State of the Union: In jeopardy

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Tuesday, January 20, 2004 | editorial

[Willie Green]

"The message of the president, by whatever motives it may have been dictated, is a performance which ought to alarm all who are anxious for the safety of our government, for the respectability and welfare of our nation. It makes, or aims at making, a most prodigal sacrifice of constitutional energy, of sound principle, and of public interest, to the popularity of one man."

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hamilton, after 1773, was never a Monarchist. So that is just a flat out LIE. Nor do his comments at the CC indicate such. In fact, you cannot post even ONE SINGLE word of his indicating he was a monarchist outside the debates wherein he initially took the Kings side immediately after landing from St. Croix. That rapidly changed to supporting the movement for independence. From the first published writings at Kings College he skyrocketed into the first rank of American propagandists. Jefferson published almost nothing in the press while Hamilton wrote hundreds of articles explaining and educating the citizenry under dozens of pennames he fought to strength the Nation for 30 yrs. He spent the last 29 yrs of his life fighting monarchy and attempting to establish a LASTING republic. One Jefferson was ready to tear down every 20 yrs.

While Hamilton was at Washington's side through the blood, misery and horrors of battle, Jefferson, was fleeing the British; drinking champaigne with English floosies, or flapping his gums.

While Hamilton was fighting a desperate battle against the French flood of radicalism and terror supporting the democrat-republicans, Jefferson was proudly declaring his willingness to aid and abet the Jacobins and the Reign of Terror. While Hamilton was desperately trying to free Lafayette from these lunatics, Jefferson was defending the actions of his captors justifying their murders by saying that their cause was so important that if only one Adam and one Eve were left alive it would be worth it.

Jefferson's response to the Pirates was only possible because the efforts of his followers (with his enthusiastic support) in Congress failed to prevent ENTIRELY the Adams administration's determination to build a Navy. Their anti-patriotic efforts are entirely consistent with the DemocRAT policys and utterly contrary to the policies of Hamilton and modern Republicans. Being a military ignoramous J.'s true ideals were to have only a Navy made up of small gunboats. In addition, he believed we should not even have an American merchant marine fearing it would lead to foreign entanglements. Such fear and misunderstanding of the role of the military is totally un-Republican and completely DemocRAT.

Your aside about the "civilized world" and piracy indicates complete ignorance about that problem since it re-emerged with such virulence against American shipping precisely because the "civilized world" (the British Navy and the French) refused to continue to protect American shipping in the Mediterranean.

Nor does your attempt to distort the role of tax cuts show any honesty or understanding of his motivation. Under Jefferson their effects were to weaken the military since there was little else the federal government spent money on unlike those of John Kennedy. This is consistent with his modern RAT followers and totally INconsistent with Hamilton or the modern GOP. You will never hear the GOP today call for tax cuts IF they would jeopardize the National Defense. Jefferson consciously and happily did so. Your attempted deception by dragging in the name of Ronald Reagan cannot hide the FACT that Reagan would have never called for such cuts either.

His demagogery against the "complications" of the federal government are laughable to any who actually understand the history of that era. That government was TINY and dwarfed by several STATE governments. His anti-Nationalism (very democRATic) worked so well that our military was essentially destroyed under him and his successor so much so that the Brits WERE ABLE TO BURN THE CAPITAL during the War of 1812 because our army had been reduced to less than 5,000 men. Sounds like a true democRAT to me. Hamilton wanted to increase its size.

Sales of federal lands in 1800 was not a political issue and all agreed on it. Nor were they under the first Republican president, Abe Lincoln. I have seen no GOP proposals for land sales where did you?

Because of his mystical delusions about the nobility of agriculture Jefferson did all he could to suppress and restrict the development of a modern capitalist economy (like democRATS believing it evil) while Hamilton laid in place the governmental infrastructure which sped up its development. Jefferson wanted to keep the world as it was in 1800 ( democRAT nostalgia) while Hamilton's vision looked forward to a modern industrial nation which would span the Continent. A vision totally in sync with that of the GOP. Hamilton fought to END slavery (like the GOP) Jefferson perpetuated it through benign neglect and meaningless lips service in opposition. By intervening against the slave revolt in Domingo Jefferson showed his true colors and just how much freedom really meant to him. His attempt to aid the French and starve out the rebels is the truest statement of his committement to Human freedom not a few sentences of nice SOUNDING rhetoric. A complete democRAT in his thorough-going duplicity and hypocrisy.

