...Defends His "Bomb The Hell Out Of Them" Statement...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/01/14/daily14.html

Miller defends 'bomb the hell out of them' comment, calls for action against Iraq
Atlanta Business Chronicle - January 15, 2002
by Walter Woods

In a rousing speech Jan. 14 that he himself described as "angry" U.S. Sen. Zell Miller defended some of the most controversial positions he's taken since being elected, including his comment that the U.S. should "bomb the hell" out of those responsible for Sept. 11.

"So far 12,000 tons -- 24 million pounds -- of bombs have been dropped on our enemies. If that's not bombing the hell out of them, I don't know what is," the former governor said to loud applause. "I received some criticism [for the remark, but] the criticism did not come from any who, as I just a few days after the attacks, had stood on Ground Zero amid that smoldering pile of rubble that had become the graveyard for thousands of innocent Americans."

Miller's speech also called on the U.S. to "go after" Iraq and Saddam Hussein, reinstate the military draft and drill in the Alaskan wildlife refuge to reduce dependence on foreign oil, among other proposals.

Miller spoke to a crowd of about 1,000 business and political leaders at the Georgia World Congress Center Monday night, including his colleague, Sen. Max Cleland and many members of the Georgia General Assembly.

The speech, for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce annual meeting dinner, was the first major address Miller has given in his home state since being elected just over a year ago, said a spokesperson, "and he wanted to make an impression."

His remarks, which Cleland described afterward as "great," were reminiscent of Miller's thunderous speech to the Democratic National Convention in 1992.

Miller blasted the Congress and federal government for its political partisanship, its waste of taxpayer money and the soft money from special interest groups, which he called "nothing short of bribery."

"One of these days someone smarter and younger and more articulate than I is going to get through to the American people just how really messed up it has become [in Washington]," Miller said. "And when that happens, the American people are going to rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland and run both teams off the field."

Miller was referring to an unruly Cleveland Browns football game in December when fans threw beer bottles on the field after some questionable calls by the officials.

"As Churchill said, `Democracy is based on reason and a sense of fair play,'" Miller continued. "And there is nothing reasonable or fair about this system."

Miller also insisted that he would continue to buck the Democratic Party line and support ideas from both parties and President Bush, whom Miller described as the "right man" for the job.

"We have the right man in the White House," Miller said to loud applause. "George W. Bush has been magnificent."

Miller also spoke highly of Republican Congressman Johnny Isakson and said he enjoyed working with North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms.

Miller has been criticized for being a sponsor of Bush's tax cut and for being the first Senator to publicly support the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general.

Comparing Sept. 11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which he remembered as a boy, Miller said he supported a "wider war" against terrorism.

"And as far as I'm concerned, it means at some time -- maybe not next, but some time -- going after Saddam Hussein," Miller said. "We don't have to prove he was involved with Sept. 11 or with Al Qaeda. We know he hates the United States."

Miller also said he will be a co-sponsor of a bill with Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman to set up a powerful investigative panel to look into intelligence and diplomatic failures that may have lead to the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I also think we should give serious thought to resuming the draft," said Miller, a former Marine. "It is clear that we're going to have to restructure our military as we prepare for this new kind of war."

Miller said drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska would upset only three square miles of land in an area the size of South Carolina, while it would yield more than 16 billion barrels of oil -- "the equivalent of 30 years of Saudi Arabian oil imports."

Miller closed by promising to fight the status quo in Washington.

"I just don't think I'll ever be able to accept the way things work up there," he said. "Perhaps Washington will never change, but you know something, neither will I."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

The Failure Of The All-Volunteer Military

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boston Globe
January 21, 2007

The Failure Of An All-Volunteer Military

By Andrew J. Bacevich

"WAR IS the great auditor of institutions," the British historian Corelli Barnett has observed. In Iraq, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. The defects of basic US national security institutions stand exposed. Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs -- unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.

