Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $32,008
Woo hoo!! And the first 36% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by achilles2000

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Spain Celebrates The "End Of The Recession" With 54% Youth Unemployment, Highest Since January

    07/01/2014 10:26:34 AM PDT · 6 of 9
    achilles2000 to Enlightened1

    Depends on what you mean by “falls”. In my mind, “falling” would mean that Spain could no longer borrow money to fund its deficit spending, which would mean its welfare state would implode. Now that the ECB is violating the treaties by printing money, that could take a while. Both Spain and Italy have been on the edge for a while, and the chart shows youth unemployment in Italy at 43%. As for the Eurozone, a bankrupt Spain could be the end of the Euro, and if Italy and Spain were to lose the ability to borrow, that would almost certainly be the end of the Euro. That, in turn, would at least reduce the power of the bureaucracy in Brussels.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 8:16:52 PM PDT · 379 of 405
    achilles2000 to rockrr

    Your posts haven’t exactly been filled with sources or arguments. This thread has discussed almost every conceivable topic relating to these issues. If you have something to say, do go back and find the relevant section and make a sourced, well-reasoned argument.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 8:14:36 PM PDT · 378 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    It isn’t an improvement at all. You know that is what I’ve said all along. Lincoln did enough wrong that I disapprove of Lincoln. If it hadn’t been for the War, he probably would be remembered as a minor president who tried to further Henry Clay style crony capitalism.

    By the way, I find it interesting that Lincolnolaters are ready to place the race card against anyone who doesn’t worship at the Lincoln Memorial. After all, he was quite at peace with the Corwin Amendment and had vowed to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 with a vengeance. That would have cemented slavery into the culture for a long time to come. So, it would be far more reasonable to say that Lincolnolaters are actually the ones who secretly harbor fond thoughts of slavery. Of course, I don’t believe that and don’t believe that you harbor such views. Nonetheless, it is ironic.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 8:07:22 PM PDT · 376 of 405
    achilles2000 to Sherman Logan

    The “Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association”? Really. Well I guess that settles it. The fact that the entire and only function of Article I is to lay out the powers of Congress (and some limitations) because it would conflict with Congress), including pointing out areas in which states cannot legislate, doesn’t matter. It also doesn’t matter that it was well settled law by 1860 that inclusion of the power to suspend in Article I was reserved to Congress or that commentators such as Joseph Story pointed out that this was a Congressional power. No, somebody writes an article that doesn’t address important sources, and dismisses others (e.g. Randall), and now it is all up for grabs. Whee! This Constitutional Law stuff is really easy!

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 7:55:27 PM PDT · 375 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    So, if Washington said that what the Constitution really means is that slaves count for 4/5 or that it permits the federal government to tax people in order to provide the Episcopalian Church an annual subsidy, we should just accept it as the “true meaning” of the Constitution because Washington said it?

    There is a reason the document was written. And on every issue on which the Federalists usurped power for the federal government, you can find Founders who participated in the ratification objecting.

    This is one of the problems of postmodernism: texts have no meaning; all we have are “narratives” about the text. I think the text speaks for itself on most points, and I don’t regard oracular pronouncements or actions taken by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, or anyone else as amending the text, which was not the private property of the very small circle of people whose names have been discussed.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 7:05:54 PM PDT · 371 of 405
    achilles2000 to rockrr

    I have provided far more source material than anyone else. You seem to believe your position is validated by group think. You can probably find a large group of older people in Russia who still believe the wonderful things they were taught about Stalin and who feel threatened by anyone who points out that the real Stalin (or Lenin) wasn’t exactly what they were taught.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 7:02:50 PM PDT · 370 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    Your conclusion is a non-sequitur, but I think you are right about that. I just disapprove of Lincoln and detest slavery.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 7:00:19 PM PDT · 369 of 405
    achilles2000 to Sherman Logan

    Alright, Sherman, and where is the provision (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2)? It is an Article I power, not an Article II power. As you should know, Article I sets forth the powers given to CONGRESS. The entire discussion has had to do with Lincoln unconstitutionally usurping Congress’ power in this area. People familiar with this area of the law know that well before 1860 even the federal courts had recognized that this was an explicit grant of power to the Congress. John Marshall, years before, had written in an opinion that “if ...the public safety should require the suspension of [the writ of habeas corpus] it is for the legislature to say so.” By the time of Lincoln there was a line of precedent for this very obvious constitutional point. Lincoln ignored a USSC order telling him to stop his unlawful arrests, and the unlawful suspension of the Great Writ continued for some time (and thousands of illegal arrests) before the Congress voted a suspension.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 6:37:48 PM PDT · 366 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    BroJoeK...for once I agree with you. There was no such threat, and I think the Fire Eaters wanted secession in large part so that they could be “founders” and men of note - I think that underlying all of it were the ego needs of certain men in the Deep South who exploited grievances real and imagined to further their careers. While I think the states had the right to secede (over which we disagree), I think it was the wrong decision. The Deep South would have been economically marginalized by the developments of the second half of the 19th Century. With a separation from the Union, slaves who escaped North wouldn’t be sent back under the Fugitive Slave Act, which would have reduced the value of slaves generally. With a diminution of the importance and value of the agricultural commodities produced by the Deep South and a large dependent slave population, I don’t see how secession would have resulted in anything but massive social and economic problems for the Deep South. It could well be that over time the non-seceding states would actually have been better off without the Deep South, although that is just conjecture.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 6:25:13 PM PDT · 364 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    The Lincoln you adore is a myth.

