book by black author blasts black leaders

[Guest]

I'm not an isolationist but by the same token I don't believe in one world government either. How can we strike a balance with regards to what type of conflict we choose to become involved in?

I am an isolationist.  That has become one of the many pejorative words used against those who oppose the agenda of the U.S. Imperial Multicultural Empire, but it was America's foreign policy up until the late 19th century, and it worked just fine, far better than wars of aggression and relentless interventionism in the internal affairs of other nations.  It was called "armed neutrality" rather than the pejorative "isolationism" but whatever you want to call it, it makes perfect sense and is the only policy that will avoid the type of foreign entanglements that are bringing us down. 

Don I have to disagree with you. Isolation worked well when we had two oceans to protect us and ships and trains were the primary mode of transportation. The world is a lot smaller now. If you remember Japan attacked us because we refused to sell them oil. Also as I look around my house I see a lot of items that are made overseas and I personally haven't shopped at a wal-mart in over 3 years. I'm also old enough to remember the oil shortages and double-digit inflation of the 70s. Do you think that the American people will return to such a lifestyle? It would be nice to avoid entangling alliances but I don't see that happening with our current trade policies. We are also facing much more uncivilized enemies than we did in the past. We don't have to go looking for trouble, it will come and find us.

 

[White Shogun]

We don't have to go looking for trouble, it will come and find us.

So the obvious solution of course is to then go out and make trouble on our own.

p.s. After which emperor of Ethiopia have you chosen to name yourself, Menelik I or II? And why? Just curious.

 

[Don Wassall]

Don I have to disagree with you. Isolation worked well when we had two oceans to protect us and ships and trains were the primary mode of transportation. The world is a lot smaller now. Do you think that the American people will return to such a lifestyle? It would be nice to avoid entangling alliances but I don't see that happening with our current trade policies. We are also facing much more uncivilized enemies than we did in the past. We don't have to go looking for trouble, it will come and find us.

What "lifestyle" are you talking about? What has any of your response have to do with what I posted? Typical disingenuousness.


Armed neutrality means taking care of our country and its people first. It doesn't mean we can't trade with other countries, nor have friendships with them. It means keeping disruptive elements out of our country, staying out of fights we have no business being in, and being more than strong enough to win if someone attacks us. To put it another way, if we had kept a pro-European immigration policy and stayed neutral in the ancient Middle East fight, we would not be fighting a so-called "war on terrorism," a "war" that, looking at what has happened to freedom in this country since 9/11, the "terrorists" have already won.


The "two oceans" and "smaller world" argument is so lame. Actually, because of modern technology it is more important than ever that we mind our own business and take care of our own rather than trying to run the world, precisely so that we aren't drawn into foreign entanglements and unnecessary wars and terrorism.

 

[Guest]

Don I have to disagree with you. Isolation worked well when we had two oceans to protect us and ships and trains were the primary mode of transportation. The world is a lot smaller now.  Do you think that the American people will return to such a lifestyle? It would be nice to avoid entangling alliances but I don't see that happening with our current trade policies. We are also facing much more uncivilized enemies than we did in the past. We don't have to go looking for trouble, it will come and find us.

What "lifestyle" are you talking about?  What has any of your response have to do with what I posted?  Typical disingenuousness.


Armed neutrality means taking care of our country and its people first.  It doesn't mean we can't trade with other countries, nor have friendships with them.  It means keeping disruptive elements out of our country, staying out of fights we have no business being in, and being more than strong enough to win if someone attacks us.  To put it another way, if we had kept a pro-European immigration policy and stayed neutral in the ancient Middle East fight, we would not be fighting a so-called "war on terrorism," a "war" that, looking at what has happened to freedom in this country since 9/11, the "terrorists" have already won.


The "two oceans" and "smaller world" argument is so lame.  Actually, because of modern technology it is more important than ever that we mind our own business and take care of our own rather than trying to run the world, precisely so that we aren't drawn into foreign entanglements and unnecessary wars and terrorism. 

A lifestyle of double-digit inflation and high prices. I was very clear; you just heard what you wanted to. You cannot just trade with other countries without being drawn into the political arena also. How is it that the two oceans and smaller world argument is lame? Because you said so? Our enemies also have the same technology. What would your response have been to 9-11? Don't rehash your version of the causes, the fox is already in the chicken-coop, I'm just interested in how you would respond. What would be your response if China decided to drop all of the debt that they hold in US dollars? Sure it would cripple them but they are closer to an agrarian society then we are and they also have the numbers, people, to weather bad times. Or are you of the 'worse is better' mindset that I frequently see on these site types?