The essential guarantor of US national security is the all-volunteer force. In its hey day -- the 1990s -- the all-volunteer force underwrote America's claim to global preeminence. Its invincibility taken for granted, the volunteer force seemed a great bargain to boot. Maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen. No wonder Americans viewed the volunteer military as the most successful federal reform program of the postwar era. What was there not to like?

In fact, questions of efficacy or economy did not figure significantly in the decision to create the all-volunteer force. Back in the early 1970s, the object of the exercise had been quite simple: to terminate an increasingly illegitimate reliance on conscription. During the Vietnam War, thanks in no small part to the draft, the armed services had become estranged from American society. The all-volunteer force creation severed relations altogether.

This divorce had large implications. After Vietnam, citizenship no longer included an obligation to contribute to the nation's defense. Military service became a matter of personal preference, devoid of political or moral significance. Although providing for the common defense remained a primary function of government, federal officials no longer possessed the authority to command citizens to bear arms. Henceforth, they could only encourage young Americans to enlist, offering inducements to sweeten the invitation.

Historically, Americans had viewed a "standing army" with suspicion. After Vietnam they embraced the idea. By 1991 they were celebrating it. After Operation Desert Storm -- with its illusion of a cheap, easy victory -- soldiers like General Colin Powell persuaded themselves that "the people fell in love with us again."

If love, it was a peculiar version, neither possessive nor signifying a desire to be one with the beloved. For the vast majority of Americans, Desert Storm affirmed the wisdom of contracting out nation al security. Cheering the troops on did not imply any interest in joining their ranks. Especially among the affluent and well-educated, the notion took hold that national defense was something "they" did, just as "they" bus ed tables, collected trash, and mowed lawns. The stalemated war in Iraq has revealed two problems with this arrangement.

The first is that "we" have forfeited any say in where "they" get sent to fight. When it came to invading Iraq, President Bush paid little attention to what voters of the First District of Massachusetts or the 50th District of California thought. The people had long since forfeited any ownership of the army. Even today, although a clear majority of Americans want the Iraq war shut down, their opposition counts for next to nothing: the will of the commander-in-chief prevails.

The second problem stems from the first. If "they" -- the soldiers we contract to defend us -- get in trouble, "we" feel little or no obligation to bail them out. All Americans support the troops, yet support does not imply sacrifice. Yellow-ribbon decals displayed on the back of gas-guzzlers will suffice, thank you.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that President Bush is correct in saying that failure in Iraq is not an option. Then why limit the "surge" to a measly 21,500 additional troops? Why not 50,000? With the population of the United States having now surpassed 300 million, why not send 100,000 reinforcements to Iraq?

The question answers itself: There are not an additional 100,000 Americans willing to commit their lives to the cause. Even offering up 21,500 finds the Pentagon scraping the bottom of the barrel, extending the tours of soldiers already in the combat zone while accelerating the deployment of those heading back for a second or third tour of duty.

After the Cold War, Americans came to see war as something other than a human enterprise; the secret of military superiority ostensibly lay in the microchip. The truth is that the sinews of military power lie among the people, who legitimate war and sustain it.