Hamilton was opposed to the A and S Acts. They just handed the Republicans a campaign issue to demagogue over and they did just that while continuing to support (and USE) FAR MORE REPRESSIVE state laws which were directed against the same actions by federalist editors. Jefferson was a total hypocrite on this issue as on most. Nor were the acts ever "unconstitutional" except in the minds of those who do not care how such an act would ever be declared such.

Jefferson cannot be declared to have had more concern for the Constitution that Hamilton in ANY respect. Only those with a total contempt for the truth could make such a preposterous claim. His authorship of or support for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions clearly show he had little concern (or no understanding of) for the Constitution. On the other hand Hamilton not only was one of the prime movers to call for a new constitution but explained its meaning better than any other man. Its adoption was the most important goal of his life for the decade of the 1780s. His understanding of it was so great that John Marshall declared it paramount to any other man. Had Jefferson been in country he likely would have opposed its ratification.

It is easy to mistake Jefferson's words for an intent to act. If his words were to be taken at face value Jefferson's role in the history of this nation is completely distorted. Only by examining his actual actions can it be clearly seen. That examination does not produce a pretty picture.

[inquest]

Essentially the Federalist program should have been followed, the program of Washington/Hamilton.

Including the national bank? Was there truth to the allegations that members of Congress were improperly reaping personal benefits from that project?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Especially the National Bank. Such charges sound like the false and malicious lies which the Jeffersonians fed their ignorant followers. Investors in the Bank stock did make money but it was entirely legitimate. Since the major economic problem facing the nation then was lack of a money supply (due to chronic specie shortages due to balance of payment deficits with England mainly) such an institution was necessary to aliviate it and allow quicker growth. The financial knowledge of the Jeffersonians was abysmal in the extreme; a bigger group of ignorami could not even be found among the RATS of today. Even Madison was clueless.

Using his surrogates and puppets in Congress Jefferson tried to impeach Hamilton when he was SecTreasury. In proving his innocence from such surrillous lies Hamilton had to resort to his almost superhuman ability to rapidly produce enormous reports documenting his probity. His enemies tactics remind me of those of the current RATS against Bush. Their use of a willing media to smear and attempt to destroy one of our most honorable and important Founders (second only to Washington in importance) is exactly like the use the RATmedia is put to today to undermine the GOP and prop up the RAT liars.

[Who is John Galt?]

Hamilton, after 1773, was never a Monarchist. So that is just a flat out LIE.

LOL! I never stated that Mr. Hamilton was "a Monarchist" before or after "1773," 'so that is just a flat out STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.' In fact, I noted that Mr. Hamilton may have been "someone with monarchist 'tendencies.'" I refer you (once again ;>) to the facts – the records of the constitutional convention. Mr. Hamilton observed that:

In his private opinion he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he was by the opinions of so many of the wise & good, that the British Govt. was the best in the world: and that he doubted much whether any thing short of it would do in America...

[The British] house of Lords is a most noble institution. Having nothing to hope for by a change, and a sufficient interest by means of their property, in being faithful to the national interest, they form a permanent barrier agst. every pernicious innovation, whether attempted on the part of the Crown or of the Commons. No temporary Senate will have firmness eno' to answer the purpose…

As to the Executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good one could be established on Republican principles…The English model was the only good one on this subject. The Hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the Nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad-and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controuled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home…

Let one branch of the Legislature hold their places for life or at least during good behaviour. Let the Executive also be for life… An Executive for life… [will] be a safer depository of power. It will be objected probably, that such an Executive will be an elective Monarch, and will give birth to the tumults which characterize that form of Govt. He wd. reply that Monarch is an indefinite term…

