‹ How Can You Have Any Pudding If You Don’t Eat Your Meat? •
The Spotlight article for today offers a somber and foreboding analysis of The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
It certainly gives me warm and fuzzy feelings inside.
Be sure to check out Andrew Napolitano’s latest book “A Nation of Sheep” (here is a review by Thomas DiLorenzo) in which he critiques and details numerous totalitarian acts.
Napolitano also discussed many of the themes and ideas at the FFF conference this past summer, parts 1 2 3 4
Below is a recent radio debate between John Gibson and Napolitano over the book:
See also: These Days, Everyone Dares Call Everything Treason
John Gibson is like an epicene version of Bill O’Reilly: He gets all girly and moist thinking of big, burly guys in black doing obscene things to people the State doesn’t like. He’s just as ignorant as O’Reilly, but lacks Bill-O’s barstool faux machismo. He knows nothing of consequence and has a rhetorical arsenal filled with nothing but assorted thought-stopping exclamations. Judge Napolitano made spam fajitas of this flabby moron.
Yes - I left the US after spending - not worst - but 13 years of my life - exactly because I AM NOT A SHEEP.
Now, from listening of the recording - strange comparison between Linkoln’s and Bush’s situations. One was a bona fide Civil War on US soil. Another - one uninvestigated terrorist attack.
And of course - even if the reduction of freedoms was justified in 2001 and maybe 2002 - today is almost 2008. What is the outlook? How long will it take to restore freedoms in the US? Would it require another Civil War? I have a wested interest, I’d love to visit the US again some day, but not before it gets to at least 1990 status.
The truth about autocratic regimes (which US had become) is that they MAY be very efficient - IF there is a top notch leader at the very top. But I can’t see ANY 1st class leader in the US - since probably FDR.
Autocratic regimes with stupid and weak leaders at the top end up quite badly. Hitler comes to mind… Russian Empire of course…
Also - to put it simple - the World Domination is the Ring of Sauron. Those that are so very willing to put that ring on… are stupid.
You’ve got a few things wrong, Vassili.
1. Our so-called “Civil War” was not a civil war at all. It was a War For Secession…or a War Between The States…or a War of Northern Aggression…or a War Over Tariffs. But not a “coup d’etat.”
2. There is never anything “good” about autocratic regimes regardless of the caliber of the “leader” at the top. That falls under the rubric of “Der Fuhrer Prinzip.” Under our constitution, the president was never intended to be the “leader.” He is merely an elected executive officer whose main duty is to see that the laws enacted by our legislature are duly executed and enforced.
3. Wherever did you get the idea that FDR was a first class leader? He was a fascist empiricist, and “New Deal” recoverywise…a complete failure. (and I don’t care whose nose this tweaks by saying that).
4. And just what was so good about “1990 status?”
Other than that, you begin to show potential.
“1. Our so-called “Civil War” was not a civil war at all. It was a War For Secession…or a War Between The States…or a War of Northern Aggression…or a War Over Tariffs.”
Uh you missed one. It was also a war over the right of the Southern Gentleman to own other people for their personal profit, amusement, whatever.
Well, you can call it anything you like but it still wasn’t a civil war. That was my point…yours is beside it!
You made a list for the causes of that war that carried a egregious omission. I corrected it, that is not beside the point.
I’ll say it one last time: That war was not a civil war. It is misnamed. A civil war, by definition, is a war between factions or parties of the same country for political control of that country. Since the South had seceded and formed the CSA, it was no longer a part of the USA, and therefore had no interest in determining the political landscape of the USA. That, and that only, was my point. The issues surrounding the evil of slavery was never a part of it…and therefore beside it.
But since you brought that issue up and seem hell-bent on changing the subject over to it, I’ll enlighten you on a couple of statements made by Lincoln, himself over the issue of slavery within the United States of the 1860s. To wit:
“My paramount object in this struggle, is to save the Union and it not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it…”
“I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of
slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
Those comments and other Lincolnian points of debate regarding the “peculiar institution” can be found at the following website…amongst others. Check it out.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/slave07.htm
Slavery was never a real issue in the War Between The States…for either side. Lincoln explicated on it in the Emancipation Proclimation, but only as a political expedient. The Proclimation was merely a speech…not an official declaration of policy, which he didn’t have the authority to declare anyway.
Besides, to imagine that more than six hundred thousand Americans fought and gave their lives over the issue of slavery in 1860s America is nonsensical in the extreme.
