Brian Rush writes

The Second Amendment is a passage of the Constitution understood by virtually nobody. Quite evidently, you are not numbered among those virtual nobodies. (Nor are most people who disagree with you about gun control.) (Or those who agree with you.)

What's the 2A all about? To understand this, I suggest reading material on the debate over the Constitution. Both the Federalist papers by Hamilton and Madison, and some of the anti-federalist writings, can put this issue in perspective. Clue: the 2A has absolutely nothing, zip, nada, to do with hunting, target shooting, or the possession of firearms for the purpose of protecting one's home against criminals. Its purpose is entirely military. But the National Guard doesn't meet that purpose, either, contrary to what some on the left seem to believe.

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to obviate any need for a large, powerful standing army, and to provide for the existence of state forces to oppose, at need, any tyrannical aspirations by a national professional army. Hence the clause that reads: "A well-regulated militia, being essential to the security of a free people . . ."

The militia were to consist of all able-bodied adult males of military age. They were to receive basic military training, and be armed (at need) by Congress. They were to be under the control of the states, which could summon them to duty in case of invasion, insurrection, or other need. They could also be federalized to meet a large national need. Although Congress is authorized to arm the militia in Article I Section 8, the Second Amendment ensures, or at least was meant to ensure, that it would have weapons should Congress prove derelict in this obligation -- as it well might if it proposed to override the sovereignty of the states.

I would agree that few have really researched the Second Amendment. You seem to have done far more than most. While broadly I would agree with what you say, I'll raise a few points.

Congress may call "forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" This is the clearest definition of the functions of the militia. Note, one of them was to enforce the law. At the time of the writing of the constitution, there were no full time police officers. Laws were enforced by the militia, which consisted of all able bodied males. Said able bodied males had a right to keep and bear arms for that purpose, among others. Thus, not all reasons for the 2nd Amendment were military.

Also, I agree with Professor Volokh's "The Commonplace Second Amendment." (http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/common.htm) The prefix reads...

The Second Amendment is widely seen as quite unusual, because it has a justification clause as well as an operative clause.? Professor Volokh points out that this structure was actually quite commonplace in American constitutions of the time:? State bills of rights contained justification clauses in many of the rights they secured.? Looking at these state provisions, he suggests, can shed light on how the similarly structured Second Amendment should be interpreted.? In particular, the provisions show that constitutional rights will often -- and for good reason -- be written in ways that are to some extent overinclusive and to some extent underinclusive with respect to their stated justifications.

In short, the phrase that gives the purpose for granting a right might be used to help interpreting the right, but the phrase which actually grants the right is the operational part of the right. Thus a judge reading "In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . " Thus, a judge, on his own, cannot decide whether in a specific case it is important that the jury come from the same area as the crime occurs, and feel free to dismiss a right. Rights exist to protect the People from the Government. Thus, the Government cannot decide when rights should apply. Instead, the judge should interpret the operational clause under the assumption that the purpose clause is true, but also assuming that the right is absolute whether or not the purpose is furthered.

Finally, there is a fourth reason for the militia. The Constitution explicitly mentions enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection and repelling invasion. It does not mention limiting the power of the government to abuse standing armies. This is the flip side of suppressing insurrection. This may seem to be a paradox, but the Founding Fathers were revolutionaries, democracy was yet young, and the power of the voting box unproven. The right of the People to rebel against tyranny was as important, perhaps more important, than the power of the government to suppress rebellion.

Most of the purposes of the Militia are now semi-obsolete. We are no longer a nation of mostly full time farmers, part time soldier-police. Industrial aged civilization is far more specialized. It is no longer traditional, when a citizen sees a law being violated, to grab one's musket and arrest the wrong doer. Theodore Roosevelt, with the 'Dick Act' zeroed spending on militia training and abandoned the militia chain of command. (US homicide rates started soaring immediately, but that's another story.) The same 'Dick Act' created the modern National Guard.

But the National Guard is a standing army, not 'The Militia.' The Militia cannot be sent overseas. It may only be used to enforce laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasion. Teddy wanted a reserve that could be sent overseas. The Guard can and has been sent overseas. It is also used to fill many of the internal functions the Militia once performed.

But the Dick Act was an act of Congress, not a Constitutional Amendment. An act of Congress cannot alter the meaning of the Constitution. To this day, the Militia is defined (USC, Title 10, Section 311) as male citizens aged 17 to 45, with a few odd exceptions. If one does not take Professor Volokh seriously, if the Militia has the right to keep and bear arms, not the People, then the 2nd Amendment would not apply to women. I take the Professor seriously. The purpose phrase should yield to the statement of the right.

(One should also note that states need the permission of Congress to raise a standing army. (Article 1, Section 10.) Thus, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to protect the rights of states to keep standing armies.)

Are the old revolutionary era militia laws ideal in modern society? I doubt it. One might very reasonably claim the Founding Fathers intended all adult males to keep the armaments of a light infantry soldier in his home. If so, the weapon most protected by the 2nd Amendment would be the assault rifle. This wisdom of this is quite questionable.

I believe a bunch of rational people ought to sit down and rethink the militia and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Perhaps some changes are necessary. Still, this is not the time for a Constitutional Convention. Constitutions are written and rewritten on the cusp between Crisis and High. At the moment, the country is too divided. Perhaps when we have unity, we can write the lessons learned from the crisis into stone.

Originally Posted by madscientist

Stonewall. If you keep up your anti-Bush rhetoric, you might find yourself in an Ass-KKKroft approved concentration camp.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...y14aug14.story

[color=blue]Camps for Citizens: Ashcroft's Hellish Vision[*] Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty.

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants".....


...Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants....


...The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government....


...Hamdi has been held without charge even though the facts of his case are virtually identical to those in the case of John Walker Lindh. Both Hamdi and Lindh were captured in Afghanistan as foot soldiers in Taliban units. Yet Lindh was given a lawyer and a trial, while Hamdi rots in a floating Navy brig in Norfolk, Va....


...This week, the government refused to comply with a federal judge who ordered that he be given the underlying evidence justifying Hamdi's treatment. The Justice Department has insisted that the judge must simply accept its declaration and cannot interfere with the president's absolute authority in "a time of war."....


...In Padilla's case, Ashcroft initially claimed that the arrest stopped a plan to detonate a radioactive bomb in New York or Washington, D.C. The administration later issued an embarrassing correction that there was no evidence Padilla was on such a mission. What is clear is that Padilla is an American citizen and was arrested in the United States--two facts that should trigger the full application of constitutional rights....


...Ashcroft hopes to use his self-made "enemy combatant" stamp for any citizen whom he deems to be part of a wider terrorist conspiracy....


...Perhaps because of his discredited claims of preventing radiological terrorism, aides have indicated that a "high-level committee" will recommend which citizens are to be stripped of their constitutional rights and sent to Ashcroft's new camps....


...Few would have imagined any attorney general seeking to reestablish such camps for citizens....

Oh, Robert, don't you know that you are being paranoid? What are you, a black helicopter type? Where do you get off making such outrageous and un-American claims? You'd think that Ashcroft himself had freely admitted to the things you say.... [Pouring more Victory Kool-Aid...er, Gin. In my best Sgt. Shultz voice: "I know nothink!"]

Bob, I'm going to address only the points of your post that I feel require clarification. Otherwise, please assume that we are in agreement.

In short, the phrase that gives the purpose for granting a right might be used to help interpreting the right, but the phrase which actually grants the right is the operational part of the right.

Certainly. But the purpose clause, by helping us interpret the right, can also address just of what, precisely, the right consists. With respect to the Second Amendment, there are two ambiguous phrases which the purpose clause helps clarify: "the people," and "keep and bear arms." More on "the people" in a moment.

What does it mean to "keep and bear arms"? First off, let's recognize that the "arms" in question are military arms: the kinds of weapons that would be used by soldiers in combat. At the time the 2A was ratified, that meant muzzle-loading smoothbore flintlock muskets with fixed bayonets. Today, it would mean semi-automatic assault rifles with full-automatic option, grenades and grenade launchers, body armor, tanks, fighter airplanes, attack helicopters, and so on. (It need not include either warships or nuclear weapons; the militia was clearly meant to take the place of a standing army, not a navy, and nuclear weapons are not standard military weapons in common use.)

