Sunday, November 7, 2010
Pretty wise economic philosophy for a half-breed Cherokee Indian woman with a 4th grade education.
January 21, 1861
Speech on the Floor of the United States Senate
"When certain sovereign and independent states form a union with limited powers for some general purpose, and any one or more of them, in the progress of time, suffer unjust and oppressive grievances for which there is no redress but in a withdrawal from the association, is such withdrawal an insurrection? If so, then of what advantage is a compact of union to states? Within the Union are oppressions and grievances; the attempt to go out brings war and subjugation. The ambitious and aggressive states obtain possession of the central authority which, having grown strong in the lapse of time, asserts its entire sovereignty over the states.
Whichever of them denies it and seeks to retire is declared to be guilty of insurrection, its citizens are stigmatized as "rebels", as if they revolted against a master, and a war of subjugation is begun. If this action is once tolerated, where will it end? Where is constitutional liberty? What strength is there in bills of rights-in limitation of power? What new hope for mankind is to be found in written constitutions, what remedy which did not exist under kings of emperors? If the doctrines thus announced by the government of the United States are conceded, then look through either end of the political telescope, and one sees only an empire, and the once famous Declaration of Independence trodden in the dust of as a "glittering generality," and the compact of the union denounced as a "flaunting lie".
Those who submit to such consequence without resistance are not worthy the liberties and rights to which they were born, and deserve to be made slaves. Such must be the verdict of mankind."
-- President Jefferson Davis
"I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination."
-- President Jefferson Davis, CSA
Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again.
---Jefferson Davis (1808 - 1889)
"The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.
---Address to the Mississippi legislature - 16 years after the wars end.
"The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."
"NIA projects that at the average U.S. grocery store it will soon cost $11.43 for one ear of corn, $23.05 for a 24 oz loaf of wheat bread, $62.21 for a 32 oz package of Domino Granulated Sugar, $24.31 for a 32 fl oz container of soy milk, $77.71 for a 11.30 oz container of Folgers Classic Roast Coffee, $45.71 for a 64 fl oz container of Minute Maid Orange Juice, and $15.50 for a Hershey's Milk Chocolate 1.55 oz candy bar. NIA also projects that by the end of this decade, a plain white men's cotton t-shirt at Wal-Mart will cost $55.57.
NIA's special U.S. food price projection report is now available to download for free by clicking here."
We can (only) win this war by winning over our compatriots, one by one. That effort is less heroic but also less bloody and uncertain that taking up arms or growing old waiting for such a call. What have you done today...this week...this month to advance our cause? Look in the mirror and ask yourself that question in the privacy of your own mind."
Marxists By Various Names
"America is much too full of them. If a plague ever developed that would affect people in proportion to their willingness to victimize others, real estate would become a lot cheaper shortly."
"Individual, private possession of firearms isn't the only thing that permits individual liberty, but it is one of the essential components in a society that intends to stay free. An armed, informed, reasoning people cannot be subjugated.
So what do you do if you want to fetter a free people?
1) Remove their ability to reason.
2) Constrain their ability to access and exchange information.
3) Relieve them of the means with which to defend themselves and their property.
Which of these seems easiest, and how would it be best accomplished? And best resisted?"
"Take a look at this video. Fabulous footage although grainy due to time and bad equipment in those days compared to today, but what nerve this gal had.
Gladys Ingles was a member of a barnstorming troupe called the 13 Black Cats in the 1920s. Ingles was a wing walker; in this film, she shows her fearlessness in a classic barnstorming fashion to save an airplane that has lost one of its main wheels. Ingles is shown with a replacement wheel being strapped to her back and then off she goes as "Up She Goes," a duet from the era, provides the soundtrack.
In the video, Ingles transfers herself from the rescue plane to the one missing the main landing gear tire. She then expertly works herself down to the undercarriage only a few feet from a spinning prop........"
Via Dawn Klug, Belle Grove
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
"To those who say, well, the Government has to force you to buy something you don’t want. It’s for the greater good! Here’s William Pitt, 1783:
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.”
Thomas Jefferson, the most intellectually brilliant man to ever hold the office of President – Barack Obama excepted, of course – had this to say in his First Inaugural, accepting the reins of that power:
“A wise and frugal government – (wise and frugal, my God how we have fallen) A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”
Did the greatest mind in American history have any other radical, dangerous thoughts on the encroachment of government and uncontrolled spending?
