In 1990 I knew everything I needed to know about Rush Limbaugh. He was a racist. He was sexist. He was an arrogant, rich SOB who didn’t care about the poor. He was a fool who knew nothing about how the world worked. How did I know these things despite never once having listened to his program? Via the media of course. Despite having a Bachelor’s in Political Science, I paid very little attention to actual politics. As a grad student I paid cursory attention to the news and didn’t much venture beyond what I saw on ABC news.
One day while arguing about Limbaugh something of an epiphany was forced on me by my roommate. He simply asked, “Have you ever actually listened to him?” As I stammered a bit I had to admit that I had not. It dawned on me that I was speaking quite authoritatively about someone I knew so little about… Hence the epiphany. Not about the nature of Limbaugh, but rather about the notion of taking what media says about someone or something as gospel. Today I take virtually everything I hear or read with a grain of salt. When possible I compare what I’ve heard with what I know firsthand. When that’s not possible I make sure that I look to sources I trust for corroboration.
As for Limbaugh, I started listening to him and it took a while for him to grow on me. At first blush he’s rather bombastic and just a wee bit arrogant. After a while however it became clear that at the core, he is, as he puts it “Right, 99.7% of the time”. One might not always appreciate his particular brand of commentary, but, far more often than not he is spot on in terms of the point he is making.
To this day, despite having the most popular and profitable radio program in the United States, Limbaugh remains a polarizing figure. He is a convenient lightning rod for the left as they seek to mischaracterize the conservative message he promotes. And they have done a great job of disparaging conservatives. From a sexist Rush Limbaugh to the Tea Party racists to Paul Ryan seeking to throw Grandma off a cliff, the left in general and the media in particular have done a spectacular job of misrepresenting conservatives to those who are like I was twenty years ago, too busy or lazy to look at the facts.
As such I’d like to provide a little reality to the way conservatives are characterized.
Myth: Conservatives hate government and want to get rid of it.
Reality: Conservatives know you need government, just not big government. They believe that government should be small and should do only those things for which it is Constitutionally empowered. Conservatives believe that citizens, either individually, as part of a family or a community or even as owners of corporations can make better decisions than government can. This does not suggest that conservatives believe that everything works perfectly without government. They simply believe that government is a poor vehicle with which to address most problems.
Myth: Conservatives are racists.
Reality: Conservatives focus on the rule of law and individual responsibility. Conservatives generally oppose affirmative action programs not because they hate minorities, but rather they believe in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. that Americans should “Not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Conservatives don’t believe that government contracts or school admissions should be forced to reflect the specific demographic makeup of the United States any more than the NBA or NHL should be.
Myth: Conservatives don’t care about the poor.
Reality: Conservatives care greatly about the poor and needy, they just don’t think government is the solution to the myriad problems that the poor face. Indeed, in his 2007 book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” Arthur C. Brooks shows that conservatives, or people who disagree with this statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity than liberals. Conservatives don’t hate the poor, they simply don’t believe that failed government redistribution programs are the way to lift people out of poverty.
They believe that communities and churches and private organizations would do a far better job.
Myth: Conservatives love big business.
Reality: Conservatives certainly love business because they recognize that America’s capitalist system has generated more wealth and improved the condition of man more than any other economic system in the history of the world. However, conservatives are actually frequently at odds with big business because of the cozy relationships big, established businesses often nurture with politicians and bureaucrats to the disadvantage of their smaller competitors. Conservatives would rather see big companies go bankrupt so that their assets can be rationalized rather than having the government support them and distort the markets. Failure and reinvention are, after all, at the core of economic success.
Myth: Conservatives want to destroy education in the United States.
Reality: Conservatives want their children and grandchildren and friends’ children educated as much as anyone. Conservatives simply don’t want the government running the education industrial complex. They look at the skyrocketing costs, unaccountable bureaucracies and abysmal performance records in the country’s public schools and believe a free market provides a far better opportunity for students to get a good education.
There are of course many other myths the left has successfully propagated about conservatives that have manifested themselves into our political landscape. That’s a problem for conservatives in general and in particular for the kinda / sort of conservative Mittens Romney. The economic foundation of the United States is not going to be saved by simply putting Barack Obama in the unemployment line, although that is certainly a necessary first step…
Rolling back the government and unleashing the economic might of the United States is going to take a conservative Congress sufficiently motivated to make the hard choices and be willing to bear the arrows of a cornered left. And this is where the tire hits the road. Conservatives have to stop allowing the left to define what conservatism means. Rush does a great job of energizing the base, but the reality is not everyone is lucky enough to get pushed into an epiphany as I was. Not everyone will be on board with everything in the conservative agenda, but 90% agreement is better than 10%… at least then we’d still have a country to talk about.
Conservatives must make crystal clear the choices Americans face. It’s not between mending Medicare and killing Grandma. It’s not between closing the Department of Education and illiterate children. It’s not between cutting taxes and starving the homeless. It’s between the Republic and failure. Conservatives need to take a page from the dairy farmers with their Got Milk moustaches and tee shirts. Find an engaging and compelling meme to highlight the conservative message and invite Americans to understand what it means. If you get people talking about the real issues then the possibility exists to bring them over from the dark side. I wonder how James Earl Jones would look in a “got conservative” tee shirt…
See author page
@mossomo:
Really? Tell that to the Amish.
@Poppa_T:
Poppa, you stole all my talking points! 🙂
What I don’t understand is why Romney supporters want the TSA, NDAA, unPATRIOT Act and, (you forgot) drones flying over the new battleground – America.
