[PsyOp]

Posted in Honor of Waxman trying to throw a "suspected" NRA cameraman out of gun-control hearings. We know that he's unfamiliar with these fine gentlemen and their thoughts.

[rbmillerjr]

bump

[PsyOp]

The next installment has arrived.

[Issaquahking]

Thank you for a great post. Need to read in the morning, to slow in the(head in the) evening to get ALL the fine print. A Patriotic bump!

[Mulder]

Thanks for posting. Bump for later reading.

[Gadsen]

Liberty Bump!

[dheretic]

disclaimer: This is sort of a rant so please don't be offended too much

The federalist papers are one of the most important of the classical LIBERAL writings. They cannot be claimed by modern conservatives because liberalism was a far more dynamic philosophy than conservatism. There are many things that have driven me to be more philosophically in line with John Locke than Pat Buchanan, Robert Bork, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

1. Liberalism is an intellectual philosophy. Here it can go toe to toe with any leftist ideology because it is not "a common man's" philosophy. Liberalism is of the educated man and the enlightened aristocrat (Madison, Jefferson to name a few).
2. Liberalism is more insidious than conservatism. As a political liberal I can use class warfare terminology against leftists to a degree conservatives cannot or at least won't. This confuses leftists to no end. They cannot understand how it is that I can have no respect for the rich as a class but simultaneously deeply support capitalism.
3. Liberalism is a globalist philosophy, always has been and always will be. The important thing to note here is that the goal of liberals never was to stop at liberating the United States from British Imperialism, it was to establish a new world order based on liberal concepts like inalienable rights, social equality between the classes and the eventual abolition of all armed forces around the globe (obviously once this NWO comes into existance).

I often see leftists decrying "neo-liberalism." So here is how I shall sum it up:

"A spectre haunting the Earth, the spectre of liberalism. Even now the police states of the Earth mobilize their forces to exorcise this sectre: billionaire aristocrat and anti-globalization protester, Western Parliamentarian and Chinese Politiburo Official, Radical Muslim and Communist Philosopher."

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as too liberal by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of seeking too much freedom for the citizenry, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

The powers of the old order acknowledge liberalism to be a force of nature unto itself

It is high time that the liberals should infilitrate every corrupt social institution and undermine them for the public good, to corrupt any government official that must be corrupted in order to advance the cause of individual freedom and to do whatever it takes to bring about a new world order based on universal freedom rooted in the acknowledgement of inalienable rights

[apochromat]

When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. - Hamilton, Federalist #71.

A government resting on a minority is an aristocracy, not a republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. - Madison, Federalist #46.

Tree falling, some day, unless they suspend it with wires.

[ThePythonicCow]

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the offices, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity, not easy to be resisted by such a man, to make the best use of opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted; and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory.

hmmm ... didn't we recently observe this phenomenon?

[Pyro7480]

Great collection! I saw your Aristotle collection yesterday. Did you compile this through your readings, or did you have some kind of aide. Either way, many thanks for this great resource!

[agitator]

The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. - Madison, Federalist #47.

And exactly what is an administrative agency? To use an example everyone is familiar with, take the Dept. of Motor Vehicles (or whatever they call it where you are.) The administrative head of that agency is vested with police powers (look it up) so he's the executive. He's vested with lawmaking power (look it up) so he's legislates. He also conducts adjudicatory hearings & any court hearing alleged violations of the motor vehicle code is merely acting as his agent - so he's also the judiciary.

The state legislatures created his office, not the people by and through their Constitutions so these ___holes effectively self-appointed a King of Movement.

Now, is it possible that the framers would have ok'd a government where the powers of the three branches of government were accumulated in 50 different Kings (administrative agencies) ruling from on high at the state and federal capitols?

Is it possible that any of that bull____ administrative law actually applies to you unless these <expletive deleted> admit that they've committed treason and overthrown our government?