2008-2-7 00:28:00
Blayne wrote:
"Ron Paul realizes that the shedding of blood should be a last resort and not resorted to lightly. A true libertarian minds his own business and does not get into entangling alliances, does not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations nor tries to nation build, etc. as the Founding Fathers advised."
JJ:
I think he is so narrow in his views that he would have not gotten "entangled" with England and Russia to defeat Hitler had he had political power during World War II. He probably would have been part of the peace movement had he been an adult back then. It's a good thing we did some nation building with Japan and Germany after the war.
Blayne:
"We have 4000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians from our being there."
JJ:
It would be worth the death of millions to bring freedom to a nation rather than live in tyranny. Where's the spirit of Patrick Henry? "Give me liberty of give me death."
Blayne:
"And the Iraqi's are no closer to freedom then before we went in."
JJ:
I think history will bear out that they are much closer -- unless the next president completely undoes all the progress that has been made.
As it is the stability in Iraq has greatly increased paving the way for a stable government.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"You left off an important part of the quote. He added: 'I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.'"
Blayne the writes:
"A bit contradictory of him wouldn't you agree? He could care less about freeing the slaves but desires all men to be free..."
JJ:
This is simply not true. His words bear witness time and time again that he cared very much about freeing the slaves. He did not feel he had a mandate to officially express that goal as president during the first part of his administration, but he always personally desired it and pursued it. His view on slavery was one of the reasons seven states seceded after he was elected, even before he became president.
Blayne:
"The point is he did not go to war to free the slaves but to force the Southern states to remain a part of the Union, which he had no authority to do."
JJ:
It looks to me like he had authority, used the authority and this authority was never challenged by the other branches of government.
If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.
Blayne:
"His actions speak much louder then his words. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy inaccessible to the union army. Union soldiers often were permitted to confiscate slaves in rebel territory and put them to work for the union army. In areas loyal to the union, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the former slaves; most of the land was parceled off to his constituent power-base, the railroad and mining companies."
JJ:
The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history -- thanks to Abraham Lincoln -- and no thanks to the Confederacy's excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.
Blayne:
"Lincoln's main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.
"The economic reasons are well documented and give insight into Lincoln's agenda. The South, which supplied 75 percent of exports, was on the verge of becoming a low tariff, free trade zone. Lincoln feared this would disadvantage the North, and in particular his rich industrialist supporters. So Lincoln imposed punitive tariffs as a means to distribute wealth from the South to northern manufacturers."
JJ:
What have you been reading? Lincoln didn't impose any tariffs.
There were tariffs passed that affected the South before Lincoln became president which had bipartisan support and was encouraged and signed by president James Buchanan, a Democrat. Lincoln couldn't have imposed tariffs on the South if he wanted to because the secession had already began when he became president.
Blayne:
"Lincoln instead could have moved toward peaceful prosperity by joining with England, France, other European countries, and the Confederate states in which free trade was already going on."
JJ:
I suppose Lincoln could have, but he wasn't given a chance because he never had any power over the Confederacy. He never had a chance to preside over the whole Union. Let's stick with what Lincoln did or said do rather than what you think was in his heart.
Blayne:
"Where was the rebellion? Where in the constitution is secession forbidden? NOWHERE! Thus leaving it up to the States via the Tenth Amendment.
"'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'"
JJ:
But how about the blacks? They were people too. Rebelling for the purpose of benefiting from the profits of enslaving an entire race goes against everything sacred in the Constitution. They were only big on states rights because they wanted to maintain slavery. They were happy to violate the Constitution in many other ways. I am surprised you are so eager to defend a slave state when you are such a supporter of liberty. States rights is not excuse enough to secede for the purpose of enslaving a race and benefiting from their labor at the point of a whip. You'll note that all the rebel states were slave states. If slavery was not the main issue then some non slave states would have also seceded.
Blayne states the draft by Lincoln was illegal:
This is from Wikipedia:
"In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[14] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution's grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states' rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution."
Note: The Confederacy also had a draft.
Blayne:
"So-called desperate times have been the refuge of dictators and tyrants through out history in suppressing freedom."
