Author Archives: theartfuldilettante

Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

Philosophy of Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows. This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism.”

“…Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics.”

— Ayn Rand*

Capitalism is commonly taken as an economic system, that can be grafted onto any political system. Yet, economics is not a self-evident primary. An economic system (in our case, the free-market) does not exist in a vacuum but, like a house or skyscraper, is an expression of a specific intellectual foundation — a philosophy.

What is philosophy?

One’s view of what is the proper social system for human beings depends on how one views the nature of existence, how one grasps the world one lives in, and how one views human nature. It depends on one’s philosophy — an integrated, systematic view of existence.

According to philosopher Ayn Rand, philosophy consists of three primary branches:

  • Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of reality (that which is); it answers the question: “what kind of world do I live in?”
  • Epistemology (epistēmē is the Greek word for knowledge) is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and means of human knowledge, of grasping reality; it answers the question: “how do I know it?”
  • Ethics is the branch of philosophy that defines a code of values that one should live by. It answers the question: “what should I do?”

The answers to these fundamental questions will, in part, determine the answers to the branch of philosophy known as politics.

  • Politics is the application of ethics to social issues. Politics seeks to answer, “how should one live with other individuals in an organized society?”

The importance of philosophy

Philosophy is important. It is not a mere plaything of ivory-tower professors or a “…bauble of the intellect, ” writes Professor Leonard Peikoff,

“…but a power from which no man can abstain. Anyone can say that he dispenses with a view of reality, knowledge, the good, but no one can implement this credo. The reason is that man, by his nature as a conceptual being, cannot function at all without some form of philosophy to serve as his guide.” [1]

If one’s philosophy is that one lives in a world of miracles (religion), where truth is by revelation (faith), and morality means sacrificing oneself for others (altruism), one’s politics will be very different from someone who believes in a world of cause and effect (science), that one can understand rationally (reason), to pursue and achieve personal happiness (self-interest).

To concretize this point further, observe that if one’s philosophy is that of a religious fundamentalist then abortion is murder, and a fetus has the right to live in a woman’s body irrespective of the woman’s thoughts on the subject. Life comes from God, and what God giveth let no man (or women) take away.

If one is an advocate of statism, then the individual has no rights but lives by permission of the state, and the government can revoke (alienate) this permission at whim. The right to abortion becomes a matter of dictatorial vote, i.e., political might makes ethical right. The state may force one to have an abortion or prevent one from having an abortion as it sees fit for the “good of society.”

Observe that on this political issue, the answer is not determined purely by “playing politics,” but is justified by one’s fundamental philosophy. ‘

Politics is an inseparable branch of the tree of philosophy. Separate a fruitful branch from the tree of good philosophy, and graft it onto the tree of bad philosophy and that once fruitful branch will wither, crumble and die.

Philosophy is a matter of life and death.

It is on the withered cross of anti-reason, altruistic (self-sacrificial), collectivist philosophy that capitalism is being crucified.

The philosophy of anti-capitalism

In philosopher Ayn Rand’s view, the reason why capitalism is attacked and misrepresented (even by its alleged defenders) is because of the anti-enlightenment philosophies that dominate our culture:

“It is often asked: Why was capitalism destroyed in spite of its incomparably beneficent record? The answer lies in the fact that the lifeline feeding any social system is a culture’s dominant philosophy and that capitalism never had a philosophical base. It was the last and (theoretically) incomplete product of an Aristotelian influence. As a resurgent tide of mysticism engulfed philosophy in the nineteenth century, capitalism was left in an intellectual vacuum, its lifeline cut. Neither its moral nature nor even its political principles had ever been fully understood or defined. Its alleged defenders regarded it as compatible with government controls (i.e., government interference into the economy), ignoring the meaning and implications of the concept of laissez-faire. Thus, what existed in practice, in the nineteenth century, was not pure capitalism, but variously mixed economies. Since controls necessitate and breed further controls, it was the statist element of the mixtures that wrecked them; it was the free, capitalist element that took the blame.