The "arms" whose possession is defended by gun-rights advocates do not fall into this category for the most part. They are weapons for hunting, target shooting, and personal self-defense, relatively useless for military purposes. Few gun-rights advocates go so far as to defend the right to own machine guns or tanks, yet the Second Amendment, properly interpreted, guarantees the right to "keep and bear" these arms and does NOT guarantee the right to own a hunting rifle or a handgun!

Also, the phrase "keep and bear" does not mean "own." It means the use of weaponry in combat, whether or not its keeper and bearer is also the owner. A soldier in the regular army does not own his weapons, the government does, but the soldier keeps and bears them: he is responsible for their maintenance and retention, and he uses them against the enemy. The right to keep and bear arms, then, is not the right to own a gun. It is the right to maintain and use military weapons as part of a militia. It is the right to be a soldier.

Rights exist to protect the People from the Government.

That is oversimplified, and with respect to the Second Amendment it is misleading. The Bill of Rights was not originally intended to limit government in general, but the federal government specifically, and the rights it guarantees against encroachment by the federal government are not always individual rights. Sometimes they are the rights of states. That is obviously true of the 10th Amendment. I believe it is also true of the Second.

Many people forget this, because today, thanks to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights also applies to restrain actions of state governments. But originally it did not.

The Second Amendment is an expression of the debate over standing armies that was part of the constitutional debate. The militia's existence for the purposes you listed was meant to limit the need for a standing army. And although the fourth purpose, the defense of state integrity against encroachment by the federal government's military power, was not spelled out in the Constitution, that purpose was clearly in the minds of the drafters, as the constitutional debate clarifies.

The Second Amendment, being intended to guarantee the existence of militia, was therefore designed to protect a right of the states -- not of individuals, except insofar as it was believed the states would be more reliable protectors of individual rights than the federal government.

In short, the 2A guarantees a collective right which is no longer ever exercised: the right of "the people" to "keep and bear" the kind of "arms" which are in standard military use, independently of the federal government and its professional army, and to use those arms to oppose both the nation's enemies and, at final need and hazard, the national government itself. It is a right which, for practical purposes, has not existed since 1865.

If one does not take Professor Volokh seriously, if the Militia has the right to keep and bear arms, not the People, then the 2nd Amendment would not apply to women.

I have a problem with the part of this quote between your first and third commas. The distinction between "the Militia" and "the People" is misleading. "The People" does not mean "each individual person." It means the people collectively. (Although it does not mean the government.) Thus, when "the People" exercise their collective right "to keep and bear arms," they are the Militia.

And I would agree with the concluding statement. So long as women are excluded from the militia (whether that should be done is a separate consideration), the Second Amendment does not guarantee their right to keep and bear arms. If men are guaranteed that right, then "the People" have it -- even though each individual person does not.

Finally, I completely agree that the right to keep and bear arms, as originally envisioned, needs to be revisited and rethought. It is so far out of step with modern realities that hardly anyone understands any longer what it means. As a matter of constitutional niceties, I would prefer that the Second Amendment be repealed, rather than simply ignored -- and certainly rather than having it be reinterpreted to mean something that it does not.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

Stonewall is a libertarian Xer...but rest assured, Boomish though he may come off at times, he REALLY IS an Xer.

That's why you can't always believe the stereotypes. All four generation types contain examples of all four archetypes--with one being more dominant than the rest.

Thanks, Susan. Alex may have honestly believed that I had been born in the '40s or '50s. But regardless, I wanted to address the point about idealism since it keeps coming up. However the argument got so complex (and off-topic) that I will have to post it on a temperament thread if I ever finish it. :wink:

Alex seems to call *EVERY* politically argumentative poster a Boomer (or Boomer-like if he knows that the birthyear is after 1960)

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

On 2002-06-11 17:27, voltronx wrote:

That's the talk I first saw on this matter a few pages ago, and that's what got me to wondering because once you think of it as a 3T vs. 4T aspect, it confuses me so much. I mean, even weeks after the towers fell we were already having Osama as a 3T celebrity, the coverage was being remarked on as 3T, as John Walker Lindh and the skating "scandal" were portrayed in a really Unravelling manner too, 3T "celebrity" in coverage, etc. Yet, after this, Chandra Levy isn't being treated the same way, almost like a move to less 3T instead of being more 3T. Life in general and things as a whole though have been going in the direction of less and less 4T and more and more 3T as time goes on, starting from September 11 and going day by day, then week by week, and month by month to becoming more "normal", more silly, more hype-ish, more focused on things unrelated to terrorism, more and more studies and statistics being revealed that show something didn't change. Why should news coverage be heading in the opposite direction? ???

Because, as i've often said here, the mood of a new Turning takes awhile to crystallize even after the catalyst occurs.

Hmmmm....that fact still doesn't provide a clue as to why while news coverage seems to be moving in one direction (from 3T to more and more 4T), other aspects like TV shows or what books come out seem to be moving in the opposite direction at the same time (from 4T to more and more 3T). Shouldn't we at least expect some consistency?

So while it is possible that we're still 3T it is extremely possible that we are in 4T now, in the aftermath of 911. All the elements that could lead to an obvious Crisis mode are firmly in place-- more terrorist attacks in the planning stages,

I guess the crystallization of a 4T mood might depend on whether we get consistent, gnawing terrorist attacks. Since they haven't actualized since the WTC attack it's likely they won't be an agent for pushing 4T, or they may not even be a factor once 4T clearly begins.

worsening environmental conditions, a new more upbeat direction in popular music,

Huh? More upbeat? I don't see a sudden change to a new kind of upbeatness after 911. As a matter of fact, the music now seems darker. Lots of dark, mechanical termination songs by bands like Linkin Park, the Executioners and Hoovastank are filling the airwaves now; they seem to sure be giving the music scene a darker feel than two years ago today. I can even turn on MTV and see several videos in a row that all have the dismal feeling with the sun setting. For one, Lee Ann Womack's "I Hope You Dance" provided an upbeat feeling with its message of inspiration, but it turned out that even that song was actually from 2000 rather than released after 911. And there definitely seem to be much less boy bands on the charts than before 911.

India and Pakistan on the brink of nuclear war, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process all but dead.

Have potential to cause or finalize a Crisis if those countries go to war with the U.S., but in terms of clues as to whether we're already in the pre-Regeneracy period of the Fourth Turning, they don't really mean much. I prefer to look at indicators from within the United States. After all, the world is not all on the same saeculum. That means Israel and Palestine can do ANYTHING, independently of what turning the U.S. is in. They could have come to a point of Armageddon in 1994, or even when the U.S. was/will be in an Awakening. That means there has to be a 3T way and a 4T way to respond to be Israel/Palestine meltdown, and what turning we're in will determine which one the U.S. government chooses. Think how would Reagan have handled the Israel/Palestine standstill if it had occurred during his presidency?

There will be no media circus for them, as there was none for Chandra, nor for the victims of 911 being found this week in buildings surrounding what was once the Trade Center.

How about the media coverage for those two girls who escaped from the rapist?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Second Amendment, being intended to guarantee the existence of militia, was therefore designed to protect a right of the states -- not of individuals, except insofar as it was believed the states would be more reliable protectors of individual rights than the federal government.

In short, the 2A guarantees a collective right which is no longer ever exercised: the right of "the people" to "keep and bear" the kind of "arms" which are in standard military use, independently of the federal government and its professional army, and to use those arms to oppose both the nation's enemies and, at final need and hazard, the national government itself. It is a right which, for practical purposes, has not existed since 1865.

Brian, you might want to visit Findlaw, and look up the 5th Circuit's decision on US v Emerson. It's a long decision, containing many references and historical support for the individual rights interpretation. I can hardly quote it in full here. The core follows. The US Supreme Court allowed it to stand. The following is the Law of the Land, at least in the 5th District.

7. Analysis

The history we have recounted largely speaks for itself. We briefly summarize. The Anti-Federalists desired a bill of rights, express provision for increased state power over the militia, and a meaningful express limitation of the power of the federal government to maintain a standing army. These issues were somewhat interrelated. The prospect of federal power to render the militia useless and to maintain a large standing army combined with the absence of any specific guarantees of individual liberty frightened Anti-Federalists. But the Anti-Federalist complaint that resonated best with the people at large was the lack of a bill of rights.

