Education, Writing and diction

Is loboviejo iconic or legendary

© 2014 Earl L. Haehl: Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Some questions on usage spring to mind as one reads the daily newspaper. Not long ago I read the lead, “The career of iconic beat writer William Burroughs…”

This violated two important style conventions of time past. The major one was elimination of the middle initial. This has become common as has the omission of middle names that identify individuals who went by those names. Per example: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, William Cullen Bryant. I, myself, use a middle initial in financial matters to distinguish me from a second cousin—of course to the government I am xxx-xx-xxxx. But Burroughs wrote as William S. Burroughs. I am just damn picky.

Okay. Now to “iconic,” one of two adjectives that hit my button. If you have ever seen Eastern Orthodox art, you have a good idea what an icon is. There are specific conventions in icons, specific hand positions and colors of clothing. You will generally find no statues in Orthodox churches—I have seen an occasional crucifix, but the statues of Santos we get out and parade at fiesta no. Things are changing and it’s been 10 years since my flirtation with the east, so I used the term generally. Icons are two-dimensional. They are written, not drawn. Burroughs would hardly be a subject for an icon in any church I have set foot in. And as I recall seeing him on occasions, he was three-dimensional.

In the advertising section as well as the retail sector, the word “legendary” is used to describe proprietary branded clothing. I had always thought of the gods of the north as legendary, Odin of the many aliases, Frigg the consort of Odin, Freyja of the Vanir (goddess of beauty and gore), Thor of the barrel chest and stocky build (take that, Marvel Comics). Or the heroic west, Hickock, Earp, James, all more legend than reality. Calling Chinese clothing which is sold by two or three retail/catalog outfits—same item, different proprietary names is what we called “puffery” back when I was in the ad biz. There are legendary brands of clothing such as Brooks Brothers, Levis, Stetson; those brands date from the nineteenth century and stood on their own as brands the country grew up with.

By overuse the term legendary has become meaningless. By misuse the term iconic has lost all meaning.

Is loboviejo iconic or legendary?  Hell no!

Standard
Citizenship, Economy, Free Society

We fought a war for these freedoms

© 2014 Earl L. Haehl: Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

In 1743, Sam Adams and James Otis, Jr, were admitted to the degree of Master of Arts with Honours by Harvard College. These two gentlemen were both allies and rivals over the next few years and the intellectual fathers of the American Revolution in Massachusetts Bay colony.

James Otis, Jr, was appointed advocate general of the vice admiralty court in Boston where he was an advocate enforcing the onerous Acts of Trade of 1751. As the residents of Massachusetts Bay sought extra-legal relief (Messrs John Hancock and Sam Adams being involved in such activity) Parliament came up with the use of “General Warrants” which allowed the Kings officers to search what they chose, when they chose and where they chose without specifics.

In 1761, partly because Gov Bernard appointed Thomas Hutchinson rather than James Otis, Sr, as Chief Justice, the younger Otis resigned his position as advocate general and took up the cause of the merchants of Massachusetts Bay. He did this pro bono or without fee.

His five hour argument in February of 1761, included the following:

A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court may inquire.

Does this sound familiar? Does the justification of NSA surveillance by such “defenders of our freedom” as Rep Peter King (R-NY) ring familiar?

James Otis, Jr, had begun his argument with the following.

I was desired by one of the court to look into the (law) books, and consider the question now before them concerning Writs of Assistance. I have accordingly considered it, and now appear not only in obedience to your order, but likewise in behalf of the inhabitants of this town, who have presented another petition, and out of regard to the liberties of the subject. And I take this opportunity to declare that whether under a fee or not (for in such a cause as this I despise a fee) I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other, as this Writ of Assistance is.

John Adams, Sam’s more conciliatory cousin who had doubts about independence characterized this as the first act of resistance. It was the first action in an intellectual war of small actions which culminated in the shots fired at Lexington Green on 19 April 1775.

The court, presided over by the corrupt Thomas Hutchinson, rejected the argument. But the speech was amplified and published over the years. In December of 1773 Hutchinson was to be the recipient of a shipment of tea that would be forfeit to his warehouse on 17 December of that year. James Otis, Jr’s classmate Sam organized a costume party (it took place on Beethoven’s third birthday) that result in the tea being tossed into the harbor so it could not be unloaded.