As to your reference to “southern gentlemen” and their supposed “right” to own people for their personal profit, etc., you also made what you call an egregious omission. You forgot to mention the “northern gentlemen” of the northern slave states who continued to enjoy the “rights” you mentioned above throughout the war and for a time thereafter. Namely those of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and West Virginia. You certainly didn’t mean to imply that slavery was okay there, did you?
And BTW, I’m not a Southerner.
Not to put gas on the fire, or maybe so, but I always thought it ridiculous that poor white farm boys by the tens of thousands, who not only never had the money to own slaves nor likely ever would, should lay down their lives and suffer horrors unimaginable just so some rich guy could keep his slaves. Who would do such a thing? There obviously had to be other reasons but this to me is a smoking gun that kills the whole “war against slavery” issue.
To MOT,
Exactly as I said in so many words. Thanks for fueling the fire. It’s time people understood the reality of the issues surrounding that criminally coerced war, government-controlled historical “educational” indoctrination notwithstanding.
“Also - to put it simple - the World Domination is the Ring of Sauron. Those that are so very willing to put that ring on… are stupid.”
Precisely.
MM
In that regard, Ron Paul is like Gandalf.
Thanks! You have inspired a new post for my website! But I think perhaps Ron Paul is more like Aragorn. It could be the Founding Fathers are Gandalf. And maybe Ron Paul supporters are the Fellowship of the Ring? The neocons are the Orcs? Who knows?
Nah.
The neo-cons are the squiddies of “The Matrix”.
Ron Paul is Neo.
And the media is Agent Smith.
Michael Cecil
I wonder how much it hurt Gibson to do that promo of a book about freedom?
Not to impugn the good Judge’s efforts on behalf of checking the power of the Executive but how come nobody seems to mention that he lifted the title for his book from a book of the same name written by William J. Lederer (also author of “The Ugly American”) in 1961?
Would that the same sheep would have read that book .
Listening to this wanker Gibson trusting government to only use these laws against terrorists and never to abuse them answers anyone’s questions as to why this Administration is able to get away with what it does. The Press is a Casper Milquetoast that has replaced any notions of independence with abject gullibility on the one hand and bought-cheaply boosterism on the other. No wonder they’re scared witless about becoming irrelevant.
Where are the lawyers? The common man is scared of Al-Quaida, the politicians are scared of being seen as ’soft’ by the commoners, what are the lawyers scared of? Have all the intellectuals joind special-interest think tanks?
Great question? U.S. Lawyers’ associations are refusing to be part of the answer. So, so very disappointing, to say the least.
A quick history lesson!
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He did so unilaterally and without the consent of Congress. Those who disagreed with the Union, including newspaper editors were locked up.
Result? We won the war!
During World War II, Presiden Rooslevelt locked up anyone he thought was a threat to our national security, including thousands of Japanese American CITIZENS. His actions were later upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the decision of Korematsu vs. The United States. The Court reasoned that “the Constituion is not a suicide pact.”
Result? We won the war!
And today? We argue and argue. We can’t even agree that we are in a war. We call it a “war on terror” when terror is just a tactic used by the radical Muslims. We dare not speak the truth, the uncomfortable, politically incorrect truth: that this is not a war on terror but a war on ISLAMIC terror. We lambaste all of the governments efforts to protect us from insane Muslims who would readily cut off our heads, liberal or conservative, they don’t care, we are all infidels to them. And we are ignorant of our history. Lincoln and FDR fought wars like they ought to be fought, to win! They did things that would make George Bush look like a mild mannered kindergarten teacher. Yet all we do is fight with each other while our enemies plot their next attack. God help us!
Tim, Tim, Tim. Why must reason and evidence bounce off you like spitballs off a rhino? Since the Civil War was Americans fighting Americans, exactly who is the “we” who won the war? Lincoln’s tyrannical actions had nothing to do with the North winning the war–as MacPherson points out, the North not only had a huge material edge in every way over the South, but sounder financing procedures and even perhaps superior strategists (as opposed to the South’s clearly better tactical militarists).
Lincoln should have never fought the war to begin with, and having done so should never have compromised liberty, which helped the North not at all. Plus, he set a fell precedent and forged a nation from a confederacy, not at all what the founding fathers had in mind.
Ditto WWII, with the proper substitutions made.
Your whole line doesn’t work anyway. Stalin murdered and terrorized large segments of the USSR’s military and civilian population. Result? Stalin beat Hitler! See how well evil and despotism work?