In mid-1788 the Constitution was ratified unchanged and in the spring of 1789 the Federalists gained control of both houses of the First Congress. Hard-core Anti-Federalists persisted in all three demands, but more moderate Anti-Federalists and the people at large were primarily focused on securing a bill of rights. Most Federalists were not really averse to a bill of rights, but, like James Madison himself, had been forced to oppose any modifications to the Constitution since it could only be ratified unchanged. The Federalists wanted to please the Anti-Federalists as much as possible without fundamentally altering the balance of federal-state power. James Madison plainly stated this goal when he submitted his proposed amendments to the House.

Given the political dynamic of the day, the wording of the Second Amendment is exactly what would have been expected. The Federalists had no qualms with recognizing the individual right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. In fact, as we have documented, one of the Federalists' favorite 1787-88 talking points on the standing army and federal power over the militia issues was to remind the Anti-Federalists that the American people were armed and hence could not possibly be placed in danger by a federal standing army or federal control over the militia. The Second Amendment's preamble represents a successful attempt, by the Federalists, to further pacify moderate Anti-Federalists without actually conceding any additional ground, i.e. without limiting the power of the federal government to maintain a standing army or increasing the power of the states over the militia.

This is not to say that the Second Amendment's preamble was not appropriate or is in any way marginal or lacking in true significance. Quite the contrary. Absent a citizenry generally keeping and bearing their own private arms, a militia as it was then thought of could not meaningfully exist. As pointed out by Thomas Cooley, the right of individual Americans to keep, carry, and acquaint themselves with firearms does indeed promote a well-regulated militia by fostering the development of a pool of firearms-familiar citizens that could be called upon to serve in the militia. While standing armies are not mentioned in the preamble, history shows that the reason a well-regulated militia was declared necessary to the security of a free state was because such a militia would greatly reduce the need for a standing army. Thus, the Second Amendment dealt directly with one of the Anti-Federalists' concerns and indirectly addressed the other two. While the hard-core Anti-Federalists recognized that the Second Amendment did not assure a well-regulated militia or curtail the federal government's power to maintain a large standing army, they did not control either branch of Congress (or the presidency) and had to be content with the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

Finally, the many newspaper articles and personal letters cited indicate that, at the time, Americans viewed the Second Amendment as applying to individuals. This is confirmed by the First Congress's rejection of amendments that would have directly and explicitly addressed the Anti-Federalists' standing army and power over the militia concerns.

We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.(60) All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.

We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.

E. Second Amendment protects individual rights

We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Well, you better get used to it. Because, rest assured, we defenders of the Constitution, of the philosophy of the founding fathers, and of the God-given rights of the individual, are not about to go away. We will not be intimidated in any way so, if you want it to stop, then you are going to have to kill us. It is that simple. The ball is in your court.

Oh, and just so you know, I am a first wave Xer, a veteran of the US armed forces, and a Reagan man. This is not any sort of counter-culture speaking here. Again, the ball is in your court because this land belongs to us and, as God is our witness, we ain't moving.

You support the Constitution? Tell me, do you support (the correct) position that The Second Amendment is one of the most important pieces of our Constitution or are you like the ACLU, supporting only "Politically correct" parts of the U.S.C.???

"I am vastly ambivalent about what my country ought to do now. I must say to you I am not
one of those, like [the Pentagon adviser] Mr Perle and [deputy defence secretary] Mr Wolfowitz,
who are in my view hairy-chested tub-thumpers. I am not among those who would go to war
tomorrow morning and invade Iraq.' "

--Bush 41's secretary of state Larry Eagleburger on the BBC's World this Weekend



Hehehe. Bush Sr.'s cronies, the old line Rockefeller-Bush corporatists, are scapegoating the Neo-Na...er, Neo-Cons big time. Neo-Con motto: Heute Amerika und morgen die ganze Welt. Either this is all bluster intended to distract attention from the economy and Junior has no intention of invading Iraq, or Daddy wants to take over the Iraqi oil fields while leaving his Arab buddies with the impression that he does not.

Originally Posted by voltronx

Huh? More upbeat? I don't see a sudden change to a new kind of upbeatness after 911. As a matter of fact, the music now seems darker. Lots of dark, mechanical termination songs by bands like Linkin Park, the Executioners and Hoovastank are filling the airwaves now; they seem to sure be giving the music scene a darker feel than two years ago today. I can even turn on MTV and see several videos in a row that all have the dismal feeling with the sun setting. For one, Lee Ann Womack's "I Hope You Dance" provided an upbeat feeling with its message of inspiration, but it turned out that even that song was actually from 2000 rather than released after 911. And there definitely seem to be much less boy bands on the charts than before 911.

Frankly, you are actually out of touch. Those artists had peak popularity around New Years'. Let me list the actual #1 Hits since 9/11:

I'm Real - Jennifer Lopez featuring Ja Rule
Family Affair - Mary J. Blige
How You Remind Me - Nickelback (This is the only group which can actually fall into the same category as the bands you mentioned; still, Nickelback isn't too downbeat, at least when compared to the others you mentioned)
U Got It Bad - Usher
Always On Time - Ja Rule featuring Ashanti
Ain't It Funny - Jennifer Lopez featuring Ja Rule
Foolish - Ashanti
Hot In Herre - Nelly
Dilemma - Nelly featuring Kelly Rowland

Now, most of these songs are actually upbeat; and at least since March 21, when I began keeping track of all top ten hits (not just the #1 hit), all of the rock bands that were on the charts were listed early in spring; none have been listed lately. For example, Linkin Park was in the top ten in Late March with a song, but they don't even swear in a rock song, which is surprising. Also, Puddle of Mudd had a top ten hit with "Blurry" but that was around the same time. Also, The Calling's "Wherever You Will Go" fell of the top ten for good in early April. So, this recent drop off in the rock bands, and their replacment with several songs where the word "featuring" is in the Artist Name shows a trend away from downbeatness, and toward upbeatness, and especially collaberation.

Originally Posted by "Marc Lamb
The conspiracy kook jumps to the left side of the ship for fear of the monster he [i

now[/i] claims to be lurking on the right... Funny, the lefty Boomer has always known this to be the case, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EVIL REAGAN WAS RUNNING THE SHOW. But now the paleoconservative, the anit-imperialist, the libertarian "get's it" and finds solace and comfort in the arms of the "leftist Boomer".

This is too funny. Until, I guess, old Saint Hillary is running the show... then the kooks'll be whining their way back over here, again.

I am in total agreement with you, Marc. The kooks on both sides have an argument that's basically grade-school in nature:

"You like Bush? YOU MUST LOVE BUSH! {singing} You lo-ove Bu-ush!

--although they word it a little differently: "You seem willing to bow down before Fuhrer Bush," in response to anyone who agrees with Bush on anything.

They seem to think that agreeing with Bush on major issues, or at least being willing to accept measures against ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and ENEMY COMBATANTS are somehow equivalent to crowning him king.

The problem is that you've got the far right and the far left joining hands on this issue. People on the far right like Stonewall Patton, although they may not be anti-Semitic themselves, blindly follow the Jew-haters who somehow manage to support the National Liberation Movement in Palestine, even though they have never in their lives supported a NLM that was fighting against any Gentiles. Those on the far left. although claiming to support democracy, jump at anti-American dictators such as Yassir Arafat as eagerly as a dog jumps at a bone.

In truth, it is you and I, Mark, who are overall the true libertarians and, for that matter, the true liberals here. Madscientist may oppose detainment of al-Qaeda members, but he supports turning the control of the United States over to an organization in which Syria, Burma, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Red China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, and North Korea have each one vote apiece. Does anybody in his right mind think that would make us a freer country? For his part, Stonewall Chamberlain is so wrapped up in his Ludwig von Mises philosophical treatises that he can't look up and see the obvious: that, for all its many faults, the United States is a far freer nation than Iraq and Iran.