    All of your prattle trying to wrap this dispute about Constitutional powers and various historical events in “slavery” is as intellectually dishonest a thing as I’ve seen here. No one is interested in the return of slavery, and you know it.

    You’re a troll.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 6:21:12 PM PDT · 363 of 405
    achilles2000 to Publius

    I think you probably know that we were talking exclusively of the portion having to do with the federal criminalization of speech. Everybody else did.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 6:20:00 PM PDT · 362 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    SO, you are back to the smear. Anyone who disagrees with your adoration of Lincoln and the leviathan federal government must be in favor of slavery. You are conceding that you have no real argument. This is the sort of thing liberals do. Given your resort to the jurisprudence of the “Living Constitution” and disregard for the actual provisions of the Constitution, I’m not surprised.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 6:16:51 PM PDT · 361 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    This discussion has descended into silliness. You and others have a fifth grade emotional attachment to certain figures you treat as demigods. The Federalists clearly didn’t like the compromise they were forced into in the Constitution and set about trying to get the powers they wanted by going around the Constitution. Hamilton was very aggressive in this and was supported by mercantilist interests.

    Go ahead and claim that the Alien & Sedition Act was Constitutional, or that the “necessary and proper” clause allows the government to do anything it deems “necessary and proper” (in which case we can dispense with the rest of the Constitution), that the power to “coin money” means printing up fiat money, or that Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 means the federal government can levy an income tax directly on citizens, or any other nonsense you like. Even if Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson swore on a stack of Bibles that those things are true, they would still be unconstitutional. Your assumption that leaders engaging in acts of realpolitik actually tell us what the Constitution says is either nothing other than a modified version of the doctrine of the Royal Perogative, over which Charles I lost his head, or some mystic vision of Hamilton and others as oracles. The purpose of the Constitution was to have a written document that objectively defined the limited powers of the federal government. It wasn’t some mystical text that required Delphic oracles to proclaim the meaning, and the Federalists were not empowered to declare as law that the Constitution means “up” when it says “down”.

    The progressives own you, and you don’t even know it.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 5:55:11 PM PDT · 358 of 405
    achilles2000 to Sherman Logan

    The Founders fought a War of Independence, a war of secession from the British Empire. Your claim regarding the Tories is quite debatable, but also beside the point. You are talking about a period before the Constitution by which the states had created a federal republic that was to be bound by certain rules. In fact, after the founding in the situation most analogous to part of the Lincoln dictatorship, the Federalists’ Alien & Sedition Act, was repudiated by most of the Founding generation, and its repeal was forced in 1802.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/17/2014 5:05:54 PM PDT · 356 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    You are naïve. The entire bank fiasco was a political deal that, in part got, the capitol moved to the Potomac, which was a pet project of Washington’s. The Constitution says what the enumerated power is regarding money, and the men you have on a pedestal were not merely mortal, but politicians, too. This isn’t uncommon. The same thing has been going on in the Eurozone with the ECB. The people (especially the German public) was given express treaty language prohibiting “quantitative easing. With the Euro in place and the ECB up and running, the “founding fathers” there are violating what the people signed up for.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/16/2014 8:58:53 PM PDT · 344 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    Hey! The Lincolnolaters need your help on a Corwin Amendment thread ;-)

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/16/2014 8:52:11 PM PDT · 343 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    The “necessary and proper clause” does NOT grant substantive enumerated powers. In the monetary arena, for example, the experience with the Continental gave rise to the Federal government’s power being limited to only the enumerated power of coining of money. Coining money requires a mint or contracting with a mint. That would be “necessary and proper”. Creating a Central Bank obviously is not “necessary or proper” with respect to carrying out the function of making coins. Hamilton, Marshall and others were engaged in trying to get by chicanery and stealth what had been denied them in the compromise that resulted in the Bill of Rights and Constitution. They were much more persistent and consistent than their opposition. I’ll give them that, but that seems to be true of statists generally, perhaps because capturing government and expanding it provides them with a considerable payoff.

