President Vs. Tyrant
A few days ago, @RealDLHughley tweeted the following:
"I feel bad 4 Prsdnt Obama 2wars,the economy,an oil spill,Haiti,Japan,Earthquakes in DC,Hurricane Irene!!What is this Deep Impact 2?#TeamDl"
I responded:
"They're only his problems because he wants them to be his problems. President's don't worry about that, Tyrants do. #Liberty"
He didn't understand what I meant. To do so, one must understand what Liberty is (which is why I hash tagged it). From what I understand, Mr. Hughley is kind of a Ron Paul fan. I've come to realize that people who kind of get what Ron Paul stands for are only because they don't have a full comprehension of why he stands on his platform. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of either experience (what began it for me) and reading. Fear and dependency create a strong central government, and this is how our President is becoming (some would say "has become") a Tyrant.
"Indefinite detention without charges or a right to counsel is now an established precedent for anyone in the world, including an American citizen, declared 'an enemy combatant' by a single U.S. official. It has been acknowledged by the Obama Administration that the current policy permits the assassination of any suspect anywhere in the world, including an American citizen." (I added bold for emphasis) Excerpt from Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul, and I suggest looking at Glenn Greenwald's article "Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen." referenced in the book.
From my readings, I always thought President Lincoln was the great ursurper of power to the current presidency. He did, after all, go to war with the Confederacy without seeking a declaration of war from Congress among many other atrocious deeds. I then read 33 Questions about American History You're Not Suppose to Ask by Dr. Thomas E. Woods. Under the question "Who is most responsible for the 'Imperial Presidency?'" he explains how it was Theodore Roosevelt most responsible for taking a lot of power to the presidency. "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to writ from a judge, or anything else excepting my commands," he told General John M. Schofield during the United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ready to take the mines with the Army. Woods also explains the Executive Order governing style gained traction under T. Roosevelt:
"To appreciate the transformation that occurred in American Government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by the presidents of the late nineteenth century. President Hayes and Garfield issued none. Arthur issued 3, Grover Cleveland (first term) 6, Benjamin Harrison 4, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued 1,006."
Both T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both shared the opinion that with the election of the president, the people entrusted the president with all the power to do whatever was necessary and best for the nation.
Two Wars: War has never been declared. The President can say "We're bringing back the troops now" if he wanted to.
Deploying troops or personnel with intent to cause disruption or death are acts of war (troops on land, air strikes, naval blockades, CIA insertions, etc of which we do all the time). This is an extremely dangerous power, which is why the Constitution claims this power to Congress. No one man should be responsible for creating war. Congress, in all their chicken hawk cowardice, hasn't declared a war since World War 2. Why not? The current "9/11 National Emergency" essentially handed the power to the president to do whatever he wants in the name of stopping terrorism. I realize we can't declare war on terrorism. I realize this because it will literally be around as long as humans exist. I also realize that if we stayed out of people's business, we probably wouldn't have to worry about terrorism on nearly the scale we do today. When I got out of the army, they called me and about 70 others back (thousands of others have been recalled) into the army to deploy to the Middle East, and there was absolutely no use for the 70 of us.
I wrote a letter to the president (and many more to Congress) with my concerns about how the waste of recalling troops and what we are doing over there. His team and everyone else's teams response essentially were "Terrorism is real, we need to fight it at all costs, thanks for going to war for us!" Not to even mention the fact that there is compensation for stop-lossed soldiers, but none for recalled soldiers because there isn't enough money.
Preemptive war is no excuse, either. "Preemptive" is just a pretty word for "aggressive."
As long as we talk about war like it's the weather, the power to create it will ultimately stay with the one who wants it. With war, you are literally asking people to go die for you, but we act as though that isn't a big deal. As long as it isn't the one asking to go die isn't the one going to die, I guess it isn't a big deal.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It is the same in every country." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials
The Economy: Under our current system of economics, when would it be easier to control the economy...when we are fighting numerous wars or when we are not? As long as we have presidents who want war, we'll get war (I can't think of any president, in modern history, who didn't want war and didn't pursue it other than because Congress said no, except maybe the Lebanon incident under Reagan). Of course they'll teach you that war is great for economy, which is proven now. Thomas DiLorenzo explains the "Broken Window" thought on economics, and how "war propserity" isn't really prosperity in this video.
