Urban North as Old South

"Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

Victor Davis Hanson claims that major progressive regions of the US, particularly large northern and coastal urban cities, are increasingly taking on characteristics traditionally attributed to the Old South. One party political fiefdoms. A feudal class system lacking a vibrant, mobile middle class. Intolerance of dissent on issues held dear.

Just as people fled the Old South in droves to escape similar conditions, they are packing their U-Hauls once again to escape escalating oppression in the Urban North. 

Their destination? Why, the South. 

Texas, Tennessee, and Florida are among the states viewed as lands of opportunity.

Proving once again that the magnet of liberty, wherever it may be placed, never looses its capacity to attract.

Causes of Crisis

"Gentlemen, we have a crisis situation."
--Jester (Top Gun)

Interesting discussion of how we've evolved into a Constitutional Crisis situation. Especially liked the review of the negative influence of the Progressive movement.

I thought that the author missed the mark on a couple of points, however. He correctly notes that the Three Fifths clause which legitimized slavery was not a principle of the Constitution, but a compromise. But the author implies that it was a necessary compromise to close the deal that ultimately led to the union of states. Furthermore he argues, using some cites from Frederick Douglass, that the Constitution was ultimately and anti-slavery document. Because it was grounded in the 'all men created equal' principle set forth in the Declaration, tension was created by the compromise that ultimately led to slavery being thrown off.

Very neat, but what if enough anti-slavery framers had the cojones to stand their ground at the convention? Might the union have included fewer states in the beginning? Yes. But the principle would have stood from the outset. And millions of lives would have subsequently been saved. Indeed, it can be argued that willingness to 'compromise' ranks highly in the factors that have led to the Constitutional Crisis that we face.

Before lambasting Progressives for wanting to consolidate power in the executive branch, the author claims that there are times when the president rightfully should wield such power. In the event of war and crises, he suggests, the president must be able to circumvent constitutional balances of power to, essentially, 'preserve the union.' He is undoubtedly covering for Lincoln, whom he is sympathetic to and quotes liberally in the article despite Lincoln's abuse of power during his administration.

Lincoln and other presidents have used 'emergency powers' to do precisely what the author seems to argue against--i.e., the durable confiscation of liberty by an authoritarian state. Although he quotes work by both Jefferson and Locke that appear sympathetic to concentrating authority with the executive branch in times of crisis, there is no provision for doing such in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, the inconsistencies demonstrate by the author suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around for our present crises. The actions of many so-called 'conservatives' have done as much to denigrate the Constitution as those of Progressives.

Reviving Nullification

Gonna break it

Gonna shake it

Let's forget it better still
--The Who

Last week the Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Texas statute that provides for civil litigation against abortion providers in the state. Because the high court had previously upheld the principles of Roe v. Wade that has legalized more than 60 million abortions since 1973, Judge Nap reasons that the a five majority on the court is signaling that the concept of nullification is being revived.

Nullification stems from the notion that any state, via legislative or judicial means, can determine that a federal law or mandate is unconstitutional. If it does so, then the law is 'nullified,' meaning that the state can legally ignore it.

The idea of nullification was supported by many of our founding ancestors, including Jefferson and Madison. Nullification was employed several times in the early days of the United States--perhaps most notably in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s. However, it has not been applied seriously since the outcome of the Civil War--an outcome which called into question the true sovereignty of the states.

A nullification-based interpretation of last week's ruling would be that Roe is unconstitutional, and that Texas has the sovereign power to declare it as such. 

It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court's decision amounts to a temporary ruling. Challengers mount cases that ultimately will put the issue before the high court again. At that point, customary full briefings and oral arguments will require more transparency among the justices concerning their views on the legality of nullification.

Until then, the Texas ruling revives hope in the utility of nullification--perhaps, as the Judge call it, "the most effective peaceful tool for returning the federal government to the confines of the Constitution.

Political Prisoners

Trim life shadows flicker and fall
But you still can't turn away
Get up and run before you stall
Before the edges fray
--Ric Ocasek

Ron Paul discusses the US version of Soviet show trials in which people who entered the "People's House" in January are being imprisoned on political charges. They are accused of being terrorists despite commission of no violent acts or nor evidence that they contemplated terrorist acts.

This is not the first time the federal government has unjustly held political prisoners. John Adams and the original Sedition Acts, Lincoln during the Civil War, FDRs WWII internment camps, the ongoing Guantanamo Bay group.