You still haven’t answered how making war on Iraq, which posed zero threat to us, had anything to do with fighting terrorism against us.
R. Nelson, as for the war in Iraq, I think you have a valid and reasonable point. Many people can argue that Iraq was the wrong target and I believe you can certainly be a patriotic American and oppose the war in Iraq. My problem is with some people who are unwilling to even admit that we are in a war, a war on Islamic radcicalism and terrororism. John Edwards thinks its just a “bumper sticker” war. Some people want to keep their heads in the sand and turn logic on its head to say the radical Muslims are not attacking us and we don’t have to take prudent measures to protect ourselves. FDR and Lincoln, whatever you may say of them, were bold and powerful leaders. Yes, they made mistakes, and I’m not saying we should necessarily go as far as they did, but they certainly were strong leaders who knew how to fight a war.
If FDR or Lincoln were alive today I highly doubt they would be going around saying that Islam is a peaceful religion. They would be saying just the opposite. If he were alive and President on 9/11/01, Lincoln would have probably suspended habeas corpus, declared martial law, and summarily rounded up any Muslims who even had a remote connection to terrorist organizaztions. He would have immediatly stopped all immigration from Muslim countries, secured our boders, and quickly deported any non-citizen Muslims who he believed to be radical. He would have shut down radical Muslim Mosques and charged any Muslim leaders who advocate terrorism with treason.
You might be quite right about Iraq. Lincoln, after taking out the Taliban, he would probably have asked for a formal declaration of war(none of this lame “authorization of force” nonsense”)and bombed Saudi Arabia, since Bin Laden and the majority of the hijackers on 9/11/01 were Saudi nationals. FDR and Rooselvelt would have kicked ass. They knew that their number one priority was to protect our nation’s security and would not have fallen for this policitally correct, Islam is peaceful, non-sense.
Everyone lambastes Bush, but his actions are quite mild in comparison to FDR and Lincoln. When, Heaven forbid, the Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear bomb and kill 2,000,000 Americans, what will people like John Edwards say then? What will you tell the families of those two million dead Americans? That the war on terror was just a fake? That Islam is peaceful and not a threat? How many more people have to die before we admit that radical Islam is, indeed, a grave threat?
Maybe I’ll take this up later in a fresher blog, but let me ask you, Tim: When we faced the USSR with its thousands of nuclear weapons, and almost came to nuclear blows at least twice (though the public didn’t know it until many years later), were you as keen to sacrifice America and its future generations on an altar of cowardice and fear as you are now that a handful of men with ancient rifles and homemade bombs hate us?
R. Nelson,
There is a very great difference between the Soviets and the Islamic radicals. I fear the Islamic radicals much more than I feared the Soviets. They are a greater threat to us than the Soviets ever were. You know why? Because the Soviets were rational actors. They did not want to die so they could get 72 virgins in paradise! They did not want to start a nuclear war and they were not suicidal. You could talk to them and reason with them.
The same cannot be said of the radical Muslims who believe it is a wonderful thing to die in the cause of “Jihad” and that by doing so they go straight to heaven. Such people are very dangerous because they are not acting on a rational basis, indeed, they are beyond the reach of reason and that is what makes them so dangerous.
TR, what does it matter if someone dies for “jihad” or renames it “liberty”,”America”,”God and country”,”homeland”, “motherland”,”Patriotism”… ? The results are the same regardless of the words used to justify. If you support immoral murderous acts then you are by extension an immoral man with murder in your heart. Are you immoral?
You clearly like to bray on about what is or isn’t “legal” but those are merely evil excuses dressed in fancy language. Lawyerly verbiage to cover the stench of rotting corpses.
I also wonder if you’re part of the intelligentsia. A teacher or educator perhaps? I ask this because I’ve found throughout history an overabundance of teachers and egg heads pulling the levers of mass murder. Seems they never tire of putting people in their place, like unruly students, and those they can’t bully into obedience they “graduate” with a dose of lead.
The Soviets murdered their own citizens by the millions, and slaughtered their own officer corps even as WWII loomed. The Chinese killed some 60 million of their own–a figure we can hardly fathom–before developing their own nuclear bomb.
Are you telling me we have more reason to think the Arab terrorists are more unstable than the Soviets and the Chinese were? Despite calls to nuke them, sane and civilized minds spared preventive nuclear murder on a vast scale.