The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution by Thomas DiLorenzo « AMERICAN BLOGGER: GUNNY.G ~ WEBLOG.EMAIL
In his 1850 Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun argued that a written constitution would never be sufficient to contain the plundering proclivities of a central government. Some mechanisms for assuring consensus among the citizens of the states regarding “federal” laws would be necessary.
Consequently, Calhoun proposed giving citizens of the states veto power over federal laws that they believed were unconstitutional (the “concurrent majority”). He also championed the Jeffersonian idea of nullification. To Calhoun (and Jefferson), states’ rights meant that the citizens of the states were sovereign over the central government that they created as their agent, and could only be so if such mechanisms — including the right of secession — existed.
Obama and Slavery… (“What, at its base, is slavery? Slavery, we would casually answer, is the ownership of one man by another”)
What, at its base, is slavery? Slavery, we would casually answer, is the ownership of one man by another. That is to say, it is a perversion of the notion of private property, rooted in a fundamental illogic about the nature and source of property itself.
Property is a derivation from what Jefferson, following Locke and others, termed the right to life. A human being, as an animal, has a natural inclination to self-preservation; however, as a rational being, this inclination is not simply an instinct, but initiates a moral imperative, i.e., it becomes a matter of choosing to live in accordance with his nature, first and foremost by preserving himself. It is this moral imperative that modern political philosophers termed a “right,” in the sense that to thwart or restrict it is to deny a man his very nature, which means to deny Nature itself. Thus, it is literally correct to say that to violate the right to life is unnatural.
As a rational agent, a man achieves his self-preservation through voluntary effort aimed at providing the means of his survival and prosperity. Just as the right to preserve himself entails what may be called ownership of his own life, so the man’s efforts are also his property, in as much as they are the practical manifestation of his right to self-preservation, i.e., of his self-ownership.
Unless otherwise noted, quoted passages come from American Imperialism in 1898, edited by Richard Miller.)
Many look to the time 1898 as the beginning or commencement of the American drive for imperialism; empire. The Spanish – American War, involving the United States in Cuba and the Philippines, is seen as this point – when America began on the road to empire (at least by those willing to recognize the imperial nature of the U.S. Many are not.).
The drive to empire began much earlier than 1898. Justin Raimondo recently wrote an essay on the War of 1812, “1812: The War Party’s First ‘Success’,” in which he describes the war in terms both neocon and imperial:
The two-hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the War of 1812 is upon us, and I’m shocked and surprised the War Party hasn’t planned a celebration: after all, as Jefferson Morley points out in Salon, this was the first neocon war, i.e. an unnecessary war of choice.
The Shores of Barbary- A republic that will not defend its citizens will not last long
The American Spectator ^ | September 13, 2012 | Rober Kaplan
Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2012 7:20:36 AM by Cincinatus’ Wife
They are murderers and, yes, they are Muslim murderers.
When President Jefferson decided to send a naval expedition to Tripoli to rescue American seamen and punish the Barbary pirates, the opposition to him was practical: did we have the naval vessels and if not did we want to raise taxes to pay for them? Did we have allies with whom to embark on such a difficult campaign? Assuming success, what were we supposed to do next to insure the pirates did not lie low, regroup, begin their trade as soon as we looked the other way?
for what it claimed were factual issues with the text. According to the Nashville Tennessean newspaper, Barton’s book, The Jefferson Lies, “claims to expose liberal myths about Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s third president.”
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of America‘s birth certificate: the Declaration of Independence. In my mind, there is no greater document of liberty ever written by man. When it came to the understanding of human rights, individual liberty, State rights, and enlightenment philosophy, Jefferson had no peer.
American politicians, from Lincoln to FDR and even Bill Clinton, have tried to claim the political mantle of Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln was truly the anti-Jefferson who nevertheless mouthed Jefferson’s words of “all men are created equal” to try to win the support of Jeffersonians in the North in the 1864 election.
FDR even more ludicrously tried to paint the New Deal as a Jeffersonian program for similar reasons; and political junkies may recall that President William Jefferson Clinton made a point of stopping off at Jefferson’s home, Monticello, on the way to his first inauguration. (He then turned around and proposed to nationalize the health care sector of the economy, funded by the largest tax increases in history — decidedly anti-Jeffersonian positions.)
American politicians understand that there are — and always have been — a great many Americans who believe in the Jeffersonian philosophy that “that government is best which governs least.” They may want minimal government, as called for by the Constitution, but by and large they want to be left alone to live their own lives within the rule of law and the norms of civilized society. They distrust centralized political power and hold the commonsense view that government is always easier to control the closer it is to the people.
That’s why politicians from Lincoln to Clinton have mouthed Jeffersonian slogans. They want the votes, but have no intention of adopting any of Jefferson’s political beliefs and policies based on them. (For his part, George W. Bush is probably more familiar with “The Jeffersons” television show of the 1970s than the political ideas of our third president.)