As Paul warns, people who are ok with this sort of thing--particularly because the present wave of convictions aligns with their political views--are likely to see the tables turned at some point.

When prisoners are permitted to be taken for political purpose, sooner or later, they're coming for you.

Lincoln Cents

So when you hear it thunder
Don't run under a tree
They'll be pennies from heaven
For you and me
--Bing Crosby

What's the longest running coin design in US history? That would be the Lincoln cent. The obverse design has changed little since Lincoln pennies were first struck in 1909. Designed by sculptor Victor David Brenner, it features a side profile of Abe cribbed from an early Matthew Brady photo. The design was controversial because it was the first US coin to feature an actual person rather than symbolic figures such as Lady Liberty. 

We seem to have gotten over it, as today's coinage has completely shunned Ms Liberty in favor of 'rock stars' of US history.

1910 1c PCGS PR66RB CAC ex Young-Dakota

The reverse of the Lincoln cent has endured two primary designs. The art deco 'wheat cent' reverse was struck from 1909 through 1958. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Lincoln cent in 1959, the reverse was redesigned in favor of a Lincoln Memorial motif. The 'modern' reverse was altered once again at the Lincoln cent's century mark in 2009, first with an image of the Lincoln log cabin birthplace and then a replica of the union shield.

Alloy content has evolved from almost completely copper to almost completely zinc. In keeping with the sadly familiar pattern of monetary debasement, rising copper prices have made it too expensive to include the metal in one cent coin denominations.

Many collectors got their starts by plugging Lincoln cents into Whitman albums. Harder to find the old 'wheaties' to fill those early slots, but they're still in the mix if you look hard enough.

If you notice one, then you might want to put it away. At the rate that the value of money is being destroyed, pennies may not be in circulation much longer.

Milligan's Mulligan

Now did you read the news today?
They say the danger's gone away
But I can see the fire's still alight
They're burning into the night
--Genesis

Judge Nap rails on government officials who have raised false flags of 'emergency power' to restrain freedom during the CV19 situation. He cites the Ex parte Milligan ruling that legally rejected the proposition that government can suspend constitutionally guaranteed liberties by declaring emergencies. 

However, he stops short of explaining how state governors have been able to get away with it this time around. Why haven't legal challenges stopped all emergency declarations in their tracks? 

This remains one of the most perplexing aspects of what has transpired over the past year.

Lincoln and Tariffs

It was a shakedown cruise
And now we're sending out the news
There ain't no victory at sea
Unless it's mutiny
--Jay Ferguson

These pages have occasionally considered the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln, often with the help of Professor Tom DiLorenzo. In this article, DiLorenzo discusses how Lincoln's position on tariffs helped vault him to the presidency.

By the 1850s, the world was largely moving away from mercantilist policy. Protective tariffs were being eliminated across Europe in favor of free trade. By 1857, the 15% average American tariff was the country's lowest import tax rate of the nineteenth century. The subsequent Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether.

Leaders in Northern states, however, were reluctant to surrender wealth gained from decades of cronyism afforded by the American System. They wanted to continue tariff protections as well as government funded 'internal improvement' projects. They also lusted for a central bank controlled by politicians similar to the Bank of England.

Lincoln was the ideal presidential candidate for the going institutionalization of the American System. He was a devout protectionist who, through his railroad industry connections, could wire himself into influential industrialists and media moguls in the North to get out the protectionist vote.

Two days before Lincoln's inauguration, his predecessor James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff bill into law which legally raised tariffs on some imports by 100%+ and hastened Southern secession proceedings.  The South, you see, had already borne the brunt of protective tariffs for many years. Being primarily agricultural producers, Southern states had to purchase manufactured goods either from the North (where protectionist tariffs permitted higher prices on domestic goods) or from producers abroad (whose goods were being taxed at exorbitant tariff rates). Consequently, Southern standard of living was being compromised whenever American tariffs were imposed on imported goods.

Lincoln would subsequently sign ten more tariff-increasing bills over the course of his presidency.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that it was his 'duty' to collect the newly implemented tariffs. He promised that, in one of the more thinly veiled threats uttered in presidential history, there would be no 'invasions' or 'bloodshed' as long as states dutifully collected the requisite tariff fees on imported goods. He subsequently imposed naval blockades on several Southern ports, including Charleston, to ensure tariff collection.

We know how that worked out.

