Becoming A Federalist Blog

This one certainly ranks among one of the most surprisingly stupid things I've heard this year. A columnist over at Whirled Nut Daily claims that the founding fathers are to blame for the rise "communist fascists" in Washington.

Of all the dictators over the past hundred years, I believe Obama's rise to power mirrors that of Adolf Hitler's more than anyone else. I know, I know … I can practically hear readers chuckling. Enslaved people throughout history have a propensity for chuckling – until they wake up one morning and find themselves in chains. So, by all means, feel free to chuckle – but do hear me out.

It's been said before, but it takes some serious chutzpah to compare Obama (a black man) to Hitler (the Ur-German supremacist). "Of all the dictators over the past hundred years..." he begins, covering only the dictators from 1911 to 2011, so apparently Obama is in good company with men like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Kim Jung-Il and his father, Idi Amin, Nicolae Carpathia (that'll happen next October guys, srsly this time) Ceaucescu, General Franco, Hirohito, and numerous others I'm forgetting.

Oh, also: Godwin. First sentence. Isn't that some kind of record?

Oh, I'm chuckling alright, but it's not because I'm enslaved. I already know I'm enslaved - my corporate masters tell me what to do, when I can and can't sleep, and how many hours of my life I have to sacrifice in order to be able to live the remainder of those hours, and not in any kind of luxury, but just be able to live. So yes, I know I'm enslaved. I'm chuckling because you're a goddamn lunatic with no sense of hyperbole or irony, but that's okay, I'll hear you out anyway, because I know it'll be good for the lulz.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government of America was very weak – which was a good thing. It was true then, and it's true now: You can have a strong government and a weak people, or a strong people and a weak government – but you cannot have both. Today, we have a draconian, out-of-control government and a very weak people. Arguably, democracy in this country started to break down in 1787 when the Constitution created a strong federal government. It got worse – much worse – under the fascist policies of Woodrow Wilson's reign from 1912 to 1920. Then, beginning in 1932, FDR's failed socialist policies took away even more individual freedom from American citizens. And the final disintegration of true democracy in the U.S. was catalyzed by the left-wing revolutionaries of the '60s.

Awwww no. Here we go.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure. Here's some real, David Barton-unapproved history (meaning; the truth) for you: The Articles of Confederation didn't last for a reason.The value of the currency was crap (the phrase "not worth a continental" comes from the fact that the continental congress' money wasn't worth anything), the inability of the states to have the leverage they needed to trade with Britain and France, the diverse court system that eventually lead to Shay's Rebellion, and the inability of congress to levy the taxes, all combine with other factors that eventually lead to the realization that, "Hey. This isn't working." This was exacerbated by Congresses inability to get the states to work together.

You know how bad we have it now? We'd have it worse if each state was literally their own state, rather than their own territory in a much larger state. What little Congress does now they wouldn't be able to do at all. That's how powerless the national, or continental, congress was.

So yes, a weak central government is a good thing. You know what other places have a weak central government? Somalia. Let me know how that's turning out for you.

I'll let Mr. Hamilton speak for me, the author of Federalist Paper No. 13, on the topic of why disunion is bad. Remember, this was written when there were 13 states. We have 50 of them now; so the political divisions would be even stranger and deeper than they were at the time:

[...]
The supposition that each confederacy into which the States would be likely to be divided would require a government not less comprehensive than the one proposed, will be strengthened by another supposition, more probable than that which presents us with three confederacies as the alternative to a general Union. If we attend carefully to geographical and commercial considerations, in conjunction with the habits and prejudices of the different States, we shall be led to conclude that in case of disunion they will most naturally league themselves under two governments. The four Eastern States, from all the causes that form the links of national sympathy and connection, may with certainty be expected to unite. New York, situated as she is, would never be unwise enough to oppose a feeble and unsupported flank to the weight of that confederacy. There are other obvious reasons that would facilitate her accession to it. New Jersey is too small a State to think of being a frontier, in opposition to this still more powerful combination; nor do there appear to be any obstacles to her admission into it. Even Pennsylvania would have strong inducements to join the Northern league. An active foreign commerce, on the basis of her own navigation, is her true policy, and coincides with the opinions and dispositions of her citizens. The more Southern States, from various circumstances, may not think themselves much interested in the encouragement of navigation. They may prefer a system which would give unlimited scope to all nations to be the carriers as well as the purchasers of their commodities. Pennsylvania may not choose to confound her interests in a connection so adverse to her policy. As she must at all events be a frontier, she may deem it most consistent with her safety to have her exposed side turned towards the weaker power of the Southern, rather than towards the stronger power of the Northern, Confederacy. This would give her the fairest chance to avoid being the Flanders of America. Whatever may be the determination of Pennsylvania, if the Northern Confederacy includes New Jersey, there is no likelihood of more than one confederacy to the south of that State.

Nothing can be more evident than that the thirteen States will be able to support a national government better than one half, or one third, or any number less than the whole. This reflection must have great weight in obviating that objection to the proposed plan, which is founded on the principle of expense; an objection, however, which, when we come to take a nearer view of it, will appear in every light to stand on mistaken ground.

If, in addition to the consideration of a plurality of civil lists, we take into view the number of persons who must necessarily be employed to guard the inland communication between the different confederacies against illicit trade, and who in time will infallibly spring up out of the necessities of revenue; and if we also take into view the military establishments which it has been shown would unavoidably result from the jealousies and conflicts of the several nations into which the States would be divided, we shall clearly discover that a separation would be not less injurious to the economy, than to the tranquillity, commerce, revenue, and liberty of every part.