“Capitalism could not survive in a culture dominated by mysticism and altruism, by the soul-body dichotomy and the tribal premise. No social system (and no human institution or activity of any kind) can survive without a moral base. On the basis of the altruist morality, capitalism had to be—and was—damned from the start.” [2]

It is the altruist-collectivist moral base that capitalism must be “saved” from.

Laissez-faire capitalism is a political-economic system that requires a specific philosophical framework. If capitalism is built upon an improper philosophical base, it will be like a towering skyscraper built on quicksand.

The philosophy of capitalism

What is the proper philosophical base? In the words of the American philosopher Ayn Rand:

“It is . . . by reference to philosophy that the character of a social system has to be defined and evaluated. Corresponding to the four branches of philosophy, the four keystones of capitalism are: metaphysically, the requirements of man’s nature and survival—epistemologically, reason—ethically, individual rights, politically, freedom.” [3]

This site holds that the philosophy that provides a proper foundation for capitalism is Ayn Rand’s revolutionary philosophy: Objectivism.

Objectivism holds that one should live by one’s mind and efforts, in the pursuit of one’s rational self-interest, neither sacrificing oneself to others, nor sacrificing others to oneself (ethics); that one can understand reality by reason and logic (epistemology), as one lives in a world of cause and effect where there are no contradictions (metaphysics).

A complete, systematic presentation of Objectivism is beyond the scope of this site. For a comprehensive presentation of Rand’s philosophy, I recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

How Does One Apply Rational Egoism in a Mixed Economy, Welfare State? BY JAANA WOICESHYN | JAN 15, 2021 | BUSINESS

Posted on by
Reply
While the welfare state cannot be transformed into a free-market system overnight, businesspeople can help by speaking up (in forums open to them) when restrictions on freedom of business are being proposed by government and other groups.

I recently taught a short course introducing business ethics and rational egoism to Executive MBA students. One student observed that it would be easier to apply egoist principles in free markets where acting on such principles, for example, rationality, productiveness, and justice, would be rewarded and profit-making valued. But, the student asked, how does one apply rational egoism in a mixed economy, the prevailing welfare state system?

The student’s question was apt: the welfare state system makes it challenging for business to pursue its (owners’) self-interest—long-term profit maximization—because the rational egoist moral principles are at odds with the dominant moral code on which the welfare state is founded: altruism. It is a code that guides putting others’ interests always ahead of one’s own. This contrasts with the free-market system—capitalism—that is based on in rational egoism. This code advocates the pursuit of self-interest that allows only voluntary and mutually beneficial interactions and renounces the initiation of physical coercion against others.

In a welfare state, many investors, customers, employees, and the government expect business to act altruistically at least some of the time. The business is expected to sacrifice profits for the causes that these stakeholders favor, such as fighting climate change, reducing income inequality, and for various government programs that support them. In contrast, in capitalism, business is expected to focus on creating material values on which people’s lives depend and on trading these values for profit.

The social pressures to conform to others’ altruistic expectations can be significant in a welfare state system and can lead to business appeasing them. As an example, in 2019, the Roundtable of CEOs of 200 major corporations re-defined the purpose of the corporation from creating wealth for its shareholders to serving all its stakeholders equally, including “communities.”

However, if business wants to perform its proper—necessary—role as the creator of material values, such appeasement will not do. It must pursue its long-term self-interest, guided by the rational egoist principles. For that, business must claim the moral high ground. This requires recognizing that business is a tremendous force for good in society. Businesses produce the goods and services that not only make people’s lives possible, but make them better: from food to medicine to energy and beyond. Businesses do this by trading freely with their employees, customers, and suppliers, without violating anyone’s rights.

