As a promoter of pork-barrel-spending crony-capitalism, he has no choice but to deceive you, or admit his deception."
Keep in mind that most of what the Dan-child posts are outright lies.
That's because he's a Democrat and the function of Democrats in life is to make ridiculous false accusations against Republicans.
They can't help it, they can't stop it, it's just their nature.
In this particular case, what Kalamata fantasizes as "pork barrel spending" and "crony capitalism" refers to nothing more than what we call "infrastructure".
Both Presidents Washington and Adams supported Federal infrastructure projects, and President Jefferson signed the first major one, the Cumberland or National Road, in 1806.
So by any criteria of Founders' original intent, infrastructure is on the list.
It's true that anti-Federalists, anti-Administration Jeffersonian Democrats usually opposed infrastructure projects, until one benefitted them, as the National Road illustrates.
Kalamata: "The party of Jefferson (and Madison to some extent) were the original Republicans, promoting a Representative Republic bound by the chains of the constitution, rather than a mobbish, majority-rule democracy. "
And still more deception from our Danny-decepticon king.
In fact, no political party in Jefferson's time favored "a mobbish, majority-rule democracy."
But of the two parties at the time, Jefferson's was in fact the more democratic, favoring expanded voter rolls by including all yeoman farmers and militiamen.
And during Jefferson's presidency, the number of voters nationwide more than doubled.
Despite his own wealth and educated aristocracy, Jefferson presented himself as a "man of the people" opposed to those evil monarchical John Adams Federalists.
Indeed, Jefferson's opposition to the Adams' Alien & Sedition Acts came in part from the fact that those "aliens" being disenfranchised were his Democrat voters!
By the time of Democrat President van Buren, the Democrat party was a permanent alliance of Southern slavers with Northern Big-City immigrant bosses (i.e., Tammany Hall).
Kalamata: "The name "Democrat party" was just a name in those days, and was the opposite in doctrine of the modern-day Democrat party – the crony party which is the true party and legacy of Lincoln."
Nonsense -- by "Democrats" they meant the party of the little man and then as now they represented a diverse alliance of political interests united by one overwhelming passion -- to defeat & destroy their more conservative opponents.
Kalamata: "The Democrat Party of those days would be the equivalent of the modern-day Republican Party controlled by the doctrine of, say, Clarence Thomas, but without people "bound in service" to another.
In other words, a conservative republican party would have similar doctrines to the Jeffersonian democrats of old, but without the slavery."
And yet more decepticon nonsense.
In fact, Jefferson himself was a big-spending Democrat who ignored the Constitution whenever it suited him -- the Louisiana Purchase, for example.
President Jefferson's average annual spending was 50% more than President Washington's and in 1804 Jefferson increased the national debt to its highest level ever, not exceeded until the War of 1812.
And speaking of slavery, the Jefferson's party of federally enforced slavery is now the party of federally funded abortions and welfare plantations.
So, the leopard doesn't change its spots, there's nothing new under the sun, and Democrats have always been Democrats.
After Jefferson, "Mr. Madison's War" doubled spending and tripled the national debt, which President Monroe reduced somewhat and President John Quincy Adams even more.
But it took Andrew Jackson to pay off the debt and he did it by maintaining very high levels of federal spending, most of which went for debt payments.
In their defense, before 1860 Federal spending remained constant, except for wars, at about 2% of GDP, and national debt went up & down based on revenues.
So Adams' Tariff of Abominations allowed President Jackson to eliminate the debt, while Buchanan's much lower Tariff of 1857 doubled the national debt in four years -- Democrat Buchanan was another Barack Obama.
Kalamata: "As usual, Joey oversimplified.
He forgot to tell you that Thomas Jefferson continuously opposed a national bank, as did the strict constructionists. "
Naw, it was nothing more than a political bargaining chip to get the nation's capital moved.
Hamilton got his bank, Jefferson got the capital built in Washington, DC -- the art of the deal.
Kalamata: "According to this article, Madison reluctantly supported a bank to alleviate the sad state of finances caused by the war with Britain:"
Demonstrating again that opposition to a National Bank was based on political more than practical considerations.
Madison considered the bank a "necessity" regardless of how "reluctant" he was.
Kalamata: "These are Madison's own words a few weeks after signing the national bank into law:"
- "In our internal affairs, our difficulties arise from the state in which our finances were left by the war.
The measures provided for by Congress will, I hope, alleviate, and, with help of time, gradually remove them.
The principal of these measures are the establishment of a National Bank, and a continuance of a large portion of the war taxes.
You will see, also, that a very important provision has been made for fostering our manufactures.
This will have the double effect of enlarging our revenue for a time, and, by lessening our future importations, aid in rescuing our Commerce from that unfavorable balance which embarrasses all our monied Institutions and financial operations."
[Letter to William Eustis, May 12, 1816, in James Madison, "Letters and other writings of James Madison Vol III." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1867, p.4]"
Kalamata: "That said, a national bank was, and still is unconstitutional."
