Friday, April 20, 2007
We are just about to pass the 8100 mark of those who have been murdered by the proponents of the "religion of peace" since September 11, 2001 (the total as of this writing is 8099). Just thought I would let the readers of this weblog know since so many in the MSM and even a number of those irresponsible sorts in the alternative media seem so amazingly obtuse to the true nature of the threat we are facing. But I digress.
Someone emailed your host today with the following thread which because of the subject matter at hand will be passed on at this time without comment except to say read the thread below and mull over its contents.
Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Venezuela Under Socialism: An Interview with Manny Lopez
Thursday, April 19, 2007
More on Al Queda and the Geneva Conventions:
This is in reference to the blog posting from April 1, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in darkgreen font and the references to "he" in the words below refer to your humble servant. Without further ado...
It appears that he is referring, not to "an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907," but to an annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, signed at (wait for it . . .) The Hague on October 18, 1907. (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of that annex are cited in the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which may be the source of Mr. McIlhenny's confusion.)
But Mr. McIlhenny's citation cannot claim to give the whole picture if it fails to take into account the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 4 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) states that persons meeting the four criteria quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention are to be regarded as prisoners of war. Article 5, however, states that "[s]hould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
On the first part, the interlocuter may be right. The text used was obtained from a website run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. But whether it is from 1907 or 1929 is academic at this point as the intention was to outline what the criteria by Geneva was for those who would be signatories to the convention protocols.
As far as noting the section from 1949 that says that those who meet the requirements outlined in the previous posting to this weblog were to be treated as prisoners of war, it is a non-sequitur because the point I made was that Al Queda operatives do not meet any of them.
As far as the fifth article claiming that if there is any doubt about persons belonging to the categories so outlined were to be treated as prisoners of war, here is the reason why it is not a factor in this case in a nutshell:
--The Geneva protocols are for those who are signatories to Geneva and no one not a signatory can properly be said to have valid recourse to them thereof.
But let us suppose for a moment that Al Queda was a signatory to Geneva. In that case, the fact that they do not fulfill any of the four criteria noted in the previous posting would mean they would still be disqualified from being treated under the Geneval protocols!!!
That is all which will be noted on that matter at the present time as it is sufficient to deal with the matter in question.
This is in reference to the blog posting from April 1, 2007. My interlocuter's words will be in darkgreen font and the references to "he" in the words below refer to your humble servant. Without further ado...
It appears that he is referring, not to "an annex to the Geneva Conventions promulgated at the Hague on October 18, 1907," but to an annex to the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, signed at (wait for it . . .) The Hague on October 18, 1907. (Articles 1, 2, and 3 of that annex are cited in the 1929 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which may be the source of Mr. McIlhenny's confusion.)
But Mr. McIlhenny's citation cannot claim to give the whole picture if it fails to take into account the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 4 of Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (August 12, 1949) states that persons meeting the four criteria quoted from the 1907 Hague Convention are to be regarded as prisoners of war. Article 5, however, states that "[s]hould any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
On the first part, the interlocuter may be right. The text used was obtained from a website run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. But whether it is from 1907 or 1929 is academic at this point as the intention was to outline what the criteria by Geneva was for those who would be signatories to the convention protocols.
As far as noting the section from 1949 that says that those who meet the requirements outlined in the previous posting to this weblog were to be treated as prisoners of war, it is a non-sequitur because the point I made was that Al Queda operatives do not meet any of them.
As far as the fifth article claiming that if there is any doubt about persons belonging to the categories so outlined were to be treated as prisoners of war, here is the reason why it is not a factor in this case in a nutshell:
--The Geneva protocols are for those who are signatories to Geneva and no one not a signatory can properly be said to have valid recourse to them thereof.
But let us suppose for a moment that Al Queda was a signatory to Geneva. In that case, the fact that they do not fulfill any of the four criteria noted in the previous posting would mean they would still be disqualified from being treated under the Geneval protocols!!!
That is all which will be noted on that matter at the present time as it is sufficient to deal with the matter in question.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
On the "Indefinite Detainment" Complaint:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There have been some public agitators who have whined about the issue of indefinite detainment of persons in the current war we are involved in. The purpose of this posting is to respond to that issue but first, here is a recap of one of the arguments made along these lines before your host responds to it.