James Madison, The Debates in the Federal Convention, June 18, 1787

Will you insist that a chief executive serving for life bears no resemblance to the British monarchy? Hmm? That a senate who’s members serve for life bears no resemblance to the House of Lords? Or will you suggest that Mr. Hamilton was lying when he declared his admiration for the British Crown, the House of Lords, and the British model of government in toto? (I do enjoy quoting the records of the convention to you Hamilton groupies! ;>) Perhaps you will insist that James Madison was lying? Or will you simply put on your orange stocking cap, and lapse into your own ‘text version’ of Howard Dean’s post-caucus speech? (‘Hamilton didn’t have monarchist tendencies! Aaaaaaaaaarrgghh!!!’ ;>)

As for Mr. Jefferson, you insisted that he had “nothing in common with Republicans” (see Post #93 ;>). Referring only to the document in question (Mr. Jefferson’s First Annual Address), I repeatedly proved you wrong, with regard to “tax cuts, spending cuts, limited constitutional government, free enterprise – and a military response to the piratical actions of foreign governments.” In response, you offer straw man arguments, unsubstantiated opinions, and irrelevancies. Amusing as always!

What I find most entertaining is this: even if someone were to accept every one of your ridiculous arguments (an unlikely event, except for the mentally challenged ;>), you would still be proven wrong on the “free…individual enterprise” issue alone. Bottom line: you made an absolute statement (“Jefferson was a radical with nothing in common with Republicans” ;>) that was both idiotic and unsustainable.

(Nothing new for you, of course: it reminds me of your claim that a D@mocrat Congress could constitutionally appoint Hillary Clinton Queen of the United States... ;>)

By the way, you repeatedly imply that promoting a strong military is the most important requirement for favorably comparing someone “with Republicans.” On that arbitrary and doubtful basis alone, you discount Mr. Jefferson’s call for tax cuts, spending cuts, efforts to limit the size of government, and even his military response to foreign terrorism (all of which are aspects of modern Republican philosophy). Under your lunatic ‘single standard,’ the author of the Declaration of Independence apparently has “nothing in common with Republicans”- but Adolf Hitler most certainly does.

I must ask: what planet are you from? DUtopia or Moveon.orbit?

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Great link to a true republican presidents words.. Thanks.

Thank you!

;>)

[tpaine]

I must ask: what planet are you from? DUtopia or Moveon.orbit?

_____________________________________

I think our boy may be from the Duperville section of Chicago..

[inquest]

Since the major economic problem facing the nation then was lack of a money supply (due to chronic specie shortages due to balance of payment deficits with England mainly) such an institution was necessary to aliviate it and allow quicker growth.

You may have to forgive my own lack of financial knowledge, but why couldn't the tight money supply have been alleviated by simply coining baser metals?

[CWOJackson]

Just for her votes...nothing more.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There were very few sources of gold and silver which were discovered and being worked in any magnitude. If you review the lives of our founders they lived on credit generally from the British and Scottish banks.

Jefferson and most of the southern gentry, in essence, ran the plantations for these banks which financed their operations. Since it was difficult to pay the interest charges and still make a profit often their debt just increased from year to year. This accounts for a great deal of Jefferson's hatred and fear of banks particularly those from the United Kingdom. His difficulties became insoluble principlely because of inheriting his wife's estate which was irretrivably encumbered by debt.

Only later in the 1800s did the major gold mines start to provide sufficient bullion for an expanding economy. For the first third at least of that century our development was only possible because of British financing. After the basic industries were built and the need for imports lessened while demand for export increased, our capital was no longer drained away to Europe.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you have to ask you can't be trusted to know.

[tpaine]

Who is John Galt? wrote:
I must ask: what planet are you from?
DUtopia or Moveon.orbit?


____________________________________


I think our boy may be from the Dupeville section of Chicago..
106 tpaine

---

If you have to ask you can't be trusted to know.
-jsuati-

---

Typically, you're to confused to ask anything.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Still a falsehood and grasping at straws. Hamilton had no desire to create a King. His admiration of the British government was because of its separation of power between executive and legislative and within the legislative itself thereby reducing the chances for tyrannical government. Which he feared from the legislative above all.

He had no tendencies toward monarchism or aristocracy those were rank lies spread by the Jefferson/Callender/Bache/Beckley stream of protoRAT scum. And parroted by moderns who wish to blacken Hamilton's name with malicious falsehoods.

