Gunny G: Articles: LewRockwell.Com…

 

Demographic Death of the GOP And the role of libertarians. Too bad about Pat Buchanan’s solutions.

WaPo Whipsawed Tom Woods wipes out E.J. Dionne.

What the Serfs Should Know Enemies of the state can win, says Karen Kwiatkowski.

FDR’s Fascist Legacy David Stockman on the New Deal’s poison pill.

Children’s Rights? Walter Block on the libertarian view.

License To Steal Eric Peters on manipulating speed limits for maximum revenue.

Edward Snowden Is the Educational Wave of the Future He rejected the regime’s indoctrination system, says Anya Kamenetz.

DIY Heart Therapy? Linus Pauling developed this simple, effective Vitamin C and Lysine protocol long ago. Article by Paul Fassa.

How the US Captures Political Enemies Like whistleblowers. Article by P.T. Freeman. *****

Rethinking the Articles of Confederation… “The federalists, ideologically attached to protectionist and nationalist theories, exploited both real and false fears in the hope of resolving these imbalances, but they ended up by recreating what the founding generation had struggled so hard to overthrow ten years earlier. The strong central authority they created would in time reproduce every statist feature of the British system—political corruption, perpetual debt, debilitating taxation, consolidated power, and a global empire. Such was not the promise of the Revolution……” by H. Arthur Scott Trask

EXCERPT !!!!!

…..Thus do we see how the period of the Articles of Confederation was not characterized by chaos and increasingly bad economic times, as historians tend to assume.

Rather, the Articles proved themselves to be a perfectly viable structure for a free society, encouraging trade and prosperity and adherence to the highest ideals of 1776.

English: 13-cent Articles of Confederation commemorative stamp issued September 30, 1977 commemorating the 200th anniversary of the drafting of the Articles of Confederation at York Town, Pennsylvania. It depicts members of the Continental Congress in conference (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The driving forces for the creation of the central government with the Constitution involved economic imbalances and debts leftover from the war with Britain.

The federalists, ideologically attached to protectionist and nationalist theories, exploited both real and false fears in the hope of resolving these imbalances, but they ended up by recreating what the founding generation had struggled so hard to overthrow ten years earlier.

Rethinking the Articles of Confederation… “THE REAL PROBLEM is the constitution which was, itself, nothing but a coup d’état — the overthrow of a perfectly good de-centralized “government” and the establishment of the monster we are dealing with today. — jtl, 419″ | Flyover-Press.com

An excellent weekend read that will further your education and help you understand why THE REAL PROBLEM is the constitution which was, itself, nothing but a coup d’état — the overthrow of a perfectly good de-centralized “government” and the establishment of the monster we are dealing with today. — jtl, 419

by H. Arthur Scott Trask

English: 13-cent Articles of Confederation commemorative stamp issued September 30, 1977 commemorating the 200th anniversary of the drafting of the Articles of Confederation at York Town, Pennsylvania. It depicts members of the Continental Congress in conference (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An assumption that dominates American historical studies is that the wealth and prosperity of the country would be much less without the existence of a powerful central government. This theme is but part of a larger, and now international, orthodoxy that larger political jurisdictions, as long as they are “democratic,” foster liberty and economic growth while smaller ones stifle it.

Greatest Generation the Most Entitled

Greatest Generation the Most Entitled

 

Townhall.com ^ | March 7, 2013 | Jonah Goldberg

 

Posted on Thursday, March 07, 2013 8:44:14 AM by Kaslin

 

big (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

One thing nearly everybody agrees upon is that the “sequester” is a silly sideshow to the real challenge facing America: unsustainable spending on entitlements. Ironies abound. Democrats, with large support from young people, tend to believe that we must build on the legacy bequeathed to us by the New Deal and the Great Society. Republicans, who marshaled considerable support from older voters in their so-far losing battle against Obamacare, argue that we need to start fresh.

 

Planting the Seeds of His Own Demise

The conservative comeback begins now — on the assumption that a majority of Americans will not welcome a second Great Depression.

 

Stop that cringing! I can already see the light at the end of the tunnel. And it’s not pretty for today’s neo-Marxist Democrat party.

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

The man you see before you as your President today bears a striking resemblance to the main character in a Greek tragedy. He so reeks of hubris. Every word that drops from his lips speaks a haughty derision of the lesser beings not benighted to be a cog in his political machine. All witness Obama the Magnificent, the conqueror of America, which was the world hyperpower, but is now the Sick Man of the 21st Century, en route to terminal illness.

 

Neo-Confederate – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neo-Confederate views and the Republican Party

 

Historian Nancy MacLean writes that “since the 1960s the party of Lincoln has become the haven of neo-Confederacy. Having long priding itself on saving the Union, the Republican Party has become home to those who lionize the slaveholding South and romanticize the Jim CrowSouth.”