 

[White Shogun]

Menelik:

You ask a guy what he would do, he tells you, and you say its a rehash of causation. No, it isn't. Let's get the Fox (no pun intended, Presidente) out of the hen-house:

1) An indefinite moratorium on legal immigration.
2) Withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign soil.
3) Place troops on the Mexican border.
a) It is an invasion, treat it like one. Immediate repatriation of all foreigners crossing into the U.S. over the Mexican border to Mexico.
4) Cease all foreign aid.
5) Rebuild America's industrial base.
a) Use funds from foreign aid in the form of grants and loans.
6) Rescind environmental restrictions on drilling in Anwar and offshore in order to further develop our own supply of oil.
a) Invest heavily in R&D for alternative energy sources.
7) Remain in the U.N, but restrict funding. Keep your enemies close and all that..

That's a start. I know it will never happen, but you didn't ask what the current crop of corrupt (say three times fast) politicians would do, you asked what people like Don and I would do.

Furthermore, we trade plenty with countries without whom we are involved in wars and police actions: Japan, India, China, Canada, the EU, etc. The only thing we're buying in the Middle East is blood and oil. I asked you before: Other than oil, what cheap products are we purchasing from the Middle East? Rugs?

What would be your response if China decided to drop all of the debt that they hold in US dollars?

What makes you think China isn't going to do that at some time in the future anyway? Our government is mortgaging the future of our country to its most dangerous enemy. If the United States doesn't take some steps to restore our manufacturing base, we're going to hit rock bottom anyway. Double-digit inflation and high prices are going to be the least of our problems.

p.s. After which Ethiopian emperor did you choose your screen name, Menelik I or II? And why? Just curious. Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Guest]

White Shogun
Your questions and my responses:

1) An indefinite moratorium on legal immigration.

Agree

2) Withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign soil.
Agree. BUT...when North Korea invades do we rush back in? After all they are a friendly nation that we trade with.

3) Place troops on the Mexican border.
a) It is an invasion, treat it like one. Immediate repatriation of all foreigners crossing into the U.S. over the Mexican border to Mexico.
Somewhat agree. I would fine the hell out of all businesses that employ illegal aliens. The threat from Mexico is (at this point) an economic one. I didn't spend 20 years in the Army to be a border patrol agent and I have plenty of friends who feel the same. The military exists to fight, not to be a cop on the beat. Plus the time spent in a static deployment would degrade our militarys readiness and capabilities if a real shooting war happened.

4) Cease all foreign aid.
Agree except for food and medical

5) Rebuild America's industrial base.
a) Use funds from foreign aid in the form of grants and loans.
I agree but the people are going to raise hell with the high prices that come with the 'made in America' label. I also don't think that can happen unless you go to a socialistic style of government. I won't patronize you with a lesson on free market economics.

6) Rescind environmental restrictions on drilling in Anwar and offshore in order to further develop our own supply of oil.
a) Invest heavily in R&D for alternative energy sources.
ANWAR is a drop in the bucket as far as peak oil supplies go. I totally agree with you on alternative energy sources though.

7) Remain in the U.N, but restrict funding. Keep your enemies close and all that..
Somewhat agree Except for humanitarian purposes I would pull out of everything else. Giving food and medical assistance isn't bankrupting us.

You wrote:
"What makes you think China isn't going to do that at some time in the future anyway? Our government is mortgaging the future of our country to its most dangerous enemy. If the United States doesn't take some steps to restore our manufacturing base"
Heres the problem-The government ISNT going to restore our manufacturing base. Like it or hate it we are a FREE-MARKET CAPITALISTIC SOCIETY (sorry about the caps, just wanted to stress this point). Unless we turn socialistic the government isn't going to do squat. Once again I won't patronize you a lesson on economics.

And last but not least:
"p.s. After which Ethiopian emperor did you choose your screen name, Menelik I or II? And why? Just curious."

When doing my research (or trolling for responses) I would pick an obscure ethnic name to see how quick posters picked up on it. So far you have been the only person to pick up on it. I'm impressed! Where do you want me to send your prize to?