It appears nobody is actually going to address the issue of man who has been in jail for a year without any charges being brought against him and who stands entirely at the mercies of Leviathan.
Weird.
To start with, the authority whereby President Bush has detained Bilal Hussein is the same one that was used to detain Mahar Arar. It is the Alien Enemies Act passed by the Congress and signed into law by President John Adams back in 1798 during The Quasi-War. It was one of four acts passed by both houses of Congress signed by President Adams along with an Enemy Alien Act, a Sedition Act, and a Naturalization Act -the latter extending the length of time for naturalization from five to fourteen years. The Naturalization Act did not have an expiration date but was repealed in 1802 by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was enacted with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 before Jefferson took office and was never renewed in that form.{1} The Alien Friends Act enabled the president to deport "resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798 with a two year expiration date and allowed to lapse.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted on July 6, 1798 and empowered the president to apprehend and deport aliens whose home countries were at war with the United States. This is why Mahar Arar was deported to Syria -the latter is his home country and the latter has been involved in the war in Iraq by supporting the insurgency for the benefit of some of these sorts who seem to forget that. Likewise, Bilal Hussein is detained in Iraq because -guess why??? Guess his country of origin can you??? The answer of course is Iraq where he happens to be detained.
The Alien Enemies Act has never been rescinded and thus remains in force. Among the Founding Fathers who approved of it based on either public support for it or no known public opposition to it were (besides President Adams) a number of those who were involved in the creation of the US Constitution. (President George Washington, Gouvernor Morris, Rufus King, and Alexander Hamilton to mention just a few.) Unlike a lot of the other acts, the Alien Enemies Act had broad support of Federalists and Republicans{2} as it was a measure specifically aimed at wartime which is what was anticipated at that time was to happen with France.
The measure was was opposed by the exceedingly pro-French Thomas Jefferson and also by James Madison -the latter to his credit changing his mind on the matter{3} later on. These measures were enacted during a time of war and are wartime measures which again is what we are involved in here. While most of these acts never came before the US Supreme Court -as they expired before the establishment of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803- it has been a standard of sorts to bemoan these matters in peacetime but recognize in wartime that the freedoms we take for granted in peacetime are not and indeed cannot be as extensive as they are when at war.{4}
This is why the principle behind President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the War Between the States{5} was by American law valid. This is why whatever one thinks about World War I and President Woodrow Wilson, there was enacted in 1917 a US Sedition Act and a US Espionage Act and these nattering nincompoops should thank their lucky stars we do not have those acts enacted today or else they could well be behind bars themselves as a threat to national security.{6} Unlike the Sedition Act signed by President Adams which did expire, the one signed by President Wilson came before the Supreme Court in 1919 and was wisely upheld in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
In a world of great mobility and where we are fighting wars not on our own soil, this is a prism for viewing the issue of indefinite detainment. Or should I say that would be my argument if not for having the act in its totality at my fingertips and knowing of the existence of section two of the act which reads as follows:
And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed. [Alien Enemies Act Section 2 (signed into law by President John Adams on July 6, 1798)]
This was of course written in an era where people were not able to be mobile to the extent they are now. While on the books for over two hundred years, this has only been enacted during times of war.{7} And (of course) this is the authority that President Franklin Roosevelt was able to use to issue an Executive Order interning the Japanese-Americans and also Americans of Italian and German descent during World War II. Later on, the Congress passed legislation in 1950 and again in 1952 giving the attorney general the authority to hold an alien in custody without bail.
So for all the public bitching about these matters by the historically ignorant, they happen to be matters of United States law and some of these provisions go back over two hundred years including the very Alien Enemies Act that gave President Bush the authority to deport and detain both Mahar Arar and Bilal Hussein.
Of course if certain persons knew their history better, they perhaps would not make such misinformed statements. But apparently, lacking knowledge on issues is not an impediment to them pontificating on them so do not expect to see a secession of their own accord on these matters. If anything they will probably just shout louder as if that somehow covers for their egregious ignorance on these matters but I have said all I plan to on this issue for the time being.
Notes:
{1} I say "in that form" because there was a Sedition Act enacted at a later date -a point I touched on earlier in the thread above.
{2} This is what the party of Jefferson and Madison originally called themselves. It functioned as a party from 1792 until 1824 when there was a party schism. (One branch of that schism was led by Andrew Jackson and is the start of the party today that goes by the name Democratic Party.)
