The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.
Be seeing you
Posts Tagged ‘Founding Fathers’
Will We Have Leaders Like Our Founding Fathers Again? (Not Career Politicians) | Thomas Sowell
Posted by M. C. on May 18, 2024
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Career Politicians, Founding Fathers, Liars | Leave a Comment »
The 1804 Northern Secession Plot and the Founding Fathers of the Deep State
Posted by M. C. on April 27, 2022
https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-1804-northern-secession-plot?s=r
The miracle of America’s surviving its many near death experiences over the years can be attributed less to fate and more to the immense sacrifices by great statesmen over the years… one of whom we will explore in this essay.
With America being set on fire by a diverse array of catalysts: hyperinflationary economic blowout, threats of martial law and British-run Deep State adding to the ongoing anarchy sweeping the nation funded by billionaire color revolutionaries, it is easy to become a bit lost, confused and cynical over the future of the republic or even humanity more broadly.
However, when reviewing the history of the USA from its earliest years throughout its numerous moments of near-collapse witnessed in 1804, 1812, 1861-65 to the present, the very fact that the republic even exists at all is nothing less than a miracle which should not be taken for granted. The miracle of America’s surviving its many near death experiences over the years can be attributed less to fate and more to the immense sacrifices by great (and often assassinated) statesmen over the years… one of whom we will explore in this essay.
Hamilton vs. Burr
As I mentioned in my recent paper on Alexander Hamilton’s Genius, America’s first U.S. Treasury Secretary killed by Aaron Burr (aka: the father of Wall Street) in 1804, was indispensable in the young nation’s survival during the first 30 years after 1776. Even though it hasn’t been taught in any western university in generations, Hamilton’s system of political economy which arose from his four reports of 1791 was premised on the practices of 1) national banking, 2) productive credit generation for long term internal improvements, 3) industrial growth (vs slave-based production) and 4) protective tariffs. Most importantly, this system set “economic value” not upon the worship of money but rather on the creative mental activity of citizens through constant scientific and technological progress.
Between 1776 until his death in 1804, Hamilton used every ounce of his influence to ensure that the many traitorous movements launched by diverse branches of British operations in America (including from his own Federalist Party), and often under the leadership of arch-traitor Aaron Burr, failed to achieve their goals. These operations which included Canadian United Empire Loyalists, New York financiers and southern slave interests, can collectively be defined as the “founding fathers of today’s deep state” which evolved over the years and took over much of the nation after the death of Franklin Roosevelt.
One of Hamilton’s most important victories during this precarious time occurred during the 1800 presidential elections which still confuses some scholars today. These scholars cannot understand why Hamilton’s feud with Jefferson didn’t stop the former from devoting all of his energy into helping the latter gain the victory over presidential hopeful Aaron Burr. Speaking of his motives for this paradoxical maneuver, Hamilton famously said:
“Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government – Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself – thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement – and will be content with nothing short of permanent power in his own hands.”
To understand the conditions shaping this strategic fight only 11 years after Ben Franklin died, one must understand how the British Empire used an evil cancer embedded in the young nation to destroy it from within when it became obvious that external force could not succeed.
Slavery: America’s Achilles Heel
Despite the fact that slavery was nearly extinguished by 1792 (1), forces loyal to the British Empire within the “eastern establishment” led by aristocratically minded traitors like Timothy Pickering, Aaron Burr, Col. James Wilkinson, George Cabot and Albert Gallatin worked hard to advance a plot for breaking up the republic into two separate confederacies under the guise that “slave states and free states could not co-exist”. While this fact may have been true, rather than continue the struggle to abolish slavery by imposing the authority of the Constitution, such traitors made the argument that it were best to dissolve the nation and constitution completely. Under these designs, British Canada would merge with northern “free states” under a new Anglo-Saxon confederation, while the slave power would be free to create its own southern confederation. Under this design, both northern and southern confederacies would be defined by a special relationship with England and dominated by the City of London’s economic web of finance.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton, Deep State, Founding Fathers, Northern Secession Plot | Leave a Comment »
Thanksgiving 2021 – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Posted by M. C. on November 25, 2021
What if, on Thanksgiving Day, we are most grateful that we are free creatures made in God’s image and likeness?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/11/andrew-p-napolitano/thanksgiving-2021/
“Government requires make-believe. Make believe that the king is divine, make believe that he can do no wrong or make believe that the voice of the people is the voice of God. Make believe that the people have a voice or make believe that the representatives of the people are the people. Make believe that governors are the servants of the people. Make believe that all men are created equal or make believe that they are not.”