Levin has become out of control. I have no patience for his name-calling. I love Tom Woods’ rebuttals, though – calm, cool and collected.
justme95
I have to note to you there is some of those implementations that are a delicate subject and controversy to talk about on the stage, but because those infringe in the freedom of the PEOPLE THEY WILL MOST PROBABLY BECOME THINGS FROM THE PAST AS OTHER WE THINK ABOUT. THE SAME INFRINGEMENT,
BUT NOT PART IN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION OF ROMNEY SPEECH
BYE
@Mata
I’ve read your comment several times and have questions.
You seriously believe the Founders envisioned 100 odd American bases in foreign lands protecting interests of foreign countries?
Because from my perspective, bases in Europe protect Europe, not America. And some of those bases in the ME are protecting those countries in the ME, not America.
Were you one of those people who were aghast at Reagan’s foreign policy decision to talk to the Soviets? From what I recall, the press was all over him for that. The Soviets were our worst enemies and no one should speak to them.
I don’t recall Ron Paul ever saying he was going to cut the military. I do know he says he wants to cut the military industrial complex. Perhaps you don’t see the difference?
Do you consider Ron Paul an isolationist because he doesn’t want American soldiers used to defend foreign countries? I really don’t understand what you mean by ‘isolationist’. I agree with Ron Paul when he says sanctions reflect isolationist policy.
And you wrote this, which I’m going to abbreviate
Now I’ve read this over several times and what I’m interpretting from this – and I know you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, is that because the ‘world is intrinsically linked’ and the Constitution calls for ‘common defense’ then America is responsible to be the, well, basically – policman of the world. This is, to me, what you are saying: ‘All the world is one and our Constitution says we must defend the common world so our defenses must be spread all over the world.’
Please, I beg you, correct that. Because I hate that interpretation but that is what I see: Constitution states: Common defense – world linked – America must be world military.
Personally, I have no fear of Iran compared to the US federal government who has in the past 10 years done nothing but shred the Constitution and deny us lowly citizens our civil liberties. I still think China and the UN are bigger threats than Iran.
justme95, tho I really don’t see why any clarification should be necessary, I will address your politely asked questions:
The Founders, and the Constitution itself, didn’t envision anything save that there was to be a Constitutionally mandated standing army, and the specifics of that army were left up to the CiC and the Congress that funded it. What that army needs to be comprised of – manpower and weaponry – is going to change with the technology and threats of the time.
I believe that most people think the Founders were detailed and prescient when, in fact they were very non specific and simple. They stated, non specifically and without details, what powers the federal branches had, and that their powers were to be strictly limited to those enumerated powers. The standing army and defense of the nation, whose size and structure is determined by the CIC and Congress, is their Constitutional duty.
As far as foreign bases, you may see them as being a military police position. I see them as base jump off points for our military if they need to be deployed in foreign areas, and homes for HUMINT and shared intel. Both of these serve our national interest. But what you and I see doesn’t matter. Again, it’s if our CiC and Congress view these bases as part of our national security. In this case, they do, and I happen to agree with them. And all this is exactly as how the Founders laid out the Constitutional duty of a standing army… as left to the judgment of the CiC and Congress.
Also, you said: I don’t recall Ron Paul ever saying he was going to cut the military. I do know he says he wants to cut the military industrial complex. Perhaps you don’t see the difference?
Perhaps you didn’t read my original comment, the one that poppa_t tried to twist into me being some sort of “living Constitutionalist”. I specifically said there is waste in the defense agency, just as there is waste all over the ga’zillion agencies we don’t need in the beltway. Streamlining the bureaucracy, cutting the dead weight, and always revamping our military for the common types of warfare is always needed. i.e. the new wars are fought with different strategies than the past wars.
What comes to mind is the media assaulted comment by Rummey, paraphrased as you go to war with the army you have.. not the one you wished you had. The DoD is always trying to second guess future warfare strategies based on who the enemy is, and their trends. i.e. the recent increase in naval deep sea going stealth speed boats and the change in types of warriors recruited and serving.
But that’s not what Ron Paul says…. In 2007, he was quoted as saying:
Herein lies Dr. Paul’s flaws as it relates to military cuts and a strong military defense. He will be the first person to tell you he wants a strong military. The problem is what Dr. Paul views as a “strong military”. And this military is strong because we have intel from foreign base locations. Because we not only have more than “two good submarines”, but a constantly improving fleet of naval and aircraft, and the toughest warriors in the world.
If despots of the world think they can run roughshod over the US, and provide illegal weaponry to our enemies behind our backs, they also think twice because generally there’s a US base located within feasible airspace that can wipe out their arses, and works with local HUMINT. The deterrent of being a hop, skip and jump away… as opposed to having to mobilize and move across oceans and continents… plus having a local presence for HUMINT is part of being a strong military.
Paul’s ideas about cutting the military seem to defy his supposed fiscal knowledge. As noted in this Benzinga article (a financial rag) there is a relationship between the US defense spending and it’s positive effect on the economy and GDP growth. There is some legitimate “stimulus” spending by central government… the Constitutional kind. This would include the standing army and it’s size and capabilities (as decided by the CiC and Congress).
