Not long ago, I confessed my crush on Dennis Kucinich's wife. That crush ended when she announced that that Dennis would "absolutely" consider running with Ron Paul.Unbelievable.
Our pulchritudinous Pre-Raphaelite "progressive" purist cannot bring herself to contemplate ever supporting Hillary Clinton -- who is, by any normal standard, one of the most liberal members of Congress. (Americans for Demcratic Action gives her a rating of 100%, compared to a 77% lifetime rating for Edwards. Edwards nevertheless remains my favored candidate, for reasons I can discuss later.)
And yet fair Elizabeth -- who now appears to be more puppeteer than partner -- is perfectly willing to ally her husband with Ron Paul, a man who wants an end to Social Security. And Medicare. And OSHA. And all regulation on business.
The "progressive" response to her announcement on Huffington Post and PseudoDemocratic Undergound quickly revealed what I have long suspected: The pseudo-left has morphed into a vehicle for Libertarian ideology. Ever since I started listening closely to Gore Vidal (quite a few years ago), I have suspected that many "progressive" leaders are really clever fakes, as Vidal is. Their purpose is to sell Libertarianism to naive dupes who wouldn't buy the stuff in undisguised "Randroid" form.
I never thought I'd see the day when commentators on a "progressive" site blast the very idea of the government attempting to help Katrina victims. Paul opposed that aid.
When Elizabeth Kucinich spoke on the local Air America affiliate not many days ago, I called friends and told them to tune in, because she was incredibly bright and articulate. She almost swayed me -- until the end of the interview, which forced me to call my friends again and to apologize. As she responded to the listener call-ins, she cautiously allied herself with the 9/11 CD nuts, which means that she ascribes more credibility to a movement headed by Holocaust revisionists and other far-right sickos than to all of the world's experts on controlled demolitions. (Remember when Al Gore made his plea for reason? Seems like a lifetime ago...)
Then she announced that Dennis would not back any other Democratic candidate who won the nomination. She meant Hillary Clinton, of course.
In practical terms, that announcement means that -- if her husband does not win the nomination (which he won't) -- she wants Giuliani to be president. Since Rudy makes no secret of his intent to bomb Iran, her objectively pro-Giuliani stance proves her anti-war rhetoric to be a deceit.Now the woman who disdains Hillary has endorsed Ron Paul (whose ADA rating is 40). This alliance tells us the truth about the Kuciniches: Everything they have said about about health care and social welfare was a lie.
Wars come and go, and only a fool would focus on one topic over all others. Many anti-Vietnam protesters in 1970 considered that issue the only issue, and never gave much thought to Social Security. The song "When I'm 64" was a joke to the hippies, because 64 was unimaginable. But the Vietnam debacle came to an end a few years later, and many -- perhaps most -- of those protesters soon went on to vote for Reagan, who called that vile conflict "a noble cause."
(This history lesson tells you all you'll ever need to know about single-issue zealotry. The current anti-Iraq crowd will -- mark my words -- embrace whomever plays the Reagan role in 2016 or 2020.)
Those same flower-power protesters are now collecting Social Security checks, or are poised to do so within a few years. Vietnam is a distant memory, and those checks have suddenly become a very relevant concern.
In the long run, Social Security and Medicaid are the topics that truly matter.
Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement want an end to Social Security.
Bush's attempt to demolish the system drew its fake numbers and misleading analysis from the Cato Institute -- a Libertarian think tank which has published Paul's writings. Elizabeth Kucinich's support for Paul equals a support for Cato's ideology, which equals a support for the worst thing Bush ever tried to do.
Ron Paul stands for destroying every last vestige of the New Deal. He stands for a return to the bad old days before Franklin Roosevelt -- before Theodore Roosevelt. He stands for giving total power to the corporations. He stands for an end to pollution controls, workplace safety regulations and the minimum wage.
That's what Libertarians really mean when they use code words about "strict Constitutionalism."
