This excerpt from Lysander Spooner has a lot of bearing on many current discussions.
John Bechtol,
Lysander Spooner was a very cogent, keen observer and writer of
political matters. The excerpt you posted certainly proves this and it
certainly has a "lot of bearing on many current discussions." Thank you
for posting it.
It's funny that currently among the biggest "blood-money lenders" to the
U.S. government are the Chinese and Saudi governments and Uncle Ben of
the Feds.
Still, I'm struck by this passage:
When these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their
loans, they proceed to hire and train immense numbers of professional
murderers, called soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all who
resist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large bodies
of these murderers constantly in their service, as their only means of
enforcing their extortions.
As Spooner observed, these "large bodies" of "professional murderers,
called soldiers," who in 1870 numbered three to four million, are
"constantly employed by the so-called sovereigns of Europe."
Another term for these "large bodies," is "standing armies." And even
before 1870, as long ago as Genghis Khan, standing armies have
historically caused "general mischief" by pillaging, murdering and
enslaving.
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of the "mischief"
standing armies can cause -- at the bidding of "sovereigns." This is why
after they gave Congress (and Congress alone) the power to declare war,
they gave them the power to "raise and support an army." But the Framers
added this proviso: ". . . but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer term than two Years" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause
12).
Yet, no such proviso was added to Congress's power to "provide and
maintain a Navy." Why is this so? Obviously (at least to me), the
Framers added the proviso to make it hard, even impossible, for the
federal government to maintain a standing army. And lest there was an
insurrection or an invasion, the Framers gave Congress the power to
"call forth the [State] Militia to . . . suppress Insurrections and
repel invasions" (Article 2, Section 8, Clause 15).
[Aside: The United States Marine Corps "began with the founding of the
Continental Marines on 10 November 1775 to conduct ship-to-ship
fighting, provide shipboard security and discipline enforcement, and
assist in landing forces"
(History of the United States Marine Corps - Wikipedia)\
. Thus, the Marines served as the "adjutant army for the navy," and,
most important, it was not disbanded after the Constitution was ratified
in 1787. I'm uncertain if this "army" was funded by Congress for over
two years, as the Constitution prohibits, but I think this prohibition
was "conveniently" overlooked since it could be argued that the Marines
is part of the Navy.)
What do have today? A "standing army" of about four million murderers
(who the populace mostly worship as "heroes"), who are stationed around
the world, causing all sorts of mischief. Its costs are staggering, and
when these costs are added to the cost of the U.S. interventionist
foreign policy (you can't intervene without "muscle"), the total cost is
over one trillion dollars each year.
And all because we allowed our politicians to stray from the
Constitutional prohibition to fund a standing army for longer than two
years.
Since our standing army have existed for over one hundred years, the
"mischief" it caused (as all standing armies are wont to do) is renowned
in history. And with this standing Army, our politicians have had as
their goal to build an American Empire.
Is there any chance or way to force our political "leaders" to obey
their Constitutional prohibitions? Is it too late? Are we at the
precipice of losing our Republic? Will the U.S. go the way of every
other Empire in history?
With these burning questions, I end this missive.
Thanks again for posting the important and highly relevant except.
And thanks for reading.
Alton Yee
This excerpt from Lysander Spooner has a lot of bearing on many
current discussions.
From: Bill yahoo@...
To: Mensa Freed-M Freed-M@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:37 AM
Subject: [Freed-M] No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority -
20120909
Â
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=SpoTrea.sgm&images=image\\
s/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=18&division=d\
iv1
-50-
This business of lending blood-money is one of the most thoroughly
sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to any
considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending money to
slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of
their plunder. And the men who loan money to governments, so called,
for
the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their
people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen.
And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot
otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates
that
ever lived.
When these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their
loans, they proceed to hire and train immense numbers of professional
murderers, called soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all who
resist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large
bodies
of these murderers constantly in their service, as their only means of
enforcing their extortions. There are now [1870], I think, four or
five
millions of these professional murderers constantly employed by the
so-called sovereigns of Europe. The enslaved people are, of course,
forced to support and pay all these murderers, as well as to submit to
all the other extortions which these murderers are employed to
enforce.