 

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

This embrace of neo-Confederate views is not exclusively about race, but is related to a pragmatic political realization that the “retrospective romanticization of the Old South” and secession presented many possible themes that could be used as conservatives attempted to reverse the national changes initiated by the New Deal.[33]

 

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

After the defeat of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election and the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, national conservative leaders distanced themselves from racial issues, but continued to support a “color blind” version of neo-Confederatism. MacLean writes that “even into the twenty-first century mainstream conservative Republican politicians continued to associate themselves with issues, symbols, and organizations inspired by the neo-Confederate Right.”[34]

 

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

Political Partisan Psychological Disorders | Veterans Today

obamadash (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Before one can understand the nature of partisan or party politics, a correct comprehension of The Choice of Ideology is essential.

Consistent with the historic legacy of the founding of this Nation is a lament that most inhabitants are oblivious to our ingenious heritage and purpose of the American Revolution.

GyG: Works Progress Administration – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Re WPA,obama, Fool Me twice, Etc…..)

 

The WPA had numerous critics, especially from the right. The strongest attacks were that it was the prelude for a national political machine on behalf of Roosevelt. Reformers secured the Hatch Act of 1939 that largely depoliticized the WPA.[28]

Cover of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Others complained that far Left elements played a major role, especially in the New York City unit (which was independent of the New York State unit). Representative Martin Dies, Jr.went so far as to call the WPA a “seedbed for communists”.[29] Exaggeration was rife—such as a false report circulating in 1936 that the cost of killing a single rat in one extermination endeavor was $2.97 (over $48 in current dollars).[30]

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., JD — The Constitution Limits the President Even as “Commander in Chief”

 

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

 

February 20, 2006

 

NewsWithViews.com

 

obamadash (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

Amidst the flood of propaganda these days on behalf of what must be the most breathtaking expansion of Presidential power since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, especially glaring are the assertions of self-styled “conservative” media personalities that nothing is amiss, because: (i) the President is “Commander in Chief;” (ii) in that capacity he supposedly enjoys “inherent” power to take whatever actions he may deem necessary to protect this country from “terrorism;” (iii) assertion of this Presidential power is especially vital now, with this country engaged in a “war on terror;” and (iv) in any event, Congress has broadly authorized the President to use “force” in “the war on terror.” None of these contentions can withstand even cursory scrutiny.

 

Obamacare and the Revenge of the ‘Secret Constitution’ by William Norman Grigg (“… the mission of Abraham the Destroyer was not to preserve the constitutional union, but rather to impose a new order – one created through aggression by the central government against the states that created it, and the people from whom it supposedly derived its powers.”)

 

isdees (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

“[T]he majority has at all times a right to govern the minority, and to bind the latter to obedience to the will of the former…. In a general sense the will of the majority of the people is absolute and sovereign, limited only by its means and power to make its will effectual.”

 

 

 

 

~ Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, III, 327, 330

 

“The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing else but this – Power without limit, resting directly upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestrained by rules.”

 

~ Vladimir Lenin

 

The Power of Intimidation… (“Role of the Supreme Court since Marbury vs. Madison is to determine if laws passed by the Congress and the President are in accordance with the Constitution”)

We think of the 9 robed Justices of the Supreme Court as beyond intimidation. However, we now know this is false. The bizarre decision of Chief Justice Roberts to uphold Obamacare by making it Obamatax is not the first time that a Supreme court Justice has succumbed to intimidation and voted to usurp the Constitution, believing it was necessary to preserve either the Supreme Court or their own personal legacy.

beerdrinkundawg (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Edwin Vieira Jr. — Corporativism in Money and banking has led America to Fascism, Part 1

In his State of the Union Message to Congress of 11 January 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned that

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Franklinas Delanas Ruzveltas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

[w]e cannot be content, no matter how high th[e] general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

Should Libertarians Accept Social Security? by Laurence M. Vance

In his recent appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Representative Ron Paul was asked by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post whether he was going to set a good example for younger Americans and opt out of Social Security.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA – DECEMBER 29: Republican presidential hopeful U.S. Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) speaks during a town hall meeting at the Mid-America Center on December 29, 2011 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. With less than one week to go before the Iowa caucuses, Ron Paul continues to campaign through Iowa. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Deliberately Destroying America…

By Alan Caruba Sunday, June 17, 2012

It has taken three and a half years into Barack Obama’s presidency for most Americansto realize that he has been deliberately destroying America by driving up the nation’s debt and deficit, reducing privately held wealth, forcing millions onto the public dole, undermining its moral structure, and weakening the nation’s reputation internationally..

realobam (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

His latest lie is that “the private sector is doing just fine”, but the numbers tell the whole story and one can find them on an excellent blog, Economic Collapse, that offers seventy examples:

The Power of the Grand Jury By: Alan Stang…

IN MEMORY OF-
The Power of the Grand Jury
As you know, I always try in these essays not only to analyze what the conspiracy for world government is doing to our country; I also search out and offer realistic solutions, practical ways to revive our dormant, constitutional system.

drronpaulrev (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Recently, for instance, we discussed the true powers of the sheriff, explained by former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, who says that, in his county, the sheriff has more power than the President and can keep federal agents out……..Now let’s look at the grand jury…...

