Posts tagged Thomas Jefferson
Obama in front of Jefferson’s Monticello: “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.” (Video)0
Obama in front of Jefferson’s Monticello: “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.” (Video)
To say such a thing even if he thinks it at Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson is amazingly arrogant. Has he no understanding of context? We try to give this the President the benefit of the doubt when we can but this comment I think reflects a contempt for the American people.
Some will argue that it was just a flip statement, and indeed I think it was. But it reflects where Mr. Obama is psychologically (to some degree.) To say such a thing on camera, at Monticello, is just terribly poor taste. Isn’t Mr. Obama supposed to be a “scholar.” Has he no idea what it means for a sitting president to say such a thing while strolling with the Socialist president of France? Did it not occur to him.
Sadly, it probably didn’t.
I suppose since he has been able to get away with changing the Obamacare law extraconstitutionally 27 times (so far), benefiting mostly large business interests and political allies, he might feel a little full of himself.
What a banner day for United States.
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
About Nick Sorrentino
Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.
Why John Boehner And Paul Ryan Should Immediately Resign
Thomas Jefferson once said that “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” In other words, he believed that government debt was the equivalent of stealing money from future generations on a massive scale. Right now, the U.S. government is stealing roughly $100,000,000 from future generations of Americans every single hour of every single day. And it is being projected that the U.S. national debt will more than double during the 8 years of the Obama administration. In other words, the federal government will pile more debt on to the backs of our children and our grandchildren during the Obama years than had been accumulated during all of the rest of U.S. history combined. The federal government is literally destroying the future of America, and what we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is beyond criminal. If there was one thing that the Republicans in Congress were supposed to do, it was to do something about all of this debt. These days Republicans can’t seem to agree on much, but the one issue that virtually all “conservatives” were supposed to agree on was the national debt. The American people gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and 2012 for a reason. Unfortunately, nothing has been done. Our debt has continued to spiral out of control and now John Boehner and Paul Ryan are pushing a “budget deal” that will essentially give the free-spending Democrats virtually everything that they want for the next 10 years. That is why John Boehner and Paul Ryan should immediately resign.
This “budget deal” actually increases the deficit in the short-term.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Overall, it is supposed to reduce the federal budget deficit by about 20 billion dollars over the next decade. But even if the unrealistic assumptions that those numbers are based upon end up working out (which they never do), the “savings” will average just 2 billion dollars a year over the next decade.
And considering the fact that federal budget deficits will likely average well over a trillion dollars over that time span, that is a complete and total joke.
It is kind of like spitting into Niagara Falls and thinking that it will actually make a difference.
Even Paul Ryan is admitting that “this isn’t the greatest agreement of all time”, and in interviews he is complaining that the Democrats wouldn’t allow him to do more.
As if we are supposed to feel sorry for him.
Look – according to the U.S. Constitution the federal government cannot spend a single penny without the approval of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Democrats cannot force the Republicans to do anything.
So if the national debt more than doubles during the Obama administration it is the fault of both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul called the proposed budget deal “shameful“, and he was exactly correct.
It is utterly shameful that the Republicans believe that it is just fine to steal more than 10 trillion dollars from future generations of Americans during the Obama years.
It is utterly shameful that the Republicans believe that it is just fine that the U.S. government has accumulated more than 200 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities that will need to be paid in future years.
It is utterly shameful that the Republicans believe that it is just fine to keep running up a debt that is now more than 37 times larger than it was just 40 years ago.
But instead of doing something to fix this, House Speaker John Boehner is blasting those that are concerned about all of this debt…
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who ceded control of the budget talks to Ryan, likewise pushed back on outside groups’ attempts to influence lawmakers. “They’re using our members, and they’re using the American people for their own goals,” Boehner said, “This is ridiculous. Listen, if you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”
The Democrats don’t even have to attack fiscal conservatives anymore because the Republican leadership is taking care of that job for them.
And John Boehner has got to be joking when he uses the phrase “deficit reduction” in relation to this proposed budget deal. In fact, even CNN is admitting that it essentially does nothing to help our long-term debt problems…
It doesn’t really move the needle much on the country’s long-term debt trajectory. That’s because Ryan and Murray opted for pragmatism, explicitly ruling out wrestling over entitlement and tax reform in this round of negotiations.
