A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 18, 2016

What Kind of Caterpillar Smokes a Hookah? Does Anybody Know?


Special to the Cape Charles Mirror by Paul Plante

In an essay entitled “American Federalism, 1776 to 1997: Significant Events,” by Eugene Boyd dated January 6, 1997, the author breaks American political history into four (4) distinct eras beginning in 1789 and ending in 1997.

In his scheme of things, he terms the period from 1789 to 1901 as the era of Dual Federalism which is characterized as an era during which there was little collaboration between the national and state governments.

Indeed, that was the time period in this nation’s political history which included the Principles of ’98, the American political position that individual states could judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees, and could refuse to enforce laws deemed unconstitutional, which, according to WIKIPEDIA, is generally referred to as “nullification,” but has also been expressed as “interposition,” i.e. the states right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state.

As schoolboy/girl history books tell us, the Principles of ’98 were widely promoted in Jeffersonian Democracy, especially by what were then called Tertium Quids, a disparaging term that referred to cross-party coalitions of Federalists and moderate Democratic-Republicans such as John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia.

As we are informed by history, the term “Principles of ’98” derives from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions written in 1798 by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, both of whom believed that if the central government was the exclusive judge of its limitations under the U.S. Constitution, then it would eventually overcome those limits and become more and more powerful and authoritarian, which, of course, brings us to the times we are living in today in this nation, which is what makes this upcoming presidential so interesting and important, where we have what can only be called two monarchists competing against each for the throne of imperial power in Washington, D.C.

Madison and Jefferson argued that formal limiting devices such as elections and separation of power would not suffice if the government could judge its own case regarding constitutionality.

As Jefferson wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Say what you will about old Tom, he certainly had prescient vision with that statement.

From Dual Federalism, we next go to what the author terms the era of Cooperative Federalism, which is the term given to the period from 1901 to 1960.

According to the author, this period was marked by greater cooperation and collaboration between the various levels of government, and it was during this era that the national income tax and the grant-in-aid system were authorized in response to social and economic problems confronting the nation.

From there, we go to the period from 1960 to 1968, which was called “Creative Federalism” by President Lyndon Johnson’s Administration.

Not surprisingly to those of us alive back then, especially us Viet Nam veterans, President Johnson’s “Creative Federalism” as embodied in his Great Society program, was, by most scholars’ assessments, a major departure from the past, which comes across to me as gross understatement.

President Johnson’s “Creative Federalism” as embodied in his Great Society program further shifted the power relationship between governmental levels toward the national government through the expansion of grant-in-aid system and the increasing use of regulations.

And that then takes us to what the author calls Contemporary federalism, which was the period from 1970 to 1997, when the article was written, an era characterized by shifts in the intergovernmental grant system, the growth of unfunded federal mandates, concerns about federal regulations, and continuing disputes over the nature of the federal system.

And here we are now, almost twenty (20) years later, and those disputes over the nature of OUR federal system in this nation have greatly escalated, as we see state Constitutions vanishing in New York state and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So the question to me is – what era are we now in?

Are we still in the era known as Contemporary federalism, which period began in 1970, the year I got back from Viet Nam, or have we progressed from there into a new era, as yet unnamed?

In answer to that, I would posit that the era known as Contemporary federalism ended on 9-11-2001, to be replaced with what can only be described as Imperial federalism, where all governmental functions in this nation are being subsumed into the federal government in Washington, D.C., or are coming under the control of the federal government in Washington, D.C., which is coming to resemble the Roman government in the time of Augustus Caesar.

In that scenario, George W. Bush became our first imperial president, a law unto himself.

Barack Hussein Obama, he of the executive orders, became our second imperial president, and with his executive orders, he expanded on the powers our first imperial president, George W. Bush awarded himself when he assumed office in 2000.

And now we are confronted with the election of our third and most powerful imperial president to date, in what has to be the most bizarre and surreal presidential election in my lifetime.

With respect to bizarre and surreal, we have Hillary Clinton, who just made the most miraculous recovery from pneumonia the world has ever witnessed, making national news by slamming Donald Trump on Thursday, September 15, 2016, for declining to answer a question about where President Barack Obama was born, as if the most important issue facing this nation today was not about ISIS, or when we are ever going to get out of Afghanistnam, or our $20 TRILLION national debt, but instead is “where was Barack Obama born?”

“When will he stop this ugliness, this bigotry?” Hillary ranted and pouted at The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute awards gala in Washington, D.C. because Trump would not tell her where Barack Obama was born, as if Trump had been there as a witness to record the momentous event, and as if not considering where Barack Obama was born was really a worthy topic of debate between two presidential candidates in America today, neither of whom is named Obama, constitutes bigotry, which is defined as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.”

Does the fact that Donald Trump doesn’t see it worth the while of we, the American people, to have listen to a silly debate between himself and Hillary Clinton on the question of where Barack Obama was born really qualify as “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself,” or is the charge of bigotry made by Hillary Clinton simply patently stupid?

Are there more important things for two presidential candidates in this country to debate about than where Barack Obama was born?

Or is that really what is at the top of the list?

Now, as to that caterpillar, it is blue in color with a haughty look on its face and a supercilious attitude as it sits on a mushroom outside my window smoking its hookah and occasionally blowing smoke letters in the air, which, when put together, seem to say “this **** is too bizarre to be real,” a sentiment I find it impossible to disagree with.

Whatever kind of caterpillar that is, it sure does seem to have its finger on the pulse of these times that we now find ourselves immersed in.

Could it be Tom Jefferson reincarnated?

A question for our times if there ever was one.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143727
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 AT 5:18 PM

Paul Plante says:

With respect to the surreal and bizarre nature of this up-coming presidential election, for the first time in American political history, we have two candidates running for the imperial presidency on behalf of the two supposedly “major” political factions in this nation, both of which now represent a shrinking minority of voters in this country, and both candidates are highly disliked and reviled by a majority of voters in this country, as we are informed by the Washington Post on 31 August 2017, as follows:

* A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 41 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent have an unfavorable one.

* That’s the worst image Clinton has had in her quarter-century in national public life.

