Albert Jay Nock — Isaiah’s Job — The Remnant — Video

Posted on June 8, 2018. Filed under: Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Culture, Economics, Education, Essays, Faith, Family, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, Health, Heroes, history, Journalism, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Reviews, Speech, State, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Wisdom, Work | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Isaiah’s Job | by Albert Jay Nock

Liberty Classics — Isaiah’s Job

See the source image

Our Enemy, The State (Part 1) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 2) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 3) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 4) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 5) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State (Part 6) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy, The State, The Video -Albert Jay Nock

The Man versus The State (Introduction) by Albert Jay Nock

Our Enemy the State!

See the source image

Jeffrey Tucker — Liberty Classics: Memoirs of a Superfluous Man

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -1/4- mass, democratic education

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -2/4- economism, views on politics

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -3/4- writing, religion

Albert Jay Nock, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man -4/4- war, human servility

The Natural Law as a Restraint Against Tyranny | Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Thinkers Who Challenged the State | David Gordon

Against the State | Lew Rockwell

Freedom Doesn’t Come From Government | Ron Paul

Society Without the State | Speaker Panel

How is War Profitable? – Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker

Albert Jay Nock and the Libertarian Tradition | by Jeff Riggenbach

The American State was a Predatory Gang of Robbers

State of the Alt-Right | Jordan Peterson & Stefan Molyneux

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Bill Buckley and Firing Line Get Roasted

What Individualism Is Not by Frank Chodorov

Rothbard on Strategy

Albert Jay Nock

See the source image

 

“You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you.”

from — Isaiah’s Job by Albert Jay Nock
You are lied to, propagandized, and manipulated largely through fear, even more than you have thought!
To continue awakening SPEND AN HOUR OR MORE HERE

http://www.bigeye.com/remnant.htm

 

 

Albert Jay Nock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Albert Jay Nock
Nock.jpg
Born October 13, 1870
Scranton, Pennsylvania
Died August 19, 1945 (aged 74)
Wakefield, Rhode Island
Resting place Riverside Cemetery
South Kingstown, Rhode Island
Occupation Writer and social theorist
Nationality American
Alma mater St. Stephen’s College
(now known as Bard College)
Subject Libertarianism

Albert Jay Nock (October 13, 1870 – August 19, 1945) was an American libertarian author, editor first of The Freeman and then The Nationeducational theorist, Georgist, and social critic of the early and middle 20th century. He was an outspoken opponent of the New Deal, and served as a fundamental inspiration for the modern libertarian and Conservative movements, cited as an influence by William F. Buckley, Jr.[1] He was one of the first Americans to self-identify as “libertarian”. His best-known books are Memoirs of a Superfluous Man and Our Enemy, the State.

Life and work

Throughout his life, Nock was a deeply private man who shared few of the details of his personal life with his working partners. He was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania (U.S.), the son of Emma Sheldon (Jay) and Joseph Albert Nock, who was both a steelworker and an Episcopal priest. He was raised in Brooklyn, New York.[2] Nock attended St. Stephen’s College (now known as Bard College) from 1884 to 1888,[3] where he joined Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity.

After graduation he had a brief career playing minor league baseball, and then attended a theological seminary and was ordained as an Episcopal priest in 1897. Nock married Agnes Grumbine in 1900 and the couple had two children, Francis and Samuel (both of whom became college professors). In 1909, Nock left the ministry as well as his wife and children, and became a journalist.[4][5]

In 1914, Nock joined the staff of The Nation magazine, which was at the time supportive of liberal capitalism. Nock was an acquaintance of the influential politician and orator William Jennings Bryan, and in 1915 traveled to Europe on a special assignment for Bryan, who was then Secretary of State. Nock also maintained friendships with many of the leading proponents of the Georgist movement, one of whom had been his bishop in the Episcopal Church.

However, while Nock was a lifelong admirer of Henry George, he was frequently at odds with other Georgists in the left-leaning movement. Further, Nock was influenced by the anti-collectivist writings of the Germansociologist Franz Oppenheimer,[6] whose most famous work, Der Staat, was published in English translation in 1915. In his own writings, Nock would later build on Oppenheimer’s claim that the pursuit of human ends can be divided into two forms: the productive or economic means, and the parasitic, political means.

Between 1920 and 1924, Nock was the co-editor of The FreemanThe Freeman was initially conceived as a vehicle for the single tax movement. It was financed by the wealthy wife of the magazine’s other editor, Francis Neilson,[7] although neither Nock nor Neilson was a dedicated single taxer. Contributors to The Freeman included: Charles A. BeardWilliam Henry ChamberlinThomas MannLewis MumfordBertrand RussellLincoln SteffensLouis UntermeyerThorstein Veblen and Suzanne La Follette, the more libertarian[8] cousin of Senator Robert La Follette. Critic H.L. Mencken wrote:

His editorials during the three brief years of the Freeman set a mark that no other man of his trade has ever quite managed to reach. They were well-informed and sometimes even learned, but there was never the slightest trace of pedantry in them.[9]

When the unprofitable The Freeman ceased publication in 1924, Nock became a freelance journalist in New York City and Brussels, Belgium.

“The Myth of a Guilty Nation,”[10] which came out in 1922, was Albert Jay Nock’s first anti-war book, a cause he backed his entire life as an essential component of a libertarian outlook. The burden of the book is to prove American war propaganda to be false. The purpose of World War I, according to Nock, was not to liberate Europe and the world from German imperialism and threats. If there was a conspiracy, it was by the allied powers to broadcast a public message that was completely contradicted by its own diplomatic cables. Along with that came war propaganda designed to make Germany into a devil nation.

In the mid-1920s, a small group of wealthy American admirers funded Nock’s literary and historical work to enable him to follow his own interests. Shortly thereafter, he published his biography of Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson was published in 1928, Mencken praised it as “the work of a subtle and highly dexterous craftsman” which cleared “off the vast mountain of doctrinaire rubbish that has risen above Jefferson’s bones and also provides a clear and comprehensive account of the Jeffersonian system,” and the “essence of it is that Jefferson divided all mankind into two classes, the producers and the exploiters, and he was for the former first, last and all the time.” Mencken also thought the book to be accurate, shrewd, well-ordered and charming.[9]

In his two 1932 books, On the Disadvantages of Being Educated and Other Essays and Theory of Education in the United States, Nock launched a scathing critique of modern government-run education.

In his 1936 article “Isaiah’s Job”,[11] which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly and was reprinted in pamphlet form in July 1962 by The Foundation for Economic Education, Nock expressed his complete disillusionment with the idea of reforming the current system. Believing that it would be impossible to persuade any large portion of the general population of the correct course and opposing any suggestion of a violent revolution, Nock instead argued that libertarians should focus on nurturing what he called “the Remnant“.

The Remnant, according to Nock, consisted of a small minority who understood the nature of the state and society, and who would become influential only after the current dangerous course had become thoroughly and obviously untenable, a situation which might not occur until far into the future.[12] Nock’s philosophy of the Remnant was influenced by the deep pessimism and elitism that social critic Ralph Adams Cram expressed in a 1932 essay, “Why We Do Not Behave Like Human Beings”.[13] In his Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Nock makes no secret that his educators:

did not pretend to believe that everyone is educable, for they knew, on the contrary, that very few are educable, very few indeed. They saw this as a fact of nature, like the fact that few are six feet tall. […] They accepted the fact that there are practicable ranges of intellectual and spiritual experience which nature has opened to some and closed to others.

In 1941, Nock published a two-part essay in The Atlantic Monthly titled “The Jewish Problem in America”.[14] The article was part of a multi-author series, assembled by the editors in response to recent anti-Semitic unrest in Brooklyn and elsewhere “in the hope that a free and forthright debate will reduce the pressure, now dangerously high, and leave us with a healthier understanding of the human elements involved.”

Nock’s argument was that the Jews were an Oriental people, acceptable to the “intelligent Occidental” yet forever strangers to “the Occidental mass-man.”[15] Furthermore, the mass-man “is inclined to be more resentful of the Oriental as a competitor than of another Occidental;” the American masses are “the great rope and lamppost artists of the world;” and in studying Jewish history, “one is struck with the fact that persecutions never have originated in an upper class movement”. This innate hostility of the masses, he concluded, might be exploited by a scapegoating state to distract from “any shocks of an economic dislocation that may occur in the years ahead.” He concluded, “If I keep up my family’s record of longevity, I think it is not impossible that I shall live to see the Nuremberg lawsreenacted in this country and enforced with vigor” and affirmed that the consequences of such a pogrom “would be as appalling in their extent and magnitude as anything seen since the Middle Ages.”

The article was itself declared by some to be anti-Semitic, and Nock was never asked to write another article, effectively ending his career as a social critic. Against charges of anti-Semitism, Nock answered, “Someone asked me years ago if it were true that I disliked Jews, and I replied that it was certainly true, not at all because they are Jews but because they are folks, and I don’t like folks.”[16]

In 1943, two years before his death, Nock published his autobiography, Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, the title of which expressed the degree of Nock’s disillusionment and alienation from current social trends. After the publication of this autobiography, Nock became the sometime guest of oilman William F. Buckley, Sr.,[17] whose son, William F. Buckley, Jr., would later become an influential author and speaker.

Nock died of leukemia in 1945, at the Wakefield, Rhode Island home of his longtime friend, Ruth Robinson, the illustrator of his 1934 book, “A Journey into Rabelais’ France”. He is buried in Riverside Cemetery, in Wakefield.

Thought

Describing himself as a philosophical anarchist,[18] Nock called for a radical vision of society free from the influence of the political state. He described the state as that which “claims and exercises the monopoly of crime”. He opposed centralization, regulation, the income tax, and mandatory education, along with what he saw as the degradation of society. He denounced in equal terms all forms of totalitarianism, including “Bolshevism… FascismHitlerismMarxism, [and] Communism” but also harshly criticized democracy. Instead, Nock argued, “The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed. Everything else has been tried, world without end. Going dead against reason and experience, we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of.”[19]

During the 1930s, Nock was one of the most consistent critics of Franklin Roosevelt‘s New Deal programs. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock argued that the New Deal was merely a pretext for the federal government to increase its control over society. He was dismayed that the president had gathered unprecedented power in his own hands and called this development an out-and-out coup d’état. Nock criticized those who believed that the new regimentation of the economy was temporary, arguing that it would prove a permanent shift. He believed that the inflationary monetary policy of the Republican administrations of the 1920s was responsible for the onset of the Great Depression and that the New Deal was responsible for perpetuating it.

Nock was also a passionate opponent of war, and what he considered the US government’s aggressive foreign policy. He believed that war could bring out only the worst in society and argued that it led inevitably to collectivization and militarization and “fortified a universal faith in violence; it set in motion endless adventures in imperialism, endless nationalist ambitions,” while, at the same time, costing countless human lives. During the First World War, Nock wrote for The Nation, which was censored by the Wilsonadministration for opposing the war.

Despite his distaste for communism, Nock harshly criticized the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War following the parliamentary revolution and Bolshevik coup in that country. Before the Second World War, Nock wrote a series of articles deploring what he saw as Roosevelt’s gamesmanship and interventionism leading inevitably to US involvement. Nock was one of the few who maintained a principled opposition to the war throughout its course.

Despite becoming considerably more obscure in death than he had been in life, Nock was an important influence on the next generation of laissez-faire capitalist American thinkers, including libertarians such as Murray RothbardFrank Chodorov,[20] and Leonard Read, and conservatives such as William F. Buckley, Jr.. Nock’s conservative view of society would help inspire the paleoconservative movement in response to the development of neoconservatism during the Cold War. In insisting on the state itself as the root problem, Nock’s thought was one of the main precursors to anarcho-capitalism.

Anti-Semitism and disillusionment with democracy

When Albert Jay Nock started The Freeman magazine in 1920, The Nation offered its congratulations to a new voice in liberal journalism. Nock rebuffed the gesture in a letter to the magazine’s owner, Oswald Villard, in which he wrote, “I hate to seem ungrateful, but we haint liberal. We loathes liberalism and loathes it hard.”[21][22] Nock professed allegiance to a detached philosophical objectivity, expressed in his Platonist credo of “seeing things as they are”.[23][24] He had decried anti-Semitism in his earlier writings, but in his sixties he began giving vent to increasingly anti-Semitic and anti-democratic sentiments,[25] leading Robert Sherrill, writing years later in The Nation, to call him “virulently anti-Semitic” and “anti-democratic”.[26]

The historian and biographer, Michael Wreszin,[27] compared Nock’s disillusionment with democracy and his attacks on the Jewish people to similar feelings held by Henry Adams.[28] Before he died, Nock destroyed all his notes and papers, except a few letters and an autobiographical manuscript published posthumously as Journal of Forgotten Days (Nock was so secretive about the details of his personal life that Who’s Who could not find out his birthdate).[29]

In Journal of Forgotten Days, Nock wrote these passages about the Jews of New York City:

31 August—Leaving for New York today, in great dissatisfaction, to be tied to the public libraries, which are infested with Jews, Turks, infidels, and heretics, such as orthodox members of the Church of England are supposed to pray for in the Good Friday collect.[30]

20 September—The Jewish holiday Yom Kippur yesterday closed New York up as tight as a white-oak knot. One would say there was not a hundred dollars’ worth of business done in all the town. It sets one’s mind back on Hitler’s policy. The question is not what one thinks of it as an American, but what one would think of it if one were a German in Germany, where the control of cultural agencies is so largely in the hands of Jews—the press, drama, music, education, etc.—and where there is, or was, a superb native culture essentially antithetical. Is one’s own culture worth fighting for? I think so. I think I would fight for it.[31]

Nock took a jaundiced view of American politics and American democracy itself,[32] and asserted that in all his life he voted in only one presidential election, in which he cast a write-in vote for Jefferson Davis[33][34][35] In an article he wrote for the American Mercury Magazine in 1933, What the American Votes For, Nock claimed, “My first and only presidential vote was cast many, many years ago. It was dictated by pure instinct.”[36]

In Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943), Nock had this to say about mass democracy in America:

I could see how “democracy” might do very well in a society of saints and sages led by an Alfred or an Antoninus Pius. Short of that, I was unable to see how it could come to anything but an ochlocracy of mass-men led by a sagacious knave. The collective capacity for bringing forth any other outcome seemed simply not there.”[37]

The author Clifton Fadiman, reviewing Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, wrote: “I have not since the days of the early Mencken read a more eloquently written blast against democracy or enjoyed more fully a display of crusted prejudice. Mr. Nock is a highly civilized man who does not like our civilization and will have no part of it.”[38] Nock’s biographer Michael Wreszin wrote concerning Nock’s reaction to the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932: “Sailing to Brussels in February 1933, before Roosevelt’s inauguration in March, he repeated in a journal his appreciation of Catherine Wilson’s observation that the skyline of New York was the finest sight in America when viewed from the deck of an outbound steamer.”[39]

In popular culture

In the fictional The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, as part of the North American Confederacy Series, in which the United States becomes a Libertarian state after a successful Whiskey Rebellion and the overthrow and execution of George Washington by firing squad for treason in 1794, Albert Jay Nock serves as the 18th President of the North American Confederacy from 1912 to 1928.

Works

  • The Myth of a Guilty Nation.[1] New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1922. [2]
  • The Freeman Book.[3] B.W. Huebsch, 1924.
  • Jefferson.[4] New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1926 (also known as Mr. Jefferson).
  • On Doing the Right Thing, and Other Essays.[5] New York: Harper and Brothers, 1928.
  • Francis Rabelais: The Man and His Work. Harper and Brothers, 1929.
  • The Book of Journeyman: Essays from the New Freeman.[6] New Freeman, 1930.
  • The Theory of Education in the United States.[7] New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1932.
  • A Journey Into Rabelais’s France[8] William Morrow & Company, 1934.
  • A Journal of These Days: June 1932–December 1933. William Morrow & Company, 1934.
  • Our Enemy, the State.[9] ePub MP3 HTML William Morrow & Company, 1935.
  • Free Speech and Plain Language. William Morrow & Company, 1937.
  • Henry George: An Essay. William Morrow & Company, 1939.
  • Memoirs of a Superfluous Man.[10] New York: Harper and Brothers, 1943.

Miscellany

  • World Scouts,[11] World Peace Foundation, 1912.
  • “Officialism and Lawlessness.” [12] In College Readings on Today and its Problems, Oxford University Press, 1933.
  • Meditations in Wall Street, with an introduction by Albert Jay Nock,[13] W. Morrow & Company, 1940.

Published posthumously:

  • A Journal of Forgotten Days: May 1934–October 1935[14] Henry Regnery Company, 1948.
  • Letters from Albert Jay Nock, 1924–1945, to Edmund C. Evans, Mrs. Edmund C. Evans, and Ellen Winsor. The Caxton Printers, 1949.
  • Snoring as a Fine Art and Twelve Other Essays.[15] Richard R. Smith, 1958.
  • Selected Letters of Albert Jay Nock. The Caxton Printers, 1962.
  • Cogitations from Albert Jay Nock.[16] The Nockian Society, 1970, revised edition, 1985.
  • The State of the Union: Essays in Social Criticism. Liberty Press, 1991.
  • The Disadvantages of Being Educated and Other Essays. Hallberg Publishing Corporation, 1996.