Understanding that business is a moral endeavor which enhances human life gives businesspeople the courage to defend their companies’ profit-maximization against demands for altruistic sacrifice for the sake of social and environmental goals. A good recent example of moral clarity and courage is Adam Anderson, CEO of Innovex Downhole Solutions in Texas, who wrote an open letter defending his company and industry to North Face. The latter had refused an order of 400 jackets with Innovex logo. North Face did not want to sell branded products to companies in the oil and gas industry because of their CO2 emissions (despite the fact that North Face’s products are derived from oi).

In a welfare state, it may not be always possible for business to pursue self-interest by applying the rational egoist principles, or to benefit from doing so. In such a system, the government controls the economy and business to varying degrees. Governments can prevent the creation of material values altogether, for example, by banning the production of fossil fuels, construction of oil pipelines, or operations of new businesses that disrupt existing industries (such as ride-sharing services Uber and Lyft). In addition, welfare state governments use cronyism to grant favors (exclusive contracts, tax breaks, coercive monopolies, etc.) to some businesses, thus disadvantaging others. Governments also curtail companies’ profits through regulations and welfare programs.

Therefore, business claiming the moral high ground is not enough for it to be able to pursue rational self-interest. It must demand also freedom to operate: being left alone by the government. But once the morality of business has been asserted, this is easier to do. Because the mixed economy welfare state is unstable, always being pulled to the opposite directions of its main elements—government control and freedom, it is possible to help move it to either direction.

While the welfare state cannot be transformed into a free-market system overnight, businesspeople can help by speaking up (in forums open to them) when restrictions on freedom of business are being proposed by government and other groups. This way, business can move the needle towards more freedom, and therefore, towards more value creation, more prosperity, and more human wellbeing.

The Wisdom of Ayn Rand on Pragmatism

Posted on by
Reply

[The Pragmatists] declared that philosophy must be practical and that practicality consists of dispensing with all absolute principles and standards—that there is no such thing as objective reality or permanent truth—that truth is that which works, and its validity can be judged only by its consequences—that no facts can be known with certainty in advance, and anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb—that reality is not firm, but fluid and “indeterminate,” that there is no such thing as a distinction between an external world and a consciousness (between the perceived and the perceiver), there is only an undifferentiated package-deal labeled “experience,” and whatever one wishes to be true, is true, whatever one wishes to exist, does exist, provided it works or makes one feel better.

A later school of more Kantian Pragmatists amended this philosophy as follows. If there is no such thing as an objective reality, men’s metaphysical choice is whether the selfish, dictatorial whims of an individual or the democratic whims of a collective are to shape that plastic goo which the ignorant call “reality,” therefore this school decided that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism—that knowledge is to be gained by means of public polls among special elites of “competent investigators” who can “predict and control” reality—that whatever people wish to be true, is true, whatever people wish to exist, does exist, and anyone who holds any firm convictions of his own is an arbitrary, mystic dogmatist, since reality is indeterminate and people determine its actual nature.

Epistemologically, their dogmatic agnosticism holds, as an absolute, that a principle is false because it is a principle—that conceptual integration (i.e., thinking) is impractical or “simplistic”—that an idea which is clear and simple is necessarily “extreme and unworkable.” Along with Kant, their philosophic forefather, the pragmatists claim, in effect: “If you perceive it, it cannot be real,” and: “If you conceive of it, it cannot be true.”

What, then, is left to man? The sensation, the wish, the whim, the range and the concrete of the moment. Since no solution to any problem is possible, anyone’s suggestion, guess or edict is as valid as anyone else’s—provided it is narrow enough.

To give you an example: if a building were threatened with collapse and you declared that the crumbling foundation has to be rebuilt, a pragmatist would answer that your solution is too abstract, extreme, unprovable, and that immediate priority must be given to the need of putting ornaments on the balcony railings, because it would make the tenants feel better.

There was a time when a man would not utter arguments of this sort, for fear of being rightly considered a fool. Today, Pragmatism has not merely given him permission to do it and liberated him from the necessity of thought, but has elevated his mental default into an intellectual virtue, has given him the right to dismiss thinkers (or construction engineers) as naive, and has endowed him with that typically modern quality: the arrogance of the concrete-bound, who takes pride in not seeing the forest fire, or the forest, or the trees, while he is studying one inch of bark on a rotted tree stump.