His analysis of what was obviously the best government around and desire to use portions of it which could be used here did not mean he had "monarchist tendencies." It meant he was smart. Only PART of the government of England was monarchist in any respect. Why don't you quote the statements where he specified that a monarch would not be appropriate or desirable for America?

Nor did his speculation about the need for longer executive terms mean he had monarchist tendencies. He even acknowledged the attacks of his enemies would be that is was.

He saw his desire for a strong government with balanced powers come true when the Constitution created three branches with the Senate role emulating that of the House of Lords. They were to serve the permanent national interest and be outside democratic control.

"Resemblence" to monarchy? LoL. Sure a King resembles a President and Washington resembled a King more than George the III did. Even you won't deny that Hamilton wanted a federal government which was STRONGER than a monarchy.

There was no "admiration for the Crown" expressed. The House of Lords is not a monarchical institution, it is Aristocratic but serves a larger role than just the voice of the aristocracy as Hamilton specifies in your own quote. He explains their virtues as counterbalances to each other right there.

Tax cuts are not uniquely Republican so you offer a false analogy wrt J's cuts. It was the reason behind the cuts which cause them to be different than the GOP's. But the anti-military stance of Jefferson and refusal to acknowledge the dangers from French influece are the clearest example of his dissimilarity from the GOP. There is no creditible argument that Jefferson's party was more like the GOP than the Federalist just the attitude towards slavery alone refutes any attempt.

Since any appointment of Queen Hillary would run afoul of the Constitution and the Court would say so immediately that little red herring has no bearing on anything other than the immediate context it was within. It is like using a quote within a quote within a quote and never specifying just who was saying what and why.

I don't equate the GOP with militarists as you falsely imply, the equation is GOP strong national security. Nor is a strong national security concern the equivalent to an aggressive policy of conquest like Hitler so don't even try with that.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no profit for me in asking Sobran anything. Confusion does seem to envelop those who think he can help them.

[tpaine]

You're writing as if you were wired or drunk.
At such times you should just shut up..

[CMAC51]

Not to different than the process Bush used in Texas where in 6 years he transformed a Democrat state into one where every, repeat EVERY, statewide elected office is Republican. The Republicans have just completed redistricting and their US congressional representation will grow by about 30 or 40% in the next election.

Oh, and for the Bush is a dummy crowd, he did it without Cheney.

[CMAC51]

The dims will take a one vote victory, and turn it into a mandate for all things liberal.(including Judges)

Hear Hear on the judges, the critical issue that most want to ignore when they go off on a rant.

[CMAC51]

Most people in this country, in the GOP, and yes, even among active posters in this forum oppose the Bush Amnesty.

That is part of the brilliance for bringing it up before the SOTU. The raw emotional reaction will pound itself out while the Dims are busy campaigning against each other. By the time the real inter party campaign starts, thoughtful people will have had a lot of time to hash things out and the GOP position during the campaign will end up rather workable. Meanwhile the candidates in key Senate races can work to position themselves for their local constituency.

The end result will be the GOP benefiting pretty much across the board. That is the beauty of of the situation with a popular incumbent running and a late convention. To most voters, Bush's campaign position on issues will be what he comes out of the convention with.

[CMAC51]

If it's looking like Bush is going to win by a landslide --- then why can't he keep with principles and not worry about Base Plus the far left?

The Senate my friend. Actually, more imprtantly, judges

[CMAC51]

You did NOT answer my first question: where are the Chinese peasants going to get all the firepower necessary to pull off a 'revolution'?

"Sissy protests" are much more "manly" if accompanied by the sound of AK-47's. So---tell us, eski

Perhaps in the same place the soviet peasants got thiers when the USSR fell.

[CMAC51]

Because he is the idiot that the media has portrayed him to be. He has no concept of how to lead and hold a party together. He does not understand that when 75% of society is against a proposal, chances are it is outright stupid.

Or perhaps he is just smart enough to figure out that although 75% may be opposed to his position, if half are on one side of it and half on the other side, the middle aint a bad place to be.