    Washington’s biographers will tell you that he had little grasp of the financial issues that were Hamilton’s forte. Washington was mainly what the historians call a “military” federalist. He wanted the Constitution because he believed, rightly IMHO, that a somewhat more powerful federal government would be able to defend the US better from foreign aggression. I also agree with Washington’s foreign policy advice in his Farewell Address. On the other issues, he largely listened to Hamilton, with whom he had been close. Hamilton got part of what he wanted in the Constitution, and then he, and others like him, got busy trying to get by other means what they didn’t get in the first place.

    You need to disabuse yourself of the notion that the Constitution was personal to a small group of people and that it was theirs to change as their political objectives changed. Madison was quite clear that the actual founders were the ratifying conventions, which is the legal fact. The plain meaning of “Congress shall make no law...”, for example, can’t legitimately be changed by Washington, Adams, or anyone else deciding that the restriction was inconvenient. If that had been the Constitutional plan, it never would have been ratified, which would have been a shame.

    I guess you really are on the same page as the progressive left; you just would like a somewhat different agenda.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/16/2014 7:04:30 PM PDT · 340 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    Well, treating interpretation of the “text” of the Constitution as merely a subjective matter is quite postmodern of you. We write far more complicated contracts than the Constitution every day, and no one pretends that the terms are up for grabs interpretively. The Founding generation subscribed to a hermeneutic that was applicable to both the law and the Bible - the “perspicacity” of the text. In other words, there is no personal interpretation of, for example “Congress shall make no law...” The problem isn’t that the text is difficult to understand as originally understood. The problem is that statists view the “literal” meaning of the text as a barrier to the exercise of powers that they want. That is the source of the increasing corruption of Constitutional law decisions from Marshall to the present judges devoted to a “living Constitution”.

    You do realize that your “American citizenship” argument is an exercise in question begging. It assumes that the right of secession is not a power reserved to the states and the Constitution provides that the Union is “Perpetual”, language that appeared in the Articles and that was plainly excluded from the Constitution. All of the seceding states went through their own representative processes to determine whether the states would would secede. What you are really saying is a repudiation of the fundamental principle of the right of secession stated in the Declaration. As I pointed out before, there are studies that indicate that a majority, North, and South, in 1860 clearly believed states had the right to secede - and that after decades of haranguing about “Union Forever!” by the likes of Daniel Webster.

    Lincoln didn’t go to war to free the slaves. Surely you know that. If he had, the North would have revolted. The Emancipation proclamation is widely recognized as an artful dodge that essentially freed no one, but that was done for a European audience to prevent European recognition of the Confederacy. Northern armies saw mass desertions as a result of the Proclamation - the very few soldiers were willing to die for abolitionism. That is why the propaganda emphasis was on “Union”, not slavery. The “war to end slavery” meme is a post-war artifact intended to make the Lincoln dictatorship appear noble.

    Because you think that associating tyrannical or dictatorial actions with a “noble cause” is sufficient justification for those actions, you really can’t object much to Obama’s shredding of the law. After all, in your world it’s just a question of whose ox is being gored.

    The Lincoln myth has indeed pleased many. The real Lincoln has pleased others. As economist and historian, Thomas Di Lorenzo points out:

    “On page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition of Mein Kampf Hitler repeated Lincoln’s historically false and absurd argument from his first inaugural address that the states were never sovereign. “The individual states of the American union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own,” wrote Hitler, paraphrasing Lincoln. He did this to make his own case for the abolition of states’ rights or federalism in Germany and the creation of a centralized, monopolistic state.

    The arguments in favor of states’ rights that were being made in Germany, wrote Hitler, were “propagated by the Jews” and should therefore be dismissed. “The mischief of individual federated states . . . must cease,” the dictator bellowed. “A rule basic for us National Socialists,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “is derived: A powerful national Reich.” The only real difference between this statement and Lincoln’s theory of the American union is that Hitler referred to a “national Reich” whereas Lincoln, ever the master of slick political rhetoric, called the same thing “the mystic chords of union.”

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/16/2014 5:07:06 PM PDT · 338 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    Hanging it all on a Preamble, which is not substantive law? Nice try. Here is Heritage, which is hardly a hotbed of originalist thinking (remember, it birthed Romneycare):!/articles/0/essays/1/preamble

    But, really, the rest of your response gives your position away. The federal government isn’t bound by the provisions of the Constitution; Americans have no rights that the government is bound to respect. If most people like some unlawful action, well then, those who object must be eccentric. I would point out that Hitler legitimately won his first election. That didn’t make his subsequent actions lawful or right, and the election certainly didn’t create an obligation to obey a lawless state.

    “If Obama did something like that, “it would be wrong, that’s for sure.” (Sorry, Nixon.) However, I would not pretend that his wrongful act should render him responsible for choices that Americans make about the size of their government in the year 2165.”

    You obviously don’t understand precedent, either in how it affects what we call a legal system or the role it plays in social conditioning. Lincoln and the Radical Republicans that held power after him established institutions and precedents that others built on. I didn’t say Lincoln was the sole source of the problem of a lawless federal government, but in many cases he and the RRs were the fountainheads.