Division and Democracy

We are passengers in time lost in motion
Locked together day and night by trick of light
I must take another journey
We must meet with other names
--The Fixx

Almost daily the news splashes claims that we've never been this divided as a country. Truly? Several turbulent periods in our nation's past (e.g., American Revolution, Civil War, Reconstruction, Great Depression, 1960s) suggest some pretty good historical comps.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of Herbert's conjectures in the late 1800s. As democracy and discretionary power grow, factions consolidate into two opposition parties. Each election cycle escalates the battle over the strong arm of government.

Because there is more to gain and more to lose for both sides, why should we expect anything other than increased political division?

Fear and Power Grabs

"What we need right now is a clear message to the people of this country. This message must be read in every newspaper, heard on every radio, seen on every television. I want everyone to remember why they need us!"
--Sutler (V for Vendetta)

It is one of the first lessons in the political playbook. Make people fearful and they will be willing to sacrifice liberty in the name of security. Under conditions of threat, people are prone to think less critically and centralize decision-making authority (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981)--part of what Kahneman (2011) refers to as 'fast thinking'.

Because emotions dominate thought process in threatening situations, and those emotions drive us to cede power to government in hopes of quelling those threats, politicians lick their chops when 'crisis situations' arise. Knowing this, government officials might even be willing to create or prolong threatening situations in order to assimilate more power.

Rookie House member Mark Green, a doctor from Tennessee, learned a hard lesson in this regard last night as the House rushed a 110 page, multibillion dollar bill to quick vote after midnight. No analysis, no discussion.

My thoughts as I walked off the House Floor at 1AM: pic.twitter.com/H2rYT1TiwI

— Rep. Mark Green (@RepMarkGreen) March 14, 2020

Why the rush? We have a 'national emergency' related to COVID 19, you see, as declared yesterday afternoon by the president. Careful thought and consideration? We can't afford that. Those in charge have to do something right quick.

Politicians indeed acted quickly, seizing the opportunity to fill the bill with special interest agenda items, knowing full well that their largesse would not be questioned in the name of expedience.

As in crises past--Civil War, WWI, Great Depression, WWII, 9/11, Credit Collapse to name a few--we have once again surrendered freedom for the illusion of safety.

Government Speech

The impression that you sell
Passes in and out like a scent
--The Fixx

Does government have freedom of speech--to voice opinions similar to individuals. As Judge Nap observes, no.

What? Don't people in government have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. Yes, and they are free to exercise them. However, they are not free to commandeer the machinery of government--local, state, or federal--to advance personal opinion.

When government speaks, it suppresses the voices of others who disagree with it. This is the very infringement that the First Amendment was written to protect. Using government as an instrument of speech makes it easier for some to speak louder than others. When this occurs, government is expressing favoritism or hatred in the marketplace for ideas.

Thus, government officials cannot rightfully weigh in on the NRA. Government buildings cannot rightfully fly confederate or LGBT flags. Government resources cannot rightfully capitalize nascent industries such as green energy.

Government is not elected to identify ideas that it loves or hates. It is elected to protect our freedom.

Slavery and Prosperity

Gerald O'Hara: Now gentlemen, Mr Butler has been up North, I hear. Do you agree with us, Mr Butler?
Rhett Butler: I think it's hard winning a war with words, gentlemen.
Charles Hamilton: What do you mean, sir?
Rhett Butler: I mean, Mr Hamilton, there's not a cannon factory in the whole South.
Man: What difference does that make, sir, to a gentleman?
Rhett Butler: I'm afraid it's going to make a great deal of difference to a great many gentlemen, sir.
Charles Hamilton: Are you hinting, Mr Butler, that the Yankees can lick us?
Rhett Butler: No, I'm not hinting. I'm saying very plainly that the Yankees are better equipped than we are. They've got factories, shipyards, coalmines...and a fleet to bottle up our harbors and starve us to death. All we've got is cotton, slaves, and arrogance.
--Gone With the Wind

Salient point by Bob Murphy. Leftists have been coming out of the woodwork claiming that slavery was a boon to economic activity in the South and formed the basis for an unfair but lucrative capitalistic system in America. The ulterior motive behind this movement is to build political rationalization for reparations and, more generally, for delegitimizing America's founding principles.