For the United States to remain a great military power will require a genuine reconciliation of the military and American society. But this implies the people exercising a greater say in deciding when and where American soldiers fight. And it also implies reviving the tradition of the citizen-soldier so that all share in the burden of national defense.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "D1ck" Gaines
The Original
"Gunny G"
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!
~~~~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/sites.html
~~~~~~
GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
http://network54.com/Forum/135069
~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~
GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
~~~~~~~
The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
~~~~~
RSS Feed-GyG's FURL Archive
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg/rss.xml
~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
~~~
Send: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Boston Globe
January 21, 2007

The Failure Of An All-Volunteer Military

By Andrew J. Bacevich

"WAR IS the great auditor of institutions," the British historian Corelli Barnett has observed. In Iraq, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. The defects of basic US national security institutions stand exposed. Failure to correct those defects will only invite more Iraqs -- unnecessary wars that once begun prove unwinnable.

The essential guarantor of US national security is the all-volunteer force. In its hey day -- the 1990s -- the all-volunteer force underwrote America's claim to global preeminence. Its invincibility taken for granted, the volunteer force seemed a great bargain to boot. Maintaining the world's most powerful military establishment imposed a negligible burden on the average citizen. No wonder Americans viewed the volunteer military as the most successful federal reform program of the postwar era. What was there not to like?

In fact, questions of efficacy or economy did not figure significantly in the decision to create the all-volunteer force. Back in the early 1970s, the object of the exercise had been quite simple: to terminate an increasingly illegitimate reliance on conscription. During the Vietnam War, thanks in no small part to the draft, the armed services had become estranged from American society. The all-volunteer force creation severed relations altogether.

This divorce had large implications. After Vietnam, citizenship no longer included an obligation to contribute to the nation's defense. Military service became a matter of personal preference, devoid of political or moral significance. Although providing for the common defense remained a primary function of government, federal officials no longer possessed the authority to command citizens to bear arms. Henceforth, they could only encourage young Americans to enlist, offering inducements to sweeten the invitation.

Historically, Americans had viewed a "standing army" with suspicion. After Vietnam they embraced the idea. By 1991 they were celebrating it. After Operation Desert Storm -- with its illusion of a cheap, easy victory -- soldiers like General Colin Powell persuaded themselves that "the people fell in love with us again."

If love, it was a peculiar version, neither possessive nor signifying a desire to be one with the beloved. For the vast majority of Americans, Desert Storm affirmed the wisdom of contracting out nation al security. Cheering the troops on did not imply any interest in joining their ranks. Especially among the affluent and well-educated, the notion took hold that national defense was something "they" did, just as "they" bus ed tables, collected trash, and mowed lawns. The stalemated war in Iraq has revealed two problems with this arrangement.

The first is that "we" have forfeited any say in where "they" get sent to fight. When it came to invading Iraq, President Bush paid little attention to what voters of the First District of Massachusetts or the 50th District of California thought. The people had long since forfeited any ownership of the army. Even today, although a clear majority of Americans want the Iraq war shut down, their opposition counts for next to nothing: the will of the commander-in-chief prevails.

The second problem stems from the first. If "they" -- the soldiers we contract to defend us -- get in trouble, "we" feel little or no obligation to bail them out. All Americans support the troops, yet support does not imply sacrifice. Yellow-ribbon decals displayed on the back of gas-guzzlers will suffice, thank you.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that President Bush is correct in saying that failure in Iraq is not an option. Then why limit the "surge" to a measly 21,500 additional troops? Why not 50,000? With the population of the United States having now surpassed 300 million, why not send 100,000 reinforcements to Iraq?

The question answers itself: There are not an additional 100,000 Americans willing to commit their lives to the cause. Even offering up 21,500 finds the Pentagon scraping the bottom of the barrel, extending the tours of soldiers already in the combat zone while accelerating the deployment of those heading back for a second or third tour of duty.