    “our bills are our bills?” No debt incurred unlawfully is a legal or moral obligation, e.g. the invalidation of billons of dollars of “WHOOPS” bonds because the Washington utilities lacked the authority to enter into certain kinds of contracts?

    A government actually operating under the Constitution doesn’t have the authority to spend or do most of what is spent or done, whether a majority approves or not. Of course, I would agree, as I’ve said before, that the American Constitutional Republic is as dead today as the Roman Republic in the days of Augustus Caesar. Conservatives with views like yours are a contributing cause. Hope you like our lawless police state.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/16/2014 3:43:06 PM PDT · 334 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    This topic was gone over earlier in the thread. You are late to the party. It is interesting, though, what people will invent to justify their received prejudices.

    Your comment about Lincoln and slavery is contemptible. I suppose if Obamalini ordered the Secret Service to arrest the staff and owners of Fox and hold them at undisclosed locations with no right of habeas corpus, criticism of it would “just be because he is black”.

    The programs that addict the seniors to government are unconstitutional. But, apart from that, a political class that is lawless and orchestrates massive voter fraud will find a way to manage even without seniors. In addition, “conservatives” love their welfare education, and so 90% of children are institutionalized in government indoctrination and condom education centers. Good luck with them.

    The bond market will catch up to us sooner or later (probably sooner). At that point the game is over. There will be massive civil unrest, and the so-called “conservatives” will be running around trying “save” unconstitutional socialist programs that they are accustomed to, just as they hold on to historical myths that they are accustomed to. Oh, yes, and the past does play a major role in creating the future. When the bond markets begin treating us like Greece, it will largely be because of things set in motion by long dead presidents, some of whom implemented programs and policies(e.g. Wilson, FDR, and Johnson)that were enabled by earlier dead presidents who established the policies’ principles, e.g. Lincoln and TR.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/16/2014 9:04:05 AM PDT · 326 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    There is a large body of evidence that goes beyond the Fire Eaters, ranging from the Northern and Southern press to foreign observers and beyond. There is a substantial historical literature on this, and there aren’t a lot of professional historians who support the kind of monocausal explanation that you and others have absorbed from the textbook industry. All of that was touched on earlier in the thread with examples. I do not “champion” the cause, as you put it, except to the extent that I agree that states have a right to secede. I think it was unwise for the Deep South to have seceded, but Lincoln’s actions were lawless. There are well known academic academic historians who share that view. Clinton Rossiter, for one, although you probably have no idea who he was, so I’ll help you by providing his view of the Lincoln Presidency:’Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of man was the government of the United States....Lincoln was a great dictator. .....This great constitutional dictator was self appointed’.Clinton Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship.

    What did the Lincoln dictatorship mean in concrete terms? Here is just one example: ‘You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce...and prohibit any further publication are therefore commanded forthwirth to arrest and imprison...the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers’.
    -Order from Abraham Lincoln To General John Dix, May 18, 1864

    The slavery slander you and others here throw at those who don’t share your views of the nature of the Union is worthy of the liberal Smear-Bund.

    The Government in 1865 was operating a police state under martial law. It was smaller, but very powerful and lawless. If you think that the rise of statism in the US wasn’t a long process - that it somehow is just a matter of Democrat presidents’ misdeeds - you are wrong. Many of the seeds of what we have today were planted during the Lincoln Administration and in the Radical Republican period that followed. Pay attention this time: income tax, fiat money, federal intrusion into education, wholesale disregard of explicit provisions of the Constitution, etc.

    I think you, the other statists on this site, and prior generations of thoughtless Republicans, are responsible in part for the government today. The question, though, is, if you don’t like the logical progression of your statist principles, what are you going to do about it in the face of massive voter fraud and governmental lawlessness? As one famous dictator once said, you can have elections as long as I get to count the votes (a paraphrase). I think the answer is that you will do nothing because you don’t understand the times and are the sort of coward who uses accusations of “slavery” and racism against those with whom you disagree.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/15/2014 7:56:17 PM PDT · 323 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    Your sourcing, as I’ve pointed out, is partial and fails to even attempt to come to terms with that the mix of reasons was not the same for the North and the Deep South or the Upper South.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/15/2014 2:01:51 PM PDT · 321 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    It wasn’t all about slavery then or now. That is just a post-hoc rationalization peddled after the war. It was certainly partly about slavery.

    Given that the War did happen, it was a tragedy that Lincoln didn’t survive. He would have been far better post-War than the Radical Republicans who followed.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/15/2014 8:27:29 AM PDT · 318 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    “The fact is that Lincoln did nothing which had not already been done by our Founders”

    Which of those you deemed “Founders” unlawfully suspended habeas corpus and used the military to drag people from their homes in the middle of the night? Which “Founder” imposed an unconstitutional income tax? Unconstitutional paper money?