While the portion of the claim explicitly linking 'brutality' and 'American Capitalism' can be set aside on grounds of pure absurdity, the portion about slavery being an economic blessing for large groups of people merits scrutiny. On the surface, the claim seems valid. After all, slave owners, particularly those who operated businesses, had access to low cost (although not 'no cost), forced labor that seemingly permitted higher profit margin businesses.

While there can be little doubt that small groups of people can benefit from this arrangement in the short term, the question is whether benefits flow to society at large over time. This is where the reasoning mind starts chipping away at the proposition. Several obvious questions arise that Murphy doesn't even mention. One is that many people in the South did not own slaves. How precisely did these people benefit? Weren't they put at an unfair disadvantage in labor and product markets? In addition, for those proprietors who did employ slave labor, wouldn't competition drive down prices such that their labor cost advantages would be competed away over time--particularly as markets opened to external competitors?

Proponents of the 'slavery was good for the economy' argument offer various statistics from the period showing that output of slave-using plantations increased significantly over time and that the US economy grew in size relative to the world economy while slavery was still in force.

But such statistics do little to validate the 'slavery was an economic godsend' case. After all, as Murphy notes, one could just as easily draw from post-Civil War economic data and cite booming farmer productivity, technological improvements, and rise of the United States to largest economy in the world as 'proof' that getting rid of slavery was the real boon to the economy.

Murphy contends that the real question to ask when considering whether slavery constitutes an economic boon to society is: As compared to what? The comparison in this case is between servile labor and labor, producers, and consumers that are free to do what they want as long as their action is peaceful.

It is on this ground that the 'slavery is great for the economy' falls apart. The institution of slavery rigidifies labor and stifles the entrepreneurial quest for technological improvement. Unhampered markets do the opposite. Labor is free to contract where opportunities are deemed bright. Entrepreneurs must innovate in order to become more productive and serve customers.

Of course, Antebellum America offered a side-by-side comparison of the two systems at work. Productivity in the relatively unhampered North increased orders of magnitude that of the relatively hampered South--as did median standard of living. As Mises observed:

"Servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its unprofitability sealed its doom in the market economy."

As these pages have observed, war was not necessary to end slavery in the United States. It was destined to die a peaceful death at the hands of competitive markets.

Just vs Unjust War

"War is a continuation of politics by other means...Von Clausewitz."
--Captain Frank Ramsey (Crimson Tide)

A just war is fought purely in self defense. No provocation. No preemption.

Few wars fought by the United States satisfy this criterion. Instead they have mostly been fought to satisfy political objectives such as advancing democracy, generating economic stimulus, preserving the union, maintaining flow of critical economic resources, stopping communism.

The US has often engaged in war after provoking opponents. It has also engaged in preemptive strikes. Preemption defines aggressors, not defenders.

Today, pray for the millions of casualties of unjust war.

Committee on Public Information

I want to know
What you're thinking
There are some things you can't hide
--Information Society

Nazi Germany's Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by Joseph Goebbels is often held as the benchmark of state sponsored information production and manipulation. However, it is a good bet that Goebbels learned much from a previous propaganda machine commissioned by the US government during WWI.

In April, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed Executive Order 2594. The order established the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to be headed by journalist and politician George Creel. Because America was deeply divided over the prospect of going to war in Europe, an engagement that Wilson was seeking, the CPI was created to influence public opinion and to create 'enthusiasm' for the war effort.

The CPI engaged in multimedia campaigns to disseminate patriotic information and info about how citizens could contribute to the war effort. Millions of posters, pamphlets, newspaper releases, films, and magazine advertisements were created. The CPI also trained 75,000 volunteers to deliver short patriotic speeches in theaters, churches, town halls, et al. These people became known as the 'Four Minute Men.'

The CPI also worked with government agencies such as the post office to censor what was viewed as seditious anti-war counter propaganda. It sought to pressure people into supporting the war effort and expose those who resisted. For instance, the CPI worked with local newspapers to publish names of people and families who bought war bonds and participated in rationing programs. Lists of those who did not engage in such programs were also published. Patriotic organizations such as the National Security League used these lists to strong arm holdouts into supporting the war effort.

State-sponsored speech is never free speech because resources to fund it are taken under conditions of force. Moreover, state speech crowds out speech that is legitimately free. And, as demonstrated by the Committee on Public Information, entities that act as agencies of state information are prone to engage in more overt acts of suppression as well.