By itself, as a distinctive theory, the pragmatist ethics is contentless. It urges men to pursue “practicality,” but refrains from specifying any “rigid” set of values that could serve to define the concept. As a result, pragmatists—despite their repudiation of all systems of morality—are compelled, if they are to implement their ethical approach at all, to rely on value codes formulated by other, non-pragmatist moralists. As a rule the pragmatist appropriates these codes without acknowledging them; he accepts them by a process of osmosis, eclectically absorbing the cultural deposits left by the moral theories of his predecessors—and protesting all the while the futility of these theories.

The dominant, virtually the only, moral code advocated by modern intellectuals in Europe and in America is some variant of altruism. This, accordingly, is what most American pragmatists routinely preach . . .

In politics, also, pragmatism presents itself as opposed to “rigidity,” to “dogma,” to “extremes” of any kind (whether capitalist or socialist); it avows that it is relativist, “moderate,” “experimental.” As in ethics, however, so here: the pragmatist is compelled to employ some kind of standard to evaluate the results of his social experiments, a standard which, given his own self-imposed default, he necessarily absorbs from other, non-pragmatist trend-setters . . . When Dewey wrote, the political principle imported from Germany and proliferating in all directions, was collectivism.

The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards—and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day)

The American people were led to embrace the pragmatist philosophy not because of its actual, theoretical content (of which they were and remain largely ignorant), but because of the method by which that content was presented to them. In its terminology and promises, pragmatism is a philosophy calculated to appeal specifically to an American audience . . . .

The pragmatists present themselves as the exponents of a distinctively “American” approach, which consists in enshrining the basic premises of [German philosophy] while rejecting every fundamental idea, from metaphysics to politics, on which this country was founded. Most important of all, the Americans wanted ideas to be good for something on earth, to have tangible, practical significance; and, insistently, the pragmatists stress “practicality,” which, according to their teachings, consists in action divorced from thought and reality.

The pragmatists stress the “cash value” of ideas. But the Americans did not know the “cash value” of the pragmatist ideas they were buying. They did not know that pragmatism could not deliver on its promise of this-worldly success because, at root, it is a philosophy which does not believe in this, or any, world.

When the Americans flocked to pragmatism, they believed that they were joining a battle to advance their essential view of reality and of life. They did not know that they were being marched in the opposite direction, that the battle had been calculated for a diametrically opposite purpose, or that the enemy they were being pushed to destroy was: themselves.

The Making of the U.S. Empire at the Dawning of Its End

Posted on by
Reply

As the Exceptional Empire gets ready to brave a destructive – and self-destructive – new cycle, with dire, unforeseen consequences bound to reverberate across the world, now more than ever it is absolutely essential to go back to the imperial roots.

The task is fully accomplished by Tomorrow, the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy , by Stephen Wertheim, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a research scholar at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Here, in painstaking detail, we can find when, why and especially who shaped the contours of US “internationalism” in a roomful of mirrors always disguising the real, ultimate aim: Empire.

Wertheim’s book was superbly reviewed by Prof. Paul Kennedy. Here we will concentrate on the crucial plot twists taking place throughout 1940. Wertheim’s main thesis is that the fall of France in 1940 – and not Pearl Harbor – was the catalyzing event that led to the full Imperial Hegemony design.

This is not a book about the U.S. industrial-military complex or the inner workings of American capitalism and finance capitalism. It is extremely helpful as it sets up the preamble to the Cold War era. But most of all, it is gripping intellectual history, revealing how American foreign policy was manufactured by the real flesh and blood actors that count: the economic and political planners congregated by the arch-influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the conceptual core of the imperial matrix.