How Will They Classify You?: Here’s the US military’s entire plan for internment camps

drronpaulrev (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

How Will They Classify You?

Here’s the US military’s entire plan for internment camps

LINK BELOW !!!!!

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., JD — The Constitution Limits the President Even as “Commander in Chief”

Congressman Ron Paul at an event hosted in his honor at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Please attribute to Gage Skidmore if used elsewhere. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

drronpaulrev (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

isdees (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

Amidst the flood of propaganda these days on behalf of what must be the most breathtaking expansion of Presidential power since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, especially glaring are the assertions of self-styled “conservative” media personalities that nothing is amiss, because: (i) the President is “Commander in Chief;” (ii) in that capacity he supposedly enjoys “inherent” power to take whatever actions he may deem necessary to protect this country from “terrorism;” (iii) assertion of this Presidential power is especially vital now, with this country engaged in a “war on terror;” and (iv) in any event, Congress has broadly authorized the President to use “force” in “the war on terror.” None of these contentions can withstand even cursory scrutiny.

English: Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States. Latviešu: Abrahams Linkolns, sešpadsmitais ASV prezidents. Српски / Srpski: Абрахам Линколн, шеснаести председник Сједињених Америчких Држава. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1. The Constitution does designate the President as “Commander in Chief.” Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. Not, however, as “Commander in Chief” of the country as a whole, with the plenary powers of some Fuhrer or Duce, but only as “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” As will be explained below, in this capacity the President exercises, not some limitless “inherent” power, but largely a circumscribed and contingent authority dependent upon mandates from Congress.

2. Merely labeling some situation a “war” cannot call the President’s rightful powers as “Commander in Chief” into operation, let alone boundlessly expand those powers.

The so-called “war on terror” is not the unique example of such martial political hyperbole bombarding this country today. Simultaneously, Americans are exhorted to acquiesce in enlarged governmental powers to fight “the war on crime,” “the war on drugs,” “the war on poverty,” and even “the war on obesity.” Does anyone believe, though, that under color of (say) waging a “war on obesity” the President could declare McDonald’s employees “enemy combatants” and its fatty foods “weapons of mass destruction,” could deploy the Armed Forces to occupy its restaurants, or could even tap its phones without submitting to judicial review?

The Police State Is Here by Tim Kelly

The Police State Is Here

by Tim Kelly, May 21, 2012

“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”

Those are the words of Garet Garrett, the 20th-century journalist and writer, who lamented the collapse of the old Republic and the rise of the American managerial/administrative state — the consummation of which he had witnessed in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Cover of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Hey Paulians: Some Historical Perspective for Ron Paul Activists by Ryan McMaken

I’ve been somewhat surprised by the absolutely hysterical reaction among some RP activists to Ron Paul’s announcement that he’s shifting resources toward winning more delegates instead of blowing it on straw polls in new primaries. In some of the forums, alleged “supporters” are hurling insults at both Ron and his staffers.

I remember how after 2008, some people I talked to pledged to “never give money ever again” to Ron Paul because he “wasn’t serious” about winning. These people think elections are all that matter, but that’s not how political and intellectual movements work. The election of numerous libertarian candidates will be a lagging indicator, not a leading indicator, of the success of a libertarian movement. The population still isn’t there. Although it will be.

It’s absolutely unbelievable that some people who claim to be champions of freedom are now viciously badmouthing a man who can claim much credit in making libertarianism a household word – as it now is – and has been instrumental in building the most important challenge to central banking and the warfare state in a century. All of this is in addition to taking control of the GOP machinery in numerous states and cong. districts.

I might also note that I turned on the tele the other day and there was Ron Paul talking about central banking. Note to newcomer activists: I know it’s hard to believe, but before RP’s 2008 run, there was once a time when libertarians weren’t on TV regularly talking about Austrian free-market economics and the evils of war. I swear it’s true. Cross my heart and hope to die.