Through the assistance of the anti-federalist movement which in the newly free and independent Commonwealth of Massachusetts included Sam Adams and the sister of James Otis, Jr, Mercy Otis Warren, ten amendments restricting governmental powers were adopted and ratified. These included the Fourth Amendment which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

After “9/11” supposedly changed “our democracy forever” the United States passed the USAPATRIOT Act which greatly expanded the powers of the US Department of Justice, the NSA (LBJ’s Secret Police) and government in general—we now have a Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security with seemingly unlimited powers. (I could posit that the events of 11 September 2001 did not substantially change the risk level for the United States but only the fear level.)

This legislation is not “the law of the land” in that it is passed, not pursuant to the powers granted in the body of the Constitution and contrary to the limits on federal power bluntly stated in the fourth article amending that Constitution. In other words, the argument is that an emergency grants extraordinary powers to ignore the basics of governing in a free society. In the 1688 Bill of Rights, the British Parliament objected to standing armies in time of peace—and since 1688 every monarch has assured military adventurism as a means to keeping standing armies. In 1798 John Adams wanted emergency powers because he had a gotten into a shooting conflict with France—his successor refused to enforce those powers. Since 1914 the United States has been in conflict with one or more foes—only twice, 1917 and 1941, have there been formal declarations of war although Bill Fulbright posited that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution might be so considered.

The advantage to the powers that be of “emergencies” is that the electorate, with a dire threat from the outside, is willing to forgo freedoms in the belief that such willingness will diminish the threat. Ergo, since Muslim extremists were capable of flying a couple planes into buildings we are under threat—although we currently have no enemies with industrial capabilities, having reached a rapprochement with Red China and having caused the downfall of the Soviet Union through a massive spending war. However, we have a “Global War on Terror” as a result of G.W. Bush acting like John Adams on steroids and Barack Obama not being Thomas Jefferson in any sense.

Going back to the Fourth Amendment, James Otis, Jr, began a revolution of thought. As the kernel of the idea grew, it was added to and built up pressure. By April of 1775, the American Revolution was over—what lay ahead was a War for Independence. Yes, for these ideas and freedoms we went to war, not to give power over to a government that took crises as a rationale for going back to a time before it all happened and back to a government that made Leviathan look like a gila monster.

 

Standard
Citizenship, Economy

It started with Hoover(?)

© 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Herbert Hoover was an engineer and a manager. Never before or since has that combination sat in the Oval Office. Hoover liked the idea of a coherent executive budget instead of each agency or faction lobbying for their own turf. In theory this makes good sense—a President with managerial expertise looks over the entirety of the Executive Branch and makes sure everything necessary is covered within the means (funding) provided by the available revenues. It only makes sense—or to use the most misused term in political debate common sense.

A note here. My favorite line from Common Sense, a hot headed tract by Thomas Paine under the pseudonym, An Englishman, begins, “Government at its best is a necessary evil….”

Mr Hoover liked the idea of controlling the elements of the country. As Secretary of Commerce he seized control of the airways with the assistance of Congress and the help of an outlandish broadcaster named John R Brinkley. The Federal Radio Commission (now the FCC) was created at the request of the broadcasters to be less arbitrary than the Secretary of Commerce. Hoover also appointed himself assistant secretary for interference in all other departments. He expanded regulation after the Federal Reserve tanked the Stock Market in 1929, which weakened the economy. He did, however, veto the Smoot-Hawley Tariff which was the proximate cause of the 1931 recession—it was passed over his veto.

Hoover’s successor Franklin D Roosevelt turned his economic relief over to Frances Perkins, Hugh Johnson and other progressives who based their solutions on Woodrow Wilson’s war mobilization tactics and the writings of Max Weber and Benito Mussolini. So instead of attacking the regulations that had caused the downturn and returning to sound money as promised (Barry Goldwater said he could have run on FDR’s 1932 platform) we got the New Deal. The New Deal expanded the scope and powers of the Department of Labor (Perkins’ empire) and began the entitlement state through social security which was designed to get older workers out of the workforce.

With the growth of entitlements under Lyndon Johnson and later presidents the national budget became one in which borrowing became necessary to cover the newly essential functions of government in addition to wars and military adventurism. The Johnson through Carter Administrations vastly expanded the role of the federal government in welfare, medical care, education and public safety/emergency management to the point that states and localities are dependent on federal funds—as an aside, the general taxation authority the feds got in 1913 has increased to the point that the states are limited in what they can tax.