(That's not just the theoretical America envisioned by Jefferson, either. That's the real-life America with its beautiful skyscrapers, its polluting but freedom-enhancing automobiles and motorcycles, its interstate highways, its backroads, its airplanes, its trains, its huge agricultural conglomerates that feed our nation and many others, its small farms that uphold our rural tradition, its chain stores and restaurants, its Mom-and-Pop coffee shops, its countercultural coffee houses, its ethnic restaurants with their delicious entrees, its overly restricted yet beautiful wilderness areas, its union workers, its nonunion workers, its city halls, its reformers, its libraries, its zoos, its classic literature such as Clemens and Hawthorne, its tawdry trash such as romance novels, its science fiction, its engineering manuals and science textbooks, its physics and chemistry laboratories, its spaceships, its space station, its comsats, its great movies, its lousy movies, its beautiful women, its delicious beers such as Samuel Adams, its mass-produced beers such as Budweiser, its classy wines, its cheap wines, its computers, its firearms industry that allows the weak to defend themselves, its mighty military, its neon lights, its incandescent lights, its fluorescent lights, its construction workers, its steel workers, its miners, its private school teachers, its public school teachers (hey, they're not ALL bad), its energy industry that uses fossil fuels, the atom, rivers, wind, hot springs, and the sun to keep two hundred fifty million people alive and happy, its medical industry that guarantees that no American need go untreated (even though the cost may be high), its cutting-edge pharmaceutical industry, its high schools, its colleges and universities, its trade schools, its--Okay, I'm getting a little tired here. What do the Arab nations have? Camels, the Koran, sand, oil that they need Americans to pump for them, and a small number of men in goofy uniforms holding guns to the heads of large numbers of men and women in sheets).

Because Stonewall won't accept the reality of America, and because he refuses to distinguish morally between Bush and Hussein, he, too, is on balance anti-libertarian, because the very government he rails against is what in reality stands between us and having dictators like Hussein. Granted, Hussein is unlikely ever to occupy Washington, D.C. However, if he, Khameini, Assad, and Kim Jong Il are not removed, they will eventually blow up millions of Americans; the government measures needed to deal with such a disaster will REALLY make the U.S. into a tyranny.

The reality is this: freedom comes from the willingness to defend oneself. This defense does not have to be against conquest, either; it can be against attacks with lesser goals, such as 9/11, as well. (To be justified in defending your house against an intruder, you do not have to establish that he plans on taking over your house, only that he has no right to be there). When people target the entire US citizenry for death, it is perfectly legitimate for those citizens to wage war through their military against those people.

If Stonewall and Brian have their way, we will exchange an imperfect republic for a totalitarian world state.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

"I am vastly ambivalent about what my country ought to do now. I must say to you I am not
one of those, like [the Pentagon adviser] Mr Perle and [deputy defence secretary] Mr Wolfowitz,
who are in my view hairy-chested tub-thumpers. I am not among those who would go to war
tomorrow morning and invade Iraq.' "

--Bush 41's secretary of state Larry Eagleburger on the BBC's World this Weekend



Hehehe. Bush Sr.'s cronies, the old line Rockefeller-Bush corporatists, are scapegoating the Neo-Na...er, Neo-Cons big time. Neo-Con motto: Heute Amerika und morgen die ganze Welt. Either this is all bluster intended to distract attention from the economy and Junior has no intention of invading Iraq, or Daddy wants to take over the Iraqi oil fields while leaving his Arab buddies with the impression that he does not.

I don't believe you are being honest as to your true beliefs, Stonewall. I had thought that you were just a kook, but with every post of yours I become more convinced that you are actually an agent provocateur for the Left. I know right-wing extremists. I've worked with right-wing extremists. Right-wing extremists are friends of mine. Stonewall, you're no right-wing extremist.

For starters, no right-wing extremist would post your cartoon claiming that Bush stole the election. If there was one clear dividing line between Left and Right, it was the aftermath of the last election. ALL right-wingers, from Bob Dole to the Posse Comitatus, took Bush's side. ALL leftists, from Joe Lieberman to the CPUSA, took Gore's side.

Don't get me wrong. Plenty of rightists despise Bush, either because he's too imperialistic or because he's not imperialistic enough. But no rightists--NONE!!!--claim that Al Gore should have been the President.

Similarly, it is impossible for me to believe that, only 1 1/2 years after the demise of the gun-grabbing, Branch-Davidian-baby-murdering, Elian-kidnapping Clinton regime, with his wife and deputy president looming as the most likely anti-Bush candidate, any right-winger would say "Anyone but Bush in '04." They might say "Vote AIP," or "Vote Libertarian," or "Don't vote, it only encourages them." They might hate Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. But they would NEVER support Hillary or Gore over Bush. EVER.

Which leads me to conclude that you are a phony.

Tell me, Stonewall, how much do Carville, Begala, Greenberg, and McAuliffe pay you to sabotage the Republican base? And does it ever bother your conscience, assuming you have one?

P.S. It's not going to work. I'm not the only Republican capable of spotting your kind a mile away.

P.P.S. Awfully silent regarding Takascar2's inquiry about the 2nd Amendment aren't you? Hehehe....

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

... Because Stonewall won't accept the reality of America, and because he refuses to distinguish morally between Bush and Hussein, he, too, is on balance anti-libertarian, because the very government he rails against is what in reality stands between us and having dictators like Hussein. Granted, Hussein is unlikely ever to occupy Washington, D.C. However, if he, Khameini, Assad, and Kim Jong Il are not removed, they will eventually blow up millions of Americans; the government measures needed to deal with such a disaster will REALLY make the U.S. into a tyranny.

The reality is this: freedom comes from the willingness to defend oneself. This defense does not have to be against conquest, either; it can be against attacks with lesser goals, such as 9/11, as well. (To be justified in defending your house against an intruder, you do not have to establish that he plans on taking over your house, only that he has no right to be there). When people target the entire US citizenry for death, it is perfectly legitimate for those citizens to wage war through their military against those people.

If Stonewall and Brian have their way, we will exchange an imperfect republic for a totalitarian world state.

I hope most of what you wrote is hyperbole, though I suspect otherwise. You came awfully close to advocating an official foreign policy based on the Bronze Rule: "Do unto them before they do unto you."

That's a policy of cowardice, not one for the strongest nation in the history of the world.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

"I am vastly ambivalent about what my country ought to do now. I must say to you I am not
one of those, like [the Pentagon adviser] Mr Perle and [deputy defence secretary] Mr Wolfowitz,
who are in my view hairy-chested tub-thumpers. I am not among those who would go to war
tomorrow morning and invade Iraq.' "

--Bush 41's secretary of state Larry Eagleburger on the BBC's World this Weekend



Hehehe. Bush Sr.'s cronies, the old line Rockefeller-Bush corporatists, are scapegoating the Neo-Na...er, Neo-Cons big time. Neo-Con motto: Heute Amerika und morgen die ganze Welt. Either this is all bluster intended to distract attention from the economy and Junior has no intention of invading Iraq, or Daddy wants to take over the Iraqi oil fields while leaving his Arab buddies with the impression that he does not.

I don't believe you are being honest as to your true beliefs, Stonewall. I had thought that you were just a kook, but with every post of yours I become more convinced that you are actually an agent provocateur for the Left. I know right-wing extremists. I've worked with right-wing extremists. Right-wing extremists are friends of mine. Stonewall, you're no right-wing extremist.

For starters, no right-wing extremist would post your cartoon claiming that Bush stole the election. If there was one clear dividing line between Left and Right, it was the aftermath of the last election. ALL right-wingers, from Bob Dole to the Posse Comitatus, took Bush's side. ALL leftists, from Joe Lieberman to the CPUSA, took Gore's side.

Don't get me wrong. Plenty of rightists despise Bush, either because he's too imperialistic or because he's not imperialistic enough. But no rightists--NONE!!!--claim that Al Gore should have been the President.

Similarly, it is impossible for me to believe that, only 1 1/2 years after the demise of the gun-grabbing, Branch-Davidian-baby-murdering, Elian-kidnapping Clinton regime, with his wife and deputy president looming as the most likely anti-Bush candidate, any right-winger would say "Anyone but Bush in '04." They might say "Vote AIP," or "Vote Libertarian," or "Don't vote, it only encourages them." They might hate Republicans as much as they hate Democrats. But they would NEVER support Hillary or Gore over Bush. EVER.

Which leads me to conclude that you are a phony.

Tell me, Stonewall, how much do Carville, Begala, Greenberg, and McAuliffe pay you to sabotage the Republican base? And does it ever bother your conscience, assuming you have one?

P.S. It's not going to work. I'm not the only Republican capable of spotting your kind a mile away.

P.P.S. Awfully silent regarding Takascar2's inquiry about the 2nd Amendment aren't you? Hehehe....

