“A Sampling of Coup D’états and Black-Flag Operations In US History “Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” – William Blum” ~ The Daily Bell – Axiom 3: Back to the Articles of Confederation as America’s Central Government

EXCERPT!!!!!

 

• 

 

…..A Sampling of Coup D’états and Black-Flag Operations In US History

 

“Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.” – William Blum

 

RPREVOLU (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

Of course, the truth of many such actions was effectively covered up until historical accuracy was revealed through the Internet Reformation. This is why the history books and public school texts teach only the authorized propaganda version.

 

The first was the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 in which armed resistance by citizens against a new whiskey tax took place in opposition to Treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton’s federalist program to increase central government power and revenue. George Washington and an army were used to successfully quell the rebellion.

 

 

 

The Daily Bell – Axiom 3: Back to the Articles of Confederation as America’s Central Government

Americans demanding a return to limited government, a balanced budget and an end to spiraling sovereign debt have been voting for the GOP for decades and the result has been total failure on all counts. To accomplish these goals we really must turn the government structure back to our first government model, the Articles of Confederation, so the centers of real power are at the state rather than the federal level. Since 1913, i

 

obampoint (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

 

 

t has been very easy, between maintaining the two-party monopoly and buying off Congress, for the power elite to control leviathan from the top down. This would be far more difficult if power, authority and programs were decentralized and returned to control of the individual states.

 

Changing the government does not mean voting in another president or changing whether the Democrats or GOP control the House or Senate. Both parties are equally guilty and responsible for the downfall of America. Yes, I would certainly prefer Rand Paul to another Democrat president following the second term of Barak Obama. And of course more liberty-oriented state house representatives as well as senators and congress members at the federal level would help to get the liberty message out.

 

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ THE.GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert:

“It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high.

Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central government a mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

What’s Old Is New Again by Chris Sullivan ~ “Will US Soldiers Turn On US Citizens?”

“My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the President, can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much”?

Image via Wikipedia

So saith William Seward to Lord Lyons, but it could have just as easily been Hillary Clinton or Eric Holder to some foreign official.

The corps of sappers in the legislative branch have been busy undermining the Constitution while the populace has been focused on important things like Kim Kardashian’s divorce or Donald Trump‘s hair. Two retired Marine Generals, Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar wrote an Op-Ed in the December 12, 2011, NY Times opposing the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, saying:

“One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past….A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans.”

As retired military men, they know that “service members” aren’t going to be asked to do anything; they are going to be ordered upon pain of incarceration or death to do as they’re told. Many people express the opinion that Americans would never fire on their countrymen. Where this idea comes from is a mystery. George Washington led any army of about 15,000 men to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. This is the only time that a sitting American president led troops in battle, even though only two or three people were killed.

Libertarians, Socialists, and the Whiskey Rebellion by William Hogeland (“POTUS George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens”)

In the summer and fall of 1794, President George Washington, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, and General Henry Lee began making mass arrests of American citizens.

Image via Wikipedia

neither by warrants nor by any resolution of Congress, federal troops rousted from beds, rounded up, and detained on no charge hundreds of people against whom the executive branch knew it had no evidence.

Officers administered warrantless searches and seizures of property and subjected detainees to harsh conditions and terrorizing interrogation. Some victims were told they’d be hanged unless they gave false testimony against the elected officials who had vainly opposed this and other executive-branch policies and operations.

After spending various lengths of time in privation and fear, most of the detainees were released. Detachments of troops meanwhile arrived at every home, in a region defined solely for the purposes of this operation, and required every male over the age of eighteen to sign an oath of loyalty to the government. Not surprisingly, most people complied.

EDRIVERA.COM ~ George Washington…

George Washington placed America under martial law, when as President of the United States of America since April 6, 1789, he took the oral oath of Office of President of the United States, thereby, combining the office of head of state with the head of the government. Washington had made himself king in America for a term of years and no one noticed until he taxed American whiskey.

Image via Wikipedia

Importers paid the first federal taxes in the form of imposts and duties on goods imported into the United States. The excise tax on the distillation of alcohol didn’t mention the United States as the situs of the distillation requiring licensure. Then as now no one distills alcohol on federal territory.