I hope this answered your questions.
Edited by: Menelik

 

[Bart]

After which Ethiopian emperor did you choose your screen name, Menelik I or II? And why? Just curious.

Shogun, Grant Jeffrey popularized a theory that the biblical Ark of the Covenant was spirited away to Ethiopia by the son of Solomon and Sheba named Menelik.


[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=140 48[/url]

 

[White Shogun]

Wow, Menelik I'm surprised that we are so much in agreement.

I do realize of course that this is entirely hypothetical and will never happen in our lifetimes, but I'm enjoying this conversation and hope you will continue to respond. If we're going to waste time on the internet, it might as well be in the discussion and debate of politics, right? Anyway, on with the discussion:

2) No, we do not rush back to the defense of the South Koreans if and when North Korea invades. Like you have pointed out, there are plenty of places we can get cheap, plastic, disposable products.

3) The laws have been on the books to fine employers for hiring illegal aliens for years, but FedGov consistently hamstring their enforcement because of the big business politics. I would not only fine, but ultimately, add criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. As for military readiness: Do we keep starting wars to make sure our troops are ready, or what?

4) Why not stop food and medical? Do you mean actual shipment of these items or money for foreign governments to buy them? The latter is a total waste of time, and often, even so is the former. Two-bit dictators seize these types of supplies and horde them, selling them at inflated prices to fill their own coffers. If we go to war to force them to feed their people, we're back at square one.

5) I agree that there will be a time period of higher prices and inflation while our manufacturing base is restored. Its something that has to be done, and will probably occur whether we reinvest in our own industry or not.

6) Yes, I understand ANWAR is not a long-term solution to our oil consumption. But it is a start, as well as ramping up offshore drilling, too. Hence, heavily funding R&D. I don't want to broaden the discussion further by including peak oil, though. That is another issue.

7) See #4. I'd prefer the United States remain in the U.N. in order to keep an eye on what they are up to, and perhaps veto various issues as they arise. Having said that, I can see that if the U.S. were to pull completely out of the U.N, it would probably fold anyway. It is U.S. dollars keeping the thing afloat.

Like you, I realize FedGov is not going to restore our manufacturing base. Its too easy for corporations to set up shop in places without strict environmental laws, labor laws, unions, etc. But that doesn't mean its not an idea I wouldn't like to see implemented.

As far as capitalism goes, we could broaden the discussion to include taxation without representation, the graduated income tax, interstate commerce regulations and its effect on business, and so on, but that might be broadening the discussion a bit much.

When doing my research (or trolling for responses) I would pick an obscure ethnic name to see how quick posters picked up on it. So far you have been the only person to pick up on it. I'm impressed! Where do you want me to send your prize to?

Send a cash donation to Caste Football, care of Don Wassall.

 

[Guest]

White Shogun

My response:

2) No, we do not rush back to the defense of the South Koreans if and when North Korea invades. Like you have pointed out, there are plenty of places we can get cheap, plastic, disposable products.

I spent a couple of years in the ROK courtesy of the 2nd Infantry Division. The DPPK or North Koreans are a bunch of dirty conniving bast**ds! Trust me, they will invade. As I stated before you can't just trade with nations with no strings attached. The world is a lot smaller and far-a-way incidents will come home to haunt us. We just can't take an isolationist attitude with regards to world events. Just my opinion though.

3) The laws have been on the books to fine employers for hiring illegal aliens for years, but FedGov consistently hamstring their enforcement because of the big business politics. I would not only fine, but ultimately, add criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. As for military readiness: Do we keep starting wars to make sure our troops are ready, or what?

Agree about hiring illegals. As for military readiness: tough realistic training is the stone that our nations military keeps its war-making capabilities honed. Our 3 Ranger batts. are the best trained light infantry units in the world. You don't have to go looking for opportunistic fights to stay at a high level of readiness.

4) Why not stop food and medical? Do you mean actual shipment of these items or money for foreign governments to buy them? The latter is a total waste of time, and often, even so is the former. Two-bit dictators seize these types of supplies and horde them, selling them at inflated prices to fill their own coffers. If we go to war to force them to feed their people, we're back at square one.

The U.S. is awash in crop subsidies and excess harvests. you are probably right about them being hoarded by the local dictators in charge though. I'll concede that doing this is nothing more then satisfying an altruistic motive.