It is only in this way that most of the so-called governments of
Europe are maintained. These so-called governments are in reality only
great bands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and
constantly on the alert. And the so-called sovereigns, in these
different governments, are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different
bands of robbers and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are
dependent
upon the lenders of blood-money for the means to carry on their
robberies and murders. They could not sustain themselves a moment but
for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And
their
first care is to maintain their credit with them; for they know their
end is come, the instant their credit with them fails. Consequently
the
Alton, I did not see in your missive mention of Calvin Coolidge. As I recall, although he did not disband the standing army, he managed to bring it down to very small numbers. I think General McArthur had to be demoted because there were not enough troops to support his title of general (this part may be urban legend, but sounds great anyway). However, how can Coolidge's strategy work today, when to get elected the presidential candidates of the main parties need to depend on the military-industrial complex? Maybe time to unearth the "Little Girl and the Nuclear Bomb" campaign commercial which sunk Goldwater, and try to sink Messrs. Obama and Romney with it.
Marcy
Alton and Marcy,
May I post this conversation to the Bay Area Patriots/Tea Party list?
John
Hi John,
Ok by me, since I stand by everything I say, always! I do not speak for Alton. BTW, the LPSF Discussion List is public; anyone can read on-line what we say here.
You are also welcome to invite your Tea Party associates to join this list. We would be interested in hearing their views on the current enormous standing army, the unending wars, the military-industrial complex influence on our candidates and leaders. (Word of caution, we insist on civil, polite discussion on this list; we zap any posts that are uncivil!)
Tea Party members are our solid allies when it comes to economic freedoms and fiscal responsibility. However when it comes to matters of war, no so much.
Marcy
Marcy,
Thanks, consider it done.
John
P.S. I think ya'll's work stands on its own merits pretty well.
Hi John,
I am thrilled and honored that you'd asked. Please post away.
If your list members provide comments, I (and no doubt Marcy) would love to see them. Would you forward them here or is there a way we can read them directly?
BTW, since I wrote about Constitutional issues, I don't suppose among your list members are "Professors of Constitutional Law," are there? As you might know, The Anointed One held such a post in one of His previous incarnations. Wouldn't you love to hear His opinions about the Constitution's limits on His powers?
Alton
BTW, do you have any comments of your own, regarding Marcy's and my conversation?
Hi Marcy,
Thank you for your reply.
I didn't mention Calvin Coolidge in my "missive," because I'm sad to
admit I don't know much about "Silent Cal," except that he's depicted on
the $5 stamp of the 1938 "Presidential Series" of U.S. postage stamps.
(See:
File:Calvin Coolidge 1938 Issue-$5.jpg - Wikipedia)
Still, that was an interesting tidbit about "Silent Cal" and "Dugout
Doug." When I read the Wikipedia (what else?) bios of these two men, I
think you're correct that MacArthur's demotion is an "urban legend," as
I found nothing to confirm it.
As for Coolidge bringing down the standing army to "very small numbers,"
I'm afraid I couldn't confirm that in the Wikipedia bio I read, though
it's possible I'll confirm that fact somewhere else.
Anyhow, in the Wikipedia article I read about Coolidge
(Calvin Coolidge - Wikipedia
29), I was heartened to read such comments as:
1) The regulatory state under Coolidge was, as one biographer described
it, "thin to the point of invisibility."
2) Elected in his own right in 1924, he gained a reputation as a
small-government conservative, and also as a man who said very little.
3) His reputation underwent a renaissance during the Ronald Reagan
Administration,[5] but the ultimate assessment of his presidency is
still divided between those who approve of his reduction of the size of
government programs and those who believe the federal government should
be more involved in regulating and controlling the economy. [No doubt
the latter group champions as among their "Greatest U.S. Presidents,"
FDR and the current FDR wannabe.]
And there were these amusing tidbits about "Silent Cal": "A possibly
apocryphal story possibly apocryphal story has it that Dorothy Parker,
seated next to him at a dinner, said to him, "Mr. Coolidge, I've made a
bet against a fellow who said it was impossible to get more than two
words out of you." His famous reply: "You lose." It was also Parker who,
upon learning that Coolidge had died, reportedly remarked, "How can they
tell?"
So now I know much more about President Coolidge because you impelled me
to look him up. Thanks much. (And I now think it was quite possible
that, as you said, he brought the standing army "down to very small
numbers.")
