Kalamata:
"Keep in mind that everything Joey writes is deceptive.
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]"
Notice yet again that our Founders understood & supported using protective tariffs to make America great by putting Americans first.
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 first is a matter of interpretation, the facts are not in dispute, Jefferson left town during the debate in Congress.
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. ![]()
>>Kalamata wrote : "They can't help it, they can't stop it, it's just their nature."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "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."
Post roads are constitutionally authorized infrastructure, Joey. Lining the pockets of crony supporters is not. These are the authorized powers of the Federal Government regarding infrastructure:
"Article I, Section 9: The Congress shall have Power To … To establish Post Offices and Post Roads... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." ["Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]
That's it.
*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "It's true that anti-Federalists, anti-Administration Jeffersonian Democrats usually opposed infrastructure projects, until one benefitted them, as the National Road illustrates."
The National Road was built to benefit settlers in the Midwest.
For the record, this was President Jefferson's idea of infrastructure:
"We have an idea of running a path in a direct line from Knoxville to Natchez, believing it would save 200 miles in the carriage of our mail. The consent of the Indians will be necessary, and it will be very important to get individuals among them to take each a white man into partnership, and to establish at every nineteen miles a house of entertainment, and a farm for its support. The profits of this would soon reconcile the Indians to the practice, and extend it, and render the public use of the road as much an object of desire as it is now of fear; and such a horse-path would soon, with their consent, become a wagon-road. I have appointed Isaac Briggs of Maryland, surveyor of the lands south of Tennessee. He is a Quaker, a sound republican, and of a pure and unspotted character. In point of science, in astronomy, geometry and mathematics, he stands in a line with Mr. Ellicot, and second to no man in the United States." [To Governor W. C. C. Claiborne, from Washington, May 24, 1803, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 10." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp.394-395]
So, Jefferson appointed a [gasp!] republican as his surveyer! LOL! Jefferson was a republican, just not a Lincoln republican, which were Whigs in disguise.
*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "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. "
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And still more deception from our Danny-decepticon king. In fact, no political party in Jefferson's time favored "a mobbish, majority-rule democracy."
Not according to this editorialist:
"As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves." [Philip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792, Rule 5]
The National Gazette was a newspaper created by Jefferson and Madison to fight against the tendency of the Hamiltonian Federalists to pick the pockets of the common man. The "mobbish democracy" was in reference to the Hamiltonians.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata wrote: "As usual, Joey oversimplified. He forgot to tell you that Thomas Jefferson continuously opposed a national bank, as did the strict constructionists. "
>>BroJoeK wrote: "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."
Did you ever get the feeling that Joey (or, his handlers) makes stuff up out of thin air? Push him to provide references and see what happens.
Both Jefferson and Madison opposed Hamilton's funny-money banking scheme, and said so in their Newspaper:
"6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.
"7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.
"8. The ways in which a great debt, so constituted and applied, will contribute to the ultimate end in view are both numerous and obvious. (1) The favorite few, thus possessed of it, whether within or without the government, will feel the staunchest fealty to it, and will go through thick and thin to support it in all its oppressions and usurpations. (2) Their money will give them consequence and influence, even among those who have been tricked out of it. (3) They will be the readiest materials that can be found for a hereditary aristocratic order, whenever matters are ripe for one. (4) A great debt will require great taxes; great taxes, many tax-gatherers and other officers; and all officers are auxiliaries of power. (5) Heavy taxes may produce discontents; these may threaten resistance; and in proportion to this danger will be the pretense for a standing army to repel it. (6) A standing army, in its turn, will increase the moral force of the government by means of its appointments, and give it physical force by means of the sword, thus doubly forwarding the main object.
"9. The management of a great funded debt and a extensive system of taxes will afford a plea, not to be neglected, for establishment of a great incorporated bank. The use of such a machine is well understood. If the Constitution, according to its fair meaning, should not authorize it, so much the better. Push it through by a forced meaning and you will get in the bargain an admirable precedent for future misconstructions. In fashioning the bank, remember that it is to be made particularly instrumental in enriching and aggrandizing the elect few, who are to be called in due season to the honors and felicities of the kingdom preparing for them, and who are the pillars that must support it. It will be easy to throw the benefit entirely into their hands, and to make it a solid addition of 50, or 60, or 70 percent to their former capitals of 800 percent, or 900 percent, without costing them a shilling; while it will be difficult to explain to the people that this gain of the few is at the cost of the many, that the contrary may be boldly and safely pretended. The bank will be pregnant with other important advantages. It will admit the same men to be, at the same time, members of the bank and members of the government. The two institutions will thus be soldered together, and each made stronger. Money will be put under the direction of the government, and government under the direction of money. To crown the whole, the bank will have a proper interest in swelling and perpetuating the public debt and public taxes, with all the blessings of both, because its agency and its profits will be extended in exact proportion."
[Freneau, Philip, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]
That is exactly the way the scam works, and it has been working for centuries (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!)