Finally, I’m not sure what you don’t get in my sentence below:
The tag ending is further clarification on the sentence itself… that Congress and the CiC will base the requirements of a standing army around a world where we are no longer protected by two oceans and air transportation was non existent. Today’s weaponry can be global, intrinsically linked by cyberspace, causing economic chaos and massive harm. It can be an attack against our infrastructure from remote locations, shutting down a quarter of the US, without power, for months to years. It can be small and deadly weaponry, smuggled by one person across a border because it’s so easy for people to trot the globe these days. It can be intercontinental missile capabilities by those “third world countries” who Dr. Paul thinks can’t harm us. It’s not likely that China would sail the ocean, and our shores would be swarmed by Chinese soldiers, engaging in hand to hand combat to attack the US.
I doubt that the Founders could envision our technological world, where intercontinental travel and communications were available to the masses. But then, they didn’t need to. They knew that and kept the powers simple, and limited. They provided that our CiC, and Congress via funding, protect this nation with whatever tools (including intel and foreign bases) and manpower (here, or strewn on those foreign bases) those government bodies deemed necessary. Nothing more. Nothing less. And since these leaders and representatives were elected, their policies were representative of our Republic. Disapproval results in a change of leadership and direction.
Anything else someone decides to ascribe to Founding prescience and judgment calls are purely imaginary.
justme95
DONALD TRUMP keep saying that same thing about CHINA,
AND I have heard many negatives about the UN, GOAL TO HAVE THEIR OWN CONSTITUTION
take the place of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, AND OBAMA said, the CONSTITUTION is in his way
to get his agenda rolling, he won’t say it in his reelection bid speech, he said the exact opposit,
to the student arena , not long ago ,
Mata, first off let me say that you’re right, I didn’t provide a link and maybe I should have but I did give the name the thread and the post number so that anyone who cared to could go back and read your post. However I do not believe that I mischaracterized what you said, and I am truly sorry that you think I did. But I believe that you did exactly that. I understand that you don’t believe that you a “living Constitution” type person so allow me to attempt to explain my reasoning.
You propose that the Constitution authorizes a “Standing Army” utilizing the Preamble… “provide for the common defense” and Article II, Section 2… “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”
Art.II Sec.2 authorizes the President to act as the supreme commander over America’s fighting forces. In so doing, the Framers provided for American civilian control over the U.S. military, and designated a single commander who can be held responsible for deploying of these forces. But he was only to assume the role of CiC in the event of a declaration of war by the congress. King George’s abuse of military power and his attempts to subject the civil authority to the military were objections that were raised in the Declaration of Independence. Here are some of the reasons Jefferson put forth in the DoI.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power…
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a 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 (trade sanctions)
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat[sic] the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
Our founding fathers greatly feared standing Armies and had a few things to say about them…
Jefferson identified both banking institutions and standing armies as being “dangerous to our liberties.”
Madison “A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen.”
Elbridge Gerry (VP for James Madison) called standing armies “the bane of liberty.”
Art I Sec. 8 specifically grants Congress the power to “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years” this is an intentional limit the founders placed in the Constitution in order to insure that the Congress had the power to dissolve any Army that might be called up. The clause just after that granted Congress the power to “To provide and maintain a Navy” it was the Navy and the Marines (at branch of Navy, much to my chagrin) that were to “provide for the common defense”. This is explained in great detail by Hamilton writing as Publius in the Federalist Papers #23-29.
You also said “What was required of a standing army in the times of the Founders and Framers is a different story than what is required today, now that we are not protected by two oceans” Mata the U.S. was not protected by two oceans back then! There were British, French and Spanish colonies to the North, South and West, and hostile Indian tribes all over the place. They were literally boxed in on three sides with an ocean at their backs. So that argument has no basis in fact whatsoever. A great read if you ever get the chance is Gen. George Rogers Clark absolutely remarkable defense of the western border.
So Mata I stand by my statement, you are interpreting the Constitution to a fit either your personal beliefs or your parties agenda and not adhering to the original intent.
poppa_t:
The “intent” of Constitutional debates is as varied as the dissenting voices during that time. Influences into the construction of that final document came from both Federalists and anti-Federalists, so please do not assume I am not aware of the different voices, or the concern INRE standing armies. What counts only is what is written as to Constitutional duty, and the standing army and defense of the nation is mandated via that document, and it’s size, structure and use controlled by the CiC and Congress.
The army is still, to this date, maintained by appropriations from an elected Congress… just as the Constitution provided for. If you have a beef, please contact your local Congressional representatives.
The POTUS is CiC of the military in peace time as well as during war. It’s part of the job description.
The well known “two oceans” phrase (also used by Harry Browne) references attack potential from foreign nations. Canada to the north was friendly. Mexico was weak. Native American tribes were always on this soil, so it has no bearing on invasion by foreign countries. It is not to confer there was never the possibility of internal or border skirmishes… neither of which would topple the fledgling nation. The point is that what was a physical deterrent by two oceans at that time is eliminated today by modern and easy transportation, and compounded by the threats that nations can also be assaulted by other means… i.e. cyberspace, attacks via airspace and missiles, small bombs or weaponry with well placed targets that affect infrastructure etc. The Sept 11th attack is the perfect example of a planned assault to attack our economy, while severing our leadership and defense response by the chosen targets.
Your reading problem is not my problem. Nor are you qualified to tell everyone else what I think and assume the authority of translating my words to your chosen effect. But it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you come up with your own interpretation, and decide that you know better than I what I think, or what I believe.
@Poppa_T:
Was Thomas Jefferson acting in the role of CiC when he directed US forces against the Barbary Pirates?
What did Alexander Hamilton have to say about the role of the President in directing US forces and/or making war?