{3} Indeed. the very same James Madison who opposed this act during the Adams administration supported it when he was president during the War of 1812. Hopefully the "Allah Bless Al Queda" contingent is starting to notice a pattern here. James Madison recognized when he was president the same thing that John Adams did before him and it is this: freedom of speech in a time of war has to have its limits.
{4} And yes, much as these pontificating peons cannot seem to fathom it, we are at war right now whether they like it or not.
{5} And he was right to do so during the War Between the States.
{6} By their defacto giving aid and comfort to the enemy they would be eminently qualified for being jailed.
{7} And it is wholly appropriate for reasons spelled out by the Supreme Court in Shenck vs. the United States even though the act being contested there was the US Sedition Act (which was repealed in 1921) and not the still-intact Alien Enemies Act.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There have been some public agitators who have whined about the issue of indefinite detainment of persons in the current war we are involved in. The purpose of this posting is to respond to that issue but first, here is a recap of one of the arguments made along these lines before your host responds to it.
It appears nobody is actually going to address the issue of man who has been in jail for a year without any charges being brought against him and who stands entirely at the mercies of Leviathan.
Weird.
To start with, the authority whereby President Bush has detained Bilal Hussein is the same one that was used to detain Mahar Arar. It is the Alien Enemies Act passed by the Congress and signed into law by President John Adams back in 1798 during The Quasi-War. It was one of four acts passed by both houses of Congress signed by President Adams along with an Enemy Alien Act, a Sedition Act, and a Naturalization Act -the latter extending the length of time for naturalization from five to fourteen years. The Naturalization Act did not have an expiration date but was repealed in 1802 by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was enacted with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 before Jefferson took office and was never renewed in that form.{1} The Alien Friends Act enabled the president to deport "resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798 with a two year expiration date and allowed to lapse.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted on July 6, 1798 and empowered the president to apprehend and deport aliens whose home countries were at war with the United States. This is why Mahar Arar was deported to Syria -the latter is his home country and the latter has been involved in the war in Iraq by supporting the insurgency for the benefit of some of these sorts who seem to forget that. Likewise, Bilal Hussein is detained in Iraq because -guess why??? Guess his country of origin can you??? The answer of course is Iraq where he happens to be detained.
The Alien Enemies Act has never been rescinded and thus remains in force. Among the Founding Fathers who approved of it based on either public support for it or no known public opposition to it were (besides President Adams) a number of those who were involved in the creation of the US Constitution. (President George Washington, Gouvernor Morris, Rufus King, and Alexander Hamilton to mention just a few.) Unlike a lot of the other acts, the Alien Enemies Act had broad support of Federalists and Republicans{2} as it was a measure specifically aimed at wartime which is what was anticipated at that time was to happen with France.
The measure was was opposed by the exceedingly pro-French Thomas Jefferson and also by James Madison -the latter to his credit changing his mind on the matter{3} later on. These measures were enacted during a time of war and are wartime measures which again is what we are involved in here. While most of these acts never came before the US Supreme Court -as they expired before the establishment of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803- it has been a standard of sorts to bemoan these matters in peacetime but recognize in wartime that the freedoms we take for granted in peacetime are not and indeed cannot be as extensive as they are when at war.{4}
This is why the principle behind President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the War Between the States{5} was by American law valid. This is why whatever one thinks about World War I and President Woodrow Wilson, there was enacted in 1917 a US Sedition Act and a US Espionage Act and these nattering nincompoops should thank their lucky stars we do not have those acts enacted today or else they could well be behind bars themselves as a threat to national security.{6} Unlike the Sedition Act signed by President Adams which did expire, the one signed by President Wilson came before the Supreme Court in 1919 and was wisely upheld in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
In a world of great mobility and where we are fighting wars not on our own soil, this is a prism for viewing the issue of indefinite detainment. Or should I say that would be my argument if not for having the act in its totality at my fingertips and knowing of the existence of section two of the act which reads as follows:
And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed. [Alien Enemies Act Section 2 (signed into law by President John Adams on July 6, 1798)]
This was of course written in an era where people were not able to be mobile to the extent they are now. While on the books for over two hundred years, this has only been enacted during times of war.{7} And (of course) this is the authority that President Franklin Roosevelt was able to use to issue an Executive Order interning the Japanese-Americans and also Americans of Italian and German descent during World War II. Later on, the Congress passed legislation in 1950 and again in 1952 giving the attorney general the authority to hold an alien in custody without bail.
