homeland Security contract to build detention facilities in the event of (among other things) a national emergency (6). Thankfully such things belong squarely in the realm of fantasy, for doubtless it is true that American exceptionalism grants us immunity to the lessons of history.

Doubtless, too, it must be true that you have grown tired of my rambling crazy talk by now. So let us return to the real world for a moment. It is an established matter of fact that the terrorists will strike again, and quite possibly very soon. We know this because of the ‘gut feelings’ of our Director of Homeland Security (7); we know this because a former Senator has stated that ‘between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen’ (note the declarative mood) (8); we know this because political operatives are openly saying that ‘all we need is some attacks on American soil’ for the President and the war to be better appreciated (9); we know this because US airports have recently been warned of terror ‘dry runs’ and ‘dress rehearsals’ (10); and we know this, above all, because it is common sense and conventional opinion, plain and simple.

To all you sober-minded, clear-headed, and responsible observers, then – to all those, in short, who are not crazy like me – I would like to pose a simple question. When the moment of truth finally arrives – when catastrophic disaster finally strikes this once-fearless nation – to what incredible lengths will our President and his Administration go. . . to uphold the Constitution, and to protect us? NOTES

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

4. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118489654058910.xml&coll=7

5. http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2720.htm#004

6.  http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656

7. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/15/230035.shtml?s=lh

8. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=bd02aa0e-7953-414b-89ff-64db473685bc

9. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html

10. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/airport_terror_warning

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

Comments (13) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18144.htm
–
**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Congressman: Minnesotans ‘Screwed Us’

Some of the comments are pretty interesting. For example: “Civil War? It may not be called that, but the mood is building and the means is there. People are just plain fed up and they can congregate on the Internet to plan their offensive. It doesn’t have to be a war of weapons unless…….The rule of law has become mere suggestion in the government and the will of the people is all but ignored completely. Tick-Tock Congress. Tick-Tock.”

Yep, and what a glorious day that will be!!!

thegunny, 419

editor@flyoverpress.com

http://www.flyoverpress.com

~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~

GovernmentExecutive.com

Congressman: Minnesotans ‘Screwed Us’
By Tom Shoop | Wednesday, August 08, 2007  |  11:36 AM

Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., isn’t one of those people waxing rhapsodic about the need to help our fellow citizens in need after last week’s 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. On the contrary, according to this report in the Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader, he thinks the $250 million bill Congress passed to rebuild the bridge was a taxpayer ripoff because it exceeded the normal $100 million limit for emergency relief projects.

The folks of Minnesota “discovered they were going to get all the money from the federal government and they were taking all they could get,” Kanjorski said at an economic summit at the University of Scranton. They used the tragedy “to screw us,” he added.

At the same event, Kanjorski declared that we’re not just living through a seemingly endless era when people lack confidence in the performance of the government. No, he said, we’re the brink of civil war. “I’m in fear for the survival of the republic,” he said. “People want to get their deer rifles out and go to the barricades.”

I haven’t seen any barricades lately, but maybe I’m just not looking hard enough.

Comments

This guy must have run for office unopposed. Pennsylvanians must be really proud.

Anonymous  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  08:28 AM

---

Well Rep.Kanjorski maybe you should look at WHO builds Interstate highways. And then get off you Duff and repair them.

MAC  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  08:11 AM

---

Civil War? It may not be called that, but the mood is building and the means is there. People are just plain fed up and they can congregate on the Internet to plan their offensive. It doesn’t have to be a war of weapons unless…….

The rule of law has become mere suggestion in the government and the will of the people is all but ignored completely. Tick-Tock Congress. Tick-Tock.

Robert M.  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  07:08 AM

---

You can be sure if the Bridge was one over the Susquehanna River in Kanjorski’s town he would be right up there seeking funds. What a joke.

Barbra Bronsberg  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  07:05 AM

---

Do you trust the government completely?

If not, how much do you trust the government?

