The End of Our American Project

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,013
60,490
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Most know the saying "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."


That's the sort of government for which Liberals and Progressives and Democrats yearn.


1. Former NY Senator James Buckley might have had that in mind when he wrote his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” commenting on the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives.
And these rules have the full force of law!
Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed!



This recent story underscores the above:

2. "... IRS Seized $107,000 From This North Carolina Man’s Bank Account.
... Lyndon McLellan....[opened] a general store and grill, 14 years ago... in the heart of the Bible Belt, naming it L&M Convenience Mart.

“It’s my livelihood,” he told The Daily Signal. “This is all I know how to do. I’m 50 years old, and if I had to do something else, I’d probably be in trouble. This is what I was brought up in. This is all I know.”

What McLellan didn’t know, though, was that the federal government could come in and take away what he’d worked so hard for.

.... federal agents then showed McLellan paperwork that included deposits to the store’s account at Lumbee Guaranty Bank. The statements showed two deposits made within a 24-hour period totaling $11,400.

The statements, they said, indicated he had a history of consistent cash deposits of less than $10,000, which is illegal.

The Internal Revenue Service had seized all of the money in L&M’s bank account: $107,702.66.

Structuring laws were originally put in place to catch drug trafficking and money laundering, but more and more instances have arisen where innocent Americans have committed structuring violations without even knowing it.

Months after seizing McLellan’s money, the federal government offered him 50 percent of his money back if he agreed to a settlement deal by March 30. "
IRS Seized 107 000 From Him. He s Fighting to Get It Back.




3. "[T]he power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work?"
Friedrich August von Hayek


Did the Founders envision a nation of free people- 'The American Project'-,...

.... or an omnipotent government that controls every aspect of their lives?
 
If one "side" of this issue ultimately wins out, it will have been because they did a better job of convincing the electorate than the other "side".

So that other "side" may want to look in the mirror at this point and determine whether its approach is truly the right one.

.
 
Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

By the way....nobody was jailed...which was the implication made.
 
Last edited:
Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

Probably because she neglected to mention the IRS returned all of his money.

How the IRS seized a man s life savings without ever charging him with a crime - The Washington Post

Now, yeah, this is an awful abuse of a law meant for a good reason- to keep drug dealers and possible terrorists under close scrutiny. It probably needs to be revised.

But it's not the "Fire and Brimstone" Political Spice has put it out to be.
 
Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

Probably because she neglected to mention the IRS returned all of his money.

How the IRS seized a man s life savings without ever charging him with a crime - The Washington Post

Now, yeah, this is an awful abuse of a law meant for a good reason- to keep drug dealers and possible terrorists under close scrutiny. It probably needs to be revised.

But it's not the "Fire and Brimstone" Political Spice has put it out to be.

They did????? But....the project has ended!! It's not possible that the evil Feds gave the money back!!

Shall we look into the history of the forfeiture laws that led to this matter? What do you think we will learn?
 
Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

Probably because she neglected to mention the IRS returned all of his money.

How the IRS seized a man s life savings without ever charging him with a crime - The Washington Post

Now, yeah, this is an awful abuse of a law meant for a good reason- to keep drug dealers and possible terrorists under close scrutiny. It probably needs to be revised.

But it's not the "Fire and Brimstone" Political Spice has put it out to be.

They did????? But....the project has ended!! It's not possible that the evil Feds gave the money back!!

Shall we look into the history of the forfeiture laws that led to this matter? What do you think we will learn?

If we look into when this started we will find that it started under Reagan and really got going under GHW Bush.
 
Why does this reader think the OP didn't tell the whole story regarding the convenience store guy? Hmmmmmmm?

Probably because she neglected to mention the IRS returned all of his money.

How the IRS seized a man s life savings without ever charging him with a crime - The Washington Post

Now, yeah, this is an awful abuse of a law meant for a good reason- to keep drug dealers and possible terrorists under close scrutiny. It probably needs to be revised.

But it's not the "Fire and Brimstone" Political Spice has put it out to be.

They did????? But....the project has ended!! It's not possible that the evil Feds gave the money back!!

Shall we look into the history of the forfeiture laws that led to this matter? What do you think we will learn?

If we look into when this started we will find that it started under Reagan and really got going under GHW Bush.