Congress decided in 1917 to limit the Treasury’s borrowing authority. This was in response to Wilson’s public entry into World War I—he already had troops occupying much of Mexico where he intervened in the civil wars as well as many areas of Central America and the Caribbean where United Fruit had interests. Domestic affairs did not generally require borrowing before the second world war.

Increasing the borrowing limit may be necessary for a short term obligation but if it becomes necessary to fund the essentials of government then it is a long term problem and the answer has to be to cut spending, cut programs, cut the interference which depresses the economy. Ultimately we will have to stop borrowing and start paying down or most assuredly we will default. On the other hand, the entitlement spending has become a third rail in politics—DO NOT TOUCH. Neither the rock nor the hard place is safe.

So we will continue to have shutdowns, gridlock and dissension. All are culpable.

Standard
Citizenship, Free Society, Trivia

Death of Parties

© 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

I read of the death of the Republican Party. I have read this many times about both parties. Ross Perot was going to replace both. Political parties come and go and evolve.

A number of Federalists in New York affiliated themselves with the Tammany Hall wing of the Democratic-Republicans sponsoring Aaron Burr in 1804 as their gubernatorial candidate against against Morgan Lewis of the Clintonian (or anti-federalist) Wing. Burr’s program included his support of the secession of the Northern States (New York and New England) to form a confederation more favorable to Britain than to France. Federalists from Massachusetts actually supported Burr for Governor of New York because of his willingness to sign a bill of secession. There were those who feared the Louisiana Purchase would give Jefferson too much power. The Federalists had no candidate so two Democratic-Republican Candidates went head to head.

In steps Alexander Hamilton who wants absolutely nothing of secession because it would be bad for commerce. Hamilton disliked Jefferson and loathed George Clinton politically because they opposed the ratification of the Constitution. He also happened to despise Aaron Burr as a rival in New York Banking. An off-handed insult by Hamilton was perceived by Burr to have given the victory of Lewis and was the “proximate cause” of the oldest sports rivalry in the Ivy League. (Dueling: Princeton 1 – Columbia 0) While some credit the duel as the end of the Federalists, the party had become a northeastern parochial party after 1800.

The Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand were experiencing a similar breakdown. Morgan Lewis, while having some moderate support, was the last of the anti-federalist crowd. A supporter, DeWitt Clinton (George’s nephew who inspired a future governor to build canals) shifted to Tammany to run for Governor and even ran as a Federalist for President in 1812 to oppose Madison’s War.

TRIVIA WATCH

George Clinton was the longest serving governor in American history. He was the first vice-president elected on a party ticket rather than as runnerup for President. He served as vice-president for both Jefferson and Madison. His greatest accomplishment was in chairing the Ratification Convention in New York where New York’s entry into the compact was made contingent on the Bill of Rights. Some scholars believe he was the author of the Anti-federalist Papers attributed to Cato, but others say the authorship is still in doubt—fortunately dueling has been outlawed.

Speaking of dueling: Aaron Burr was the grandson of Jonathan Edwards and a well educated banker. He was involved in a plot to form an empire in Spanish Territory—That had to wait for Pres James Polk who was a cousin to Bishop Leonidas Polk who married a Granddaughter of Jonathan Edwards. The Burr family formed the Manhattan Company (not to be confused with the Manhattan Project) to transport water in Manhattan Island—it also had authority to issue notes and hold deposit. It remains in existence as JP Morgan Chase and owns Alexander Hamilton’s pistols.

DeWitt Clinton had a steam engine named for him. He is best know for the Erie Canal—in opposition campaign literature it was called, “Clinton’s big ditch.”

Modern Republicans are divided and ripping in several directions, but there will always be dissension. The great political philosopher of the 19th Century, Finley Peter Dunne, speaking in the persona of Mr Dooley, said, “if ye’re in a room where a man in one corner is shouting miscreant and in the other corner is one shouting thraitor, you know its only two loyal demmycrats trying to reunite the party.”

Remember: tags are invitations to research.

Standard
Citizenship, Preparedness

21 August 1863 – The cost of non-resistance

© 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Today is August 21, 2013. 150 years ago, Major William “Bloody Bill” Anderson led his raiders into Lawrence, Kansas, and committed murder and mayhem on the civilian population although the killing was limited, for the most part, to males of military age—remembering that in 1863, young en as young as twelve were found in the military service of both the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.