So for all the public bitching about these matters by the historically ignorant, they happen to be matters of United States law and some of these provisions go back over two hundred years including the very Alien Enemies Act that gave President Bush the authority to deport and detain both Mahar Arar and Bilal Hussein.
Of course if certain persons knew their history better, they perhaps would not make such misinformed statements. But apparently, lacking knowledge on issues is not an impediment to them pontificating on them so do not expect to see a secession of their own accord on these matters. If anything they will probably just shout louder as if that somehow covers for their egregious ignorance on these matters but I have said all I plan to on this issue for the time being.
Notes:
{1} I say "in that form" because there was a Sedition Act enacted at a later date -a point I touched on earlier in the thread above.
{2} This is what the party of Jefferson and Madison originally called themselves. It functioned as a party from 1792 until 1824 when there was a party schism. (One branch of that schism was led by Andrew Jackson and is the start of the party today that goes by the name Democratic Party.)
{3} Indeed. the very same James Madison who opposed this act during the Adams administration supported it when he was president during the War of 1812. Hopefully the "Allah Bless Al Queda" contingent is starting to notice a pattern here. James Madison recognized when he was president the same thing that John Adams did before him and it is this: freedom of speech in a time of war has to have its limits.
{4} And yes, much as these pontificating peons cannot seem to fathom it, we are at war right now whether they like it or not.
{5} And he was right to do so during the War Between the States.
{6} By their defacto giving aid and comfort to the enemy they would be eminently qualified for being jailed.
{7} And it is wholly appropriate for reasons spelled out by the Supreme Court in Shenck vs. the United States even though the act being contested there was the US Sedition Act (which was repealed in 1921) and not the still-intact Alien Enemies Act.
On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America - Prelude to an Upcoming Project:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
With the election on the horizon for 2008 and wanting to avoid for the sake of his own sanity too much focus on those issues beyond what is necessary to do, it seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.{1} Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties.{2} However, before doing this, it is important to refute briefly one annoying approach many who try to dismiss the significance of these men, what they did, and what they stood for inexorably involve themselves in. This would of course be the issue of slavery.
Let it be noted at the outset that the present writer has no patience whatsoever for those who whine about the toleration of slavery by the Founding Fathers when such people support abominations of their own. I refer of course to the abomination of abortion. And even amongst those who are opposed to both slavery and abortion, there are some who are promoters of that noxious weed called socialism that is nothing but communism in a lesser developed form.{3} In other words, not a few who are critical of the Founding Fathers have their own advocacy or toleration of heinous evils which they need to tend to before having the temerity of reading the Founding Fathers out of court because of an evil of their time which was tolerated.
Imagine if you will what would happen if future people reading about America since 1973 took the approach that since abortion was legal that it meant that people today were all "supporters of abortion" or some similarly ludicrous statement. An informed historian would respond by saying that while yes, permission to have abortions was viewed as the law of the land{4}, there were many people who opposed it and who sought to initiate movements against the practice. Well, the same can be said for slavery in the days of the Founding Fathers.
There was a fight on this issue early in the history of the US Republic and even at the Constitutional Convention where slavery was an issue which was basically spoken about and fought over mostly in code by Founders of various views on the matter in question. There were many Founders who abhorred slavery on principles which we would laud today -among them Gouvernor Morris, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc. come to mind. None of them except Franklin ever owned slaves.{5}
Among even some of the Founders who owned slaves there was also abhorrence of the system -particularly amongst the Virginians George Washington and James Madison who struggled in conscience with these matters and (as a result of various factors too complex to go into here) treated their slaves very humanely -almost some have said like family. Thomas Jefferson also struggled with the ownership of slaves and the principles he espoused which did not countenance the system. Nor was there a unanimous concurrence in the southern states for slavery either.