We would??? That's just crazy!! Those two would NEVER do anything to end the project!

Are you sure about that?
 
4. Once upon a time Americans were proud to proclaim their country "the land of the free." It seems that the term 'free' has lost much of its meaning.

According to our third President, freedom accords in the following: " A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."


In the OP we can see proof that this definition no longer applies.



5. “I believe that for the past twenty years there has been a creeping socialism spreading in the United States.
PresidentDWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,off-the-cuff speech to Republican leaders, Custer State Park, South Dakota, June 11, 1953.—Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story,p. 336 (1956).



As was the case for Presidents prior to FDR, the Constitution denied outlays other than those enumerated in Article 1, section 8. Eisenhower acknowledged this.

At his press conference in Washington, D.C., June 17, 1953, President Eisenhower was asked what he meant by “creeping socialism.” Donovan writes, “He replied: continued Federal expansion of the T.V.A. He reiterated for what he said was the thousandth time that he would not destroy the T.V.A., but he said that he thought it was socialistic to continue putting money paid by all the taxpayers into a single region which could then attract industry away from other areas” (p. 336). Also seePublic Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953,p. 433.

And, the same applies to taking from one who earns and giving to another.


a. But there was no was no way to stop the 'creeping socialism.'

"...“when the national platforms and candidates of 1960 have been chosen, the American voters will find it difficult to detect a major ideological difference between the two major parties."
Arthur Krock, in the NYTimes, February 28, 1960.



How to recognize that "creeping socialism"??

Count the rules, regulations, mandates, etc.


Count 'em.....and note the steady increase.
 
6. In the view of the Founders, America was designed for freedom and liberty for its citizens. The simplest way to achieve same is under the imprimatur of 'limited government.' Those who endorse 'limited government,' today, would be classical liberals, libertarians, and conservatives.


Modern Liberals, Progressives, communists, socialists, etc., wish for no restrictions on what government can do.


a. The antithesis to constitutional governance is clear in TR's 1910 'New Nationalism' speech:

" We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”


b. “The national government, in TR's view, was not one of enumerated powers but of general powers, and the purpose of the Constitution was merely to state the exceptions to that rule.

This is a view of government directly refuted by Alexander Hamilton (who was hardly a shrinking violet about the powers of the national government) in Federalist 84. Hamilton explains there that the fundamental difference between a republican constitution and a monarchic one is that the latter reserves some liberty for the people by stating specific exceptions to the assumed general power of the crown, whereas the former assumes from the beginning that the power of the people is the general rule, and the power of the government the exception. TR, of course, turns this on its head.”
http://claremont.org/publications/pubid.439/pub_detail.asp




QED....we have witnessed the End of Our American Project

"So goodbye yellow brick road
Where the dogs of society howl..."
Elton John
 
4. Once upon a time Americans were proud to proclaim their country "the land of the free." It seems that the term 'free' has lost much of its meaning.

According to our third President, freedom accords in the following: " A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

And right after he wrote that, he raped the shit out of Sally Hemmings without any consequence because she was his property.
 
4. Once upon a time Americans were proud to proclaim their country "the land of the free." It seems that the term 'free' has lost much of its meaning.

According to our third President, freedom accords in the following: " A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

And right after he wrote that, he raped the shit out of Sally Hemmings without any consequence because she was his property.



You must be losing big time to bring up another Liberal myth.

There is as much proof of Thomas Jefferson having children with Sally Hemmings as there is of J.Edgar Hoover ever wearing a dress.

Stories like this are designed to smear the enemies of the Left, and invest the imaginations of mental deficients...
Raise your paw.
 
4. Once upon a time Americans were proud to proclaim their country "the land of the free." It seems that the term 'free' has lost much of its meaning.

According to our third President, freedom accords in the following: " A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."


In the OP we can see proof that this definition no longer applies.



5. “I believe that for the past twenty years there has been a creeping socialism spreading in the United States.
PresidentDWIGHT D. EISENHOWER,off-the-cuff speech to Republican leaders, Custer State Park, South Dakota, June 11, 1953.—Robert J. Donovan, Eisenhower: The Inside Story,p. 336 (1956).



As was the case for Presidents prior to FDR, the Constitution denied outlays other than those enumerated in Article 1, section 8. Eisenhower acknowledged this.