The Whiskey Rebellion provided Washington and Alexander Hamilton an opportunity to make the military occupation and administration of America complete……

General George S. Patton and Martial Law, etc. « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

November 1932

When I was a cadet, all plebes were required to memorize the definition of leather, which, if time has not dulled my memory, ran thus, “If the fresh skin of an animal be divested of hair and other extraneous matter and be immersed in a saturated solution of tannic acid, chemical combinations occur which transform the hide into a fibrous tissue insoluble in and impervious to water; this is leather.”

Similarly, when the subject of this conference is immersed in the cerebral fluid of Regular Soldiers, it emerges not theory, but tactics.

The chemistry of legal phraseology and erudite philosophy which produce these tactics are in fact as little germane to our work as are the metamorphoses of the tanning vat.

Since, however, no picture is wholly satisfactory without a background, we shall make a brief examination of the historical and legal aspect of the subject before entering upon it’s tactics.

HISTORICALLY:

Scarcely was Washington inaugurated than the need for federal intervention in domestic disturbances became emphasized by the so called “Whiskey Rebellion.” From that episode…..

EXCERPT

via General George S. Patton and Martial Law, etc. « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL).

The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard

…..The Official View of the Whiskey Rebellion is that four counties of western Pennsylvania refused to pay an excise tax on whiskey that had been levied by proposal of the Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton in the Spring of 1791, as part of his excise tax proposal for federal assumption of the public debts of the several states.

Western Pennsylvanians failed to pay the tax, this view says, until protests, demonstrations, and some roughing up of tax collectors in western Pennsylvania caused President Washington to call up a 13,000-man army in the summer and fall of 1794 to suppress the insurrection. A localized but dramatic challenge to federal tax-levying authority had been met and defeated. The forces of federal law and order were safe.

This Official View turns out to be dead wrong. In the first place, we must realize the depth of hatred of Americans for what was called “internal taxation” (in contrast to an “external tax” such as a tariff). Internal taxes meant that the hated tax man would be in your face and on your property, searching, examining your records and your life, and looting and destroying.

The most hated tax imposed by the British had been the Stamp Tax of 1765, on all internal documents and transactions; if the British had kept this detested tax, the American Revolution would have occurred a decade earlier, and enjoyed far greater support than it eventually received.

Americans, furthermore, had…..

EXCERPT ~ MORE…..

via The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard.

Obama’s Terrorist Dilemma

I agree with the Obama administration‘s decision to kill the American-born al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.

Here’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responding to complaints from the ACLU over the “assassination” of an American citizen without due process: “This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans.”

I agree with that. The Constitution empowers the president to put down insurrection, and what was Awlaki if not an insurrectionist? From the Whiskey Rebellion to the Civil War to World War II, there have been times when presidents legally and constitutionally treated American citizens as enemy combatants. Awlaki hardly seems deserving of special treatment.

Moreover, the authorization for the use of force passed on Sept. 18, 2001, says the president “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

It doesn’t say anything about exempting Americans. If news reports, statements from U.S. officials and Awlaki himself are to be believed, Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda. Moreover, he helped orchestrate and incite violence aimed at the U.S. He never denied the charges against him but hid outside of U.S. jurisdiction fomenting violence against America.

Case closed.

And yet, I sympathize with critics on the far left and libertarian right who find the whole thing unseemly. Surely when an American is in the crosshairs, there’s a higher political bar, even if there isn’t a higher legal or constitutional one.

ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House spokesman Jay Carney, “Does the administration not see at all how a president asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right, is troublesome to some people?”

Carney’s response: “I’m not going to … discuss the circumstances of his death.”

The mind reels to think how people would have responded if President Bush‘s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, had said that.

But here’s where I am confused. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration is committed to treating captured terrorists as criminals, entitled to all of the rights and privileges of a civilian criminal trial.

It seems the Defense Department disagrees, given that some lesser-known prisoners are allegedly kept on ships — call them floating Gitmos — without trials.

Meanwhile, President Obama keeps ordering that the more famous terrorists be killed on sight. That’s fine with me. But as far as I can tell, he’s never disagreed with Holder’s view about the need for civilian trials for terrorists we don’t kill, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Hence my confusion. If you believe that even non-American terrorists should be treated like American criminals, with all of the Fifth Amendment rights we grant to our own accused, how can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?