Lest I forget, you asked:
<< However, how can Coolidge's strategy [to bring the standing army down
to very small number] work today, when to get elected the presidential
candidates of the main parties need to depend on the military-industrial
complex? >>
I'm sad to say that it's probably impossible, since neither candidate
will obey the Constitution and neither proposes any cut in the military
budget, lest they'll be perceived as "weak" or "not wanting to protect
America." Of course the populace eats it all up, especially when
pundits, such as one I heard on Talk Radio, say we must maintain, even
increase, the military budget to provide jobs. Speaking of jobs, Marcy,
I'm afraid the military-industrial complex has a parasitic death grip on
the economy that is extremely difficult to extricate.
To see how difficult it is, just "follow the money." From maintaining
the four million strong standing army, and America's interventionist
foreign policy to engaging in all those military projects from
research-and-developing and building all those "Skunk Works" stuff, and
a new "Gerald R. Ford" class of multi-billion dollar supercarriers,
there is GOLD in those military-industrial complex hills.
You also said:
<< Maybe time to unearth the "Little Girl and the Nuclear Bomb" campaign
commercial which sunk Goldwater, and try to sink Messrs. Obama and
Romney with it. >>
I remember those commercials from 1964! I was in grade school then, and
though I was no doubt politically naive, I clearly got the message:
"Vote for Goldwater, and he'll drop the bomb." Did Goldwater even try to
refute the commercial? Did he show a counter-commercial? Whichever,
regrettably, the commercial, as you said, sunk Goldwater.
What's really funny, even tragic, was who produced or "approved" the
commercial: Non other than LBJ, among the most corrupt politician ever
and the biggest liar and war monger around. (Jacob Hornberger, in his
Pulitzer Prize caliber series of articles concerning JFK's
assassination, showed that LBJ and the CIA most likely planned, executed
and covered up the assassination. Do know why Oswald wanted to kill JFK?
I never knew and Jacob cannot tell me. See for example,
The Assassination of JFK - LewRockwell)
But would such a "Little Girl and the Nuclear Bomb" campaign commercial
work to sink Messrs. Obama and Romney? The only way to tell is if
another Johnson produces and "approves" such a commercial. But he should
hurry, else either Obama or Romney might produce one first and accuse
the other of dropping the Bomb (instead of sending 100,000+ ground
troops and 1,000+ drones) on most likely Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya,
Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea or Hoboken.
Thanks again for your reply.
Alton
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:
Alton, I did not see in your missive mention of Calvin Coolidge. As I
recall, although he did not disband the standing army, he managed to
bring it down to very small numbers. I think General McArthur had to be
demoted because there were not enough troops to support his title of
general (this part may be urban legend, but sounds great anyway).
However, how can Coolidge's strategy work today, when to get elected the
presidential candidates of the main parties need to depend on the
military-industrial complex? Maybe time to unearth the "Little Girl and
the Nuclear Bomb" campaign commercial which sunk Goldwater, and try to
sink Messrs. Obama and Romney with it.
Marcy
>
> John Bechtol,
>
> Lysander Spooner was a very cogent, keen observer and writer of
> political matters. The excerpt you posted certainly proves this and
it
> certainly has a "lot of bearing on many current discussions." Thank
you
> for posting it.
>
> It's funny that currently among the biggest "blood-money lenders" to
the
> U.S. government are the Chinese and Saudi governments and Uncle Ben
of
> the Feds.
>
> Still, I'm struck by this passage:
>
> When these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their
> loans, they proceed to hire and train immense numbers of
professional
> murderers, called soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all who
> resist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large
bodies
> of these murderers constantly in their service, as their only means
of
> enforcing their extortions.
>
> As Spooner observed, these "large bodies" of "professional
murderers,
> called soldiers," who in 1870 numbered three to four million, are
> "constantly employed by the so-called sovereigns of Europe."
>
> Another term for these "large bodies," is "standing armies." And
even
> before 1870, as long ago as Genghis Khan, standing armies have
> historically caused "general mischief" by pillaging, murdering and
> enslaving.
>
> The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were well aware of the
"mischief"
> standing armies can cause -- at the bidding of "sovereigns." This is
why
> after they gave Congress (and Congress alone) the power to declare
war,
> they gave them the power to "raise and support an army." But the
Framers
> added this proviso: ". . . but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
> shall be for a longer term than two Years" (Article 1, Section 8,
Clause
> 12).
