|
|||||||||
Posted August 5, 2002
Bill of Rights
[Regarding "The Constitution," Carter Mithchell's letter of July 29:]
Time to get off your high horse and realize that the Bill Of Rights is still the most important shield we have against tyranny. We would be in even worse straits if the illusion of the Constitution wasn't being maintained!
What tradition in our culture is strong enough to resist tyranny without referring to the Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights to the Constitution?
The documents above; are all contracts that I didn't sign, but I'm much better off because of their existence, than I would be if the US Government agreed with Spooner and decided that it is not bound in any way by the Constitution.
Wake up!
Instead of correctly spouting useless Spoonerisms, (Grin); you should be trying get the first 9 Amendments of the Bill Of Rights enforced as the highest law in the land!
Implicit Contract
In regard to Carter Mitchell's letter ["The Constitution," Backtalk, July 29:] and the incorrect assumption that the Constitution is "a set of rules we didn't agree to." Do you drive on paved roads? Do you mail letters? Does your neighbourhood have a fire department and police force? Do you use government-printed dollar bills in your transactions? Why yes, I rather think these things are true. By taking advantage of these and other services of government, you're entering an implicit contract with same. If you haven't "agreed" to the contract with the government (and we can all agree, I hope, that the Constitution is the foundation of the government), you're obligated to not use any of these services at all.
Standing Army
RE: Behind the Headlines, August 2, 2002
It
is incorrect of Justin Raimondo to say the the so-called Founding Fathers
were against a standing army. Most of the them concurred with the writers
of the
Federalist Papers who strongly defended the new Constitution and its
sanction of a standing army brushing off the opposition Anti-Federalists
as alarmists on the subject. Jefferson himself, as Raimondo contends,
very well may have been opposed to a standing army, but his was a minority
opinion of the "Founding Fathers." He also was not vehement in his opposition
as during his administration he found the military useful in his foreign
escapades and embargoes.
Contrary to Raimondo's contention, the Jeffersonian, or more rightly, the Anti-Federalist suspicion of a standing army, has not been stood upon its head, but has actually been confirmed by the recent wrangling in the Bush Administration over attacking Iraq. Just because some in the military are opposed to an Iraq invasion does not negate the fact that the military stands at the disposal of the civilian authorities to use when they deem convenient. That is the crux of the danger of a standing army. There was opposition within the military to civilian command during World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Gulf War I etc. Did this stop America from entering any of those wars?
It is high time to recognize that the true Founding Fathers of the American Republic were those who fought in the American Revolution and then who crafted the Articles of Confederation without a centralized government and standing army. It was the so-called Founding Fathers who usurped their delegated authority of fine tuning the Articles and thrust upon the united States the Constitution with its centralized government and standing army, ultimately bestowing upon the people oppression and Empire.
Power of Government
Regarding Justin Raimondo's column on chicken hawks, since when has the U.S. government in its numerous endeavours to militarily topple and replace regimes in the world ever achieved such a goal as JR insists underlies the planned escalation of war on Iraq? Has their ever been an instance where a so-called Jeffersonian republic was ever installed by the US government anywhere in the world by these means? Is it really possible to force any country to adopt such a regime?
The problem with JR's thesis is his assumption that political power derives from military might. As he says at the end of his column, "the latter [viz., the military establishment] are [the] source of ALL power."
This assumption has no basis in fact. The power of government is not derived from military might. Neither is it derived from divine Providence or strange women lying in ponds distributing swords; nor does it come from a Ring forged in the flaming depths of Mt. Doom. It is derived, rather, from the people over whom the government rules. Without this utterly essential source of power, government and the military/police apparatus that defines it, cannot sustain itself for very long. Not even the military would suffice to prevent it from eventually disappearing altogether....
Macedonia
[Regarding "Bulgaria," Fortuna M.'s letter of July 29:]
I find it very comical that you consider Macedonians to be Bulgarians just because of the similarities in our languages, would you consider Serbians and Croatians as one in the same?
When you say that there were no Macedonians before World War II it is very shameful both to yourself and to the Bulgarians who died helping the Macedonians gain their freedom.
You said there was no concept of a Macedonian people until Tito and his communists invented this "new" people, well how do you explain the banners that were carried during the Illinden Uprising in 1903 which read "Macedonia for the Macedonians" not Bulgarians, not Serbs, not Greeks but Macedonians.
There are many proofs of the continued existence of the Macedonian people throughout history i.e. scrolls of arms, religious texts.
The only people who can truly have any notion of what we are are the Turks since they ruled us for 600 years and this is the reason why Turkey is the only nation to recognize us by our true name and flag.
Macedonia / Bulgaria Reply
[Regarding "Bulgaria," Fortuna M.'s letter of July 29:]
I respectfully disagree with you as I have it from my grandmother who is half Vlach and half Macedonian that Macedonians (not Bulgarians) became refugees during World War II and ran to Bulgaria. My own grandmother ran to Vlach relatives that lived in Bulgaria (since all of her Macedonian relatives lived in the Prespa region) although she could not remember what the name of the town was because she was 92 when she relayed the story to me of when she was 13 years old and had to hide in Bulgaria.
I cannot believe the level of deceit that all of the surrounding countries of the Balkans have against Macedonia and its Macedonian citizens. The Greeks claim we are Greeks, the Bulgarians claim we are Bulgarian, etc. Personally I sat on a plane bound for Sophia next to a Bulgarian woman that spoke no English, we could not communicate because I could not understand what she was saying, it sounded a lot more like Serbian to me than Macedonian....
One other thing that a lot of people don't know is that many Macedonian families keep family trees going and ours has been in place since the 1700s which clearly show that our last name has always had a "ski" ending and that we lived in the area of Prespa and actually founded a village there. So I say pooh on your history prior to 1878 and your beliefs, Macedonia lives and continues to do so no matter what other culture will claim its rights tomorrow or a century from now, we were there and we will continue to persevere, no matter what the folks in Belgrade, or Sophia or Tirana, or Athens have to say about it.
Peacemaker to Warmonger
The recent change in the foreign policy of the US from that of peacemaker to that of warmonger deserves very careful, thoughtful consideration by US citizens who would like to avoid terrorism. Our country has never shirked its duty to defend its citizens from identifiable foreign threats, but neither has it sought to initiate war on flimsy or coopered-up [?] evidence. A majority of the world’s important nations always backed our serious war efforts to rid warring nations of tyrants, or to help restore peace in the world. The Press and Politicians did not talk interminably about assassinating or deposing leaders, or of preemptive strikes. In case you’ve forgotten, US citizens were not positively impressed with Japan’s preemptive strike against Pearl Harbor! I don’t think that they would like to read of other nation’s desires to assassinate US leaders, either. Why are the Press and Politicians engaging in this kind of disastrous talk now? These are extremist ideas, foreign to traditional US thinking. Initiating a war against Iraq will greatly increase terrorism, and will destabilize the Middle East. Saddam may be a tyrant, but he is well contained. Even Kuwait is opposed. No war with Iraq!
~ Ed S., Delaware