Jefferson, on the other hand, hated the military and did all he could to cripple it until the Moslems forced his hand and, after spending his entire political life sabotaging W's and H's attempts to build a strong military, turned to it to salvage the national honor from Islamic terror.
Neither W nor H were “monarchists” both spent decades fighting for this nation's independence from kings. The reason we have a republican constitution is as much due to Hamilton as any man, if not more. His desire for a strong executive at the government head was twisted to stand for wanting monarchy. It is a contemptible lie perpetrated by Jefferson's press dogs. Nor can you find one line written by H suggesting a monarchy. The best evidence supporting this miserable lie is his idea that the president would function like a monarch as the symbol of national unity and the head of state. This outrageous lie surfaced early in his career and he tracked it down to the source and forced a retraction of it.
Fortunately this nation was first led by W and H and they implemented the latter’s brilliant policies which laid the ground work for the wealth which then flowed into the nation and the power it created. Our nation would not have survived had Jefferson been the president with his utterly unrealistic ideas of the role of government, the military, foreign policy and what the constitution meant. Part of the deal which J made with H to attain the presidency in 1800 was that the financial system would be retained and the military would not be reduced. Of course, this was a major factor leading to H's death at the hands of that prototypical democrat politician Aaron Burr whose crooked ways produced the J/B win in the 1800 election. Jefferson remembered Burr's attempt to seize the presidency and, J being the most vindictive and vengeful of men, did not allow the law or justice to stand in the way of trying to destroy his vice president after replacing him in 1804. It couldn't have been more well deserved.
Modern minds like Hamilton's, and he was entirely modern, understood that our wealth and power was dependent upon the full development of industrial capitalism. Jefferson, on the other hand, was a dreamer and a dilettante with no significant writing to his name in contrast to the thousands of pages of political writing from Hamilton. J's economic and financial understanding was limited to wandering around in his dirty robe muttering maledictions upon "banks". H. understood that banks are critical to the most efficient operation of capitalism. The only area wherein J surpassed H was as a furniture maker. And, no, the Republican party of the 1860s was not the democrat party of the day. It was devoted to capitalism and free enterprise and most of all it was devoted to America and believed it needed a strong military to protect it in a hostile world. Nor is your explanation of the RAT Rebellion's origins anywhere close to truth. Even if the war was brought by the North as you theorize, the Slavers had to be dumb as a box of rocks to START the thing. Of course, there is no doubt that the North did not want a war and did everything it could to avoid having to confront the lunatics until its hand was forced by attacks on federal facilities. War was so far from the North's mind that the Union's military was tiny and completely unprepared for such an eventuality. Your amateur psychoanalysis of my motives and actions is limited by your extreme ignorance of my life and experiences hence knowledge is replaced by fantasy and fevered imaginings but thanks for trying.
Excuse me professor, but methinks you doth protest too much, couched in arrogance borne of repeated mantra. Virginia vs. Hamilton... something yankees don’t understand. Hamilton was a bastard, an outsider. But I’m done with this- I work for an honest living. Enjoy your own fantasy. We’ll still be here long after the oligarchs and RINOs who “say” they are conservatives who love Lincoln are gone. Here’s another net result of this tyrannical progressivism and Union statism, and while you’re reading it try to juxtapose this with our “dialogue” on Lincoln, the anti-slavery tactic and the WBTS. It quotes your “hated” DiLorenzo (that is, people who know something of real history):
Liberal Bipolarity
American Thinker ^ | July 17, 2010 | Keith Riler
Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2010 10:10:11 AM by neverdem
We live in a temporary moment of liberal bipolarity, in which Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting progressivism has run smack into Barack Obama’s too-big-to-fail statism. Truthfully, the liberal vote has been cast for statist corporatism, and only the odd, dim, and sentimental liberal still thinks he supports the little guy.
This bipolarity, then, is in form only, not substance. What remains is a marketing ploy that falsely suggests support for the underdog, the undercapitalized, and the up-and-comer. The ruse is dishonest, but, as Ernest Sternberg wrote, today’s liberals have “proven their remarkable imperviousness to self-reflection.”
Modern liberalism entrenches the mega-corporate. The economics of costs and scale make this so. Any incremental regulation or tax increases the fixed costs of the target industry. The bigger the company, the more units of production over which those new fixed costs can be spread, the less per unit price impact. Although all companies’ costs may increase, the biggest company can pass these on and crush smaller competitors through price competition. As taxing and regulating liberals succeed, consumers will suffer an increasing cost of living, and smaller businesses will disappear.
For proof, look no farther than Walmart’s support of ObamaCare. Why would Walmart favor adding health care costs? Given Walmart’s duty to its shareholders, altruism is not the answer. Walmart supported ObamaCare because greater across-the-board health care costs disadvantage smaller competitors, magnify Walmart’s price advantage, and increase its market share.
More proof is in the disparate impact of tobacco legislation. Phillip Morris was a supporter of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Ted Kennedy disingenuously claimed Washington had “finally said ‘no’ to Big Tobacco.” Through this legislation, Phillip Morris saddled smaller competitors with extra costs, regulation, and limitations on promotions. Kennedy really said “no” to competition for Big Tobacco.