* Her previous low favorable rating this year was in July, when it was 42 percent, lower than any mark in historical Post-ABC polls except a few points in the 1990s when a large share of the public had no opinion of her.

* Her previous high for unfavorable views was in June, when 55 percent disliked Clinton.

* If it weren’t for Trump, in fact, Clinton would be the most unpopular major-party presidential nominee in modern American history.

* Perhaps most notably, Clinton’s image has declined significantly from just a month ago.

* Interestingly, Clinton’s numbers appear to have dropped since that early August poll mostly in groups that have been very supportive of her:

* Her favorable rating among women dropped from 54 percent to just 45 percent.

* Among Hispanics, it went from 71 percent to 55 percent.

* Among liberals, it went from 76 percent to 63 percent.

end quotes

According to NBC News on 13 September 2016, though a majority of voters say they have an unfavorable impression of Clinton (59 percent) and Trump (60 percent), the number of voters who say they have a strongly favorable opinion of Trump has increased by 4 points — from 12 points to 16 points — since the questions was last asked about a month ago.

Currently, 38 percent of registered voters now have a favorable impression of Trump.

Nearly an identical number — 39 percent — have a favorable impression of Clinton.

end quotes

And yet, they are what we are being dished up as our choices for president this year.

In a MARKETWATCH article by Caroline Baum on August 3, 2016, we are informed thusly about Hillary Clinton, who is reviled by a clear majority of American citizens, and with good reason, in my estimation:

Hillary Clinton has a long history of lying.

In fact, her first instinct, when confronted with some tawdry, quasi-illegal activity, is to dissemble.

In 1996, New York Times columnist William Safire called her “a congenital liar,” citing her comments about her cattle-trading windfall, her involvement in the firing of members of the White House Travel Office, and the missing Rose Law Firm files that miraculously reappeared.

Most recently, Clinton’s denials about sending classified information on her private email account housed on her private server were exposed as falsehoods by FBI Director James Comey.

Asked by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” about Comey’s comments, the former secretary of state lied again, claiming Comey had called her statements “truthful.”

The Washington Post’s FactChecker awarded Clinton four Pinocchios, a rating reserved for the biggest whoppers, prompting the Atlantic’s Ron Fournier to write an article headlined, “Why Can’t Hillary Clinton Stop Lying?”

end quote

The question, however, is not so much one of why can’t Hillary Clinton stop lying as it is one of who in America in their right mind wants to have as their leader someone who can’t stop lying.

How low does one’s self-esteem have to be to want to live in a nation with a highly unpopular congenital liar who despises the majority of people in this country and dumps them into her “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES,” as if they were trash, as its chief executive officer and commander-in-chief of its military?

With respect to the question of Hillary Clinton’s veracity, in a NEWSMAX article by Brian Freeman on 07 August 2016, we are informed as follows with respect to Hillary Clinton’s claims about creating jobs in the United States of America, to wit:

Even though Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton touts her accomplishments at job creation as a New York senator, the actual results of her efforts are far from impressive, according to The Washington Post.

The paper conducted an in-depth review of her job-creation efforts while in the Senate, when she concentrated on trying to revive the economy in the depressed region of Upstate New York.

One of the major issues in the presidential election is expected to be who is most capable of running the economy and who has the best record of helping to stimulate growth.

In fact, First Post reported that during this past week of campaigning, Clinton said her economic plan for if she becomes president would create 10 million jobs, while that of Republican nominee Donald Trump would lose 3.5 million jobs, emphasizing that he is not offering “real change” but “empty promises.”

In her campaign for the Senate, Clinton also made grand promises, vowing to create 200,000 new jobs in Upstate New York, but the results fall well short of that, according to The Washington Post study.

Her attempts to pass major legislation to benefit the economy of her state failed and her smaller projects often were short-lived or did not work out at all, with overall job growth stagnate during her tenure, while manufacturing jobs plummeted 25 percent.

With that in mind, the most reliable figures are those from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which show that during her overall time as senator, upstate jobs rose only 0.2 percent overall, while manufacturing positions fell 24.1 percent.

Some of the new jobs, however, appeared to have been created by legislation that was introduced by a Republican senator and only included Clinton as one of 21 co-sponsors, the study shows.

end quote

In New York state, we know Hillary Clinton to be pro-repression when it comes to dissent against government corruption, and pro-government corruption when it comes to her policies.

We also know her to be quite a bit less than truthful, and thus are amazed that she is a leading contender for this highest government position in this land.

With respect to her dislike and disdain for the American people, and her broad-brush smears of the American people, who Hillary despises, in a NEWSMAX article dated September 16, 2016 by Mark Swanson, we are told:

Hillary Clinton on Friday slammed Donald Trump for being the standard bearer of the Obama birther movement, telling the audience that “he is feeding into the worst impulses, the bigotry and bias that lurks in our country.”

Clinton made the remarks at the Black Women’s Agenda 39th Annual Symposium in Washington, D.C.

end quote

“He is feeding into the worst impulses, the bigotry and bias that lurks in our country,” this from Hillary Clinton who stated publicly in April of 2016:

“If someone has white skin, they are a racist because of Implicit Bias, and we need community programs here in America to cure them.”

end quote

But of course, since she is Hillary, she is not feeding into the worst impulses, the bigotry and bias that lurks in our country, with that biased and highly prejudicial statement of hers as she panders for votes with it.

What crap say I.

In that same article, Hillary can be seen screeching as follows:

“For five years [Trump] has led the birther movement to delegitimize our first black president,” Clinton said in her speech.

“His campaign was founded on this outrageous lie.”

“There is no erasing it in history.”

“He is feeding into the worst impulses, the bigotry and bias that lurks in our country.”

“Barack Obama was born in America, plain and simple, and Donald Trump owes him and the American people an apology,” Clinton said.

end quote

Why does Donald Trump owe the American people an apology because Barack Obama was born in the United States of America?

What kind of lunatic logic can possibly support that statement?

And why should Trump have to apologize to Obama because Obama was born in the United States of America?

That makes absolutely no sense, either, and it is a sign that it is Hillary Clinton’s mental health we really should be concerned about, although to be truthful, there is nothing that bars someone with a questionable grasp on reality from running for and serving as American president.