    I could continue, but it really doesn’t matter because you know little, don’t care to learn, and lack basic analytical skills. Like Hannity, you are just a “moderate” statist.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/14/2014 5:37:43 PM PDT · 315 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    You have an unsophisticated view of who the “Founders” were, and Madison, as I pointed out before, didn’t share it. Moreover, it wasn’t “their” Constitution to ignore at will. You are right about Jefferson and the Purchase. He was obligated to make the Purchase contingent on an amendment.

    In general, yes, I condemn those actions, but not the Constitution. You just don’t believe in the rule of law, which is typical of a statist. Other than Marshall, I think their unconstitutional actions were generally aberrations. With Lincoln it was a case of systematic disregard for the Constitution that became entrenched and that has gone far beyond anything he would have imagined or endorsed. That is always the problem with “sorcerer’s apprentices”.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/14/2014 9:54:43 AM PDT · 313 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    I don’t think I “mocked” John Adams, for example, for his unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Act. I do criticize him and those who supported it, however. “Mocking” and “criticizing” aren’t the same thing. That was the most grievous wrong done by any of the early Presidents. There is much to admire about Adams, but that was not his finest moment.

    I’m thrilled that you find me so consistent. T’is a pity you are locked in a mental cage.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/14/2014 8:49:54 AM PDT · 310 of 405
    achilles2000 to Tau Food

    This is really tiresome, and somewhat off point.

    1. Slavery is a very old, very undesirable institution that we are well rid of. 2. Lincoln didn’t go to war to free the slaves. 3. Except in Haiti and the US, slaves in the Western Hemisphere received their freedom peacefully. 4. An independent Deep South that did not have the benefit of the Fugitive Slave law of 1860 would have been hard pressed to maintain the peculiar institution for that reason alone. When other economic considerations are taken into account, such as the declining demand in the 19th Century for unskilled labor and the unsustainability of a “cotton culture” became apparent as a result of cotton plantations in Egypt and elsewhere became apparent, slavery would certainly have been ended everywhere in the US, probably much as it had been in Brazil. 5. What is the italicized “and it’s not coming back” phrase supposed to mean? No one wants slavery. 6. Ideas embedded in institutions and uncritical minds do rule us. In that sense, there are many dead men who rule us. To say it isn’t necessary that we follow any particular set of ideas is true in a purely logical sense, but it also ignores the intellectual inertia of cultures and individual minds.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/14/2014 7:49:06 AM PDT · 308 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK; rockrr

    Oh dear, it isn’t goodbye. I would miss you.

    You refused to see that Napolitano and I are saying the same thing about the federal government’s powers. Of course, you needn’t agree with us, but I knew the response I’d get.

    What you have made clear over time is that you hold deeper principles that drive your “historical” views. Chief among them is your “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, which I realize was probably unconsciously held by you until this exchange. You idolize Lincoln and his war. In fact, you are the perfect audience for the “war as necessity” dodge employed by all power mongering political “leaders”. The war you so love didn’t “correct” the Constitution; it was anti-Constitutional. I realize that you don’t read much or have the emotional strength to come to terms with opposing views, but Professor Jeffery Hummel’s Emancipating the Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the Civil War might be therapeutic for you.

    You also have the quaint view that the “Progressives” are the source of the problem. Actually, they were just a manifestation of the metastasizing cancer mercantilism and other big government tendencies introduced by the Republican Party during and after the War. There is no discontinuity between your principles and the Progressives. In fact, I think you’d be a big defender of the “necessary adjustments” made by the Progressives if they had gone no further than they had by 1917 (I’ll bet you love that war, too). The trouble, of course, is that once sown the seeds of tyranny continue to grow. Lincoln was an enemy of the American Constitutional Republic, just as both Roosevelts, Wilson, Hoover, etc. in an almost unbroken line up to Obamalini. We are only talking differences in degree and style.

    “Statism”, of which “Progressivism” is just one species, has always been around. All of the actors in the Founding generation were quite aware of the evils of statism because they had before them, not so much George the III, who was a relatively weak monarch, but example of the Tudors and the Stuarts, whose views of the rights of government were statist to the core.

    I think the real difference between us is that you are a “moderate” socialist, while I am not. Your real objection to our government is that it has gone farther than you like, while I view it as illegitimate because it is lawless and unconstitutional.

  • Bibles: Coming to a Planned Parenthood Near You?

    06/13/2014 6:32:02 AM PDT · 11 of 17
    achilles2000 to Balding_Eagle

    It is a translation issue, and “murder” is the better translation.

  • More Colleges Declare They Will Not Recognize Some Christian Groups

    06/13/2014 6:26:56 AM PDT · 7 of 39
    achilles2000 to wideawake

    Are the university dweebs going to pronounce a “Fatwa” against Muslim organizations, too? They are more vehemently against the sodomite lifestyle.