If asked about Ron Paul, a truly Democratic candidate should express but one thought: "Although I agree with his views on the war, I am against nearly everything else he believes in. I would never support him."
The Kuciniches had their chance to say that. They didn't.
They are liars. LIARS. They are not genuine advocates for working Americans.
Since Dennis' poll numbers have never risen above the three-or-four percent mark, what can this Quixotic campaign hope to accomplish? The answer: Nothing -- aside from fracturing the party and sustaining the myth that the three front-runners are DINOs. (Newsflash: By any rational standard, any one of those three would be the left-most candidate the party has fielded since 1960, with the arguable exception of Gore.)
Like Nader, the Kuciniches may well be covert right-wing hirelings. Their assigned task is to create division and to prevent someone with a 100% ADA rating from having a shot at the oval office. We must shun the Kucinich Konsters if they will not support the Democratic party's nominee (whoever he or she turns out to be) and if they will not take a firm stand against Ron Paul -- a race-baiting anti-choice Jesus Christer who would return us to the era of twelve-hour work days without overtime.
This isn't the first time a beautiful woman has deceived me.
20 comments:
i agree with your position, but suggest that lovely elizabeth is just too naive about american politics to grasp the implications of what she was saying. why would she know anything about american libertarians?
well, sure, ayn rand wrote in english. still, she simply may not know anything about the rest of paul's politics.
that being said, she never should have said what she said without knowing more about him. this doesn't speak of a con, or kon, but of rash stupidity.
which is just so disturbing. what a shame. a really good platform flushed down the toilet because of a really really stupidly rash statement.
won't be the first time that's happened in politics.
Come on. Don't be such a cornball.
Think outside the box- or should I say outside the corral, since it appears to me that the implicit thrust of much of your commentary consists of treating your readers like cattle, to be herded into the polling booths and voting for everyone with the magic "D for Democrat" next to their name.
That is OVER, man.
And the more you rail on with demands for orthodoxy and adding to your enemies list, the more you sound like Captain Queeg.
As for the hysterical scare-mongering about Ron Paul...let's talk phenomenology, not ideology. Realistically, President Ron Paul would have about as much ability to abolish Social Security and Medicare as President Elizabeth Kucinich would have of unilaterally decommissioning the US arsenal of nuclear weapons. Arguments about merits or folly aside, neither of those ambitious projects would have a hope of success without engaging the Legislative Branch in a balance of powers. Those aren't the sort of projects that can be bullied through by Executive Order, under the guise of "National Security."
If Ron Paul fails to get the Republican nomination and decides to run as an independent, all indications are that he will tank the Republican candidate, not the Democrat (although I contend that the probability of that outcome decreases considerably if the Democratic nominee turns out to be Hillary Clinton.) His base of support is primarily drawn from conservative idealists, not from disaffected progressives. Furthermore, he's motivating a lot of people who otherwise would simply stay home on Election Day- people who stayed home last time, and the time before that, and the time before that...
But as long as Ron Paul's candidacy draws measurable numbers from the legion of liberals or progressives who have become alienated from the chore of having to wear the Democratic Party Clown albatross around their neck while engaging in political discourse, he'll be damned with every hysterical accusation and guilt by association that the Democratic Party Orthodox Acolytes can dream up.
I've seen the contemporary national-level Democratic Party's game enough times to know it for what it is: rather than actually listening to and honestly responding to pleas, complaints and criticisms from their natural constituency among the American electorate (i.e., "everyone fucked over by the national-level Republican Party"- potentially an enormous, unstoppable coalition), the national Democratic leadership (and their Orthodox followers) dismisses the input as invalid, and keeps on with their phony, pseudo-idealistic politics-as-usual in all of its craven ineffectuality.
( The best allegory I've read is found in this article by Smith Bowen. That's the game, right there. )
Then, when election time rolls around, the Democrats attempt to literally scare up winning margins of voters by pointing to the ghastly alternative of continued Republican rule.