Imho, banks are banks and one is as good as another, regardless of what name they carry.
If you wish to call it a "national bank" that's fine, but if it's just some state bank, it does all the same things.
Sure, there may be some prestige value to the name "national bank" but in practical terms, any bank will do, I think.
Kalamata on Jefferson's opposition to the Sedition Law: "I have never heard of such a statement as your second one.
Please provide the details of how Jefferson used those laws to lock up his political opponents."
Vice President Jefferson opposed the Alien & Sedition Acts, which helped elect him President in 1800 and he pardoned those arrested when he became President.
Years ago I read two startling items about this:
- Vice President Jefferson did not oppose Alien & Sedition in the very beginning, when his opposition could have swayed President Adams to kill the bill in Congress.
- In the Sedition law's final months before expiring, Jefferson used it to arrest his own political opponents.
The second I found years ago in an article on the Sedition Act and have posted the link several times on threads like this.
Today I went back to reconfirm it, but it appears that page was taken over by Jeffersonians who emphasized his opposition and deleted any mention of using the law himself in 1801.
So, until I can find another source, I'll have to delete that item from my inventory.
Kalamata: "Post roads are constitutional, Joey."
Danny-child, it wasn't called a postal road, it is the Cumberland Road, or National Road.
Regardless, it's infrastructure, what you so mockingly call "pork barrel spending crony capitalism.", and it was advocated by every Founder, signed into law first by President Jefferson.
Kalamata: "That purchase was definitely unconstitutional, and Jefferson admitted that it was (he didn't try to hide it.)
Now, ask yourself the question, "did Jefferson personally benefit from it?" "
Right, you admit it was unconstitutional and Democrats ignore the Constitution when it suits their own purposes.
You ask, "did Jefferson benefit", but our insane Democrats today claim Trump "benefitted" politically by asking for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens -- benefitted personally enough to impeach him!
So, by their own standards, sure, Jefferson benefitted hugely from the Louisiana Purchase, it helped get him reelected.
There's your "crony capitalism", Democrats.
Kalamata: "Did he benefit like the Hamiltonian crony-capitalists have benefitted with their so-called "internal improvement systems," which were as useful to the general welfare as Obama's $10 trillion 'infrastructure" spending."
Now there again is your old Democrat brain hard at work -- nothing specific, just throwing out wild accusations, hoping something might stick.
Kalamata: "No matter, it was still unconstitutional."
Right, Democrats don't care about the Constitution when they're in charge, only when they can pin something on their opponents.
Kalamata: "Aaron Burr was not a secessionist, but an insurrectionist.
Only sovereign states are authorized by the Constitution to secede.
People can stay or leave as they please (so far.)"
Nobody, no institution, is authorized by the Constitution to secede, period.
When Burr threatened to secede, Jefferson had him arrested & tried for treason.
Kalamata: "All of the New England states, plus Delaware, nullified the Embargo Act by labeling it an unconstitutional usurpation of power."
Jefferson never acknowledged New England's "right of nullification" and continued to enforce the Embargo until it was repealed by Congress.
Indeed, if the Embargo was an "unconstitutional usurpation of power", then it demonstrates yet again that Democrats ignore the Constitution when they're in power.
Kalamata: "During the War of 1812, the New England states again defied the federal government by refusing to comply with Madison's request for the militias to enter the forts, and to remain there, in case they were needed for the war."
And at the height of their resistance, Democrat President Madison moved Federal troops off the frontier with Canada into position near New England in case of rebellion.
Kalamata quoting Connecticut: "...the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. "
Kalamata: "Did you notice the part where Connecticut considered itself to be a "free sovereign and independent state"?
Did you read the part where the 10th Amendment was exercised?
The statement reads as if Connecticut was controlled by strict constructionists, like me!
It also appears to be a fact that the Southern States were not the only states that considered theirs to be "sovereign and independent states."
I don't think any Founder considered their new Constitution as nothing more than the old Articles of Confederation, a "confederacy of states".
I think they believed it more like a nation, "we the people", a union.
Kalamata: "It also appears to be a fact that the Southern States were not the only states that considered theirs to be "sovereign and independent states.""
Maybe, but here's the difference -- when New England threatened to secede, Democrat President Madison took military action to prevent it, and when the threat collapsed, it also destroyed New England's Federalist Party.
That lead to effectively a one party nation which lasted until the rise of Jacksonian Democrats and anti-Jackson Whigs.
So threatened secession in 1814 destroyed the old Federalists, but not the 1860 secessionist Democrats
Kalamata on Adams' Quasi-War vs. Jefferson's Barbary War : "How about some details on those two statements, Joey?"
Adams' Quasi-War was approved by Congress and opposed by Francophile Jefferson, especially the part about Aliens & Sedition.
Jefferson's Barbary War was approved by nobody I can find reference to -- he did it strictly on his own authority.
Bottom line: from Day One, Democrats pretended to care a lot about "strict construction" when their opponents were in charge, but ignore the Constitution when they are in charge.