About 10 am, William Clark Quantrill, Anderson’s “commander,” arrived in town, ate breakfast, gave orders to spare a hotel where he had once resided, and left. This was an irregular band or conglomeration of bands of raiders and command structure was sometimes confusing, but Bill Anderson had loose command.

What had happened in Lawrence that I find disturbing is that armed resistance was rare and sporadic. A Colonel Bullene and two of his sons were on leave. When raiders rode up to the Bullene residence, they were greeted with gunfire and decided to go elsewhere. There was a farmer named Levi Gates who grabbed his muzzle loader and went hunting and got two or three raiders before being cut down.

Three weeks before the raid the New England contingent among the city fathers had decided that the militia weapons would be “safer” in a central armory than in homes—anyone who thinks this bit of information did not get back to Quantrill and company needs a reality check.

It is not that the city did not know about the possibility of a raid. On 21 May 1856, the Sheriff of Douglas County, Samuel Jones, sacked the city to destroy free state and abolitionist newspapers and the Free State Hotel. However, the lessons of vigilance fade in time.

A personal note: My family were of the New England Puritan culture. When I went to a candlelight vigil some years back, there was a reading of names which included a number of Palmers and Griswolds—not ancestors but probably related.

In September of 1863, the Confederate Congress amended the Partisan Ranger Act to apply only to those partisan units operating also as regular cavalry. Neither Quantrill nor Anderson survived the war but a remnant of Anderson’s men in Western Missouri reconstituted themselves as the James-Younger gang.

On February 13, 1866, a group of about a dozen former members of Anderson’s outfit—including Frank James and Coleman Younger—robbed the Clay County Savings Association. This was the first daytime bank robbery during peacetime and netted $60,000 according to the robberies page of angelfire.com. For the next ten years, the James-Younger gang was unstoppable in Missouri.

On September 7, 1876, the gang ventured into “Yankee” territory again. This time it was Northfield, Minnesota. This time, however, there was armed resistance. Townspeople grabbed weapons and the gunstore handed out new Winchesters. Frank and Jesse James managed to escape through the Dakota territory and got back to Missouri—the armed response and ensuing manhunt resulted in death or incarceration of most of their confederates. The total take was $26.70 because they took the word of the acting cashier that there was a time lock on the safe.

Standard
Citizenship, Free Society

(Non-existent) Gun Show Loophole

(c) 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

The dreaded “Gun Show Loophole” must be closed. One problem with that strategy—the GSL does not exist.

The 1934 National Firearms Act did not prohibit or regulate weapons. Read the government briefs in the Miller case. The Act was for revenue and falls under the excise power of Congress. Further, the sawed off shotgun in question was of no military utility and therefore the Second Amendment does not come into play.  If this does not comport to your perception of reality, take it up with FDR’s Solicitor General.

The 1968 Gun Control Act, while it mentions public safety, is grounded in the Commerce Power of Congress. As such dealers operating in the area of “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States” are subject to regulation. This is the concept which has accompanied the progressive takeover—that is stretching the Commerce Clause to fit the occasion. In the New Deal this was the justification for the second National Recovery Act—it was (improperly) upheld by a chastised Supreme Court after the first act was (properly) struck down. Dealers, weapons and prohibited actions are defined, with the prohibitions limited at first to constitutionally disabled individuals. It has been modified upon occasion and some of the modifications are questionable though they have not been challenged.

Gun shows are not mentioned by the act. Individual transfers that do not involve crossing state lines are neither prohibited nor regulated. That means that I can sell one of my World War I bolt actions to a friend or trade for one of his/her single action cowboy pistols without paperwork. The same would apply for any legal weapon under the Act—this includes semi-automatic weapons of the Stoner and Kalashnikov platforms. At gun shows patrons often bring weapons to sell or trade. Often they “trade up” to weapons from dealers. And they sometimes will get a better price or better trade from another patron. Believe or not, people have been trading and exchanging weapons for longer than I have been alive and I have been so trading for about half a century. I have purchased weapons from both dealers and other patrons. The transactions between patrons of a gun show are no different than transactions between individuals outside the gun show venue.

Now there are individuals who are, in fact, unlicensed dealers who use the gun shows as distribution venues. They will not get tables but will have two or three “personal” items on them as well as letting the patrons know where to contact them. There are also, at major gun shows, ATF agents supposedly looking for violations—they are not as easy to spot as they were in the old days when there were standards for professional attire. The two groups know who each other are and dance the dance. The bureau needs to do the job and nail the unlawful dealers, many of whom are probably their informants.

