I told you, I've read DiLorenzo. Many of his works are on lewrockwell. I totally aqree with him.
Your efforts to educate people is exemplary. But, most neocon Bush supporters are ill-educated and rely on pundits to "educate" them. Why do you think they are still neocons? On Oct 2, 1:47 am, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sgt > I've read much of DiLorenzo. LewRockwell is a great site. However, > even DiLorenzo gets federalism wrong. Federalism is the usurpation of > powers by the federal government. I know, the cons have tried to turn > this on its head. James Madison and Hamilton, who were among the > original federalists opposed Jefferson. They wanted a strong central > <snip>The Never-Ending War on American Freedomby Thomas J. DiLorenzo > From the beginning of the American Republic there has been a group of > influential people who have devoted their lives and careers to putting > morePowerInGovernment (PIGs). As soon as the American Revolution ended > Alexander Hamilton schemed to overthrow the first Constitution, the Articles > of Confederation, and replace it with a document that would legitimize a > permanent president who would appoint all the governors and have veto power > over all state legislation. He wanted a king, in other words, who could force > British-style mercantilism and an imperialistic foreign policy on America > without any significant resistance by the citizens of the states. He failed > during his lifetime, but that is essentially the system Americans live under > today. We now live in "Hamilton’s republic," as his idolaters gleefully > remind us. > As soon as Hamilton’s party, the Federalists, gained power, one of the first > things they did was to rescind the First Amendment to the new Constitution > with the Sedition Act during the presidency of John Adams. Hamilton authored > several long-winded reports as Treasury Secretary in which he invented the > insidious notions of "implied" powers in the Constitution along with such an > expansive interpretation of the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses that the > Constitution would become useless as a restraint on governmental tyranny. > Hamilton’s political compatriot, Chief Justice John Marshall, turned > Hamilton’s legalistic mysticism into legal precedent during his long tenure > on the Court, with many other PIG lawyers following suit over the succeeding > generations. And of course Abraham Lincoln established a French > Revolutionary/Stalinist-style regime that imprisoned tens of thousands of > Northern political dissenters, employed an army of spies and informers > (onNortherncitizens), shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, illegally > suspended habeas corpus, deported an outspoken member of the opposition > party, confiscated firearms, illegally created the state of West Virginia, > censored all telegraph communication, and myriad other assaults on the > Constitution, including waging war on his own country after promising to > defend the lives and liberties of the very people he was waging war on. > The brilliant John C. Calhoun explained the inevitability of all of this – > and more – in hisDisquisition on Government, written in the late 1840s and > published shortly after his death in 1850. Calhoun wrote that it is an error > to think that "a written constitution, containing suitable restrictions on > the powers of government, is sufficient, of itself, without the aid of any > organism . . . to counteract the tendency of the numerical majority to > oppression and the abuse of power." > All democracies are broken down into two basic groups – net taxpayers and net > tax consumers, said Calhoun. And the latter group (PIGs) will inevitably > prevail, as history teaches us. The party in favor of constitutional > restrictions on governmental power at first "might command some respect" but > "would be overpowered." It is mere folly, he argued, to suppose that "the > party in possession of the ballot box and the physical force of the country > [i.e., the military], could be successfully resisted by an appeal to reason, > truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the constitution." Moreover, > "the end of the contest [between net taxpayers and tax consumers] would be > the subversion of the constitution" whereby "the restrictions [on state > power] would ultimately be annulled, and the government be converted into one > of unlimited powers." > This is why Calhoun embraced the Jeffersonian idea of nullification during > the sectional dispute over the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations." As explained by > Ross Lence in the Foreword toUnion and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of > John C. Calhoun,the former vice president was "seeking a means by which > [disunion] could be avoided," and so he "turned to the doctrine of > interposition, which defended the right of a state to interpose its authority > to overrule federal legislation. The seeds of this doctrine were introduced > by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia > Resolutions of 1798 and 1799." Of course, such ideas as nullification, > interposition, secession, and federalism were snuffed out by the Lincoln > administration as a result of the War to Prevent Southern Independence. > Calhoun’s prediction of a government of unlimited powers eventually came > true. The Jeffersonian strict constructionists did more or less prevail for a > while, but were nearly wiped out by 1865, and were nowhere to be found by the > turn of the twentieth century. At that point numerous notorious PIGs > gleefully thumbed their noses at the Constitution and the freedoms it was > supposed to protect. This story is told in great detail in the new book by > Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman entitledWho Killed the Constitution? The Fate of > American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush. > Woodrow Wilson resumed the totalitarian attacks on free speech that Adams and > Lincoln had pioneered with the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of > 1918. These laws literally criminalized opposition to going to war in Europe, > as Woods and Gutzman explain. In addition, the creepy-sounding "Committee on > Public Information" portrayed Germans "as subhuman savages"; and sauerkraut > even became known as "liberty cabbage," an early precedent for the moronic > "freedom fries" language adopted by the Bush administration after its > invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the French government refused to participate. > During the Lincoln administration roving gangs of Republican Party thugs > destroyed printing presses, intimidated Democratic voters in the Northern > states, and generally behaved like twentieth-century brownshirts. Woods and > Gutzman write of how the exact same thuggish behavior was an integral part of > the Wilson administration. A Christian minister was sentenced to 15 years for > distributing a pamphlet to five people explaining that Jesus Christ was a > pacifist (reminiscent of how Congressman Ron Paul was loudly booed by an > audience of "evangelicals" when he reminded them in 2008 that Jesus was known > as The Prince of Peace). Men were tarred and feathered for not spending > enough of their income on "Liberty bonds" that helped fund the war; German > language Bibles were burned; and the producers of a movie about the American > Revolution that portrayed America’s "ally" Great Britain in an unflattering > light were sentenced to ten years in prison. > By the 1950s American presidents clearly thought of themselves as dictators > who were not constrained one iota by the Constitution. Consequently, Harry > Truman felt justified in having the government seize and operate the steel > mills so that he could better prosecute the undeclared war in Korea. Truman > insisted that he had absolute, dictatorial power to "do whatever is for the > best of the country." Constitution schmonstitution. The Supreme Court > eventually ruled against this particular act of theft, but it had little > effect in deterring future dictatorial behavior. Today, American presidents > think of themselves not just as unrestrained dictators but as emperors of the > world. > Woods and Gutzman provide a scholarly analysis of whyBrown vs. Board of > Educationwas unconstitutional. The Supreme Court "set itself above the > Constitution" for what the majority believed was a good cause. Constitution > schmonstitution. > There is no constitutional authority for the myriad pork-barrel spending > projects that Congress funds year in and year out with tax dollars, but so > what? Woods and Gutzman describe the evolution of this particular power grab, > from the time when the "father of the Constitution," James Madison, vetoed an > "internal improvements" bill as unconstitutional to today’s anything-goes > mentality in Washington, D.C. > Then there is the theft of privately-held gold by FDR. The Supreme Court > never even bothered to comment on this grossly unconstitutional act of > thievery. Nor is there any constitutional basis for the government’s ban on > prayer in public schools or military conscription. Not to mention the > dictatorial implications of presidential "executive orders." Teddy Roosevelt > receives special mention with regard to this latter authoritarian tool. He > issued 1,006 executive orders compared to 51 and 71 for his two predecessors, > write Woods and Gutzman. The "Bush Revolution," discussed in chapter 12, > proves that modern American presidents and their advisors have nothing but > absolute contempt for the Constitution. > Upon readingWho Killed the Constitution? the Jeffersonian wing of the > founding fathers, were they alive today, would be reaching for their swords, > preparing for another revolution. The Hamiltonians, on the other hand, would > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