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Carl T. Bogus, Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism, Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011.
  2. Jump up^http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/stylish-elegance-biography-albert-jay-nock
  3. Jump up^ Wreszin, Michael (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock, Brown University Press, p. 11.
  4. Jump up^ Jim Powell (March 1, 1997). “Albert Jay Nock: A Gifted Pen for Radical Individualism”The FreemanFoundation for Economic Education. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  5. Jump up^ Mark C. Carnes (September 2003). Invisible Giants: Fifty Americans Who Shaped the Nation But Missed the History Books. Oxford University Press. p. 221. ISBN 978-0-19-516883-9This early, quiet career as a minister ended abruptly in 1909, when Nock left the ministry, his wife, and his children to take up journalism.
  6. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, The Caxton Printers, 1950, p. 59.
  7. Jump up^ Neilson, Francis (1946). “The Story of ‘The Freeman'”. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology6(1): 3–53.
  8. Jump up^ Presley, Sharon (1981). “Suzanne La Follette: The Freewoman,” Libertarian Review (Cato Institute).
  9. Jump up to:a b Mencken, H.L. (1926). “The Immortal Democrat”American Mercury9 (33): 123.
  10. Jump up^ Originally published in 1922 by B. W. Huebsch, Inc. Published in 2011 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
  11. Jump up^ Nock, Albert Jay (1956). “Isaiah’s Job”The Freeman6 (12): 31–37.
  12. Jump up^ Harris, Michael R. (1970). Five Counterrevolutionists in Higher Education: Irving Babbitt, Albert Jay Nock, Abraham Flexner, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Alexander Meiklejohn, Oregon State University Press, p. 97.
  13. Jump up^ Cram, Ralph Adams (1932). “Why We Do Not Behave Like Human Beings”The American Mercury27(105): 41–48.
  14. Jump up^ Nock, Albert Jay (1941). “The Jewish Problem in America,” The Atlantic Monthly, June 1, pp. 699–705.
  15. Jump up^ Crunden, Robert Morse (1964). The Mind and Art of Albert Jay Nock, Henry Regnery Company, pp. 183–84.
  16. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock (May 16, 1998). “Autobiographical Sketch (unpublished piece written for Paul Palmer, editor of the American Mercury Magazine, c. 1936)”alumnus.caltech.edu. California Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on June 29, 2017. Retrieved 12 July 2017.
  17. Jump up^ Buckley, Jr., William F. (2008). Let Us Talk of Many Things: The Collected Speeches, Basic Books, p. 430.
  18. Jump up^ Wreszin, Michael (1969). “Albert Jay Nock and the Anarchist Elitist Tradition in America,” American Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, Part 1, pp. 165–89.
  19. Jump up^ Nock, Albert Jay (1924). “On Doing the Right Thing”American Mercury3 (11): 257–62.
  20. Jump up^ Nitsche, Charles G. (1981). Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov: Case Studies in Recent American Individualist and Anti-statist Thought, (Ph.D. Dissertation), University of Maryland.
  21. Jump up^ Christopher Lasch (1972). The American Liberals and the Russian Revolution. McGraw-Hill. p. 143.
  22. Jump up^ Douglas Charles Rossinow (2008). Visions of Progress: The Left-liberal Tradition in America. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 98. ISBN 0-8122-4049-9.
  23. Jump up^ Francis Neilson, Albert Jay Nock, eds. (1921). The Freeman3. Freeman Incorporated. p. 391.
  24. Jump up^ The Thomist. Thomist Press. 1951. p. 302.
  25. Jump up^ Louis Filler (1 January 1993). American Anxieties: A Collective Portrait of The 1930s. Transaction Publishers. pp. 49–. ISBN 978-1-4128-1687-8.
  26. Jump up^ Robert Sherrill (June 11, 1988). “William F. Buckley Lived Off Evil As Mold Lives Off Garbage”The Nation. The Nation Company. Archived from the original on February 20, 2017. Retrieved 23 July 2017One of Will Sr.’s favorite authors, Albert Jay Nock, became a personal friend and was often in the Buckley household when Bill was growing up. Along with being anti-democratic, Nock was, at least in his later years, “virulently anti-Semitic.” Young Buckley fell under Nock’s spell and never quit quoting him. Another of Will Sr.’s friends, Merwin K. Hart, was one of America’s most notorious anti-Semites for three decades.
  27. Jump up^ Paul Vitello (15 September 2012). “Michael Wreszin, Biographer of American Radicals, Dies at 85”The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Archived from the originalon March 1, 2017. Retrieved 23 July2017.
  28. Jump up^ Michael Wreszin (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Brown University Press. p. 143. Jewish had been for [Henry] Adams what Finkman became for Nock, a synonym for avarice and materialism. When Nock lamented the presence of Jews and other undesirables in what he seemed to consider his private study, the New York Public Library, he echoed the fierce resentment of the elderly Adams against the presence of Jews in places that he loved, and on boats and trains.
  29. Jump up^ Stanley Kunitz (1955). Twentieth Century Authors: A Biographical Dictionary of Modern Literature. Supplement. H. W. Wilson. p. 721.
  30. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock. Journal of Forgotten Days, May 1934–October 1935. Hinsdale, Illinois: H. Gegnery Company. p. 47.
  31. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock. Journal of Forgotten Days, May 1934–October 1935. Hinsdale, Illinois: H. Gegnery Company. p. 56.
  32. Jump up^ William F. Buckley Jr. (28 October 2008). Let Us Talk of Many Things: The Collected Speeches. Basic Books. p. 467. ISBN 978-0-465-00334-1A year later, in conversation with Mr. Nock, my father disclosed that he had voted for Willkie, thus departing from a near-lifelong resolution, beginning in his thirties, never to vote for any political candidate. He now affirmed, with Mr. Nock’s hearty approval, his determination to renew his vows of abstinence, Willkie having been revealed—I remember the term he used—as a “mountebank.” “They are all mountebanks,” Mr. Nock said.
  33. Jump up^ Michael Wreszin (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Brown University Press. p. 128. Nock didn’t vote in 1932; in fact, he couldn’t remember when he had last voted. He couldn’t even remember the candidates, but he had, he claimed, weighed the issues carefully before casting a write-in vote for Jefferson Davis.
  34. Jump up^ Gregory L. Schneider (1999). Cadres for Conservatism: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of the Contemporary Right. NYU Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8147-8108-1.
  35. Jump up^ Garry Wills (28 May 2013). A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. Simon and Schuster. p. 272. ISBN 978-1-4391-2879-4His attitude toward voting (and toward Jefferson Davis) is given in this passage: I once voted at a presidential election. There being no real issue at stake, and neither candidate commanding any respect whatever, I cast my vote for Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. I knew Jeff was dead, but I voted on Artemus Ward’s principle that if we can’t have a live man who amounts to anything, by all means let’s have a first-rate corpse.
  36. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock (1933). “What the American Votes For“. In Henry Louis Mencken, George Jean Nathan. The American Mercury28. Knopf. p. 176.
  37. Jump up^ Albert Jay Nock (1964). Memoirs of a Superfluous Man. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 131. ISBN 978-1-61016-392-7.
  38. Jump up^ Claude Moore Fuess, Emory Shelvy Basford, eds. (1947). Unseen Harvests: A Treasury of Teaching. Macmillan. p. 610.
  39. Jump up^ Michael Wreszin (1972). The Superfluous Anarchist: Albert Jay Nock. Brown University Press. p. 143.

Further reading

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Jay_Nock

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Global Gun Grappers–We Do Not Trust Them–Forewarned Is Forearmed–Videos

Posted on January 12, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Crime, Economics, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Pistols, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Rifles, Security, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

gun_grabbers_xlarge

socialists3

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

~Thomas Jefferson

Stop Democide Now!

Rwanda Genocide full documentary, PBS Documentary

Gregory Stanton: The Eight Stages of Genocide

Maafa 21 (2009) Full Length

Black Genocide Praised by Obama Supporters Paid for by Tax Payers: MAAFA21

The Second Amendment Of The United States Constitution – Gun Ban Control

The Great American Gun ban: The UN Small Arms Treaty

Mainstream Media Caught Spreading Disinformation On Gun Ban Control Redhanded

Anti-gun politicians get OWNED 

What Is An “Assault Rifle”? – You’ve Probably Been Lied To 

Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle

Chuck Woolery on Assault Weapons

 Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

Penn and Teller – Suzanna’s Gun Encounter Story

Penn & Teller: Bullshit! – Gun Control

GOP Senator Cruz: New Gun Control Proposals Are ‘Unconstitutional’

The Gun Grabbers’ Worst Nightmare…A Law-Abiding Citizen with a Gun

Georgia Mom Shoots Home Intruder Six Times in the face and neck after Being Cornered

Mom Shoots Intruder 911 Call

Gun bans – Don’t think it can happen, watch

Innocents Betrayed – The True Story of Gun Control

Warning: Graphic Violence. This disturbing video clearly demonstrates the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens. Genocide always follows, leaving millions of innocent victims dead.

Romney, Obama gun control stance

Barrack Obama on Gun Control and Second Amendment

UN Gun Grabbers

Obama’s Secret Gun Control plan! Dick Morris TV: Lunch ALERT!

U.N. Small Arms Treaty a Threat to the Second Amendment

Gun Owners Outed by Newspaper Speak Out on Hannity Show!

Michael Savage – Feinstein Gun Grabber and General Schwarzkopf Passing – 12/27/12

Obama Will Use Children as Props for Gun Control Announcement! Megyn Kelly 

Watch President Obama Announce Proposals for Sweeping Gun Control Legislation

President Obama demands tightened gun control laws

Glenn Beck On Gun Ban Control_ Anti-Gun Sentiment Rising In The Country 

Impeachment? Don’t Hold Your Breath 2 + With Kids as Human Shields, Obama Will

Obama’s agenda The UN Gun Grab Treat

Alex Jones Piers Morgan Part 1. 1776 Will Commence Again’ If Guns Taken Away

  Background Articles and Videos

Dr. Michael Savage Talks About Gun Control

Sneaky Democrats Attempt Stealth Gun Control

Glenn Beck Warns Of Food Riots, Martial Law and Gun confiscation

Glenn Beck Buy Farmland and Guns! GET READY FOR A FIGHT !

Obama Unveils New Gun Control Ban

Judge Napolitano Reacts to Biden’s Remarks About Obama Considering Executive Orders

Rand Paul on Gun Control Executive Order: Obama is Not ‘King’ – CBN News 1/14/20

‘This Week’ Tackles Gun Violence: “So Much Anxiety Out in America, They Also Fear T

Gun control is evil and always ends in DEMOCIDE!

Global gun grabbers

Ask the experts. Common sense gun control works.

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Kim Il-sung, Castro, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Qaddafi all confiscated the guns owned by their country’s people. Once they were disarmed of their pistols, rifles and other weapons, the people became defenseless against the tyranny of these political leaders.

This enabled democide—death by government. R.J. Rummel defines democide as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder.” There have been several dozen democides in the 20th century with deaths totaling more than 262 million from 1900 to 1999, according to Rummel’s estimates.

The big three democides of the 20th century were the People’ Republic of China from 1949-1987 when more than 76 million were killed, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from 1917-1987 when more than 61 million were murdered, and the German Third Reich from 1938 to 1945 when nearly 21 million were slaughtered, according to Rummel’s estimates on his website, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM.

The American colonists formed local militias to defend themselves from American Indian attacks. The American Revolution started when King George III’s army, the Redcoats, garrisoned in Boston, attempted to confiscate the guns, ammunition and military stores of the American colonists in nearby Concord, Mass., and attempted to capture Samuel Adams and John Hancock. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought on April 19, 1775 against a British army of about 700 soldiers. The Redcoats retreated from Concord to Boston, when they were outnumbered by about 1,700 first responders—the militia minutemen.

 Minuteman_statue_-_Old_North_Bridge

The Minute Man, dedicated in 1885 to mark the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Concord, features an inscription from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s “Concord Hymn” reading, “By the rude bridge that arched the flood, their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, here once the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard ‘round the world.”

Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Minuteman_statue_3_-_Old_North_Bridge.jpg

The ratification of the United States Constitution by the states required the addition of 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment as ratified reads as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” During the ratification convention in Virginia on June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry said this about the right to keep and bear arms to protect against political oppression:

 “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Progressive elements of the Democratic and Republican Parties are using the recent mass murder in Newtown, Conn.’s Sandy Hook Elementary School of 20 students and six adults to advance their political agendas and careers by infringing upon the rights of the American people to keep and bear arms.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in his State of the State address called for the “toughest assault weapons ban in the nation” including the limiting of magazine capacities to 10 cartridges. Cuomo emotionally said, “No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. End the madness.” Many Americans who own guns use them not for hunting but for self-defense against well-armed attacks by criminals, gangs, drug users and cartels, home invaders, illegal aliens, the mentally disturbed, rapists, corrupt politicians, terrorists or tyrants.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced that she will introduce legislation this month that would require gun owners to register and be fingerprinted, outlaw a number of semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns, and any weapon that can accept a magazine or large-capacity ammunition feeding device capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.  Feinstein said, “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

When the assault weapons ban ended after 10 years on Sept. 13, 2004, advocates of the ban such as the ban’s author Feinstein and Sarah Brady were predicting a surge in murders and crime. Instead violent crimes and murder rates have fallen to 41-year and 48-year lows, respectively, according to the FBI’s “Crime in the United States” annual volumes.

The Center of American Progress (CAP), an influential Democratic progressive think tank, also supports the Feinstein bill and is recommending 13 gun policies to the White House. The CAP wish list is a progressive’s dream for it includes the requirement of universal criminal background checks for all gun sales, modernizing data systems to track gun sales, banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, closing loopholes that currently enable about 40 percent of sales by private sellers to occur without any questions being asked and the adding of convicted stalkers and suspected terrorists to the list of those barred from purchasing firearms.

On Jan. 16 Obama announced that he was implementing 23 executive actions and orders pertaining to the banning of guns and control of gun sales and ownership. Obama’s plan would reinstate and strengthen the Federal Assaults Weapon ban passed in 1994 that outlawed military style semiautomatic weapons that fire one round per trigger pull and automatically eject the shell casing and reload the chamber. The plan would also reinstate the ban on magazines that held more than ten rounds. After ten years, Congress allowed both bans to expire in 2004.

The highlights of Obama’s plan includes the following: (1) Require criminal background checks for all gun sales, (2) Take four executive actions to ensure information on dangerous individuals is available to the background check system, (3) Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban, (4) Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines, (4) Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets, (5) Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime, (6) End the freeze on gun violence research, (7) Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates and better emergency response plans, (8) Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need and (9) Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.

With 288 members of Congress having the National Rifle Association’s pro-gun A rating based on their voting records on gun-related issues and promoting and protecting the Second Amendment, only a few, if any, items in Obama’s plan will actually be enacted into law by Congress. Neither Cuomo’s nor Feinstein’s nor Obama’s proposed legislation would have prevented or stopped the Newtown school mass murderer who stole the guns from his mother before killing her.

 Obama_children

Credit: http://images.smh.com.au/2013/01/17/3958541/729-obama-2-620×349.jpg

The use of four children and their letters by the president as propaganda props and pawns to gain support for his plan, illustrates the length a progressive president will go to disarm law-abiding Americans who want to protect their own children and families from harm. No American favors more gun violence; however, attempts by progressive politicians to make it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to purchase the firearms, magazines and ammunition they want for self-defense clearly violates and infringes upon their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Gov. Rick Perry said, “The piling on by the political left and their cohorts in the media, to use the massacre of little children to advance a pre-existing political agenda that would not have saved those children, disgusts me, personally. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a basic right and cannot nor will not be abridged by the executive power of this or any other president.” Texas Republican Rep. John Otto introduced a bill, H.B. No. 553, The Second Amendment Protection Act, co-sponsored by fellow Republican representative Jim Pitts and Drew Darby, that would make Obama’s 23 executive actions invalid and his gun control mandates null and void in Texas.

The Supreme Court ruled in the District of Columbia v. Heller landmark decision that the Second Amendment protects the right to handguns for self-defense. The court pointed out that handguns are the type of firearms that are overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” The most popular handguns today for self-defense are semi-automatic pistols. These pistols are designed to have detachable magazines and typically hold between seven to 15 rounds depending upon whether the magazine has a single or double stack and the caliber of the gun.