Politically, Ron Paul is doing what the Religious Right successfully did 20 years ago when it became a major force in the party, and he’s rebuilding the intellectual infrastructure of the American right wing in a way similar to what Buckley did in the 1950s. Except, where Buckley only pretended to be for the rule of law and limited government, Ron Paul is the real thing. And Paul’s even doing it without CIA money, unlike Buckley. RP’s the continuation of the old libertarian movement that existed in opposition to war and the New Deal before it was hijacked by the conservative apologists for the state.

Except now, instead of being composed of a few dozen guys who could all have met in a small hotel ballroom, the movement for peace and freedom is a huge nationwide movement.

Anyone who, like me, teaches people in their twenties can already see a huge change. The ideas of libertarianism have a credibility they have not had in decades, if not not since the late 19th century when Herbert Spencer was a best-selling author in America.

The Jefferson of Our Time by Thomas DiLorenzo

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.

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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.)

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo (Photo credit: skitzianist)

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.

Noninterventionism: Cornerstone of a Free Society by Anthony Gregory

Uncle Sam recruiting poster. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…The War of 1812 resulted in martial law in Louisiana, where people were jailed without habeas corpus simply for criticizing military law. A judge was jailed for issuing a habeas corpus writ.

During the Mexican War the executive branch unilaterally adopted taxing powers over U.S.-controlled ports in Mexico.

The Civil War brought with it mass conscription, corporate welfare, the death of real federalism, the suspension of habeas corpus, the jailing of thousands of dissenters, the censoring of hundreds of newspapers, the creation of a national leviathan with such new agencies as the Department of Agriculture, military commissions, and the use of the army against civilian draft rioters in New York.

With World War I, thousands of new agencies were created, millions were enslaved to fight in a royal European family feud, American citizens were jailed for saying things I say every day, income-tax rates skyrocketed into the 70s, and the federal government implemented economic controls that were later brought back in peacetime during the New Deal. In fact, the New Deal was basically the revitalization of the wartime economy from World War I.

World War II saw the conscription of 11 million Americans, the detention of hundreds of thousands of “enemy aliens” without due process, Japanese internment, martial law in Hawaii, a quasi-fascist command economy complete with comprehensive price controls, tax rates above 90 percent, censorship, and the prolonging of Herbert Hoover’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s Great Depression, which didn’t end until the U.S. government stopped consuming 40 percent of America’s income to wage the war.

The Cold War gave us drafts, especially during the hot wars with Korea and Vietnam, and surveillance and psy-ops directed against peaceful activists by U.S. intelligence agencies. With the war on terror we have lost the last remnants of the Fourth Amendment, habeas corpus has taken another beating, we are treated like prison inmates every time we fly, peaceful activists have been spied on, media have been manipulated by Washington, torture has become normalized, soldiers are not allowed to quit after completing their first or even third tour of duty, and Americans’ telecommunications have been exposed to surveillance by the military.

Obama Thinks America Has Never Worked ~ Rush Limbaugh

Obama Thinks America Has Never Worked
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | February 24, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on Friday, February 24, 2012 4:26:35 PM by Kaslin

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Late yesterday afternoon, this is in the Coral Gables, this is at a fundraiser, this is after Obama sang the praises of pond scum as the next substitute for oil.

 

OBAMA: We’ve gotta make sure that everybody’s doing their fair share. Everybody needs a fair shot, everybody’s gotta play by the same set of rules, everybody’s gotta do their fair share. Everybody’s gotta do their part! Everybody in this room, we are here, successful, because somebody down the road have not just thinkin’ about themselves, they were takin’ responsibility for the country as a whole.

 

RUSH: What an absolute crock! That is the exact opposite of what goes on. That is his translation of Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This is absolutely full of it. “Everybody gotta do their part. Everybody in this room, we’re here, successful, ’cause somebody down the road was not just thinkin’ about themselves, they were takin’ responsibility for the country as a whole.” That is not what propelled this country! This country was propelled by rugged individualism and rugged self-interest, and it was made possible by virtue of the freedom this country offers its citizens thanks to our Constitution, founding documents, and Founding Fathers.

 

Now, this may be a fine line. Obama wants you to think that everybody that he deems “successful” is first thinking of government and then, second, thinking of government, and then the last thing they think of is government, and everything they do is oriented toward making the government better. And that isn’t true. Most people today are finding a way to avoid the government! Because of guys like Obama, most people are trying to find a way to evade the government. Because the government, run by guys like Obama, is an obstacle. It’s in people’s way.

 

Here’s the next sound bite.

WaPo: The True Conservative Is Ron Paul by Robert Wenzel

Image via Wikipedia

True conservatism goes back to the pre-William F. Buckley days, where conservatives believed in small government and staying out of the affairs of foreign countries. It’s not quite libertarianism, but very close.