Since it's so often the case that that's all the Democrats have got in terms of compelling political appeal, it isn't surprising that increasing numbers of Americans have begun to tune out on them, over time. But do the elected leaders of the Democratic Party ever engage in the sort of honest self-criticism and fearless assessments necessary to get them out of the rut they're in? No.
Instead, it's all about scapegoating those who fall away from the fold. Blaming Election 2000 Nader voters for Abu Ghraib, for instance.
How dishonorable. How pathetic.
And how emblematic, for a the minions of a political party addicted to finding excuses for its failures.
Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton? I'd vote for Ron Paul in a New York minute. At least some dynamism would be restored to the process, watching President Paul having to tackle the formidable task of making his heretic case on so many political issues to everyone from skeptical academics to blog critics to the Congress- including vast, wide, and deep resistance from factions within his own party. That could get unpredictable.
The Hillarycrats? I know what will happen. Just read that essay I linked by Smith Bowen. Meet Nurse Ratchet.
Dennis is the one who is seeking your vote and until I hear him say that he would support a repug fanatic (are there any other kind?) I am still going to be behind him 100%. Anyone who knows anything about his past knows it would be impossible for him to support someone so set on destroying what is left of our country as is Ron Paul.Could it be that Elizabeth is just not aware of Paul's positions on everything else but the war? Remember, Elizabeth is from another country and should be allowed a mistake now and then as she adapts to our way of doing things ( however outlandish at times) I really feel that Dennis' positions are the only realistic way to approach our country"s problems if we are to survive the damage done by the republicans.But if Dennis himself says that he could support any republican, I would drop him like a hot potato.
You know, cabdriver, it's purists like you (and I came THAT close to rejecting your comment) who are turning me into something I never thought I would be: A Hillary supporter.
"voting for everyone with the magic "D for Democrat" next to their name.
That is OVER, man."
Translation: You want Giuliani to be president.
"Blaming Election 2000 Nader voters for Abu Ghraib, for instance."
Nader and all of his supporters bear personal responsibility for Abu Ghraib and you know it. Everyone with any brains in 2000 said "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush," and the purists voted for Nader anyways. And now you refuse to acknowledge responsibility for the horrors you purist motherfuckers inflicted on the world.
You remind me of Naomi Watts in "Mulholland Drive" -- you can't face what you did, so you concoct a fake history to inhabit. But the truth keeps chipping into your dream-state...
"Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton? I'd vote for Ron Paul in a New York minute."
For that statement alone, you are forevermore banned from these pages. (Don't bother writing; I'll delete without opening your message.) I don't control much in this world, but I do control this blog, small though it may be. You must find another one.
"Could it be that Elizabeth is just not aware of Paul's positions on everything else but the war?"
If it were any other political wife, I'd accept that line of reasoning. But have you ever heard her speak? She is frighteningly well-informed about all sorts of minutia. No, ignorance is not excuse -- not in HER case.
That said, I really did start to get the creepy feeling -- as she spoke for her husband with ever-greater abandon -- that she is "alpha" in that relationship.
First of all, I don't really understand the media attention to candidate spouses. Who cares what these people (possible exception for Bill Clinton of course) think about the issues, or about campaign strategy? Why is Kucinich's wife getting media interviews instead of him (I think you've answered that one - he's hardly a hottie by any standard).
That said, there are many voters (myself included) who are at least as concerned about the loss of Constitutional government and our basic freedoms as we are about the Iraq war. We feel that the almost total erosion of Congressional power, much less the Separation of Powers doctrine, the attacks of habeas corpus, warrant-less wiretapping, signing statements, etc., represent an extremely dangerous shift from Constitutional democracy toward tyranny.
The only Presidential candidates who seem to understand this threat and who have taken action in Congress to oppose it are Kucinich and Ron Paul. (Dodd has involved himself in one aspect of this, but not to the extent of K or P.)