At his press conference in Washington, D.C., June 17, 1953, President Eisenhower was asked what he meant by “creeping socialism.” Donovan writes, “He replied: continued Federal expansion of the T.V.A. He reiterated for what he said was the thousandth time that he would not destroy the T.V.A., but he said that he thought it was socialistic to continue putting money paid by all the taxpayers into a single region which could then attract industry away from other areas” (p. 336). Also seePublic Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953,p. 433.

And, the same applies to taking from one who earns and giving to another.


a. But there was no was no way to stop the 'creeping socialism.'

"...“when the national platforms and candidates of 1960 have been chosen, the American voters will find it difficult to detect a major ideological difference between the two major parties."
Arthur Krock, in the NYTimes, February 28, 1960.



How to recognize that "creeping socialism"??

Count the rules, regulations, mandates, etc.


Count 'em.....and note the steady increase.
So the law that Reagan got passed for the drug war on funds transferred or deposited that was modified over the years to cover organized crime, narco dollars and terrorist funds is creeping socialism?
 
You must be losing big time to bring up another Liberal myth.

There is as much proof of Thomas Jefferson having children with Sally Hemmings as there is of J.Edgar Hoover ever wearing a dress.

Stories like this are designed to smear the enemies of the Left, and invest the imaginations of mental deficients...

Uh, actually, there is plenty of evidence. There are all the contemporary accounts that indicate that Thomas Jefferson banging Sally Hemings was talked about in the newspapers of the time.

There's the evidence that he freed her children. Not something he did for any of his other slaves, most of who were resold to pay off his debts.

There's the DNA evidence that shows that Jefferson's acknowledge descendants share DNA with Sally Hemming descendants.

Now, here's the thing, as much as Right Wingers like to quote (or misquote) Jefferson, or ignore the fact the guy was anti-Christian, I don't consider the guy "the enemy".

I just think it's a little silly to use a SLAVE OWNER as a fine example of the virtues of freedom. The man made money off the forced servitude of others. Poor Miss Hemings was used as a sex slave, because she had the bad luck of resembling Jefferson's dead wife. (She was the result of Jefferson's father in law sticking his pen in the company inkwell.)
 
You must be losing big time to bring up another Liberal myth.

There is as much proof of Thomas Jefferson having children with Sally Hemmings as there is of J.Edgar Hoover ever wearing a dress.

Stories like this are designed to smear the enemies of the Left, and invest the imaginations of mental deficients...

Uh, actually, there is plenty of evidence. There are all the contemporary accounts that indicate that Thomas Jefferson banging Sally Hemings was talked about in the newspapers of the time.

There's the evidence that he freed her children. Not something he did for any of his other slaves, most of who were resold to pay off his debts.

There's the DNA evidence that shows that Jefferson's acknowledge descendants share DNA with Sally Hemming descendants.

Now, here's the thing, as much as Right Wingers like to quote (or misquote) Jefferson, or ignore the fact the guy was anti-Christian, I don't consider the guy "the enemy".

I just think it's a little silly to use a SLAVE OWNER as a fine example of the virtues of freedom. The man made money off the forced servitude of others. Poor Miss Hemings was used as a sex slave, because she had the bad luck of resembling Jefferson's dead wife. (She was the result of Jefferson's father in law sticking his pen in the company inkwell.)



Pay attention:
1. You're a moron.
2. You're a Liberal....wait...was that redundant?

How many times must I prove the above before even you realize it?

No...there is no DNA evidence that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children with Sally Hemings.

There can't be, you dunce: . "Since Thomas Jefferson himself had no known legitimate male descendants (his wife Martha bore six children between 1772 and her death in 1782, but only two daughters lived to adulthood), a direct comparison between his and Sally Hemings' offspring could not be made."
Is It True - A Primer On Jefferson Dna Jefferson s Blood FRONTLINE PBS


Further:
Certainly any of us would like to be able to claim a President of the United States in our family tree. The Hemings family would. So, it makes sense that they would not participate in any endeavor which would cast doubt on the claim.