As if liberal and conservative are the only two political positions :-)

i think that most of us here know that our resident Stoner is actually a libertarian and therefrore neither right-wing nor left-wing... he dislikes bush's politics not because he's towards the right but because bush is much more authoritarian than libertarian (as a liberal with libertarian leanings i dislike bush's politics for both reasons

and anyway do you remember Pat Buchanan saying that most of the votes in Palm Beach that went to him were intended for Al Gore instead? Where does that place him by your reckoning? :-)

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Similarly, it is impossible for me to believe that, only 1 1/2 years after the demise of the gun-grabbing, Branch-Davidian-baby-murdering, Elian-kidnapping Clinton regime,

Bringing the Branch-Davidians to justice was a good thing their leader was a child molester and a criminal . Although sending Elian back to Cuba was not a good thing although

Originally Posted by Number Two

As if liberal and conservative are the only two political positions :-)

i think that most of us here know that our resident Stoner is actually a libertarian and therefrore neither right-wing nor left-wing... he dislikes bush's politics not because he's towards the right but because bush is much more authoritarian than libertarian (as a liberal with libertarian leanings i dislike bush's politics for both reasons

Nice response, William. That about nails it. Thanks.

I was rather taken aback by Mr. Flandry's encyclopedic response(?), rebuttal(?). What could possibly motivate someone to write such a pointless epic on a dinky little board such as this one? But I endeavored to read it and got no further than the part where he claimed to be a true libertarian in asserting that freedom is relative. Absurd. Mr. Flandry is actually defending the Rule of Men on a relative scale as if to say that a captive who is permitted an hour of "freedom" in the courtyard every day should not complain about his condition when his fellow captives, by contrast, get no such respite. Freedom is relative to Mr. Flandry, perhaps even to the point where it blinks out of existence under the boot heel of man's arbitrary will.

The Rule of Law cannot be reconciled with the Rule of Men. In fact, the Rule of Law came about as a direct response to the excesses of the Rule of Men, which are unavoidable given man's flawed nature. No libertarian defends the Rule of Men and Mr. Flandry surely knows this. Ergo, Mr. Flandry was being disingenuous in his assertion (surprise!). However...he was being unwittingly honest with the other assertion in that he might be a true (modern) liberal. Modern liberals often do share his belief that freedom is relative and that power need not be predicated on such "obsolete" concepts as consent. Mr. Flandry should find a welcome home in the Democratic Party in that it is now virtually indistinguishable from the Republican Party.

As I indicated, I got no further than this point where Mr. Flandry revealed that he is a troll. I merely scanned down to the bottom and got a chuckle from his absurd postscripts. As if I seek the approval of the Kool-Aid drinkers who can still call themselves Republicans in good conscience! And as if I...or anyone else here...would even bother to respond to a cretin, troll or otherwise, who claimed that he "called the authorities" because he did not like what was being discussed with respect to possible outcomes of the approaching presidential election of 2004! But you do appear to care deeply about the cretin, Mr. Flandry, so much so that you make it a point to take time out of your busy day in order to keep track of who and who does not respond to his posts. It is a good thing to watch our for a friend!

The only other thing I caught was the word "phony" above "Begala," etc., just above the postscripts (again, chuckle, chuckle). No, Mr. Flandry, I may be a lot of things, but one thing I am not is a phony. I cannot get motivated to deal in anything else but the truth...I just do not have the time. You, on the other hand, plainly revealed yourself to be a phony in your epic. There are no billy goats here, Mr. Flandry. You best just crawl back under your bridge.


BTW, Mr. Flandry, if you do not already work for the executive branch in some capacity, by all means do drop off an application. You are precisely the sort the Bush administration is looking for. You demonstrate superior ability in subterfuge, obfuscation, and all the essential skills relevant to effective dissemination of propaganda. These skills are invaluable to the Machiavellian human garbage which presumes to rule us. This, sir, is your true calling in life. Good luck in your interview and be sure and quote our fearless leader who agrees with old relativistic you that "there ought to be limits to freedom." "Make the pie higher!"

I do hope this response suffices because this is all you are going to get. Now go on. Crawl back under your bridge.

If we are so inured to this sort of thing that we can casually sit back in the face of these developments and say, "Yeah, we still be 3T," then we truly are finished as a nation and a free people. The late Romans had absolutely nothing on us in terms of decadence.


www.counterpunch.org/nimmo0819.html

(For education and discussion purposes only)


August 19, 2002

The Son of COINTELPRO

by Kurt Nimmo

As Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Justice Department, the FBI, CIA--and soon to be unleashed mega-snoop bureau of gargantuan dimensions, the Department of Homeland Security--begin to once again plot the invasion of our civil liberties, I wonder how many baby boomers remember the days of COINTELPRO. Or, more precisely, how many of them have amnesia when it comes to recalling the historical facts of what the government did to a lot of us some thirty odd years ago.

Beyond the obscure reaches of the alternative press-- alive and well, thanks mostly to an unhampered (for the moment) Internet--we hear few voices within the tidy bulwarks of the corporate press reminding us of the way things were in the late 60s and early 70s. On occasion, a corporate columnist will pen his astute and widely published opinions, comparing Ashcroft's proposed TIPS program to the Stasi, but nary a soul mentions COINTELPRO, or how the CIA, in violation of its charter, spied on Americans, or how the NSA listened in on millions of telephone calls and read countless telegrams in direct violation of the constitutional principles our so- called leaders claim to cherish, especially around election time.

For those of us too young to remember--or those of us old enough to remember but suffering from amnesia-- COINTELPRO is snoop parlance for "counterintelligence programs," in other words a series of highly orchestrated, secret, often vicious (and, occasionally, deadly) FBI initiatives launched in the 1960s and early 70s, actions designed, in the words of the FBI, to "disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize" the civil rights, anti-war, and student movements, most engaged in the long-standing American tradition of organized disagreement against the government. In many instances, this disruption and misdirection came at the hands FBI-planted provocateurs, more than a few of them who were criminals, sociopaths, and even psychopaths.

The FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover's able hand, engaged in the most scurrilous of tactics, including blackmail, dissemination of false accusations (which resulted in people being fired from jobs and tenured professors being sacked), the publication of bogus and harmful literature (which we now quaintly and euphemistically call "disinformation"), and even, as in the case of Peter G. Bohmer, an economics professor at San Diego State University, in an assassination attempt carried out by an FBI-sponsor terrorist group (known as the Secret Army Organization, which was "over the top" in its violent zeal to attack those deemed too militant by the government; regardless, the FBI waited more than six months to take action in the matter).

In addition to these tactics, the FBI encouraged the IRS to release confidential tax information on anti-war and black movement activists, which often resulted in audits and prosecutions. The IRS, eagerly encouraged by the FBI, set up a Special Services Staff to investigate and possibly audit not only such un-American organizations as the ACLU, American Library Association, American Jewish Congress, Common Cause, and National Education Association, but also the New York Review of Books and Rolling Stone (as well as more than a few rock concert organizers and, remarkably, then New York mayor John Lindsay).

So sleazy, backhanded, and vicious was COINTELPRO that actress Jean Seberg miscarried and eventually committed suicide after the FBI provided bogus information concerning her pregnancy to a gossip columnist--the Bureau, known for its racism, said the father of the child was a Black Panther, which Seberg's husband vehemently denied. The FBI considered Jean Seberg's "neutralization" (for her support of the Black Panthers) successful.

Other forms of indirect violence against Americans dissenting government policy were also deemed appropriate by the FBI. For instance, the agency worked closely with police departments and "red squads" across the country, encouraging them to attack peaceful crowds, tear-gas private residences, beat movie-goers, vandalize churches, break the cameras of news photographers, and generally engage in behavior expected of Latin American paramilitary goons.

COINTELPRO was, in large part, a success. By 1972, the anti-war and black liberation movements were in complete disarray. Police pressure, mass false arrests, specious federal grand jury investigations, and flimsy if not entirely bogus conspiracy trials had all taken their toll. According to the Church Committee, which was convened to investigate FBI abuses, there were 290 separate COINTELPRO actions from 1968 until 1971, when the program supposedly terminated. Approximately 40 percent of these actions were specifically designed to keep activists from speaking, teaching, writing, and publishing, contrary to the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which the government is sworn to uphold.

All of this, of course, may seem improbable, especially in a democracy. But don't take my word for it--read Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall's book, The COINTELPRO Papers (South End Press, 1990), a collection of actual FBI documents. Many of the confidential documents in the book were removed from an FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, in 1971; others were released through FOIA requests.