JJ:
Desperate times befall the good and the bad. Desperate measures have been taken by many good guys such as Hannibal, Washington, Churchill, FDR, Reagan and both the North and South during the civil war.
Blayne:
"What was Lincoln's desperation? The southern states peacefully succeeded from The Union."
JJ:
I wouldn't call taking federal property by force, a first aggression, as peaceful. Also the blacks were not allowed to live in peace. Confederate sympathizers try to take slavery out of the equation, but it was central to the whole conflict. Without slavery there would have been no division of the States.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response."
Blayne then writes:
"Hello -- Fort Sumter was in So. Carolina, a southern state that had seceded. That aggression was an act of a sovereign nation protecting its territory. The confederacy seized all but four federal forts within their boundaries of which Sumter was one."
JJ:
And the Confederacy had no right to do this because it was federal property and before the rebellion all the states agreed it was federal property. Lincoln said that Fort Sumter belonged to all of the people of the United States. He was correct in this and had the right to hold on to it.
Blayne:
"Lincoln provoked that attack by trying to send reinforcements to Sumter. Now are you going to tell me he didn't have ulterior motives when he could have resolved this peacefully?"
JJ:
There was no way to solve it peacefully and keep that which belong to the federal government. The Confederacy was determined to possess it by any means necessary including drawing first blood.
Blayne:
"To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress. He declared martial law, confiscated private property, imprisoning about 30,000 Northern citizens and 31 legislators without trial, censored telegraph lines, and shut down northern newspapers for opposing the war."
JJ:
The number is usually given as 13,000. People were not put in jail for opposing the war. The New York Times and other papers as well as about a third of the Union ridiculed Lincoln mercilessly and opposed Lincoln as they now oppose Bush and Lincoln took no action. Action was taken toward those who sought to overthrow the government or to give aid to the enemy. If he hadn't done this he would have probably lost the war.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor."
Blayne then writes:
"Hardly, only 15 percent of southerners owned slaves."
JJ:
That's a pretty big number.
Blayne:
"The South was attempting to just expand to the west period not necessarily to further slavery."
JJ:
Where do you get this idea? It is historical fact that they attempted to expand slavery to Cuba, central America and other areas. Expanding slavery to even one new state would be too much.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"If we hadn't fought the Civil War it would have taken a hundred years to eliminate slavery. There's no evidence that slavery could have been peacefully ended."
Blayne then writes:
"Well this is simply your opinion but there is no evidence to support it. Every other country peacefully ended slavery around this same time. Which suggest the USA could have done so also."
JJ:
There's a lot of evidence. After the war the slave owners were surprised to discover that slaves were not happy being slaves. They thought that slaves needed masters to take care of them and were amazed at how they felt when they were free to express themselves. They still tried to treat them as slaves and many blacks were killed who did not conform. This had nothing to do with the actions of the North. Any slight study of the period will reveal that slavery was institutionalized in the South much more than it was in England and wasn't about to end soon by normal means.
Confederate sympathizers try to preach otherwise to whitewash the history of slavery, but they have no case.
Blayne:
"But since you bring it up that is another lie Bush told, he said Iraqi oil would pay for the war."
JJ:
Can you give me the quote on this? I have never heard this from his lips -- just from his enemies.
Blayne:
"Libertarian Principle is not to be a world policeman. Not to nation build and have troops in 130 countries around the world while bankrupting our economy and trampling our own liberties."
JJ:
The end product of a libertarian should be liberty and there is no liberty without police power to hold back those who would take our liberty.
If England, France and the U.S. would have policed Germany in the 1930's then Hitler wouldn't have gained such power and millions of people wouldn't have lost their liberty and their lives.
Police power is a judgment call. Too little allows tyrants to surface and too much creates tyranny. Containing a Saddam Hussein or a Hitler is not overkill. It sounds like you and Ron Paul want no policing, which would only pave the way for more tyranny.
Blayne:
"And how come where not in Africa giving those people the hope of freedom?"
JJ:
Why do you not give to every charity that wants your money? Obviously you cannot. We can only do so much so we have to pick one or two things at a time that we can do.