What the Founders recognized was that the system was too entrenched to be easily uprooted however. Most of these recognized rightly that a secure and strong government properly constituted would contain within it the means capable of overcoming this system without the kinds of anarchy which would have led to the dissolution of the union and under which the condition of the slaves would have been even worse than it was at the time.{6}
It is important to remember that the United States was the only nation ever founded on principles and the only nation to ever have had a Revolution that rather than disintegrating into anarchy and then totalitarianism instead led to greater order and stability of government while providing for a maximum of personal freedom. Whatever problems there were in the application of these principles consistently, at the very least a system was in place which would enable an abolition of slavery even though this took longer than many of the Founding Fathers who wanted to see slavery ended could have anticipated.{7} But certainly those who berate the Founding Fathers for this moral weakness of their time should get the beam out of their own eyes and consider what abominations they either support or at the very least tacitly endorse{8} before they dare to cast stones at those men who were on the whole and for their times very good men (and sometime great men).
Notes:
{1} In part to fill in for the reams of ignorance on these matters which are prevalent today as a result of historical revisionism and in part to better explain some of what we need to regain in the political and social fabric of this currently-very-polarized nation.
{2} It is worse in one party than the other but that will be written on later as time allows for it.
{3} The confutation of socialism in its earliest stages is about the only kind of "abortion" supported by your host -in this case the abortion of the fetus of fascism/communism. And yes, the two are logically on the same side of the spectrum as your host noted a few years ago:
The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:
---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.
Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 16, 2004)]
{4} Now is not the time to go into the subject of what the proper role of law in a just society is and how a law such as this is a perversion of law at its very foundation.
{5} Franklin at one point owned two.
{6} This was by no means a universal factor as there were slave owners who treated their slaves almost like members of the family (i.e. George Washington and James Madison who in principle abhorred slavery). But such examples were not the rule unfortunately.
{7} On this matter there are too many factors to go into here at the present time.
{8} In a spectrum running from abortion and euthanasia supporters to those who in various unconscionable ways give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda supporters during the current war (to name a few examples offhand).
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
With the election on the horizon for 2008 and wanting to avoid for the sake of his own sanity too much focus on those issues beyond what is necessary to do, it seems appropriate to write as time allows on some of the systems and principles that shaped the outlooks of the Founding Fathers of the United States.{1} Part of the reason for this decision is because there is a significant imbalance in politics today and we want to propose a remedy for the common problems inherent in the political approaches of both major parties.{2} However, before doing this, it is important to refute briefly one annoying approach many who try to dismiss the significance of these men, what they did, and what they stood for inexorably involve themselves in. This would of course be the issue of slavery.
Let it be noted at the outset that the present writer has no patience whatsoever for those who whine about the toleration of slavery by the Founding Fathers when such people support abominations of their own. I refer of course to the abomination of abortion. And even amongst those who are opposed to both slavery and abortion, there are some who are promoters of that noxious weed called socialism that is nothing but communism in a lesser developed form.{3} In other words, not a few who are critical of the Founding Fathers have their own advocacy or toleration of heinous evils which they need to tend to before having the temerity of reading the Founding Fathers out of court because of an evil of their time which was tolerated.
Imagine if you will what would happen if future people reading about America since 1973 took the approach that since abortion was legal that it meant that people today were all "supporters of abortion" or some similarly ludicrous statement. An informed historian would respond by saying that while yes, permission to have abortions was viewed as the law of the land{4}, there were many people who opposed it and who sought to initiate movements against the practice. Well, the same can be said for slavery in the days of the Founding Fathers.
There was a fight on this issue early in the history of the US Republic and even at the Constitutional Convention where slavery was an issue which was basically spoken about and fought over mostly in code by Founders of various views on the matter in question. There were many Founders who abhorred slavery on principles which we would laud today -among them Gouvernor Morris, Alexander Hamilton, George Mason, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc. come to mind. None of them except Franklin ever owned slaves.{5}
Among even some of the Founders who owned slaves there was also abhorrence of the system -particularly amongst the Virginians George Washington and James Madison who struggled in conscience with these matters and (as a result of various factors too complex to go into here) treated their slaves very humanely -almost some have said like family. Thomas Jefferson also struggled with the ownership of slaves and the principles he espoused which did not countenance the system. Nor was there a unanimous concurrence in the southern states for slavery either.