If he were alive today, maybe he'd be writing a Federalist Blog. Actually, I might change this one to the Federalist Blog, but there's no real reason to. There's no real debate. The Anti-Federalists at the time were intelligent men. They had legitimate concerns. Something like what was being proposed had never been tried before. It was because of them that we got the Bill of Rights; promises that these are things that the government will not do. We owe a lot to the anti-Federalists of the past. Both ideologies were rooted in Enlightenment philosophy. Post-Modern Enlightenment has deep respect for both sides.

But the anti-federalists today are a bunch of overweight and slovenly White men who complain about having to pay taxes, bitch about a Black man in office, have taken the battle cry of the American Revolutionary War ("Taxation without representation" means you don't have anyone representing your interests, dumb ass. While congress could use a good shake down, that doesn't mean you're getting taxed without representation) out of context, and march in the street proudly showing off how little they know about spelling, irony, or hyperbole. These are the descendants to the anti-Federalist; rooted in the finest traditions of degenerate romantic philosophy and post-modernist approaches to knowledge: they know jack about history, philosophy, or economics, and they've totally misrepresented everything that the Boston Tea Party was about:

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives.

That noise you just heard was Samuel Bryan spinning circles in his grave around Cato, Brutus, and Patrick Henry.

It got worse - much worse - under the Fascist Policies of Woodrow Wilson. You know, the President who guided us through World War I, tried to get the League of Nations passed to prevent World War II (but failed, obviously), and passed stuff like the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, Federal Farm Loan Act, and the income tax. Real fascist, that guy.

FDR. Ooga-booga-booga! He took away your freedoms with things like the TVA. What's really got this guy's knickers in a twist, though, is that he signed Executive Order 6102, which made all privately held gold property of the United States government, so that the U.S. government could counter the deflation of the U.S. dollar, which is a bad thing to have happen in the middle of a depression.

And the final disintegration of democracy in the United States came when a bunch of college kids in the '60s took to the streets and demanded we pull out of Vietnam. Yep, I can't even vote anymore; that's how bad they damaged democracy. Ohai thar, Mr. Hamilton. You have something else you'd like to add, from Federalist Paper No. 14?

The error which limits republican government to a narrow district has been unfolded and refuted in preceding papers. I remark here only that it seems to owe its rise and prevalence chiefly to the confounding of a republic with a democracy, applying to the former reasonings drawn from the nature of the latter. The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.

To this accidental source of the error may be added the artifice of some celebrated authors, whose writings have had a great share in forming the modern standard of political opinions. Being subjects either of an absolute or limited monarchy, they have endeavored to heighten the advantages, or palliate the evils of those forms, by placing in comparison the vices and defects of the republican, and by citing as specimens of the latter the turbulent democracies of ancient Greece and modern Italy. Under the confusion of names, it has been an easy task to transfer to a republic observations applicable to a democracy only; and among others, the observation that it can never be established but among a small number of people, living within a small compass of territory.

Hmm... seems to me like the "democracy" died with the Constitution. According the Federalist No. 14, the greatest danger to a republic, like the United States, is to confuse it with a (pure) democracy. However, Post-Modern Enlightenment will not stand for that current "oh, but we're not a democracy, we're a republic" business. No, we're an elected, democratic republic, but the emphasis is on being a Republic, or having elected officials represent you in office, as opposed to a Athenian style pure democracy where every land-holder got out and voted on things relevant to the community, with no real concept of a nation at hand or unifying identity beyond one's city-state.

Not that this clown cares. He perfers the second one, until he gets boned by it.

So if you're wondering how Obama and his Marxist cronies have been able to violate the Constitution as though it didn't exist, the answer is that they are merely taking advantage of the decay of democracy in the U.S. that was already present when they came to power. While Americans have been busy focusing on sports, reality TV, eating out three nights a week and trying to pay their mortgages, the fascistic socialists in Washington have been quietly working to establish a dictatorship based on the ruins of our democracy (which actually began as a republic). 

Marxism: Ooga-booga-booga! Ever notice how they throw that word out without knowing what it means? Yeah, me too. It comes with their lack of self-awareness; it's a distinctive lack of a sense of hyperbole.

You heard it here first: the reason why Marxists are taking over this nation is because you're eating out three nights a week and trying to pay your mortgages, like adults. Meanwhile, boogiemen are taking control over Washington D.C. and working to establish a dictatorship (which actually began as a republic. Most fascist dictatorships come about through dying Republics; if a jaunt through history won't prove that, then one view of the Star Wars prequal saga will. Take note; this is only thing that he's gotten spot on so far, but for the wrong reasons completely.)

Get it? I hope so. Because if a vast majority of everyday folks don't get it soon, it will be too late. As I have repeatedly said, the debt-ceiling debate is nothing more than a distraction from the real, underlying problem we all face: We are losing our freedom.
Our focus should be on stopping Barack Obama and his Marxist allies in Washington from establishing a communist dictatorship – politely referred to by conservative media commentators as an "imperial presidency." But regardless of what one calls it, the important thing to understand is that under a dictatorship, everything else becomes irrelevant – including the debt-ceiling "crisis" that political junkies are spending so much time fretting about.

That's right: the debt ceiling debate is nothing more than a distraction; the fact that our country will slip into economic Armageddon and take the rest of the world with us is less important than us chasing after my imaginary boogiemen. Note that I am in agreement that we're losing our freedoms, but for an entirely different set of reasons (thereby making this stopped clock right two times today, that's gotta be a first): the PATRIOT act, the illegal, warrantless wiretaping, the secret CIA prisons overseas, the TSA, the t-ray scanners at the airports, the racial profiling to prevent "terrorism", corporate lobbying, anti-choice crusades, anti-Universal Healthcare, FOX news (through supporting and broadcasting all of the above like they're good things)... all of these and more are slowly working to strip us of our freedoms. But it's got nothing to do with chasing Marxist boogiemen in the halls of Washington D.C.