Aye, for whatever arguments poppa_t wants to make on behalf of the anti-Federalists of the time, it was not shared by the majority opinion by those at the Convention. Washington, himself, was a proponent of the permanent standing army.
Additionally, the proposal to limit the size of any such standing army by thousands of men was floated by Elbridge Gerry and Luther Martin, and unanimously rejected by the States.
“Intent” indeed… While there were many voices, the “intent” is made clear by the formal adoption of the Constitution, authorizing a standing army, lead by the CiC and funded by Congress. It’s use and size (sans limitations) for the nation’s defense is an enumerated power by that very document.
“oh oh! Pick me!”, she says… wildly waving hand… LOL
Hamilton was arguing that a strong milia would *minimize* the need for a standing army, but *not eliminate* the need for a standing army.
Why would Hamilton hold this cautious dual view? Because, as he says, “Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others.”
And oh yes, from Federalist No. 74 – He said the direction of war was “most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single head.” The power of directing war and emphasizing the common strength “forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.”
@Aye:
Jefferson didn’t need Congress to declare anything as ground troops were not involved and he already had authorization to use ships under the An Act to Provide a Naval Armament, March 18, 1794
“Sect. I. Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States, be authorized to provide, equip and employ, four ships to carry forty guns each, and two ships to carry thirty-six guns each by purchase or otherwise.”
Jefferson regularly informed Congress as to what was happening with the ships Congress authorized him to use at will.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Sorry – this will be off topic
Hi Bees, the UN is probably the most dangerous of all entities as its reach is everywhere. Agenda 21 is its plan to control the world in the 21st Century. Under ICLEI – a UN construct – almost every local government in the world has instituted a Local Agenda 21, often called a ‘Vision’ statement or ‘Smart Growth’ and by implementing ‘sustainable development’ programs. All ‘smart’ programs, including ‘smart’ technology, are a part of Agenda 21. Whenever you heard of ‘sustainable development’ know they are really talking about Agenda 21. I spent at least 8 hours a day for 6 months reading hundreds of UN documents and documents from the US govt and other countries’s governments that forces Agenda 21 policies into their countries. Agenda 21 even decides food production and this is why farmers around the world are having such a terrible time because the UN has partnered with Monsanto.
Link below for you to read:
canadian liberty Agenda 21
@justme95:
Well, I appreciate your attempt to disprove the point that Poppa_T was trying to make when he claimed that the President was “only to assume the role of CiC in the event of a declaration of war by the congress.”
Your counterpoint however, didn’t even address the original question that I asked which was an inquiry as to whether Jefferson was acting in the role of CiC when he took action against the Barbary Pirates.
Instead of answering the question that I asked, you moved on to an ancillary point stating that Jefferson didn’t need Congress to declare anything because of an Act passed in 1794.
There’s a problem with your theory though. That last paragraph:
Since peace was negotiated with Algiers in early 1796 the Act to Provide a Naval Armament that you cited as authorization for Jefferson to take military action was null and void before he ever became president in 1801.
Sorry that didn’t work out for you.
Well, not quite.
There was no authorization from Congress for Jefferson to use ships “at will”. Jefferson was specifically limited to a defensive posture as he made clear in his State of Nation speech Dec 8, 1801:
There were followup authorizations issued by Congress which allowed Jefferson to engage, and ultimately defeat, the Barbary Pirates.
None of those authorizations, however, took the form of a formal Declaration of War. Instead, they more closely resembled the more recent Authorization to Use Military Force which Congress passed following the events of 9/11.
justme 95
thank you for this info,
I have been suspicious of the UN for a long time, and learned from other like you watching their agenda,
they are making war for the free world to get them in their claws to get them under their rules which
are debatable a lot , after the revolution is on top, they are taking over in a subtle way so nobody can suspect them, but few know about their skeems, and the USA IS BEING USE BY THEM TOO WITH A
AGREEING OBAMA INVOLVING THEM IN THE AFFAIRS OF AMERICA, MORE AND MORE DANGEROUSLY,
I even suspect that OBAMA WANT THE OIL FROM THE ARABS
AS OPPOSE FROM THE CLOSER ALLIED OIL AT THE DOOR OF THE USA, IT IS TOO OBVIOUS TO MISS IT.
BYE
justme95
I just check the link, and I saved it to refer to, in a more slow time
thank you, very interesting, there was anticsrocks who introduce us to agenda 21 not so long ago, in another POST WITH A DIFFERENT SITE, IT WAS THE FIRST TIME FOR ME TO READ OF IT, this is a second time and different, I RECONNIZE THE TRILATERAL , WHICH WAS MENTION IN 2010, AND MATA
HAD A POST ON THAT along with some other relating facts
also on the UN WORLD ORG, BUT THE AGENDA 21 WAS NOT MENTION THEN, BYE
justme95
yes as someone said, that agenda 21 is scary stuff,
this is used in MUSLIM COUNTRIES,
can we be sure to say, NEVER IN AMERICA?
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT FOR KNOWING WHO TO VOTE FOR IN NOVEMBER
@Poppa_T:
Poppy: NEVER apologize to Mata. I have done so in the past and found that Mata views said apologies as a sign of weakness and uses said sign to berate and attack the person who apologized.
Get in her face, curb her (metaphorically speaking, of course) and don’t put up wit her vituperative nature.
Just a little note to let you know the rest of us aren’t going to tolerate her bovine fecal matter any longer.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Hi Bees,
It’s already in America and Agenda 21 has been around for 20 years dictating everything on the planet.