Progressive gun grabbers of both political parties in the U.S. are using the mass murder tragedy in Newtown to infringe upon the right of law-abiding Americans to bear and hold arms. The American people are responding by the massive purchase of firearms and ammunition that are setting sales records across the nation. The progressive ruling elites fear the people, as they rightly should. Thomas Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny,” and “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

 Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Joanne Freeman–The American Revolution–Yale University–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

1. Introduction: Freeman’s Top Five Tips for Studying the Revolution 

 

 Professor Freeman offers an introduction to the course, summarizing the readings and discussing the course’s main goals. She also offers five tips for studying the Revolution: 1) Avoid thinking about the Revolution as a story about facts and dates; 2) Remember that words we take for granted today, like “democracy,” had very different meanings; 3) Think of the “Founders” as real people rather than mythic historic figures; 4) Remember that the “Founders” aren’t the only people who count in the Revolution; 5) Remember the importance of historical contingency: that anything could have happened during the Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Is the War Part of the American Revolution?
08:24 – Chapter 2. Reading Materials for the Course
13:45 – Chapter 3. Freeman’s Tips One and Two: Facts and Meanings
22:13 – Chapter 4. Freeman’s Tip Three: The Founders Were Human, Too
31:33 – Chapter 5. Freeman’s Tip Four: The Other Revolutionaries
37:48 – Chapter 6. Freeman’s Tip Five and Conclusion

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

2. Being a British Colonist

Professor Freeman discusses what it meant to be a British colonist in America in the eighteenth century. She explains how American colonists had deep bonds of tradition and culture with Great Britain. She argues that, as British colonists with a strong sense of their British liberties, settlers in America valued their liberties above all else. She also explains that many Americans had a sense of inferiority when they compared their colonial lifestyles to the sophistication of Europe. Professor Freeman discusses the social order in America during the eighteenth century, and suggests that the lack of an entrenched aristocracy made social rank more fluid in America than in Europe. She ends the lecture by suggesting that the great importance that American colonists placed on British liberties and their link with Britain helped pave the way for the Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:02 – Chapter 2. Association of Colonists’ Identity to English Monarchy
11:51 – Chapter 3. The British Colonists’ Inferiority Complex
20:34 – Chapter 4. The Fluidity of American Social Order: Gentry Minorities, Prisoners, and Religious Exiles
35:02 – Chapter 5. Salutary Neglect’s Effect on British Liberties in the Colonies and Conclusion 

3. Being a British American

 

Professor Freeman discusses the differences between society in the American colonies and society in Britain in the eighteenth century. She uses examples from colonists’ writings to show that the American colonies differed from British society in three distinct ways: the distinctive character of the people who migrated to the colonies; the distinctive conditions of life in British America; and the nature of British colonial administration.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:30 – Chapter 2. From Dr. Hamilton’s Diary: Religiosity, Diversity, and Coloniality
11:56 – Chapter 3. Risk-takers, Landowners, Voters: Life in British America
17:31 – Chapter 4. Door Persuasions and Middling Society
23:33 – Chapter 5. Free Will and Spiritual Equality: The Impact of the Great Awakening
32:13 – Chapter 6. The Power of Colonial Legislatures and the British-American Identity  

4. “Ever at Variance and Foolishly Jealous”: Intercolonial Relations

 

Professor Freeman discusses colonial attempts to unite before the 1760s and the ways in which regional distrust and localism complicated matters. American colonists joined together in union three times before the 1760s. Two of these attempts were inspired by the necessity of self-defense; the third attempt was instigated by the British as a means of asserting British control over the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:52 – Chapter 2. Intercolonial Opinions: Notes from Jefferson, Washington, and Adams
11:44 – Chapter 3. Colony Types, and Differences between New England and Middle Colonies
23:58 – Chapter 4. Education and Social Culture in the Southern Colonies
30:43 – Chapter 5. Dutch Expansion and the English Dominion: The First Two Unions
36:30 – Chapter 6. The French and Indian Threats: The Third Colonial Union  

5. Outraged Colonials: The Stamp Act Crisis 

 

Professor Freeman concludes her discussion (from the previous lecture) of the three early instances in which the American colonies joined together to form a union. She then turns to a discussion of the Stamp Act crisis, and how American colonists found a shared bond through their dissatisfaction with the Stamp Act. Faced with massive national debts incurred by the recent war with France, Prime Minister George Grenville instituted several new taxes to generate revenue for Britain and its empire. The colonists saw these taxes as signaling a change in colonial policy, and thought their liberties and rights as British subjects were being abused. These feelings heightened with the Stamp Act of 1765. Finding a shared cause in their protestations against these new British acts, Americans set the foundation for future collaboration between the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Albany Congress of 1754
09:32 – Chapter 2. British Budget Post-French and Indian War, and the Sugar Act
22:24 – Chapter 3. Colonial Responses to the Early Acts, and the Stamp Act
30:49 – Chapter 4. Limited Liberties in Virtual Representation and the Stamp Act
36:02 – Chapter 5. Patrick Henry on the Stamp Act and Conclusion

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Spring 2010  

6. Resistance or Rebellion? (Or, What the Heck is Happening in Boston?)

 

Professor Freeman discusses the mounting tensions between the colonists and the British in the late 1760s and early 1770s. The Virginia Resolves were published and read throughout the colonies in 1765, and generated discussion about colonial rights and liberties. Colonies began working together to resolve their problems, and formed the Stamp Act Congress in 1765. Meanwhile, Boston was becoming more radicalized and mobs began acting out their frustration with British policies. Colonists began to believe that the British were conspiring to oppress their liberties, a belief that seemed to be confirmed when the British stationed troops in Boston. The mounting tension between the Bostonians and British troops culminated in the violence of the Boston Massacre in March 1770.

00:00 – Chapter 1. The Circulation of the Virginia Resolves
03:47 – Chapter 2. The Stamp Act Congress and Parliamentary Thoughts on the Stamp Act
10:11 – Chapter 3. Mob Protests by the Sons of Liberty
15:41 – Chapter 4. The Repeal of the Stamp Act and the Complications of the Declaratory Act
19:39 – Chapter 5. Reactions to the Townshend Acts and Samuel Adams’s Propaganda
31:48 – Chapter 6. Different Viewpoints on the Boston Massacre

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Spring 2010. 

7. Being a Revolutionary 

Professor Freeman continues her discussion of the Boston Massacre and how it represented a growing sense of alienation between the American colonists and the British authorities. The Americans and British both felt that the colonies were subordinate to Parliament in some way, but differed in their ideas of the exact nature of the imperial relationship. This period saw the formation of non-importation associations to discourage merchants from importing British goods, as well as committees of correspondence to coordinate resistance. One instance of such resistance occurred in December 1773, when Boston radicals who were frustrated with the Tea Act threw shipments of tea into Boston Harbor.

 Professor Freeman continues her discussion of the Boston Massacre and how it represented a growing sense of alienation between the American colonists and the British authorities. The Americans and British both felt that the colonies were subordinate to Parliament in some way, but differed in their ideas of the exact nature of the imperial relationship. This period saw the formation of non-importation associations to discourage merchants from importing British goods, as well as committees of correspondence to coordinate resistance. One instance of such resistance occurred in December 1773, when Boston radicals who were frustrated with the Tea Act threw shipments of tea into Boston Harbor.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Different Conceptions of Colonists’ Relationship to Britain
07:55 – Chapter 2. The Growth of Non-Importation Associations in the Colonies
19:05 – Chapter 3. Taxing as Display of British Supremacy: Parliament’s Reactions
26:34 – Chapter 4. The Impact of the Tea Tax and the Development of Committees of Correspondence
33:50 – Chapter 5. Colonial Interpretation of and Reactions to the Tea Act: The Boston Tea Party
43:09 – Chapter 6. British Dismantling of Colonial Governance and Conclusion  

8. The Logic of Resistance

Professor Freeman lays out the logic of American resistance to British imperial policy during the 1770s. Prime Minister Lord North imposed the Intolerable Acts on Massachusetts to punish the radicals for the Boston Tea Party, and hoped that the act would divide the colonies. Instead, the colonies rallied around Massachusetts because they were worried that the Intolerable Acts set a new threatening precedent in the imperial relationship. In response to this seeming threat, the colonists formed the First Continental Congress in 1774 to determine a joint course of action. The meeting of the First Continental Congress is important for four reasons: it forced the colonists to clarify and define their grievances with Britain; it helped to form ties between the colonies; it served as a training ground for young colonial politicians; and in British eyes, it symbolized a step towards rebellion. The lecture concludes with a look at the importance of historical lessons for the colonists, and how these lessons helped form a “logic of resistance” against the new measures that Parliament was imposing upon the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Logic of Resistance
03:23 – Chapter 2. North’s Intolerable Acts and Colonial Solidarity
11:28 – Chapter 3. The First Continental Congress
19:14 – Chapter 4. Jefferson’s Dinner Party and the Influence of Enlightenment Thought on the Colonists
27:24 – Chapter 5. Jefferson’s Reflection on Hamilton’s Favorite Hero
35:58 – Chapter 6. The Logic of Colonial Unity from the British Perspective
45:48 – Chapter 7. Edmund Burke’s Warning and Conclusion

9. Who Were the Loyalists?

The lecture first concludes the discussion of the First Continental Congress, which met in 1774. Ultimately, although its delegates represented a range of opinions, the voices of the political radicals in the Congress were the loudest. In October 1774, the Continental Congress passed both the radical Suffolk Resolves and the Declaration and Resolves, which laid out the colonists’ grievances with Parliament. The Congress also sent a petition to the King which warned him that the British Parliament was stripping the American colonists of their rights as English citizens. Given such radical measures, by early 1775, many American colonists were choosing sides in the growing conflict, and many chose to be Loyalists. Professor Freeman concludes her lecture with a discussion of the varied reasons why different Loyalists chose to support the British Crown, and what kinds of people tended to be Loyalists in the American Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Loyalists
01:32 – Chapter 2. Radical Voices in the First Continental Congress: the Grand Council and the Suffolk Resolves
17:23 – Chapter 3. Deliberations over Declaration and Resolves, and the Impact of the Continental Association
27:49 – Chapter 4. Taking Sides: The King’s Friends, or the Loyalists
37:53 – Chapter 5. Loyalist Demographics
44:46 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

10. Common Sense

 
This lecture focuses on the best-selling pamphlet of the American Revolution: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, discussing Paine’s life and the events that led him to write his pamphlet. Published in January of 1776, it condemned monarchy as a bad form of government, and urged the colonies to declare independence and establish their own form of republican government. Its incendiary language and simple format made it popular throughout the colonies, helping to radicalize many Americans and pushing them to seriously consider the idea of declaring independence from Britain.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Voting on Voting
01:40 – Chapter 2. On Paine’s Burial
05:52 – Chapter 3. Colonial Mindset during the Second Continental Congress
12:28 – Chapter 4. Serendipity and Passion: The Early Life of Thomas Paine
21:53 – Chapter 5. Major Arguments and Rhetorical Styles in Common Sense
33:45 – Chapter 6. Common Sense’s Popularity and Founders’ Reactions
39:16 – Chapter 7. Social Impact of the Pamphlet and Conclusion

 

11. Independence

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the Declaration of Independence and sets the document in its historical context. The Declaration was not the main focus of the Second Continental Congress, which was largely concerned with organizing the defensive war effort. The Congress had sent King George III the Olive Branch Petition in a last attempt at reconciliation in August 1775, but the King ignored the petition and declared the colonies to be in rebellion. Throughout the colonies, local communities began debating the issue of independence on their own, often at the instruction of their colonial legislatures, and these local declarations of independence contributed to the formal declaration of independence by the Continental Congress in July 1776. Professor Freeman concludes the lecture by describing the decision to have Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Independence
03:38 – Chapter 2. Organizing for War during the Second Continental Congress
10:46 – Chapter 3. King George III’s Response to the Olive Branch Petition and the Release of Common Sense
18:01 – Chapter 4. The General Populace’s Thoughts on Cries for Independence
28:35 – Chapter 5. Debates on Drafting a Formal Declaration of Independence
39:33 – Chapter 6. Editing the Declaration and Conclusion

12. Civil War

Professor Freeman concludes the discussion of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was widely circulated and read aloud throughout the colonies. Professor Freeman argues that by 1775-1776, British and American citizens were operating under different assumptions about how the conflict between them could be resolved. The American colonists began to organize themselves for defensive measures against an aggressive British state. Meanwhile, the British assumed that the rebels were a minority group, and if they could suppress this radical minority through an impressive display of force, the rest of the colonists would submit to their governance again. Spring of 1775 saw the beginnings of military conflict between the British army and colonial militias, with fighting at Lexington, Concord, and Breed’s Hill. As a result, the colonists began to seriously consider the need for independence, and the Continental Congress began the process of organizing a war.

00:00 – Chapter 1. The Editing Process of the Declaration of Independence
04:26 – Chapter 2. Short Cheers for Independence, Looming Plans for War
10:16 – Chapter 3. British Thoughts on Colonial Radicalism and Plans for Display of Force
19:19 – Chapter 4. The Symbolic Battle at Salem
25:07 – Chapter 5. The Conciliatory Resolution and Gunshots at Lexington and Concord
35:23 – Chapter 6. Changing British and Americans Opinions at Breed’s Hill
41:42 – Chapter 7. Congress’s Efforts to Organize War Efforts and Conclusion

 

13. Organizing a War

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses four difficulties that the Continental Congress faced in organizing the colonial war effort: regionalism, localism, the supply shortage that the Continental Army faced in providing for its troops, and the Continental Congress’s inexperience in organizing an army. The lecture concludes with a discussion of a Connecticut newspaper from July 1776.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Organizing a War
02:54 – Chapter 2. Regionalism in Leadership and Military Makeup: The Promotion of George Washington
21:50 – Chapter 3. Localism and Supply Shortages: Issues in Fighting for a National Cause and in Fighting with Proper Equipment
29:31 – Chapter 4. Continental Congress’s Inexperience in Organizing an Army
42:31 – Chapter 5. Snapshot of Early Communication in the States: The Connecticut Courant

14. Heroes and Villains 

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses Benedict Arnold as a case study of the ways in which ideas about regionalism, social rank, and gender – and the realities of the Continental Congress and the Continental Army – played out in this period. Like many Americans during this period, Benedict Arnold thought that he could improve his social rank and reputation in the military, but he was unable to advance due to the Continental Congress’s policy on military promotions. Frustrated and facing mounting personal debts, he decided to aid the British in exchange for a reward. Arnold and his wife Peggy developed a plan for Arnold to smuggle American military plans to the British with the help of a young British soldier named John André. However, André was captured while smuggling Arnold’s papers and the plot quickly unraveled. In the end, Arnold fled; his wife played upon conventional stereotypes of women to avoid punishment; and André was executed but idealized in the process.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Complications within the Continental Congress
06:48 – Chapter 2. Opportunities for Social Mobility in the American Revolution
14:20 – Chapter 3. Benedict Arnold’s Early Frustrating Military Career
23:36 – Chapter 4. Arnold’s Marriage with Peggy Shippen and Plans for Spying
37:39 – Chapter 5. The Unraveling of Arnold’s Plot
44:17 – Chapter 6. An Example out of John Andre and the Fate of the Arnolds

 15. Citizens and Choices: Experiencing the Revolution in New Haven

To show how Americans experienced the war and made difficult choices, Professor Freeman offers a spur-of-the-moment lecture on New Haven during the Revolution, discussing how Yale College students and New Haven townspeople gradually became caught up in the war. Warfare finally came to New Haven in July 1779 when the British army invaded the town. Professor Freeman draws on first-hand accounts to provide a narrative of the invasion of New Haven.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Revolution in New Haven
06:16 – Chapter 2. Yale College as the Seedbed of Political Protest and its Relation with the New Haven Community
17:18 – Chapter 3. Diversity of Colonial Opinions at Yale and the Formation of New Haven Military Units
26:05 – Chapter 4. British Landing in New Haven and Yale’s Call to Arms
41:08 – Chapter 5. The Influence of the Revolution on Citizenship and Leadership in the Common Person

 

16. The Importance of George Washington

This lecture focuses on George Washington and the combined qualities that made him a key figure in Revolutionary America, arguing that the most crucial reason for his success as a national leader was that he proved repeatedly that he could be trusted with power – a vital quality in a nation fearful of the collapse of republican governance at the hands of a tyrant.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Importance of George Washington
03:36 – Chapter 2. The Many Merits of Washington from the Letters of Hamilton and Adams
15:42 – Chapter 3. Ingredients of the Washington Phenomenon: Self-Presentation, Fortune, and the Need for a King
25:07 – Chapter 4. Balancing Solemnity with Humility: Washington as the Reluctant Leader
30:13 – Chapter 5. Washington’s Symbolic Gestures as Commander-in-Chief of a Republican Army
43:08 – Chapter 6. Washington’s Legacy as a Leader

 

17. The Logic of a Campaign (or, How in the World Did We Win?)

In this lecture, Professor Freeman explains the logic behind American and British military strategy during the early phases of the Revolution. First, she discusses the logistic disadvantages of the British during the war: the difficulties shipping men and supplies from more than three thousand miles away; the vast expanse of countryside with no one central target to attack; difficulties in recruiting British soldiers to fight in America; and the fact that the British faced a citizen army comprised of highly motivated soldiers who didn’t act in predictable ways. In addition, the British consistently underestimated the revolutionaries in America, and overestimated Loyalist support. Professor Freeman also discusses the four main phases of the Revolutionary War, differentiated by shifts in British strategy. During the earliest phase of the war, the British thought that a show of military force would quickly lead to reconciliation with the colonists. During the second phase, the British resolved to seize a major city – New York – in the hope that isolating New England from the rest of the colonies would end hostilities. By 1777, the war had entered its third phase, and the British set their sights on seizing Philadelphia and defeating George Washington. This phase ended with the Battle of Saratoga in late 1777.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
04:14 – Chapter 2. British Disadvantages in the War
10:39 – Chapter 3. British Assumptions of Citizen Armies and Loyalists
18:45 – Chapter 4. The First Phase: British Displays of Force
29:31 – Chapter 5. The Second Phase: Capturing New York
41:42 – Chapter 6. Third Phase: Defeating Washington and the Battle at Saratoga

18. Fighting the Revolution: The Big Picture

Today’s lecture concludes Professor Freeman’s discussion of the four phases of the Revolutionary War. America’s victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 marked the end of the third phase of the war, and led to a turning point in the conflict: France’s decision to recognize American independence and enter into an alliance with the fledging nation. Although the British made one final attempt at reconciliation in 1778 with the Conciliatory Propositions, they were rejected by the Continental Congress. The fourth and final phase of the war lasted from 1779 to 1781, as the British Army focused its attention on the American South. The British seized Charleston and South Carolina, and defeated the Continental Army in a series of battles. But with the help of the French fleet, Washington was able to defeat Cornwallis’s army at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. Peace negotiations to end the Revolutionary War began in Paris in June of 1782.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Revolution was Not Inevitable
04:46 – Chapter 2. Summary of the First Three Phases of the War
12:13 – Chapter 3. Franklin in Paris and France’s Recognition of America
21:20 – Chapter 4. The British Conciliatory Propositions and their Rejection
25:09 – Chapter 5. The Final Phase: Valley Forge and the American South
39:04 – Chapter 6. The French Impact on the War and Peace Negotiations in Paris
45:08 – Chapter 7. Victory, Independence, and Uncertainty

 

19. War and Society

 

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the experiences of African Americans, women, and Native Americans during the Revolution, framing her discussion within a larger historical debate over whether or not the Revolution was “radical.” Freeman ultimately concludes that while white American males improved their position in society as a result of the Revolution, women, African Americans, and Native Americans did not benefit in the same ways.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: War and Society
01:53 – Chapter 2. How Radical was the Revolution?
08:52 – Chapter 3. African Americans during the American Revolution: Issues on Fighting and Slavery
24:02 – Chapter 4. The Extent of Inclusion of Women in the Political Community
34:24 – Chapter 5. Native Americans’ Relations with the British and the Americans
41:34 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

 

20. Confederation

This lecture discusses the ongoing political experimentation involved in creating new constitutions for the new American states. Having declared independence from Great Britain, Americans had to determine what kind of government best suited their individual states as well as the nation at large; to many, this was the “whole object” of their revolutionary turmoil. Different people had different ideas about what kind of republican government would work best for their state. Should there be a unicameral or a bicameral legislature? How should political representation be organized and effected? How far should the principle of popular sovereignty be taken?