WaPo has a fascinating take today on this, though I doubt they truly understand what they have uncovered.

Let’s start with an understanding of the Old Right

In 1994, Murray Rothbard explained the Old Right:

The original right of which I speak, and of which I am one of the few survivors, stretched from 1933 to its approximate death, or fading away, upon the advent of National Review in 1955. The Old Right began in 1933 in response to the coming of the New Deal. It was “reactionary” in the best and most generous sense: it was a horrified reaction against the Roosevelt Revolution, against the Great Leap Forward toward collectivism that enraptured socialist intellectuals and enraged those who were devoted to the institutions and the strict limitations on centralized government power that marked the Old Republic…

The Old, original, Right realized the horrors of the New Deal and predicted the collectivist road on which it was setting the nation.

The Old Right was a coalition of ideologies and forces that did not have one single, common, positive program, but “negatively” it was solidly united: all opposed the New Deal and were committed to its total repeal and abolition – lock, stock, and barrel. The fact that its unity was “negative” did not make it any less strong or cohesive: for there was total agreement on rolling back this collective excrescence and on restoring the Old Republic, the true America…

The Old Right experienced one big sea change. Originally, its focus was purely domestic, since that was the concentration of the early New Deal.

The Root of All Evil

The state of the world is undoubtedly disturbing. Our President has proposed that the Federal Government become involved in mortgages, the United Nations is considering more foreign adventures, and Europeans are still attempting to prevent Greece from defaulting on its crushing debt from decades of socialist policies.

Many wonder, “How did we (the West) get here?” True, most European nations have never been what the United States was at its founding. But, it is not only Europe that has strayed far. The United States is among the worst, considering the basic principles of the Founders. So, how did we get here? How did our nation go from the personification of classical liberal ideas to the government funding shrimp on treadmills? The answer is really quite simple.

I believe that it is wise to boil issues down to their core—to their gist. This applies to every issue, and those of the government are no exception. Even in terms of problems relating to the government, this is not difficult. While I am not downplaying some of the complexities inherent to politics, nor dumbing this down; this matter is easily “boiled down.”

What has enabled the government to go from being the protector of liberties to the watchers of walking shrimp and violators of liberty? What is the root cause of all of this? Money.

If the government is able to do such frivolous and evil things (in the case of infringing upon liberties) through their steady supply of money, then what shall happen if they no longer had such money? Elementary logic: they shall no longer be able to do such things. The only other alternative would be to use slave labor to continue such, which is not likely, nor ethical.

The sudden jump in the government’s wrong actions took place in the last ninety years (though the actions of the Federal Government before this were far from perfect). This was facilitated by an increased government revenue from the progressive income tax (note the word “progressive”). Again, this is merely logical. And, it is also logical that the more power (and money) a government has, it will always abuse it.

Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy by Justin Raimondo (The Paul Hunters Are Doomed)

“Between government in the republican meaning, that is, constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other, or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people.”

Image via Wikipedia

Garet Garrett had been an editor of the Saturday Evening Post, a financial writer for the New York Times, a renowned author and journalist of the “roaring Twenties,” an intransigent opponent of the New Deal, and sometime novelist: his career spanned the era of Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Truman. In those days his was the voice of mainstream conservatism, albeit of a sort alien to the Newt Gingriches and Charles Krauthammers of this world, and he wrote the above cited words just as the US was embarking on its postwar crusade to save the world from Communism.

He had lived through the previous holy war against the Axis powers, witnessed the demise of the Old America and the rise of the Welfare-Warfare State, and saw – even then – that the country would face ruination if the crusading spirit prevailed over the need for self-preservation. He saw what would happen if we acquired an empire and sought to remake the world in our image. He annoyed his fellow libertarian, the novelist and ideologue Rose Wilder Lane, with his “keening” note of pessimism, which mourned “a world forever lost.” Lane was sure the “world revolution” of freedom was coming, yet in those dark days when the spirit of freedom was seemingly forgotten it looked as if her friend Garrett was right.

Robert Taft: Count Him Conservative

When the Taft forces lost the credentials battles over the Texas and Georgia delegations, Taft, who relied heavily on his solid support in the South, knew he was done. He gave a brave speech the following morning to his supporters, who, thus encouraged, marched into the convention hall, singing “Onward Christian Soldiers.” But when the ballots were counted, Eisenhower was the nominee.

Jon Christian Ryter — Obama Tests “Election Crisis”

Perdue, and by extension, the guy in the White House, sees this scheme as something Republicans would buy into because it would let them vote against their constituency without the penalty of being thrown out of office for at least two years—or perhaps for the rest of their political lives.