Behold Exceptionalist nationalism

If just one phrase should capture the American missionary drive, this is it: “The United States was born of exceptionalist nationalism, imagining itself providentially chosen to occupy the vanguard of world history”. Wertheim nailed it by drawing from a wealth of sources on exceptionalism, especially Anders Stephanson’s Manifest Destiny: American Expansion and the Empire of the Right.

The action starts in early 1940, when the State Dept. formed a small advisory committee in collaboration with the CFR, constituted as a de facto proto-national security state.

The CFR’s postwar planning project was known as the War and Peace Studies, financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and boasting a sterling cross-section of the American elite, divided into four groups.

The most important were the Economic and Financial Group, headed by the “American Keynes”, Harvard economist Alvin Hansen, and the Political Group, headed by businessman Whitney Shepardson. CFR planners were inevitably transposed to the core of the official postwar planning committee set up after Pearl Harbor.

A crucial point: the Armaments Group was headed by none other than Allen Dulles, then just a corporate lawyer, years before he became the nefarious, omniscient CIA mastermind fully deconstructed by David Talbot’s The Devil’s Chessboard.

Wertheim details the fascinating, evolving intellectual skirmishes along the first eight months of WWII, when the prevailing consensus among the planners was to concentrate on the Western Hemisphere only, and not indulge in “balance of power” overseas adventures. As in let the Europeans fight it out; meanwhile, we profit.

The fall of France in May-June 1940 – the world’s top army melting down in five weeks – was the game-changer, much more than Pearl Harbor 18 months later. This is how the planners interpreted it: if Britain were the next domino to fall, totalitarianism would control Eurasia.

Wertheim zeroes in on the defining “threat” for the planners: Axis dominance would prevent the United States “from driving world history. Such a threat proved unacceptable to U.S. elites”. That’s what led to an expanded definition of national security: the U.S. could not afford to be simply “isolated” within the Western Hemisphere. The path ahead was inevitable: to shape world order as the supreme military power.

So it was the prospect of a Nazi-shaped world order – and not U.S. security – that shook foreign policy elites in the summer of 1940 to build the intellectual foundations of global U.S. hegemony.

Of course there was a “lofty ideal” component: the U.S. would not be able to fulfill its God-given mission to lead the world towards a better future. But there was also a much more pressing practical matter: this world order might be closed to liberal U.S. trade.

Even as the tides of war changed afterwards, the interventionist argument ultimately prevailed: after all, the whole of Eurasia could (italics in the book) eventually, fall under totalitarianism.

It’s always about “world order”

Initially, the fall of France forced Roosevelt’s planners to concentrate on a minimum hegemonic area. So by midsummer 1940, the CFR groups, plus the military, came up with the so-called “quarter sphere”: Canada down to northern South America.

They were still assuming that the Axis would dominate Europe and parts of the Middle East and North Africa. As Wertheim notes, “American interventionists often portrayed Germany’s dictator as a master of statecraft, prescient, clever and bold.”

Then, at the request of the State Dept., the crucial CFR’s Economic and Financial Group worked feverishly from August to October to design the next step: integrating the Western Hemisphere with the Pacific Basin.

That was a totally myopic Eurocentric focus (by the way, Asia barely registers on Wertheim’s narrative). The planners assumed that Japan – even rivaling the US, and three years into the invasion of mainland China – could somehow be incorporated, or bribed into a non-Nazi area.

Then they finally hit the jackpot: join the Western Hemisphere, the British empire and the Pacific basin into a so-called “great residual area”: that is, the entire non-Nazi dominated world except the USSR.

They found out that if Nazi Germany would dominate Europe, the U.S. would have to dominate everywhere else (italics mine). That was the logical conclusion based on the planners’ initial assumptions.

That’s when U.S. foreign policy for the next 80 years was born: the U.S. had to wield “unquestionable power”, as stated in the CFR planners “recommendation” to the State Dept., delivered on October 19 in a memorandum titled “Needs of Future United States Foreign Policy”.

This “Grand Area” was the brainchild of the CFR’s Economic and Financial Group. The Political Group was not impressed. The Grand Area implied a post-war peace arrangement that was in fact a Cold War between Germany and Anglo-America. Not good enough.