    Somehow I think they won’t...

    No one should donate to alumni fund drives. This is typical of what the money enables.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/13/2014 6:17:23 AM PDT · 306 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    I just knew I would get a response like this. Thanks for not disappointing me.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/12/2014 8:06:08 PM PDT · 304 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    Here is Napolitano saying in summary form the things that I have been writing that you fail to grasp (I guess the Judge and I share the same 0 IQ):

    “Before the progressives, the dominant political thinkers in America were Madisonians. James Madison, who kept the notes at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 — notes that eventually formed much of the language of the Constitution — made clear what the purposes of the Constitution were: to prescribe discrete areas of human endeavor in which the new federal government could legislate; to set forth open-ended areas of human behavior in which no government could legislate; and to leave the remaining areas of governmental endeavor in the hands of the states. The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers. The areas in which no government may regulate are infinite and generally are referred to as natural rights.

    The progressives have turned this philosophy on its head. TR and Wilson believed that the federal government could regulate any behavior, right any wrong, tax any event and curtail any freedom, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself. This view of American government not only contradicts Madison, but it also contradicts the language of the Constitution itself, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state in writing what Madison said many times throughout his life.”

    You go beyond the Progressives in that you think some alleged “need” allows the Feds to ignore express prohibitions.

  • 5 Truths Youíre Not Allowed To Say About Gays In America

    06/12/2014 8:03:13 PM PDT · 31 of 56
    achilles2000 to Fungi

    Thanks...I prefer “sodomite”. ;-)

  • 5 Truths Youíre Not Allowed To Say About Gays In America

    06/12/2014 7:18:56 PM PDT · 20 of 56
    achilles2000 to Pharmboy

    There is no scientific evidence that there is a sodomite gene. None. The genetics of sexual attraction are too complicated - and then there are the environmental factors.

    The sodomites used say it was a choice until they lost Bowers in 1987, then the litigation strategy required the “we’re born that way” story so they could fit into the civil rights jurisprudence. Even now, they will talk about “gender” being fluid.

    “Gay” does, however, correlate strongly with being sexually abused as a child or a teen. Sodomites prey on children at many times the rate of heterosexuals, something the author is afraid to say.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/12/2014 10:30:33 AM PDT · 302 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    I can see how you think the Republic is only “wounded”. After all, you make excuses for the evil and unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Act, using as an excuse the alleged needs of the time. As I have pointed out before, this is the leftwing jurisprudence of the “Living Constitution” - the Constitution as suggestion, not law. On that basis the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” were constitutional. Not only that, you embrace the promoters of mercantilism, which is just a polite name for crony capitalism. You also worship a dictator who unconstitutionally abolished habeas corpus, shut down hundreds of newspapers, unconstitutionally began printing money and imposed an income tax, an deported a Congressman who opposed his policies.

    In the final analysis, Lincoln started the war by refusing letting the Deep South exercise its right to leave. I have provided sources from which it is clear that he had offered to give the South almost any level of autonomy as long as he could collect tariffs for the purpose of protecting Northern industries. In essence he was trying to make a tax colony out of the South. When he sent a flotilla, including warships, to reinforce Sumter which could act as a means for enforcing the Morrill Tariff, the South Carolinians fired on Sumter. Even Northern newspapers, as I quoted to you, recognized that Lincoln played the Sumter gambit to provoke an action that would turn the tide of public opinion in the North toward war. Lincoln is also recognized as not dealing in good faith with the Peace Commission.

    By the way, my IQ is just fine; your ability to think independently of your indoctrination in the religion of Lincoln and statism isn’t.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/11/2014 7:59:17 PM PDT · 295 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    No secession mechanism...again you are assuming that if it isn’t specified as allowed, it isn’t permitted. They knew how to write and include the words “Perpetual Union”, and they chose not to. Even with “Perpetual Union” in the Articles, states seceded from that pact. You don’t read carefully, you don’t know the relevant literature, and you have trouble reasoning. In particular, the doctrine of enumerated powers and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are a mystery to you. The South, New England, New York City, and others at various times believed they had the right to secede.

    You are simply a big government conservative who doesn’t want to recognize what historians already acknowledge; namely, that Lincoln was a dictator who acted largely outside the law. The American Constitutional Republic today is as dead as the Roman Republic in the days of Augustus Caesar, and it is largely the fault of generations of faux “conservatives” like you.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/10/2014 7:48:48 PM PDT · 291 of 405
    achilles2000 to rockrr

    He is a moving target ;-)

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/10/2014 9:59:54 AM PDT · 289 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    The 3/5 provision was also relevant for tax reasons.