5) I agree that there will be a time period of higher prices and inflation while our manufacturing base is restored. Its something that has to be done, and will probably occur whether we reinvest in our own industry or not.

I think that we have reached the 'bread and circus' stage of our history. Just an opinion but I think that there will be major turmoil if (or when) the people have to give up their cheap commodities.

6) Yes, I understand ANWAR is not a long-term solution to our oil consumption. But it is a start, as well as ramping up offshore drilling, too. Hence, heavily funding R&D. I don't want to broaden the discussion further by including peak oil, though. That is another issue.

Yes peak oil is another issue. Whatever happened to the discussion about brother Juan's book?

And last but not least:

Send a cash donation to Caste Football, care of Don Wassall.

Serious question; Do you think that it would actually do any good?
p.s.
don't forget to vote this November!Edited by: Menelik

 

[White Shogun]

Whatever happened to the discussion about brother Juan's book?

Oh yes! I forgot, thats what this thread is supposed to be about, right? Talk about a hijacking!

Send a cash donation to Caste Football, care of Don Wassall.

Serious question; Do you think that it would actually do any good?

How about this answer from your post: I'll concede that doing this is nothing more then satisfying an altruistic motive?

Well, anyway at least I know I'm helping to support a site where I can get into free political debates with guys named after obscure Ethiopian emperors.

Vote?? Wow, you really are trying to keep this thread off topic!

Edited by: White Shogun

 

[Triad]

I didn't spend 20 years in the Army to be a border patrol agent and I have plenty of friends who feel the same.

Do you think the troops would rather be guarding our Southern border or the Iraqi-Syrian border?

 

[Guest]

I didn't spend 20 years in the Army to be a border patrol agent and I have plenty of friends who feel the same.

Do you think the troops would rather be guarding our Southern border or the Iraqi-Syrian border?

I honestly don't know and without taking a poll any opinion is pure speculation. I do know this though:

1. We haven't had a draft since 1973.
2. The soldiers that gravitate to the elite units join to soldier, not to play cop.
3.Once again the threat from Mexico (up to this point) is an economic one.
and
4.I really don't think (opinion) that we need to involve the military in the realm of law enforcement. Think Posse Comitatus.

 

[White Shogun]

2. The soldiers that gravitate to the elite units join to soldier, not to play cop.

I agree, and its too bad they're used almost exclusively in police actions.

 

[Bart]

Once again the threat from Mexico (up to this point) is an economic one.

I wish that were true. It's not. In my city alone last month, we witnessed several multple shootings committed by Illegal Mexican criminal border jumpers. Our prisons, jails and courtrooms are being flooded by them.The military may not wish to patrol our borders, but I would love to have them there.


http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com/?p=388


In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.


"In 2002, nearly 29 percent, or 39,000 inmates, in the federal prison system were non-citizens. Based on prior research, we estimated that 59 percent of this total are illegal aliens. This translates into 17 percent of the federal prison population, and thus 17 percent of the $4.1 billion prison budget can be attributed to illegal alien households" The fact that 17 percent of America's prisoners are illegal immigrants is evidence of the vast extent of their involvement in crime and criminal activities.


Illegal immigration is a contributing factor behind the high crime rates in many of America's larger cities. Making matters worse is the fact that many of the illegal immigrants committing the crimes are protected by misguided policies set up by city and state governments.

 

[Triad]

[2. The soldiers that gravitate to the elite units join to soldier, not to play cop.

...Or they enlist to pay for school and all the other great incentives the recruiters tell them. I don't think we need a poll to see if they joined to get their asses blown off by IED's in a middle eastern country.
This doesn't include our reservists who planned on one weekend a month of service at the local armory.

 

[White Shogun]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Why Do They Hate Us?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, August 9, 2006

You'll recall that immediately after the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials declared that the attacks had been motivated by the terrorists' hatred for America's "freedom and values." That refrain produced the "war on terrorism" and, more recently, the "war on radical Islamo-fascism."

Nonsense, said libertarians. The anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States is rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Ending the U.S. government's decades-old policy of empire and intervention would bring an end to the threat of terrorism (and radical Islamo-fascism) against the United States.

The argument of the "freedom and values" crowd boils down to this: "The decades of U.S. supplying of advanced weaponry and foreign aid to the Israeli government, which is now being used to kill people in Lebanon, and the U.S. government's obeisance and submissiveness to the Israeli government, have had no adverse effect on how Arabs and Muslims feel about the United States. Their anger and hatred is caused by America's freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and rock and roll."