If we had Capitalism, the government wouldn't need to worry about the economy. Why politicians think they're economists blows my mind (why politicians think they're experts on everything blows my mind). The Austrian School of Economics' followers have predicted almost every recession/financial crisis we've had since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax, but Congress or the President won't take a second look at it. Why? It would require that they relinquish power, and we certainly can't have that.
We will never have Capitalism as long as the government spends like it does and steals our money (income tax is legal plunder). Keynesianism is our accepted form of economics. It gives that power to the government.
Honestly, the only point I feel I really have to make here is with The American Investment and Recovery Act and the fact that THEY USED MONEY TO MAKE SIGNS! That is the most counter productive and egotistical piece of work I may have ever seen. Should we repair a school? Should we repair a bridge? Should we update the water treatment plant? No! Let's make a $10,000 sign! And that sign is going to say we're spending money to create jobs that will only be good for this one time!
Suggested reading: Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by Thomas Woods, The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, www.mises.org, End the Fed by Ron Paul
The Oil Spill: I don't really have an argument here. I don't know enough of what happened or what the president did.
Natural Disasters: I saw on TV today FEMA was holding a conference explaining what a hurricane is and what to do if one is coming (yup, tax dollars so hard at work and being used wisely). The President should literally have to do nothing for them. They have government programs (unfortunately) "in place" to handle natural disasters.
The American people, time and time and time and time again and again and again, have proven to be a very caring and giving bunch. In times of need, we fork over loads of money and even some volunteer to help out. Not even just with the U.S., but all around the world. If the government stopped its ridiculous foreign aid policies (let's give money to our friends AND enemies!), we'd have a lot more money to deal with natural disasters as well.
With the president and Congress obtaining the power and income tax he has over the last century or so, people have become dependent on them. Instead of picking up a shovel or a trash bag, most people first turn to the government for help. We don't need the government to do anything for us, but we are convinced we do. Of course the President should be concerned with natural disasters, but the responsibility for them shouldn't fall anywhere near him.
Long winded, as I always am, but I'm stopping now, lol. Hopefully something was learned here. I will end with two things: read Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul. It's pretty base on information, but it is a great launch platform on topics. And to watch this video that Fox News shockingly aired on 8/28/2011. Ron Paul gives how he would take power out of the presidency in almost every thing I covererd in this blog.
"I feel bad 4 Prsdnt Obama 2wars,the economy,an oil spill,Haiti,Japan,Earthquakes in DC,Hurricane Irene!!What is this Deep Impact 2?#TeamDl"
I responded:
"They're only his problems because he wants them to be his problems. President's don't worry about that, Tyrants do. #Liberty"
He didn't understand what I meant. To do so, one must understand what Liberty is (which is why I hash tagged it). From what I understand, Mr. Hughley is kind of a Ron Paul fan. I've come to realize that people who kind of get what Ron Paul stands for are only because they don't have a full comprehension of why he stands on his platform. Unfortunately, this comes at the cost of either experience (what began it for me) and reading. Fear and dependency create a strong central government, and this is how our President is becoming (some would say "has become") a Tyrant.
"Indefinite detention without charges or a right to counsel is now an established precedent for anyone in the world, including an American citizen, declared 'an enemy combatant' by a single U.S. official. It has been acknowledged by the Obama Administration that the current policy permits the assassination of any suspect anywhere in the world, including an American citizen." (I added bold for emphasis) Excerpt from Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul, and I suggest looking at Glenn Greenwald's article "Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen." referenced in the book.
From my readings, I always thought President Lincoln was the great ursurper of power to the current presidency. He did, after all, go to war with the Confederacy without seeking a declaration of war from Congress among many other atrocious deeds. I then read 33 Questions about American History You're Not Suppose to Ask by Dr. Thomas E. Woods. Under the question "Who is most responsible for the 'Imperial Presidency?'" he explains how it was Theodore Roosevelt most responsible for taking a lot of power to the presidency. "I bid you pay no heed to any other authority, no heed to writ from a judge, or anything else excepting my commands," he told General John M. Schofield during the United Mine Workers strike in 1902, ready to take the mines with the Army. Woods also explains the Executive Order governing style gained traction under T. Roosevelt:
"To appreciate the transformation that occurred in American Government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by the presidents of the late nineteenth century. President Hayes and Garfield issued none. Arthur issued 3, Grover Cleveland (first term) 6, Benjamin Harrison 4, Cleveland (second term) 71, and McKinley 51. TR issued 1,006."
Both T. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both shared the opinion that with the election of the president, the people entrusted the president with all the power to do whatever was necessary and best for the nation.