In reality, Grover Cleveland was the last American president who actually believed in Jeffersonian principles of government and was even moderately successful in implementing them (he vetoed literally hundreds of pieces of legislation). It’s been almost 120 years since a genuine Jeffersonian has been a major candidate for the highest office in the land, but we finally have in our midst the genuine item — the real deal — in the person of Ron Paul.
Religion – USJefferson’s view of the Resurrection was not so divineBy Lauren GreenPublished April 08, 2012| FoxNews.com Print Email Share Comments inShare3America’s First Amendment guarantees millions of Christians the right this weekend to boldly celebrate their faith’s holiest day of the year,
Easter, when Scriptures say Jesus rose from the dead. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is foundational to Christianity.But ironically, a man and future president who worked to safeguard religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson, could only believe in an earthly Jesus. Jefferson, the third U.S. president and principle author of the Declaration of Independence, created his own version of the Bible, now on exhibit at the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History.Cut and pasted together at his Monticello estate in Virginia, Jefferson’s Bible is stripped of the divine. There are no miracles … and no Resurrection.”Jefferson was very much a product of thinking of the time, known as the Enlightenment,” said Andrew O’Shaughnessy, director of the International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello.
(“Republicaism Wasn’t Always Rotten”) ~ Reflections Upon Republicanism: From Jefferson to Van Buren by Charles A. Burris
Out of the American Revolution emerged a unique political ideology or system of belief – republicanism.
Whether Anti-Federalist or Federalist, Democratic-Republican or Federalist, Democratic-Republican or National-Republican, Democrat or Whig, this vision lay at the center of Americans’ beliefs. It remains today the root of what we as a people believe. Political debate then, as now, centers upon who has remained most true to this vision.
Republicanism was a political outlook centering upon the themes of liberty versus power and civic virtue versus political corruption. The main lesson of republicanism was that a virtuous citizenry preserved its freedom by keeping government within strict constitutional bounds. Corruption and big government went hand in hand, for only government could rig the market in favor of an artificial aristocracy. Revolutionary republicanism was nurtured in the early republic by such Virginians as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Randolph of Roanoke, and John Taylor of Caroline.
…..Thomas Jefferson understood that democracy could never work in a country as large as the U.S., let alone one with more than 300 million people. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote: “Whether we remain one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part.
Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern.” On the topic of secession, Jefferson continued: “[D]id I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” When the New England Federalists were threatening secession, Jefferson wrote to his friend John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 that if New England seceded and created a second confederacy, “God bless them both if it be for their good, but separate them, if it is better.”
Unlike Lincoln, Jefferson did not believe in threatening “bloodshed” in the case of a “separation” or secession. He understood that such behavior would be a moral abomination and an unimaginable act of barbarianism. A civilized society does not wage total war on “our children,” as Jefferson described the future citizens of a new state formed by an act of secession. Yet it is Lincoln, not Jefferson, who is portrayed by American court historians as a kindly, benevolent, and charitable angel.
The Constitution long ago ceased placing any meaningful limits on governmental power. This social contract between the American people and their government was destroyed long ago by Hamiltonian nationalists. Americans now live under a series of dictators (called “presidents”) who all believe that they are essentially dictators of the world, capable of ordering the bombing of any place on earth without anyone’s approval. (Within weeks, Obama dipped his hands in blood by ordering a few bombs to be dropped in Pakistan)…..
EXCERPT ~ CLICK @ LINK…
- The Men Who Destroyed the Constitution by Thomas DiLorenzo (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Your Choice: Thomas Jefferson or the Status Quo by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Some Questions That Donald Trump Might Ask by Thomas DiLorenzo ~ “What Question Is the Trumpster dying To Ask Ron Paul?” (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Curse of Instigationism by Thomas DiLorenzo (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
Of all the Republican presidential candidates, only Ron Paul believes in and adheres to the American foreign policy philosophy of Washington and Jefferson. For this he, and all other like-minded statesmen over the past seven decades, have been misleadingly smeared as “isolationists.” In this context, “isolationist” is truly Orwellian. By advocating peace and free trade, and only supporting just and defensive war, Ron Paul is advocating the maximum possible interaction between the peoples of the world.
…Historians have speculated that Jefferson originally planned to use the concept of property ownership in that iconic litany of human rights, but he feared that addressing slavery in the same document in which he had characterized the long train of abuses visited upon the colonists by the king of England would have opened the Declaration and its signers to charges of hypocrisy.
Nevertheless, Talmudic and Christian scholars, and renowned skeptics, even atheists and deists, had long held, by Jefferson’s time, that the divine right of kings was a myth, that all humans own their own bodies, and that personal freedoms are integral to those bodies. Whether the ultimate source of human freedom is found in theology or biology, freedom exists, freedom is ours by nature, and the long history of the world is really one unceasing, increasing catalogue of the epic battles for personal freedoms against government tyranny…