GreenPeace is now a UN NGO
WWF is a UN NGO
Forest Stewardship Council was created by UN NGOs
That’s just a tiny sampling of organizations that are committed to spreading facets of Agenda 21.
Just as scary is the UN’s Codex Alimentartius which is being used to destroy the world’s food supply. The Codex people have already said that nutrition (meaning the vitamins and minerals found in food) is not relevant to health.
Below is Part 1 of a video series about Codex Alimentarius
justme95
how stupidly dangerous they are, and the worse is they make other follow them,
they use the weakness of AMERICANS WHICH IS TOLERANCE UNTIL TOO LATE,
BUT THEN THE GIANTS AWAKEN AND WILL USE THEIR LAST HAND TO SEND THEM PACKING, THAT IS THE HAND ON THE GUN, AND IT WILL COME TO THAT EVENTUAL, IF THEY CONTINUE TO PUSH THE GOOD PEOPLE TO THEIR LIMIT, THEN THEY WILL SEE WHERE THE REAL POWER IS,AND IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR THEM.
DID YOU HEAR ABOUT RON PAUL HAS HIS ALL DELEGATES,IT SAID THAT HE WILL BE GOOD TO BE DEBATING ON THE LAST STAGE,
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT GOOD NEWS, I THOUGHT ABOUT YOU WHEN I heard it, and Poopa_T, AND C J. IN AFGHANISTAN, WE HAVEN’T HEARD ABOUT C J IN QUITE A WHILE, HOPE HE’S OKAY
but I’m not quite sure if it mean a real good chance at the last debate.
FUNNY I saw the word which i was looking for in my mind,when I look at the name of another story, it’s the OBAMA deception, I did not ;ook at it ,that will be later on.
yes the DECEPTION IS EVIDENT ALL IN GOVERNMENT.
bye
thank you for the link and info.
justme95
I was just watching a show on tv about the APPALACHES WHERE THE MOONSHINE IS MADE
FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION TODAY STILL, THEY EACH HAVE THEIR SECRET RECIPY
AND EVERY YEAR THEY ARE SECRETLY DOING IT, EVEN IF THEY ARE HAUNTED BY POLICE, AND THEY VERY SURPRISINGLY MAKE A COUPLE OF MILLIONS ON IT EVERY YEAR, THEY USE THEIR GUN AS A DETERRENT TO STRANGER AND POLICE, i THOUGHT THEY DON’T LOOK LIKE MILLIONAIRES,
BUT THEY ARE, AND SAY PROUDLY WE DON’T PAY NO TAXES
Your handle interests me. Is there a mechanism on this site that would allow us private communication, short of me dropping my email here…? I will if that is yhe only mechanism, but dislike such.
I do not have the time to dig you up… and i am not a pervert…
I have question’s, equerries, posers…
Youcan find me…
ilovebeeswarzone
The left is going to freak out as the wo / man with their finger on the trigger holds their fire. We do this because we are a compassionate people.
Those who believe they shall have our military turn on the domestic populations will see their reckoning the day they issue the order.
justme95…
Assuming you were born in 95’…. I was greeenpeace in… 75′.
They are nonprofit hucksters. What they take in as donation, less boat fuel and food, divided by personnel using a share method similar to a pirate aship or fishing crew… equals… no profit.
Good gig if you can get it. Best cqndidates are cute yound blonds with orwl fixations.
Hello Mata and all, please forgive the tardiness of my response but I had the chance to take the weekend off and when you work 84+ hrs a week as I do…well when the opportunity for time off arises, you take it.
Anyway, Mata are you intentionally misrepresenting the language of the Constitution? You said in post# 57…
“there was to be a Constitutionally mandated standing army”
and in #59 that…
“What counts only is what is written as to Constitutional duty, and the standing army and defense of the nation is mandated via that document”
A standing army is NOT mandated anywhere in the Constitution, it authorizes Congress ““To provide and maintain a Navy” while intentionally limiting any appropriations for the Army to two years, there is a difference.
Furthermore you say in post #61 that…
“Washington, himself, was a proponent of the permanent standing army.”
and this was true, while he was the commander of the Continental Army. But Washington had rethought his position once he assumed the Presidency. The quote you posted, Washington’s famous “militia…broken staff” is from a letter to the President of the Congress in 1776. By 1790 Washington began work on his “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia.” and he had started by then to agree more and more with Patrick Henry’s line of thought and in that plan he states…
“An energetic national militia is to be regarded as the capital security of a free republic, and not a standing army…”
It is a lengthy proposal that he put before congress and a tough read. So while the argument you posit is true, it is not the whole truth and I honestly feel that history supports my position…. that the original intent of the framers was that the President only assume the role of Commander-in-Chief upon a declaration of War by the Congress.
As far as your premise that the founders felt they were protected by two oceans, that Canada was friendly, Mexico was weak and the Indian tribes were a non-issue, well, we must be reading very different histories.
The preamble to the Constitution mandates the central government “provide for the common defence”. That defense is accomplished by providing and maintaining a Navy and an Army that can be abolished, should the Congress chose to cease funding it. They have not done so at any time in our history. Therefore the mandated “provide for the common defence” has been Constitutionally accomplished within their power to maintain a standing military force in order to meet the Constitutional obligations that the central government “provide for the common defense”.
Additionally they have chosen to increase that military force to the additional branches in the meantime, active and maintained both in times of peace and war. As I’ve pointed out before, any size limitations on the standing army were shot down unanimously during the convention.