“Imagine someone who distorts the truth to fit a very narrow view of the world,” Clinton said.

And yes, I can certainly can.

In fact, her name is Hillary Clinton.

And then Hillary says: “Imagine a president who he sees doesn’t look like him and doesn’t agree with him and thinks, that person must not be a real American.”

“Donald Trump is unfit to be president of the United States.”

end quote

Uh, okay, sure, Hillary, if you say so, but with respect to where Barack Obama’s ideas come from regardless of where Obama was born, Obama himself stated thusly in his African Union Speech in Ethiopia on July 28, 2015:

OBAMA: I also stand before you as the son of an African.

And Africa and its people have helped shape who I am and how I see the world.

end quotes

With that statement by Obama in the public record, as an American citizen, I see no reason why Trump, or anyone else for that matter, including Clinton herself, should not be questioning how Obama views the United States of America and its people, when his views on government are not based on our political history, but instead are derived from the tribal political history of Africa, a place not noted for political stability, while being noted for corruption and tribal violence and warfare.

With respect to the Republican and Democrat parties now being shrinking minorities in this country, we have from GALLUP in a January 11, 2016 story entitled “Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows” by Jeffrey M. Jones, as follows:

Story Highlights

• 42% identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, 26% as Republicans

• Independent identification at least 40% for fifth consecutive year

PRINCETON, N.J. — In 2015, for the fifth consecutive year, at least four in 10 U.S. adults identified as political independents.

The 42% identifying as independents in 2015 was down slightly from the record 43% in 2014.

This elevated percentage of political independents leaves Democratic (29%) and Republican (26%) identification at or near recent low points, with the modest Democratic advantage roughly where it has been over the past five years.

end quote

Despite the fact that they are both minorities in this country, they have provided us with our only two major presidential contenders.

What is wrong with that picture, people?

Why does the minority get to impose their views on the majority through the selection of who we get to vote on for president?

As to issues far more important to us as a nation than where Barack Obama might have been born, as if anyone even cares, according to a MARKETWATCH article by Jeffry Bartash on September 13, 2016:

The national debt has grown tremendously in the wake of the Great Recession owing to slower economic growth and tax revenues and higher government spending.

The total owed by the U.S. government has more than doubled to $19.5 trillion as of August from $9 trillion shortly before the onset of the Great Recession at the end of 2007.

The total debt surpassed the size of the U.S. economy in 2012 for the first time since the end of World War Two, according to a calculation by Haver Analytics.

Just 10 years ago, the debt was only two-thirds the size of annual economic growth.

end quote

What are either of these two highly-disliked, minority party presidential candidates going to do about that, besides keep increasing it by leaps and bounds without an end in sight?

Neither says, because neither knows.

In another MARKETWATCH article from September 8, 2016, we are told:

Outstanding consumer credit rose by a seasonally adjusted $17.7 billion in July, the Federal Reserve said Thursday.

Adding to the sense of strength, a slowdown in June was revised to reflect a rise.

The Fed’s data now show a $14.5 billion gain in June, up from the prior estimate of $12.3 billion, which was the slowest pace in almost four years.

Consumer credit rose at a 5.8% seasonally adjusted annual growth rate in July, a pickup from June’s upwardly revised 4.8% pace.

end quote

And in a MARKETWATCH article by Darrell Delamaide on September 16, 2016, it was reported as follows:

Personal finance website WalletHub reported that U.S. consumers added $34.4 billion of credit card debt in the second quarter of 2016 alone, equal to nearly half the overall total in 2015 and almost matching the $36 billion for all of 2012.

Credit card debt is likely to show a net increase of $80 billion in 2016, WalletHub forecasts, versus $71 billion in 2015 — pushing outstanding balances over the $1 trillion threshold for the first time and making the average household debt a “perilous” $8,500.

end quote

Do either candidate have any thoughts about all the debt?

The answer is, we don’t know.

Why don’t we know?

That answer is simple – because we have two highly disliked idiots running for president after being put in those roles by a minority of the American people who are too busy arguing and bickering over where Barack Obama was born to be worried about all that debt, if they even know it exists.

Incredible, say I.

And now, back to that caterpillar ….

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143727
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 AT 6:17 PM

Paul Plante says:

In his essay entitled “A VANISHING VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION?”, the Honorable Stephen R. McCullough, a Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, and prior to that, a State Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, informed us as follows with respect to concentrated power at the federal level, such as we are experiencing more and more in our lives as American citizens today, to wit:

The notion of protecting the sovereignty of Virginia might seem highly abstract or even anachronistic in an age of robust federal power, but that is not so.

Concentrated power was one of the principal evils the Framers of the United States Constitution sought to avoid.

The horrors of the past century that were inflicted upon the world by totalitarian regimes offer ample evidence of the wisdom of avoiding concentrations of power.

end quote

Quite obviously, from the fact that we now have Imperial presidents in this country along the lines of Augustus Caesar of Rome, or Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, known to history as Caligula, or “little boots,” we have completely forgotten the horrors of the past century that were inflicted upon the world by totalitarian regimes which were supposed to offer us ample evidence of the wisdom of avoiding concentrations of power, as I was taught in school at the end of WWII.

Why have we forgotten those horrors of the past century?

Because we have extremely short memories, those of us who still have memories, and we like to focus on how special and exceptional we are, instead, as was made quite apparent to all of us by Hillary Clinton, more than likely this nation’s first empress along the lines of Catherine the Great of Russia, despite the fact that she is disliked and reviled by 60% of the American people, who are disliked and disdained in return by Hillary, in her impassioned speech to the American Legion, of which I am a life member, touting “American Exceptionalism” on September 1, 2016, as follows:

If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this.

The United States is an exceptional nation.

I believe we are still Lincoln’s last, best hope of Earth.

We’re still Reagan’s shining city on a hill.

We’re still Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country.

My friends, we are so lucky to be Americans.

It is an extraordinary blessing.