Two Wars: War has never been declared. The President can say "We're bringing back the troops now" if he wanted to.
Deploying troops or personnel with intent to cause disruption or death are acts of war (troops on land, air strikes, naval blockades, CIA insertions, etc of which we do all the time). This is an extremely dangerous power, which is why the Constitution claims this power to Congress. No one man should be responsible for creating war. Congress, in all their chicken hawk cowardice, hasn't declared a war since World War 2. Why not? The current "9/11 National Emergency" essentially handed the power to the president to do whatever he wants in the name of stopping terrorism. I realize we can't declare war on terrorism. I realize this because it will literally be around as long as humans exist. I also realize that if we stayed out of people's business, we probably wouldn't have to worry about terrorism on nearly the scale we do today. When I got out of the army, they called me and about 70 others back (thousands of others have been recalled) into the army to deploy to the Middle East, and there was absolutely no use for the 70 of us.
I wrote a letter to the president (and many more to Congress) with my concerns about how the waste of recalling troops and what we are doing over there. His team and everyone else's teams response essentially were "Terrorism is real, we need to fight it at all costs, thanks for going to war for us!" Not to even mention the fact that there is compensation for stop-lossed soldiers, but none for recalled soldiers because there isn't enough money.
Preemptive war is no excuse, either. "Preemptive" is just a pretty word for "aggressive."
As long as we talk about war like it's the weather, the power to create it will ultimately stay with the one who wants it. With war, you are literally asking people to go die for you, but we act as though that isn't a big deal. As long as it isn't the one asking to go die isn't the one going to die, I guess it isn't a big deal.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It is the same in every country." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall at the Nuremberg Trials
The Economy: Under our current system of economics, when would it be easier to control the economy...when we are fighting numerous wars or when we are not? As long as we have presidents who want war, we'll get war (I can't think of any president, in modern history, who didn't want war and didn't pursue it other than because Congress said no, except maybe the Lebanon incident under Reagan). Of course they'll teach you that war is great for economy, which is proven now. Thomas DiLorenzo explains the "Broken Window" thought on economics, and how "war propserity" isn't really prosperity in this video.
If we had Capitalism, the government wouldn't need to worry about the economy. Why politicians think they're economists blows my mind (why politicians think they're experts on everything blows my mind). The Austrian School of Economics' followers have predicted almost every recession/financial crisis we've had since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Income Tax, but Congress or the President won't take a second look at it. Why? It would require that they relinquish power, and we certainly can't have that.
We will never have Capitalism as long as the government spends like it does and steals our money (income tax is legal plunder). Keynesianism is our accepted form of economics. It gives that power to the government.
Honestly, the only point I feel I really have to make here is with The American Investment and Recovery Act and the fact that THEY USED MONEY TO MAKE SIGNS! That is the most counter productive and egotistical piece of work I may have ever seen. Should we repair a school? Should we repair a bridge? Should we update the water treatment plant? No! Let's make a $10,000 sign! And that sign is going to say we're spending money to create jobs that will only be good for this one time!
Suggested reading: Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse by Thomas Woods, The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek, www.mises.org, End the Fed by Ron Paul
The Oil Spill: I don't really have an argument here. I don't know enough of what happened or what the president did.
Natural Disasters: I saw on TV today FEMA was holding a conference explaining what a hurricane is and what to do if one is coming (yup, tax dollars so hard at work and being used wisely). The President should literally have to do nothing for them. They have government programs (unfortunately) "in place" to handle natural disasters.
The American people, time and time and time and time again and again and again, have proven to be a very caring and giving bunch. In times of need, we fork over loads of money and even some volunteer to help out. Not even just with the U.S., but all around the world. If the government stopped its ridiculous foreign aid policies (let's give money to our friends AND enemies!), we'd have a lot more money to deal with natural disasters as well.
With the president and Congress obtaining the power and income tax he has over the last century or so, people have become dependent on them. Instead of picking up a shovel or a trash bag, most people first turn to the government for help. We don't need the government to do anything for us, but we are convinced we do. Of course the President should be concerned with natural disasters, but the responsibility for them shouldn't fall anywhere near him.
Long winded, as I always am, but I'm stopping now, lol. Hopefully something was learned here. I will end with two things: read Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul. It's pretty base on information, but it is a great launch platform on topics. And to watch this video that Fox News shockingly aired on 8/28/2011. Ron Paul gives how he would take power out of the presidency in almost every thing I covererd in this blog.
Comments