The use of gun shows by these people is not the fault of the law. The 68 Act follows the Constitution in not regulating private sales. These actual dealers are violating the law and need to be prosecuted. That is pure and simple—to the extent of it.

A law that mandates universal checks is unwise because it is unenforceable and because it sets up a registry. A registry is the mechanism for confiscation the next time public opinion may get manipulated. I mention the UK, Australia and California as examples of where this has happened. In Canada, fortunately, the long gun registry was an expensive joke that was made unenforceable through non-cooperation—I would expect that in this country abetted by juries that nullify the law.

Standard
Citizenship, Economy, Free Society

Immigration — protection or protectionism

(c) 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

If you are committed to populist and progressive myths about protecting jobs through immigration laws you do not need to read further. If, like my wife, you believe that the United States government has “inherent” powers to control immigration, I recommend reading Solburg, Winton L, ed., The Constitutional Convention and the Formation of the Union, second edition.

Let’s start with the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, defines the powers of Congress. Paragraph 4 says, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This deals with uniformity of laws and deals with the issue of naturalization, not immigration.

The only paragraph that mentions migration is Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 1 which reads, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This was a reference to the slave trade and the migration of indentured servants. It expired in 1808 and the slave trade was abolished. This was a compromise to keep Georgia and South Carolina in the Compact—George Mason proposed immediate elimination of the slave trade and elimination of slavery by 1800. In no way does this paragraph provide for regulation of voluntary immigration.

Article XIV of Amendment begins, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

So the Constitution does not give a whole lot of guidance. And the early laws did not deal with immigration. Even John Adams, the founding godfather of the progressive movement, did not get Congress to restrict immigration from France in 1898, but rather to require an extended residency period for naturalization.

During the 1840s a number of nativist groups emerged and advocated controlling immigration and deporting aliens. In the late 1860s it turned out that the aliens—specifically Irish and Chinese turned out to be necessary to the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. Abraham Lincoln and Grenville Dodge had ignored the War Department’s surveys and drawn a line on a map. To execute the Western third of that line required disciplined workers who could be careful with explosives and reliable. These were the Chinese, whom the Anglo-Californians were trying to get rid of.

In 1875 that the first limitation on immigration was passed (the Page Act). Employers were prohibited from importation of “coolie labor” and Chinese sex workers. In 1882 came the Chinese Exclusion Act. It should be noted that both the 1875 and 1882 Acts violated the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which was renegotiated in 1880.

The current quota based immigration system dates back only to 1921—more than 130 years after ratification of the Constitution. The latest intrusion is the REAL ID Act, a federal mandate on state issuance of identification justified by the so-called “war on terror.”

The progressive movement (and this includes the neo-conservatives and populists currently posing as conservatives) believes in government expansion by crisis. The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 was not the ultimate attack on the United States. The REAL ID Act was an advance of central control, nothing more nor less.

The anti-immigration movement (including such national figures as Tom Tancredo and Kris Kobach) is nothing more than economic protectionism dressed up as patriotism—see Dr Johnson’s Dictionary. It is not conservative any more than was the Know Nothing party before the conflict of 1861. Economic protectionism, as many know, was the cause of the 1931 recession that was rebranded the Great Depression for political purposes. Ultimately, immigration has generally been positive although the folks who came in through Ellis Island and were socialized in the New York public schools and their descendants have contributed to the dependency culture—we need some hard-working Mexicans to change this.

 

Standard
Homeschooling, What if

Homeschool challenge — what if?

(c) 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

“In 1814 we took a little trip…”

We all know the song. And we know that the Battle of New Orleans was militarily insignificant because the Treat of Ghent had been signed sometime earlier, but during the siege. The battle is insignificant because Jackson won. What could have happened had Packenham had won.

In the novel For Want of a Nail, Robert Sobol explores a history of what might have happened had Burgoyne defeated Arnold at Saratoga. The genre of alternative history is entertaining, but it also could be a philosophical exercise.

I am offering this homeschool challenge so that younger folks will look up history and conditions in the early nineteenth century and explore an alternative that might have occurred. This is not the Miniver Cheevy version of reality, but the realization that things can turn out either way. No outcome is predestined.

The challenge is: What would have happened if Jackson had lost at New Orleans?