It’s why so many people, from so many places, want to be Americans too.

end quotes

Yes, indeed, Hillary, we are so exceptional that we are now $20 TRILLION dollars in debt as a nation, we are stuck in a quagmire in Afghanistnam we are unable to extricate ourselves from at a cost of $4 BILLION a year to protect rampant corruption in that country, we have turned Libya into a failed state thanks to the idiotic foreign policy of Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, and we are becoming mired in another quagmire in Syria which again was caused by the idiotic foreign policy of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in 2011, which idiocy has given the world ISIS as its poison fruit.

Exceptional, indeed.

So, with respect to concentrating power at the federal level in the person of a tyrant like Hillary Clinton, how does someone who is despised and disliked and reviled by a majority of American citizens, and who in turn despises a majority of Americans, calling them a “Basket of Deplorables,” manage to become the top contender for the office of president of the United States of America?

How can such a thing happen in a supposedly exceptional nation that is Lincoln’s last, best hope of Earth, Reagan’s shining city on a hill, and Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country, all rolled up into one?

Let’s take a look, and the answer is called “tyranny of the minority,” as we shall soon see.

As to the “tyranny of the minority” that has given us Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, according to recent Voter Registration Statistics, the total number of Americans eligible to vote is 218,959,000 persons while the total number of Americans registered to vote is 146,311,000 persons.

If we consider the 60% of Americans registered to vote who dislike Hillary Clinton, we are talking 87,786,600 people.

If we then check further, we find that Hillary Clinton received just 15,899,116 votes this year in the primary against the sell-out Bernie Sanders, which is how Hillary Clinton became a top presidential contender in this presidential race.

So, doing some math here, of all the people in this country eligible to vote, just 7.261 percent of those people, a very small minority, are responsible for gifting us with Hillary Clinton as our next Imperial president, or empress in the case of Hillary Clinton.

And that people, is what is laughingly called “democracy” in this exceptional nation of ours by such political luminaries as Hillary Clinton and our present emperor, Barack Hussein Obama.

To me, of course, it is bizarre that we do call this obvious tail wagging the dog “democracy.”

Democracy is supposed to be majority rules, not the majority ruled by less than 10% of the people in this nation who can vote.

When less than 10% do rule the majority, who in turn cannot abide the choice of the minority for “ruler,” then that is not democracy at all, that is demockery, and the joke is on us, for we are fools to allow it to happen.

But we have, haven’t we.

Forgetting the past, we are selling out the future for a pocketful of mumbles from Hillary Clinton which pass as promises.

And now, back to that caterpillar, who has been blowing smoke letters in the air, which, when put together, seem to say “you people aren’t exceptional at all, you’re the idiots, and this **** is still too bizarre to be real,” which sentiment I again find impossible to disagree with, because it is so true.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143727
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 AT 6:32 PM

Paul Plante says:

With regard to what era we might now be in in this nation today, and I certainly don’t quibble with calling it THE ERA OF INSANITY, for that name seems apt, in the FEDERALIST No. 1, written in 1787 by Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym PUBLIUS for the Independent Journal and to the People of the State of New York, it was stated thusly:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

end quote

There is where the experiment known as the Republic of the United States of America began two-hundred twenty-nine (229) years ago now, and 229 years later, today, in fact, we are left in here to ponder that same question in the light of the history which has transpired in this nation between then and now, to wit: whether societies of men and women are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.

Having been a student of our contemporary political history since I returned to this country from combat in Viet Nam in 1970, quite frankly, I tend away from the former, that societies of men and women in this country are really capable of establishing good government from reflection and choice, and toward the latter, that in reality, we are forever destined to depend for our political constitutions on accident and force.

In FEDERALIST No. 2, writing as PUBLIUS, John Jay, later to be the first Chief Justice of the United States (1789–95), mused as follows with respect to the American people of that time:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

end quotes

How the times have changed since then, is all I can say, because today, we no longer are one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, and attached to the same principles of government.

Today, we are a nation divided and at war with itself within.

We are a nation speaking many languages, with many competing religious views, and people very dissimilar in their manners and customs, who are not at all attached to the same principles of government.

In support of that contention, consider this from the Wall Street Journal on January 12, 2016:

Some 70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, according to a December Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

The poll also found 51% of Americans disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing, while 43% approve.

end quote

With respect to our nation, our political union as he called it in FEDERALIST No. 2, PUBLIUS stated as follows:

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it.

They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well balanced government for a free people.

It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

end quote

Think on those words for a moment if you will, “that a government should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer,” keeping in mind that in December of last year, some 70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track.

Then consider these words from FEDERALIST No. 2 concerning the persons in this nation at that time who were responsible for the United States Constitution, which has been largely, if not totally set aside and discarded by our present Imperial president, Barack Hussein Obama Magnus:

This (Constitutional) convention (1787) composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task (of writing the U.S. Constitution).

end quote

And then honestly ask yourself, do we have anyone in our federal government today, or running for president today, especially, who can truthfully be said to be “highly distinguished” by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom?

Is Hillary Clinton “highly distinguished” by her patriotism, virtue and wisdom?

Or is she highly distinguished as a shallow-thinking, pathological liar whose damn poor judgment as U.S. secretary of state in 2011 resulted in Libya now being a failed state overrun by terrorists, and has also caused Syria to be on the road to becoming a failed state overrun by terrorists?

I, of course, and not surprisingly, go with the latter based on Hillary’s own long and well-documented record of failure.

And that of course, brings us to this CNN article by Dan Merica and Eric Bradner from July 25, 2016, entitled “Clinton says there is an unfair ‘Hillary standard’ on trust and honesty,” where we were informed as follows:

Hillary Clinton “felt sad” watching a Republican National Convention that was mostly about “criticizing me,” she said an interview aired Sunday night on CBS’ “60 Minutes.”

end quote

Yes, Hillary, of course, it is always about you and not what plagues this nation today that has some 70% of Americans believing the country is on the wrong track, according to a December Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with some 51% of Americans disapproving of the job Barack Obama is doing.

“I seem to be the only unifying theme that they had,” the presumptive Democratic nominee said.

“There was no positive agenda.”

“It was a very dark, divisive campaign.”

“And the people who were speaking were painting a picture of our country that I did not recognize — you know, negative, scapegoating, fear, bigotry, smears.”

“I just was so — I was saddened by it.”

end quote

Oh, poor dear Hillary is all I can say to that.