While I certainly don't support Paul's positions on most other issues and see as Kucinich/Paul independent candidacy as doomed and counterproductive, I understand the concern that would drive someone to advocate it.
Ron Paul style libertarianism sounds very populist and attracts a great many disaffected voters who would normally be in the right-wing camp. His rants against the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, the American empire, and his American Freedom Agenda have a great deal of resonance with the NASCAR crowd as well as progressives. It is easy to be misled by those positions and overlook his horrific attitudes toward Social Security, health care, taxes, education, and pretty much everything else.
One last note, as a New Yorker I notice with hilarity that both our Senators rate 100% on the ADA overall scale, right up there with Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. Something smells fishy in that analysis.
I'm niether republican, liberal, libertarian nor anarchist, I'm ... well if you absolutly want to label me, kind of objectivist.
So It really makes me sad when people just distorts the saying of others for the promotion of a political leader.
Ron has never said that he want to suppress social security. He says that Social Security fund is not separated from General Funds so it is in danger and putting more money in Social Security would only allow funds to be even more diverted...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul215.html
As for Hillary Clinton she's not as clean as she's supposedly be
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/19/following-hillarys-money/
selling weapons through French Lafarge Corporation to Irak ... when Bill was making war against Irak what a farce:
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/lafarge.htm
It will be easier for Elizabeth to recover from the outcry over her hasty babble than for being dumped by the ardent Joe. Hell hath no fury like a tall, redheaded woman with Received Pronunciation, Joe. Watch your back, amigo.
When I watched that clip a few days ago, it had already been captioned and prejudged. You know, if we captioned The Parable of the Prodigal Son as The Parable of the Abusive Father, we'd read it differently. I didn't hear Elizabeth's remarks as being wholly supportive of Ronald Ernest Paul's lone nut candidacy. In fact, she looked away often, as one does when one is trying to recall or refresh one's memory or knowledge, or find words that won't offend. In fact, she politely suggested that his euphemistically dubbed "monetary polic[ies]" are full of shit, but not in those words. Did you catch her stupid "If you could imagine what it would be like to have a government that was literally an engine for sustainability [of the environment]..."? That sort of sloppy pitchmanspeak appeals to Paul's uneducated base, who are literally undereducated. But even the highly educated American loves how the Brits say words like 'literally', 'necessary', and 'secretary'. Sam Spade (Bogie to Mary Astor): "We didn't exactly believe your story, Miss O'Shaughnessy. We believed your two hundred dollars".
More important, the clip revealed four distinctive necktie knots, and Dennis's was the largest, by far, a very unattractive Four-In-Hand that's bigger than his nose. It must have come from drapery material with muslin batting throughout its length. Howard Dean had formed a classic (Ivy School) Four-In-Hand with a tie that has the batting only at its ends, allowing for a tight and narrow knot. Biden's Yalie Four-In-Hand knot was slightly looser than Dean's, but smart as well. The guy with the mic wore a Half-Windsor with a tie that had full-length muslin batting.
With the exception of Dick Cheney, very few if any VPs have had much influence on policy as VPs. FDR's next-to-last VP Wallace WAS removed from office for his ideological positions, but that may have been in the abundance of caution of knowledge of FDR's potentially imminent demise.
So if E. Kucinich was suggesting D. Kucinich might take R. Paul as his VP candidate in a kind of 'unity' anti-war ticket, so what? It isn't as if the PRESIDENT is going to stifle HIS positions in favor of his VP's positions, and in fact, as we all know, rather the opposite is the case. (GHW Bush went from a board of directors member of the Planned Parenthood organization (with so fervent a position on birth control his nickname was 'Rubbers'), with his opposition run against Reagan earlier that election season including the fact that he was the 'pro-choice' candidate, to claiming to oppose abortion even in the normal exceptional cases of rape and incest, in a complete 180 degree turnabout from his just prior position, so that he could pass muster with the Reaganite camp.)
