Ed FirmageMitt Romney
Mitt Romney’s relations with the Mormon Church come at a bad time for Mr. Romney. Just after a respected poll indicated that 38% of American voters would not vote for a Mormon for President, Mitt’s people crossed the church/state wall in an embarrassing incursion. Mitt is an able man and I think he would make a good president. While his positions on issues critical to me would not encourage me to vote for him, his intellect and character, displayed during the Olympics, would put us miles ahead in comparison to our incumbent. But so would throwing a dart at any telephone book.
George Romney, Mitt’s father, was governor of a much more muscular state, Michigan, and ran for the presidency in 1964. Along with William Scranton of Pennsylvania, and Nelson Rockefeller of New York, these three moderate Republicans, back when there were such people in high office, were trounced by Barry Goldwater and the far right, who have reigned supreme in Republican circles since. Those few lonely moderates now in Congress will largely disappear in the Democratic tide now running, two weeks from now.
My bet is that Mitt will fall victim to the evangelical wing of his own party, in the mid-West and the Southern primaries. When John Kennedy was elected our first Roman Catholic President, he had the enormous advantage of a previous nominee of his party paving the way, as our first Roman Catholic nominee for president, Governor Al Smith of New York. In 1928, Al Smith was nominated as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President. Though an enormously popular governor and a brilliant politician, he was defeated in a backlash of religious bigotry, along with other reasons. He did, however, choose Franklin Delano Roosevelt as his running mate, thus launching our only great president to hold office in the twentieth century, elected in 1932. Al Smith was a stalking horse for John Kennedy. Kennedy, following in Al’s wake, could at the appropriate time announce in a brilliant speech his political independence from his faith.
George Romney just might have been the Al Smith for his own son, Mitt. But his candidacy died before the Mormon issue was seriously raised. He told the truth about Vietnam, claiming that he had been “brainwashed” into his earlier support of the war. His candidacy died from truth candidly stated in war. This means, I predict, that Mitt must blaze a trail for some equally talented Mormon, hopefully a Democrat and maybe a woman, to follow in his trail. His efforts will die in the mid-West and the South, the bible belt, where Mormons are not seen as Christian. And in all parts of the nation, where Mormons are still seen voting as a much too conservative block. And even more spooky, Mormons are perceived as taking orders from religious leaders, in effect, from a theocratic state. Things must change in Zion before the perceptions, not by any means entirely inaccurate, will improve. Not better PR. Rather, a reality based upon humanitarian democracy and the social gospel, the REAL old-time religion.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I can remember liberal (as we called them then) Republicans like George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller. I’ll be honest and tell you I was for Goldwater, he was much better than the so-called conservatives today and anyway I was 11 years old in 1964.
October 25th, 2006 at 7:18 am
Forget about Romney. MATHESCUM IS THE PROBLEM AND HE MUST GO. EVEN IF FAT LAVAR GETS IN. If we don’t rise up now we will suffer a fate far worse than what we have inflicted on the innocents of irak.
Mathescum supports torture, supports persecution of polygmous, voted to allow
torture in chief bush to give immunity to abu grahib, bagram and gitmo torturers, especially the ISRAELI “experts in interrogation of arabs” who were brought in by the neocon criminals, allow suspension of habeas corpus.
WHAT IS UP WITH THE FAKE LIBERALS WHO SUPPORT THIS B—-?
You phonies don’t oppose anything on principal. You’re just power sick f—- like Bush and Co.
Mathescum is a blight on the utah dems AND the populace (yes, it is true i am not a dem, maybe that is why i can clearly observe what is going on).
See below article and then drop this creep. Take up signs throughout the city and “let my people know” that he must go. Work the corners, forget you false shame, who cares if you don’t get invited to trendy cocktail parties (remember, alcohol is haram anyway), rise up all you fallen fighters, rise and take your stand against this man, i mean scummi little manipulating mama’s boy bitch.
The Military Commissions
Act - Question & Answers
The Center For Constitutional Rights
10-24-6
What New Powers does the Military Commissions Act give to the President? What other objectionable provisions does it include?
· It authorizes the suspension of habeas corpus for non-citizens, including legal permanent residents, in U.S. custody · It authorizes the President to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge by designating them enemy combatants or unlawful enemy combatants · It authorizes the President to determine what constitutes torture. · It authorizes the use of evidence obtained by coercion · It authorizes the use of hearsay · It authorizes retroactive immunity for U.S military and intelligence officials for abuses that occurred at sites such as, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, Bagram and secret CIA facilities. · The definitions of rape and sexual assault are narrower than under international law and have higher thresholds for proof.
How does the Military Commissions Act violate the law?
· It violates the Suspension Clause of the Constitution by denying non-citizens any meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention · It violates the 6th Amendment by allowing classified evidence which the accused can only see in summary · It violates the 4th Amendment by allowing evidence obtained by coercion or without a warrant or probable cause · It violates the Geneva Conventions by watering down humanitarian law protections of Common Article 3 and by effectively granting a retroactive amnesty to U.S. officials who have tortured detainees
What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
· Habeas Corpus, which has it origins in the Magna Carta of 1215, is the “Great Writ” that protects people from arbitrary arrest, disappearance and indefinite detention without charge. The cornerstone of Western justice, it is essential to the idea that laws-not individuals, be they Presidents or kings-govern a land.
What will happen to the cases of detainees who have already petitioned a court for a writ of Habeas Corpus?
· While it is unclear how the government will seek to apply the new law, or what impact it will have on pending cases, the laws states that the suspension of habeas corpus is retroactive
· This challenge will most likely occur first in the Al Odah v. United States of America and Boumediene v. Bush, consolidated cases brought on behalf of 53 Guantánamo detainees, which are pending before the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC. · It is likely that the Government will ask for these cases to be dismissed shortly after the MCA is signed
What is the basis for challenging the “habeas stripping” provision of the MCA?
· The habeas-stripping provision of the MCA (section 6) violates the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution by denying non-citizens any meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of their detention. · The Suspension Clause specifically permits a suspension of habeas corpus only when “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2. If Congress intends to suspend habeas corpus, it must do so with unmistakable clarity. Congress has not made any finding that this is a time of invasion or rebellion in which the public safety may require a temporary suspension of habeas. Even Ken Starr acknowledged that this is not such a time in his recent letter to Congress opposing the habeas-stripping provision in the MCA. · There are additional constitutional challenges to the MCA, including a possible equal protection challenge since it treats citizens and non-citizens differently.
Does the suspension clause cover non-citizens?