What the Founders recognized was that the system was too entrenched to be easily uprooted however. Most of these recognized rightly that a secure and strong government properly constituted would contain within it the means capable of overcoming this system without the kinds of anarchy which would have led to the dissolution of the union and under which the condition of the slaves would have been even worse than it was at the time.{6}
It is important to remember that the United States was the only nation ever founded on principles and the only nation to ever have had a Revolution that rather than disintegrating into anarchy and then totalitarianism instead led to greater order and stability of government while providing for a maximum of personal freedom. Whatever problems there were in the application of these principles consistently, at the very least a system was in place which would enable an abolition of slavery even though this took longer than many of the Founding Fathers who wanted to see slavery ended could have anticipated.{7} But certainly those who berate the Founding Fathers for this moral weakness of their time should get the beam out of their own eyes and consider what abominations they either support or at the very least tacitly endorse{8} before they dare to cast stones at those men who were on the whole and for their times very good men (and sometime great men).
Notes:
{1} In part to fill in for the reams of ignorance on these matters which are prevalent today as a result of historical revisionism and in part to better explain some of what we need to regain in the political and social fabric of this currently-very-polarized nation.
{2} It is worse in one party than the other but that will be written on later as time allows for it.
{3} The confutation of socialism in its earliest stages is about the only kind of "abortion" supported by your host -in this case the abortion of the fetus of fascism/communism. And yes, the two are logically on the same side of the spectrum as your host noted a few years ago:
The notion that two totalitarian systems (i.e. communism and fascism) could be polar opposites philosophically speaking is an example of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction being violated in spades. Think about it for a moment:
---If Communism represents totalitarian control over every sphere of a society, the opposite of total control is no control. Thus, the converse of communism is not fascism but anarchy.
Fascism is nothing except a slightly more palatable form of socialism than communism. Oh and do not even bring up Nazi Germany as an "opposite" of communism. Communism is totalitarian socialism and the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. Unless the entire political spectrum is socialist, the notion that fascism or naziism could be the political "opposite" of communism is ludicrous on its face. Yet notice how many anointed "experts" trot out this false notion of political opposites. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 16, 2004)]
{4} Now is not the time to go into the subject of what the proper role of law in a just society is and how a law such as this is a perversion of law at its very foundation.
{5} Franklin at one point owned two.
{6} This was by no means a universal factor as there were slave owners who treated their slaves almost like members of the family (i.e. George Washington and James Madison who in principle abhorred slavery). But such examples were not the rule unfortunately.
{7} On this matter there are too many factors to go into here at the present time.
{8} In a spectrum running from abortion and euthanasia supporters to those who in various unconscionable ways give aid and comfort to Al Qaeda supporters during the current war (to name a few examples offhand).
On the 2008 Election and Early Candidate Campaigning:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The text below was written three weeks ago in response to a colleague who has made their weblog the "all Tancredo all the time" weblog claiming that Tancredo is the "only real conservative in the race." -ISM]
What about Duncan Hunter??? At least he is near the top of the current straw polls being taken -winning the January straw poll in McCain's" home state (Romney placed second), and placed second to Rudy Guiliani in the South Carolina straw poll a month ago beating out McCain, Romney, and the others. This was before he formally declared his candidacy which happened yesterday and despite being outspent about twenty to one.
While one could make a solid case for Tancredo's immigration position being the best of the candidates running, Hunter is nonetheless not weak in that area. I plan to do an examination of the positions of the three candidates I am most in favour of (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson) in the coming weeks as time allows across an entire spectrum of issues. I admit going in that I do not believe Tancredo is as complete a candidate as Hunter on the issues and he does not have Thompson's executive experience. But I am open to being persuaded differently on this if the evidence is there to substantiate it. And I intend to compare these three candidates in twenty-four specific areas position-wise so that the picture painted is as complete as we can possibly have going in.{1}
But even if Tancredo would come out on top in such an examination, there is the issue of if he is electable and that is no minor bagatelle either. And while it is quite early, I am afraid I do not see much in the way of pre-announcement momentum for him. Considering that Tancredo made it reasonably clear he would seek the presidency back in February of 2005 -and more explicitly so in July of 2005- his lack of momentum in the two years since does not give me confidence that anything is going to change here. At least in Hunter's case, he has obvious pre-announcement momentum and that is important for anyone who makes it clear they are "exploring the possibility" of election.{2}
There is also the military issue and while Tommy Thompson has executive experience that Hunter and Tancredo lack, at the same time, Hunter is a former Vietnam veteran serving with the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers. He therefore has a better idea of what is involved on the ground in military operations and his son served as a Marine in the Iraq theatre in Fallujah. I believe he is therefore less inclined to play politics with the war in Iraq than either of the other two or to make any decisions that would hamper our mission in Iraq.