And that brings us to an article by Stephen Collinson of CNN on January 17, 2016, where we are given this information about poor dear Hillary and her own relationship to Barack Obama, who does not enjoy the trust of the American people, nor is he considered to be “highly distinguished” by his patriotism, virtue and wisdom, to wit:

And she sought to tie herself as closely as possible to the Obama’s legacy, praising him for pulling America out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

She accused Sanders of calling the President “weak” and “disappointing.”

end quote

Given that Bernie Sanders swept just about every county in New York state in the primary against Hillary, it logically follows that Bernie was not alone in calling Barack Obama “weak” and “disappointing,” which is a fair assessment of the man in my estimation anyway, as a loyal American citizen.

And that then brings us to this MARKETWATCH article by Darrell Delamaide dated March 9, 2016:

Another progressive, Bill Curry, a White House counselor in the Clinton administration, wrote in Salon that the inevitability of Clinton’s nomination is a lie, because she is by some measures the weakest candidate the Democrats can field.

“The election is part of a broader revolt against a failed status quo,” Curry wrote this week.

“Clinton is an architect of that status quo; Trump, a big beneficiary.”

“Bernie is an open book,” he continued.

“It’s why he has the highest favorability rating of any candidate in the race and Clinton has the lowest of any presidential candidate in the history of polling, except for Trump.”

end quote

There is what gives some teeth to the premise or argument that we have indeed entered fully into the ERA OF INSANITY here in the United States of America, that we actually have someone running for president who is despised and reviled by over half the people in this nation.

Adding more fuel to that debate as to whether we are just now entering the ERA OF INSANITY, or have fully entered it with no way back now, we had this from HILLARY in the CNN debate in response to Bernie questioning her lack of sound judgment:

CLINTON: — and President Obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of State for the United States.

end quote

That of course, is horse****.

For one thing, Obama’s own judgment with respect to foreign policy is highly suspect, so making the statement that Obama trusted Hillary Clinton’s judgment on foreign policy enough to ask her to be secretary of State for the United States is like one blind person telling us that another blind person trusted her to do the driving when they went out on a date.

And more to the point, Obama didn’t ask her to be secretary of state because he trusted her judgment on foreign policy.

In fact, he made it clear during the Democrat primary when he ran against Hillary that Hillary’s own judgment on foreign policy was seriously flawed and highly suspect because of HILLARY’s vote to invade Iraqinam.

In reality, Obama gave her the job of secretary of state as a political plum, a sinecure, to make peace with the Clintons and to keep peace in the Democrat party, but not surprisingly, Hillary thinks we are all stupid and have no memories of any of that, so she felt quite comfortable feeding us that line of crap in the CNN debate that President Obama trusted her judgment enough to ask her to be secretary of State for the United States.

So yes, people, the ERA OF INSANITY!

Look around yourself and you will find yourself surrounded by it, especially when you head to the polls in November to vote for one of the two most unpopular presidential candidate in this nation’s history.

And now, back to that caterpillar and his hookah …

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143727
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 AT 5:21 PM

Paul Plante says:

Not to be overly picky or pedantic here, David, but I think that should be spelled “pshaw,” which is an expression used to express irritation, disapproval, contempt, or disbelief, all of which are quite fitting with respect to this up-coming presidential election where we are stuck with a choice, and a damn poor one it is, between a loud-mouthed blowhard with a perpetual bad hair day on the one hand, who if elected will render the United States of America into an environmental and industrial wasteland reminiscent Giedi Prime under the rule of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, with its bio-resources depleted and its environment fouled with industrial pollution, and a shallow-thinking, pathological liar with extremely poor judgment but a very high opinion of herself, notwithstanding, on the other, both of whom are disliked and reviled by a majority of the American people, and with good reason.

Given that, David, your expression of disapproval and contempt for those two choices, as well as your disbelief that those are our choices, is warranted.

Thanks for coming in here and expressing it for all the candid world to see.

As always, your efforts at citizenship are very much appreciated by a grateful nation and its people.

If only more people like you would come out and stand up against these two sorry political parties who are ruining this nation, what a world it could be.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143451
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 AT 4:27 PM

Chas Cornweller says:

Mr. Plante, I’ve read your article and your responses in the comments section with great interest.

You are undeniably not only a great writer and word handler, but an astute student of United States history.

I would be honored to sit with you one day and buy you a beer and discuss this nation’s history, ad nauseam.

Or at least until the keg runs dry.

You bring up so many interesting points, I really don’t know where to begin.

So, let me play devil’s advocate (which seems appropriate on many levels for those that know me.)

You speak of a united America in the earliest days of this nation’s liberty and how the people were bonded in common cause, and common ancestry.

I disagree.

First, the revolution was split (and some folks on the Eastern Shore can attest to their own families royal standing) with many people siding with the King of England.

They were known as Loyalist and their loyalties fell anywhere between strongly standing with the King to somewhat loyal to whomever inhabited their property to smuggling for both sides.

Scottish and Hessian soldiers, (British mercenaries) it is known, remained in the land long after the war and settled Pennsylvania and the Appalachian regions.

Furthermore, black slaves constituted over one quarter of the population of the young nation at this time.

They did not have a voice that John Jay speaks of.

Neither did the female population.

My point is, divisions were present even as John Jay wrote Publius.

Further cracks appeared politically that eventually led this country into a great war within this nation.

The result being a stronger centralized Federal government.

To accuse this nation of being divided at its very beginning, I believe is a fair assessment.

But those causes/solutions are for a later discussion.

Mr. Plante, I must say, I am very impressed with the four to five divisions you have brilliantly presented as to the state of the nation over its nearly two hundred and forty years.

The naming convention seems fairly apt.

For my own (and others) reference I will repeat them here.

They are:

1. Dual Federalism – 1789 thru 1901
2. Cooperative Federalism – 1901 thru 1960
3. Creative Federalism – 1960 thru 1968
4. Contemporary Federalism – 1970 thru 2000
5. Imperial Federalism – 2001 thru today

As a participant of history (aren’t we all one way or another – there are no participants in the stream of time) and as a student I find these terms fascinating.

It truly helps to define the various eras of this great nation.