You may not be aware of this, but Henry Clay and Daniel Webster were bank crony-crooks who enriched themselves with proceeds from the banks, in exchange for their support of the banks in the Congress. First, let's hear Henry's undercover legacy, while he was still pretending to be a Jeffersonian republican:
"[Clay's] relations with the [1816] institution were very close anyway. As soon as Congress issued the charter, he pressed for establishment of branch offices in Kentucky. With his encouragement, a group of his friends in Lexington traveled east to persuade [Bank President William] Jones their town ought to have a branch. They were successful, and a few months later Clay's intervention helped Louisville get one, too. "He frequently exerted influence upon appointment of directors at these places. Though usually satisfied with such selections, be once complained that most of his recommended list had been passed over, resulting in a board dominated by Federalists. [Democrat-]Republicans should make up the majority, he thought, with a few Federalists added. The bank should not be "a party institution," as its predecessor had been, he warned. It is difficult to understand how apportioning party distribution on the board to reflect the political character of the state, as he urged, would have kept the BUS [Bank of the United States] out of politics..."
"A significant expansion of credit did not occur until 1823, when the BUS presidency again changed hands. Nicholas Biddle, a scholarly aristocrat, began his long tenure in that position with modest financial experience, only as a director on the main board; but he displayed an amazing ability to operate what amounted to the nation's central bank. At once, he readjusted Cheves's approach to intricate credit and currency problems by a liberalized policy on note issue and exchange, producing badly needed capital for industry at this stage of recovery. Yet he was a cautious, sound-money person fundamentally. Clay and Biddle saw eye to eye on this and other things. The politician and the banker would maintain a satisfying collaboration for many years."
"Clay had another BUS connection, representing it as a lawyer. He had a particular reason for taking on this work: to pay off a heavy debt of about forty thousand dollars, much of it owed to the bank. Retiring from Congress for a term and returning to an extensive legal practice, he became chief counsel for the corporation's litigation in Kentucky and Ohio during the early twenties. He had his hands full, for there were hundreds of cases, mostly debt collections in these depression days. Besides appearing in court himself in a large portion of them, he oversaw other solicitors. His income from this business apparently amounted to what he needed: three thousand dollars a year from the bank as chief counsel; more for appearing in specific cases; and a sizable amount of real estate in Ohio and Kentucky in addition to the cash. Enough, at least, so that when he resigned to become secretary of state in 1825, he was pleased not only with a high rate of favorable judgments but with his compensation." [No kidding! That would be compensation of about a million dollars in today's money!]
[Maurice G. Baxter, "Henry Clay and the American System." University of Kentucky Press, 1995, pp.38-39]
Now, to Daniel's shenanigans, with a little help from another Hamiltonian crook, John Marshall:
"Turning to the question of Maryland's right to tax the bank, [Chief Justice John] Marshall picked up on Webster's argument. "The power to tax involves the power to destroy," he held. If a state can tax the Bank, it can tax other agencies created by the federal government, and that would defeat the ends to which the people had created a government in the first place. Thus the Maryland tax was null and void, and the ruling of the lower court overturned."
"This was such a broad and sweeping interpretation of the powers of the national government that almost nothing seemed beyond federal control and involvement unless specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Many, including Jefferson and Madison, objected to it, and Andrew Jackson later denied that Marshall's decision ended the argument about the Bank's right to exist."
"Webster of course thoroughly approved all of Marshall's arguments. "The opinion in the Bank cause," he remarked to Justice [Joseph] Story, "is universally praised. Indeed I think it admirable. Great things have been done this Session." And Webster shared personally in the glory and benefit from those great things. The BUS [Bank of the United States] was so delighted with his work that its president wrote and congratulated him. "I have been directed by the Directors of the Bank of the United States to present to you their respectful thanks for your very able and successful exertions on the part of the Bank... and ask your acceptance of an additional fee of Fifteen Hundred Dollars which the Cashier of the Office at Boston has been directed to pay."
"Initially the BUS had given Webster a five-hundred-dollar retainer. This additional money helped the young lawyer overcome some of the reservations he had held about the Bank when its charter had been first argued in Congress. Already a stockholder in the Bank, he was to increase his holdings in succeeding years and enjoy an excellent relationship with Nicholas Biddle when that distinguished gentleman assumed the presidency of the BUS in 1823, after [Langdon] Cheves resigned. Webster regularly received a retainer from the Bank following the McCulloch decision and later served on its board of directors. Webster was anxious to return to Boston at the conclusion of the February term. "A month is as long as Washington wears well," he advised Mason. Pleading before the Supreme Court increased his fame, but pleading before the courts in and around Boston swelled his purse, and he always had need to attend to that worthy effort…"
"With the adjournment of Congress in early May, Webster also delayed his departure for home to attend to some legal matters. It meant suffering the heat and humidity that had started to rise in the capital, but he had no choice. He usually argued five cases before the High Court during its February session, although this term he argued seven. He also had business dealings with the Bank of the United States. Nicholas Biddle, the president of the BUS, had engaged him as a consultant and attorney and later arranged his election as a director of the Bank." By 1825 Webster's income had taken a decided climb upward. Even so, his youthful apprehension about money never subsided. He was especially conscious of anyone who might try to take advantage of him. "Several persons have written me to be concerned in their causes," he informed his associate Alexander Bliss, "whom I have referred to you, telling them that I am retained when I am retained. I do not learn whether any of them have deposited the needful." Depositing the "needful" was expected of both the high and low, and more than once he had to remind Nicholas Biddle that his retainer needed to be "renewed or refreshed as usual."
[Robert Vincent Remini, "Daniel Webster: the man and his time." W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, pp.167-168, 261-262]
Now you know how federally-endorsed crony-crooks operate.
Mr. Kalamata