From Upholding A Founding Ideal To Worshipping The Men That Abused It

From Upholding A Founding Ideal To Worshipping The Men That Abused It.

I think Presidents (with the possible exception of Washington and Jefferson) should be removed from coins. What ever happened to Lady LIBERTY?

I’ll tell you. There is a direct correlation between taking Lady LIBERTY off of the coin to replace her with presidents and the decline of this nation.

They replaced the Indian Head Liberty with Lincoln in the same year that Theodore Roosevelt’s Radical Progressive Presidency was at its worst, only to be replaced in the same year by the slightly less Progressive William Taft.

They replaced the The Liberty Head with the Buffalo in the same year that the Federal Reserve was started, the Progressive Income Tax was instituted, and the Senate was turned into a Mob Rabble by the 17th Amendment. The Buffalo Head was then replaced with Jefferson the same year that Churchill and Roosevelt first hinted at an alliance with STALIN, a dictator many times worse than Hitler.

They replaced the Mercury Liberty with Roosevelt in the same year that Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry. More than sixty years prior to Obama nationalizing GM, Healthcare, etc.

They replaced the Standing Liberty with George Washington in the same year that Herbert Hoover botched the recession/banking crisis of 1929 and prolonged the Great Depression, justifying further Big Government.

They replaced the Walking Liberty with Ben Franklin in the same year that the US Supreme Court banned religious instruction from public schools, effectively aiding the Federal takeover of the state and local Schools. In the same year, Harry Truman signed the Marshall Plan, which, like anytime Keynesian Economics is applied, slowed down the post war financial recovery in Europe. Harry Truman also issued a peacetime draft (although the undeclared, unconstitutional war in Korea was still being waged), which is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, which says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” They later replaced Ben Franklin with Kennedy in the same year that Dimes and Quarters ceased being made of silver, further adding to the Federal Reserve’s/Treasury Department’s arbitrary fiat authority.

The Peace Liberty was ended in the same year that FDR created the WPA, one of the central entities of the Fascist/Socialist New Deal. When Silver Dollars were eventually brought back, they weren’t made out of silver and they had Eisenhower on the front. It occurred in the same year that Richard Nixon nailed the final nail in the coffin of the gold standard by ending Bretton-Woods and strengthening the fiat power of the Federal Reserve.

The point is that just as we have rejected the concept of Liberty on our coins as one of the chief founding principles of this country and instead set up idols to presidents (some of whom were actually decent men), so too has Liberty as a founding concept, a noble ideal, and a reverent subject been rejected in America by Americans, so too has the capricious power of of the Federal Government and especially the Executive Branch increased through the usurpations of the Liberties of Individuals and the Sovereignty of the States.

There is no direct causation, but certainly a relevant relation, a perfect parallel even.

We have removed Liberty from both our coins (granted, the actual word is still present) and our system. In each instance the replacement was the Presidency or the Paternalism that has arisen from it. It is reminiscent of the Emperor worship of Ancient Rome. This is nowhere near the first America-Rome comparison. There are many more and they are quite alarming.

Two Federalists, Both South Carolina Statesmen, Endorse Ron Paul’s Stance On Defense And Foreign Aid

Two Federalists, Both South Carolina Statesmen, Endorse Ron Paul’s Stance On Defense And Foreign Aid.

In response to Minister Talleyrand’s request (rather, an attempted extortion later known as the XYZ Affair) for monetary aid (to the tune of $10,250,000) in exchange for neutrality on behalf of France towards the United States during the 1797 hostilities between France and Britain, Diplomat and Founding Father Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said

“No, no, not a sixpence!”

When the diplomatic commission (which included future Chief Justice John Marshall and future Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry) returned from France in 1798, a dinner reception was held for commission member Marshall. At the dinner the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, South Carolina Congressman Robert Goodloe Harper said, 

“Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!”

These latter words might readily be twisted by some to mean

“Countless billions for any military expenditure we damn well please but not one friendly nod, not one apology, not one hand outstretched in peace, toward nations that refuse to bow to our exceptionalism or bend to our hegemony”,

but any faithful recognition of the context should yield no other meaning than the plainest:

“Millions for defense [as against attacks initiated by other nations] but not one penny [worth about a quarter in today’s economy, granted] for tribute [which is an admission of dependence and a curtailment  of sovereignty on the part of either or both nations].”

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From John Quincy Adams’ Independence Day Speech

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From John Quincy Adams’ Independence Day Speech.

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From Excerpts From John Quincy Adams’ “Monroe Doctrine”

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From Excerpts From John Quincy Adams’ “Monroe Doctrine”.

…In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers…

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the result has been so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellowmen on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From Assorted Excerpts From The Letters And Other Writings Of James Madison

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From Assorted Excerpts From The Letters And Other Writings Of James Madison.

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people… . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals… . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare… 

[It should be well understood] that the powers proposed to be surrendered [by the Third Congress] to the Executive were those which the Constitution has most jealously appropriated to the Legislature… 

The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war … the power of raising armies … the power of creating offices… 

A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments.

The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

The separation of the power of raising armies from the power of commanding them, is intended to prevent the raising of armies for the sake of commanding them.

The separation of the power of creating offices from that of filling them, is an essential guard against the temptation to create offices for the sake of gratifying favourites or multiplying dependents.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From Thomas Jefferson’s Reply To Gideon Granger

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy From Thomas Jefferson’s Reply To Gideon Granger.

The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our general government may be reduced to a very simple organization, and a very unexpensive one—a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants. But, I repeat that this simple and economical mode of government can never be secured if the New England States continue to support the contrary system. I rejoice, therefore, in every appearance of their returning to those principles which I had always imagined to be almost innate in them.