· Yes. Where the Constitution applies, it protects everyone equally. Indeed, it forbids the government from denying individuals the equal protection of the laws based on their citizenship. Nor as a matter of policy should we have two tiers of laws for people in this country.
What are the details of the two new cases CCR filed on behalf of detainees before the bill was signed into law?
Mohammed v. Rumsfeld · There are an estimated 500 men detained in U.S. custody at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan. Though some have been held for years, none of these men has ever received a hearing of any sort. Bagram has been the site of notorious examples of abuse - including abuses that led to the December 2002 deaths of two Afghan detainees · On October 2, CCR filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in Washington, D.C. on behalf of 25 people being held at Bagram. Mohammed v. Rumsfeld directly contests the MCA’s denial of due process to non-citizens held in U.S. custody. · Mohammed v. Rumsfeld is a natural extension of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rasul v. Bush, which held that Guantánamo detainees have the right to challenge their detention in the federal courts through habeas corpus Khan v. Bush · On October 3, 2006, CCR filed a habeas corpus petition in the D.C. District Court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Majid Khan (Khan v. Bush), one of the 14 ‘ghost detainees’ President Bush recently transferred to Guantánamo. The petition challenges the constitutionality of denying non-citizen detainees the right of habeas corpus. · Mr. Khan was imprisoned in secret CIA detention for 3 1/2 years and subjected to “alternative interrogation methods” that amount to torture. He has never been formally charged with a crime or declared an enemy combatant. · Khan v. Bush squarely challenges the legality of the CIA’s secret prisons, and the likely torture and abuse of the detainees who “disappeared” and were held in those prisons overseas for several years.
These cases were filed before enactment of the MCA in order to preserve any possible legal arguments that our clients might have to challenge the retroactive application of the law, including, for example, challenges to the new expansive definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” and the purported suspension of habeas corpus for any non-citizen detained by the United States anywhere in the world.
· As far as we know, everyone at Guantánamo has had a CSRT except for the fourteen detainees who were transferred there from the CIA secret prisons. · CSRT’s were established under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) and provide extremely limited review of CSRT determinations and are not an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. · A CSRT is a “non-adversary” hearing conducted pursuant to rules and procedures that are unfair in design and biased in practice. For example, under the CSRT rules and procedures, every detainee is: (a) Denied access to counsel; (b) Denied the right to see the evidence against him; (c) Denied the right to confront, or even know the identity of, his accusers; (d) Denied the right to call witnesses; (e) Denied the right to present evidence; (f) Denied the right to know how the military collected evidence; and (g) Denied an impartial tribunal because the CSRT must presume that evidence against a detainee (which he has not seen) is genuine and accurate.
· The DTA only allows challenges to (1) whether the military complied with its own flawed CSRT procedures for making enemy combatant determinations, and (2) whether those procedures comply with the Constitution and laws of the United States. But President Bush claims that our laws do not protect detainees, and the MCA even goes so far as to authorize him to hold detainees who “awaiting designation” as enemy combatants.
The CSRT rules and procedures further allow for the consideration of hearsay evidence and/or evidence obtained by torture or coercion. These rules and procedures in practice and effect virtually compel the CSRT conclusion that the detainee is an “enemy combatant.”
· In addition, the CSRTS are incapable of determining who is or is not properly detained by the government as an “enemy combatant.” Even where a CSRT determines that a detainee is actually innocent of any offense or wrongdoing, that detainee may continue to be held virtually incommunicado, indefinitely, without charge, without access to counsel, and without any meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention. The government has even held, and continues to hold, detainees who have been determined through the CSRT process to be “no longer enemy combatants” or “non-enemy combatants” without affording them the right to an adequate and meaningful judicial process. (For details see CCR’S report Faces of Guantánamo. http://ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/FACES_OF_GUANTANAMO.pdf
Could American citizens be held as “enemy combatants” or as “unlawful enemy combatants?
Yes. The MCA includes language that states that persons who “materially support” hostilities against the U.S. can be labeled and held as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ This might include, for instance, someone who donates money to a charity in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, or even the organizer of an anti-war rally, without regard to actual hostilities. The definition also presumptively includes members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or “associated forces.” · The definition allows Bush or Rumsfeld to establish new secret procedures to detain anyone they themselves deem legally and appropriately classified an enemy combatant.
Will CCR and others who represent detainees be immediately denied access to Guantánamo Bay upon signing of the MCA?
· It is not likely, but we will not know for sure until the MCA is signed by President Bush. Even under the limited review allowed by the DTA and the MCA, access by counsel will be necessary. However, the government may try to place even more restrictions on attorneys’ ability to meet and communicate with their clients than already exist.
What happens if the Democrats regain control of Congress? Is there any chance they will revisit the MCA?
· Many Senators have publicly acknowledged what Republican Senator Arlen Specter said about the MCA before it was passed  that it is “patently unconstitutional on its face.” Unfortunately, he and a majority of others in Congress voted for it. By voting for a law that they knew was unconstitutional, they abdicated their constitutional responsibilities and once again compelled the federal courts to step in and uphold the Constitution. If the Democrats regain control of both houses, we hope they will repeal one of the most egregious pieces of legislation since the Alien and Sedition Acts, which now serve as a stain on Congress and our nation’s history.
http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/Docs/MCA_Signing_Briefing_Paper.pdf
October 25th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Unitary Anne,
We appreciate your unique perspective (hate liberals, progessives, moderates, and neo-cons) AND some of the valuable information you provide as in you last post.
But could you please try to refrain from using words like fag in ways that are hurtful and painful reminders of the underlying meanspirited bigotry and homophobia that face our children everyday.
Thanks Cliff
October 25th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Hey Anne, does the above mean that the only thing keeping you, or me out of Gitmo is the sanity of our president? Uh, Oh! I wonder if the name George X. Bush is already taken.
October 25th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Richard, I agree completely. At the time, I was a moderate Republican and I was heart-broken that Romney, Rockefeller (whom I supported), and Scranton were were not only defeated, but intentionally savaged, about like politics today, by members of their own party. I feared Goldwater. I later learned what a splendid man he was. I think he would have been a fine president, maybe a great president. Roads not taken. We’ll never know. I served at the side of an honorable man, Hubert Horatio Humphrey, during the Vietnam years. I saw his pain. And LBJ’s. Their ghastly war was as disastrous, at least, as Iraq and Afghanistan. BUT it began in 1870. Under Napoleon Third. French troops and Jesuit priests. A host of Republican and Democratic presidents were looking the wrong way. For me, I got to work with HHH on civil rights, with Martin King, Roy Wilkins, and Whitney Young. HHH knew I was a liberal Republican, but took me under his wing as if I were his own son. When I came back to Utah, run essentially by the John Birch Society, I said, “well, if these guys are Republicans, I must be a Democrat.” I’ve never regretted my affilliation with the Democratic Party.