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Confederation
03:13 – Chapter 2. An Atmosphere of Experimentation with Governance
07:47 – Chapter 3. Congressional Encouragement of New State Constitutions
13:38 – Chapter 4. Adams’s Thoughts on Government: Support for Bicameral Legislature
20:12 – Chapter 5. Core Tenets and Ideas in the State Constitutions
32:30 – Chapter 6. The Development of the Articles of Confederation
41:31 – Chapter 7. Conclusion

21. A Union Without Power

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the Articles of Confederation. Although they seem hopelessly weak in the long view of history, the Articles made perfect sense as a first stab at a national government by a people who deeply distrusted centralized power – a direct product of their recent experience of the British monarchy. Among the many issues that complicated the drafting of the Articles, three central issues included: how war debts to European nations would be divided among the states; whether western territories should be sold by the national government to pay for those debts; and how large and small states would compromise on representation. When a series of events – like Shays’ Rebellion – highlighted the weaknesses of the Articles, some Americans felt ready to consider a stronger national government.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: A Union Without Power
02:12 – Chapter 2. Representation, Taxation, Western Lands: Debates on the Articles of Confederation
10:03 – Chapter 3. The Immediate Effects of the Articles
17:15 – Chapter 4. Frail Foreign Relations, Weak Congress, Splitting States: Weaknesses in the Confederation in the 1780s
30:40 – Chapter 5. Shays’ Rebellion and Newbough Conspiracy: Their Impacts on Thoughts for a Stronger, National Government
40:02 – Chapter 6. How Can the States be United? Debates on the National Constitution

22. The Road to a Constitutional Convention

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses how the new nation moved towards creating a stronger, more centralized national government than the Articles of Confederation. Complications of commerce between individual states – a factor that wasn’t regulated by the Articles – led to a series of interstate gatherings, like the Mount Vernon Conference of March 1785. Some strong nationalists saw these meetings as an ideal opportunity to push towards revising the Articles of Confederation. Professor Freeman ends with a discussion of James Madison’s preparations for the Federal Convention, and the importance of his notes in understanding the process by which delegates drafted a new Constitution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Road to the Constitutional Convention
06:07 – Chapter 2. Complications of Interstate Commerce and the Mount Vernon Conference
13:11 – Chapter 3. Nationalist Hopes to the Revise the Articles of Confederation
23:29 – Chapter 4. Madison’s Historical Analyses of Republics and the Results of the Annapolis Convention
37:27 – Chapter 5. Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention

 

23. Creating a Constitution

Professor Freeman discusses the national debate over the proposed Constitution, arguing that in many ways, when Americans debated its ratification, they were debating the consequences and meaning of the Revolution. Some feared that a stronger, more centralized government would trample on the rights and liberties that had been won through warfare, pushing the new nation back into tyranny, monarchy, or aristocracy. The Federalist essays represented one particularly ambitious attempt to quash Anti-Federalist criticism of the Constitution. In the end, the Anti-Federalists did have one significant victory, securing a Bill of Rights to be added after the new Constitution had been ratified by the states.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Constitution was Not Inevitable
08:48 – Chapter 2. State Fears of Monarchy: Attendees of the Constitutional Convention
22:24 – Chapter 3. Initial Plans to Revise the Articles and Madison’s Virginia Plan
29:11 – Chapter 4. The New Jersey Plan and Hamilton’s Praise of British Governance
34:56 – Chapter 5. Debates on State Representation, Slavery, and the Executive Branch
44:44 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

24. Creating a Nation

Professor Freeman discusses the national debate over the proposed Constitution, arguing that in many ways, when Americans debated its ratification, they were debating the consequences and meaning of the Revolution. Some feared that a stronger, more centralized government would trample on the rights and liberties that had been won through warfare, pushing the new nation back into tyranny, monarchy, or aristocracy. The Federalist essays represented one particularly ambitious attempt to quash Anti-Federalist criticism of the Constitution. In the end, the Anti-Federalists did have one significant victory, securing a Bill of Rights to be added after the new Constitution had been ratified by the states.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Creating a Nation
02:53 – Chapter 2. Difficulties in Ratifying the Constitution: Exchanges between Jefferson and Madison, and Ezra Stiles’s Diary
14:20 – Chapter 3. Debates on Balance of Power between Anti-Federalists and Federalists
22:32 – Chapter 4. In Defense of the Constitution: The Federalist Essays
28:54 – Chapter 5. The Anti-Federalists’ Push for Bill of Rights
36:04 – Chapter 6. General Consensus on Experimenting with Republican Government and Conclusion

 

25. Being an American: The Legacy of the Revolution

Professor Freeman discusses when we can consider a revolution to have ended, arguing that a revolution is finally complete when a new political regime gains general acceptance throughout society – and that, for this reason, it is the American citizenry who truly decided the fate and trajectory of the American Revolution. Yet, in deciding the meaning of the Revolution, the evolving popular memory of its meaning counts as well. Founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams frequently told younger Americans not to revere the Revolution and its leaders as demigods, insisting that future generations were just as capable, if not more so, of continuing and improving America’s experiment in government. Professor Freeman concludes the lecture by suggesting that the ultimate lesson of the American Revolution is that America’s experiment in government was supposed to be an ongoing process; that the Revolution taught Americans that their political opinions and actions mattered a great deal – and that they still do.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The End of the Revolution
02:21 – Chapter 2. Change and Acceptance of Revolutionary Principles between the 1770s and 1790s
15:00 – Chapter 3. Gauging Change in Public Opinion and Acceptance of New Governance: Eyewitness Accounts
24:29 – Chapter 4. Reconstructing and Remembering the American Revolution: The Founders’ Reflections
39:27 – Chapter 5. Revolution Runs in the People: A Conclusion

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The Hidden Faith Of The Founding Fathers–Deism and Freemasonry–Video

Posted on June 8, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, European History, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Our Founding Fathers

“The Founding Fathers were of many different faiths.  Some were Christian and others were Deists.  The fact remains that they created a secular Constitution that respects all religions and guarantees the right not to hold a religious belief.” 

America the Deist Nation

Washington the Freemason (1/2) 

Washington the Freemason (2/2) 

Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers

“…The real questions are: What did the founders believe about Jesus Christ?  Christianity begins with faith in the Person of Christ Himself: what did the founders think of Him?  What did they think of the Gospel?  Were they fighting for Christianity, or against it?
1) The faith of Thomas Paine — the man who inspired the American Revolution, and the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  This film shows how Paine’s influence over the Revolution was critical, while his anti-Christian writings revealed much of what the other founders truly believed.
2) The faith of Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson said the Book of Revelation was “the ravings of a maniac” and that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were full of “imposture” and “stupidity.”  After his private papers were published, he was called “the reviler of Christ” by a leading clergyman.
3) The faith of Benjamin Franklin — the only man to sign all of the original founding documents.  Franklin was part of a radical occult group known as “The Hellfire Club” in England that took part in satanic rituals, which may have included human sacrifice.  Shortly before he died, he openly stated that he did not believe the Gospel.
4) The faith of John Adams — the second President of the United States.  The evidence shows that Adams was no Christian at all, but rather exalted pagan beliefs about God, while abhorring the Gospel, calling it an “awful blasphemy.”
5) The faith of George Washington — known as “the Father of our country.”  Three of Washington’s own pastors doubted his faith in Christ.  Proof is shown that he went to war, not for Christianity, but for a “universal” system that would embrace all religions.  When compelled by the clergy to confess his faith in Christ, Washington refused.
6) Washington & the Jesuits:  Generally unknown is the role of Rome and the Jesuit Order in the American Revolution.  Powerful historic evidence shows that George Washington worked with Jesuits to prevail against their common enemy, England.  This information is ground-breaking and documented beyond any doubt.
7) Bartonian History: we confront David Barton’s fabled view of American history, giving examples (including his appearance on the Glenn Beck program) of how he misquotes the founders to make it appear as if they supported Christianity, when it is provable that they did not.
8) The Question of Freemasonry: Also included is an expose of David Barton’s book on the role of Freemasonry, contending on key points against his assertion that Masonry played no significant role in the founding of the country.
9) Biblical World View: Confronts the idea often suggested that the founders were “deists,” or “agnostics” — whereas, according to the Bible, they were antichrists.”

Is America A Christian Nation (In touch Ministries)

David Barton – Liberty University Convocation

America’s Founding Fathers: Deist or Christian? – by David Barton 

 Background Articles and Videos

Deism

Deism FAQ: God and the Natural Universe

Deism: There Is No Hero Coming 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 4 of 5

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 5of 5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan Democrats For Ron Paul–Vote For Ron Paul and Restore The Constitution and The Republic!–A Time For Choosing–Videos

Posted on March 6, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of it’s attainment. And the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity.”

 ~George Washington

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

~James Madison

President Eisenhower – Farewell Warning

John F. Kennedy’s most memorable speech’s highlights+transcript/subtitles

Reagan – A Time For Choosing 

Ron Paul Incredible Video Twice Removed  YouTube

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

~George Washington

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

~Abraham Lincoln

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

~John F. Kennedy

Background Articles and Videos

Eisenhower Farewell Address (Full) 

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address

delivered 17 January 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other — Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling — on my part — of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations — past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament — of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that — in that — in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources — scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

The Entire John F Kennedy ‘Secret Society’ Speech Uncut with Subtitles and Transcript

John F. Kennedy

Address to the American Newspaper Publishers

delivered 27 April 1961, Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and a article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of five dollars per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution, and the Cold War.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had — had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I — I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal from a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as a title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called “one party press.” On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20 million Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent, and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm. On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one — of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask — But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared, and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery, or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible, and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said — and your newspapers have constantly said — that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of national security?” And I hope that every group in America — unions and businessmen and public officials at every level — will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation — an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people — to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well — the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support an Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error doesn’t not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.

It was early in the 17th Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder, and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfknewspaperpublishers.htm

“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan 

Ronald Reagan

A Time for Choosing (aka “The Speech”)

Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA

Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming — that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how — who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now — so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things — we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees — federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died — because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men — that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy — and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm

Ron Paul Highlights at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (Family Leader Debate)

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Warmongers and Welfare Statists United In Defense of The Warfare & Welfare Economy and Tyrannical Bureaucracy vs. Peace & Prosperity Economy and Constitutional Republic

Posted on June 23, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. “

~George Washington

 

President Obama Afghanistan Withdrawal Speech (June 22, 2011)

 

Ron Paul: Bring ALL the troops home ABC 6/22/2011

 

Ron Paul: Is War Ever Justifiable?

 

Senators McCain & Kerry Move To Extend War In Libya For A Year!

 

“I Believe The President Did The Right Thing By Intervening In Libya!” Senator John McCain

 

“We Didn’t Choose This Fight! It Started With 9/11” John Kerry On Why We Must Fight Gaddafi pt.1

 

“We Didn’t Choose This Fight! It Started With 9/11” John Kerry On Why We Must Fight Gaddafi pt.2

 

We Can No longer Afford To Rebuild Afghanistan & America! We Must Choose & I Choose America! pt.1

 

We Can No longer Afford To Rebuild Afghanistan & America! We Must Choose & I Choose America! pt.2

 

Milton Friedman – Emergence of the modern welfare state

Responsibility to the Poor

 

Ron Paul: Leave Libya Alone!

 

Ron Paul’s Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008

 

Ron Paul warns of 9/11 like event in 1998 – RP2012

 

Ron Paul: It’s Time to Get out of Afghanistan!

 

Ron Paul – Current Conditions Or Just A Bad Dream ?

 

Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

 

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex

 

Military Industrial Complex Totally Out of Control!

 

Founding Fathers: The Threat of Tyranny

 

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

 

 “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”

~Thomas Jefferson

The progressive government interventionists of both the Democratic and Republican parties are uniting in defense of the warfare and welfare economy and tyrannical bureaucracy.

Their goals are clear–perpetual never-ending war and cradle to grave welfare dependency on the state.

The American people oppose the warfare and welfare economy.

The American people want a peace and prosperity economy.

The American people want the troops to brought home.

The American people want the Federal Government to live  within its means of the American people  by permanently closing Federal Department including the following:

  1. Department of Agriculture
  2. Department of Commerce
  3. Department of Education
  4. Department of Energy
  5. Department of Housing and Urban Development
  6. Department of Homeland Security
  7. Department of Labor
  8. Department of Interior
  9. Department of Transportation
  10. Department of Veteran Affairs

 

 Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

 

Paul & Stossel: Libertarians Talk

 

Ron Paul: Get Gov’t Out of Healthcare

 

Ron Paul on Constitutional Freedoms

 

 

Ron Paul on Freedom of Choice

 

Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration

  

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 1/4)

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 2/4)

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 3/4)

 

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 4/4)

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

Posted on June 18, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Farming, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

“The good Education of Youth has been esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths. Almost all Governments have therefore made it a principal Object of their Attention, to establish and endow with proper Revenues, such Seminaries of Learning, as might supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country. ”

~Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania, 1749

 

Glenn Beck-06/18/10-A 

Glenn Beck-06/18/10-B

Glenn Beck-06/18/10-C

Glenn Beck-06/18/10-D

 

“Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you… From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.”

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

Background Articles and Videos

  

America’s Prophet

 Who’s more American, Moses or Jesus?

The Council of Dads by Bruce Feiler

Bruce Feiler Reads “The Council of Dads”

TEDxEast – Bruce Feiler – 05/07/10

Celebration of Life Keynote Address by Bruce Feiler – Part 1

Celebration of Life Keynote Address by Bruce Feiler – Part 2

Celebration of Life Keynote Address by Bruce Feiler – Part 3

Walking the Bible – PBS

 

Bruce Feiler

 

 

Bruce Feiler: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths 

 

Bruce Feiler 

“…Bruce Feiler (born October 25, 1964) is a popular American writer on faith, family, and finding meaning in everyday life. He is the best-selling author of nine books, including Walking the Bible, Abraham, and America’s Prophet, and one of only a handful of writers to have four consecutive New York Times nonfiction best-sellers in the last decade. He is also the writer/presenter of the PBS miniseries Walking the Bible.[1]

His latest book, The Council of Dads: My Daughters, My Illness, and the Men Who Could Be Me, describes how he responded to a diagnosis of cancer by asking six men from all passages of his life to be present through the passages of his young daughters’ lives.

Feiler is credited with formulating the Feiler Faster Thesis[2]: the increasing pace of society and journalists’ ability to report it is matched by the public’s desire for more information.

He has written for numerous publications including The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, and Gourmet magazine[3], where he won three James Beard Awards.[4] He is also a frequent contributor to National Public Radio, CNN, and Fox News. Feiler was the guest on the November 2, 2005 episode of Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report.[5]

A native of Savannah, Georgia, Feiler lives in New York with his wife, Linda Rottenberg, and their twin daughters. Rottenberg, who frequently appears in his books, is co-founder and CEO of Endeavor, a nonprofit that supports High-Impact Entrepreneurs.

Feiler completed his undergraduate degree at Yale University where he was a member of Ezra Stiles College, before spending time teaching English in Japan as part of the JET Program. This experience led to his first book, Learning to Bow: Inside the Heart of Japan, a popular portrait of life in a small Japanese town. Upon his return he earned a masters degree in international relations from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, which he chronicled in his book Looking for Class. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Feiler

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Glenn Beck On James Madison–The Father Of The United States Constitution–Videos

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Posted on June 5, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Religion, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Glenn Beck-06/04/10-A-“Founders Friday, Benjamin Franklin”

 

Glenn Beck-06/04/10-B-“Founders Friday, Benjamin Franklin”

 

Glenn Beck-06/04/10-C-“Founders Friday, Benjamin Franklin”

 

Glenn Beck-06/04/10-D-“Founders Friday, Benjamin Franklin” 

Background Articles and Videos

I Have Looked for Our Rights

 

John Adams vs. Ben Franklin

John Adams vs. Ben Franklin

Walter Isaacson: “Benjamin Franklin: An American Life”

Quotes From Benjamin Franklin, part 1

Quotes From Benjamin Franklin, part 2

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705[1]] – April 17, 1790) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier,[2] and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. He invented the lightning rod, bifocals, the Franklin stove, a carriage odometer, and the glass ‘armonica’. He formed both the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Pennsylvania. He was an early proponent of colonial unity, and as a political writer and activist, he supported the idea of an American nation.[3] As a diplomat during the American Revolution, he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence of the United States possible.