The post-November 2008 liberal knows that Teddy Roosevelt-style company-busting is inefficient when the same company may be appropriated as a vehicle for his anti-human, enviro-pagan, socialist, plaintiff attorney, labor platform, and favor bank. So the tactic has evolved, with big corporate management offering assets to the administration in exchange for entrenchment. If not for property rights, the personhood of shareholders, that stealing is wrong, and it being a deal with the devil, this corporate “co-opting” might make sense. Also inconvenient is that such corporatism was embraced by National Socialists.
So far, the administration’s hunt for big corporate game has been accomplished two ways — outright theft and the imposition of a public utility model. In Chrysler/GM, theft was the route. Centuries of contract law and payment priorities were upturned to bequeath big auto to the administration’s labor operatives.
With ObamaCare, the regulated utility model did the trick. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid decreed that insurance profits would be federally regulated, certain spending mandated, and minimum policy standards established. In other words, health insurance pricing, profits, and products are now determined by government, just like any other cost-plus public utility.
There is little difference between one government-run company (Chrysler/GM) and companies whose pricing, profits, and products are determined by government (health insurance). The theft and regulated utility models produce the same result.
BP will be interesting. The regulated utility tact is underway via voluminous regulations, fees, and taxes on the offshore industry. Morgan Stanley wonders what companies will be “big enough to drill.” In rare candor, the Obama administration’s Carol Browner echoed that sentiment, saying “smaller firms might no longer be able to drill in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of legislation moving through Congress[.]” Morgan Stanley[1] predicts:
We foresee more exploration consolidated into the hands of fewer players. ...We believe small players (sub-$10 billion market cap) will exit ... and Super Majors will be consolidators. ... As a group, the large cap names (ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) could well emerge as victors[.]
The Houston Chronicle agrees:
The irony is that in an attempt to make things safer, Congress may create an oligopoly in the Gulf. In doing so, it would reward one of the companies at the center of the current crisis at the expense of those that had nothing to do with it.
There’s more. If, as Alpha magazine says, a BP bankruptcy is unavoidable, then we should expect a second step. In the event of bankruptcy, the trap has been laid for a BP asset theft that will be much cleaner than the GM/Chrysler conversions.
In a BP bankruptcy, various parties will seek payment assurance — contractors cleaning up the Gulf, municipalities/states, and claims in excess of the established fund. Given these claims, another too-big-to-fail moment will be irresistible for Obama. The administration will almost certainly guaranty these obligations in exchange for ownership of BP assets.
Such a nationalization can happen without any of the rule-of-law flack experienced in the auto takeovers because a mechanism was established with the creation of the $20-billion fund, to which BP pledged its oil and gas properties as collateral. Should the Obama regime step up in a BP bankruptcy with a guaranty, the liens are already in place to effect a foreclosure of BP assets, thus circumventing any criticism about payment priority. Maxine Waters will be proud.
The Obama/BP two-step is clearly about using BP assets to fund the enviro-religious shutdown of drilling, fishing, and shrimping; a font of plaintiff attorney contingency fees; and the nationalization of an oil company on the backs of Louisiana and its formerly employed residents, who will be transferred to a dignity-crushing public dole. In this scheme, Louisiana’s people are simply a necessary sacrifice, and we already see Obama’s disregard for these people in his obstruction of boats, berms, and skimmers.
Thomas DiLorenzo says this liberal corporatism shares much with National Socialism:
Government-business “partnerships” were a hallmark of both Italian and German fascism. As Ayn Rand once noted, however, in such “partnerships” government is always the “senior partner.” Government-business “collaboration” was supposedly needed in fascist Italy, explained Fausto Pitigliani in his 1934 book, The Italian Corporatist State, because “the principle of private initiative could only be useful in the service of the national interest.” It is this “service of the national interest” that is the intended work of the newly appointed “Car Czar” in the Obama administration (along with twenty or so other “czars” so far). It is inevitable that the end product will be the world’s worst cars, endless subsidies and bailouts, and mind-boggling debt piled onto the backs of the taxpayers.
Horrified liberals will howl on cue that they’re not anti-Semites. That may or may not be true and is an interesting question, but it is insufficient to disqualify the comparison because both movements vilify the middleman trader and banker classes. The early version associated the profitable middleman with Judaism; the modern version explicitly does not. Nonetheless, both movements demonize a class of people.
Antipathy to some “other” is common in utopian schemes like liberalism and National Socialism, because such worldly schemes lack a positive eternal rationale (unlike our country’s founding) and thus often require the motivation of someone to hate. Modern liberals don’t appear to be race-based homicidal maniacs, but scapegoating fits well with their fondness for class envy.
It is time for disingenuous, sentimental liberals to ditch the act. Actions speak louder than words, and modern liberalism is the enemy of the small guy. In that regard, it shares more with individual-crushing regimes like National Socialism than is generally advertised.