Secondly, they did not threaten our national security as Saddam Hussein did by invading Kuwait and threatening world wide oil supply.
Blayne:
"As for UN resolutions where in the constitution is authority given to go to war under UN resolutions on the whim of the president? Where is the congressional declaration of war?"
JJ:
There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents us from joining or cooperating with the U.N.
The Germans and Japanese wanted us gone when we occupied them after Word War II, but now they are glad we stayed until democracy was anchored.
Close to 100 percent of the Kurds are happy we have stayed in Iraq and pray we are there for some time for we have saved them from extinction and they are thriving. Things are turning around in Iraq and if people like Ron Paul do not destroy the work done it will one day be a thriving democracy and the Iraqi people will bless the day we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Many already do.
Blayne:
"The Kurds largely secured their own lands with little help from us."
JJ:
They got a lot of help from us. Where have you been?
Blayne:
"The only work we have done there is leaving their country in a shambles, hundreds of thousand have died from collateral damage and disease and unsanitary conditions from us destroying much of their infrastructure. And we have lost 4000 Americans in a needless war.
"We cannot give others freedom at the expense of our own. We have lost the first the and fourth amendments in the name of fighting terrorism and yet our southern border is wide open."
JJ:
They were a threat to our national security and became so when they invaded Kuwait. After the first war we had a cease fire, but not an end to the war. The war remained in place. Saddam Hussein violated the conditions of the cease fire and this gave us the right as well as the duty to enforce it.
Blayne:
"Iraq was never any threat to us and neither is Iran! It's all about money power and oil and covering up the fraud of our monetary system."
JJ:
Saddam Hussein only wanted to control all the oil in the Middle East and use it as a weapon to turn the Japanese and other nations against us. Ahmadinejad has openly declared an intent to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and is pursuing nuclear weapons for that reason. You do not see this as a threat? Sigh.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"The talk of bombing Iran is from Democrat talking points and does not come from Bush. You don't impose democracy. The best you can do is clear away the forces that prevent it."
Blayne the writes:
"Sorry but it's right out of his own mouth and his spokes people. He just did it again recently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0sXeiptiYs "
JJ:
Did you watch this video before you referenced it. It has nothing about Bush having intent to bomb Iran. Try again.
Blayne:
"A lot of the stuff you are saying it right out of Fox News talking points."
JJ:
Name one thing.
Blayne quoting JJ:
"But if we are there for oil as you say we should be making a profit. Since it is costing us so much it is obvious we are there for more than oil. Yes, it is costly and it is one tax I am willing to pay because I think that it is of extreme importance that a foothold of democracy be established in that area. I think oil profits should be used to pay some of our debt, but Bush is against it."
Blayne the writes:
"You do not understand the tax you pay does not go to fund the war. It doesn't even cover the interest on the national debt. We have spent a trillion dollars on Iraq we don't have, it's all borrowed from China."
JJ:
I would like to see some proof that China has loaned us a trillion dollars for the war. Can you provide a reference?
Blayne:
"And the rest is printed. Even the money that is printed is at interest perpetuating the debt and inflating the currency so much that is has dropped 95 percent. We are on the verge of economic disaster. And most people don't have a clue. The fed just lowered rates again to try and stem the tide, which further weakens the dollar. This bubble is so huge it can't be propped up much longer. And when it pops the depression will be much worse then the 1930s depression and it will likely suck the world in with it."
JJ:
Why are you changing the subject here? If we went to Iraq for their oil we should be doing better financially, not worse. If we went there to gain a windfall through oil things should be getting better.
Blayne:
"Ron Paul is the only one who understands this."
JJ:
You seem to understand it in the same light as Ron Paul. He is far from the only one with this view or understanding. I have heard this same line of thought from many sources for almost 40 years - mainly from conspiracy people. A stopped clock is right twice a day and sooner or later we'll have some major problems with the economy and many will claim credit for warning about it. A lot of good the warnings will be for if it happens it happens and there is no gathering to prepare a people for a collapse.
