Excellent idea!! John ------------------------------ On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 12:03 PM PDT ay10038 wrote: >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: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Calvin_Coolidge_1938_Issue-$5.jpg) > >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
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge#Presidency_1923.E2.80.9319\ >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, >http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger182.html) > >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 >> >> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ay10038" ay10038@ wrote: >> > >> > 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" >> > >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Marine_Corps)\ >\ >> > . 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, John Bechtol
<javlin@> wrote: >> > > >> > > This excerpt from Lysander Spooner has a lot of bearing on many >> > current discussions. >> > > >> > > >> > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> > > 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