Franklin is credited as being foundational to the roots of American values and character, a marriage of the practical and democratic Puritan values of thrift, hard work, education, community spirit, self-governing institutions, and opposition to authoritarianism both political and religious, with the scientific and tolerant values of the Enlightenment. In the words of Henry Steele Commager, “In Franklin could be merged the virtues of Puritanism without its defects, the illumination of the Enlightenment without its heat.”[4] To Walter Isaacson, this makes Franklin, “the most accomplished American of his age and the most influential in inventing the type of society America would become.”[5]

Franklin became a newspaper editor, printer, and merchant in Philadelphia, becoming very wealthy writing and publishing Poor Richard’s Almanack and The Pennsylvania Gazette. Franklin was interested in science and technology, and gained international renown for his famous experiments. He played a major role in establishing the University of Pennsylvania and was elected the first president of the American Philosophical Society. Franklin became a national hero in America when he spearheaded the effort to have Parliament repeal the unpopular Stamp Act. An accomplished diplomat, he was widely admired among the French as American minister to Paris and was a major figure in the development of positive Franco-American relations. From 1775 to 1776, Franklin was the Postmaster General under the Continental Congress and from 1785 to 1788, the President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. Toward the end of his life, he became one of the most prominent abolitionists.

His colorful life and legacy of scientific and political achievement, and status as one of America’s most influential Founding Fathers, have seen Franklin honored on coinage and money; warships; the names of many towns, counties, educational institutions, namesakes, and companies; and more than two centuries after his death, countless cultural references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Joseph J. Ellis–His Excellence: George Washinton–Videos

Posted on April 3, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Science, Security, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

~George Washington

 

“The men shedding most of the blood at Valley Forge, and throughout the remaining years of the war came from the lowest rung of American society. “When men are irritated, and the Passions inflame,” Washington observed somewhat caustically, “they fly hastily and chearfully to Arms.” Those exuberant days of popular enthusiasm for the war were now gone forever, as were the enlistments by yeoman farmers and men of “the middling sort” who had manned the barricase during the Boston siege. Their place in the ranks of the Continental army were now filled by indentured servants, former slaves, landless sons, and recent immigrants from Ireland and England. These were the young men, usually between fifteen and twenty-five years of age, who lived in the makeshift log huts at Valley Forge and singed on “for the duration” of the war because, in most cases. they had no brighter prospects.”

~Jospeh J. Ellis, His Excellence: George Washinton, page 113″

 

 

The American Revolutionary War

The American Revolutionary War

 President George Washington – The Greatest Man in the World

 

The Battle of Trenton

Favorite part of The Crossing

John Adams – President Washington – VP John Adams

Alexander Hamilton on a National Bank

The Founders and Us

 

Joseph Ellis on Exporting Democracy

An excellent biography of George Washington is Ellis’ His Excellency: George Washington with extensive notes for further readings on Washington, the Founding Fathers and the American Revolutionary War.

“…Unlike Julius Casear and Oliver Cromwell before him, and Napoleaon, Lenin, and Mao after him, he understood that the greater glory resided in posterity’s judgment. If you aspire to live forever in the memory of future generations, you must demostrate the ultimate self-confidence to leave the final judgement to them. And he did.” 

~Jospeh J. Ellis, His Excellence: George Washinton, page 275″ 

“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”

 ~George Washinton

Background Articles and Videos

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Washington Minus the Myth: Ubiquitous but Remote

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

Published: October 26, 2004

“…Mr. Ellis concludes that for Washington, ”the American Revolution was not about destroying political power, as it was for Jefferson, but rather seizing it and using it wisely.” His life, in the end, ”was all about power: facing it, taming it, channeling it, projecting it.” This assessment places Washington in the forefront of the realistic tradition in American public policy; he believed that nations would always behave solely on the basis of self-interest and that ideals on their own must never define a government’s or military’s agenda.

Such arguments are not exactly new but grow out of other biographers’ and scholars’ writings. Unlike Mr. Ellis’s book on Adams, which did much to resurrect that founding father’s reputation, this volume does not break much new ground, but it nonetheless provides a lucid, often shrewd take on the man Mr. Ellis calls the ”primus inter pares, the Foundingest Father of them all.” And it does so with admirable grace and wit.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E6DC173DF935A15753C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

 The Human Washington

By FORREST MCDONALD

“…IN a historical profession that is scornful of what it calls dead white males, Joseph J. Ellis has emerged as an eloquent champion and brilliant practitioner of the old-fashioned art of biography. He concentrates mainly upon the founders of the American republic, and while those who have particular favorites among the founders may cavil at his interpretations, Ellis has a gift for getting inside the skins of his subjects and showing what made them tick.

Now he has taken on the greatest and most enigmatic founder. To describe George Washington as enigmatic may strike some as strange, for every young student knows about him (or did when students could be counted on to know anything). He was born into a minor family in Virginia’s plantation gentry, worked as a surveyor in the West as a young man, was a hero of sorts during the French and Indian War, became an extremely wealthy planter (after marrying a rich widow), served as commander in chief of the Continental Army throughout the Revolutionary War (including the terrible winter at Valley Forge), defeated the British at the Battle of Yorktown, suppressed a threatened mutiny by his officers at Newburgh, N.Y., then astonished the world and won its applause by laying down his sword in 1783. Called out of retirement, he presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787, reluctantly accepted the presidency in 1789 and served for two terms, thus assuring the success of the American experiment in self-government.

But as Ellis puts it, though Washington is ”an inescapable presence that hovered all around,” he ”remained a mysterious abstraction . . . like one of those Jeffersonian truths, self-evident and simply there . . . that no one needed to talk about.” He is ”always an icon — distant, cold, intimidating.” …”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E3D6123DF934A35752C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Joseph John Ellis

“…Joseph John Ellis (born 1943) is a Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College who has written influential and award-winning histories on the founding generation of American presidents. His book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (2000) received the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2001.

He received his B.A. from the College of William and Mary, where he was initiated into Theta Delta Chi. He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. from Yale University in 1969. He served in the United States Army and also taught at West Point until 1972.

That year Ellis joined the faculty at Mount Holyoke College. He is the former dean of faculty at Mount Holyoke and also served as Acting President for part of 1984 while President Elizabeth Topham Kennan was on leave.

Jefferson and Hemings

Main article: American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson

Ellis in his book American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson suggested that evidence for an affair between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was “inconclusive”.[1] Specifically, Ellis states in the appendix to American Sphinx,

Unless the trustees of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation decide to exhume the remains and do DNA testing on Jefferson as well as some of his alleged progeny, it leaves the matter a mystery about which advocates on either side can freely speculate… This means that for those who demand an answer the only recourse is plausible conjecture, prefaced as it must be with profuse statements about the flimsy and wholly circumstantial character of the evidence. In that spirit, which we might call the spirit of responsible speculation, after five years mulling over the huge cache of evidence that does exist on the thought and character of the historical Jefferson, I have concluded that the likelihood of a liaison with Sally Hemings is remote.[2]

On November 5, 1998, Dr. Eugene Foster published an article, “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child”, in the weekly journal Nature. Foster reported that DNA testing proved that a male from the Thomas Jefferson line was the father of Sally Hemings’s son Eston. Given that, he believed that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston and probably Hemings’ other children.[3]

On November 2, 1998, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer featured this topic and stated, “According to an article in an upcoming issue of the journal Nature, DNA analysis shows that Jefferson almost certainly fathered at least one of Sally Hemings’ children, her last son, Eston.”[4] Ellis, who was interviewed during this broadcast, stated that he had revised his opinion due to this new evidence:

It’s not so much a change of heart, but this is really new evidence. And it—prior to this evidence, I think it was a very difficult case to know and circumstantial on both sides, and, in part, because I got it wrong, I think I want to step forward and say this new evidence constitutes, well, evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that Jefferson had a longstanding sexual relationship with Sally Hemings.[5]  …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ellis

His Excellency: George Washington

“…His Excellency: George Washington is a 2004 biography of the first President of the United States, General George Washington. It is written by Joseph Ellis, a professor of History at Mount Holyoke College.

Through examination of the George Washington Papers, among other sources, Ellis indicates that his purpose in writing the text was to explore Washington’s periods in order to offer a profile of the man “first in War, first in Peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Indeed Ellis states that his goal in writing His Excellency was to produce a work that examined not George Washington’s life, but his personality and how his life shaped it.[1]

 Events and themes

In the text, Ellis focuses on three main areas of Washington’s life:

  • his military adventures during the French and Indian War
  • his generalship in the American Revolution
  • his time as the first President of the United States.

According to Ellis, Washington was always searching for a means to control his inner passions and his destiny. He fumed under the control that the British held over him during the Colonial America period. In particular, he was frustrated by the lack of respect offered for his military achievements to granting land claim rights in the west. As a general, he bemoaned the lack of control the fledgling Continental Congress had over the colonies which composed it (later as President, he created acts to ensure control of the federal government over the states).

As a man forced to make his own destiny, the theme of control would become a central issue for him. This was particularly true in the case of his beloved Mount Vernon.

 Chapters

  • Preface: The Man In The Moon
  • Chapter One: Interior Regions
  • Chapter Two: The Strenuous Squire
  • Chapter Three: First In War
  • Chapter Four: Destiny’s Child
  • Chapter Five: Introspective Interlude
  • Chapter Six: First In Peace
  • Chapter Seven: Testament

 Reviews

Gordon S. Wood of The New Republic commented that, “Everyone keeps wondering why over the past decade or so there have been so many books on the Founders, that remarkable generation of men who led the American Revolution and framed the Constitution. Joseph J. Ellis is surely one of the explanations: he has been a one-man historical machine…Ellis has entered the ranks of that tiny group of popular historians, including David McCullough, Walter Isaacson, and Ron Chernow, who sell copies of their books in the tens and even hundreds of thousands.” [2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Excellency:_George_Washington

How the founders differed from the English Bill of Rights

Why the US Rebelled Against England

Book Haul?

Jefferson’s best moments from John Adams

The Patriot – Battle of Guilford Courthouse

War and History, Ancient and Modern

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Peter Huber–The Bottomless Well–Videos

Donald Kagan–On The Origins Of War–Videos

George Lakoff–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Daniel Suarez–Daemon and Freedom TM–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Murry Rothbard–For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto–Audio Book

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Amity Shlaes–The Forgotten Man–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster–A Clear and Present Danger To The American People–President Barack Obama

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Declaration of Independence

Posted on December 22, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Economics, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , |

JOHN ADAMS-Declaration of Independence-Drafting in 1776

 

John Adams – God Save The American States

Declaration of Independence

The Meaning of Independence Day – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Ronald Reagan: First Inaugural Address

Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence.
The original spelling and capitalization have been retained.

Declaration of Independence

 

(Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776)

The Unanimous Declaration
of the Thirteen United States of America

// //

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

// //

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

 

Background Articles and Videos

15. Constitutional Government: Locke’s Second Treatise (1-5)

16. Constitutional Government: Locke’s Second Treatise (2-5)

17. Constitutional Government: Locke’s Second Treatise

18. Democracy and Participation: Rousseau’s Discourse

19. Democracy and Participation: Rousseau’s Discourse

20. Democracy and Participation: Rousseau’s Social Contract

United States Declaration of Independence

“…The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The birthday of the United States of America—Independence Day—is celebrated on July 4, the day the wording of the Declaration was approved by Congress.

After finalizing the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as a printed broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The most famous version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Although the wording of the Declaration was approved on July 4, the date of its actual signing is disputed by historians, most accepting a theory that it was signed nearly a month after its adoption, on August 2, 1776, and not on July 4 as is commonly believed.

The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, the text of the Declaration was initially ignored after the American Revolution. Its stature grew over the years, particularly the second sentence, a sweeping statement of human rights:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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.

This sentence has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language”[2] and “the most potent and consequential words in American history”.[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Value Added Tax or VAT–Plan B–If The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Bill Does Not Pass–Kill The VAT, Abolish The IRS–Stop Socialist Spending and Vote For The FairTax!

Posted on December 15, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

~Thomas Jefferson

UPDATED APRIL 7, 2010

What a VAT Means for the Economy

Charles Krauthammer (VAT coming soon)

VAT (Value Added Tax) Will be needed to pay for Health Care Reform

Volcker Calls For VAT, Energy Tax, Carbon Tax

Top White House Advisor Suggests Imposing VAT Tax

 

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid of the Obama Administrations Scary Trial Balloon

Pelosi Open To Raising Taxes On Everything (VAT) Including The Poor

The Vat Tax is coming

Watch out! Obama administration is looking to implement a Value Added Tax (VAT tax)

Beck on Oreilly: We need a VAT tax to fix the country

Dan Mitchell discusses the VAT (Value Added Tax)

The Value Added Tax: A Hidden New Tax to Finance Much Bigger Government 

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

Daniel J. Mitchell – USA: Drowning In Debt?

Rep. King hosts FairTax Special Order

Time for both Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly to get a clue about the Value Added Tax.

It is a bad idea.

The problem is government spending.

The solution is not another tax to “pay” for this spending.

The solution is to cut Federal Government spending by closing down and abolishing ten Federal Departments.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Then limit each year’s Federal Budget spending or expenditures including Social Security and Medicare payments to 90% of revenues collected from the previous year’s FairTax.

The remaining 10% would go to pay down the National Debt.

No more deficit spending.

No more bailouts.

No more stimulus packages.

No more subsidies.

No more tax returns.

The time has come for both The FairTax and Surplus Budgets.

This is fiscal responsibility or living within ones means.

Try to pass a value added tax in addition to the income tax and you will get a tax revolt from the American people that will make the Tea Parties look like a walk in the park.

Any politician who supports a value added tax will be voted out of office, Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or Independent!

Any talk radio or television host who supports a Valued Added Tax in addition to  Federal income, payroll, capital gains and estate and gift taxes will lose audience as his/her listeners and viewers turn them off.

Be forewarned, the Value Added Tax is a loser.

Just look at who is supporting this idea–the Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party.

These people recognize that their Cap and Trade Energy Tax is not going to pass and their backup plan for more tax revenues is the Value Added Tax.

Obama and the Democratic Party need the Value Added Tax to pay for all the additional Federal Government spending they want including bailouts, stimulus packages, political payoffs and subsidies for their political supporters.

If you are against the Cap and Trade Energy Tax you should be against the Value Added Tax.

If you are not, you are confused.

Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly get a clue!

Do your homework.

Memo To: American Talk Radio Show Hosts–United We Stand, Divided We Fall–The FairTax or Flat Tax–It Is Time!

Bill O’Reilly obviously did not do his homework or get the memo when he made this video:

What Bill thinks of the FAIR Tax

 

FairTax Prebate Explained

Charlie Rose Show: Fair Tax

 

I guess Bill missed the part about the FairTax prebates! 

Joe The Plumber did his homework and gets it.

Joe The Plumber on FairTax

It is about time several talk radio and television commentors do their homework as well!
Think of the Value Added Tax as a brand new credit card  with very high trillion dollar limits for the Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party to spend more of the American people’s money.

Throw the bums out.

Do not reward them with a new tax or credit card to steal money from the American people, their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Give me a break.

Enough is enough.

Replace all existing Federal taxes including Federal income, payroll, capital gains and estate and gift taxes with a national sales consumption tax–The FairTax.

The FairTax time has come!

Surplus Federal Budgets time has come.

Fiscal Responsibility time has come.

Limited Government time has come.

When they say to you it will never happen, start talking about the American Revolution.

Ronald Reagan – Curbing the Size of Government

Reagan on Taxes

Fair Tax

 

Pence on the Fair Tax

 

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

~Thomas Jefferson 

 

What is the FairTax?

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.2

The Fair Tax Explained Part 1 of 2

The Fair Tax Explained Part 2 of 2

 

The Fair Tax

Mike Huckabee – What is the “Fair Tax?”

Dave Ramsey on the Fair Tax

 

Lunch&Taxes HOWITWORKS

 

Lunch&Taxes HOWMUCH

Lunch&Taxes COLLECTED

Lunch&Taxes: LESS

Lunch&Taxes HER

Background Articles and Videos

24% Favor National Sales Tax, 65% Oppose

“…The New York Times reports that “economists across the political spectrum say a consumption tax may be inevitable once the economy fully recovers.”

One of the reasons cited by the newspaper is the lack of political will to cut spending, but implementing a national sales tax may be even more of a political challenge. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of voters favor a national sales tax. Sixty-five percent (65%) are opposed.

When the idea is paired with health care reform, it does a bit better. Thirty-nine percent (39%) support a national sales tax to pay for the cost of health care reform, but a majority (52%) still remains opposed.