Notes:
{1} I should have that project done sometime this summer.
{2} We all know those kinds of statements are intended to see if there is a groundswell of solid support for such endeavours.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: The text below was written three weeks ago in response to a colleague who has made their weblog the "all Tancredo all the time" weblog claiming that Tancredo is the "only real conservative in the race." -ISM]
What about Duncan Hunter??? At least he is near the top of the current straw polls being taken -winning the January straw poll in McCain's" home state (Romney placed second), and placed second to Rudy Guiliani in the South Carolina straw poll a month ago beating out McCain, Romney, and the others. This was before he formally declared his candidacy which happened yesterday and despite being outspent about twenty to one.
While one could make a solid case for Tancredo's immigration position being the best of the candidates running, Hunter is nonetheless not weak in that area. I plan to do an examination of the positions of the three candidates I am most in favour of (Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, and Tommy Thompson) in the coming weeks as time allows across an entire spectrum of issues. I admit going in that I do not believe Tancredo is as complete a candidate as Hunter on the issues and he does not have Thompson's executive experience. But I am open to being persuaded differently on this if the evidence is there to substantiate it. And I intend to compare these three candidates in twenty-four specific areas position-wise so that the picture painted is as complete as we can possibly have going in.{1}
But even if Tancredo would come out on top in such an examination, there is the issue of if he is electable and that is no minor bagatelle either. And while it is quite early, I am afraid I do not see much in the way of pre-announcement momentum for him. Considering that Tancredo made it reasonably clear he would seek the presidency back in February of 2005 -and more explicitly so in July of 2005- his lack of momentum in the two years since does not give me confidence that anything is going to change here. At least in Hunter's case, he has obvious pre-announcement momentum and that is important for anyone who makes it clear they are "exploring the possibility" of election.{2}
There is also the military issue and while Tommy Thompson has executive experience that Hunter and Tancredo lack, at the same time, Hunter is a former Vietnam veteran serving with the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers. He therefore has a better idea of what is involved on the ground in military operations and his son served as a Marine in the Iraq theatre in Fallujah. I believe he is therefore less inclined to play politics with the war in Iraq than either of the other two or to make any decisions that would hamper our mission in Iraq.
Notes:
{1} I should have that project done sometime this summer.
{2} We all know those kinds of statements are intended to see if there is a groundswell of solid support for such endeavours.
Miscellaneous Musings:
Two brief bits from a recent news event:
--On the whole Don Imus situation, I find it quite hypocritical that those who sought to castigate Imus for his comments have no problem defending as "free speech" the same and worse statements made in music videos, on cable programming, etc. If Imus deserved to be fired for those comments because of the comments themselves, then half of the mainstream media-sponsored programming out there deserves to be thrown off the air.
Now I am not going to say much more than that about Imus as I have never liked the fellow much at all. However, the issue of principles{1} makes defending Imus on this matter necessary since
--As far as Al Sharpton goes{2}, I do not give two rats testicles about anything the man has to say. And whenever anyone tries to make Al Sharpton sound like a credible person, all I can think of is two words: Tawana Brawley. When Al Sharpton actually apologizes for his involvement in that race-hustling sham, then I might consider anything he says to be worth listening to. But not until then.
Notes:
{1} [I]s asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]
{2} For those who do not know, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program; ergo my mention of Sharpton in these musings.
Two brief bits from a recent news event:
--On the whole Don Imus situation, I find it quite hypocritical that those who sought to castigate Imus for his comments have no problem defending as "free speech" the same and worse statements made in music videos, on cable programming, etc. If Imus deserved to be fired for those comments because of the comments themselves, then half of the mainstream media-sponsored programming out there deserves to be thrown off the air.
Now I am not going to say much more than that about Imus as I have never liked the fellow much at all. However, the issue of principles{1} makes defending Imus on this matter necessary since
--As far as Al Sharpton goes{2}, I do not give two rats testicles about anything the man has to say. And whenever anyone tries to make Al Sharpton sound like a credible person, all I can think of is two words: Tawana Brawley. When Al Sharpton actually apologizes for his involvement in that race-hustling sham, then I might consider anything he says to be worth listening to. But not until then.
Notes:
{1} [I]s asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]
{2} For those who do not know, Imus appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program; ergo my mention of Sharpton in these musings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)