However, with just a cursory glance, they may seem to clearly define each epoch, but on closer scrutiny they seem (in my honest opinion) to be false.

May I try to break down Devil’s Advocate style?

Number one, Dual Federalism.

First and foremost, as history would teach us, Jefferson and Hamilton seem to be the defining points of the compass of government in the period of this young nation’s growth.

Federalism being the centralized banking and the government that paid the bills and keep the economy running smoothly and the standing army, well, standing.

(And thanks to Adams – the Navy, floating)

Jefferson’s ideal was Agrarianism, where the farmer (translate: white property owner – usually wealthy) was the Country Gentleman and the Renaissance man serving both locally (crops to feed the workers/tradesman in the immediate area) and nationally (governmental positions either with the statehood or within the Federal government – for a time).

Then it was back to his regular ways of farming, building and contributing.

But, we both know history and Jefferson was not wealthy, in fact he was quite in debt most of his life.

Also, as the range of land ran out, we were expected to expand westward, or incorporate into townships.

Both of which happened at a rapid rate.

Mix in an agrarian south and a merchant based/industrial north, there were bound to be differences between the states and the central government tasked with holding it all together.

It would be during the growth of this young nation that the Cooperative Federalism began to take shape.

This would have been a time of tremendous economic and industrial growth for this young nation.

I would put the years 1789 to 1877.

The strength of the Federal regime grew quite muscular post-Civil War.

From that period forward, Congress and the House began to manipulate the economy and of course their constituency to gratify their own monetary gains.

This was happening not only at the local levels, but on the national levels.

Alongside this graft, you had the growth of the Nouveau Riche or Robber Barons, depending on your historical stance.

The fact that the one percenters of the day were the railroad, steel, oil, land owners and politicians, has not been lost on history.

The cooperation was to ensure their maintaining power.

This, I believe lead to the growth of Creative Federalism, which I would put between the years 1880 to 1940.

In those years, the Federal Reserve was created, a centralized taxation system installed and the beginnings of socialism with Social Security and multiple national welfare projects installed.

Some of which are still in place.

There are many arguments about what caused and what ended the Great Depression.

Just as there are many arguments about what sustains our capitalistic system and keeps the one percent viable and maintained today.

I will not going go into that now, as it is a separate issue parallel to the growth and maintenance of our Federal government today.

My point is this, however.

The period of creative federalism set in place a lasting foundation on which the growth of imperialism was possible.

Which leads me to the fourth period.

Contemporary Federalism or as I like to view it, the rise of the Military Industrial Complex, took place from the years 1940 to now (over lapping today’s period of Imperial Federalization).

During the Second World War, industrialists realized that this huge war machine was a vast money making enterprise.

But, to truly reap the bounty of profits, one must first win that war.

What they discovered, was, if you play both sides it doesn’t matter if you win or lose.

You could still profit.

This is inherently dangerous for obvious reasons.

One, an economy is solely dependent on war to continue and maintain a high return.

Two, imperialism is the key to creating war.

During the fifties and sixties, resources still were fairly abundant.

Oil hadn’t reached the tipping point and many resourced mountain ranges hadn’t been tapped for their precious ore as of yet.

By the year 2000, however, that perspective had vastly altered.

We are now in a period of an Imperialist expansion where we have troops pretty much everywhere in the world.

Like they used to say, “The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire.”

That is true for the United States Army, Navy and Marine Reserves.

A far cry from our constitutional intent, wouldn’t you agree Mr. Plante?

I believe, I have defined as well the fifth period you so eloquently named as Imperial Federalism.

In his exit speech, President Eisenhower warned of the Military Industrial Complex.

As a soldier and a leader of soldiers, he knew the cost of perpetual war.

He knew the costs of limited war.

And he knew the costs of war in general.

We have reached a period of human history where the natural resources cannot be sustained without major technological manipulation.

Fresh water is limited, unless cheap de-salinization plants can be built and maintained.

Oil is limited, unless some alternatives such as synthetic oil can cheaply be made or solar, nuclear, or wind turbines can be used and maintained to sustain our dependence on electricity.

Food diets are rapidly changing as the sea life is depleted and viable land decreases for livestock and plant growth.

The nature of the earth itself is rapidly (geologically timewise) changing and not in favor for the existence of human life.

Humanity is in a war on two fronts.

One with the changes in lifestyle/resources.

The other, well, with each other.

I am not sure they are in disconnect.

The real answer to the question of today’s turmoil, is not why they (whomever the enemy da jour is) are doing to us what they are doing, but why are we involved in the first place.

No one seems to have a good answer for that.

Certainly our political leaders don’t.

And if you ask me, they are the ones who got us here in the first place.

I know I have gone long, but I was so taken by your article, I felt a need to respond in kind.

I hope I have done your piece justice.

It was a good one.

But, I hope you realize (and I believe you do) this is not a one way street.

Many people (and many, many years) have gotten us to this point.

Our nation is where it is because many connected people made miss-steps all along the way.

The very fact that even the brightest and most connected so long ago could not agree on so many issues, leads me to believe government, any government for that matter is not the answer.

The answer lies within ourselves.

And of course, the converse of that is, as succinctly as Shakespeare could famously put it…

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

Have a blessed day, dear sir.

And, remember, that first beer is on me.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143451
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 AT 6:58 PM

Paul Plante says:

What a segue you have provided me with here, Chas Cornweller.

Never waste a good segue, say I.

Like the people of Virginia, I too live in a place steeped in history going back to the 1600’s, and I have been surrounded by that history these 70 years that I have been alive, and I have been a student of it ever since I was first introduced to it as a kindergartener right after WWII.

Just to the north of me is the Saratoga battlefield where the playwright, “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne met his Waterloo in October of 1777, and just to the east is the site of what is mistakenly called the “Battle of Bennington,” where a rebel force of 2,000 men, primarily composed of New Hampshire and Massachusetts militiamen, led by General John Stark, and reinforced by Vermont militiamen led by Colonel Seth Warner and members of the Green Mountain Boys decisively defeated a detachment of General Burgoyne’s army led by Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich Baum, and supported by additional men under Lieutenant Colonel Heinrich von Breymann. which was a mixed force of 700 composed primarily of Hessians but also including small amounts of dismounted Brunswick dragoons, Canadians, Loyalists, and Indians.