After the Cold War, Americans came to see war as something other than a human enterprise; the secret of military superiority ostensibly lay in the microchip. The truth is that the sinews of military power lie among the people, who legitimate war and sustain it.

For the United States to remain a great military power will require a genuine reconciliation of the military and American society. But this implies the people exercising a greater say in deciding when and where American soldiers fight. And it also implies reviving the tradition of the citizen-soldier so that all share in the burden of national defense.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!
R.W. "D1ck" Gaines
The Original
"Gunny G"
GnySgt USMC (Ret.)
1952- (Plt #437PISC)-'72
Sites & Forums For... The Thinking Marine!
~~~~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor! --Sites & Forums
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/sites.html
~~~~~~
GyG's Old Salt Marines Tavern ~Interactive~
http://network54.com/Forum/135069
~~~~~~~~
GyG's Globe and Anchor Weblog
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/
~~~~~~~
GyG's History/Traditions, etc.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/220604/
~~~~~~~
The GyG Archive/Bookmarks @FURL
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg
~~~~~
RSS Feed-GyG's FURL Archive
http://www.furl.net/members/gunnyg/rss.xml
~~~~~~~
Want On GyG's E-Mail List?
~~~
Send: GunnyG@GMail.com
ADD In Subject Line....
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

GyG: YER DAMN RIGHT! - OUR "NANNY PATROL" IN RETREAT ON THE BORDER IS! BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!

By Gunny G!--CLICK-HERE!!!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

THE MAN WHO WARNED OF AN AMERICAN NAPOLEON BECAME THE AMERICAN NAPOLEON

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman66.html
Utopia? Hardly

by David Dieteman

The title of Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's jam-packed one-volume history of the Civil War is Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. Hummel's title is connected to an ongoing debate between those who profess to love liberty, namely, between conservatives and libertarians.

In particular, those libertarians who advocate not only the separation of powers into three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – but the additional decentralization of power in such competing levels as municipal (city, township, and county), state, and federal, known as "states' rights" advocates for short (and, perhaps, these days, for scorn), are routinely lampooned, rather than debated, by conservatives.

Well, at least lampooned by so-called "neo"-conservatives...who are so neo, they don't very much resemble the conservatives of not so long ago. This is an oddity in itself. From the very nature of the term, one might think that self-described "conservatives" would tend to remain ideologically consistent – indeed, conserved, or unchanged – over time, at least with regard to the eternal questions, such as the best way to divide governmental powers so as to protect individual liberty.

Nope.

Perhaps it is because there is a war involved. The neo-cons appear entirely too much in favor of war as a tool of social policy. They appear to ignore the terrible evils – the genuine and unavoidable human suffering which comes with war. Bombing Belgrade, Sudan, and other places – and shooting down planes over Peru – kills men, women, and children. Killing should never be treated lightly. In other words, those who advocate militarism must do so only on the most serious grounds.

The above paragraph, of course, is at best a surmise, an exercise in psychologism. Whatever the reason, those who otherwise understand the separation of powers recoil from a robust concept of federalism. Worse, they label those who defend the American constitutional system of federal power as "utopians."

Hardly. Back to Hummel.

Although the title of Hummel's history of the Civil War may be perplexing to some, the title comes from a speech by Abraham Lincoln to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, on January 27, 1838. As Hummel writes, "The young Lincoln was warning about the potential danger of a future Napoleon subverting the United States Constitution." (p. 366, n. 1). Napoleon's armies tore up Europe from 1799 until he was poisoned in 1821 (by French monarchists), so when Lincoln spoke, he was speaking about recent history. This is like those of us today speaking about the 1984 Olympics. Yes, that's 17 years ago.

Here is what Lincoln said:

Towering genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. (Hummel, 366)

Disturbingly, the man who warned of an American Napoleon became the American Napoleon.

Which brings me to a personal confession: Joe Sobran has softened my thinking on Lincoln. When I came to study the Civil War, and study it in-depth, over eight years, it occurred to me that, truly, the conflict is more properly named the War for Southern Independence. The Northern view of the war which I had been spoon-fed in school parrots the earlier English view of the colonial (American) War of Independence – right down to laughing at the notion that the relevant rebels could possibly claim to be fighting for freedom, merely because of the issue of slavery. By the way, the English figured things out the second time around – and rooted for the Confederacy. In that regard, see Sheldon Vanauken's The Glittering Illusion.