A plurality, however, like the idea of replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax. Forty-four percent (44%) favor the idea, and 36% are opposed. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/december_2009/24_favor_national_sales_tax_65_oppose

Taxation is Theft – Stop Obama’s Tax Hikes

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1

 

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 2

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 3

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 4

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 5

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 6

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 7

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 8

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 9

Value Added Tax

“…Value added tax (VAT), or goods and services tax (GST), or income tax is a consumption tax (CT) levied on any value that is added to a product. In contrast to sales tax, VAT is neutral with respect to the number of passages that there are between the producer and the final consumer whereas sales tax is levied on total value at each stage (though in the U.S. and many other countries, sales tax is charged only at the point of final sale to the final consumer, and a use tax only to the final user; there are no sales taxes paid at wholesale or production level). The result is a cascade (downstream taxes levied on upstream taxes). A VAT is an indirect tax, in that the tax is collected from someone who does not bear the entire cost of the tax.

Maurice Lauré, Joint Director of the French Tax Authority, the Direction générale des impôts, was first to introduce VAT on April 10, 1954, although German industrialist Dr. Wilhelm von Siemens proposed the concept in 1918. Initially directed at large businesses, it was extended over time to include all business sectors. In France, it is the most important source of state finance, accounting for 52% of state revenues.[1]

Personal end-consumers of products and services cannot recover VAT on purchases, but businesses are able to recover VAT on the materials and services that they buy to make further supplies or services directly or indirectly sold to end-users. In this way, the total tax levied at each stage in the economic chain of supply is a constant fraction of the value added by a business to its products, and most of the cost of collecting the tax is borne by business, rather than by the state. VAT was invented because very high sales taxes and tariffs encourage cheating and smuggling. Critics point out that it disproportionately raises taxes on middle- and low-income homes. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax

FairTax.org

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

 

Fair Tax

http://linderfairtax.house.gov/

 

Related Post On Pronk Palisades

Memo To: American Talk Radio Show Hosts–United We Stand, Divided We Fall–The FairTax or Flat Tax–It Is Time!

Bailouts

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

The 12 Trillion–$12,000,000,000,000 Crime of The Century: The Decline and Fall of United States of America By Radical Socialist Spending–Look Before You Leap!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

Bailed Out Bank Trillion Dollar Derivative Exposure

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009!

 

Cap and Trade

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–A Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade Bill to be Voted in U.S. House on Friday–Kill The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Today! UPDATED

Green Government Gestapo Goons: Global Warming Police Force Invades Your Home And Living in Your Home May Be A Crime!

White House Memo: Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant and A Cap And Trade Program (Carbon Dioxide Tax) Serious Economic Impact –The Smoking Gun Video!

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Financial Crisis

The Coming Inflation and A New Money Supply Backed By Real Estate?–Free Enterprise To The Rescue?

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

The Financial Crime of The Century: William K. Black On Massive Mortgage Fraud –Videos

US Federal Government Fails Stress Test–Insolvent: Time Has Arrived For Downsizing–Departments and Subsidies To Be Eliminated!

Big Bad Bureaucratic Bust: Government Intervention in Housing Caused Financial Crisis and Economic Recession–Progressive Government Failure!

US Federal Government Fails Stress Test–Insolvent: Time Has Arrived For Downsizing–Departments and Subsidies To Be Eliminated!

Federal Government Extortion Of Sound Banks–You Decide?–Take This TARP and Shove It!

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

Barack Obama America’s Puppet President Pinocchio –The Transparent Lies–Ears and Nose Are Growing? 

 

Fiscal Policy

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously!

Barlett Boo Boos–Boortz Blasts Back

President Doom and Panic Obama’s Big Lie: More Government Spending Works and Tax Cuts Do Not Work

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Progressive Radical Socialist Revolutionaries Attack On Freedom of Speech and Free Enterprise–Whose Side Are You On?

Posted on October 29, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.”

“I am certain nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after the mirage of social justice. “

~Friedrich A. Hayek

 

General George Washington

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-A

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-B

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-C

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-D

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-E

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 1/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 2/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 3/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 4/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 5/5

 

 

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. “

~Thomas Jefferson

 

George Washington takes the Oath of Office (Inauguration)

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Charles Freaking Krauthammer OBLITERATES Barack Obama’s War on FOX News — WOW!!!

 

FOX News Panel — Barack Obama’s War On FOX News Rebuffed by Courageous Press

 

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1]

Despite being associated with left-wing politics, the term “progressive” has also been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name “progressivism” despite being considered centre-right, or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942-2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

 

Progressive Era

“…The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1]

Responding to the changes brought about by industrialization, [2] the Progressives advocated a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms.[3] Initially the movement was successful at local levels, and then it progressed to state and gradually national. Both the reformers and their opponents were predominantly members of the middle class.

In the Gilded Age (late 19th century) the parties were reluctant to involve the federal government too heavily in the private sector, except in the area of railroads and tariffs. In general, they accepted the concept of laissez-faire, a doctrine opposing government interference in the economy except to maintain law and order. This attitude started to change during the depression of the 1890s when small business, farm, and labor movements began asking the government to intercede on their behalf.[8]

By the turn of the century, a middle class had developed that was leery of both the business elite and the radical political movements of farmers and laborers in the Midwest and West. Known as Progressives, these people favored government regulation of business practices to, in their minds, ensure competition and free enterprise. Congress enacted a law regulating railroads in 1887 (the Interstate Commerce Act), and one preventing large firms from controlling a single industry in 1890 (the Sherman Antitrust Act). These laws were not rigorously enforced, however, until the years between 1900 and 1920, when Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909), Democratic President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), and others sympathetic to the views of the Progressives came to power. Many of today’s U.S. regulatory agencies were created during these years, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Muckrakers were journalists who encouraged readers to demand more regulation of business. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1906) showed America the horrors of the Chicago Union Stock Yards, a giant complex of meat processing that developed in the 1870s. The federal government responded to Sinclair’s book with the new regulatory Food and Drug Administration. Ida M. Tarbell wrote a series of articles against the Standard Oil monopoly. This affected both the government and the public reformers. The series helped pave the way for the breakup of the monopoly.[9]

When Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President with a Democratic Congress in 1912 he implemented a series of progressive policies. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and the income tax was instituted in the United States. Wilson resolved the longstanding debates over tariffs and antitrust, and created the Federal Reserve, a complex business-government partnership that to this day dominates the financial world.

In 1913, Henry Ford, adopted the moving assembly line, with each worker doing one simple task in the production of automobiles. Taking his cue from developments during the progressive era, Ford offered a very generous wage—$5 a day—to his workers, arguing that a mass production enterprise could not survive if average workers could not buy the goods. However, the wage increase did not extend to women, and Ford expanded the company’s Sociological Department to monitor his workers and ensure that they did not spend their new found bounty on “vice and cheap thrills.”[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

 

Obama: We are 5 days from FUNDAMENTALly transforming America

 

Mark Lloyd on the Future of Media from 2005

 

FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd discussing plans to shut down conservative media

 

Obama’s Czar Mark Lloyd’s FCC ‘Diversity’ Chief – His Take on Free Speech

 

The Power of Progress – John Podesta – HIGHLIGHTS

 

Lawrence Summers on Economic Crisis & Conservative Ideology

 

Support for OBAMA is PERSONAL

 

Obama Youth? Socialism? Truth Squad?

 

Buffy Wicks Introduces USAservice.org

 

glenn beck NEA links to Valerie Jarrett or whitehouse

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 1/4

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 2/4

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 3/4

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 4/4

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio

Network Neurtrality–FCC Julius Genachowski–Tim Wu–Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

Robert W. McChesney–Videos

Tim Wu–Videos

President Obama Lies Again On Sunday Shows–Breaks No New Tax Promise–Compulsory Health Insurance Is A Tax Increase–Cut The Weasel Words Mr. President!

Obama’s Mao Mao Mopsters Red Bucket Brigade aka Red Guards Spreading the Wealth Around

Obama’s Socialist Mopster Red Bucket Brigade for The Rockefeller and Soros Agenda of World Socialist Government–A New World Order!

Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party’s Propaganda War On Freedom of Speech

Anita Dunn–White House Communications Director–Exposed By Beck As Mao Tse-Tung Admirer On Video!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Sam Vaknin–Videos

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)–Videos

Barack Obama Cult?

Jim Jones–Cult of Personality–The Tragedy of Jonestown–Videos

There Are No Coincidences: Three Progressive Presidents Won The Nobel Peace Prize–Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama–Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

2009 Nobel Peace Prize For Being America’s Affirmative Action Apologist and Political Payoff President Barack Obama

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Hits Rate 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

Guns and Butter–War and Peace–Victory or Defeat–Commander-in-Chief or Cheer Leader?

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Obama–Corruption Kingpin–Campaign Contributions and Support for Government Payoffs and Subsidies–Stealing From The American People To Payoff Obama’s Pals

Hype: The Obama Effect–Videos

Crime–Corruption–Organized Crime–ACORN–Taxes–Obama Connected And Trained

The Arrogance of President Obama: Hectoring Habitual Liar

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Apollo Alliance and Obama’s Green Czar Van Jones: Greens on The Outside–Reds On The Inside–Big Greens, Big Unions, Big Foundations, Big Business, Big Bucks, Big Taxes–Videos

Public Option = Government Option = Pathway to Single Payer = Single Payer = Socialized Medicine = Blue Pill = Poison Pill

Change You Can Count On: The 2,000,000,000 Health Care Plan Requires Massive Tax Increases and Huge Cuts In Medicare Reimbursement for Doctors and Hospitals!

Beck and Hannity Expose Corrupt Ethics Waived Slumlord Valerie Jarrett–Senior Advisor, Olympics Czar and Close Friend of President Barack Obama–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos 

President Barack Obama Puppet of Trilateral Commission?–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos 

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Black Genocide–Eugenics–Planned Parenthood–Population Control–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

Soros Funded and Obama’s Manufactured Hate Generator–The Southern Poverty Law Center–Disinformation Propaganda Campaign 

Change You Can Count On: The $2,000,000,000 Health Care Plan Requires Massive Tax Increases and Huge Cuts In Medicare Reimbursement for Doctors and Hospitals!

Second Opinion: Doctors Speak Up On Proposed Health Care Reform–And A Third Texas Opinion!–Videos

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos

Down and Dirty Democrat Clinton vs. Up and Clean Democrat Obama: Hard Ball Time!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists

Posted on September 16, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Economics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Links, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Resources, Taxes, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Beatles – Revolution

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 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. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

~Thomas Jefferson et al,

The Declaration of Independence

UPDATED

The Truth About Neocons

Many movement conservatives deeply resent being called neoconservatives or neocons.

I consider myself to be a movement conservative that is comfortable in both the traditionalist and libertarian wings of the conservative movement represented by the works of the late Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and Friederick Hayek.

While I agree with neoconservatives on many occasions and issues, I part company when they advocate preemptive attacks on nations that have not attacked the United States, democracy nation-building, open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, where I agree with Pat Buchanan. I part company with Mr. Buchanan’s views on free trade. I am a free trader.

Neoconservatives are first and foremost big government conservatives, which I regard as the problem, not the solution. I agree with the late President Ronald Reagan:

A Reminder from Ronald Reagan

Should Senator McCain be elected President, which I think he will, and should Senator McCain propose neoconservative policies and programs, I for one will advocate and support the formation of another political party.

I will follow the sage advice of Dick Armey and leave.

Dick Armey discusses big government conservatism

I am tired of being betrayed by Republicans who say one thing to get elected and turn around and do the exact opposite–Presidents George H. Bush and George W. Bush to name two, who I voted for with great expectations and now have very deep regrets for doing so.

Both Presidents increased taxes– the first directly and the second indirectly by massive deficit spending and open borders resulting in dramatic increases in local and state taxes to provide for education, services, medical care, welfare, jails, and prisons for illegal aliens. Not a single Federal department was eliminated such as Education, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, and Commerce for starters. Few spending bills were vetoed, a sheer mockery of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

Bush Has Doubled National Debt with Deficits

You can say I am a conservative, libertarian, or classical liberal, but please not a neoconservative, and if things are not changed or reformed in Washington, I will not be voting Republican much longer.

Background Articles and Videos

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

The Pentagons New Map – Thomas Barnett lecture

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4689061169761152025

Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism is a right-wing political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being ‘new’ conservatives.[1][2]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had “moved to the right”.[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about.”[1]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, an American Jew from an orthodox Jewish family[6], and father of William Kristol who became the founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol had been an active supporter of Trotskyism, but wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[3] Kristol’s ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[7]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[8][9] The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence and considered central to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, shortly before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. Neoconservative influence on American foreign policy later became central with the Bush Doctrine.

Prominent neoconservative periodicals are Commentary and The Weekly Standard. Neoconservatives are associated with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Neocons aiding ’08 Republicans

“Most Americans disapprove of the Iraq war and of exporting democracy by force, yet neoconservative proponents of those policies advise the leading Republican presidential hopefuls.

“There is an overwhelming presence of neoconservatives and absence of traditional conservatives that I don’t know what to make of,” said Richard V. Allen, former Reagan White House national security adviser.

Advisers to Sen. John McCain of Arizona include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), while former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani’s policy team includes Norman Podhoretz, a founder of the neoconservative movement, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gets advice from Dan Senor, who counseled L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator in Iraq.

Critics say neoconservatism casts American foreign policy as a new and benevolent form of imperialism, and conflicts with the traditional conservative, who prefers U.S. military power be reserved for defending against direct threats to America‘s vital interests. …”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/06/neocons-aiding-08-republicans/

The Neocons’ Palin Project

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“…In fairness to Palin, on issues like NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, her answers reflect the views of the man who chose her. She has no option at present but to follow the line laid down by Scheunemann.

But make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.

Wasilla, Alaska, is not a natural habitat of neoconservatives.

And her unrehearsed answers to Gibson’s questions reveal her natural conservatism. Asked if she agrees with the Bush Doctrine, Palin asked for clarification. “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “Do we have the right of an anticipatory self-defense?”

Yes, said Palin, “if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against (the) American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.”

Exactly. The intelligence must be legit and the threat “imminent.” …”

http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/09/16/the_neocons_palin_project?page=2

American Enterprise Institute

“The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank, founded in 1943. According to the institute its mission is “to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism — limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.”[1] AEI is an independent, non-profit organization. It is supported primarily by grants and contributions from foundations, corporations, and individuals. It is located in Washington, D.C.

AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration’s public policy.[2] More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government’s many panels and commissions.[3] Former United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a visiting scholar, and Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, is a senior fellow.[4]

AEI is often cited as a right-leaning counterpart to the left-leaning Brookings Institution.[5][6] In 1998, AEI and Brookings established the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.[7] In 2006, the two organizations jointly launched the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project.[8]

AEI has connections with the neoconservative movement in American politics.[9] Irving Kristol, widely regarded as the movement’s founder, is a Senior Fellow at AEI. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

Project for the New American Century

“The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as “a non-profit educational organization” by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal is “to promote American global leadership.”[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4] ….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Flight of the Neocons
From liberal hawks to “National Greatness” conservatives
Michael C. Moynihan | May 2008 Print Edition

“…To Heilbrunn, the legacy of neoconservatism is one of long-term disaster for the Republican Party, an ideological digression that “quite possibly not only destroyed conservatism as a political force for years to come but also created an Iraq syndrome that tarnishes the idea of intervention for several decades.” This sounds right. The surge has undeniably mitigated the violence in Iraq, but it seems likely that—barring a continued military presence in Iraq for “100 years,” as John McCain posited—the neocons’ nation-building project will be a millstone around the movement’s neck. The Iraq fiasco will also obscure the fact that many of their Cold War–era arguments with the left were prescient. They were right about the ineffectiveness of Great Society welfare programs and about the colossal evil of the communist bloc.

But the failures of the neoconservative approach to both foreign and domestic policy are recognized even by consummate neocon David Frum, partial author of the infamous “axis of evil” State of the Union speech. In his recently released book Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, Frum concedes Heilbrunn’s point that a conservative regeneration is needed after the Bush administration’s big spending and disastrous foreign policy. While Frum is upbeat about conservatism’s prospects, Heilbrunn ends They Knew They Were Right on an ominous note: “These reckless minds…aren’t going away. Quite the contrary.”

Perhaps. But unless Iraq becomes an Arab version of Switzerland in the next decade, I wouldn’t bet on it. …”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125472.html

John McCain, Neoconservative

“…The neoconservatives, who believe, or pretend to believe, that supposed foes abroad always represent new Hitlers and that wimpy liberals are about to recapitulate the appeasement that English liberals espoused in the 1930s, are constantly searching for a new Churchill. They see Churchill as the last great representative of the Victorian era in contrast to the weaklings that surrounded him. (George W. Bush himself keeps a bust of Churchill in the Oval Office.) For the neocons, McCain, a military hero who has written a number of books and become a politician, eerily resembles Churchill himself. McCain himself has made his admiration for Churchill abundantly apparent in his most recent book, Hard Call, in which he hails the great man’s prescience in warning of Germany’s aggressive intentions in the run-up to both World War I and World War II. But more to the point, McCain represents for the neocons the ultimate synthesis of war hero and politician. And McCain, in turn, has been increasingly drawn to the neocons’ militaristic vision of the U.S. as an empire that can set wrong aright around the globe.The neocons became close to McCain in the 1990s, when they supported American intervention in the Balkans. According to the New Republic’s John Judis, the first sign of neocon influence on McCain came in 1999. McCain delivered a speech at Kansas State University in which he touted “national greatness conservatism,” arguing: “The United States is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history.” He went on to state that the U.S. should have “every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.”