You might say, “That’s silly, the treaty was signed.” But treaties have, throughout history, been abrogated when they become inconvenient. Ambitious men, not unlike Packenham, have schemed to achieve wealth and power and knew how to seize opportunity.  For example, Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson were alleged to be plotting an empire in the Spanish province of Texas which Bonaparte included in the quit-claim deed to Louisiana and the United States would cede back to Spain in 1819.

How could Jackson have lost? Every battle holds that possibility. Custer’s intelligence told him he was approaching an unarmed village. The coalitions could have fallen apart. The Lafitte brothers could have negotiated an agreement with the crown for amnesty in exchange for their loyalty. The Haitians could have felt they would be better off under British rule—the Brits were offering slaves freedom for defection. The backwoodsmen could have buckled.

What would the British have done? Who controls the port of New Orleans, controls the Mississippi. Would they have just grabbed the city and extorted the Americans? Or taken the Louisiana Purchase in toto? Might some adventurers have set up their own empire?

What would be the reactions of the Americans? What would Spain have done? Note that Bernardo Galves swept the British from the Mississippi during the American revolution.

Why am I not in the process of writing a novel?  Other than the fact that I’m not good at writing about personal relationships, the amount of research I would do ranges in the five to seven year period and soon will turn 70. I have at least two years of writing from research I have already done.

Some hints: No aliens or UFOs. Look at the legal constraints and whether treaties were inviolate. I am sure the King and Regent would regard the outcome with joy. There was also also an expansionist movement in the states—manifest destiny arose out of populist opinion and Daniel Boone had emigrated to Missouri. Combined with this was Spanish distrust of Britain now that Bonaparte was out of the picture so a British colonial presence would be wedged between Texas and the Mississippi. And there are even more factors out there to be discovered.

REMEMBER:   Tags are guides to further research.

Standard
Citizenship

Michael Bloomberg — gun criminal?

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg presides over one of the largest municipal corporations in the United States and feels this gives him a say in the national scene. He has a gigantic police department and an ego to go with his position. He cannot, however, veto the laws of the United States or of the state of New York. Basically what he can do is use his platform to argue for whatever ideas he espouses and bully a compliant council. Other than that he has less executive power than Matt Mead—someone whose name relatively few people recognize because he is Governor of Wyoming, a state with a mere fraction of the population of NYC.

The term municipal corporation has an important meaning here. Municipal corporations are subdivisions of states with limited powers granted by statute or power. In fact, a portion of New York City is beyond the jurisdiction of the Mayor. The Mayor has also sent private detectives to conduct sting operations outside the state as well as the city of New York.

In USA Today Mr Bloomberg wrote:

Obama should direct the Justice Department to step up its prosecution of gun criminals who try to buy guns. In 2009, 71,000 people who had been convicted of gun crimes tried to buy guns by lying on their background checks. Yet the federal government prosecuted only 77 of those cases. That’s one-tenth of 1%. These are gun criminals trying to buy guns illegally — and the federal government is letting them walk.

The question I have is whether Mr Bloomberg would support the prosecution of his investigators who lied on 4473s in order to make straw purchases—a felony since 1968. And should not all participants in such an enterprise—including Michael Bloomberg—be prosecuted?

 

 

Standard
Citizenship, Free Society

Piers Morgan – the Brit does not understand

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Piers Morgan, a CNN host whose previous experience was as a BBC presenter, has called for the government to seize “assault weapons” and made pious remarks about civilized countries. On September 12, 1814, Brigadier General William Stricker’s brigade of Maryland Militia stopped General Robert Ross’s “unbeatable” regular force on the road from North Point to Baltimore. That action, plus the failure of a naval bombardment to dislodge Fort McHenry with heavy guns and Congreve rockets effectively ended any necessity for Americans to take suggestions or demands from Brits.

Morgan, not real knowledgeable of American history, stated on national television that the second amendment was about muskets, not assault weapons. He has obviously not read my article on the Well-Regulated Militia https://loboviejo.com/2012/03/09/well-regulated…-of-definition/. Nor does he realize that the anti-federalists were addressing the nature of government rather than the technology of weaponry. The nature of government had not changed since Aristotle’s treaty nor has it changed since 1791.

Any argument is going to have to be settled on American terms by Americans. And draconian measures are not going to work any better than they did in 1775 when the governor of Massachusetts Bay sent regular troops to seize arms.  A statist foreign outlook is not appropriate or welcome in that debate.

Standard