On top of that, Democrats, for some strange reason, think if they can get a gaggle of stupid people to surrender their constitutionally-protected rights that will allow Barack Hussein Obama to simply issue an Executive Order and erase the Election of 2012. Perdue is not the first to suggest skipping a national election to convenience the Democratic Party (as Obama, a student of history, well knows).

In 1940, when he was going to test a third run for the White House against mounting opposition from both Republicans and Democrats alike arose, Franklin Delano Roosevelt used his talking heads to try to convince the Republican Party not to contest his reelection. The reasons? First, the unemployment crisis had become catastrophic and even those who voted for him in 1932 and 1936 were now disillusioned with the New Deal that was beginning to look more like the Raw Deal. Second, there was now an “international crisis” caused by Japan and Germany‘s aggression in Europe and Asia. FDR’s advocates argued for an uncontested election because the national emergencies America faced, they said, were so catastrophic that America could not afford an inexperienced commander-in-chief at such an important chapter in history.

When I heard Gov. Perdue’s remarks……………….

MORE…..

via Jon Christian Ryter — Obama Tests “Election Crisis”.

FDR at War: How Expanded Power, National Debt, Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America

Actual Title:FDR Goes to War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, and Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America

Reviews:”FDR Goes to War is a page-turning tour de force — and a scholarly one, at that — of the politics and economics of America’s involvement in WWII. Be prepared to rethink much of what you think you know about FDR, the war, and the post-Depression U.S. economy.” –Don Bordreaux, Chairman of the Department of Economics at George Mason University

“In New Deal or Raw Deal? Burt Folsom exposed FDR’s failed policies during the Great Depression. Now, in FDR Goes to War, he pulls the curtain back even further. Burt and Anita Folsom have produced a book that should be read by all Americans. This is the real history you do not find in textbooks.” — James P. Duffy, author of Lindbergh Vs. Roosevelt

“Few in the history profession have done more to shed light on the real Franklin Delano Roosevelt than Burt Folsom. With FDR Goes to War, Folsom and his wife Anita educate Americans on the facts we should have known but were never taught. You will find this book both shocking and refreshing.” — Lawrence W. Reed, president, Foundation for Economic Education

“A compelling look at a fascinating man in a devastating war. This is the FDR concealed for over half a century by liberal academics and biased journalists. You will learn a lot from this engaging and readable book.” — Paul Kengor, professor of political science, Grove City College, and author of Dupes

Product Description From the acclaimed author of New Deal or Raw Deal?, called “eye-opening” by the National Review, comes a fascinating exposé of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s destructive wartime legacy—

(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com …

via FDR at War: How Expanded Power, National Debt, Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America.

Washington Post Column: President Obama shouldn’t be afraid of a little class warfare

On Monday, defending his plan to raise taxes on the rich to pay for job creation, President Obama said: “This is not class warfare, it’s math.”

No, Mr. President, this is class warfare — and it’s a war you’d better win. Corporate interests and the rich started it. Right now, they’re winning. Progressives and the middle class must fight back, and the president should be clear whose side he’s on.

The class war began in 1971. That year, soon-to-be Supreme Court justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote a confidential memorandum to a friend at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce about the “Attack of the American Free Enterprise System.” In the mid-20th century — from the New Deal to Social Security to environmental and civil rights laws — the government had cut into corporate profits while creating middle-class prosperity. Falsely believing that capitalism was under attack, Powell wrote: “It must be recognized that businessmen have not been trained or equipped to conduct guerrilla warfare with those who propagandize against the system.” His proposal, from which the modern conservative movement grew, was to equip business elites for that battle with aggressive policies to make Americans believe that what’s good for wealthy chief executives is good for them, too.

Between 1979 and 2007, the income gap between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the poorest 40 percent more than tripled. Today, the richest 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of the nation’s wealth, while, according to recently released census data, average Americans saw their real incomes decline by 2.3 percent in 2010. Though our economy grew in 2009 and 2010, 88 percent of the increase in real national income went to corporate profits, one study found. Only 1 percent went to wages and salaries for working people.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com …

via Washington Post Column: President Obama shouldn’t be afraid of a little class warfare.

New Republic: How Ron Paul Lost His District

New Republic: How Ron Paul Lost His District

New Republic: How Ron Paul Lost His District:

………….. But just as his party moved quickly to leave him without his constituents, Paul’s GOP competitors began sounding more and more like the congressman. “While we weren’t watching,” says Democratic consultant Stanford, “everyone became like Ron Paul over there on the Republican side.”

That may be an exaggeration—on issues like foreign policy and the decriminalization of drugs, Paul remains on the fringe. Still, adopting the congressman’s longstanding criticisms of New Deal and Great Society-era entitlement programs has become almost imperative for many of the other GOP candidates.