After re-reading the post, I find nothing to support the overheated accusation that both the Kucinichs are LIARS, LIARS!!!! What have they allegedly lied about?
Lookit, although I've been a Democratic Party voting loyalist since '72, I have also 'joined' and supported with monies some 4 or 5 other parties, including the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, and etc. The pressure from the fringe parties is how things get adopted by the big two parties, as when FDR's various programs were co-opted from Eugene Debbs, and etc.
\
The Libertarians deserve to be supported if for no other reason than ending the 'war on drugs,' which no mainstream major party official will dare come out in support of until they've announced their retirement from actively running for office again.
I fail to see how Joe would seek to affect the Democratic Party's positions, to change where they're wrong in somebody's opinion, if they are going to be given essentially carte blanche on any and all behaviors, since their alternative is supposedly so bad (not saying it isn't).
And then to 'argue' (i.e., I guess, baldly and falsely postulate) that they must then WANT and SUPPORT the election of whatever GOP boogeyman is the alternative, is a popular tactic of the Bushite bullyboys (you are 'constructively' pro-Saddam, pro-terrorist, etc.).
This is a line of bull when the right uses it against anti-war partisans, and equally when Joe uses it against those disaffected with the Democratic Party's policies.
I think it is reasonably accurate to claim that the so-called independents are in charge of the sway of the plurality of the vote. They could care less about party loyalty, as they have no particular party affiliation, and rather care about a set of issues. Prominent in those sets of issues for today's situation is the Iraq war. And to the degree that the Democrats cannot or will not distinguish themselves, and/or deliver on such distinctions drawn between themselves and the Bushites, the independents are going to find themselves somebody who will.
That's not progressive purists, because that isn't who the independents are.
...sofla
sofla, I like you, but this is the stupidest thing you've ever written.
"So if E. Kucinich was suggesting D. Kucinich might take R. Paul as his VP candidate in a kind of 'unity' anti-war ticket, so what?"
So WHAT? Jesus. Using strained and inane arguments, progressive purists damn Clinton, Edwards and Obama as Republicans-in disguise. And yet lovely Lizzie can say "absolutely" to an alliance with Ron Paul, and THAT is perfectly all right.
This attitude redefines the term "double standard."
"And then to 'argue' (i.e., I guess, baldly and falsely postulate) that they must then WANT and SUPPORT the election of whatever GOP boogeyman is the alternative, is a popular tactic of the Bushite bullyboys"
No it isn't. Any attempt to ndermine the Democratic nominee is support for the Republican cause in 2008. Period.
"This is a line of bull when the right uses it against anti-war partisans, and equally when Joe uses it against those disaffected with the Democratic Party's policies."
Again: Any of the top three Democratic contenders would be the most liberal Democratic candidate in a generation. This, despite the fact that the elctoral college system favors the red states, and the general electorate is inherently conservative. Whoever that Dem is, he or she will be the only thing standing between Giuliani and the Button.
THIS is the election when you choose to be "disaffected"? Are you NUTS?
Well, it ain't YOUR ass that's going to end up as glowing green vapor stew, sofla. But if that's the way you really feel, why don't you sign up for the Navy? Put YOUR ass on the line instead of someone else's. When Rudy starts his war, let's have you standing on the deck of an American ship as those Sunburn missiles come zooming toward you.
And in your last few seconds, ask yourself if Hillary really was so fucking intolerable after all.
"Prominent in those sets of issues for today's situation is the Iraq war. And to the degree that the Democrats cannot or will not distinguish themselves, and/or deliver on such distinctions drawn between themselves and the Bushites, the independents are going to find themselves somebody who will."
1. You are a single issue zealot, as defined in my piece.
2. You are an idiot. None of the Democratic candidates wants a continuation of war. That claim is pure BULLSHIT LYING on the part of the progressive motherfuckers.