Anne, your facts are impelling. I’ve been saying a lot of the same things, not in context of Mr. Matheson, but of people in matters of the War Clause, who really matter. Frankly, Mr. Matheson means zero on matters of war and peace, except for the one vote he will cast on the first day of Congress. If he shows up; and if he votes “present,” as a Democrat, he’s done everything I will ever ask him to do. THEN with the Democratic (notice how Rove and the Republicans can’t say DEMOCRATIC….it always ends with the T….) Party in control of just one house, investigative powers, demanding “persons and papers”, can issue from the House of Representatives. And a lot of people in office, including some from near at hand, will find themselves and their papers subpoena’d. THEN and only THEN all the law you know so well can be brought to bear. Not only in this country. But before the World Court. And before the courts of the land in most nations of which I am aware. They will be, literally, under house arrest. They will not be able to step outside. Or hide. Anywhere. THEN the war criminals that head our nation will pay, as did the defendants in the dock at Nurenburg. Ed Firmage p.s. I’ve written two articles, one long and one short, on the impeachment power, that is, a “how to do it” manual, done originally for the Senate, aiming at Mr. Nixon, but published long ago, in the Utah Law Review (substantive law of presidential impeachment) and the Duke Law Journal ( a book, published as an article.) Cliff has them. I think. Keep writing. And swearing. There’s a hell of a lot to be damned mad going on right now, in our name. The bastards. ef
October 25th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Ed, you’re probably right and I hope you are right about the consequences of the coming election. Let’s hope Nancy Pelosi was lying to “60 Minutes” last Sunday when she said “impeachment is off the table.”
October 25th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
pps. Anne, don’t think for one little minute that the purpose of most of this “son of Patriot Act” legal garbage is just aimed at fighting people in strange places, Iraq, Afghanistan. It’s aimed at protecting the butts of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, now rewarded for giving us thea war in Iraq with the presidency of the World Bank, aafater teaching most of these fools at Princeton, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Reread your own fine stuff. Think of everyone who really knew, or long since have come to know, what some of us have known and said, in opposition to this atrocity, long ago. This is conspiracy. The real thing. Now, think of when they leave office. A pardon? Like Nixon got from Ford? Maybe, for a fortunate few. This awful violation of the Constitution, the children of Patriot Act, Or Patriot Act Rides Again, or Son of Patriot Act, is fought over now, by Senators, staffers, members of an embattled White House, to protect their own asses. Forget about the Middle East. They have. Long Ago. Clifff has another piece of mine, written long ago, the Reynolds Lecture, Ends and Means in Conflict. Borrow it from him. Again, thanks for a splendid piece, much much better than mine. And far more important. You shame me for spending my time looking, characteristically, the wrong way. ed firmage
October 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Richard, whatever any senator or representative says, it only takes ONE member of the House of Representatives, just one, to put a bill of impeachment in the hopper. One person, male or female, with balls.
October 25th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Hi Ed,
Actually, Rove and the Repugs seem to reserve use of the word “democratic” for things like “the democratically elected government in Iraq” (whatever the hell that means).
October 25th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Unitary Anne,
I take back everything I said about your relationship or lack thereof to east coast liberals, as I note you have been reviewing the website for the Center for Constitutional Rights, based in NY, NY. You are one of us after all, welcome!
October 25th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Hi Nephi. Until now, I didn’t think Nephi was a real historical person. Though I liked his thoughts. My faith is restored. “The democratically elected government in Iraq” is a dream. A dream one day, god willing, that will be fulfilled. Not like Tom Jefferson, or Martha Jefferson or Sally Hemmings. Not by Abigail and John Adams, nor by Alexander Hamilton, Dolly and James Madison. The Middle East has yet to experience their very own Reformation, Renaissance (theirs, long ago, made ours possible…..but too long ago…), or most vital, their own Enlightenment. Without which I for one, do not understand how anyone can understand, much less enjoy, a Rule of Law Community. And not by an invading army of our young men and women we older folks have put in harm’s way. In this government, for the moment run by a pack of villians and fools, “the dream of democratic governments” is an oxymoron. Run by bonafide morons. Not, please note First Nephi, to be confused with an oxymormon. Confusion would be understandable, at this point, as we began by discussing oxymormons… And, speaking of Enlightenments, how about our very own, right here in Deseret? The Land that Time Forgot? Not really. And Mitt Romney, like it or not, might just get us far enough along, toward a really democratic government, right here in Zion, to get the job done. Or at least, begun… The dialogue of reconciliation is afoot. Talk of serendipity. Synchronicity. All we need now are the Gold Plates. .ed firmage
October 25th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Unitary Anne Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
right on one nephi. you are getting the spirit.
i was re-reading the federalist papers the other night and got into national security, etc.
i don’t know how i missed this when i was young but the federalist papers are full of intent to depose usurpers (like the neocons and israeli spies) and tyrants (like you know who) through upheavel as may be necessary to the circumstances.
I know we are not YET in actual peril of nazi-ism but damn it is coming closer and closer and i love to hear people talk hard, tough like an iraki insurgent.
We owe the iraki insurgents one thing for sure. They taught americans how to be men. They are the enemy and we support our guys but that doesn’t mean we can’t state the obvious, i.e those are some bad dudes over there.
And i find myself admiring how their women act like real women, not like sluts who have taken the LBT (low back tatoo). All the men i know find the veiled mystique to be very sexually appealing. I guess men think they look hot. Ironic, isn’t it, that women in amrican took it all off to be hot but as the mormons say “modest is hottestâ€.
Let’s throw mathescum out of office just to show that we are bad MFers just like those iraki sunni fedayeen fighters, and we don’t take no you know what from anybody. If Lavar is as stupid as you posters claim then he will be harmless.
I’ll try to organize a honk and wave or two and maybe some of you can come and we can meet in person while doing good works. I’ll post some times and dates later.
cassandra Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
LBT…aka the TRAMP STAMP!! Ride on!
Yes the insurgency is full of bad dudes, near always.
The english called American Patriots insurgents, and what’s more cowards. It didn’t change what a New England Grantsman or other independent types would do during combat to win.
Insurgents have a singular quality. You cannot talk, negotiate, or propagandize true insurgents. The offenses against them and what they are willing to do about it, are beyond words.