— Edmund S. Morgan (1916-2013)
What if the government’s true goal is to perpetuate its own power? What if the real levers of governmental power are pulled by agents and diplomats and by bureaucrats and central bankers behind the scenes? What if they stay in power no matter who is elected president or which political party controls either house of Congress?
What if the frequent public displays of adversity between Republicans and Democrats are just a facade? What if both major political parties agree on the transcendental issues of our day?
What if the leadership of both political parties believes that our rights are not natural to our humanity but instead are gifts from the government? What if those leaders believe the government that gives gifts to the people can take those gifts away?
What if the leadership of both parties gives only lip service to Thomas Jefferson’s assertions in the Declaration of Independence that all persons “are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that when the government assaults our natural rights, we can “alter or abolish” it?
What if the leadership of both parties quietly dismisses those ideas as Jefferson’s outdated musings? What if Jefferson’s words have been enacted into federal law that all in government have sworn to uphold?
What if the leadership of both political parties believes that the constitutional requirement of due process somehow permits mothers to hire doctors to kill babies in their wombs, out of fear or convenience? What if the leadership of both political parties believes that the president may lawfully kill any foreigner out of fear, because due process is an inconvenience?
What if the last four presidents — two from each political party — have used high-tech drones to kill innocent people in foreign lands with which America was not at war and claimed that they did so legally, relying not on a declaration of war from Congress but on erroneous and secret arguments that claim American presidents can kill with impunity?
What if the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war or due process whenever the government wants anyone’s life, liberty or property, whether convenient or not, and whether the person is American or not? What if due process means a fair jury trial, not a secretly ordered killing?
What if most members of Congress from both political parties believe in perpetual war and perpetual debt? What if the political class believes that war is the health of the state? What if the leadership of that class wants war so as to induce the loyalty of its base, open the pocketbooks of the taxpayers and gain the compliance of the voters? What if the political class uses war to enrich its benefactors? What if the government has been paying for war by increasing its debt?
What if the $28 trillion current federal government debt has been caused by borrowing to pay for wars and false prosperity? What if the federal government collects about $4 trillion annually but spends about $6.8 trillion? What if the feds borrow money to pay $500 billion in interest annually?
What if it is insane to borrow money to pay interest on borrowed money? What if American taxpayers are still paying interest on debts incurred by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and every post-World War II president?
What if the banks have borrowed the money that they lend? What if they can’t pay it back? What if the stock market is soaring on money borrowed at artificially low interest rates?
What if the government demands transparency from us but declines to be transparent to us? What if government leaders assert the make-believe that they work for us but recognize silently that we work for the government?
What if the federal government has access to all our electronic communications, bank accounts, medical and legal records, and utility and credit card bills? What if the government knows more about us than we know about it?
What if the federal government stays in power by bribing the states with cash, the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax cuts and the poor with welfare?
What if the government thinks the Constitution is make-believe and doesn’t apply in bad times? What if it thinks it can cure disease by forcing experimental drugs on the healthy? What if it mocks the Bill of Rights?
What if the government the Founding Fathers gave us needed our permission to do nearly everything? What if today we need the government’s permission to do nearly anything?
What if, on Thanksgiving Day, our gratitude is not to the government that assaults our freedoms and steals our wealth but to God, who gave us our freedoms and our ability to earn wealth?
What if, on Thanksgiving Day, our gratitude is for life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the exercise of free will and human reason? What if these are integral to our humanity despite the government’s assaults on them?
What if the Thanksgiving holiday has become a four-day oasis from a fractious government that is blind to the consequences of its borrowing, killing and assaults on freedom?