And such opposition has become closely identified with….

MORE…..

via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ NOW!: New Republic: How Ron Paul Lost His District.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” -Franklin D. Roosevelt (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL))

TOKYO Market OPEN (Other Asian Markets Opening, Too) Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:17:35 PM · 41 of 74 gunnyg to Free State Four In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. -Franklin D. Roosevelt Ref http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/franklin_d_roosevelt.html Ref http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2092708/posts — ********** R. W. "Dick" Gaines THE "G" BLOG. @WordPress.com http://gu … Read More

via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

Obama Is Out of Options

After Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s presidency changed. As he put it in 1943, “Dr. New Deal” had to be replaced by “Dr. Win the War.” It was a colossal policy switch, but it wasn’t an extreme makeover politically. He was still the same FDR, and the public understood the need for change.

And it saved his presidency. As President Obama’s former economic advisor, Larry Summers, said recently, “Never forget … that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.”

Many economic historians, such as Robert Higgs, disagree with Summers on the substantive point about World War II being good for the economy. But Summers was absolutely right politically about the New Deal and about the fact that the war saved FDR’s bacon.

President Obama desperately needs to make a similar change but, thank goodness, providence isn’t offering any Pearl Harbors these days.

It’s very hard to make a new first impression, particularly for presidents seeking another term. Of course, if things are going well, you don’t need to reinvent yourself. Dwight Eisenhower stayed the same reassuring duffer-in-chief throughout the relatively tranquil 1950s.

In 1972, Richard Nixon rode a (seemingly) good economy and foreign policy success to a landslide reelection victory — 60 percent of the popular vote. Ronald Reagan stayed Reagan in 1984 amid a surging economy.

George W. Bush made a switch, from Mr. Compassionate Conservative to President Dead-or-Alive. But, like FDR with Pearl Harbor, his political task was the result of an unprovoked attack and the war(s) that followed.

A major strain of conventional wisdom in Washington these days is that Obama can win re-election by “tacking to the center.” Bill Clinton, who famously “triangulated” his way into a second term, is the model. Theoretically, Obama can do the same thing by leveraging a “centrist” debt-limit deal against his base, winning back the independents and moderates who delivered his decisive victory in 2008.

The problem, as many have pointed out, is that Obama can’t borrow the Clinton or Reagan playbooks because the economy is just too rotten. A rising economic tide gives presidents room to reinvent themselves. By the spring of 1995, the U.S. economy was averaging 200,000 new jobs per month.

But the bad economy isn’t the only hurdle. Clinton’s race to the center was a return to form. He beat George H.W. Bush by running as a centrist Southern Democrat who supported the death penalty, wanted to “end welfare as we know it” and was eager to zing his own base if it would earn him a second look from Reagan Democrats and others disillusioned with the party of McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. His was a restoration, not a transformation.

I’m writing this before the final votes on the debt-limit deal, and I have no desire to tempt fate. But it seems that no matter how Obama gets out of this, he’s left in a double bind. He desperately needs to make a new first impression because he cannot successfully run on a terrible economy, an unpopular health-care plan and a very confusing foreign policy at a time when most Americans are burned out on foreign policy.

But absent external events he cannot plan on, there’s no way to credibly reinvent himself or even reintroduce himself as the guy who ran in 2008.

He can’t revive his claim to be a post-partisan bridge-builder, can he? His first two years were as partisan as any we’ve seen in a generation. He certainly can’t run on “Yes We Can!” optimism, particularly not after he’s shown his willingness to force a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich,” in the words of Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver, down the throats of his base. He cannot run as a gung-ho fiscal hawk, not when he contributed so much to the deficit. And he will never outbid the GOP nominee on shrinking government. If he tries, his base stays home.

Barring some tragic event outside his control, it’s very hard to see what the man can do. He’s got no place he can go, but he can’t stay where he is.

via Obama Is Out of Options.

Obama: FDR Was ‘Fiscally Conservative’

College Park, Md. (CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said that Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) – the president best known for establishing a welfare and regulatory state in America – was “fiscally conservative,” in response to a question about how to keep the economy going.

Obama was referring to spending-cut measures Roosevelt took in the middle of the New Deal that lasted from 1933 to 1940.

“FDR comes in, he tries all these things with the New Deal; but FDR, contrary to myth, was pretty fiscally conservative,” the president said Friday during a town hall meeting on the campus of the University of Maryland.

“And so after the initial efforts of the New Deal and it looked like the economy was growing again, FDR then presented a very severe austerity budget,” Obama continued. “And suddenly, in 1937, the economy started going down again. And, ultimately, what really pulled America out of the Great Depression was World War II.”