In that engagement, some 207 Hessians were killed, and 700 Hessians captured, and when I was young, farmers plowing their fields out that way in the springtime were still dragging up the occasional Hessian planted there by the rebels in August of 1777.

And yes, that was very much a bloody civil war in this country between loyalists, or tories, on the one side, and the rebels on the other, so I am aware of how divided we were as a people prior to Publius and the Federalist papers, post the American Revolution.

And having studied Roman history extensively, especially the period of Julius Caesar leading up to the Roman civil war, with the Optimates on one side, and the Populares on the other, I am very aware of how divided people in an established Republic like ours can become, and how quickly and permanently a Republic like ours can fall, to be replaced, like Rome, with an absolute ruler like Augustus Caesar, or a Hitler in Germany.

We delude ourselves if we think it cannot happen here.

Indeed, in Federalist No. 1, Publius informs us as follows with respect to the rise of tyrants and tyranny:

On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.

History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

end quote

How apt that seems today, and how much like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump that sounds.

But back to the segue and all these wars we find ourselves in today, where Barack Obama is acting like First Lieutenant Milo Minderbinder in Joseph Heller’s novel “Catch-22,” who, though an American, began contracting missions for the Germans, fighting on both sides in the battle at Orvieto, and bombing his own squadron at Pianosa, in order to keep the war flourishing so profits could continue to be made in good capitalistic fashion.

Recently, Obama loaned out our Air Force to one of his buddies in Libya, so that tyrant could then use our Air Force to bomb some of his many enemies in that country, thanks to the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton as U.S. secretary of state, who had Gaddafi killed, and in true schizophrenic fashion, Obama has our Special Forces fighting on the one hand with the Kurds in Syria, who the Turks consider terrorists, while on the other hand, he has just lent some of our Special Forces to the Turks, so they could use them to fight in Syria against the Kurds in Syria being advised by our Special Forces, who the Turks consider terrorists.

Talk about disjointed foreign policy, alright, that takes the cake, and it also takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 4, where Publius had this to say:

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans.

These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

end quotes

Methinks Publius had Barack Hussein Obama Magnus very much in mind when he wrote those words 229 years ago now.

So who says people can’t see the future before it happens.

Not I, anyway.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143451
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 AT 11:04 AM

Paul Plante says:

Actually, Chas Cornweller, it is Publius who speaks of a “united” America in the earliest days of this nation’s liberty and how the people were bonded in common cause, and common ancestry.

You disagree, and quite frankly, having studied that period of our nation’s history, I take that with a huge grain of salt, for the very reasons that you state, so we are on the same page here in actuality.

Over time, Chas Cornweller, I have come to believe that in this nation today, we have a virtual plethora of words available to us, but most of them seem worthless since they have neither common nor concrete meaning.

“United” would be one of those words.

Indeed, if we go to pp.8-10 of “Miracle At Philadelphia – The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787” by Catherine Drinker Bowen, we find as follows concerning the slippery meaning of words and just how “united” those people in America were back then, in the days preceding the Federalist papers:

Original principles signified Revolutionary principles; the Federal Convention was to find the phrase very useful.

And it meant whatever men chose it to mean: to men like Governor Clinton of New York, Judge Bryan of Pennsylvania, Patrick Henry, young James Monroe or Congressman Grayson of Virginia, original principles signified as little government as possible, a federation wherein each state would remain sovereign, with Congress at their disposal.

Had not the Articles of Confederation been written with this idea uppermost?

It had taken five years, beginning in 1776, to write the Articles, argue and vote on them in Congress, modify them, compromise, and finally persuade the last state to ratify.

The Articles were in fact America’s first constitution.

“The Stile of this Confederacy,” said Article I, “shall be ‘The United States of America.'”

Nothing less than the perils of war would have induced the states to make even this tenuous union at a time when John Adams referred to Massachusetts Bay as “our country” and to the Massachusetts representatives as “our embassy.”

Danger had proved a strong cement.

Only through the persistence and skilled maneuvering of a few men did the Federal Convention meet at all.

It happened that Maryland and Virginia were engaged in a strenuous quarrel over the navigation of the Potomac River; in the spring of 1785, their respective legislatures sent commissioners to Mount Vernon for a discussion of the subject, bearing on the question of east-west communication in general.

Seeing the chance to enlist the cooperation of neighboring states, the commission was enlarged, and met at Annapolis in September of 1786.

Madison attended; Hamilton came down from New York.

Before the Annapolis Commission rose it had recommended to Congress (Hamilton wrote the report) that all thirteen states appoint delegates to convene at Philadelphia “on the second of May next, to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States.”

Commerce was a far-reaching word; it covered a multitude of troubles.

The war debt still hung heavy; states found their credit failing and small hope of betterment.

Seven states had resorted to paper money.

True, the postwar depression was lifting.

But prosperity remained a local matter; money printed by Pennsylvania must be kept within Pennsylvania’s own borders.

State and section showed themselves jealous, preferring to fight each other over boundaries as yet unsettled and to pass tariff laws against each other.

New Jersey had her own customs service; New York was a foreign nation and must be kept from encroachment.

States were marvelously ingenious at devising mutual retaliations; nine of them retained their own navies.

(Virginia had even ratified the peace treaty separately.)

The shipping arrangements of Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey were at the mercy of Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts.

Madison saw the picture clearly.

“New Jersey,” he wrote, “placed between Philadelphia and New York, was likened to a cask tapped; and North Carolina, between Virginia and South Carolina, to a patient bleeding at both arms.”

When Virginia passed a law declaring that vessels failing to pay duty in her ports might be seized by any person and prosecuted, “one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the commonwealth,” she was not aiming at Spain or England but at the cargoes of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Massachusetts.

“Most of our political evils,” Madison wrote, “may be traced to our commercial ones.”

It was true, as it is true today between nations at large.

The little states feared the big states and hated them.

“The people are more happy in small states,” Roger Sherman was to say in Convention – though, he added, “states may indeed be too small, as Rhode Island, and thereby too subject to faction.”