“On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816:
“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Spencer Roane, March 9, 1821:
“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1824:
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
1824! If Jefferson was outraged at the extent of the federal government in 1824, then that’s good enough for Bill Whittle in 2010. You see, unlike Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann, I don’t think I’m smarter than Thomas Jefferson. But Ed and Rachel and Chris and Keith are here to tell you that protesting this government takeover of the auto industry, the financial industry, the insurance industry, the housing market and now the nation’s health care is a wild and radical idea!
I’ll tell you what else we Tea Party supporters believe in: we believe that the Constitution is Law. In the same way it’s the Ten Commandments and not the Ten Suggestions, we feel that the Constitution is law. When the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, was asked where she drew the Constitutional authority to force people to buy health insurance, she said this…
And, famously, a few days ago, Democratic Congressmen Phil Hare, from Barack Obama’s own state of Illinois, had this to say about the source of his legal authority to make people do things they don’t want to do…
Now, if you took your responsibilities and your oaths seriously, I would be forced to at least respect the offices you hold, Madam Speaker, and Congressman Hare. But it’s obvious you don’t. So listen carefully, Nancy and Phil, to what better people then you can even imagine being had to say about the source of your authority:
“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last…. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. “
Alexander Hamilton, Aug 28, 1794
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, 1774.
And finally, what about the dangerous, wild-eyed, hateful and threatening allusions to violence? What about that un-American, unheard of, unprecedented repudiation of the genteel nature of politics, as represented by the calm and rational rhetoric that came from the left during the Bush years? What did the founders have to say about defending freedom, by force if necessary?
One of the Framers of the Constitution, John Dickinson wrote:
“We are reduced to the alternative of choosing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers (“irritated ministers” – I love that; that’s spot-on) or resistance by force. Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.”
Or this, from Patrick Henry , 1778:
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
Of all of the things I have seen since this movement began, nothing has tickled me the way blogger Kent McManigal has with his updated take on the famous Gadsen Flag, widely popular at the time of the Revolution and making a strong comeback in the Tea Party movement. Here’s Kent’s flag:
Time’s up, guys. I know you Irritated Ministers and the defenders of the rich and powerful in the news media loathe and despise the Tea Party because you fear it. And you are right to fear it! It’s coming! It’s coming to take the country back from you big-state, anti-freedom elitists. Time’s up.
Here are some final words to take us out.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21, 1787:
“The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.”
John Adams, 1765:
“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”
Benjamin Franklin, July 4, 1776:
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
And then there’s this:
“What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787
And finally, from Samuel Adams – for all you big-state control freaks, Tea Party slanderers and the entire staff at MSNBC:
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
Those are the wild-eyed radicals I stand with, and those are the ideals that I hold that are under assault. What about you?"
"Moral decay is often cited as a reason for why empires/civilizations collapse. The slow failure of the US mortgage market, the largest debt market in the world and the shining jewel of the US economic/financial system, is a good example of moral decay at work.
Why is this market failing? It's being gutted -- from wholesale fraud and ruthless profiteering at the bank/servicer level to strategic defaults at the homeowner level -- because a relatively efficient and effective moral system is being replaced by a burdensome and ineffective one. What shift? Our previous moral system featured trust, loyalty, reputation, responsibility, belief, fairness, etc. While these features were sometimes in short supply, on the whole it provided us with an underlying and nearly costless structure to our social and economic interactions.
Our new moral system is that of the dominant global marketplace. This new system emphasizes transactional, short-term interactions rather than long-term relationships. All interactions are intensely legalistic, as in: nothing is assumed except what is spelled out in the contract. Goodness is solely based on transactional success and therefore anything goes, as long as you don't get punished for it.
In this moral system, every social and economic interaction becomes increasingly costly due to a need to contractually defend yourself against cheating, fraud, and theft. Worse, when legalistic punishment is absent/lax, rampant looting and fraud occurs.
Given the costs and dangers of moral decay, it's not hard to see why it can cause a complex empire/civilization to collapse."
"I am not the author..........Don't forget the FBI part in that massacre........Exactly fifty years before the mass murder by Feds in Texas. "
You want to ban guns. In 1919, the Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution were passed banning alcohol -- much like you want to ban guns now, they banned booze then.
How'd that work out?
Would you call Prohibition a success?
What makes you think the banning of guns would be any different?"