The POTUS is commander in chief in both times of war and peace, and as long as there is any military, he is the top dog. Period. Part of the job description, as I said before.
INRE Washington, the Constitution was ratified in 1788, two years before your suggestion that he changed his mind. And that convention was chaired by Washington, himself. Needless to say, had Washington totally changed his mind on a standing army, one can only say too little, too late. The Constitution was penned and ratified, with a central government military created and maintained with the Constitutional caveats as mentioned above.
I believe you are conflating that Washington completely changed his mind with a cautionary warning that the militia – a distinctly separate entity from the standing army – was integral to protect the citizens against the tyranny of public officials. In an excerpt from his 1790 plan you mention, he states:
The standing army was for national defense, and the militia was the checks and balance to a standing army, were it used and abused by the POTUS/CiC and Congress. He refers to the militia as “capital security”, meaning that the masses should possess a competent grasp of the military arts. He also states that the responsibility for that military training, arming and organization of that militia should be the central government, as they may be employed as a part of them in times of war.
While I haven’t read the entire document, I do not see that as Washington rejecting a standing army in favor of a militia… only that the militia, and the RKBA, was a vital counterbalance to any tyranny and mischief from a POTUS/CiC/Congress. And also note that Washington acknowledged the continuing debates on the standing army when he says “if it should be decided to reject a standing army…”
How on earth you come up with that interpretation is beyond me. I did not say the tribes were a “non- issue”. What I said, verbatim, about the two oceans and tribal nations was:
This translates to tribes being a “non-issue”, how? What I said was that the predictable internal skirmishes in the nation, including Indian tribes, was unlikely to topple the new Republic. In fact, the regular standing force was, in Washington’s own words in 1783, “… necessary to awe the Indians, protect our Trade, prevent the encroachment of our Neighbours of Canada and the Florida’s, and guard us at least from surprizes.”
Canada, as a neighbor, was friendly (remember 1783’s Treaty of Paris?). However there was no guarantee that it would always be friendly, and therefore preparations for any change in that relationship was simply wise planning. Mexico was weak compared to the US then, and now. And there were two oceans that provided a security buffer because of the limited transportation technology in those days that no longer exists in our world of air travel and cyberspace today.
However the Constitution, as written, is still perfectly adequate to “provide for the common defense”, of which the Congress and executive branch decides what is necessary to accomplish that Constitutional mandated duty.
@Poppa_T:
Which brings us back to the questions that I posed to you in #60:
@Poppa_T:
I have researched the quote you provided (in bold above) and have found that it was actually written by Henry Knox, Secretary of War.
I would be interested in seeing primary source materials which make it clear that George Washington was indeed the author of these words.
Aye, it turns out that you are correct in that Washington’s Secretary of war, Henry Knox, submitted that plan. And it seems the date of that was 1786, not 1790. A Ludwig Von Mises Institute document by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel says:
As I said, the document was not a rejection of the standing army that already existed. Just a note that were the regular standing army rejected, a “well constituted militia” should be established. And according to the Mises document, apparently the Knox plan was merely a way to control the structure of that already existing militia.
Also from that document, outlining the standing army/militia history:
@Aye: One of my favorite quotes by Alexander Hamilton was in a letter, not an official position, but it is lovely and to the point of your question.
Alexander Hamilton wrote that a congressional declaration of war was “nugatory” or “unnecessary” when “a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States.”
He focused on the President’s power to respond to aggression directed against the United States itself.
In such cases, the enemy, by its own actions, had placed the United States in a state of war, and the President as Commander in Chief could respond accordingly.
Today, we have less-than-states/nations which declare war between us and them.
We have al Qaeda.
We have a few other Muslim groups, too.
In the days of the Barbary pirates we also had non-nations at war with out interests.
They hid in various countries in northern Africa and some islands as well.
What would have been the point in declaring war against each of those places?
@Aye:
Hi Aye, well my friend according to my understanding Jefferson didn’t consider himself to have assumed the role of CiC during the Barbary War. When he sent that squadron of ships into the Mediterranean they had orders to take no offensive actions and when one of our vessels was attacked by one of the Bey of Tripoli’s ships it was subdued, disarmed, and according to instructions, released. Then Jefferson in a message to Congress announced his actions as in compliance with constitutional limitations on his authority in the absence of a declaration of war. Our Marines didn’t engage in land action until Congress enacted a statute authorizing the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Bey of Tripoli in order to prevent future hostilities. So to answer your question, no, I don’t believe that Jefferson assumed the role of CiC.
As for Hamilton’s views, Mata brought up the Federalist #74 in her post #64 I would urge you to read the whole thing but the 1st paragraph in particular says…
“THE President of the United States is to be “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States.” The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it”.
Also in the 6th paragraph of Federalist Paper No. 69, he says…
“First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union.”
We can see that for Hamilton the check on the President’s power as CiC of the Army… Navy… militia… is its occasional nature. It is not a permanent role, but exists only when called into the actual service. Now Hamilton did believe that we could be in a state of war if another nation attacked us first and that the President then could assume the role of CiC without a declaration of war from Congress… he and Jefferson did disagree here, But neither of them intended for the president to perpetually be the CiC.
I hope I have explained my beliefs on this matter clearly.
poppa_t, it cannot be repeated enough that everyone knows there was dissent on the standing army at the time of the Constitution and the convention. However the Federalist papers merely detail the points of dissent, and the Constitution is what was penned and ratified. And that document provides for Congress to maintain the Army and military, funding every two years… as they have Constitutionally done so throughout our history within their enumerated powers… and that the POTUS is the commander of that military in times of war and peace.