The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” A Predator drone strike seems to deprive all three………….

MORE…..

via Obama’s Terrorist Dilemma.

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert

The Constitution: The God That Failed (To Liberate Us From Big Government) by William Buppert:

gophum (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

“It appears even the much admired Washington was having none of the talk of independence and wanted a firm hand on the yoke of the states to make them obey their masters on high.

Washington’s behavior in the Whiskey Rebellion cast away any doubts of the imperious behavior of the central governmenta mere four year after the adoption of the Constitution.

Doug Casey on Presidents: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

Recently: No Way Out

EXCERPT ONLY…

L: I also have to give credit to George Washington, in spite of the major turn down the wrong road he took for the whole country when he suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion by force, because he could have set himself up as king after the first American Revolution – and he didn’t.

Doug: He had the army, was very popular, and he could have done it – I agree, he could have made himself king, or been reelected until his death. But I can’t forgive him for crushing the Whiskey Rebellion; that set the precedent for federal taxation and power that eventually led to the Civil War and the bloated monster in Washington that has now burst almost all of its chains.

L: So, who was the worst president?

Doug: That’s a really tough question to answer, because there are so many deserving candidates for that title. A short list would have to include McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, FDR, Truman, Johnson, Baby Bush, and Obama. But I’d have to say Lincoln was by far the worst. He plunged the country into a totally unnecessary and immensely devastating war, and violated every important part of the Constitution. But he was such a great rhetorician that he made Americans feel good about all the horrors he brought about, setting a doubly bad precedent.

L: I think I know what you’ll say, but for our readers who are used to hearing Lincoln described as some sort of saint, and probably America’s greatest president, can you expand on that? He preserved the union and freed the slaves…

Doug: The union was not preserved. A union of free and sovereign states was cemented into a single super-state, in which each individual state became nothing more than an administrative region. Who’s to say that a bigger U.S. was a better one anyway? This Civil War was really the Second American Revolution. Anyway, it wasn’t a civil war, which is technically a contest for the control of a single government; it was a war of secession, like that of 1776. I’m no fan of the Confederacy, but the wrong side won, overthrowing the federal organization that restrained national power, maximizing political and economic freedom.

L: Not for the slaves.

The Whiskey Rebellion by Murray N. Rothbard

Washington, Hamilton, and the Cabinet covered up the extent of the revolution because they didn’t want to advertise the extent of their failure. They knew very well that if they tried to enforce, or send an army into, the rest of the back-country, they would have failed.

Kentucky and perhaps the other areas would have seceded from the Union then and there. Both contemporary sides were happy to cover up the truth, and historians fell for the deception.The Whiskey Rebellion, then, considered properly, was a victory for liberty and property rather than for federal taxation.

Perhaps this lesson will inspire a later generation of American taxpayers who are so harried and downtrodden as to make the whiskey or stamp taxes of old seem like Paradise.

General George S. Patton and Martial Law, etc.

FEDERAL TROOPS IN DOMESTIC DISTURBANCES By Major George S. Patton, Jr., Cavalry

Rate This

//

November 1932
When I was a cadet, all plebes were required to memorize the definition of leather, which, if time has not dulled my memory, ran thus, “If the fresh skin of an animal be divested of hair and other extraneous matter and be immersed in a saturated solution of tannic acid, chemical combinations occur which transform the hide into a fibrous tissue insoluble in and impervious to water; this is leather.”

Similarly, when the subject of this conference is immersed in the cerebral fluid of Regular Soldiers, it emerges not theory, but tactics.

The chemistry of legal phraseology and erudite philosophy which produce these tactics are in fact as little germane to our work as are the metamorphoses of the tanning vat.

Since, however, no picture is wholly satisfactory without a background, we shall make a brief examination of the historical and legal aspect of the subject before entering upon it’s tactics.

HISTORICALLY:

Scarcely was Washington inaugurated than the need for federal intervention in domestic disturbances became emphasized by the so called “Whiskey Rebellion.” From that episode until the present time, federal troops have been called out more than a hundred times to participate in these most distasteful forms of service. While the majority of these incidents were insignificant, some dozen of them reached major proportions. Of these we may mention the following;