Stephen C  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  05:20 AM

---

Looks like Congressman Kanjorski has accurately assessed the climate of the electorate. I got my rifle(s)

Advocator  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  03:40 PM

---

I don’t think it is fair to blame the people of Minnesota for what the Congress appropriated. If there was any screwing going on, it was the politicos that are having their convention there in the near future and they do not want to be inconvenienced by the absence of a bridge. Of course the Demo’s don’t want to be shortchange either. This way they can ensure the folks that they helped rebuild their bridge. Gotta be good for a few votes, don’t ya think. Amazing how you can approve billions for fighting a phony war, but if we spend our tax dollars in this country, somehow that’s screwing congress.

TGB  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  03:33 PM

---

Has the Congressman got both oars in the water? Now I know why the country is in the state its in, one of our (I assume) elected officials thinks helping Americans in need can be classified as “screwing us”. The Congressman needs to change parties. He fits right in with the Neo-Con fascist.

Greg Mackey  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  03:28 PM

---

runaway spending with no end in sight. Someone has got to say it; just can’t believe a Dem said it. just wish the rest of the rulling elite would wake up and smell the asphault.

mike  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  02:58 PM

---

–
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

The Essence of Liberty #119, The Libertarian Manifesto…

http://www.flyoverpress.com
editor@flyoverpress.com

The Essence of Liberty: Part 119

Compiled and Summarized by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Summary of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

The complete book is available for download at: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Part I: The Libertarian Creed

Chapter 2: Property and Exchange
The Nonaggression Axiom

The central axiom of the libertarian creed is the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is synonymous with invasion and is defined as the initiation of force or violence (or threat thereof) against the person or property of another.

Everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression. This implies that the libertarian stands for “civil liberties”�e.g. the fundamental rights to speak, publish, assemble, and even engage in “victimless crimes” which are not “crimes” at all. The libertarian definition of “crime” is a violent invasion of someone’s person or property. The State itself is guilty of true crime on a massive scale. For example, conscription is slavery and war (especially modern total war) is mass murder. Both are aggressive acts against persons and property. These positions are currently considered “leftist.”

On the other hand, the libertarian position opposes any invasion of or government interference with private property rights or the free-market economy. It favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange. In short, it is a system of “laissez-faire capitalism.” These positions would be considered “extreme right wing” on the current political scale.

But there is no inconsistency in these positions. In fact, it is virtually the only consistent position from the standpoint of individual liberty. The left is inconsistent by opposing the violence of war and conscription and, at the same time, supporting the violence of taxation and government control. By the same token, the right is inconsistent by advocating for private property and free enterprise while, at the same time, favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities that it judges to be immoral.

Throughout all of history the State has been the most dominant aggressor against all of these rights. It is universally allowed to commit acts that would generally be considered immoral, illegal, or criminal if committed by anyone else. The general moral law applies to everyone. The libertarian refuses to give moral sanction to the State’s reprehensible crimes, for example: mass murder, which it calls “war,� enslavement, which it calls “conscription.” and forcible theft which it calls “taxation.” Even though the majority may support such practices they are still not legitimate.

Indeed, as the child in the fable pointed out, the emperor has no clothes. But, throughout history he has been provided with a set of pseudo-clothes by the intellectual class. In the past they clothed the State and its rulers in divine authority. In more recent times, these “court intellectuals” have convinced the public that what the government does is for the “common good” or the “public welfare.” This is a fraudulent way of gaining public support for the State. The fact is that whatever services the government presumes to provide would be supplied much more efficiently and morally by private enterprise.

All governments exist through exploitation of the citizenry. Take for example the institution of taxation: Its very existence sets up a class division between the exploiting (the rulers) and the exploited (the ruled). Among all the individuals and organizations in society, only the government acquires its revenues through coercive violence. If anyone but the government tried to levy a “tax,” it would quickly be identified as banditry. The task of the court intellectuals is to mystify the process in a way that will induce the public into accepting the State. In return, they receive a share in the power and pelf.

Next Previous

Copyright �2004, FlyoverPress.com

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

�Gunny� LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he �simply got tired of living a life of crime.�

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

� Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Gunny G: One Real Candidate, and…

One Real Candidate… and A Buncha Bums–Don’t Screwup Again USA!

http://www.ronpaulstamp.com/
Click-Above For The Ron Paul Stamp…