Even though COINTELPRO was "officially" closed down in 1971, the FBI has continued to spy on and harass Americans exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and peaceful dissent. From 1983 to 1985, the agency spied on the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), an organization critical of US policy in Central America. In 1991, a federal district court ruled that the FBI had violated a 1981 consent decree which outlawed political surveillance in Chicago. A year later, the FBI was ordered to expunge the names of all Chicago CISPES members from its files on "international terrorism."

Attorney Michael Krinsky, of the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, cites the CISPES case as proof that COINTELPRO never really ended. The FBI files kept on CISPES, explains Krinsky, "show a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object--the destruction of the people's right to know and to assemble in order to express opposing views on public policy... The FBI is still reaching into the Hoover-era bag of tricks to fight dissent. They are feeding their fantasies that the Red Menace is everywhere. It is an obsessive belief they share with Reagan--and like all fantasies, facts do not put it to sleep."

It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce the obvious: the "abuses and usurpations" fomented by the FBI over the last fifty years will, under the scary and unprecedented aegis of George W. Bush's war on terrorism, increase dramatically in the days to come. In the place of Reagan's "Red Menace," we now have "evil" Arab terrorists who are at war with "civilization" (read: they are opposed to US imperialism).

How long before those of us who, as well, are opposed to the imperialistic policies of the US government will fall under the steady purview of not the FBI--which, if we are to believe what the corporate media tells us, are not up to the task of rooting out "evildoers"--but rather Bush's super-snoop agency, the Department of Homeland Security, enabled as it will be by the loosening of legal fetters and empowered under mandates thrown down by the US Patriot Act? How long before the cable guy spies on us, reporting us to the TIPS hotline for "subversive" literature on our book shelves? Or the Green poster on our wall? Is the time far away when our computers will be hacked, our hard drives scanned for keywords, when Magic Lantern records our every keystroke, our email and web destinations probed, logged, and archived by the likes of Carnivore or one of its descendents? Can we expect-- as we mobilize against Dubya's war on Iraq, or the one against Iran or Syria that may follow in this interminable war on terrorism--to be arrested as "enemy combatants," spirited away in the night, "disappeared" like Jose Padilla who, after all, did not actually commit any perceivable illegalities but only engaged in a thought crime? Are we to take Ari Fleischer at his word- -we must now watch what we say and what we do?

It now appears--for those of us who never allowed historical amnesia to sweep over us--that COINTELPRO never really "officially" died. It is alive and well, growing in strength, and amply mandated not only in the guise of the so-called (and vastly Orwellian) US Patriot Act, but in the hearts of too many of our leaders as well.

Amnesia is no longer an option.

This is a George W. Bush speech which would signify a 4T regeneracy. In other words, you will never hear these words leave Junior's lips.


www.counterpunch.org/weiner0819.html

(For education and discussion purposes only)


August 19, 2002

Advance Draft of Bush's Astounding 9/11-Anniversary Speech

by Bernard Weiner

The following, alleged to be a draft of a speech George W. Bush wrote himself, to be delivered on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, recently came into our hands from a usually reliable White House source, the person known to us as "Shallow Throat." Previously, this GOP mole slipped other papers and insights our way. (See "The 'Shallow Throat' Documents: A Pre-9/11 Bush&Co. Scenario," published here in February, and " 'Shallow Throat' Reveals Bush & Co.'s Weak Spots," published here in June.)

We can't attest to this document's validity, and we have no idea if the speech actually will be delivered. But the reputed draft certainly leads to interesting speculations. See what you make of it.

*****

Good evening. I have asked for this broadcast time because on this first anniversary of 9/11, I wanted to join you in grieving for our massive losses. Let us all bow our heads in silence, in honor of those who have fallen. [ 20 seconds of silence. ] Thank you.

First off, I want you to know that nobody wrote this speech but me. Another speech was handed to me yesterday -- you know, for me to go over it a few times before it went on the teleprompter here -- and I started to rehearse it. But the second time I went through it, something grabbed me by the heart and told me to throw it away and to write my own. I prayed and meditated about what I really wanted to express. So here goes:

All my life, I've been told what to say, what to do, how to do and say it, and I was handsomely rewarded for all that. For being basically someone else's creation -- essentially a puppet, beholden to others.

I did that as governor of Texas and I've done it for the first two years of my presidency. But no more. Tonight, I want everyone to hear me loud and clear. I'm no longer anyone's puppet, or patsy. I'm my own man, with my own ideas. And those in my administration who don't like what I'm doing, or saying here, can go...find employment elsewhere.

Historians and politicians always talk about a President's "legacy" -- that is, what enduring values and programs a President leaves for his fellow Americans. I was on my way to an embarrassing legacy, that of a President who would be remembered first for obtaining the office in a strange manner, and once in residence in the White House for fostering a culture of corporate greed, destruction of our glorious environment, and for behaving like an arrogant bully in the global arena, starting wars and alienating a good share of the world.

That is not how this President wants to be remembered.

I have done some low, despicable things in my short time on earth -- from putting substances into my system I shouldn't have to selling my soul for ill-gotten gains -- but I'm finally willing to accept responsibility for my actions (unlike so many other friends and colleagues), and to try to attone for the worst aspects of my life by doing good.

I realize that powerful forces in this country will try to discredit my new stand -- they'll say I've had a "nervous breakdown," or that I've been brainwashed by terrorists, or that I've sold out to pinkos, or that everything I'm saying now is purely for electoral gain -- but, with your help and support and faith in me, I know I'll be able to make my way through.

Whatever comes -- be it political garbage heaped on my head by those calling me a "traitor" to my class or to the conservative cause, or, God help me, an assasin's bullet -- I move forward with my head held high, my heart pure, my mind calm. Because, finally, in the bosom of Jesus -- not just saying that I'm "born again," but knowing it deep in my soul -- I now understand why I was set upon this earth: not to help myself to the spoils provided me by my family and connections, but to help others, around the globe and right here in our own, great country.

Last year, after 9/11, I thought I had discovered my reason for being: to lead the fight against the new scourge of mankind, terrorism. But over the months, it became evident to me that though the target is the correct one -- we can't have folks going around blowing up innocent civilians -- the way we were going about it was, as we say in West Texas, back asswards, and counter-productive to boot.

Let's go back to 9/11 and I'll try to explain. When we came into office -- and I won't even go into how an unelected candidate was installed into the White House -- the outgoing administration passed on to us all sorts of intelligence about Muslim fanatics associated with Osama bin Laden, and gave us suggestions for how to cope with this new reality.

We ignored those warnings partially because we were busy with the transition to power and partly because we thought anything Clinton said or did automatically was suspect. But also because, during the first eight months of our Administration, our program was in tatters in the Congress (even before Jeffords defected from the GOP); we knew that the best way to get our agenda through was somehow to frighten the public to demand a firm hand at the top. And so we did not listen, did not want to listen, to all the warnings last summer coming almost daily from our friends and allies abroad, about an imminent al-Qaida air attack on American icon targets.

We were busy getting our post-attack plans ready -- both here in this country, in terms of how we could bend and alter the Constitution in the name of "national security" and "homeland defense," and abroad, realizing that we were the only superpower left on the globe and could get away with almost anything because there was nobody out there to stop us. And so we turned the other way when we knew that a terror attack of massive proportions was coming toward us. More than 3000 good folks died one year ago today because of our conscious choice not to act on our pre-knowledge. As long as I live, I can never forgive myself for that act of political cowardice.

I know that by admitting this, I leave myself wide open for impeachment, but if I go down, I'm going to take a whole lot of people with me, also involved in the 9/11 coverup. But, who knows, some of those people also may go down for other reasons: the Vice President because of his Halliburton irregularities and his refusal to turn over to Congress the relevant energy-policy documents; the Attorney General, for his leadership in carving away the protections of the Constitution and for moving toward a neo-fascist police state; Don Rumsfeld, Gayle Norton, Tom White, Larry Thompson, Harvey Pitt, and all the others. (And even me for financial shenanigans when I was at Harken Oil.)

But at least I -- secure in my soul -- am willing to tell the truth about what happened, and why, and face the consequences. The others, after all the dodging and running, will have to speak for themselves.