What if, on Thanksgiving Day, we are most grateful that we are free creatures made in God’s image and likeness?
What if, on Thanksgiving Day, we begin altering or abolishing the government, make-believe or not?
Happy Thanksgiving.
Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Founding Fathers, Thanksgiving | Leave a Comment »
The Constitution IS the Crisis | Antonius Aquinas
Posted by M. C. on February 12, 2020
Once read, any notion of the “founding fathers” as disinterested statesmen who sublimated their own interests and that of their constituents to that of their country will be disavowed. Moreover, The New Republic:1784-1791 is the most important in the series since the grave crises that the nation now faces can be traced to those fateful days in Philadelphia when a powerful central state was created.
I vouch for the first 4 volumes. The best history you never learned in school.
https://antoniusaquinas.com/2020/02/10/the-constitution-is-the-crisis/
Volumes 1-4
Rothbard’s narrative highlights the crucial years after the American Revolution focusing on the events and personalities that led to the calling for, drafting, and eventual promulgation of the Constitution in 1789. Not only does he describe the key factors that led to the creation of the American nation-state, but he gives an insightful account of the machinations which took place in Philadelphia and a trenchant analysis of the document itself which has become, in the eyes of most conservatives, on a par with Holy Writ.
What Might Have Been
While Rothbard writes in a lively and engaging manner, the eventual outcome and triumph of the nationalist forces leaves the reader with a certain sadness. Despite the fears expressed by the Antifederalists that the new government was too powerful and would lead to tyranny, through coercion, threats, lies, bribery, and arm twisting by the politically astute Federalists, the Constitution came into being. Yet, what if it had been the other way around and the forces against it had prevailed?
It is safe to assume that America would have been a far more prosperous and less war-like place. The common held notion that the Constitution was needed to keep peace among the contending states is countered by Rothbard, who points out a number of instances where states settled their differences, most notably Maryland and Virginia as they came to an agreement on the navigation of the Chesapeake Bay. [129-30]
Without a powerful central state to extract resources and manpower, overseas intervention by the country would have been difficult to undertake. Thus, the US’s disastrous participation in the two world wars would have been avoided. Furthermore, it would have been extremely unlikely for a Confederation Congress to impose an income tax as the federal government successfully did through a constitutional amendment in 1913.
Nor would the horrific misnamed “Civil War” ever take place with its immense loss of life and the destruction of the once flourishing Southern civilization. The triumph of the Federal government ended forever “states rights” in the US and, no doubt, inspired centralizing tendencies throughout the world, most notably in Germany which became unified under Prussian domination.
In a failed attempt in 1786 to enact an impost tax under the Confederation, Abraham Yates, a New York lawyer and prominent Antifederalist, spoke of decentralization as the key to liberty as Rothbard aptly summarizes:
Yates also warned that true republicanism can only be preserved in small states, and
keenly pointed out that in the successful Republics of Switzerland and the
Netherlands the local provinces retained full control over their finances. A taxing
power in Congress would demolish state sovereignty and reduce the states, where
the people could keep watch on their representatives, to mere adjuncts of
congressional power, and liberty would be gone. [64]
Antifederalists, such as Yates, had a far greater understanding of how liberty and individual rights would be protected than their statist opponents such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. The Antifederalists looked to Europe as a model, which, for most of its history, was made up of decentralized political configurations. The Federalists, on the other hand, got much of their inspiration from the Roman Republic and later Empire. There is little question that an America, with the political attributes of a multi-state Europe, would be far less menacing to both its own inhabitants and to the rest of the world than what it has become under the current Federal Leviathan if the Constitution never passed.
Speculation aside, historical reality meant that America would be fundamentally different than it would have been had the Articles of Confederation survived, as Rothbard points out:
The enactment of the Constitution in 1788 drastically changed the course of
American history from its natural decentralized and libertarian direction to an
omnipresent leviathan that fulfilled all of the Antifederalists’ fears. [312]
Limited Government Myth
One of the great myths surrounding the American Constitution – which continues within conservative circles to this very day – is that the document limits government power. After reading Rothbard, such a notion can only be considered a fairy tale!