"After several months of research I was able to locate and identify a second Hemings DNA source, William Hemings, a son of Madison Hemings [Sally's eldest son], in a Veteran's, Cemetery in Leavenworth, Kansas. I notified the Hemings family, gave them forms and urged them to permit a gathering of that valuable DNA. At the same time I advised Monticello President Dan Jordan, and suggested he urge the Hemings to pemit the gathering of a second Hemings DNA.

He [Jordan] refused to contact them, suggested that I contact them, but cautioned me against undue pressure. All eight Hemings family members refused to permit the test, and their spokesperson, Shay Banks-Young, informed me that they are happy with their oral family history and will never give permission."
"A Year at Monticello -- 1795," by Donald Jackson, p. 91-92



Bottom line:
a. You're stupid enough to believe any malicious Liberal gossip
b. You're vile enough to pass it off as true.
 
7.There is that old saying about habits: they start out thin as the thread of a spider's web, but, they become as strong as steel cable.
The same is true of the control of the lives of Americans by an ever growing regulatory government.

It is those steel cables that strangle the liberty out of contemporary life.

The Constitution was there to prevent that....but it has long since become no more than a suggestion.



8. "It was Madison, who, more than any other individual, midwifed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It was his Constitution that preserved limited government for the first century and a half of America's existence.



Classical liberals, libertarians, and conservatives who love limited government disagree on many things, but not, I think, on this:

If we could restore limited government as Madison understood it, all of our agendas would be largely fulfilled."
Charles Murray, "By The People."
 
Bottom line:
a. You're stupid enough to believe any malicious Liberal gossip
b. You're vile enough to pass it off as true.

Gee, the Monticello association pretty much fesses up to Jefferson being the Baby-Daddy to Hemings children.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings A Brief Account Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings.

So, sorry, Thomas Jefferson was a slave-raping bastard, and we should keep that in mind whenever he talks about "Freedom".

I'm sure Sally would have liked the freedom to day, "Not tonight, I have a headache. It's going to last until 1826!"
 
Bottom line:
a. You're stupid enough to believe any malicious Liberal gossip
b. You're vile enough to pass it off as true.

Gee, the Monticello association pretty much fesses up to Jefferson being the Baby-Daddy to Hemings children.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings A Brief Account Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings.

So, sorry, Thomas Jefferson was a slave-raping bastard, and we should keep that in mind whenever he talks about "Freedom".

I'm sure Sally would have liked the freedom to day, "Not tonight, I have a headache. It's going to last until 1826!"



You'll never let go of your hatred of America, huh?


Some say it's really self-hatred.....in which case I vote for you to hang on to it.
 
You'll never let go of your hatred of America, huh?


Some say it's really self-hatred.....in which case I vote for you to hang on to it.

First of all, my love of America is proven by that nice box of medals and military insignia that I earned from 1981 to 1992. I get a full pass from fake displays of patriotism for the rest of my life, and unlike you and many others here, when I die, there will be a flag on my coffin.

Secondly, I don't consider it "love' to ignore fault and flaws for people you care about. I love my family, but I don't fail to address it when i think they are doing something that's wrong. They've told me when I was wrong about things. That's what you do.

Now, like it or not, we have some pretty dark shit in our history- Slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, the exploitation of immigrant labor. Fighting a lot of wars, most of which weren't justified. (I would only rate WWII, Korea and the Civil War for the North as "Justified") While commendable that we've done much to address our past wrongs, we still have a long way to go.
 
You'll never let go of your hatred of America, huh?


Some say it's really self-hatred.....in which case I vote for you to hang on to it.

First of all, my love of America is proven by that nice box of medals and military insignia that I earned from 1981 to 1992. I get a full pass from fake displays of patriotism for the rest of my life, and unlike you and many others here, when I die, there will be a flag on my coffin.

Secondly, I don't consider it "love' to ignore fault and flaws for people you care about. I love my family, but I don't fail to address it when i think they are doing something that's wrong. They've told me when I was wrong about things. That's what you do.

Now, like it or not, we have some pretty dark shit in our history- Slavery, the genocide of Native Americans, the exploitation of immigrant labor. Fighting a lot of wars, most of which weren't justified. (I would only rate WWII, Korea and the Civil War for the North as "Justified") While commendable that we've done much to address our past wrongs, we still have a long way to go.


Just no end of your hate-America agenda-

Another myth: there was no genocide of Indians.
 

Forum List

Back
Top