Let me repeat a point I've made a few times: The Dems passed a bill that would have begun the withdrawal on October 1. Bush vetoed it. And yet the "progressives" keep repeating that the Dems want war. As Randi Rhodes wisely points out (she's hip on this issue, less hip on others), turning of the $$ spigot completely will leave the path open for Bush to leave the troops in place, expose the troops to danger and then blame the Democrats. If Randi, purist that she is, can appreciate the difficulty of finding a way past that strategy, why can't you?
With the exception of Lieberman, the Dems do not want this war. They never did.
Well (you will no doubt say) what about the Iraq war resolution? I'll remind you that in 2002-2003, this country was going through a neo-McCarthyite period. The Dems were almost powerless after what had happened to Cleland and Daschle and a host of others. But there's a difference between being politically knee-capped and WANTING war. The resolution permitted military force ONLY if Saddam did not allow weapons inspections. Yet he did.
The idea that Dems want war is a hallucination crated through repeated progressive lying. Progressives, like neocons, are congenital LIARS. And the SIBPATS speech is the biggest lie of all.
"What have they [the Kuciniches] allegedly lied about?"
I answered this question in my piece.
1. The Kuciniches lie about being against the war. If they will not support the Democratic candidate in the general, then they want Giuliani to win. Yes, it IS that simple. There really is no other logical way to regard the matter. In this, they are close kin to Nader, who has admitted that he wanted Bush to win.
2. They lie about supporting social welfare. No-one who truly feels that way would have a single kind word to say about Ron Paul. I'll say it again: Wars come and go, but the ideology advocated by Paul would be a disaster worse than any (non-nuclear, non-CBW) war.
3. They lie about being uncompromising creatures of principle. How dare they accuse Hillary of being compromised, when they are "absolutely" convinced that Ron Paul -- RON FREAKING PAUL -- is an acceptable ally?
My god, if an alliance with a Cato Institute Libertarian does not constitute "compromise," then what the hell DOES?
Answer that last question, sofla. I dare you. As I've said before, strained rationalization is my favorite form of humor. So go ahead -- provide me with some much-needed laffs.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/11/25/2007-11-25_hillary_clintons_advisers_too_gungho_on_-1.html
Hillary's a warmonger! The siteowner just doesn't grasp the total need for refabbing of the American Empire/System. Look at it this way, libertarianism --to anarchism --to re-order hopefully of a better kind--while the world gets rid of the Empire as the home base retreats to deal with internal reassembly.
ken, the article is misleading and you are inane.
You really think that if the political system is undermined in this country, and that if anarchy and extremism take root, that the end result will be progressive?
You're a kid. An infant. You've never read your history.
When has this occurred before -- the combo of economic distress, a lost war, widespread disaffection from political norms?
Russia. !917.
Germany. 1933.
You really think the result in America would be any better?
I don't want to make the experiment, thank you very much!
Haha! Joe, even comparing a 3rd party ticket of Kucinich and Ron Paul as being remotely similar to the Nader situation is too far off. The thing I've found the the strangest, but also the best, about "progressives" who somewhat tacitly support Ron Paul is that they simply haven't bothered looking at either what the guy proposes or how he has voted. I don't know how anyone can take a "Constitutionalist" seriously who puts forth great ideas like doing away with brithright citizenship, which is only spelled out by the 14th Amendment. ;)
I'd be a bit surprised if Kucinich ran with him to be honest. It's a great little means of whoring for some attention right now. But, if his actual base looks into the great Ron Paul Revolution to see what he has done and what he offers, they'll never forgive Kucinich. Hell, I like a lot of the policy points Kucinich has and voted for him in the last primary. But, if he actually ran on a ticket with Ron Paul, I wouldn't even listen to him anymore.
Well, Joe,ask the Palestinians if they would prefer the ticket you despise, as an Empire apologist-reformer--who also from that perspective probably justifies American intervention in the world wars. Oh, and read AJP Taylor's "Origins of World War Two"
before you bash an axis power, as if America was angelic by comparison.