This Anglo-Northern myth is exactly that – a myth. Because it is false at worst, biased and incomplete at best, the telling and perpetuation of this counterfeit tale merits correction. In short, this descendent of a Federal army soldier was enraged to find injustice hiding behind a veil of justice. Sobran, however, has a point in arguing that, rather than see Lincoln merely as a villain, it may be appropriate to view Lincoln as a tragic, Oxfordian (you might say Shakespearean) figure.

But back to Hummel's essential point: the war against the Confederacy fundamentally changed the USA. The prosecution of the war turned the USA from an unobtrusive, small government into an intrusive, bloated monstrosity. When the USA forcibly re-absorbed the CSA, this "wonderful" system – now beyond reproach to "neo"-conservatives (maybe "conservatives" should be in quotation marks, rather than the neo) – became not only mandatory, but, according to the Northern theory still dominant today – inescapable.

No part of the USA can ever leave.

Hence the "pledge of allegiance" written by a Massachusetts minister – a self-proclaimed socialist, who was so far to the Left with his social gospel, he was kicked out by his own congregation. Welcome to the United States. You are now here forever, no matter what.

Say, what is the neo-conservative view of federal taxation with respect to those who renounce their US citizenship? More than a few wealthy Americans – many of them from prominent families – have renounced their citizenship in the last decade to escape punitive levels of taxation. Should Uncle Sam confiscate everything owned by such "disloyal" people?

A further question: if an individual citizen may freely renounce his US citizenship, is there a logical reason why an entire state of individual citizens cannot renounce its citizenship? The standard Northern line is that, hey, self-determination is fine in Nicaragua, Vietnam and the Balkans, but absolutely out of the question on the American continent.

The Canadians had better keep their rifles handy – oh, wait, their government is in the process of melting them down for worthless scrap metal. The Fenians, it seems, were a tad early.

And what to make of Texas. The USA backed Texas in its drive for independence from Mexico. The Republic of Texas, which won its independence from Mexico in 1836 – remember the Alamo? – spent perhaps 10 years as an independent nation. It was then annexed by the USA on December 29, 1845.

The annexation, by the way, led to a war – the Mexican War. California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming were taken from Mexico by the USA.

Sixteen years after the independent nation of Texas had been annexed by the USA – in 1861 – the USA refused to let Texas leave the USA. Sorry. There is a piece of paper, known as the Constitution, which means that although areas like Texas may declare their independence of nations such as Mexico – with the backing of the USA – an area like Texas may never declare its independence from the USA. We have different rules, and we don't allow that.

You signed away your independence permanently, and if you care to disagree, we will kill you. Forget the Supreme Court. As President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed, the highest tribunal available to mankind is the force of arms. And so Texas – which, the Northern myth proclaims, had never left the union via the heresy of "secession" – was forced to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments in order to be "re-admitted" to a Union that it supposedly had never really left.

Notice how the Northern view of the Civil War mirrors the typical Department of Motor Vehicles view of your attempts to renew your drivers' license. It is the nature of behemoth governmental bureaucracies.

By the way, following the Northern approach to the question of secession, should we outlaw divorce?

Of course, the Northern view is merely an incoherent attempt to justify a war, and to defend the morally indefensible – the idea of a compulsory, involuntary, permanent "union" held together by force of arms, against the will of the citizens. On the Northern view, is it possible to ever dump the Constitution of 1789 for a new Constitution – even by way of Amendments or Constitutional Convention? Or are we stuck with it?

And, of course, the Northern view is wrong. The Constitution of 1789 – a document of delegated powers – does not prohibit secession, and the 9th and 10th Amendments must be interpreted to allow for a constitutional right of secession – to say nothing of the natural right of secession so eloquently described in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence (a belated Happy Fourth of July to you).

But back again to Hummel, whose Chapters Nine through Thirteen (and Epilogue) make his case rather strongly that the war – allegedly fought for "freedom" – significantly reduced American freedom.