The supposed “defects” of the Articles of Confederation were adroitly used by the wily nationalists as a cover to hide their real motives. Simply put – the Articles had to be scrapped and a new national government, far more powerful than what had existed under the Articles, had to be created as Rothbard asserts: “The nationalists who went into the convention agreed on certain broad objectives, crucial for a new government, all designed to remodel the United States into a country with the British political structure.” [145]
In passing the Constitution, the nationalist forces gained almost all they had set out to accomplish – a powerful central state and with it a strong chief executive office, and the destruction of the states as sovereign entities. The supposed “checks and balances,” so much beloved by Constitution enthusiasts, has proven worthless in checking the central state’s largesse. Checks and balances exist within the central government and is not offset by any prevailing power, be it the states or citizenry.
There was no reform of the system as it stood, but a new state was erected on the decentralized foundation of the Confederation. Why the idea of the founding fathers as some limited government proponents is a mystery.
The Chief Executive Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Antifederalists, civil war, Conceived In Liberty, Constitution, Founding Fathers, States' Rights | Leave a Comment »
Foreign Aid is Not the Answer to Political Corruption
Posted by M. C. on November 29, 2019
He eloquently likened the use of foreign aid to reduce corruption to “expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism.”
https://www.theadvocates.org/2019/11/foreign-aid-is-not-the-answer-to-political-corruption/
The recent impeachment drama in Washington, D.C. has sparked some interesting discussions about foreign aid. The impeachment kerfuffle we are witnessing started when President Donald delayed giving a new batch of foreign aid to the Ukranian government. Now, everybody is losing their minds about this incident, throwing out any form of rational thought over this matter.
On the website, The American Conservative, writer James Bovard brought some much-needed sanity to the discussion regarding foreign aid in the case of Ukraine. He eloquently likened the use of foreign aid to reduce corruption to “expecting whiskey to cure alcoholism.”
Foreign aid is generally seen as a positive among political elites. Many treat it as a useful tool in trying to help other foreign countries break free from economic underdevelopment and build stable political foundations. However, a real analysis of the issue provides a different picture.
According to analysis from the American Economic Review in 2002, “increases in [foreign] aid are associated with contemporaneous increases in corruption.” This same analysis noted that “corruption is positively correlated with aid received from the United States.” During that same year, President George W. Bush implemented a new foreign aid program, Millennium Challenge Account (MCA), which would allegedly fix previous errors. Interestingly, Bush said, “It makes no sense to give aid money to countries that are corrupt.” As Bovard points out, however, “the Bush administration continued delivering billions of dollars in handouts to many of the world’s most corrupt regimes.” In typical government fashion, the State Department then pivoted the MCA’s mission by declaring that it is “an incentive-based supplement to other U.S. aid programs.” Under this changed description, the Bush administration was able to rationalize doling out aid to corrupt governments worldwide…
Then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton warned that limiting foreign aid to countries with dubious track records of governance “has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients.” Like clockwork, the Obama administration poured billions of dollars into Afghanistan, even when its president, Ashraf Ghani, conceded in 2016 that the country was “one of the most corrupt countries on earth.”
Naturally, the aid injected into Afghanistan exacerbated the corruption…
The Brookings Institution, which is far from a champion of non-interventionism, pointed out that, “The history of U.S. assistance is littered with tales of corrupt foreign officials using aid to line their own pockets, support military buildups, and pursue vanity projects.”…
There has to be another way.
Non-interventionism, as the Founding Fathers envisioned, is the way to go. If American citizens are concerned about the plight of a specific country, they should band together with other like-minded individuals to figure out a private solution. We must acknowledge that the global democratic crusades launched by the U.S. during the last century have put our country on the path to imperial overstretch and fiscal collapse.
How about we consider other private alternatives instead? Our wallets and troops will thank us.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Foreign Aid, Founding Fathers, Millennium Challenge Account, non-interventionism, Political Corruption | Leave a Comment »
MCViewPoint 