But how to sell total domination to American public opinion without that sounding “imperialistic”, similar to what the Axis was doing in Europe and Asia? Talk about a huge P.R. problem.

In the end, U.S. elites always came back to the same foundation stone of American exceptionalism: should there be any Axis supremacy in Europe and Asia, the U.S. manifest destiny of defining the path ahead for world history would be denied.

As Walter Lippmann succinctly – and memorably – put it: “Ours is the new order. It was to found this order and to develop it that our forefathers came here. In this order we exist. Only in this order can we live”.

That would set up the pattern for the subsequent 80 years. Roosevelt, only a few days after he was elected for a third term, stated it was the United States that “truly and fundamentally…was a new order”.

It’s chilling to be reminded that 30 years ago, even before unleashing the first Shock and Awe over Iraq, Papa Bush defined it as the crucible of a “new world order” (incidentally, the speech was delivered exactly 11 years before 9/11).

Henry Kissinger has been marketing “world order” for six decades. The number one U.S foreign policy mantra is “rules-based international order”: rules, of course, set unilaterally by the Hegemon at the end of WWII.

American Century redux

What came out of the 1940 policy planning orgy was encapsulated by a succinct mantra featured in the legendary February 17, 1941 essay in Life magazine by publishing mogul Henry Luce: “American Century”.

Only six months earlier planners were at best satisfied with a hemispheric role in an Axis-led world future. Now they went winner takes all: “complete opportunity of leadership”, in Luce’s words. In early 1941, months before Pearl Harbor, the American Century went mainstream – and never left.

That sealed the primacy of Power Politics. If American interests were global, so should be American political and military power.

Luce even used Third Reich terminology: “Tyrannies may require a large amount of living space. But Freedom requires and will require far greater living space than Tyranny.” Unlike Hitler’s, the unbounded ambition of American elites prevailed.

Until now. It looks and feels like the empire is entering a James Cagney Made it, Ma. Top of the World! moment – rotting from within, 9/11 merging into 1/6 in a war against “domestic terrorism” – while still nurturing toxic dreams of imposing uncontested global “leadership”.

Pepe Escobar, UNZ Review

(Republished from Asia Times by permission of author or representative)

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL: PLUNDER, THEFT, AND STICKY FINGERS

Posted on by
Reply

The cunning man steals a horse, the wise man lets him alone.”[1]

It had been less than three months since Congress had adopted a Declaration of Independence, but George Washington was already warning that the Articles of War governing the behavior of troops was in desperate need of an update, “otherwise the Army, but for the name, might as well be disbanded.”

In a lengthy letter to the president of congress, John Hancock, Washington bemoaned the collapsing state of discipline in the Continental Army. Much of the difficulty stemmed from Congress’s well-meaning attempt at altruism. When the Second Continental Congress initially adopted the Articles of War in June 1775, legislators had endeavored to establish humane limits on punishment. In an age when some armies punished malefactors with 500 or even 1,000 lashes, Congress limited the number of lashes that could be administered to thirty-nine.

Washington, however, found that inconsistent administration of punishments only encouraged further lawless behavior. Washington informed Hancock that “For the most atrocious offences (one or two Instances only excepted) a Man receives no more than 39 Lashes, and these perhaps (thro the collusion of the Officer who is to see it inflicted) are given in such a manner as to become rather a matter of sport than punishment.”