As Hummel notes, "The national government at the time [of the war] had only two sources of revenue: a very low tariff and the sale of public lands." (p 221)

Utopia! But I digress.

"Adjusting for population, the government in Washington was spending approximately $2.50 per person in 1858, or the equivalent of $44 per person today [Hummel was originally published in 1996]. This was less than 2 percent of the economy's total output." (p 221)

Utopia!

How did people survive from the founding of the first European colonies in the New World until 1858, some 200 years (roughly)? By private initiative – also known as work and good works.

Those, such as myself, who advocate genuinely limited government, the separation of powers, and federalism (i.e., "states' rights") recognize that on questions of social policy, there are two questions which must always be answered

1. Is the suggested policy a good idea?

2. Should the government enact the policy?

The answer to the first question will depend on the facts. The answer to the second question is never "yes."

Although I agree with conservatives such as Charley Reese that genuine freedom does not include the abandonment of commitments to family, faith and country, the historical record of mankind's experiments with limited government is not encouraging. By and large, the State – logically distinct from the social order, society, and populace – whenever it has been limited by human design, whether in Venice, the United Provinces of the Netherlands, in England under Magna Carta, in America under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, or in ancient Athens and Rome, has managed to usurp and destroy such limits over time, all the while cooing that such usurpations were "for the better" or "for the common good."

In the USA, this mistake has been repeated. After the Declaration of Independence and the war of secession from England, those men who crafted the Declaration of Independence and fought the War of Independence crafted the Articles of Confederation – which were detested by those who longed for a powerful, centralized state, namely, the nationalists, the misnamed "Federalists," i.e., statists such as Alexander Hamilton, and also by those, like Robert Morris, who financed the War of Independence and who wanted to be repaid – by a Confederate government (as in "Articles of Confederation;" Confederate, then, is the proper term) that could not compel its member states to pay up.

The US, then, voluntarily abandoned the – utopian! – really limited government of the Articles of Confederation for the less limited government of the Constitution. Of course, to the neo-cons, the Constitution as written is, you guessed it, utopian. And so men like Lincoln, Wilson and FDR had to come along to show everyone what had been so misunderstood since 1789, and by men like Jefferson – who advocated the right of secession.

As Hummel writes of pre-Civil War America,

Most Americans paid no taxes whatsoever to any federal officials directly, and their only regular contact with any representatives of central authority was probably through the United States Post Office – if they had any contact at all. Indeed, in New York City, the government delivered only one million letters in 1856 as compared with the ten million carried by private companies. (p 222)

A government post office that isn't a monopoly? Utopia! How dare libertarians suggest a private postal service – you must be against delivering letters at all! Neanderthals! Racists! Homophobes!

Ah, almost forgot to mention that Hummel also notes that the Civil War introduced paper money, which led to counterfeiting (and the Secret Service)(p 226). The private minting of coins was outlawed. And Abraham Lincoln used federal troops to break union strikes – in the North (p 234).

And yet, and yet...these are historical facts.

The USA enjoyed 90 years of independence without government control of every aspect of human existence. And yet if you dare to question such government control today, you are branded as a utopian, a fool on an ivory tower, unwilling to confront the "practical realities" of politics. Here's a practical reality: Americans today are not very free by historical standards, and certainly not by the standards of the Sons of Liberty, who staged the Boston Tea Party.

Utopian my eye.

Roll back the state. It is bloated beyond any reasonable view of the Constitution, and is an affront to the principles of the American founding. Here's a challenge to the neo-cons: dare to imagine a different world than the status quo. There is no reason to conserve the usurpations of the Constitution which were perpetrated by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR – to name but a few. Americans today face a moral imperative: the state must be contained within the limits of justice.

July 14, 2001

Mr. Dieteman [send him mail] is an attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and a PhD candidate in philosophy at The Catholic University of America.

© 2001 David Dieteman

David Dieteman Archives

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.

http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=14942379
~~~~~