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-mccain-neoconservative.html

The Open-Borders Conspiracy
By Robert Locke
FrontPageMagazine.com

“If I could choose to have my readers learn one and only one thing from what I write, it would be that America’s problems are not the result of blind, much less inevitable, forces, but are the consequences of deliberate political action by motivated individuals and groups. Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of our ongoing immigration crisis. Let’s trace the lines of influence in the open-borders conspiracy, a word I use despite its connotations of grassy knollology because in this case it is factually appropriate. Given who has been pushing mass immigration in America and how open they have been about why they are doing it, it boggles my mind that anyone who considers himself conservative can still support this policy. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850953/posts

Shamnesty John McCain is back in full force: No, he never “got the message”
By Michelle Malkin

“…And, now, straight from the campaign trail with Arnold “Move Left” Schwarzenegger, McCain has shed every last pretense that he “got the message” from grass-roots immigration enforcement proponents and is back to his full, open-borders shamnesty push. No surprise to any of you. But his complete regression back to the “comprehensive immigration reform” euphemism is a notable milestone.

Also, you don’t need to guess anymore how he would have voted on the Feinstein/Craig illegal alien farmworker amnesty: …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/22/shamnesty-john-mccain-is-back-in-full-force-no-he-never-got-the-message/

Translation: McCain’s suck up to La Raza

By Michelle Malkin

The other half of the La Raza twins is set to speak today at 12:45 Pacific time. While John McCain’s lips move this afternoon during his speech to the Race’s open-borders lovefest, let me serve as your interpreter:

MCCAIN: My friends, you are right. Those people who killed my shamnesty bill have ill intentions. They are bigots, just like my friend Lindsay Graham told you they were when he spoke before you two years ago. …”

My friends, I don’t want to talk about securing the border any more than you do. But trust me, when the “border” is “secure” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), then we’ll do what we all want to do: Formalize our Sanctuary Nation. Rejoice that illegal aliens are serving in the military. And sanctimoniously demonize and marginalize all those pesky bigots who keep obsessing about immigration enforcement and national security. I’m as committed to peddling sob-story platitudes and whitewashing your ethnic nationalism as you are! (What was that about the 15 things about The Race you should know? Shhhhhhhhhhh!)

Just work with me here, ok? Brother Obama may have marched with you at the Chicago May Day illegal alien parade. But I have a lifetime commitment to Hispandering! And you have showered with me with honors for my open-borders work.

Remember?

They don’t call me La Raza’s voice in Washington for nothing.

Just ask my friend, Juan Hernandez.

My friends.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/translation-mccains-suck-up-to-la-raza/

Mexico–United States border

“The international border between Mexico and the United States runs from San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. It traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to inhospitable deserts. From the Gulf of Mexico it follows the course of the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert, the Colorado River Delta, westward to the binational conurbation of San Diego and Tijuana before reaching the Pacific Ocean.

The border’s total length is 3,169 km (1,969 miles), according to figures given by the International Boundary and Water Commission.[1] It is the most frequently crossed international border in the world, with about 250 million legal crossings every year.[2]

The nearly 2000 mile (3,138 km or 1,950 miles) international border follows the middle of the Rio Grande — according to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the two nations, “along the deepest channel” — from its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico a distance of 2,019 km (1,254 miles) to a point just upstream of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez. It then follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 858 km (533 miles) to the Colorado River, during which it reaches its highest elevation at the intersection with the Continental Divide. Thence it follows the middle of that river northward a distance of 38 km (24 miles), and then it again follows an alignment westward overland and marked by monuments a distance of 226 km (141 miles) to the Pacific Ocean.

The region along the boundary is characterised by deserts, rugged mountains, abundant sunshine and by two major rivers — the Colorado and the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte) — which provide life-giving waters to the largely arid but fertile lands along the rivers in both countries.

The U.S. states along the border, from west to east, are:

California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

The Mexican states are:

Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.

In the United States, Texas has the longest stretch of the border of any State, while California has the shortest. In Mexico, Chihuahua has the longest border, while Nuevo León has the shortest. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border

Us-mexico-border.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Us-mexico-border.jpg

Re: John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Who Is Juan Hernandez?

John McCain Defends Amnesty & Open Borders Juan Hernandez

Lou Dobbs – These Candidates Would Say ANYTHING

The Dangers of the “North American Union” by Jerome Corsi

Why Bill Kristol thinks Ron Paul is a “Crackpot”

Charlie Rose – WOLFOWITZ / HOLMES

Paul Wolfowitz speaks at Hudson Institute

Countdown – No Iranian Nukes and Wolfowitz is Back

Paul Wolfowitz speech June 6 2001

 Iraq War Mastermind Speaks Out

Charlie Rose – Sen. Dick Durbin / Douglas Feith / Sen. Ron Wyden

Book TV: Douglas Feith, author of “War and Decision”

Riz Khan – Richard Perle – 18 Mar 08

Charlie Rose – PERL & FRUM

Who is Randy Scheunemann?

Bill Kristol Anthology

Neo-cons War Lobbying To Bomb Iran

NeoConservative Charles Krauthammer discusses U.S. options against Russia

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 1

Dr. Charles Krauthammer part 2

Krauthammer: What will Obama give to Iran?

Next President 1

Next President 2

Why I love Charles Krauthammer

Bolton and Krauthammer on Russian Expansion past Georgia

Fred Kagan on Jim Lehrer

Fred Kagan Debates Nir Rosen on Iraq Surge (Part 1)

Iraq, the Neocons and the Israel Lobby – John Mearsheimer

Conversations With History: John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt

the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

 the Washington Report, Ep.1 with Michael Ledeen (Part 2)

John Bolton – Does Iran Need a “Regime Change?”

Neocon John Bolton Pushes War Against Iran

Norman Podhoretz on Iran

Norman Podhoretz on His New Book

Riz Khan- The Neocons and Iran- 10 Dec 07

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (1 of 2), 2008

Beyond Iraq: The Challenges Confronting US (2 of 2), 2008

Charlie Rose: March 4, 2003 with Ron Brownstein and Robert Kagan

Why CIA Veterans Are Scared of McCain

“…These critics point especially to the McCain campaign’s top national security adviser Randy Scheunemann—who ran a front group promoting war with Iraq and the fabrications of controversial Iraqi exile politician Ahmad Chalabi, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and who has lobbied for aggressive NATO expansion. Scheunemann’s record, they argue, encapsulates everything wrong with the past eight years of Bush leadership on intelligence issues, from a penchant for foreign policy freelancing and secret contacts with unreliable fabricators, to neoconservatives’ disdain for the perceived bureaucratic timidity of the CIA and State Department, to their avowed hostility for diplomacy with adversaries. If McCain wins, “the military has won,” says one former senior CIA officer. “We will no longer have a civilian intelligence arm. Yes, we will have analysts. But we won’t have any real civilian intelligence capability.”

“McCain would be an absolute disaster,” says a second recently retired senior US intelligence operations officer. “He is prejudiced against the CIA. The day after the 2004 election when Bush won, McCain came on TV and gave an interview in which he said something to the effect of, ‘The CIA tried to sabotage this election. They’ve made their bed and now they have to lay in it.’ I used to like McCain, but he is inconsistent.” Columnist Robert Novak quoted McCain in November 2004 as saying, “With CIA leaks intended to harm the re-election campaign of the president of the United States, it is not only dysfunctional but a rogue organization.”

McCain is influenced by a circle of hardline Republican legislators and congressional staff as well as disgruntled former Agency officials “who all had these long-standing grudges against people in the Agency,” the former senior intelligence officer said. “They think the CIA is a hotbed of liberals. Right-wing, nutty paranoia stuff. They all love the military and hate the CIA. Because the CIA tells them stuff they don’t want to hear.” …”

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/08/why-cia-veterans-are-scared-of-mccain.html

McCain’s ACU Ratings
By Randall Hoven

“…What this means is that McCain’s ACU ratings since 1998 put him on the liberal side among Republicans. The few Republicans consistently more liberal than McCain would be Chafee (formerly R-RI), Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-PA). One could expect senators from northeastern states to be more liberal since their constituencies demand it, but McCain represents the fairly conservative state of Arizona. (Arizona’s other senator, Kyl, has a lifetime rating of 96.9, and half the representatives from there have ratings of 94.7 or higher.)

How much more liberal would McCain vote if his constituency put even the slightest pressure on him in that direction?

On the other hand, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place).

Not much the cheer about here.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mccains_acu_ratings.html

Whose War?      PDF

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Buchanan accuses ‘McCain’s neocon warmonger’ of treason Stephen C. Webster
“…According to conservative commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, Sen. John McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann is a ‘dual loyalist,’ ‘neocon warmonger’ involved in activities that ‘none dare call treason.’

Scheunemann’s former employer, Orion Strategies, is a lobbying firm with strong ties to Mikheil Saakashvili’s administration in Georgia.

Since Georgia attempted to retake South Ossetia by force, triggering a sharp, violent rebuke by Russian forces, Sen. McCain has been by far the most strident advocate of US support for the former Soviet state. And his top adviser, says Buchanan, may well be the next Henry Kissinger or Zbigniew Brzezinski.

“He is a dual loyalist, a foreign agent whose assignment is to get America committed to spilling the blood of her sons for client regimes who have made this moral mercenary a rich man,” he wrote. …”

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Buchanan_accuses_McCains_neocon_warmonger_of_0822.html

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/mar/24/00007/

Among the Neocons      PDF

A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates

By Scott McConnell

“…Two new issues broke apart the 1980s Reaganite conservative consensus. The first was immigration. By the late 1980s, the impact of the 1965 immigration law had begun greatly to accelerate the pace of immigration. Younger readers may not recall the vital role National Review began to play in analyzing that law and the social, environmental, and political consequences it brought about. The battle was joined when John O’Sullivan (NR’s editor since 1988) published in 1992 Peter Brimelow’s explosive “Time to Rethink Immigration,” which quickly became the most debated conservative magazine article of the year. The piece forced the immigration debate into the open within the conservative movement, where it fused with the populist revolt breaking out in California over Proposition 187, an anti-illegal-alien measure. For the next five years, the magazine put what it called “The National Question” in the spotlight, publishing cover stories by Brimelow, Fred Iklé, O’Sullivan, and eventually (as I was won over to the magazine’s position) one by me.

The neoconservatives, to my complete surprise, were not pleased.

In the summer of 1995, Neal Kozodoy gave me a copy of a letter. Written by Irwin Steltzer to the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, it was making its way around the upper echelons of the neocon magazines and think tanks. Steltzer is a Bronx-born economist and Weekly Standard editor who lives part-time in London. While a gifted economic essayist, his most important function is surely as the ideological gendarme for Rupert Murdoch’s American media properties.

Steltzer wrote to Kristol (and the wider world) that he was canceling his subscription to National Review because of its “increasingly offensive positions on such topics as immigration.” He went on then to complain about a piece by Richard Neuhaus on anti-Semitism, which, Steltzer charged, was itself anti-Semitic. He added, apropos of a quote of Kristol’s that appeared in Neuhaus’s article, that he was “always suspicious” of Father Neuhaus’s excerpting, “particularly in an article which contains cunningly placed little adjectives and descriptions.” He concluded with a more general comment about John O’Sullivan’s National Review: “Add to this NR’s applause for the immigration statutes of the 1920’s, designed to keep eastern European Jews out, and you have a not-very-subtle form of anti-Semitism, dressed up as an attack on liberalism.”

Bill Buckley stood by his editor initially, but not for long. Within two years, O’Sullivan was eased out, replaced by the youthful Rich Lowry, who immediately upon assuming his new post fired Peter Brimelow.

In the very early years of the neocon-paleocon skirmish, Russell Kirk, the somewhat fogeyish father of postwar American intellectual conservatism, gave a speech about the neocons at the Heritage Foundation. He generally praised them but added some words of caution. Quoting from a friend’s letter, Kirk said, “It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant from a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation the conservative is a fascist.” I, of course, had heard of neocon campaigns against other conservatives, but the targets were not men I knew or agreed with. But I did know O’Sullivan and Neuhaus, and the Russell Kirk remark that had once seemed overheated became a good deal less so. …”

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/apr/21/00007/

Idealism and Its Discontents
Thinking on the neoconservative slur.

Victor Davis Hanson

“…Third, Iraq is not the sole touchstone of neoconservative thought. Many traditional conservatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who favor balanced budgets, an end to illegal immigration, and more sober judgment on entitlements, came to the conclusion after September 11 that the many lives of Saddam Hussein had run out. Indeed, one of the ironies of this war is the spectacle of many who called for the removal of Saddam Hussein in the late 1990s now turning on the war, while many who would have never supported such preemption before 9/11 insist on giving the administration full support in the midst of the present fighting.

Fourth, traditional conservatives especially distrust neoconservatives because, well, they are not entirely conservative and confuse the public about the virtues of the hallowed native reluctance to spend blood and treasure abroad for dubiously idealistic purposes. In contrast, progressives dislike them because their promotion of democracy can complicate liberalism, as if it were a fine and noble thing to insist on elections in the former Third World, even if need be through force. And every ideology saves its greatest venom for the perceived apostate: Thus Zell Miller infuriates liberals in the way John McCain or Chuck Hagel does conservatives.

Fifth, the battlefield adjudicates perceptions. Before the Iraqi invasion, neoconservatives took a beating in the acrimonious lead-up to the war about which scenarios were proffered about millions of refugees and thousands of American dead. Yet after the three-week victory, even television hosts were boasting, “We are all neoconservatives now.” Then the messy post-bellum Iraqi reconstruction brought back disdain, while successful elections and a consensual government could well win admiration. For most, ideology or belief matters not nearly as much as impressions of being judged as smart, successful, and “cutting-edge” — a constantly changing and amorphous image that in Washington is predicated on the 24-hour news cycle.

Finally, radical foreign-policy changes always upset the status quo and beg for conspiratorial exegesis. After 1948, the Cold Warriors were felt to have appropriated the Democratic party from the Henry Wallace wing, and they suffered abuse both from the naïve Left who saw them as veritable McCarthyites, and from the isolationist Right who did not want to continue the sacrifices of internationalism endlessly on into the postwar peace. …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200501210758.asp

The Neoconservative Cabal

Joshua Muravchik

“…Who makes up this potent faction? Within the administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is usually identified as the key actor, together with Richard Perle, a member and until recently the chairman of the Defense Advisory Board. A handful of other high-level Bush appointees are often named as adherents of the neocon faith, including Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, National Security Council staff member Elliott Abrams, and Vice Presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI, where I work), the Weekly Standard magazine, and William Kristol’s Project for a New American Century–all three rent offices in the same building–are often described as constituting the movement’s Washington command center. And then, of course, there is this magazine, crucible of so much neoconservative thought.

The history of neoconservatism is less sensational than its current usage implies. The term came into currency in the mid-1970’s as an anathema–pronounced, by upholders of leftist orthodoxy, against a group of intellectuals, centered mostly in Commentary and the quarterly Public Interest, who then still thought of themselves as liberals but were at odds with the dominant thinking of the Left. One part of this group consisted of writers about domestic policy–Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, James Q. Wilson, Nathan Glazer–who had developed misgivings about the programs of the New Deal or Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. The other main contingent focused on foreign policy, and especially on the decline of America’s position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union in the wake of the Vietnam war. The names here included, among others, Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Eugene V. Rostow. Although, at first, most of these people resisted the label neoconservative, eventually almost all of them acquiesced in it. …”

“…On September 11, we learned in the most dreadful way that terrorists would not be appeased by our diffidence; quite the contrary. We saw–they themselves told us–that they intended to go on murdering us in ever larger numbers as long as they could. A sharp change of course was required, and the neoconservatives, who had been warning for years that terror must not be appeased, stood vindicated–much as, more grandly, Churchill was vindicated by Hitler’s depredations after Munich.

Not only did the neocons have an analysis of what had gone wrong in American policy, they also stood ready with proposals for what to do now: to wage war on the terror groups and to seek to end or transform governments that supported them, especially those possessing the means to furnish terrorists with the wherewithal to kill even more Americans than on September 11. Neocons also offered a long-term strategy for making the Middle East less of a hotbed of terrorism: implanting democracy in the region and thereby helping to foment a less violent approach to politics.

No neoconservative was elevated in office after September 11, as Churchill had been to prime minister after the collapse of the Munich agreement, but policies espoused by neoconservatives were embraced by the Bush administration. Was this because Bush learned them from the likes of Wolfowitz and Perle? Or did he and his top advisers–none of them known as a neocon–reach similar conclusions on their own? We may have to await the President’s memoirs to learn the answer to that narrow question, but every American has reason to be grateful for the result.

If these policies should fail, for whatever reason–including a recurrence of national faint-heartedness–then neoconservative ideas will no doubt be discredited. But this matters hardly at all compared with what we will have lost. For, if they fail, either we will then be at the mercy of ever more murderous terrorism or we will have to seek alternative methods of coping with it–methods that are likely to involve a much more painful and frightening course of action than the admittedly daunting one that still lies before us.