Beware the People Weeping

Ed Harrison: And, yeah, we'll put the old boy on himself. You know, the forgotten man angle. Tear their hearts out.
Bob Wallace: Sorry, Ed, but that's out. We're not capitalizing on the old man's hard luck. No chance.
--White Christmas

Judge Nap adds to our recent discussion of emotional capture and institutional failure in the context of gun control. Of course, he does it in a much more eloquent manner than these pages ever could. In my view, this is one of the Judge's more insightful pieces (and that's saying something). Reading and re-reading is recommended.

I would like to discuss several of his thoughts here.

Putting traumatized kids before television cameras soon after a tragedy virtually guarantees emotional capture, or what the Judge calls 'madness' among the children and onlookers. Madness in this sense is "the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason." Madness is common after a tragedy. The Judge cites poet Herman Melville, who after witnessing the railroading of individuals accused of being involved with President Lincoln's assassination, wrote, "Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand."

The lesson: it is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain. Take a step back from a tragedy before addressing it with 'legalized' force.

The concept of natural rights can be viewed religiously or aesthetically. Those who believe in an all loving God see natural rights as the claims and privileges attached to humanity by Him. For those who do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, the argument for natural rights still holds. Because it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth, our exercise of reason leads us to the exercise of freedoms that are integral to our humanity and independent of government. The first among these is our right to life--the right to be and to remain alive.

The right to life implies the right to defend one's life. Our founding ancestors recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments (in place then and in the future) would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

The Supreme Court has characterized this right as 'pre-political'--meaning that the right pre-existed government. If it pre-existed government, then it must be a natural right, i.e., it must come from our human nature. When Judge Nap asked the late Justice Antonin Scalia why he used the term 'pre-political' instead of 'natural' when authoring the majority opinion in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case, Scalia replied, "You and I know they mean the same thing, but 'natural' sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas."

The Heller opinion also recognized that the Second Amendment was written soon after a war had been fought against a king and an army that was regarded as the most powerful army on earth. That war would surely have been lost had not the colonists borne arms equal to or better than those of the British troops.

The Second Amendment was not written to protect the right to shoot deer. It was written to protect the right to defend against acts of aggression, whether those acts are perpetrated by bad guys, crazy people, or tyrannical government. Heller articulated that the right to self defense means that individuals have the right to use guns that are of the same level of sophistication as their adversaries.

Gun grabbers are unwilling to accept this. A colleague recently asked the Judge on air: Suppose we confiscated all guns? Wouldn't that keep us safe? The Judge replied that we'd need to start with the government's guns. No, his colleague said. What if we confiscated guns from the civilian population only?

An extension of this question would be: What if we confiscated 'assault style' weapons from civilians but left them in the hands of government?

To the reasoning mind that grasps the concept of institutional failure, the answer is obvious.

Always On

"The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator, you do not want the Army in an American city."
--General William Devereaux (The Siege)

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln dealt with those in Union states voicing opposition to the war by arresting dissenters under auspices of martial law. Thousands were jailed without writs of habeas corpus and tried before military commissions rather than civil courts.

One such dissenter, an Indiana lawyer name Lambdin Milligan, petitioned the federal circuit court in Indianapolis. His case, which became known as Ex parte Milligan, was passed to the Supreme Court. The primary question was whether Lincoln's military tribunals against dissenters were legal.

The Court unanimously rebuffed Lincoln's efforts to cut constitutional corners. The Court wrote:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and in all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious circumstances, was ever invented by the wit of a man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."

Via its ruling in Milligan, the Court tells us that the Constitution is always on. No exceptions.

Big Business and Government

Say that you'll never, never, never need it
One headline, why believe it?
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

Ron Paul and Chris Rossini discuss several myths surrounding big business and government. These myths include:

Big business loves free markets and is shackled by regulation.

Republicans love free markets.

The fact is that big business loves hampered markets where regulatory barriers protect its franchise by keeping entrepreneurial competition out. Moreover, going back to Lincoln, the Republican Party was founded on hampered markets. In particular, the Party of Lincoln favored corporate welfare in the form of tariffs, central bank control of money and credit, and government sponsored 'internal improvement' projects.

If you believe official narrative that regulation of big business is good for the people, then you are being played.