They are for lies what the open truth is.
Most of our Founding Fathers were veterans of the Indian Wars, on the brit side against the French, they knew close combat and knew what it took to come out alive, and inflict the most damage. They had seen the method from their Mohawk allies, against Frenchmen and Algonquins every bit as saavy as they.
Those must have been real battles, none of this drop from 20k ft. some munition and dream about being a hero. Anyway, any American soldier walking the ground in iraq knows what it is all about, and seemingly getting more so everyday.
The way to victory isn’t feminine, or even male, it is accomplished with premediditated detachment, like the reality already exists, merely awaiting its execution…
Back to Grantsmen. Reading the diaries of british regulars during the War for Independence is very revealing, most couild not believe men of such apparent wealth would defy the crown and perhaps lose it all, their lives included,.. as the brits were much for summary execution of those not regular army. We were not considered regular army until we, and our French allies, kicked the crap out brit regulars enough times to convince the crown it was not like anything they had faced before.
It would be good to know that the crown has bagged out of Iraq since its own debacle there in the 20’s, and there had to be, as there was in the case of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, a reason.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Ed,
Thanks for you insights.
Perhaps Mitt Romany has the intellectual ability and experience to run the Olympics, or even to be Governor, but as president we need international experience. His positions on issues leave something to be desired.
You are right, Mormons are perceived as taking orders from the leaders of this church. Mitt Romany hasn’t a chance.
October 25th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Unitary Anne and Cassandra, read, if you already haven’t, The Book of Abigail and John: selected letters of the Adams Family, 1792-1794, edited by Butterfield, et al; James Grant’s John Adams: Party of One; Lester Cappon’s The Adams-Jefferson Letters: the complete correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams. Anything you can get on Dolly Madison and her talented husband, James, who invented the American Constitution. And a great classic, by the woman who wrote No Man Knows My History: the life of Joseph Smith, Fawn McKay Brodie. Fawn McKay was the daughter of Thomas E. McKay, a Mormon general authority, a gentle, good man. HIs brother was the president and prophet of the Mormon Church, David O. McKay, a good man, too. My grandfather, Hugh B. Brown, was his first counselor…..but not at the time I’m speaking of. Grandfather Brown was a brilliant liberal Democrat who was tutored by Harriman and Franklin D. Roosevelt. But Thomas’s bis brilliant daughter Fawn wrote, ostensibly to strengthen her faith, and read herself out of the Mormon Church. She was excommunicated when No Man Knows My History was published. She marrried Bernard Brodie, the second-smartest person I’ve ever read. He was the real teacher of all the folks who would make a fortune writing about nuclear war. Kisssinger, Dr. Strangelove, Herman Kahn, and the folks playing war games as we speak, in the White House, et al. Fawn McKay Brodie’s great biography of Jefferson was, in my opinion, her very best. In it, we learned, decades before DNA, that Thomas Jefferson indeed fathered children by his child bride, Sally Hemmings. Brodie (Fawn) was the student of the guy who invented psycho-history(if you don’t count St. Paul (see Romans 7-8), St. Augustine’s Confessions, the poetry of WH Auden, Eliott, and Freud and Jung), Erik H. Erikson. He wrote two great boooks. Gandhi’s Truth, winner off a Pulitzer Prize and a National Book Award; and The Young Luther. He examined sexuality in each man and reached his brilliant conclusions. (Mrs. Gandhi, illiterate and married to the Mahatma when he was 13 and she 11, and having intercourse at the moment Gandhi’s father died, and Gandhi was supposed to be giving his father a massage, was once asked if the Mahatma really took a vow of chastity. She replied: “Many times!”) Fawn McKay Brodie wrote three times the books her teacher ever did. And the good old boys excommunicated her for her efforts. Rest in peace, Fawn. We all know where the skeletons are. ed firmage
October 25th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
hay, Lee. What we need is someone with a brain. And if possible, an educated brain. (same woman.) Romney has more international experience, by far, than our greatest on-the-job-boondoggle of an experience we’ve ever ever mounted: training George Bush. I’m an affirmative action dude from way back. That’s the only way I got into law school. A Mormon boy from Provo, Utah. But George the Less is something else. Romney can say “nuclear.” I’ve heard him. Really. And he’s honest, like his daddy. And he’s tall. And handsome, in a …well, a Romney sort of way. I’m 4′3” and weigh in at 300 lbs. I’m also bald. And neither of us has much of a chance of getting out of the Utah primary.
October 26th, 2006 at 8:38 am
As a long-time fan of Isaac Azimov’s Foundation trilogy, I thought Hari Seldon invented psychohistory.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Romney is competent but being a Mormon is a curse in national politics. It isn’t so much the faith but the appearance of the culture to those not participating that drives people not mormon to say, no way. The missionary system sending young kids to proselytize at vulnerable times in their life, pretty much disgusts those disintersted in religion. As many are converted, mormons do not realize how many that listen, and do not adopt the religion at their doorstep consider the process totally unbalanced, and would not let mormons rule the dog pound.
What Mormons don’t understand is that their religion and political marriage does not resonate with faithful christians, because they don’t believe in any of it. You can well imagine what agnostics and atheists figure on the tall tale.
I have often thought that only difference between a cult and a religion is numbers, it is like a mass psychosis, if everyone believes in some untruth, then it is real, pretty easy to do when as a people you are(were) kind of desperate, and picked a place that for all intents and purposes, had been passed up by everyone that had wagoned through. This guaranteed the isolation necessary for the fruity thoughts to gestate.
Ed, I have read the Brodie book, and while I really enjoyed it and learned lots, I found myself putting it down as the revelations appeared on the pages. Much like when one looks away at something too embarrassing to witness, as the book, while a history, is also a spotlight on the fact that alot of the “history” is still alive today. Link this brand of arrogant ignorance with a group that has unequically supported bush, and a mormon would have a difficult time these days at the national level. At least I HOPE! We all know what our Founding Fathers thought of priests and those that would trot out their religion as a template for other peoples political and temporal lives.
October 26th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Add him to the list. How many contenders can we come up with? Whoever wrote Genesis and all those people dreaming? Everybody’s dreaming. Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebeccah, Jacob, Joseph……..Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Paul, Peter, and most poets. David (as in King), the Psalms, which in ancient Israel were the Temple psalmody and sung. try it. Martin Luther King, Jr, and Sr. Me too. And all the women in my line. Zina’s down through time, long before the birth of Joseph Smith. John XXIII, Martin Luther, the Wesley brothers, John and Charles. I suspect, if the truth were known, God, by whatever name sang a song and worlds without number started to form, to dance, to sing. The song still remains. T.S. Eliot says in Ash Wednesday: “This is the time of tenssion between dying and birth
The place of solitude where three dreams cross
Between blue rocks
But when the voices shaken from the yew-tree drift away
Let the other yew be shaken and reply
Blessed sister, holy mother, spirit of the fountain, spirit of the garden,
Suffer us not to mock ourselves with falsehood
Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will
And even among these rocks
Sister, mother
And spirit of the river, spirit of the sea, Suffer me not to be separated
And let my cry come unto Thee.” ed firmage
October 26th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Hi Cassandra. Sometime we must meet. I agree with some of what you say, maybe most. But I beg that you remember a little history not found in Fawn McKay Brodie. My people, New Englanders, and old Englanders, in those early years on the Atlantic seaboard, were hugely abolitionist. They became the skunks at the garden party. And like all such canaries on the rim, we can all judge how well our system works by how we treat such. After being kicked out, or just moving out, take your pick, they ended up in Ohio. These folks were from England and New England (did you know, Cassandra, that by far more Mormons lived in England and Canada than in the United States, for quite some time?). Farmers, laborers, laypeople. They, like you, had no reason to love priests and clergy by whatever name. They loved God but detested clerics. Like our founding mothers and fathers, at least some of them. After a national panic in our whole country brought down debtor folks all over our nation, including the Mormons in Ohio, and with the failure of the Kirtland Anti-Banking Society, where Mormons, like most debtors on the frontier, were rapidly printing their own money, the Saints went to Missouri, what was left of them. At this point, Mormonism would have failed. Everybody left Joseph Smith except Brigham Young and a few stalwarts. Joseph was openly proscelyting, baptising, and ordaining Black slaves, like the abolitionist he was. BUT he was in a vicious border state, riven by the Civil War, which was clearly impending. So as a matter of expediency, he put a hold on further ordinations, lest the terrible killing of Mormons by Missourians massacre the whole group. Finally, they were booted out of Missouri, largely going, or dragging, into Illinois. Things were pretty good there, for a awhile. But remember: Mormons were by now, a few leaders at least, practicing polygamy. Joseph Smith was married in the temple to my great-great grandmother, Zina Huntington Smith. She received his body, and that of his brother Hyrum, after they and two others were attacked while under the protection of the Nauvoo Greys, and the Governer. A set-up. A lynching by any name. She chose to marry Brigham Young, through whose loins I come. And the Mormons were practicing Christian socialism. And proclaiming, as you correctly note, a form of ecclesiastical theocracy. But remember, new friend. this theocracy was borne of a people hugely Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. I have now in my possession his own copy of Blackstone’s Laws, after the King James Bible, and Shakespeare, I suspect that Blackstone, along with the Scottish Enlightenment, was the greatest influence on the Founding Mothers and Fathers, until Franklin, Jefferson, the Adams, Hamilton, the Madisons and, of course, the incomparable Thomas Paine. See, Cassadra, Thomas Paine and the Promise of America. Looking back on history, and judging by our standards now, as you well know, ain’t fair. And they claimed, hardly alone among religions, that they were the one true church. Go think. BUT what a unique bunch! What a great state to examine the Constitution of the United States of America. Just how much latitude will a lovely libertarian lady grant a people to be abrasively, stupidly, inspiringly, crankily idiosyncratic? That question is always before us. As the great opinion of the New Jersey courts announced yesterday. So: what do you think of polygamy? This is not a proposal. But it was the Christian socialist experiment, which lasted here, into the 20th century (See, Zion in the Courts, U. of Ill. Press), that caused Tolstoy to say that if the feds would leave the Mormons alone for seven generations, they would just possibly revolutionise the world. He saw democracy and Leninist-Stalinist Marxism running neck and neck, until World War I broke the back of nascent democracy in Russia. So too with my people. We were pushed to the frontiers, and beyond. When we left Nauvoo, my grandmother watched their Nauvoo Temple go up in flames, just as her wagon (Brigham had gone on ahead) slipped though the ice into the frigid Mississippi River. When we marginalize, trivialize, criminalize, penalize, a whole group of people; when we force them out of the civilizing cities; when we excommunicate and chase them from the Boston Common, or Liberty Park, or Hyde Park, or Salt Lake City’s late lamented Main St., we force people into the real scary sort of incest that I fear most. Spiritual and intellectual incest. Where a people, in isolation, hear their own voice coming back. They think god has spoken. Not their half-crazed minds, pushed out into a desert the looks very little like England’s green fields, or New England’s green, red, and gold. What might have been, we’ll never know. Brigham established around 78-850 cities and hamlets of the West. His nearest competitor, the first Repubican to run for the presidency, and like our incumbent, also a traitor to his country, established six. Seven hundred-odd cities of Brigham survive. None of John C. Fremont’s survived. ed firmage
October 26th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
It is interesting that you should point this out, it being very true. Though most of us would question Joes’ motives, maybe he needed slaves to pick the cotton he was so fond of growing later in St. George, so much the better if they are willing. Not all tethers are made of iron.
So imagine my astonishment upon listening to my once girlfriends mormon grandmother(official church) describing “n******” , that were black, and marked so as the decendents of Cain so they could be identified, it was really the first time in my life I had experienced that much open racism. Some pretty loopy stuff for an agnostic New Englander. Mix that with the locked up temples, and I’m confused. Worse, I didn’t care due to the marginal nature of Utah, in so many ways. No threat to my reality. That end of the clan lived down there in Provo.
My girlfriend came from a polyamous family, Sullivans’, lived in Jordan, 27 brothers and sisters and 3 wives. Her Dad was a history professor at BYU(family tells me anyway) who died under mysterious circumstances as unofficial church persecution wended its way through Utahs’ history. If we do meet I will relate the entire family story, which is stunning in its path from ignorance to evolving into the family that now has no ties to the LDS church, at least her Moms’ branch of the family.
As for influences I would rather highlight the contribution of the French Philosophs of the 1750’s on our founding fathers, Rousseau, Voltiare, and the like, that focused on reason and the Natural rights of man, something the english are pretty lacking in, or at least have to be dragged kicking and screaming. These are primarily where Jefferson gets his ideas, and though Jackson is important, we should not confuse him with any love of obeying the Constitution to its letter. I think bush, if he were educated might fancy himself a modern jackson.
Ed, I am willing to allow as much stupidity as affects no one but the actor and hopefully, like those running with scissors, implore them to “safer” behavior. Once it steps outside the law, well there you are, stupid is as stupid does. Why persecute that which harms itself?
I see the success of Mormons as a example of what a practical New England ethos and education can accomplish. Let us admit that most all Mormons(’cept joe) had skills that made them successful, their religion binding them to their task of survival, they made it happen, despite their constant thanks to “god”. that is Brighams’ legacy, the church should wash out joe, and adopt Brigham as the true founder of the modern church. We hope it’s modernizing. I think of where he was born Whitingham, everybody there is pretty self sufficient, at least they were back then. If you couldn’t build your own house, you were considered possibly retarded.
It was neat to see the entire New Engalnd village up in the mountains there north of St. George(name fails) right down to the countersunk nails on the steps of the church, lovingly plugged, the stairs not making a squeak after 140 years despite my jumping up and down on them to get it to happen.
They are hardworking successful lot, and as I have referenced to haters of mormonism(which is unchristian), that I would rather have a mormon republican as a neighbor, as a plain old republican.
Yes, I was aware that all manner of unpopular sects made their home in Canada. I have no problem with peoples conception of what cannot be known while living, it is when they insist that they know the unknown, and then wish to apply it to others way of life that the persecution starts. As I mentioned in my previous post, when this begins, it is good to have numbers if your church wishes to prevail. Something to consider when we look at the fastest growing religion on Earth, with near the most adherents, ISLAM!
It is at a peril that a new religion combats an old one for control of peoples spiritual and temporal lives. Usually, the old one wins, hence the persecution of Mormons, something no one is proud of, though it could be argued that with the ideology in general, persecution helped the mormons be successful, much as Jews have become, as Einstien stated, using the persecution as a means to strengthen and mollify the religion and its people.
The best thing to come from Mormonism in my humble view: modern irrigation.
October 26th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Hi Cassandra, we must stop this or people will talk. I like you a lot. Really. I too have less love for Jackson. I admire his courage, his rectitude. And I want him in my corner in a real tough and honest war. But he was too fast with a gun, for my taste. You are a true Jeffersonian. All the French writers were in his stable, in his heart, in his mind. The best mind, quite possibly, our nation has ever produced. But don’t overlook the huge correspondence between the aging Jefferson and the older Adams’, Abigail and John. There, three beloved friends (Oh what I would give to find the secret diary of Sally Hemmings) talked and talked and talked. Wouldn’t it be great to get a bit ahead of the speed of light, and see and hear these wonderful people coming our way. ( Someday we will. See my Son, Joe Firmage’s ManyOne. net) Actually, from the very beginning, Abigail, John, and Thomas were in love with each other, with life, and each saw themselves and, of course, the First American, Benjamin Franklin, as incarnate Enlightenments. Thomas Paine, too. And so they were seen in Europe as well. These three, writing finally, and occasionally seeing each other, at long as they could ride a horse, strangely, given our discussions of dreams, got together after mid-career estrangement because of a dream of another signer of the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Rush. Rush talked to the Adams.’ Adams (John) wrote a testy letter to Jefferson. Jefferson more effusively wrote back. And then the dam exploded. John Adams, writing three letters for each of Jefferson’s, gushed out his love of Jefferson. Abigail, on a good day (most were), a better writer than John, wrote with an earthy passion that reminds me of Cassandra. And dictionaries were just doing their levelling best to standardize the tongue, along with the King James Bible and Shakespeare. Abigail, self-taught (aren’t we all?), writes with beautifully created words. John wrote rather phonetically. Jefferson showed his marvelous restraint and his polished words like no one except, possibly, late Lincoln. Mid-way into all this correspondence, one can’t tell, really, who loved or hated France or England more than the others. Abigail would disembowel ANYONE who spoke unkindly of John, whose testy ego and short height and emotional power sent him into occasional fits, which is why I love him so much. Their late correspondence betrays no real French or English bias, except on a day to day basis. Both were indebted, hugely, to the common law and the English system of government. Yes, Jefferson loved Paris and all things French, including the women. Who doesn’t? English food hasn’t changed much these few hundred years. Abigail died first. Both her lovers were heart-broken. Then as you well know, Jefferson died, on July 4, 1826, conscious that he had, in fact, lived to see the birth, the real birth of the Nation he sired. The writer of the Declaration of Independence, in Paris while the Constitution was struck, in Philadelphia, in 1787, knew, consciously knew what he had done. John Adams, one I feel so very close to, died a few hours later, thinking that “Jefferson still lives.” On our nation’s birthday, 50 years to the day, July 4, 1776. Who says there is no god? ed firmage
October 26th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
p.s. Cassandra, Brigham Young, like most of his countrymen then, was a racial bigot, not Joseph Smith. Yes, Brigham was the great colonizer of the West, as long as we all understand we all stole this, all of this, from Native America. I agree with you regarding water and the West. Ask Cecil and Annette Garland on the West Desert, where Las Vegas wants to place a few hundred pumps and drain Utah’s West Desert, and all of rural Nevada, dry. What beauty. Las Vegas city limits, starting in Springville. Talk about fighting in Iraq so we don’t have to do that in Long Beach, as Senator Hatch informed us last night. We need to have less kids, educate them better, and stop growth as if it were, somehow, a good in itself. Growth without restraint is the definition of cancer. See, e.g., St. George and the projections of 800,000 folks down there in a desert. For those who haven’t read it, get Cadillac Desert. The Mormons, again note their indebtedness to Native America, were great at irrigating. Too bad they forgot that Joseph Smith was the first urban planner in the West. Not Brigham. Brigham had the leadership and the vision and the sheer grit to make the desert blossom as a rose. He took, however, Joseph’s plan of Nauvoo, after Joseph was murdered, out West. But Joseph was not a racial bigot. Those who followed him, tragically, were. Until now. And in many way still. We all bear this stain. All I know of original sin, a very bad idea, is this: what fathers and mothers do to children, until the biblical third or fourth generation. With a good shrink for each and a lot of luck. And good genes. ef
October 27th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Dr. Firmage, a point perhaps quibbling; but I don’t believe it quite accurate to say the Adams’s looked very favorably upon Franklin or as “the Enlightenment Incarnate” (at least not the positive aspects of the Enlightenment). John Adams, as I recall, in many ways (rightly or wrongly) loathed Franklin as an aesthete, libertine, and glory-hound (though his resentment was likely prompted as much by jealousy and his deep personal insecurities).
With Old Hickory’s autocratic and genocidal tendencies, I have a hard time seeing how he inspires so much respect today. I can’t help thinking of the Trail of Tears every time I think of him, and repressing a shudder.
I’m glad you mentioned Adams, by the way. I believe that John has traditionally been the most tragically overlooked of “The Founding Fathers,” though this has changed somewhat in the last few years with the scholarship of Joseph Ellis, David McCollough, and John Ferling. Jefferson gets such accolades for the Declaration and his philosophy, but people forget Adams’ hand in the Declaration and overlook the great inconsistencies–indeed, hypocrisy–in Jefferson’s thought. Madison is renowned as the “inventor” of the Constitution, but they forget the debt Madison and the Constitutional Convention owed to the Massachusetts’ Constitution, written primarily by Adams and a model for the U.S. Constitution, and the fact that Adams was widely regarded in his own day as the greatest scholar on governmental theory in the colonies (though he was serving as a diplomat in England during the Constitutional Convention). While I respect much about Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Mason, et al, it is Adams whom I most admire for his wisdom as well as moral and ethical consistency.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:03 am
So joe was no racist, and brigham was, given the nature of western expansion I cannot imagine anyone could claim to not be some kind of racist. I guess they were just human, though the details from Vermonters’ of joe we get a different picture. I guess everyone is predjudiced in some way. For example; I hate white tory bastards from connecticut.
Actually apart from devotion to the Rule of Law, Jackson is a hero of mine, in the world of englishmen, summary execution, and treachery of the crown, Jackson was the anti-dote. He isn’t on the 20 for nothing.
Once it became clear that Americans had such mettle, the method of open warfare to regain America was abandoned by england, and it fell to the banksters to regain the treasure trove. Jackson would not allow it, and had his life attempted on twice(2nd time the assassins pistols failed to fire, divine intervention?..and Jackson proceeded to near beat the man to death with his cane).
In fact if one reviews, near all “treasury monetarists” that have lead our nation ended up dead, including Joe Smith, a known printer of his own money. The banksters won’t have it, and will kill ya. Think about Lincoln and Greenbacks, Kennedy and silver certificates, Mckinley and Garfield both open treasury monetarists… Everything is a conspiracy until everyone knows about it.
Jackson wanted the US treasury to control outside investment in America, and enforced it with a gun.
From poem of mine about Jackson.
Jackson was not a man of consensus
tangle with Andrew and he’d knock you senseless
October 27th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Derek, thanks for your absolutely accurate correction, or clarification, of my earlier words regarding the Enlightenment and Adams’ views of Franklin. The enire European world saw Franklin as the walking embodiment of the Enlightenment. Just as the same world, ten years later, would regard Mr. Jefferson. But as you say, Adams, flinty honest John Adams, thought Franklin was a humbug. Frankly, Adams was somewhat envious of Benjamin Franklin. Why not? I am, too. As an old fat man, who wore a coonskin hat in Paris, to demonstrate that he was an American, no, that he WAS America; who rose after a night of rollicking fun, with bright beautiful young and not so young women who adored him, what’s not to envy?
And you’re so right about Adams’ influence on the American Constitution. His state consitution served as a model, in important ways, for the national charter. And for many other states’ constitutions and revised constitutions, even now.
Adams, too, came finally to be seen by Europe, as well as by his countrymen, as a walking breathing incarnation of the Enlightenment. And beloved to the end of his life, to his country which he, as much as any woman or man, birthed. He always knew, from their earliest years together, before the Revolution, and after, as Adams served in the most important American embassy, then and now, in the world, the Court of St. James, in London, that his junior would be remembered with greater honor than himself. And Adams accepted this with the generous heart that he had, sometimes obscured but never affected, really, by his thin skin and pride. Adams was in so many ways Jefferson’s mentor, as Jefferson generously overstated to the aging Adams.
Jefferson too, though not at Philadelphia in 1787, hugely influenced the Constitution. My overstatement regarding James Madison as the primary author of the Constitution is, generally, correct. But it is an overstatement. Jefferson, our Ambassador after hostilities ceased in the Revolution, but before the Peace of Paris ended the Revolution in law, in 1783, was our ambassador in Paris. Without France, we would be in the Commonwealth, still. (Say!!!!!!!The way the Bush gang is handling things, would the Queen be willing to take us back? And give us a loan, to make up for our spending our fortune, and the fortune of our children’s children, on this evil, uncostitutional, criminally illegal war? Oh. I forgot. Tony Blair joined us, the worst decision that gifted man ever made, in Iraq.) But Jefferson’s allies in the Constitutional Convention kept him up to speed, if clipper ships and months at sea, with regular pirating taking all cargo, including official correspondence can be considered “up to speed.” For example, it is from his reception of the War Clause, in Paris,”…. Congress Shall Declare War, and Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” that I stole the title of the book that I did with Wormuth, “To Chain the Dog of War.” Jefferson said, in effect, to his followers after reading those words, “thank god that you’ve taken the war power from the executive power, the king by whatever name, whose inclination is to make war as a parlor game, on a boring Thursday afternoon; or to march as a martinet up the Thames in flashy red colors, or come down like god in a helicopter and board an aircraft carrier, in a jump suit in an army in which he never served, before sending other people’s kids off to the butchery of war. You’ve changed the decision for war or peace to the Congress, where these people, hundreds of them, must immediately answer to us all. Thereby, the huge burden of pursuasion will be upon anyone stupid enough to want war as an alternative to the status quo. And the status quo, which almost always wins in any decision or condition in life, almost always wins, having the inertia factor on its side. Horraay for inertia if the alternative is war!!!!!! ” Well, I got carried away. I said most of this, not Mr. Jefferson, after about the second line.
And while we’re giving credit for authoring the most successful written constitution of all time, Alexander Hamilton must be acknowledged by our liberal blog, oneutah.org Though badly undercut in the New York delegation by the machinations of the New York governor, a Democrat I must admit, Hamilton was a brilliant man on the floor, and in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms.
In our day of savage attacks between parties, we must remember that, while negative campaigning was by no means below these “founding fathers,” or too, the “foundng mothers,” THEY WERE ALL WHIGS. The Tories, who numbered at one time as many, I suspect, as the Whigs, had, as the course of the war continued, year after bloody year, gone to England, Canada, or were very very quiet. Our founding families all started with some absolutely fundamental truths held in common.
Now to today. That is what must happen in Iraq. That is, a real constitution, which Iraq does not really have; and real elections, which Iraq has not really enjoyed, cannot be imposed by occupying armies from acrosss the sea. The Brit’s tried, on us. They met long rifles and short effective hatchets and knives. And Prussian and French cannon. When we leave, now or thirty or seventy years from now, there will be a real bonafide civil war. Short, I hope. Maybe, just maybe if we leave now, very short, but brutal and bloody. Our invasion assured that. As some of us have said since the day after 9/11, and we guessed the planning, the conspiratorial impeachable indictable and imprisonable plotting of Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and their dummy and ours, George the Less. Mad King George. So let’s get out. Now. Just march out. All hell will break loose. And the Republicans, or the Democratic Party, if they are still in a minority, will scream til the cows come home about “the other guys “lost” the Middle East.” Bull Shit. We never owned the Middle East. God put oil under the Middle East. And Texas. I suggest giving Texas back to Mexico, from whom we stole it. But let’s keep California, a nice blue state. Utah and the Great Basin can be given back to Mexico as well, thus ending our debate about Mitt Romney, since his power base will be in Mexico. And all these red states can be Mexican. I’ll personally be happy too, since I love the Southwest and in fact, borders are human inventions anyhow. None is visible from heaven. Only geography, water, air, and love. My grandpappy Brigham was heading for Mexico, though with Old Glory flying from most the wagons, when we left Nauvoo, anyway. Full circle. How about it? I can still count to ten in Spanish, as I worked the fruit fields of what we now called Orem (then, “the Provo Bench”) with my Mexican friends each Saturday, jumping off the back of an old flatbed truck. A damned good life. Red Ryder beebee gun and all . ed firmage
October 27th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Cassandra, friend, Brigham, obviously had balls. They clanked. Just like Old Hickory. The fight with the central bank, two of them,(banks, like balls, often come in two’s) are fascinating chapters in American history. The modern incarnation, as you obviously know, is the Federal Reserve, which usually manages to do the wrong thing at the most dangerous and costly time. Except for the bankers. Who make money, either way we lose it. Much of our real democracy was lost, I fear, when the bad guys won. Jefferson hated bankers. Adams hated bankers. Joseph Smith hated bankers so much he formeed his own. When the fed’s said no, he simply called it an anti-bank and built it anyway. Then a national financial panic flatted them all, in a short depression. All Southerners and Westerners hated bankers. Hell, everyone hates bankers, probably even bankers and their spouses. We have Brigham Young’s own bronze copy of the great Jackson statue the original is placed, appropriately, in Layfayette Park, across sthe street from the White House. With all the other real-life protesters to the clowns in residence. Jacksoon is on his white stallion, sword raised, riding straight toward those criminals now occupying Jackson’s house. And ours. And Adams (briefly), Jefferson’s, Madison’s, the Monroe’s, and a second Adams, John Quincy’s (the first Adams’ gifted son). Go, Old Hickory! Use that sword!!!!!!! ed firmage
October 27th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
p.s. for Cassandra. Do I detect a Libertarian, or even an anachist lurking beneath your name? How’s this for a definition of pure anarchism? “Teach men correct principles, and they will goven themselves.” If you grant that the nineteenth century, first half and beyond, used “men” generically, a pretty great definition, by my count. Author: Joseph Smith ed firmage
October 27th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
A nice sentiment. In my study of Jackson it was my interpretation that Jackson was truly a man that wished that everyone would follow similar principles and laws, but when the apparent reality was treachery and corruption he opted, to use my words, to teach…that if you are to be a corrupt people bereft of virtue, I will teach you all what tyranny is all about. Like you said, a man to be in your corner when mopping up messes is required. No effete unwilling to get his hands dirty. “One man is a majoraty, if he have conviction”.
I can agree with Joe in principle, but I would alter it to this, teach men correct principles and the inherently corrupt will find a cunning way to do an end run on them. Joe was guilty of that, but who could blame him? I guess seeing all the corruption around him lead him to his own brand of expediency. This is the American disease. It will be our undoing.
It is old and was known by another name long ago, when Socrates was undone by sophists. Sophistry is what will kill us. As education in America wanes, the hucksters of sophistry appear, making expediency of ideas that hide their own secret agendas. They needed to drink the hemlock, not Socrates.
October 27th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
I am no anarchist, but what we currently live, is a form of anarchy, and while anarchy might be possible in theory, once humans are involved anarchy leads to tyranny, leads to death, and with no vision, the people perish.
Let’s think on Jesus when we think of those that are not for humanity, and would rather serve their own visions, as the Prince of Peace once said…
“the poor will always be with you”.
October 27th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
That is exactly why I cannot admire Jackson. You cannot fight tyranny and corruption by getting your hands dirty and teaching “you what tyranny is all about.” It serves no moral purpose to become the very thing you claim to hate.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
Well it did result in us not being subverted by the crown, which was behind all the treachery and influence that lead to the troubles. If it wasn’t for the FEAR that Jackson put in the hearts of crownies everywhere, we as a young nation probably would not have survived. He did not do it alone.
In the War of 1812 after declared war was over, Jackson, with elements of Freed Slaves, Louisiana landsmen, and Lafitte’s pirates(French) routed the british at New Orleans. That cemented the South.
In the North the defining moment was 2 weeks before the declared war ended at the Battle of Plattsburgh, also known as the Battle of Lake Champlain. In this 5000 british regulars and some 11,000 canadian tories invaded upstate New York to avenge the attack on *York(also burned, like Washington payback don’tchaknow) (*Toronto).
These were met by 5500 New York militia, Grantsman, anyone who showed was welcome. They crushed and dispatched the crownies. Will McDonough sank the british fleet on the Lake. That was the last time crownies believed we could be subdued militarily.
After this Jackson watched as people made excuses for why we should allow these people who wanted our doom, and had no respect for us, to enter into the economic benefits of OUR country. He wouldn’t allow it, and successfully, while he was alive and held power, STOPPED them from selling out to MONEY. If it weren’t for Andrew, we wouldn’t be citizens, we would be subjects.
I have lived in Canada, and know british law a little, it stinks, as the attitude of everything being for sale, with no intrinsic value considered as to the consequence of many things being monetized, including people,… and to link it to another thread, it is why the illegals are tolerated, as they have been monetized, so as you all have been, and that Jackson detested.
This attitude, which prevails in our current economy, led to slavery and the sophistry that supported it. Remember that slavery was an english instituition brought here by english minds based on property rights, and though it was ended in england the infection lay in our nation until rectified by the civil war. The war,which had many reasons for occuring,.. slavery being primary one in the minds of those that would not MONETIZE humanity.
One man with Conviction, is a Majoraty(Majority) Andrew Jackson.
February 14th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
buy cipro xr…
news…