Ask the Pals if they prefer a Hillary presidency to a Kunich/Paul or Paul/Kucinich. This kind of question never dawns on a
non-progressive imperialist.
Ken, to be honest, I don't see why we need to ask what the Palestinians think. If you want to push for a more idealistic candidate that wouldn't offend the world and has a hands off approach on war, you don't need to support Ron Paul, who is just a populist in the end campaigning towards a lot of hate. I would honestly be ver happy seeing Kucinich get in there. But, if he were to actually do a ticket with Ron Paul, no, simply because Ron Paul is such a populist that, if you analize his schtick from a Libertarian angle, he's not even really a Libertarian which, in my opinion, doesn't make him a much better choice than Guiliani. Ron Paul is campaigning hard to all the disenchanted "militia" types out there, while suckering others into his schtick with his anti-war garbage. At the same time, this is a guy who wants to abolish the IRS all while promising a completely secured border with Mexico. It's populist snake oil. He'd do no good for us or the Palestinians in the end. At "best," he'd just cut funding to Israel and let them run amok, as it's not our business. Not exactly a friendly choice for Palestinians.
"When has this occurred before -- the combo of economic distress, a lost war, widespread disaffection from political norms?
Russia. !917.
Germany. 1933.
You really think the result in America would be any better?
I don't want to make the experiment, thank you very much!"
In America: the defeated Confederate States of America. 1865-1878. 1878-1954. 1954-1965. Many would extend the failure to 2007 and counting. Exhibit A: D.W. Griffith's "The Clansman" aka "The Birth of a Nation" (1915). Exhibit B: Alan Parker's "Mississippi Burning" (1988).
O wind! If winter comes can spring be far behind? It finally rained today all day. A bird-bath size puddle formed in the hollow of bare red clay next to a downspout, and flocks of Carolina Wrens took turns -- in the rain! -- drinking, bathing, rolling, flapping, and frolicking!
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119606963456620.xml&coll=2
why wasn't my comment yesterday included, in lieu of the seriousness of this?
sorry-just noticed it was.
"in view" not "in lieu"
Actually Joe you must be aware the establishment "libertartians" eg the Cato Institute types were split on the war. This , my friend is faux libertarianism. Not Paul's
consistent brand. And if the IRS were dismantled, what about that would prevent more effective border control?
I don't agree with you on "hate" as there is a quadruple anti-white standard for judging this. I don't agree that black
nationalists/seperatists exhibit "hate" either when they merely express alienation from a system which demands, in effect, they become yuppieized white imitations, so we are talking
from essentially different value systems here.Ditto La Raza.
Abe Lincoln was a Patriot Act-or too with his brutal incarceration of war protestors
and refusal to allow the freedom to secede which indeed the South had, like it or not. We need to dismantle the Empire and any combination of coalitions which can lead toward this is okay by me-
and much of the remainder of the world.
Ken, Lincoln took the oath and owned up to it. When the States each ratified the Constitution, they did so with the full knowledge that they were relinquishing their autonomy. The Preamble makes it clear what they were doing, and Article I, Section 10 prohibits any State from "enter[ing] into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederacy". The Preamble unambiguously makes "the People" sovereign -- and Article 1 creates the Congress as the People's branch, being first among equal branches. The Preamble isn't like a prologue or an epigraph; it is a legal call to order "to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". The Constitution's last words, before the housekeeping business of "nine States" being "sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same", simply declare that "This Constitution [and the laws and treaties that follow it] shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, [here it comes, Ken:] any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State [meaning any State's own Constitution] to the Contrary notwithstanding" (Article VI).
Ratification is irrevocable. A state cannot revoke its ratification and membership. It can only break the law to secede; no state has a right to secede. Your notion that the South "indeed" had the "freedom to secede" would make nonsense of the absolute commitment of ratification. It means words are meaningless, oaths are conditional and breakable, signatures don't mean what they stand for. Are you in doubt that the Founders loved the English language any less than their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor?
Post a Comment