If, however, the policies succeed, then the world will have been delivered from an awful scourge, and there will be credit enough to go around–some of it, one trusts, even for the lately much demonized neoconservatives. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991206/posts

Notice: U.S. WMD Retaliation Doctrine Has Changed

By Michelle Malkin

“…There’s a very important catch in the Weekly Standard by spy-dude Elbridge Colby, who notes a crucial change in our plans to respond to terrorist use of WMD’s. We’ve long held that states which assist in WMD terror would be held accountable. But February 8, we expanded our potential retribution schedule:

Instead of merely threatening that states that support terror attacks will be held responsible–already a staple of U.S. policy–Hadley goes further, threatening non-state actors who “enabl[e]” terrorists to strike with WMD. This careful choice of words would seem to expand our retaliatory standard to encompass complicity and perhaps even negligence. Not only states, but groups and individuals as well, should now be on notice that they will be held accountable for participation in, support for, complicity in, or even negligence in the face of WMD strikes against the United States or its allies. This strategy makes a great deal of sense; catastrophic terrorism is a threat that both justifies and requires a more exacting standard of behavior.

Individuals? Whoever could they mean?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/10/notice-us-wmd-retaliation-doctrine-has-changed/

Charlie Rose – Georgia/Russia Conflict

Power Play

The nature of nations, like people, never changes. Today’s political realists say economics rather than military might has become the guiding principle of countries, but the conflict in Georgia shows otherwise, argues Robert Kagan.

By ROBERT KAGAN

“…Where are the realists? When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, it ought to have been their moment. Here was Vladimir Putin, a cold-eyed realist if ever there was one, taking advantage of a favorable opportunity to shift the European balance of power in his favor — a 21st century Frederick the Great or Bismarck, launching a small but decisive war on a weaker neighbor while a surprised and dumbfounded world looked on helplessly. Here was a man and a nation pursuing “interest defined as power,” to use the famous phrase of Hans Morgenthau, acting in obedience to what Mr. Morgenthau called the “objective law” of international power politics. Yet where are Mr. Morgenthau’s disciples to remind us that Russia’s latest military action is neither extraordinary nor unexpected nor aberrant but entirely normal and natural, that it is but a harbinger of what is yet to come because the behavior of nations, like human nature, is unchanging?

Today’s “realists,” who we’re told are locked in some titanic struggle with “neoconservatives” on issues ranging from Iraq, Iran and the Middle East to China and North Korea, would be almost unrecognizable to their forebears. Rather than talk about power, they talk about the United Nations, world opinion and international law. They propose vast new international conferences, a la Woodrow Wilson, to solve intractable, decades-old problems. They argue that the United States should negotiate with adversaries not because America is strong but because it is weak. Power is no answer to the vast majority of the challenges we face, they insist, and, indeed, is counterproductive because it undermines the possibility of international consensus. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122005366593885103.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Neoconservative Persuasion

Irving Kristol

“…Neoconservatism is the first variant of American conservatism in the past century that is in the “American grain.” It is hopeful, not lugubrious; forward-looking, not nostalgic; and its general tone is cheerful, not grim or dyspeptic. Its 20th-century heroes tend to be TR, FDR, and Ronald Reagan. Such Republican and conservative worthies as Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, and Barry Goldwater are politely overlooked. Of course, those worthies are in no way overlooked by a large, probably the largest, segment of the Republican party, with the result that most Republican politicians know nothing and could not care less about neoconservatism. Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters. Nor has it passed official notice that it is the neoconservative public policies, not the traditional Republican ones, that result in popular Republican presidencies One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth. This policy was not invented by neocons, and it was not the particularities of tax cuts that interested them, but rather the steady focus on economic growth. Neocons are familiar with intellectual history and aware that it is only in the last two centuries that democracy has become a respectable option among political thinkers. In earlier times, democracy meant an inherently turbulent political regime, with the “have-nots” and the “haves” engaged in a perpetual and utterly destructive class struggle. It was only the prospect of economic growth in which everyone prospered, if not equally or simultaneously, that gave modern democracies their legitimacy and durability. The cost of this emphasis on economic growth has been an attitude toward public finance that is far less risk averse than is the case among more traditional conservatives. Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy–because it seems to be in the nature of human nature–that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth. It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on “the road to serfdom.” Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his “The Man Versus the State,” was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today’s America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives–though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government’s attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among the religious, this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak.

AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience. (The favorite neoconservative text on foreign affairs, thanks to professors Leo Strauss of Chicago and Donald Kagan of Yale, is Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War.) These attitudes can be summarized in the following “theses” (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing. …”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141481/posts

The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species

by Kirk, Russell

“…Selfish and Uninstructed. I offer you two specimens of the rejection of the Neoconservatives that I encounter nowadays in many quarters. My first extract is from a letter recently received from a very distinguished historian in Pennsylvania. “I have burned my bridges with most (not all) of the Konservatives, and especially with the neo- conservatives, who are selfish and uninstructed radicals and progressives, wishing to pour cement all over the country and make the world safe for democracy, well beyond the dreams of Wilson,” he writes to me. “A feeling for the land, for its conservation, and for the strong modesty of a traditional patriotism (as distinct from nationalism) none of them has.”

My second instance of the spreading distaste for Neoconservatives comes from a well-known literary scholar. “I would not be at all surprised to see the Neo-Cons jump ship if Dukakis is elected; they would be perfectly capable of making an accommodation with the socialist wing of the Democratic Party,” he tells me …… It is significant that when the Neo-Cons wish to damn any conservative who has appealed for a grant to a conservative foundation, they tell the officers of the foundation that the conservative is a fascist…. I believe that the chief enemy of American conservatism has not been the Marxists, nor even the socialist liberals in the Democratic Party, but the Neo-Conservatives, who have sabotaged the movement from within and exploited it for their own selfish purposes.”

Simple Old Label. Now the strictures of the gentlemen I have quoted cannot well apply to some of the better known people called Neoconservatives; for there are among that group high-minded men and women of principle. Our difficulty here is very like that I encountered when I lectured, a few months ago, on the Libertarians: the appellation Neoconservative, like the appellation Libertarian, is so widely employed, and so variously, as to seem to include people of radically opposed views. What is a Neoconservative, really? Is he, as Harrington and Steinfels saw him, a liberal who opportunistically has turned his coat? Is he primarily a seeker after power and the main chance? Or is he a man who has new ideas about the defense of the Permanent Things? For my part, I wish that certain so-called Neoconservatives whose views and lives I approve, like certain libertarians for whom I have a fellow feeling, would content themselves, as do I, with the simple old label Conservative.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL178.cfm

A Concord of Visions

How the neoconservative right adopted the worst errors of the left

None of this is to say that all good flows from the politics of the constrained vision and all ills from the unconstrained view. For my taste—and that of most libertarians, I suspect—Sowell’s constrained vision in its purer forms is probably a shade too constrained, too ready to assume that old customs continue to serve their traditional functions under changed circumstances. But it is the worst features of the unconstrained vision—its hubris, its pretense to omnicompetence—that have taken hold of the right. And if there is wisdom in each of the two perspectives, it should be worrying that, for all the other differences between the major parties, between progressives and conservatives, in this one fundamental way the political landscape increasingly offers only half the picture—different refractions of the same unconstrained vision. With the waning of the constrained perspective’s tempering influence, we’re left with a political vision that’s dangerously double.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/117049.html

No moderate, no realist, McCain the neocon

Ron Paul revolution against empire and draft

Pat Buchanan vs Neo-Cons

Pat Buchanan on John McCain’s warmongering nature

Pat Buchanan:”McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi”

Anne Norton Defines Neocons

Israel, Iran and the New Neocons

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 1 of 2

Newshour: “Neo-Cons Pushing for War with Iran” – Pt 2 of 2

1. The Neocons – Ideology and Fantasy (Part 1 of 14)

2. The Neocons – Rumsfeld’s Imaginary War (2/14)

3. The Neocons – Birth of Islamic Extremists

4. The Neocons – Recruiting Christians / Concept of Terror

5. The Neocons – CIA’s $1Billion Backs Future Terrorists

6. The Neocons – Ignored Warning of Terrorists

7. Then Neocons – Destruction of the Republican Party

8. The Neocons – Clinton’s Blowjob / Extremist Rampage

9. The Neocons – “There’s No Al-Qaeda Organization”

10. The Neocons – “We’re Gonna Find Those Evil Doers”

11. The Neocons – Hunt for Osama / The Disney Terrorists

12. The Neocons – Godzilla was a Terrorist Mentor

13. The Neocons – Dirty Bomb / Precautionary Principle

14. The Neocons – Fear is the Only Agenda

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of neoconservatism in the United States. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol (born January 22, 1920, Brooklyn, New York City, New York) is considered the founder of American neoconservatism. He is married to conservative author and emerita professor Gertrude Himmelfarb and is the father of William Kristol.

Kristol was born into an orthodox Jewish family. However, he maintains that belief had nothing to do with his family’s observance.[1] He earned his B.A. in History from the City College of New York in 1940, where he was an active Trotskyist. Before graduating, he met Gertrude Himmelfarb at a Trotskyist meeting, and they married on January 18, 1942.[2] He wrote in 1983 that he was “proud” to have been a member of the Fourth International in 1940.[3] From 1941 to 1944, he served as staff sergeant in the armored infantry in Europe in World War II. After the war, he was stationed in Marseilles for a year.[4]

He was the managing editor of Commentary magazine from 1947 to 1952, co-founder of the British-based Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958 when he handed over the reins to his friend and City College classmate Melvin J. Lasky[5], editor of the Reporter from 1959 to 1960, executive vice-president of Basic Books from 1961 to 1969, and professor of social thought at the New York University Graduate School of Business from 1969 to 1988. Since 1988, he has been John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He has used these positions and publications to animate the neo-conservative movement, arguing for low taxes, a well-funded and internationally active military, conservative social policy, and a minimalist interpretation of First Amendment rights. For example, he once stated that “I don’t think the advocacy of homosexuality really falls under the First Amendment any more than the advocacy or publication of pornography does.”[6]

Kristol is the founder of the politics and culture journal The Public Interest and the foreign affairs journal The National Interest. He was co-editor of The Public Interest (first with Daniel Bell, then with Nathan Glazer) from its founding in 1965 until 2002 and publisher of The National Interest from its founding in 1985 until 2001.

He is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 1988, a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations since 1972, a member of the Wall Street Journal Board of Contributors since 1972, and president of National Affairs, Inc.

Kristol suggests of himself, “Ever since I can remember, I’ve been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I’m going to end up a neo-that’s all, neo dash nothing.”[7]

In July 2002, President George W. Bush awarded Kristol the Presidential Medal of Freedom. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

Russell Kirk

Russell Kirk

“Russell Kirk (19 October 1918 – 29 April 1994) was an American political theorist, historian, social critic, literary critic, and fiction author known for his influence on 20th century American conservatism. His 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, gave shape to the amorphous post-World War II conservative movement. It traced the development of conservative thought in the Anglo-American tradition, giving special importance to the ideas of Edmund Burke. …”

“…The Conservative Mind

The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana[3], the published version of Kirk’s doctoral dissertation, contributed materially to the 20th century Burke revival. It also drew attention to:

  • Conservative statesmen such as John Adams, George Canning, John C. Calhoun, Joseph de Maistre, Benjamin Disraeli, and Arthur Balfour;
  • The conservative implications of writings by well-known authors such as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Walter Scott, James Fenimore Cooper, Nathaniel Hawthorne, James Russell Lowell, George Gissing, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot;
  • British and American authors such as Fisher Ames, John Randolph of Roanoke, Orestes Brownson, John Henry Newman, Walter Bagehot, Henry James Sumner Maine, William Edward Hartpole Lecky, Edwin Lawrence Godkin, William Hurrell Mallock, Leslie Stephen, Albert Venn Dicey, Paul Elmer More, and Irving Babbitt.

The Portable Conservative Reader (1982), which Kirk edited, contains sample writings by most of the above.

Not everyone agreed with Kirk’s reading of the conservative heritage and tradition. For example, Harry Jaffa (a student of Leo Strauss) wrote: “Kirk was a poor Burke scholar. Burke’s attack on metaphysical reasoning related only to modern philosophy’s attempt to eliminate skeptical doubt from its premises and hence from its conclusions.”[4]

Russello (2004) argues that Kirk adapted what 19th century American Catholic thinker Orestes Brownson called “territorial democracy” to articulate a version of federalism that was based on premises that differ in part from those of the Founders and other conservatives. Kirk further believed that territorial democracy could reconcile the tension between treating the states as mere provinces of the central government, and as autonomous political units independent of Washington. Finally, territorial democracy allowed Kirk to set out a theory of individual rights grounded in the particular historical circumstances of the United States, while rejecting a universal conception of such rights.

Principles

Kirk developed six “canons” of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:

  1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
  2. An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;
  3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions;
  4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
  5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
  6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are “unimaginable apart from one another.” [5] and that “all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief.” [6] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

Milton Friedman

“…Milton Friedman (born July 31, 1912 – died November 16, 2006) was an American Nobel Laureate economist and public intellectual. He is best known among scholars for his theoretical and empirical research, especially consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy.[1] A global public followed his restatement of a libertarian political philosophy that insisted on minimizing the role of government in favor of the private sector. As a leader of the Chicago School of economics, based at the University of Chicago, he had a widespread influence in shaping the research agenda of the entire profession. Friedman’s many monographs, books, scholarly articles, papers, magazine columns, television programs, videos and lectures cover a broad range of topics in microeconomics, macroeconomics, economic history, and public policy issues. The Economist hailed him as “the most influential economist of the second half of the 20th century…possibly of all of it”.[2]

Originally a Keynesian supporter of the New Deal and advocate of high taxes, in the 1950s his reinterpretation of the Keynesian consumption function challenged the basic keynesian model. In the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy called monetarism. He theorized there existed a “natural rate of unemployment” and he argued the central government could not micromanage the economy because people would realize what the government was doing and shift their behavior to neutralize the impact of policies. He rejected the Phillips Curve and predicted that Keynesian policies would cause “stagflation” (high unemployment and low growth). He argued that a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and warned against efforts by the treasury or central bank to do otherwise.

Influenced by his close friend George Stigler, Friedman opposed government regulation of all sorts, as well as public schooling. Friedman’s political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, stressed the advantages of the marketplace and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the outlook of American conservatives and libertarians. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated minimizing the role of government in a free market as a means of creating political and social freedom. His books and essays were widely read and even circulated underground behind the Iron Curtain.[3][4]

Friedman’s methodological innovations were widely accepted by economists, but his policy prescriptions were highly controversial. Most economists in the 1960s rejected them, but since then they had a growing international influence (especially in the U.S. and Britain), and in the 21st century have gained wide acceptance among many economists. He thus lived to see some of his laissez-faire ideas embraced by the mainstream,[5] especially during the 1980s. His views of monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation informed the policy of governments around the globe, especially the administrations of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., Brian Mulroney in Canada, Margaret Thatcher in Britain, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile, and (after 1989) in Eastern Europe. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

Ludwig von Mises

Mises in his library

Mises in his library

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (pronounced [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]) (September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian Economist, philosopher, and a major influence on the modern libertarian movement.

Because of his Jewish origin and his opinions, he had to emigrate to Switzerland and then settled in the USA.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is named after him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

http://mises.org/

Friedrich Hayek

“Friedrich August von Hayek, CH (May 8, 1899 – March 23, 1992) was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defence of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century.[1] One of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics, he also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science. He shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics with ideological rival Gunnar Myrdal “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”[2] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.[3] He is considered to be one of the major forces of change from the dominant interventionist and Keynesian policies of the first part of the 20th century back to towards classical liberalism after the 1980s. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 2 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 3 of 4)

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Charlie Rose – Economist Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein

The Power of Choice – Milton Friedman

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 13, 1976

by MILTON FRIEDMAN

The University of Chicago, Illinois, USA

“…One of my great teachers, Wesley C. Mitchell, impressed on me the basic

reason why scholars have every incentive to pursue a value-free science, whatever

their values and however strongly they may wish to spread and promote

them. In order to recommend a course of action to achieve an objective, we

must first know whether that course of action will in fact promote the objective.

Positive scientific knowledge that enables us to predict the consequences of a

possible course of action is clearly a prerequisite for the normative judgment

whether that course of action is desirable. The Road to Hell is paved with

good intentions, precisely because of the neglect of this rather obvious point.

This point is particularly important in economics. Many countries around

the world are today experiencing socially destructive inflation, abnormally

high unemployment, misuse of economic resources, and, in some cases, the

suppression of human freedom not because evil men deliberately sought to

achieve these results, nor because of differences in values among their citizens,

but because of erroneous judgments about the consequences of government

measures: errors that at least in principle are capable of being corrected by

the progress of positive economic science. …”

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-lecture.pdf

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Unconstrained Obama vs. Constrained McCain: A Conflict of Visions

The Unsinkable Sarah Palin for The American People vs. Condescending Charlie Gibson for The American Elites

The American People: Start Drilling and Control The Border. When? Now!

Open Borders — The Unintended Consequences — Mexicans Invade USA, Russians Invade Georgia

Electro Magnetic Pulse (EMP)–The Ultimate Iranian Terrorist Weapon

The Coming Joint US and Israeli Military Offensive with Syria and Iran–Just Waiting for the Casus Belli?

Solzhenitsyn On Writers and Lying–May He Rest In Peace

Clear, Hold, Build– Strategy for Victory In Iraq–Now Ready for Prime Time in America– Operation Criminal Alien Removal (CAR)!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Obama and McCain–Socialism and Appeasement!

The Big Lie–935 Lies of The Center for Public Integrity

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Alan Keyes on Immigration

US Immigration Videos

The New American Century–Video

Hijacking Catastrophe–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...