Therefore, the argument goes, the chants of "Death to Israel. Death to America" from hundreds of thousands of Shiites marching in Baghdad last week had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy but were motivated instead by hatred for American principles and lifestyles.

(Reflect for a moment on the utter perversity of it all: U.S. soldiers in Iraq are dying to bring " freedom and democracy" to people who are screaming "Death to America" and whose radical Shiite government has aligned itself with Iran, which U.S. officials consider to be an arch-enemy of the United States.)

The same "freedom and values" argument was made with respect to more than a decade of brutal sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children â€â€￾ deaths that U.S. officials maintained were "worth it." People in the Middle East were indifferent to those deaths, the argument goes. Their anger and hatred were caused by the U.S. Bill of Rights and the gambling casinos in Las Vegas.

After 9/11, the greatest fear that U.S. officials had was that the American people would figure out that U.S. foreign policy was at the root of the terrorist attacks and thus demand a total reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy. That might well have meant an end to all foreign aid to the Middle East and a withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region. That could have obviously meant a significant diminution of the U.S. government's overseas empire and the military-industrial complex, along with the enormously high taxes needed to pay for it all. Thus, it's not surprising that U.S. officials immediately went on the propaganda attack after 9/11 in order to divert people's attention from U.S. foreign policy and toward the "freedom-and-values" motivation for the 9/11 attacks.

If there is another major terrorist attack on American soil, you can rest assured that the immediate response of U.S. officials will be: It has nothing to do with the U.S. government's unconditional U.S. taxpayer-provided support of the Israeli government, or with the brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, or with the callous position that such deaths were worth it, or with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which have killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqi people. They'll say instead that it's all about anger and hatred for America's "freedom and values." And the sad part is that there will still be Americans who fall for it.

What would be wrong with terminating foreign aid not only to Israel but also to every other country in the world and abolishing the taxes that support such aid, leaving the American people free to keep their own money and decide what to do with it?

What would be wrong with letting Americans support Israel or Lebanon or the Palestinians or any other cause in the world with their moral support and their own money and leaving the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayer money out of it?

What would be wrong with ending the U.S. government's role as world policeman, intervenor, meddler, and interloper, not only in the Middle East but also in the rest of the world?

With the situation in the Middle East degenerating into ever-increasing violence, conflict, death, suffering, and destruction after decades of U.S. intervention, what better time for the American people to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but also in the rest of the world?

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, which is sponsoring a conference next June in Reston, Virginia, entitled "Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties."

 

[Guest]

WS

Another viewpoint:

An American

By Peter Ferrara, an associate professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA. Believed published 09/25/01.

An American.

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. So I just thought I would write to let them know what an American is, so they would know when they found one.

An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them choose.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. The best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes.

Americans welcome the best, but they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.

These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers in the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families. [I've been told that the people in the Towers were from at least 30, and maybe many more, other countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.]

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there. One day they will rise up and overthrow the old, ignorant, tired tyrants that trouble too many lands. Then those lands, too, will join the community of free and prosperous nations.

And America will welcome them.

 

[Triad]

From today's New York Times:

"Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range antipersonnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, two American officials said Thursday.

The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.

But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, officials say, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas."

 

[Bart]

WS

Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American. So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there.

I don't know when,but in the not too distant future, after our cities have fully been reduced to mounds of rubble and garbage heaps like those ofthird world countries,someone will come across a lovely version of that essayprinted on fine paper with stylistic lettering.He will read it before tossing it into a bon fire to keep from freezing to death during a very cold winter in the NEW America which had come to resemblea cross between Haiti, Calcutta and barrios.of Mexico. With tears gushing down his cheeksthe old man will weep uncontrollably, cursing himself and others for having believed such utter nonsense.

 

[Guest]

I thought you were stuck between a rock and a hard place?

 

[Bart]

I thought you were stuck between a rock and a hard place?

Well Sir, that is indeed the case, but you know,being on solid ground is better than sinking in quicksand.

 

[Bart]

If Thomas Jefferson was able somehow, to re-visit the USA and walk throughsegments of every major city(with armed guards of course)would he be pleased at the direction we've taken since he vanished from the earth?People love to bring up his name and try to reinterpret some of his writings but we should read what he actually wrote. The quote below is rarely read in it's entirety, the spin doctors use only the first sentence.