Obama used this to illustrate why the political leaders should tread carefully in cutting the deficit.

“Some have said, I think rightly, that we’ve got to be careful that any efforts we have to reduce the deficit don’t hamper economic recovery, because the worst thing we can do for the deficit is continue to have really bad growth or another recession,” Obama said.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com …

via Obama: FDR Was ‘Fiscally Conservative’.

A New Battle In Obama’s Class War, Today’s Press Conference

An old thread with a 1939 conservative booklet (”The Revolution Was”) about FDR and the New Deal. It’s all happening again, almost down to the same wording that Obama uses. It is a long booklet, but here is an excerpt as pertains to “obscene profits”.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts

In his first inaugural address, March 4, 1933, the President said: “… Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance…. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply…. Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men…. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers…. Yes, the money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”

There was the pattern and it never changed. The one enemy, blameable for all human distress, for unemployment, for low wages, for the depression of agriculture, …. for want in the midst of potential plenty — who was he? The money-changer in the temple. This was a Biblical symbol and one of the most hateful…

Large profit as such becomes therefore a symbol of social injury, merely because it is large; moreover, it is asserted that large profit had long been so regarded by the government and penalized for that reason.

Of all the counter symbols this was the one most damaging to the capitalistic system. Indeed, if it were accepted, it would be fatal, because capitalism is a profit and loss system and if profits, even very large profits, are socially wrong, there is nothing more to be said for it. But it was a false symbol, and false for these three reasons, namely: first, there is no measure of large profit; second, large profits are of many kinds and to say simply that large profits are “of course made at the expense of the neighbors” is either nonsense or propaganda, as you like; and; in the third place, the history is wrong….

So, what the New Deal really intended to do, what it meant to do within the Constitution if possible, with the collaboration of Congress if Congress did not fail, but with war powers if necessary, was to REORGANIZE AND CONTROL THE WHOLE ECONOMIC AND THEREFORE THE WHOLE SOCIAL NETWORK OF THE COUNTRY.

And therein lay the meaning — the only consistent meaning — of a series of acts touching money, banking and credit which, debated as monetary policy, made no sense whatever.

via A New Battle In Obama’s Class War, Today’s Press Conference.

O’s house of cards

Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.O’s house of cardsNY Post ^ | February 1, 2011 | MICHAEL A. WALSHPosted on Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:53:03 AM by Scanian

Monday’s ruling by federal Judge Roger Vinson that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — a k a ObamaCare — is unconstitutional is a signal event in modern American history. For the first time since FDR browbeat the Supreme Court into accepting most of his New Deal, the Leviathan known as the federal government has been rocked back on its heels.If the administration and the Senate Democrats had any sense, they’d take Judge Vinson’s ruling as a gift, not a setback. Because, whether they know it or not, the judge just handed them an opportunity to get health care right.The House Republicans took a dramatic step forward last month when they passed repeal, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced yesterday that he’ll attach a repeal amendment to a bill authorizing funding for the Federal Aviation Administration as the Senate’s next order of business.Good for him. It’s imperative that the Republicans keep the momentum going; whether the fate of ObamaCare is eventually decided by the Supreme Court is secondary to deciding its fate in the proper venue — the legislative branch.Judge Vinson’s lucidly written and cogently argued decision, which approvingly cited the Federalist Papers, John Marshall and the Tenth Amendment, seized upon the Democrats’ arrogant decision to not include a “severability clause” in the legislation — which would’ve allowed the rest of the 2,000-page law to stand even if parts of it were to be found unconstitutional.Excerpt Read more at nypost.com …

Awaiting the Awakening of the Forgotten Man

Awaiting the Awakening of the Forgotten Man
American Thinker ^ | February 18, 2009 | Lee Cary

Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2009 8:17:24 AM by vietvet67

It took less than a month for the default leadership style of President Obama to appear. How long will it take for the forgotten man who believed in him to awaken to the consequences?

Millions of votes cast by the forgotten man helped elected Barack Obama. Many among those postulated that, if elected, he would govern from the center. Some conjectured that he would, once in office, distance himself from the most liberal in his party, and convert his campaign promises into more moderate actions. He would, many a forgotten man thought, bring a refreshing breeze of bipartisan collegiality to a redundantly strident political environment.

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” -Franklin D. Roosevelt

TOKYO Market OPEN (Other Asian Markets Opening, Too)

Sunday, September 28, 2008 9:17:35 PM · 41 of 74
gunnyg to Free State Four

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
-Franklin D. Roosevelt

Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?

**************************************************
Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?

Kenny Johnsson interviews Lew Rockwell for The Liberal Post

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html

DIGG THIS

Johnsson: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

Image of Lew Rockwell (Photo credit: Wikipedia)