>
> Yet, no such proviso was added to Congress's power to "provide and
> maintain a Navy." Why is this so? Obviously (at least to me), the
> Framers added the proviso to make it hard, even impossible, for the
> federal government to maintain a standing army. And lest there was
an
> insurrection or an invasion, the Framers gave Congress the power to
> "call forth the [State] Militia to . . . suppress Insurrections and
> repel invasions" (Article 2, Section 8, Clause 15).
>
> [Aside: The United States Marine Corps "began with the founding of
the
> Continental Marines on 10 November 1775 to conduct ship-to-ship
> fighting, provide shipboard security and discipline enforcement, and
> assist in landing forces"
>
(History of the United States Marine Corps - Wikipedia)\
\
> . Thus, the Marines served as the "adjutant army for the navy," and,
> most important, it was not disbanded after the Constitution was
ratified
> in 1787. I'm uncertain if this "army" was funded by Congress for
over
> two years, as the Constitution prohibits, but I think this
prohibition
> was "conveniently" overlooked since it could be argued that the
Marines
> is part of the Navy.)
>
> What do have today? A "standing army" of about four million
murderers
> (who the populace mostly worship as "heroes"), who are stationed
around
> the world, causing all sorts of mischief. Its costs are staggering,
and
> when these costs are added to the cost of the U.S. interventionist
> foreign policy (you can't intervene without "muscle"), the total
cost is
> over one trillion dollars each year.
>
> And all because we allowed our politicians to stray from the
> Constitutional prohibition to fund a standing army for longer than
two
> years.
>
> Since our standing army have existed for over one hundred years, the
> "mischief" it caused (as all standing armies are wont to do) is
renowned
> in history. And with this standing Army, our politicians have had as
> their goal to build an American Empire.
>
> Is there any chance or way to force our political "leaders" to obey
> their Constitutional prohibitions? Is it too late? Are we at the
> precipice of losing our Republic? Will the U.S. go the way of every
> other Empire in history?
>
> With these burning questions, I end this missive.
>
> Thanks again for posting the important and highly relevant except.
>
> And thanks for reading.
>
> Alton Yee
>
>
>
> >
> > This excerpt from Lysander Spooner has a lot of bearing on many
> current discussions.
> >
> >
> > From: Bill yahoo@
> > To: Mensa Freed-M Freed-M@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2012 10:37 AM
> > Subject: [Freed-M] No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority -
> 20120909
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
>
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=SpoTrea.sgm&images=image\\
\
>
s/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=18&division=d\
\
> iv1
> >
> > -50-
> >
> > This business of lending blood-money is one of the most thoroughly
> > sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to
any
> > considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending
money to
> > slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out
of
> > their plunder. And the men who loan money to governments, so
called,
> for
> > the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder
their
> > people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever
seen.
> > And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot
> > otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates
> that
> > ever lived.
> >
> > When these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their
> > loans, they proceed to hire and train immense numbers of
professional
> > murderers, called soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all
who
> > resist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large
> bodies
> > of these murderers constantly in their service, as their only
means of
> > enforcing their extortions. There are now [1870], I think, four or
> five
> > millions of these professional murderers constantly employed by
the
> > so-called sovereigns of Europe. The enslaved people are, of
course,
> > forced to support and pay all these murderers, as well as to
submit to
> > all the other extortions which these murderers are employed to
> enforce.
> >
> > It is only in this way that most of the so-called governments of
> > Europe are maintained. These so-called governments are in reality
only
> > great bands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and
> > constantly on the alert. And the so-called sovereigns, in these
> > different governments, are simply the heads, or chiefs, of
different
> > bands of robbers and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are
> dependent
> > upon the lenders of blood-money for the means to carry on their
> > robberies and murders. They could not sustain themselves a moment
but
> > for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And
> their
> > first care is to maintain their credit with them; for they know
their
> > end is come, the instant their credit with them fails.
Consequently
Hi Alton,
I have added to my priority list learning more about Silent Cal and his reducing the army!
BTW, Coolidge sometimes did say more than two words: He came home one day after hearing a sermon by his pastor about sin. Upon his wife's inquiry about what the sermon was about, Calvin responded, "Sin." To his wife persistence in learning more, Calvin added, "He was against it." Five words.
Marcy