Ellsworth of Connecticut declared that “the largest states are the worst governed.”

“Virginia is obliged to acknowledge her incapacity to extend her government to Kentucky.”

“Massachusetts cannot keep the peace one hundred miles from her capital and is now forming an army for its support.”

It was a telling shaft.

Since ’86, Massachusetts had suffered public humiliation over Shay’s Rebellion in the west.

Desperate farmers, ruinously taxed – “by Boston,” they said – and seeing their cattle and their land distrained by the bailiffs, had risen in revolt.

With staves and pitchforks they marched on county courthouses after the best Revolutionary technique, frightening sound-money men out of their wits and rousing General Washington to express disgust and anger that a country which had won a difficult war was not able to keep order in peacetime.

By January, 1787, fourteen rioting leaders, earlier condemned to death, had been pardoned; a newly elected Massachusetts legislature would enact many of the reforms the Shaysites had demanded.

Yet the stigma of insurrection remained, and in the Federal Convention sat men who had themselves suffered at the hands of mobs: James Wilson, Robert Morris and John Dickinson knew well that rebellion can be contagious.

end quotes

So, yes, Chas Cornweller, when Publius called us a “united” people back then, he indeed painted a rosy picture that doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny.

And in FEDERALIST No. 5, Publius actually predicted the American Civil War to come, thusly:

Distrust naturally creates distrust, and by nothing is good-will and kind conduct more speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid imputations, whether expressed or implied.

The North is generally the region of strength, and many local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the others.

No sooner would this become evident than the NORTHERN HIVE would excite the same ideas and sensations in the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in the southern parts of Europe.

end quotes

So, as I said above, Chas Cornweller, with respect to the times of this nation’s founding, we are very much on the same page.

Further, I would admit that the essay entitled “American Federalism, 1776 to 1997: Significant Events,” by Eugene Boyd dated January 6, 1997, tends to be somewhat simplistic and perhaps idealistic, as well, so I am quite happy and pleased that you have come in here to flesh it out with some more detail based on historical reality.

Now answer me this, if you can, Chas Cornweller: Will folly always be our nemesis?

That is a question for our times as we head into a presidential election featuring a loud-mouthed blowhard with a perpetual bad hair day on the one hand, and a shallow-thinking, pathological liar with extremely poor judgment but a very high opinion of herself, notwithstanding, on the other, both of whom are disliked and reviled by a majority of the American people, and with good reason.

And now, back to that caterpillar!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143451
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 AT 6:15 PM

Paul Plante says:

I think the only thing that is true anymore, andy zahn, is that nothing is true, starting with what our “president” and his propaganda machine straight out of Orwell’s “1984” tell us, followed by what the Pentagon tells us, followed by what Donald Trump and Her Royal Highness Hillary Clinton are telling us, with the caveat that when Hillary tells the ONE PERCENT that while U.S. senator from New York she represented the banks, that is true.

When Hillary tells us that “Fighting for kids and families” has been the cause of her life, that is not true.

The cause of Hillary’s life has been Hillary and her pocket, and the cause of her life while U.S. senator from New York was protecting public corruption and environmental polluters.

Thanks to Hillary’s efforts in that regard, there are now children in Hoosick Falls, New York with elevated levels of PFOA in their bloodstreams caused by drinking water poisoned with PFOA which poisoning can be traced right back to Hillary’s efforts to protect polluters instead of fighting to protect the public health of those children.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143451
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: A PASSION PLAY NAMED HILLARY CLINTON

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 AT 2:48 PM

Chas Cornweller says:

To answer your question directly and without fanfare.

Yes.

Folly as nemesis?

Without a doubt.

But that folly comes in many formats.

My first inclination would be to blame our lack of education.

A closely following second format would be the vast amounts of disinformation being fed the American public.

The third folly would be the total insanity of our leaders and their myopic and clearly cash and power fed egotistical view of their own tenuous hold on their so called leadership.

When linked together, you have a people easily led into mistake after mistake with no recourse of how to change the direction of their lives, much less their leaders.

I think this election year shows us just how clearly we have fallen as an educated people.

May I present what I think is an amazing scenario, sir?

Though I am not a scholar of Roman History (I now have a clearer understanding on your view of our present history – as it relates to the recent past) I did read Donald Kagan’s treatise on the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Greece/Athena (431 BC to 404 BC).

What amazed me most (besides reading a book of that volume and depth and actually enjoying it) was how closely related to our times those days were.

And though the final results were vastly different for Greece than our nation (Athens was basically ruined economically after twenty five years of strife, terror and terrible strategic miss-haps) I could not help but compare our Cold War of the 1950’s through the 1970’s to this ancient scenario.

Some of the same actions that occurred during the sixties here in this country (the rise of youth culture and multiple demonstrations against the war-the politicalizing of the war-and splitting of classes) took place in Athens.

And though The Peloponnesian War took place nearly twenty five hundred years ago, human nature was exactly the same as it is today.

The irony of this fact was not lost on me as I read this book.

This book, beyond all others, proved to me that history is circular.

We do repeat the same mistakes over and over.

Americans who are blind to this fact or chose to ignore it, are doomed to a fate that will go beyond mere surprise.

This is but one example the lack of education will present.

If you do not know your history, you are doomed to repeat it.

My limited knowledge of Roman history bears this out as well.

It is a rare and astute person who can witness events and make the connections to their time and see the history reflected as it truly is.

A few, today are living in the present moment believing tomorrow, left alone, will bring either a brighter day or disastrous future.

While others today are living in the past, wishing the present moment were different and more like yesterday.

Still others, are both lost in today and regret their yesterdays and daydream of a better tomorrow, all the while accomplishing nothing.

All is insanity.

I believe: live for today and in the moment, all the while remembering and revering the past and use that crucial moment here and now to try and forge a better tomorrow.

I am only one and I can only change the small circumstance surrounding me.

But, in the end, even when I have been true to myself and those around me, the world being its own, will continue to turn regardless, with or without me.

Makes no difference.

I can only be the change I want to effect.

History will continue and humans, being who they are, will continue to be fools for fodder on which it feeds.

I hope I answered your question.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/w ... ent-143451
Post Reply