Back on September 30th, 2012 our national debt was sitting at a total of 16.07 trillion dollars.
Today, it is up to 17.23 trillion dollars.
That means that we have added 1.16 trillion dollars to the national debt in a little more than 14 months.
This is a recipe for national suicide.
We were the wealthiest nation in the history of the planet, but that was never good enough for us.
We always had to spend even more.
Now we have accumulated the greatest mountain of debt the world has ever seen, and someday if our children and our grandchildren have the chance they will curse us for what we have done to them.
Anyone that has run up massive amounts of credit card debt knows that the ride up can be quite enjoyable. At times, it can seem like the good times will go on forever and that there will never really be any consequences.
But in the end, a very painful day of reckoning always arrives.
The rest of the world is watching what is going on. They can see us running up all this debt. The can see the Federal Reserve wildly printing up money.
At some point the rest of the world is going to stop using our increasingly unstable currency to trade with one another and they are going to stop lending us trillions of dollars at super low interest rates.
When that time arrives, the consequences of decades of very foolish decisions will catch up to us very rapidly.
If only we had listened to our forefathers.
Thomas Jefferson once said that if he could add just one more amendment to the U.S. Constitution it would be a complete ban on all borrowing by the federal government…
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing.
How much better off would we be today if we had only listened to him?
This article first appeared here at the The American Dream. Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.
Image credit: http://endoftheamericandream.com
A group of like-minded patriots, bound together by pride in American exceptionalism, plan on building an armed community to protect their liberty.
The group, named Citadel, intends to purchase 2,000 to 3,000 acres for the project in western Idaho. The community will comprise of 3,500 to 7,000 families of patriotic Americans who “voluntarily choose to live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson’s ideal of Rightful Liberty.”
According to the Citadel website, Rightful Liberty means that “neighbors keep their noses out of other neighbors’ business, that neighbors live and let live.”
Citadel explains that residents in the community will be bound by the following:
- Pride in American Exceptionalism
- Our proud history of Liberty as defined by our Founding Fathers, and
- Physical preparedness to survive and prevail in the face of natural catastrophes –such as Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina — or man-made catastrophes such as a power grid failure or economic collapse.
Residents should also agree that being “prepared for the emergencies of life and being proficient with the American icon of Liberty — the Rifle — are prudent measures.”
Some of the benefits of the Citadel community include a safe, well-prepared, patriotic community where children will be educated in school, not indoctrinated.
The community will be protected by a perimeter wall that will be inaccessible to “tourists.” Each neighborhood within the community will have lower walls, dividing the town into defensible sections.
The website has a link to applications where prospective residents can sign up. According to Citadel, more than 200 families have completed applications, even before any land has been purchased.
While Citadel may sound wonderful to many who are reading this, the community has posted a warning on their home page:
“Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and Establishment Republicans will likely find that life in our community is incompatible with their existing ideology and preferred lifestyles.”
Citadel says that every patriot selected to live within the community “will voluntarily agree to follow the footsteps of our Founding Fathers by swearing to one another our lives, our fortunes and our Sacred Honor to defend one another and Liberty against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Published on Dec 24, 2012
The Louis E. Carabini Distinguished Lecture, presented at the 2012 Mises Institute Supporters Summit: “The Truth About War: A Revisionist Approach”. Recorded at Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on 26 October 2012. Includes an introduction by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Music by Kevin MacLeod.
NOTE: This video may be reproduced for non-profit, educational purposes ONLY.
By Chuck Baldwin
November 21, 2012
On this Thanksgiving Eve, I am reminded of how blessed I have been to be able to rub shoulders with many of the political and religious giants of the Twentieth (and now Twenty-First) Century. During the past 30-plus years, I have been allowed to get to know a good many of the men and women that would have to be regarded as giants in the fields of religion and politics. Many of these have already passed on; a few remain. In the field of politics, the giant of them all is Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
There is no doubt in my mind that history will regard Dr. Paul as the greatest congressman in US history. Ron Paul has done more to guard and defend liberty and constitutional government than perhaps any man since Thomas Jefferson. Dr. Paul’s legacy and influence will remain after most congressmen and senators have been long forgotten. What Patrick Henry was to Colonial America, Ron Paul has been to modern America. I am so grateful for the opportunity to get to personally know this man and to be able to call him my friend.