It's the nature of the Presidency that it forces you to take a good look at yourself in the national mirror. I didn't like what I was seeing. Given my history, it's not surprising that I more or less just turned over the government to giant corporations; they helped write their own regulatory laws, they got what they wanted with regard to deregulation, corporate accounting, profit-taking, tax-law, relaxation of pollution controls, trade, etc. etc. They scratched our backs with campaign donations, we scratched theirs so they could run rampant in their corporate pursuit of profits. I guess I should have known that some of them would carry things to extremes.

I felt like a total hyprocite, forced by political pressure - - when the markets tanked and all those seniors' retirement plans got wiped out, when nobody trusted the financial statements of large corporations -- to denounce the warped, unethical and probably illegal practices that made so many of my friends and supporters rich at the expense of ordinary Americans. How could Dick Cheney and I talk about the need for accounting reforms, and denounce greedy corporate executives, when we ourselves participated in many of the very same practices? That was a big one when I stared at myself in the mirror.

Please don't get me wrong. I continue to believe fiercely in the capitalist ethic of letting the market determine a good share of social policy. Initiative should be rewarded. But when the system is rigged against the have-nots and the have-littles in favor of those who already have lots, then something must be done to even the playing field, to set and enforce some rules so that not just the wealthy benefit.

In foreign affairs, we in the U.S. simply must change the way we look at others, and the policies that cause so many problems in the world. This is one planet, and we humans no longer have the luxury of behaving as if we are separate creatures from others around the globe. What we Americans do in Iraq and the Middle East, for example, will affect the entire world's economy for decades -- not to mention what might happen if nuclear or biological weapons are employed anywhere, by anyone.

So, tonight, I am halting all planning for an attack on Iraq and requesting a review of all U.S. policy around the globe, to be on my desk within 14 days. I realize, for example, that until a just Israeli/Palestinian peace is reached, there will be no stability in that region, or elsewhere, and so I will become personally involved in helping develop that peace, for the sake of generations to come of Israeli and Palestinian children, who may one day become friends and partners instead of constant antagonists.

We simply must alter the chemistry of the soil in which so much terrorism grows; we must provide hope to these young, would-be suicide-bombers that their world will change for the better, with peace and justice and jobs in a viable country of their own. To do nothing to alter that soil is to do untold damage to the vital national interests of the United States, and of our friends and allies.

I am also requesting a thorough review of all federal environmental policy, to develop programs that will help preserve and improve air and water quality, reduce greenhouse emissions in the light of global warming, punish polluters, give tax incentives for developing alternative fuels, require higher gas-mileage for new cars, and so on.

I also vow to fight for repeal of the large tax breaks given to the wealthy 10 years out. We took that action when there was a huge anticipated surplus (estimating a decade out when we had no idea what the economy would look like then, or even a year from passage of the bill); now, we're hurting and it's time to revise our thinking, so that the little guy and the middle-class don't get the shaft in terms of taxation, and so that we have monies to fund some of the all-important governmental programs without dipping into Medicare and Social Security trust funds, as we are now doing.

I have to take a deep breath here. I've been thinking so much in the past few days that it almost overwhelms me. I don't have details to lay out here. They will come. But I did want to make sure that everyone understands my new frame of mind, my new priorities, my new plans in broad outline.

As I suggested earlier, I expect a huge storm of opposition to my new positions from some inside my Administration and in the Congress, especially from many of my fellow Republicans on the far right. But I'm hoping that once they get a sense of the broad, overwhelming support for these positions from ordinary Americans, Democrat and Republican alike, they will come to see the wisdom of making the necessary changes for the good of our country.

If you choose to permit me to serve out my term, I vow to all my fellow Americans that I will work tirelessly on everyones' behalf, not just for those who supported me with money or who felt they were ideological or religious kin. I will be happy to work with Congress, including the Democrat leaders, in helping to truly alter the tone in Washington, and to move this country back to civility and closer to the center, where all of us can benefit.

God bless you all. God bless America. Thank you.

Bernard Weiner, a poet and playwright, was the San Francisco Chronicle's theater critic; holder of a Ph.D. in government & international relations, he has taught at various universities, and has written for The Nation, Village Voice, The Progressive, and widely on the internet.

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic.? He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.? He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair."

"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself...? Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."



Is this the bleat of the LIBERAL ? Some agent of the Left?


http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1018 links us to another 3T voice who was out of line.

Originally Posted by takascar2

You support the Constitution? Tell me, do you support (the correct) position that The Second Amendment is one of the most important pieces of our Constitution or are you like the ACLU, supporting only "Politically correct" parts of the U.S.C.???

takascar,

Perhaps you could utilize the little rectangular thingy to the right of the forum screen on you browser to scroll up a couple of posts to Mr. Rush's analysis of the second amendment. Additionally, you can take a look at this thread by the same. A careful reading of his views would, I should hope, suffice to shake your confidence in a 'correct' reading of the US Constitution. Perhaps not. Oh well.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. " -- Lysander Spooner

Tailing on Mr. Saari's post:


"Most people are conservative in the wrong way. They accept whatever they?re used to as the natural order of things. They have no sense that the world really went radically wrong somewhere, and is still going further wrong."


"After two world wars, countless smaller wars, mass murders, religious and racial persecution, several species of tyranny, punishing taxation, erosions of ancient liberties, debasement of money, and state-sponsored moral decadence, you?d think modern man would have drawn certain lessons about the modern state. All of us ought to talk about the state the way the Jews talk about Hitler."


"We are inured to the kind of government our ancestors would have recognized as tyrannical; they crossed oceans to get away from it, and it has grown up here."


"When you feel at home in a world that has gone wrong, you?ve gone wrong too."


"The tyrant really wants your soul...but you don?t have to yield it to him. That?s the one private property he can?t take away from you.



Confessions of a Reactionary Utopian

March 27, 2001
by Joseph Sobran

www.sobran.com/columns/010327.shtml

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by takascar2

You support the Constitution? Tell me, do you support (the correct) position that The Second Amendment is one of the most important pieces of our Constitution or are you like the ACLU, supporting only "Politically correct" parts of the U.S.C.???

takascar,

Perhaps you could utilize the little rectangular thingy to the right of the forum screen on you browser to scroll up a couple of posts to Mr. Rush's analysis of the second amendment. Additionally, you can take a look at this thread by the same. A careful reading of his views would, I should hope, suffice to shake your confidence in a 'correct' reading of the US Constitution. Perhaps not. Oh well.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain--that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. " -- Lysander Spooner

Justin

Have you been reading my posts on the 2nd?

The Constitution was originally written without a Bill of Rights, and without granting police powers to the federal government. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, police did not exist as an independent full time entity. Soldiers and militia enforced the law as needed. Between the Revolution and Civil Wars this did not create a problem, if one was a white male. Rights were much respected. The government did not attempt to infringe on the rights of white males, which kept everyone happy except minorities and women. This was the first era of the Constitution.

The second era was the reconstruction. The XIVth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the former slaves, including the 2nd Amendment. The Union Army in the south was assumed to have police powers, and attempted to protect the rights of Negroes.

The third era was Jim Crow. A series of Supreme Court cases stated the federal Bill of Rights did not grant citizens rights, but was only a limitation on the powers of Congress. The founding father's original intent that the federal government was to have no police powers was emphasized. The Posse Commitatus law forbade federal military forces from executing police powers, from interfering with civilian culture, save during an emergency declared by civilian authorities. (Dubya wants to weaken this law, to further his War on Terror.) The primary intent and result was white supremacy in the South, though the 'right' of labor unions to keep and bear arms was also suppressed.

Through the 20th Century, the NAACP, ACLU and NRA have been fighting Jim Crow interpretations of the Bill or Rights. The federal government has been slowly assuming police powers. The federal government - usually under the pretext of the commerce clause - has been passing laws more and more overtly intended to protect life, rights and property. The acts passed include gun control legislation. The NRA has been less successful than the other advocates of the Bill of Rights.

Over the last few decades, the academic community has been doing much research on the 2nd Amendment. If one follows the academic literature and law journals, the "standard model" of individual rights is very much the dominant theory. There is still a large gap between the legal establishment and the academics. The states rights model is still supported and enforced by the lawyers. Still, the only modern case defining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment supports the individual rights theory. I would recommend that anyone who thinks the states right model is correct ought to read the 5th District's US v Emerson decision. I have collected and read many "standard model" individual rights articles, most of which were passed to the 5th District as part of 'friends of the court' briefs. US v Emerson is the best of the bunch, the clearest standard model presentation.