Institutional Masquerade

Col Robert Gould Shaw: What are you doing?
Col James M. Montgomery: Liberating this town in the name of the republic.
--Glory

These pages have included a thread discussing the work of Tom DiLorenzo and his studies of Lincoln and the Civil War. In the context of current Monumental Hysteria, DiLorenzo once again presents compelling evidence of Lincoln's racist tendencies and his motivation for war centered around achieving the American System doctrine by keeping Southern States in the union--particularly as sources of tax revenue and as customer of Northern goods with few realistic options.

That this body of evidence, which has been built by many researchers, is so strongly ignored by the mainstream provides a sense of just how persistent the institutional masquerade has become concerning Lincoln, the Civil War, and, in current context, the South.

What particularly captured my attention this time around was the discussion near the bottom of DeLorenzo's piece about the war crimes committed by Lincoln and his generals. Particularly because this group opened Pandora's box for genocide and crimes against humanity in the next 150 years' worth of war, perhaps their statues and associated insignias, battle flags, war songs, et al. should be designated for destruction by those who believe they occupy the moral high ground as well.

Monumental Hysteria I

Colonel Robert Gould Shaw: It stinks, I suppose.
Tripp: Yeah, it stinks bad. And we all covered up in it, too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though.
Colonel Robert Gould Shaw: And how do we do that?
Tripp: We ante up and kick in, sir. But I still don't want to carry your flag.
--Glory

Following the Charlottesville riots, progressives across the country are engaging in their latest bout of hysteria: seeking to remove or destroy all monuments that this group perceived as linked to the Confederacy and/or slavery. This can be seen as an extension of the left's Confederate flag fetish a couple of years back.

Of course, tearing down statues is the socialist way. Whether those socialists originate from communist or fascist sides of the spectrum, the idea is to erase symbols from the public mind that are inconsistent with the collective message. Also, being an intolerant lot, socialists seem to possess a strong urge to blot out words or symbols that cause them negative psychic income.

As many, including President Trump and Judge Nap, have argued, removing these monuments amounts to trying to erase history. And how far do you take it? The pyramids were built by slaves. The White House was built by slaves. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al were slave owners. Lincoln's racism. Slaves even worked in Lincoln's White House during the Civil War. Lots of infrastructure would have to come down to be logically consistent with this movement.

As Judge Nap questions, do we really want to pretend that none of this happened? He suggests that we're in a bad place when we erase and deny history. He argues that we should remember the awful so that the pain of those memories helps prevent those bad events from recurring. Quoting Orwell's 1984:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified. Every book rewritten. Every picture has been repainted. Every statue and street building has been renamed. Every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day-by-day and minute-by-minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists, except an endless present in which The Party is always right."

The Judge fears we are getting there today. Me too.

Although I am sympathetic to this view, there is a good argument for removing these monuments from public places. We'll discuss it next time.

Hamilton and the Left

Peter Howard: We are citizens of an American nation! And our rights are being threatened by a tyrant three thousand miles away!
Benjamin Martin: Would you tell me please, Mr Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can.
--The Patriot

Many people scratch their heads over the Left's affinity for Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was, after all, one of the vocal framers of the Constitution. He also wrote skeptically, in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, about a euphemism of leftist rule: democracy.

However, once the Constitution was ratified, Hamilton's actions revealed his true nature--much of which leftists would find naturally appealing. He favored a strong central government and thought the Constitution should be bypassed as necessary by the ruling class. In Hamilton's view, that ruling class should be aristocratic nature. He thought the the president should be granted lifetime tenure and that the powers of the executive branch should be disproportionately large.

As first the first treasury secretary, Hamilton initiated the nation's sovereign debt program and liked the idea of acquiring federal resources on the back of taxpayers. He was fond of central banking and got the First Bank of the United States, a predecessor to today's Federal Reserve, off the ground.

In many ways Hamilton's profile resembles Lincoln's--another authoritarian who leftists love to love.

Slanting Lincoln's War

Take another look
Tell me, baby
Who's zooming who?
--Aretha Franklin

Driven by Trump remarks suggesting that better leadership might have prevented the Civil War, the mainstream media unleashed a flurry of pieces once again defending Lincoln's War as just. As 'proof,' journalists cited a bevy of leftist 'historians' who have concluded the inevitability of the Civil War expressly to abolish slavery.

Of course, the practice of quoting from like-minded pools of 'experts' is what motivated Groseclose to develop his slant quotient measure of media bias.

There is simply too much contradictory evidence for the "Lincoln had no choice but to fight the Civil War...and it was just...and it was all about slavery" thesis to fly.

Fly among well reasoned individuals, that is.