    As for the rest, you really have superficial view and knowledge of the process and history of ratification. You should know, for example, that many who opposed the final draft of the Constitution decided to support it once the Bill of Rights was promised. “Fedralist” and “federalist” are not the same thing. Here is what Jefferson actually thought of the Constitution and Bill of Rights: “There has just been opposition enough” to force adoption of a Bill of Rights, but not to drain the federal government of its essential “energy.”

    At this point, you are just flailing around.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/08/2014 5:04:22 PM PDT · 287 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    You are long on assertions that simply are wrong.
    1. The Constitution was a compromise. Because of compromises many who opposed early drafts ultimately supported it.
    2. “Federalists” were a political party that died an early death. Supporting the existence of a federal government doesn’t make one a “Federalist”. If that were the case, I would have been a “Federalist”, but I can’t have been because you have decreed that I am an “anti-federalist”. As long as we are talking about political parties, Democratic-Republicans also supported the Constitution, FYI.
    3. Your secession mechanism is your invention. The Constitution gives the federal government no powers except those that are enumerated, and those don’t include forcing states to remain in the Union. The Constitution does reserve the states individual rights and does not subject them to “Perpetual Union” as the Articles did. Odd that you support succession from the Articles in spite of the language of the Articles, and oppose it under the Constitution despite the language of the Constitution.
    4.Your use of “war” and “realism” gives away the game. It doesn’t matter that the Alien & Sedition Act was lawless and unconstitutional, just as you don’t care that Lincoln did a number of things that were lawless and unconstitutional. All you need to do to amend the Constitution is to claim that some lawful action is “unrealistic”, and so the government can ignore the Constitution. As I have said, you really suppoort a “Living Constitution” jurisprudence, not original intent.
    5. The Republic didn’t remain unchanged for 100+ years. The Civil War completely transformed the nature of American government. The Lincoln regime forced an unlawful income tax and fiat money on the country, for example. These toxic policies laid the groundwork for what was cemented into place less than 50 years later. Of course, the changes were more far reaching that just those two examples.
    6. Hamilton got very little language into the Constitution. One provision he did get was the federal assumption of the war debt. Yet, there is nothing that permits a central bank or (federal)paper money, for example, both of which Hamilton favored.
    7. Marshall seized something that no one gave the courts. You apparently believe that anyone who was what you call a “founder” isn’t bound by the document NEGOTIATED and ratified (by the states, the true founders).

  • The 10 Dumbest States in America

    06/07/2014 4:49:44 AM PDT · 8 of 101
    achilles2000 to SC_Pete

    Does the study adjust for illegals?

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/06/2014 2:23:42 PM PDT · 283 of 405
    achilles2000 to rockrr

    You are just another “Hannity” conservative. By the way, that was a not-so-clever way of dodging the anti-Constitutional proclivities of you beloved Federalists.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/06/2014 10:31:02 AM PDT · 281 of 405
    achilles2000 to rockrr

    It wasn’t “Founders”; it was Federalists. It wasn’t “messy”; it was a rank violation of the Constitution to increase Federal power.

    Now that you’ve characterized the nation as “evolving”, I think you really ought to realize that, when push comes to shove, you are a proponent of Brennan’s “Living Constitution”, e.g.,

  • Southern Baptists Face a Moment of Decision on Gay Marriage

    06/06/2014 10:18:37 AM PDT · 74 of 106
    achilles2000 to righttackle44

    The Bible speaks plainly on how children are to be raised, and it doesn’t include sending children to be trained up by a pagan government school system. There are many books, articles, and sermons that address this topic, which you can easily find. As for Romans 13, your brief comment would appear to indicate that you think Christians should submit to Nazis, Communists, pedophiles, etc, as long as they call themselves “authorities. I am sure that you can’t possibly have such a thoughtless position. It certainly wouldn’t be biblical, and there is an extensive literature on this subject that the Founding generation was well acquainted with.

  • Southern Baptists Face a Moment of Decision on Gay Marriage

    06/06/2014 7:17:29 AM PDT · 31 of 106
    achilles2000 to snoringbear

    It isn’t the “friends”, because, media messaging to the contrary, sodomites are few and far between. The real problem is the government schools and media that indoctrinate the children endlessly on the sodomite lifestyle. The SBC sowed the seeds of its own destruction when it embraced government schools. The current leadership bears responsibility for that, as well as prior leaders.

    The SBC is dead. Its alleged orthodoxy doesn’t translate into practice because they have made an idol of keeping the membership numbers up. I know because I know some of the leaders.

  • Southern Baptists Face a Moment of Decision on Gay Marriage

    06/06/2014 7:12:26 AM PDT · 25 of 106
    achilles2000 to Sybeck1

    The SBC openly chose sin when it refused to speak clearly on the sin of sending children to government schools. It is also inching to the left on amnesty, the environment, feminism, and, even more so, on “diversity”. I belong to an SBC church, but I will be out the door as soon as my older sons leave for college.