Blayne:
"That's what all this wrangling is about. The Middle Eastern countries and China buy our debt as long as we buy their oil, China buys our debt to keep us as their biggest export customer, but it can't go on forever. That's why we haven't developed alternative fuel sources. When it comes crashing down it will be used to take away more freedoms and to merge us into the North American Union (NAU) so the fiat Banksters can more easily manipulate our money and economies, etc."
JJ:
Why do you rely so heavily on standard conspiracy theory when they have not been right once in the last 40 years that I have followed them? Has it ever occurred to you that there may be good things on the horizon and this concentration only on all that is wrong creates a mindset that doesn't allow one to smell the roses along the path?
You used to support the Patriot Act. What happened?
Blayne:
"I came to my senses and realized it is unwise to rely on the benevolence of government not to violate rights when they have such a dismal track record in so doing. Government should protect the privacy of individuals not spy on them. It is also unconstitutional.
"Judge Napolitano has given some excellent commentary on the Patriot Act."
JJ:
This must be the Fox News talking points you mentioned since he works for them. Actually I can't stand the guy for his logic is flawed about half the time.
Blayne:
"Also appeals to heavenly/mystical visions justifying unlawful war in order to preserve the union when they have no authority to do so is contrary to freedom and liberty."
JJ:
Mentioning a principle within a vision is contrary to freedom and liberty? Strange view indeed. You can quote any scripture, vision platitude you want to me and my liberty is not threatened. Why should yours be?
Blayne:
"Since when do angels or visitors have authority over the constitution and the basic principles of just war?"
JJ:
They do not as I as know. Why ask this question?
Blayne:
"JJ you have taught that all teachers and authorities should be questioned/vetted and not blindly accepted. Going to war just because one had a vision or visitation goes against all reason and logic despite the attempts to justify it."
JJ:
I assume you are talking about my comments on Abraham Lincoln here. He went to war because of the attack on Fort Sumter and the rebellion. He just didn't get a vision and go to war for no other reason though I do believe he was sustained by an inner confirmation that the union of the states was important in the scheme of things.
Blayne:
"I agreed with JJ's assessment on Iraq for a time. However on further review it doesn't make sense to me that the Dark Brotherhood would target fringe religious groups who have little power in Iraq or Iran as places to gain a foothold on earth."
JJ:
The Dark Brotherhood targeted the Nazi party when it had about six members.
Blayne:
"Iraq and Iran were 3rd world countries with little influence themselves on the world scene. Their oil reserves are their only claim to fame and while this did give them some influence it really is insignificant especially their fringe religious groups.
"Seems to me the Dark Brothers would target the power centers of society to gain their influence rather then third world fringe religious groups."
JJ:
About half the country is into conspiracy theory and pointing in the same direction as you and at the same enemy. Do you think the Dark Brothers are so stupid as to be behind that finger? No. They are the ones engineering the finger pointing. All the fingers are pointing at Iraq? Why? Because this has the potential to be a major factor in freedom for billions of people for centuries to come. Where freedom is developing is where you'll find the dark brothers attacking.
The main agent of freedom in this age is the United States and a handful of fanatics struck us on 911 and caused over a trillion dollars worth of financial loss around the world. If we had three attacks during the Bush administrating rather than one then our economy would be in a depression Bush deserves a lot of credit for the seven years straight we have had no attack. If we had another 911 he would probably have a lot more support than he does now.
Blayne:
"The international bankers have far more control over the world then any country. One might consider that Iraq was just a distraction used by the dark brothers while the real powers manipulate economics monetary systems and further consolidate their power on the world. If one looks into history one finds that these bankers and corporate special interests and their cronies have had their hand in starting almost every war on the planet."
JJ:
For 40 years I have listen to conspiracy people blame the international bankers for every ill in the world and every time one of their moves is predicted it has been wrong. Bankers are in the business for self interest just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean they are in league with the devil. They discovered through the fall of Communism that not only the world, but the banking system is better of when a good working system is in place that gives abundance to everyone. The money problems we have right now are more due to bad judgement than to conspiracy.
Copyright © 2008 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved