ADDPDG logo
addpdglogo (11K)

Delusive Libertarianism:
  'libertarianish'
    Is Not A Word

04 Apr

Judge John D. Bates Decides that Habeas Corpus Extends To Some Detainees In Bagram

John D. Bates, a United States District Court Judge for The District of Columbia, issued an opinion on April 2, 2009, that applied Boumediene v. Bush to a subset of detainees held at The Bagram Theater Internment Facility, Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan, determining that some have a right to make a habeas corpus appeal in the US Federal Court system challenging their detention.

Judge Bates was a G.W. Bush appointee, who serves on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court., and has staunchly conservative credentials:

Judge Bates, by the way, is no knee-jerk liberal: He’s an Army veteran, a former prosecutor, a former deputy independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation of President Bill Clinton and a 2001 appointee of President Bush.

Editorial, “Defeated in Court — Again:, Washington Post, August 1, 2008

It bears noting that Judge Bates is a conservative in the traditional sense, who doesn’t dance a moral relativist jig to a partisan tune, as do contemporary conservatives. His past decisions have irritated both sides of the political bipolarity. In a decision widely decried and misrepresented by the left-side, he dismissed a civil suit filed by Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson against Richard Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage, seeking damages for their exposing Plame as a covert CIA operative. Bates stated in that ruling he was troubled by the behavior of government officials, but the law they had violated precluded any civil suits. In a decision widely decried by the right, Bates rule that G.W. Bush Administration members, Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers, were not immune to Congressional subpoenas to testify. Recently he has pushed the Obama Administration to comply with its own FOIA rules. Bates had previously ruled in 2007 against a governmental claim that habeas corpus did not apply to GWOT detainees. Early in January, 2009, Bates strongly implied that he believed some Bagram detainees had habeas corpus rights.
Continue Reading »

18 Mar

Is The LP Burying The Pork Cleaver?

On March 3, 2009, the Libertarian Party website published a Press Release, and a blog post stating its opposition to earmarks in H.R.1105: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. In both the Press Release and the blog post, it was clear that the LP considered earmarks in this omnibus bill to be pork. On March 11, 2009 The LP issued another Press Releases titled: Libertarians ask, ?What is Obama ashamed of??. Again, this press release clearly labeled earmarks as pork. Since March 11, the LP has been less vocal about The Beltway Porkers. Continue Reading »

31 Jan

Google Books: Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Randolph (Ed)

Here are lists of links to different versions and collections of “Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson”, edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph at Google Books, and Project Gutenberg.

From The Thomas Jefferson Foundation’s wiki; The Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia:

Memoir Correspondence and Miscellanies

The Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson was the first publication of Thomas Jefferson’s papers after his death, and the only one available until Henry A. Washington’s edition was published in 1853-1854. It was initially published by F. Carr in Charlottesville in 1829, with subsequent editions published in London, Boston, and Paris. The documents included were selected, transcribed and edited by Thomas Jefferson Randolph (Thomas Jefferson’s oldest grandson), with the help of his mother and sisters, in an effort to take control of their grandfather’s legacy and a means to relieve some of the debt they’d been left with. They were somewhat successful in the first endeavor and not very successful in the second.

The Memoir contains only a tiny portion of Jefferson’s total body of correspondence and other papers, and was carefully edited by his family to avoid controversial subjects; they also made occasional errors in their transcriptions.

Jefferson, Thomas, and Thomas Jefferson Randolph. 1829. Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson. Charlottesville [Va.]: F. Carr, and Co.

University of Michigan scans

Stanford University Libraries scans

Jefferson, Thomas, and Thomas Jefferson Randolph. 1830. Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson. Boston: Gray and Bowen. Second Edition.

New York Public Library scans

Project Gutenberg
(Probably the second edition)

29 Jan

Comparing The Inauguration Speeches of Obama and Jefferson

Correlations between Jefferson’s first Inauguration and Obama’s Inauguration are compelling.

Opposition to The Alien and Sedition Acts enacted during John Adams Presidency was a significant cause for Jefferson’s election to the Presidency. The Alien and Sedition Acts consisted of four laws legislated by The Federalist Party:
(1) An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization
(2) An Act Concerning Aliens
(3) An Act Respecting Alien Enemies
(4) An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States
Continue Reading »

05 Jan

Barry Goldwater: Religious Right Not Conservative

“The oldest philosophy in the world is conservatism, and I go clear back to the first Greeks. … When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”

Barry Goldwater, interview reported in:
Lloyd Grove, “Barry Goldwater’s Left Turn“, Washington Post, July 28, 1994; Page C01

“Conservative Activist” is an oxymoron.

The religious right is not conservative. They are extremist right-wing activists who hide underneath conservatism’s mantle as they promote their exclusionary sectarian political views falsely as being American at its core. Senator Barry Morris Goldwater, who is often referred to as “Mr. Conservative”, understood this, and spoke out against the religious right’s jacking of both Conservatism and The Republican Party.

It’s a wonderful feeling to be a conservative these days. When I ran for President 17 years ago I was told I was behind the times. Now everybody tells me I was ahead of my time. All I can say is that time certainly is an elusive companion.

But those reactions illustrate how far the ideological pendulum has swung in recent years. The American people have expressed their desire for a new course in our public policy in this country, a conservative course.

Being a conservative in America traditionally has meant that one holds a deep, abiding respect for the Constitution. We conservatives believe sincerely in the integrity of the Constitution. We treasure the freedoms that document protects.

We believe, as the founding fathers did, that we ”are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the prsuit of happiness.”

And for 205 years this nation, based on those principles, has endured. Through foreign wars and civil wars, through political scandals and economic disasters, through civil disorders and Presidential assassinations, our flag has flown high. Through it all we’ve survived every possible attack on our freedom.

But another force could succeed in dividing our country. The specter of single-issue religious groups is growing over our land. Issues Kept in Background

One of the great strengths of our political system always has been our tendency to keep religious issues in the background. By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars.

Throughout our 200-plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. Madison saw this as the great paradox of our system: How do you control the factions without violating the people’s basic freedoms? And in a well-constructed representative Government like ours, Madison said, one of our greatest strengths is our ability to ”break and control the violence of faction.” Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone lo ok at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or th e bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of in jecting religious issues into the affairs of state?

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah or whatever one calls his Supreme Being.

But, like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing in our land are not using their religioius clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their positions 100 percent.

In the past couple years, I have seen many news items that referred to the Moral Majority, prolife and other religious groups as ”the new right,” and the ”new conservatism.” Well, I have spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the ”old conservatism.” And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics.

The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength.

As it is, they are diverting us away from the vital issues that our Government needs to address. Far too much of the time of members of Congress and officials in the Executive Branch is used up dealing with special-interest groups on issues like abortion, school busing, ERA, prayer in the schools and pornography. While these are important moral issues, they are secondary right now to our national security and economic survival.

I must make it clear that I don’t condemn these groups for what they believe. I happen to share many of the values emphasized by these organizations.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ”A,” ”B,” ”C” and ”D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.

I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ”conservatism.”

Senator Barry Morris Goldwater, Congressional Daily Record, September 16, 1981

16 Dec

When Paleo Cons Attack

Al Haig in Newsmax, no less.

“I happen to love Ronald Reagan, don?t misunderstand me. He was a sick man. After he got shot, I found him to be suffering a speeding up of the decay associated with Alzheimer?s.

“Ronald Reagan, had he been Ronald Reagan of old, would have been probably our greatest president. There was a good chance of it. I mean his philosophy was sound as a dollar. But he was a sick man after he was shot ? And I?m sorry to say he wasn?t running the country. His wife ran it. Her hairdresser ran it. Jim Baker ran it – especially Jim Baker – and George Bush Senior.”

[. . .]

“I happen to think China and that initiative is the most important foreign policy event of the century, and has proven to be so.

“Now unfortunately the neocons have flipped that on its side – These men were all forced into the administration not by George Bush but by Ronald Reagan, and that was the first very contentious little meeting I had with him. I said these people are not Republicans, they?re Democrats. He said, ?Well, Al, I was a Republican and a Democrat.? I said, ?Yes, but you weren?t a neocon,? and he said, ?Don?t be so sure.?

Haig also blamed the neocons for deteriorating U.S. relations with Russia.

“This whole thing is centered around neocon philosophy. The ?normals? in the foreign policy framework are not afflicted with what I call ideological fanaticism.

“The neocons believe that you can spread democracy with a bayonet. For example, when we got Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that was the time to start saying we had won the war and to turn him over to the people who would have executed him. Instead we stayed with the hopes of making them a democracy.”

Jim Meyers, “Haig on Obama: ‘Reason to be Optimistic’“, Newsmax, December 14, 2008

Continue Reading »

03 Dec

Spurious Jefferson Quotation

Thomas Jefferson never wrote the following:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not

It does not matter how many places this can be found falsely attributed to him on the web, it still is not Jefferson’s words.

No evidence has been found that Jefferson ever wrote this. The concept of taxing income was not unknown to Jefferson, but his writings on the topic of taxation indicate that he viewed taxation generally as a source of revenue for the government.

The Jefferson Encyclopedia, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation

Far too many people are lazy and gullible, who just take any unsourced quote they find, which happens to fit their point of view, then quickly copy/paste it, thinking themselves possessed of a higher intellect.

The earliest citation for this quote found in a Google Books search points to a text published in 1986:

Galt, John. 1986. Dreams come due: government and economics as if freedom mattered : a libertarian agenda. New York: Simon and Schuster.

John Galt, and his “libertarian agenda”? As a fervent objectionist, I must protest this Randian fraudulence.

09 Nov

Google Books: The Writings of Benjamin Franklin

Google Book Links to the complete Ten Volume Collection of:

Franklin, Benjamin, and Albert Henry Smyth. 1907. The writings of Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Macmillan Company.

07 Nov

Google Books: The Writings of Samuel Adams

Here are the Google Books links to:
Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing (Ed). The Writings of Samuel Adams. Published by G. P. Putnam’s sons. Four Volumes. 1904-1908.

The Preface from Volume I:

THE writings of no one of the leaders of the American Revolution form a more complete expression of the causes and justification of that movement than do those of Samuel Adams. None of his contemporaries was so closely identified with the agitation which preceded that crisis, or displayed at that time greater facility as a writer or more unqualified devotion to public affairs. In both the politics and the literature of the American Revolution his writings constitute a distinct and essential element. As a recognized leader in the politics of his native town, as a member and also as clerk of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and later as a member of the Continental Congress, he was able to develop and to maintain a strong, and at times controlling, influence in the affairs of Massachusetts and of the new nation. By an active correspondence, by the preparation of many official documents, and by numberless newspaper articles, he was able to guide and to express the sentiment of the American provinces as they prepared for the struggle which divided the empire. Throughout that contest, and thereafter even in his declining years, Adams remained quite continuously in public life, and his later writings reflect the influence which he still exerted. 

Prudence as well as political necessity seems to have caused the early destruction of many of the papers of Adams. The dispersal of those which remained was more than once threatened, but a large number of these were finally lodged permanently in the Lenox Library, and there increased by accessions from other sources. In spite of the lapse of time, and the difficulties naturally incident to the initial collection of such material, there is now presented a substantially complete representation of the typical and effective literary work of Adams. Doubtless a few anonymous or official papers by him, the authorship of which is now indeterminate, are omitted, and the series of articles in the Independent Advertiser, which are attributed to Adams by Wells, but which constitute no part of his real life work, are excluded. A few unimportant letters are also excluded, and the existence of some obscure texts, now owned privately, will probably be brought to light by the appearance of this collection. The manuscripts contained in that portion of the Bancroft collection cited as “Samuel Adams Papers” are to a large extent drafts, as that printed on page 34, but their very substantial value is shown by the close similarity between the draft and the final document, as appears from the texts printed at pages 39 and 48.

The annotations indicating the text from which each document has been printed serve to show in detail the extent to which this collection has been made possible by the assistance of others. Through the courtesy of the Director of the “New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations,” the important collections in his charge, especially that formed by George Bancroft, have been made readily available. This portion of the work has been facilitated, in a marked degree, by the long-continued and helpful attention of Mr. Wilberforce Eames and his efficient assistants at the Lenox Library, to whom I am under an especial obligation. The privilege of using the valuable collections of the Adams family at Quincy, Massachusetts, has been promptly granted by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, and the opportunity has been enhanced by his personal interest and guidance. The Earl of Dartmouth has kindly permitted copies to be made of several letters in his collections, and Mr. John Boyd Thacher has likewise given assistance from his private collection. The unique printed and manuscript collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, have proved of material value in connection with the work. The officers of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and of the American Philosophical Society, at Philadelphia, have generously thrown open their collections, from each of which a number of important texts have been secured. By the kindness of the officers of the Connecticut Historical Society the Roger Wolcott and Oliver Wolcott papers, and also the large and unusually varied and interesting correspondence of Jeremiah Wadsworth, have been examined, although in none of them has been found any manuscript by Adams. Important texts have been secured from the manuscripts of the Boston Public Library, the rare newspaper files of which have also been freely used. From his collection, now in the same library, the late Mellen Chamberlain contributed a number of texts. Certain manuscript and other materials in the Library of Harvard University have been examined, and the facilities of the Library of Columbia University have throughout the work been at my disposal. Assistance has been secured from public records, notably in the Archives Bureau of the State of Massachusetts. In the office of the City Clerk of Boston access has been granted to the town records and original town papers relating to the period of the Revolution. In the State Library of New York the Clinton Papers and a portion of the colonial manuscripts have been examined, and at the Department of State use has been made especially of the Papers of the Continental Congress. For all the privileges thus granted, and for assistance in other quarters, I am very grateful. I desire also to express my obligation to Professor Frank J. Goodnow, of Columbia University.

H. A. C. April 26, 1904.

18 Oct

Expounding Upon Janine Hansen and The IAP at The IPR

Welcome to the curious, outraged and/or vengeful visitors who have linked to this blog because of my musings at the Independent Political Review regarding Janine Hansen. Free Speech can be a Double-Edged Sword…

To those who actually subscribe to the Dreamtime America apostasy promoted by the Constitution Party and its Nevada affiliate, Independent American Party with its black history of Lester Maddox as their candidate for the American presidency, I offer excerpts from a letter exchange between John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson; knowing presciently that you will still, with arrogant intent, refuse to originalize it.

I congratulate you on the late election in Connecticut. It is a kind of epocha. Several causes have conspired. One which you would not suspect. Some one, no doubt instigated by the devil, has taken it into his head to print a new edition of the “Independent Whig,” even in Connecticut, and has scattered the volumes through the State. These volumes, it is said, have produced a burst of indignation against priestcraft, bigotry and intolerance, and in conjunction with other causes, have produced the late election.

John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817

Your recommendations are always welcome, for indeed, the subjects of them always merit that welcome, and some of them in an extraordinary degree. They make us acquainted with what there is excellent in our ancient sister State of Massachusetts, once venerated and beloved, and still hanging on our hopes, for what need we despair of after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberality. I had believed that the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers were when they schismatized from the covenant of works, and to consider as dangerous heresies all innovations good or bad. I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character. If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, “that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, May 5, 1817

Now some original intent regarding immigration; or how it was referred to in The Nation’s early days, the natural right to Expatriation.

This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion; but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject. That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot, because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another: are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize.

Supreme Court James Iredell, “Talbot v. Janson, 1795″

“My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know.”

Thomas Jefferson, “To Doctor John Manners, June 12, 1817″

© 2009 Delusive Libertarianism | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

GPS Reviews and news from GPS Gazettewordpress logo