We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government's power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty.(60) All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans.

We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.

E. Second Amendment protects individual rights

We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller. However, because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.

I would like to see a Constitutional Convention. While I believe the 'standard model' is correct, what was right when muzzle loading muskets were state of the art might no longer be right. I believe the federal government ought to be given explicit police powers, as we need some form of federal policing, and one cannot limit the powers of the federal police and Congress without granting them the power. The commerce clause and the ruling that the federal government can spend money however it likes - without reference to the enumerated powers - might also be revisited. The Founding Fathers created a fine government for a loose alliance of agricultural states. We are no longer a loose alliance of agricultural states.

FDR wanted to solve the depression quickly. He needed new powers. He did not want to wait for the lengthy and unsure ratification process. While the Supreme Court originally shot him down, the justices noticed how FDR kept getting reelected by larger and larger majorities. They stopped fighting him. We now have a large gap between the written constitution and the implementation thereof. As a result, a president selecting a few justices, changing the balance of the court, can significantly alter the nation's legal system. The Court is very aware that implementing the Constitution as written would create a major trauma, thus their rulings often reflect political compromises.

I like Lincoln and FDR. They solved grave problems. They did what they had to do, but their policies - taken to extremes by their successors - left us with problems. Lincoln and FDR left us an industrial superpower. I'd like to see a bit more Washington, George Washington. Protect the rights of the people. Limit the power of the federal government. Avoid foreign entanglements. A nice dream, though we are already entangled, our superpower meddling has made other's problems our own. Getting the rest of the world where it needs to be might be necessary, before we return home, and have a little high.

Bob,

Rest assured, I have been attentively reading your and Brian's discussion of the 2nd amendment. Very informative all around, I must say. However, I find very compelling Brian's latest argument about the meaning of 'keep and bear' and its relation to the personal ownership of weaponry. That said, I've read Emerson, and agree with the sentiment. The fact remains, however, that unless you posit that the founding fathers advocated anarchy (unreasonable to assume, since even the Articles of Confederacy formed a government), Brian's assessment jibes better with history than the Emerson decision.

This is a big part of the reason why I find it hard to get behind the Constitution, by the way -- hence the Spooner quote.

One other point to pick. You state that

FDR wanted to solve the depression quickly. He needed new powers. He did not want to wait for the lengthy and unsure ratification process. While the Supreme Court originally shot him down, the justices noticed how FDR kept getting reelected by larger and larger majorities. They stopped fighting him. We now have a large gap between the written constitution and the implementation thereof.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that FDR's actions greatly exacerbated the effects and duration of the Depression, so can't really be seen as successful, I think this piece of history illustrates well the folly in trusting in a body of text to limit the power of those who have unilateral power over the body of text. The idea behind the doctrine of separation of powers was elegant, but no less incorrect for its beauty. Perhaps the President or Congress alone cannot dictate law; but the power is there, and they need only enlist a third party (as Roosevelt and others have done) to metastize oligarchy.




Today must be 'big words day' for me...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bob,

Rest assured, I have been attentively reading your and Brian's discussion of the 2nd amendment. Very informative all around, I must say. However, I find very compelling Brian's latest argument about the meaning of 'keep and bear' and its relation to the personal ownership of weaponry. That said, I've read Emerson, and agree with the sentiment. The fact remains, however, that unless you posit that the founding fathers advocated anarchy (unreasonable to assume, since even the Articles of Confederacy formed a government), Brian's assessment jibes better with history than the Emerson decision.

This is a big part of the reason why I find it hard to get behind the Constitution, by the way -- hence the Spooner quote.

One other point to pick. You state that

FDR wanted to solve the depression quickly. He needed new powers. He did not want to wait for the lengthy and unsure ratification process. While the Supreme Court originally shot him down, the justices noticed how FDR kept getting reelected by larger and larger majorities. They stopped fighting him. We now have a large gap between the written constitution and the implementation thereof.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that FDR's actions greatly exacerbated the effects and duration of the Depression, so can't really be seen as successful, I think this piece of history illustrates well the folly in trusting in a body of text to limit the power of those who have unilateral power over the body of text. The idea behind the doctrine of separation of powers was elegant, but no less incorrect for its beauty. Perhaps the President or Congress alone cannot dictate law; but the power is there, and they need only enlist a third party (as Roosevelt and others have done) to metastize oligarchy.

Justin

Well, I'm with the 5th District on the meaning of 'keep and bear.' Neither word is uniquely military in its meaning or usage. The 5th District quoted Madison using the phrase in a game law, clearly indicating its plain text usage was not reserved to the military. The game of reinterpreting meanings away from plain text was common in the Jim Crow era. There is a Supreme Court case which claimed one had no right to assembly if the purpose of the assembly was not to petition the government for the redress of grievances. They read the phrases of the Ist Amendment as dependent on one another. (The case involved a bunch of southern good ol boys breaking up a meeting of a black militia. The Supreme Court at the time established that good ol boys had a right to suppress minorities without federal interference.) This is typical of Jim Crow logic. The plain text reading, in my opinion, is much to be preferred. The states rights advocates must assume phrases like 'keep and bear' and 'the People' have absurd non common sense meanings. Alas, there is a long history of Jim Crow precedents supporting their absurd readings. One must be aware of the how US racial history interacts with its legal history. When one quotes old precedents, one should note the year, and remember what was going on at the time.

But this is the wrong thread to go too far into the fine details of the 2nd Amendment debates. I'm also not ready to debate FDR's economics. I'm aware that conservative economic 'experts' a few decades back had a strong (and not totally incorrect) systematic attack on government intervention in the economy. Since that time, the neo-Keynesians have made a comeback. I'll support increasing the money supply in recession, decreasing money supply in booms to fight inflation, and increasing job making government spending in particularly bad economic downturns. Other than that, yeah, the politicians have generally blown it when they have tried to interfere. I dislike Reagan's boom deficits, Newt's deregulations and Clinton's attempts to enhance competitiveness by hyper boosting the high tech sector. Still, as I've heard it, FDR's error wasn't in following Keynes, but in not following him far enough. I'll also say bad things about the protectionist tariffs that followed the 1929 crash.

I will cheerfully agree that the Constitution is not perfect. I do not like the federal executive branch nominating Supreme Court justices, while the federal Congress passes approval. This is the fox hiring the guards for the hen house. From my perspective, this is the Constitution's major flaw, enabling in the descent onto metasized oligarchy. I'd like to see the states involved in selecting Supreme Court justices, somehow.

Still, while I do not worship the Constitution either as written or as implemented, it is better to have one than not to have one. I prefer imperfectly implemented limits on government power to no limits. I prefer rule of law to rule of men. I'll second Churchill's notion that Democracy is the worst possible government imaginable, with the exception of every other form of government that has been tried.

Yes, the Constitution is broke. No, it is not time to abandon the idea of Constitutions. No, it is not time to fix the Constitution. That is traditionally done at the end of the Crisis, when the lessons learned are fresh in everyone's mind, when the people are as unified as they are going to get. We're still on the unraveling - crisis cusp. Until we achieve unity, we're stuck with the Constitution we've got.

Allow me to throw a pitcher of gasoline on this fire.

Here is a liberal legal academic's defense of an embarrassing second amendment.

[quote="Bob Butler 54"]

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Bob,


I will cheerfully agree that the Constitution is not perfect. I do not like the federal executive branch nominating Supreme Court justices, while the federal Congress passes approval. This is the fox hiring the guards for the hen house. From my perspective, this is the Constitution's major flaw, enabling in the descent onto metasized oligarchy. I'd like to see the states involved in selecting Supreme Court justices, somehow.

Good point.

It should be kept in mind, though, that originally the States did have input, albeit limited. The Senators were originally appointed by the State Governments. Since Supreme Court nominees must be confirmed by the Senate, and those Senators were answerable to their State Governments if they wanted another term, this gave the States at least a bit of influence over the process.

The change to direct election was driven by several motivations, not all of them wrong. But IMO a better decision would have been to split the difference, and have one directly elected Senator from at large in a State and one chosen by the State Government. That wouldn't be perfect, but it would still leave a little linkage to the States, and would also provide another check in the system.