Foreign Policy, War and Propaganda

CLICK-HERE!!!!!

Editor, FlyoverPress.com"
date Jan 3, 2007 10:47 AM
subject Foreign Policy, War and Propaganda

A subscriber sent a cut and paste of a post on an Internet forum by Pat Rogers. For those of you who don’t know, Rogers is a double dipping (retired Marine Corps Warrant Officer AND retired NYPD cop) stereotypical Yankee statist jerk. His post has been lightly edited for grammatical clarity. (What do you expect from a jarhead-cop?)

”I make 5-7 long walks with the pup daily, and while strolling through the 'hood I see a lot. Lately the crop of 9-11 year olds has been out on the street with plastic guns, rucks and patrol caps.

“Understand I live in a nice place, and mostly everyone is gov or military, with a mean rank of 0-6/ GS15.

”Today I heard the kids along a stream that runs past the back of my casa—orders, the ratchet sound of the plastic guns etc. I went out on the back porch in time to see a patrol assaulting through a linear ambush.

“After consolidation they took a break and sorted things out. A young voice cut through the forest. ‘THIS TIME YOU HAVE TO BE THE HAJI'S...’

”Yeah, the kids are playing Cowboy's and Haji's. Things just may be getting better....”

End of Post:



“Getting better?” Hardly! This incident is nothing but crystal clear confirmation of the effectiveness of the awesome Yankee occupier’s propaganda machine. That should not be news to anyone, much less the latest crop of victims currently risking life and limb “serving” the interest of the imperial State and its benefactors in the sand pile. All that Rogers has said is that the State is busily preparing another crop to take their place.


Garet Garrett, in his 1952 pamphlet, The Rise of Empire declared "We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire." And went on to conclude…



“It is our turn.

“Our turn to do what?

“Our turn to assume the responsibilities of moral leadership in the world,

“Our turn to maintain a balance of power against the forces of evil everywhere—in Europe and Asia and Africa, in the Atlantic and in the Pacific, by air and by sea…

“Our turn to keep the peace of the world.

“Our turn to save civilization.

“Our turn to serve mankind.



“But this is the language of Empire. The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy. Yet the more that may be added to it the more it is the same language still. A language of power.”



Randolph Bourne rightfully referred to war “the health of the State" and that alone is ample justification for advocating a non-interventionist foreign policy.



As Murray Rothbard put it in For a New Liberty (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty13.asp):



“War has always been the occasion of a great—and usually perma­nent—acceleration and intensification of State power over society. War is the great excuse for mobilizing all the energies and resources of the nation, in the name of patriotic rhetoric, under the aegis and dictation of the State apparatus. It is in war that the State really comes into its own: swelling in power, in number, in pride, in absolute dominion over the economy and the society. Society becomes a herd, seeking to kill its alleged enemies, rooting out and suppressing all dissent from the official war effort, happily betraying truth for the supposed public interest. Society becomes an armed camp, with the values and the morals—as the libertarian Albert Jay Nock once phrased it—of an ‘army on the march.’



“It is particularly ironic that war always enables the State to rally the energies of its citizens under the slogan of helping it to defend the country against some bestial outside menace. For the root myth that enables the State to wax fat off war is the canard that war is a defense by the State of its subjects. The facts, however, are precisely the reverse. For if war is the health of the State, it is also its greatest danger. A State can only ‘die’ by defeat in war or by revolution. In war, therefore, the State frantically mobilizes its subjects to fight for it against another State, under the pretext that it is fighting to defend them.”



It saddens me to see otherwise intelligent individuals buy into such crap as Rogers has to peddle.


thegunny, 419
--
Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

~~~~~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~

Gunny G's Archive/Bookmarks @ FURL...

Here is Gunny G's Archive/Bookmarks @ FURL...
CLICK-HERE!!!!!

FURL RSS Feed Below...
Post To Your Own Site, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



~~~~~~
This is...
Gunny G's...
GLOBE and ANCHOR
Marines Sites & Forums
By R.W. "Dick" Gaines
Gny Sgt USMC (Ret.)
1952-'72
Semper Fidelis
~~~~~~~~~~
Note:
GyG's G&A Sites & Forums is an informational site and not for profit. Copyrighted material provided soley for education, study, research, and discussion, etc. Full credit to source shown when available.
~~~~~