"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [blacks] are to be free. ( Most people aren't aware of the very next line.)


Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:72


No, he was not an advocate of slavery. He did offer solutions.


"Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:201


"My opinion on the proposition... to take measures for procuring on the coast of Africa, an establishment to which the people of color of these States might, from time to time, be colonized, under the auspices of different governments [is]: Having long ago made up my mind on this subject, I have no hesitation in saying that I have ever thought it the most desirable measure which could be adopted for gradually drawing off this part of our population, most advantageous for themselves as well as for us. Going from a country possessing all the useful arts, they might be the means of transplanting them among the inhabitants of Africa, and would thus carry back to the country of their origin the seeds of civilization which might render their sojournment and sufferings here a blessing in the end to that country." --Thomas Jefferson to John Lynch, 1811. ME 13:10


"I concur entirely in [the] leading principles of gradual emancipation, of establishment on the coast of Africa, and the patronage of our nation until the emigrants shall be able to protect themselves... Personally, I am ready and desirous to make any sacrifice which shall ensure their gradual but complete retirement from the State, and effectually, at the same time, establish them elsewhere in freedom and safety." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Humphreys, 1817. ME 15:102


If the quote below isn't prophetic, I don't know what is?!Amazing foresight!


"It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:192

 

[Guest]

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and last but not least, Moe Green

are dead. Hindsight is great but it does nothing to help solve the problems that we face today. I was very impressed by a post (Mel Gibson) of yours a couple of days ago articulating the sorry state of affairs that we are in now. I'll add my 1&1/2 cents to that: Does anyone here have a viable solution to these ills that I see much ranting and raving but very little else done about? I'll be honest: other than living a decent life and instilling those virtues in my family, I don't have any. Edited by: Menelik

 

[JD074]

How can we strike a balance with regards to what type of conflict we choose to become involved in?

When our nation is facing a genuine clear and present danger. In other words, not Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah.

It would be nice to avoid entangling alliances but I don't see that happening with our current trade policies.

Why do we need most of these trade policies? Other than a higher tariff, preventing illegal dumping, etc., let U.S. businesses trade with other countries the way they see fit. Isn't that what the free market is all about?

What would your response have been to 9-11?

Withdraw all troops from the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia,) end all foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, and severely limit immigration from Middle Eastern countries, and Muslims from other countries (like England and France.) Any Muslim who's suspected of terrorist activities would be immediately deported and never allowed to return.

BUT...when North Korea invades do we rush back in?

Nah, let S. Korea fight its own battles.

The threat from Mexico is (at this point) an economic one.

Along with with what Bart said, 75% of the drugs in the U.S. are smuggled into this country. And there's the obvious burden on taxpayers when foreigners milk the welfare system. It's a cultural issue as well. Do we really want America to become a Latin country? I like my White American culture just fine; if I wanted to live in Mexico, I'd move there. {Of course, I couldn't expect the same "rights" and hand-outs there that immigrants get here.)

And as far as the economy goes, how do you think your beloved "free market" will be influenced by millions of immigrants from socialist Latin American countries? You don't think they'll bring their own ideas about how government and the economy should operate? Why do you think all these leftist labor unions are embracing illegal immigrants now? Hmm....

I didn't spend 20 years in the Army to be a border patrol agent and I have plenty of friends who feel the same. The military exists to fight, not to be a cop on the beat.

Then we should revolutionize the Border Patrol so that we can put at least 30,000 "troops" or "agents" on the Southern border, and about half that on the Northern border. Let's cut the Defense budget to about $150-200 billion, freeing up a lot of money for Border Patrol, port security, deportation, etc.

Agree except for food and medical

Nah, that just creates more mouths to feed. Let nature take its course....

I agree but the people are going to raise hell with the high prices that come with the 'made in America' label.

And they'll be overjoyed with higher wages, better benefits, lower taxes (since free-loading foreigners won't be abusing our overly generous welfare system,) fewer drugs, and safer communities.

I also don't think that can happen unless you go to a socialistic style of government.

Nah, just a tariff of 20-40%, prevent illegal dumping, etc. Do you think Pat Buchanan is socialist? We need economic nationalism, not socialism. Besides, a tariff would create a level playing field that would be good for American business. Why do they have to pay all these taxes, but these foreign companies (many of which are subsidized by their governments) don't have to? It's only fair that they have to pay for the privilege of doing business in our country, on a level playing field with our businesses.