  • The Quiet Sesquicentennial of the War between the States

    06/06/2014 7:03:56 AM PDT · 279 of 405
    achilles2000 to BroJoeK

    Your more “perfect union” argument is ridiculous. You could argue with as much reason that “a more perfect union” is one that a state can leave. You have no real argument on secession beyond the fact that a lawless President was able to prevent it.

    As for Hamilton, do you really propose to argue that he wasn’t a big government Federalist? He didn’t get all that he wanted, but he was, for example, in favor of a permanent national debt and central banking. As a “conservative” I suppose you are in favor of those? Hamilton would probably be appalled at what the federal government has become, but that government has resulted, in part, from seeds he planted.

    By the way, I don’t recall arguing that any Founder advocated a LEVIATHAN police state. Still, your quaint view of the Founders does seem to omit facts that are inconvenient. Did a Founder sign the Alien and Sedition Act? Did Federalists pass it? How does criminalizing political speech comport with “Congress shall make no law...”?

    For all your expostulating about “original intent”, you don’t manage to come to terms with the doctrine of enumerated powers, the argument made by Hamilton that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, or the 9th and 10th Amendments. Moreover, as a legal matter, the most relevant, and ultimately dispositive, intent was that of the ratifying conventions.

    The Constitution would be a wonderful document to live under, but it was poisoned by Marshall and shredded by Lincoln and a succession of lawless politicians, including Obamalini. I do think you love the “Constitution”, as you conceive it in the abstract, but I doubt very much that you would be pleased to live under it. After all, the checks and other welfare to the elderly would be cut off.

  • Noam Chomsky: A Surveillance State Beyond Imagination Is Being Created... [link only]

    06/05/2014 6:59:46 AM PDT · 17 of 18
    achilles2000 to rlmorel

    Not really. He is more of an idiot savant who is now confused about the connection between what is happening and his general leftist views. He reminds me of the old Bolsheviks who were shocked when they were purged.

  • How Little They've Learned: FPIC and Neo-Colonialism

    06/05/2014 6:49:00 AM PDT · 8 of 14
    achilles2000 to BenWolinski

    Contrary to the Marxists, colonialism was often unprofitable, which as much as any factor led to its demise. Moreover, powers such as the British and the US in large part saw their role as one of uplift that would eventually allow the colony to become independent as a more or less modern nation.

  • Hundreds of Cities Are Wired With FiberóBut Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unused

    06/04/2014 5:20:45 PM PDT · 13 of 20
    achilles2000 to BipolarBob; JRandomFreeper

    I know this issue very well because a friend owns the largest privately owned metro area fiber optic system in the country (and probably the world).

    Articles like this are written to stir up lefties with conspiracy theories. Please note the dreck in the article about so-called “net neutrality” and getting governments into the business of telecom.

    The problem with gig fiber to the home is the cost of the connection and getting people to pay for faster speeds. My friend and I very much wanted to do fiber to the home limited partnerships to finance the cost of taking fiber to homes neighborhood by neighborhood. Unfortunately, we found that very few people care about the extra speed. Their existing DSL or cable modems is as much as they think they need, and getting them to pay a premium for gig fiber proved to be a deal killer.

    Just to sketch a little of what is involved, running fiber above ground down streets is relatively cheap - about $10k-15k a mile for a basic geometry. If you want a system that is fail safe (”self-healing”), the costs might double. If the system has to go underground, multiply by about 3) The real expense is incurred when you connect to the home. Apart from the “drop, there is the cost for a gig switch, new cabling, set boxes, etc. If you can achieve a significant percentage of subscribers per mile, the business model works.

    The difficulty is that people have to understand the value of having fiber, and almost no one in a typical, economically suitable neighborhood does. Moreover, given the present economics of fiber, far from all neighborhoods have the discretionary income to easily afford it. Chattanooga’s system was put in by the power company when it was replacing its power lines. Consequently, the marginal cost to that utility of running fiber was very little more than the cost of the fiber-optic cable itself. Penetration to homes and businesses, however, isn’t all that impressive. One reason is that a couple of years ago the cost for the fully loaded service was about $300/mo. Now they are offering a gig for $70/mo., but phone and cable TV are costs on top of that. In the case of Google, Google has almost limitless capital, and KC project was as much for getting free PR as it was about the system. I doubt that anyone is making money at the moment on gig/fiber to the home. I am a big proponent of this, but you can’t fight the market, and the market for the nonce says gig fiber is a solution to a problem it doesn’t recognize exists.

    IMHO, the article is mostly leftist nonsense.

  • You Donít Want to Miss This Leaked Video of the President Working Out

    06/04/2014 2:36:51 PM PDT · 23 of 31
    achilles2000 to lbryce

    No one expected that, but no one expected a “My Little Pony” level workout either. I would say it was “girly”, but the girls, even the ones that are morbidly obese, in my gym do more.