The “intent” is enshrined in the body of the Constitution itself, and the Federalist papers are just the documented points of debate that led up to the signing and ratification of that document. Do not confuse the two. Therefore the standing and regular military force is Constitutional, as originally designed, despite the contrary opinions. How that military is used, deployed, funded and it’s size are totally up to the legislative and executive branches.
@Aye:
Hello again Aye,
Here is the primary source…
http://www.archive.org/stream/americanstatepap_e01unit/americanstatepap_e01unit_djvu.txt
go down past the table of contents on what would be pg 7-8 and you will find a section entitled ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA where Washington commissions Knox and gave his approval to the plan submitted to him for organizing the Militia.
This is the article that turned me onto the plan.
http://winstondorian.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/gw1790-plan-column.pdf
Now Mata, I hope I haven’t given you a false impression of my thoughts concerning the Army. I do believe that there should always be an infrastructure in place to train, equip and supply an Army so that one can be called to arms should the occasion arise. I support fully manning the reserves and the guard. I just think that in times of peace those under arms (active duty and career soldiers) should be reduced to the bare minimum. Hence we would not have a “standing” army only an “active” one. I believe this is how our Army was intended to function.
poppa_t, I do understand our differences of agreement. I also understand that you tend to side with those that did not support a permanent standing army with our founding. In that vein, you are certainly correct that those from that era who share your views have a different “intent” than what is our standing army today.
I can even find some common points of agreement with that view.
It’s only my observation that those of that opinion lost the constructive battle when it came to the actual penning and ratification for our Constitution. So in my view, and according to that document, they are not outside their constitutional rights to have a permanent and regular force, the size of which is determined by Congress and funding, as they’ve done for centuries. How and when it’s deployed should be honored with the more common AUMFs or a formal declaration of war… no quibble with that in the least. And you won’t find me in disagreement that I find US military serving under UN colors reprehensible. But that’s a whole ‘nuther enchilada, eh
We’ve seen the military gutted during “times of peace” through out history. Not only in the past, but it’s happening now. It happened under Clinton, with the aid of a Republican Congress, and under Carter. And there have been the times it’s had to be built right back up for necessity as well. So I’d say that the military is functioning exactly as the Constitution said it should, and thereby is completely adequate.
I’d also say the only aspect that needs to be examined is when are we actually “at peace”, when we do have a declared jihad by a bunch of looney tunes.
@Ivan:
Thank you for your advice Sir but I am not here to antagonize or alienate anyone. I hope to only bring some around to my way of thinking, to be an advocate for liberty and freedom. The left/right schism that dominates the current political landscape must be cast aside and we must return to the rule of Law.
MATA
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE DEAL which OBAMA JUST SIGN with KARZEI, IS NOTHING AND NULLIFY IF CONGRESS IS NOT SINGING IT, WHEN THAT TIME COME IN THOSE FUTURE YEARS,
Don’t know what Obama is “signing” with Karzai, Bees. I don’t know what he’s doing there, but I certainly understand not broadcasting his arrival in the media.
Treaties require ratification from Congress. If this is a revamping of the existing Afghanistan SOFA agreement, I don’t know that it’s necessary. The NATO treaty has a SOFA, embodied in that treaty, so Congress was involved in that. But the US is a party to over a 100 SOFA’s around the world. A SOFA is is not a mutual defense agreement or a security agreement, and doesn’t authorize specific exercises, activities, missions, or rules of warfare and engagement. Most of the time they are a mutual agreement as to jurisdictional control over US personnel, present in the foreign nation. If you want to read about the Afghanistan SOFA, and SOFAs in general, here’s a March 2012 CRS document on the various agreements, how they are used, etc.
So to answer your question, if we don’t know what Obama and Karzai are doing, or see any document they are both signing, your question can not be answered with the information we have at hand.
@Poppa_T:
Would you agree that Washington giving approval to a plan by Henry Knox is quite different than attributing the thoughts and words of Knox to Washington himself?
And a brief followup to Jefferson and his role as CiC:
Do you believe that Jefferson would have taken any role beyond purely offensive tactics if he felt he was not performing those duties as CiC? Hamilton made it clear in the Federalist that you cited that the role of CiC is taken up any time the “[army, navy, or militia are ] CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the US.”
Jefferson made it clear in his first State of Nation address that he was limited to a defensive posture only until such time as the Congress granted him offensive authority. That offensive authority was later granted, and the Barbary war was conducted and ultimately won, but a formal declaration of war was never passed.
If the President doesn’t have the authority to act as CiC absent Congressional declaration, then where does Jefferson obtain the authority to respond even in a defensive manner? Jefferson’s designation as CiC is the only thing that exists to convey any military command authority to him.
Clearly the Constitution allows the President to perform CiC duties, in both defensive as well as offensive postures, without a formal declaration of war from Congress.
It’s been happening since Jefferson and, if Thomas didn’t have a problem with it, neither do I.
@MataHarley:
The news report on the radio earlier said something about “SOFA” or “SOPA”. Wasn’t paying really close attention to it.
I think it all boils down to grandstanding and trying to give the small little man currently living at 1600 an opportunity to strut his CiC role. And, of course, being in Afghanistan right on the anniversary of OBL assuming room temp is a complete coincidence.
I really hope that while Obie is there he will address the fact that in 3.5 years he has lost more than twice as many members of the US military in Afghanistan as President Bush did in eight.