ANWAR is a drop in the bucket as far as peak oil supplies go.

Actually, it is very significant:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16390

I totally agree with you on alternative energy sources though.

Some are promising, but I'm very skeptical of corn ethanol. It is very energy- and water-intensive. And of course it is heavily subsidized by the government, and there's an "ethanol mandate" that raises gas prices. Looks like a racket to me. Efficiency (fuel cells, hybrids) is good, and I've heard that wind power can be surprisingly effective (interestingly, Uber-liberal Kennedy has butted heads with environmentalists because he and his rich buddies don't want to have to look at windmills in their precious ocean view. LOL.)

The soldiers that gravitate to the elite units join to soldier, not to play cop.

Then let them do that. But we need 20-40,000 troops on the border, until we build fencing across the entire border (or at least several hundred miles along the heavily trafficked areas.) And even then we'll still need plenty of "troops" or "agents." Again, we should streamline the military and put much more resources into border security, port security (only 5% of goods are checked,) and finding and deporting those who overstay their visas (6+ million, including a few of those pesky "radical freedom-hating Islamo-fascists" that nose-dived into those two towers.) It's a big job and we need to devote the time, energy, manpower, know-how, and money to get that job done.

I really don't think (opinion) that we need to involve the military in the realm of law enforcement. Think Posse Comitatus.

This isn't law enforcement, this is protecting our country from invasion. That is not hyperbole. It is an invasion. I honestly can't think of a better use of the military than protecting our country from invasion. We haven't fought a legitimate war since the Revolution. (We may have been justified in bombing Japan, but we still shouldn't have nuked them.) But if not the military, we need to cut its budget, big time. In fact, we need to cut its budget regardless.

Hindsight is great but it does nothing to help solve the problems that we face today

In other words, we can't learn from history??? What's that famous quote, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it....

Besides, that quote from Jefferson looks more like foresight, not hindsight.Edited by: JD074

 

[Guest]

"When our nation is facing a genuine clear and present danger. In other words, not Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Hezbollah."

We didn't face a genuine clear and present danger from Japan either until they attacked us. What should we do, wait until troops are at our border poised to invade? What sort of parameters would you place on pre-emptive strikes?

"Why do we need most of these trade policies? Other than a higher tariff, preventing illegal dumping, etc., let U.S. businesses trade with other countries the way they see fit. Isn't that what the free market is all about?"

Uh, business and virtually all economists agree that tariffs are bad for free commerce. BTW they are trading as they see fit. Thats why our once thriving textile industry is no more, its moved overseas.

"Withdraw all troops from the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia,) end all foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries, and severely limit immigration from Middle Eastern countries, and Muslims from other countries (like England and France.) Any Muslim who's suspected of terrorist activities would be immediately deported and never allowed to return."

Hypothetical question-What happens if friendly oil producing nations are gobbled up by unfriendly ones? its a sellers market for oil right now. Don't you think that we have strategic interests in some countries overseas?

Menelik wrote:
ANWAR is a drop in the bucket as far as peak oil supplies go.

"Actually, it is very significant:"

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16390

By a writer and medical researcher. I have read the exact opposite by more reliable sources. Look we can trade the results of a google search all night so I'll concede this one to you

"This isn't law enforcement, this is protecting our country from invasion. That is not hyperbole. It is an invasion. I honestly can't think of a better use of the military than protecting our country from invasion. We haven't fought a legitimate war since the Revolution. (We may have been justified in bombing Japan, but we still shouldn't have nuked them.) But if not the military, we need to cut its budget, big time. In fact, we need to cut its budget regardless."

I can see that you feel strongly that we are being invaded so I won't even go there. BTW I do feel we were justified in nuking Japan for two reasons:
1. They shouldn't have attacked us
and
2. Check out the stats on projected U.S. losses if we conducted a ground invasion of Japan.

"In other words, we can't learn from history??? What's that famous quote, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it....

Besides, that quote from Jefferson looks more like foresight, not hindsight."

Still hindsight. And wishful thinking. I ended my last post asking if anyone had any VIABLE solutions to correct some of these ills that we face. I don't have any but it looks like I have plenty of company.