I was honored to be his personal representative in several notable gatherings in South Carolina during the 2008 Republican primary. I was honored to campaign with him in Iowa during that same primary. I’ve spoken on the same platform with him on numerous occasions. I was honored to be the speaker directly in front of him (and was honored to introduce him) in giant rallies stretching from Washington, D.C., to Reno, Nevada. I have been in private meetings with him and gotten to know him on a personal level. In my estimation, America has never known a more honest and genuine man. His integrity is impeccable, his honor unscathed.
It was with the utmost sadness that I watched Ron Paul give his Farewell Address to Congress last week. As he concluded his remarks and walked away from the Well of the House, I wept. I thought to myself: “There goes the greatest champion of liberty in a century; we may never see his likes again.” I wasn’t weeping for Dr. Paul though; I was weeping for America.
By Blake Taylore
Liberty, freedom, and owning oneself are always good things. How humans lost the acknowledgement and community support of their unalienable right to exist on earth, and own themselves is probably lost in history. And yet, there were always people, throughout history, who understood their own value as individuals, and how they had a right to own their lives, while deciding their own destinies, making their own choices, and keeping what they made. They understood nature’s laws; the human right to own themselves, and keep the fruit of their labor. They understood unalienable rights to be a gift from nature that every human can claim just for being born.
Unfortunately most people, early on, were tricked out of this innate gift of owning themselves. Yet, throughout the ages enlightened, and freedom loving humans fought to bring this truth to light, and to have their unalienable rights be acknowledged, and supported by their communities. Some freedom lovers fought for unalienable rights with their pen, some within their legal structure, and some by the sword. They all fought to have human-made governments obey the laws of nature that governed their unalienable rights.
But it wasn’t until the birth of America, when humans, educated with book and instinctual knowledge of what was right and wrong, would stand together, using both the pen and the sword, to build a nation with a foundational base of nature’s laws. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, America has been a symbol of freedom that many in the rest of the world looked to as a beacon of hope for liberty in their lives. Unfortunately, here in America, once again, throughout the recent decades, those who have based their lives on greed and power, buried the principles of nature’s inalienable rights, enslaving all Americans, stripping us of our privacy, dignity, rights, and wealth. We now all jump as high as TSA, FEMA, the now militarized police, or any other federal agency tells us to, without a blink of the eye. America has let the world down.
Propaganda perpetuated by former and current US Presidents have claimed that clean energy will replace oil and set the economy straight however behind closed doors, the march toward further acquisition of oil reserves in foreign nations have been the back bone of recent wars involving the US and Middle Eastern nations.
As peak oil looms in the background, the global Elite use the might of the US military to force regime changes in strategic areas of the world that benefit their interests and devastate the people of sovereign nations.
Before the oil runs out, the global Elite plan on squeezing every last bit of money from the populations of the globe. In order to do so, they must control the reserves. They accomplish this by warring with countries, devastating economies and imposing sanctions of independence through international mandates from the UN.
Keeping the general population dependent on oil is not just about paying for gas at the pump. Nearly all products are derived from oil in some form. The downward spiral of oil reserves and desperate use of the resource could mean the end of industrialized civilization.
By David Ferguson
This week on “Moyers and Company,” host Bill Moyers reminded us that July 4 is approaching and asked Americans to take the time this year to read one of our nation’s founding documents.
The moment Congress ratified the Declaration of Independence, messengers on horseback were dispatched to all 13 colonies so that it could be to cheering crowds, Moyers said. It was a document that was meant to be read out loud, and many of its truths still ring true today.
Moyers urged Americans to take time to read the Declaration of Independence this July 4, either privately to themselves or aloud with a group.
“The founders surely knew,” Moyers said, “that when they let these ideas loose in the world, they could never again be caged.”
For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if — had drones existed at the time — King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.
Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.
Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”
It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. And any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the U.S.?
The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23, 2012. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution….” Note the primacy of intelligence gathering over freedom protection, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”
By Tom Mullen on Mon, 03/05/2012
Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.
Non-Aggression Is Not Pacifism (Libertarians Hit Back)
Heading into “Super Tuesday,” many conservatives lament that they do not like any of the remaining Republican candidates for president. Romney is too moderate, Gingrich too much a “Washington insider,” and Santorum both an insider and a guaranteed loser against Obama thanks to his willingness to bare his soul about some of his more outlandish socially conservative views.
That leaves Ron Paul, who would seem to be the ideal conservative candidate. Paul’s Plan to Restore America actually cuts $1 trillion from the federal budget in his first year as president, including eliminating the Department of Education that Ronald Reagan promised to abolish.
Paul is the only candidate that actually disagrees with President Obama in principle on “spreading the wealth around.” Paul doesn’t just nibble a few pennies away from financially insignificant welfare programs. He actually has a funded plan to let young people opt out of Medicare and Social Security. This is really a plan to responsibly end these programs. Government-mandated programs only survive because people are forced to participate. If conservatives really do oppose socialism, they should agree with Paul on this. Where do they think Social Security got its name?
For a large group of conservatives, they are with Paul right up until he explains his foreign policy. Suddenly, not only does the courtship end, they stop taking calls and change their phone numbers. That’s unfortunate because most conservatives make this decision upon a completely distorted view of Paul’s foreign policy.
All of Ron Paul’s policy decisions are based upon the same underlying principle: the libertarian principle of non-aggression. As he stated during my own interview with him last year (about the 7:30 mark here), “That’s the moral principle. The legislative principle is really in the Constitution.” Based upon this principle, the government is never allowed to initiate force against the innocent. That means that it cannot redistribute wealth, it cannot stop you from harming yourself with drugs or other vices, and it cannot start a war with another nation.
This is not some new age idea from the early libertarian movement of the 1970’s. This is the foundation of the founders’ philosophy of government. Thomas Jefferson made it explicit when he said, “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”
Jefferson’s first order of business upon reaching the White House was to cut military spending dramatically. His goal was a military establishment adequate to defend the nation but inadequate to the imperial designs of Federalists like Alexander Hamilton. However, when the Pasha of Tripoli declared war upon the United States, Jefferson did not hesitate to send in the Marines for a quick and decisive win.
The confusion starts when Paul’s policies are described as “dovish” or “soft” on Iran or other supposedly belligerent nations. People unfamiliar with libertarian ideas may honestly misunderstand them. Others deliberately distort them. Let there be no confusion. Non-aggression is not pacifism. Libertarians hit back.
Indeed, Paul has said that if the people really do want to go to war, then he would ask the Congress for a declaration of war. He rarely gets time to explain why this is important. The declaration of war involves a debate about whether a state of war already exists. That’s why it’s so important. The declaration of war power doesn’t authorize Congress to start a war. It allows them to direct the president to end it. Check the language of every declaration of war that Congress has ever made. They all support this interpretation.
Active duty military seem to understand this implicitly, which is why they overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. They are ready to risk their lives for their country, but only when their country is truly in danger. Why don’t most conservative voters agree with them? They decorate their vehicles with stickers saying “Support Our Troops” but do not support the candidate that the troops want to be president.
It is no accident that the United States has never really won a war since Congress stopped declaring them. Instead, we send our troops into some far-off land for decades at a time with no clear definition of victory. Their hands are tied with confusing rules of engagement that keep them from winning and prolong the war. This is good for those who profit from war but bad for the troops who risk or lose their lives.
None of this happens in a Ron Paul presidency. Instead, war is far less likely to come at all, which is a good thing. If it is forced upon us, Ron Paul will have it properly declared by the Congress and then will fight it to win. Make no mistake. Of all of the Republican candidates for president, only Ron Paul will win the next war.
 Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Francis Walker Gilmer June 7, 1816 from The Works of Thomas Jefferson edited by Paul Leicester Ford G.P. Putnam’s Sons New York and London The Knickerbocker Press 1905 pg. 533-34