MATA
THANK YOU FOR THE LINK
THE SINGING is about he mention security after the 2014, to be carried on for 10 more years agreement,
to leave some troops there no number of them mentioned
bye
AYE
yes, OTHERWISE WHY WOULD HE SIGN FOR YEARS HE WONT BE THERE, HE SLIP A WORD THAT RIGHT NOW HE CANNOT BE SURE BUT IT COULD BE, THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF BEING REELECTED,
IT CAME FAST SO i did not repeat exactly the same words,
it’s mention now at FOX
AYE
ON BREET BAIR NOW FOX
Aye CIC the most important role of the POTUS. Being with the troops in Afghanistan on anniversary of Bin Laden take out. PRICELESS.
@Aye: I might be mistaken in attributing those words to Washington but I don’t think I am. If you read Washington’s writings from that time period the verbiage he uses in his daily correspondence is remarkably similar to that used in the introduction to his plan for organizing the militia.
This http://etext.virginia.edu/washington/fitzpatrick/ lists the accumulated writings of Washington, the time frame in question, Jan 1790 can be found at the end of Vol. 30 and the start of Vol. 31 check it out for yourself and tell me if I am deluding myself or if you think my rhetoric is accurate.
I can easily see Washington delegating the particulars of the plan to Knox but the reasons and justifications laid out in the introduction is pure George Washington at his very best and I can’t see him entrusting those words to Knox, besides Knox’s own correspondence is nowhere as eloquent as Washington’s.
But I could be wrong.
As for the rest of your post, well we’re starting to beat that horse again. We have different interpretations of when the President assumes the role of CiC. I thought I had shown that the mantel of Commander in Chief was temporary at best and that the founders intended it to remain that way, you disagree. That’s how the government grows.
Might be a matter of semantics. He was POTUS, and Knox was his Sec’y of War. I’m quite sure they were on the same page about how they wanted to structure the militia, regardless of who wrote the plan’s verbiage.
You’re still missing the rest of the language beyond the one paragraph you want to point out as proof that Washington changed his mind about a standing army. I don’t see the document does anything of the sort, and instead lays out a plan to control the existing militia, and for any larger establishment should the standing army be rejected in the future. Washington’s own repeated support for the standing army to that period also doesn’t give me the impression he changed his mind.
What you showed was the belief of *some* of the federalists/framers that they wanted a temporary position and no standing army. I believe I have shown that those who held that belief were overruled by the construct of the Constitution itself, and it’s ratification by the majority. So what you are doing is, in essence, simply repeating a debate point from that era, and erroneously attributing it to the Constitution’s ultimate and final language.
@Poppa_T:
At the end of Vol 30, and in your earlier cited source, there are indeed two cursory introductory/cover snippets that he wrote to the House and Senate that match one another.
While both of your sources agree on the introductory/cursory cover statements attached to the plan by Washington neither of them cite the specific quote in question:
This source gives clear attribution to Knox, providing the entire text of the plan he prepared.
The notations in Vol 31 indicate that the plan is separate and distinct from Washington’s writings.
It appears to be rather evident that if the quote in question was written by Washington it would have been included in the Vol 30/31 writings that you cited.
As to the CiC thing, you didn’t address the basic question: If the President doesn’t have the authority to act as CiC absent Congressional declaration, then where does Jefferson obtain the authority to respond even in a defensive manner?
Clearly the President assumes the role of CiC as soon as the oath is administered and carries that responsibility on an ongoing basis.
With a “now he is”/”now he isn’t” on/off type approach, the President would have no military role or authority at all except via act of Congress.
Even Jefferson recognized that he had defensive authority. That authority must be conveyed to him thru his role as CiC because there is no provision for him to act stated anywhere else.
mmercier
hi, on your 74
I must say I don’t understand it, is that something I said before, it sound like it,
but on another POST about ZIMMERMAN being threaten by some black racist,
I was trying to send them a message, that if they wish wrong thing to one, it could
well be returned to them in a multiple way.
bye
I have interest in your presented name here.
There are… issues within my… range.
Likely a coincidence thing.
No time to elaborae.
Here.
I have no skin in this game here. Not with aforethought. Shithappens.
It is my personal opinion, after reading a million or so words here… that this site has been taken by trollish mythmakers more clever than my person.
Amusing in the extreme, considering they know not their birth father.
Proud
mmercier
what can we do to fix the problem?
and get those trolls expose?
CURT
hi,
is there something we can do to fix that problem, above?
mmercier
hi,
I ‘m just thinkink about something which might be related to what you are refering,
is it the MICROSOFT GAME? I have learned about it, last year, and my name here is mentioned,
as a last name given to the winner, which the commenter said here, and was surprise,
asking me if it was related to me, and I answer no and I was surprise to learn about it then,
but it was okay, what else would I have done? I knew they would not use it to trash it,
not a big COMPANY LIKE MICROSOFT,
is that what you are refering to, in your comment?
Poppa_T
HI, DON’T MISS THE BIGGEST AND CLOSEST FULL MOON
TONIGHT FROM 11/30 TO X
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Hi Bees, I did see that moon. Me and my bride watched it rise over the gulf as we were tearing up some speckled trout down here in Grand Isle.
Poppa_T
WOW, how romantic that was, I can almost see it, I can almost taste that trout,
and I’m sure you two didn’t stop there, it must have been quite a special MOON LIGHT NITH,
SHE WILL LIVE IN YOUR DREAMS FOREVER.
BYE