In particular, Washington was dealing with mounting incidents of, as he likened it, “the infamous practice of Plundering.” Under the pretense of seizing Tory property, explained Washington, “no Man is secure in his effects, & scarcely in his Person . . . in order that the Villainy may be more effectually concealed, some Houses have actually been burnt to cover the theft.” Washington did his best to put a stop to the crimes, but without effectual means of punishment, he felt that “I might almost as well attempt to remove Mount Atlas.”[2]

In fact, lawmakers had already obliged. On September 20, 1776, Congress adopted revised Articles of War which increased potential floggings from thirty-nine to one hundred lashes. Additionally, the private property of the “good people of the United States” was to be shielded from theft and destruction. Wanton acts of outright plunder could be punished with death.[3]

But the Continental Army, like virtually any army in history, was regularly plagued with crimes that ranged from petty theft to dangerous violations of the articles of war such as plundering. Surviving court-martial proceedings reveal that almost anything and everything was stolen at one time or another: money, clothing, cheese, sheep, hogs, handkerchiefs, cucumbers, and pocket watches. Mundane non-violent crimes were regularly punished by flogging with the cat-o-nine-tails. More egregious violations, including violent home invasions, could result in a death sentence.

Following a particularly egregious rash of plunder and theft in the autumn of 1778, Washington gave vent to his frustrations in general orders on October 23. The commander-in-chief was “Shocked at the frequent horrible Villainies of this nature committed by the troops of late, He is determined to make Examples which will deter the boldest and most harden’d offenders—Men who are called out by their Country to defend the Rights and Property of their fellow Citizens who are abandoned enough to violate those Rights and plunder that Property deserve and shall receive no Mercy.”[4]

All of You Will be Hung

The first inklings that members of George Washington’s Life Guard had gone astray occurred on October 6, 1778, when Elijah Fisher returned to duty after a five-day pass to visit relatives. Fisher noticed that John Herrick was wearing some new clothing, and told Herrick he was glad for it, as Herrick had clearly received some money from home. “I hoped we should not be so putout for money to bye things with,” quipped Fisher, “and that you will be able to pay me that trifill you owe me (Sixteen Dollars).”

Fisher’s suspicion mounted, however when several more soldiers joined them. All of them seemed to be wearing new clothing and Fisher pressed them on the matter. “Have you had money sent you from home too?” he asked, “I fear that you have taken them some other way to git it than that.”

At that, Herrick spilled the beans. The previous night, John Herring, who possessed a special pass so that he could leave camp to secure supplies for Washington’s guard, came to the home of John Hoag, but he would not “Let him have any thing.” While he was there he caught sight of a number of items that interested him. After returning to camp, he enlisted the help of Moses Walton, Elias Brown, and John Herrick to return to Hoag’s home on a plundering expedition.

While on the way there, Herrick had second thoughts, but was threatened by the other three men. Once back at Hoag’s, the men broke into the house and had a field day, making off with silver spoons, hard currency, miscellaneous clothing and household items, as well as £450 in Continental scrip. After Fisher heard the story, he warned the four thieves that whether or not Hoag was a Tory, “If it should be found out (which such things as Robery seldim is) some or all of you will be hung.” As it turned out, it was the second robbery the men had committed.

The following day, John Stodgel, another member of Washington’s guard, happened to call at the home of Prince Howland. Howland let it be known that he had been robbed several nights before. He couldn’t identify the culprits because they had blackened their faces, but they had been wearing distinctive rounds hats with a piece of bearskin attached. It was a dead give-away that men from Washington’s Life Guard were involved. Howland asked if any of Washington’s guard was “more fuller of money than usual.” He then told Stodgel that “he Did not want any man hurt upon his account for he knew that they would be hung if they were found out.” If Stodgel could quietly arrange for the return of his goods, Howland graciously promised to hush the matter up.

John Hoag was less understanding. He arrived at camp that very day, protesting to Life Guard officers that he had been robbed. After they looked into the matter, word leaked out that Stodgel had information. When questioned by officers, Stodgel “tried to hide what he Could,” but when it became apparent that he could end up in serious trouble for simply being quiet, “he up and tells all that he knew Consarning the affare.”[5]

On October 23, the army convened several courts-martial to look into an unfortunate rash of plundering and insubordination. Forced to deal with a spate of criminal activity, the high command was clearly intent on making an example of the guilty and restoring order to the army. Herrick agreed to testify against his accomplices, but considering the weight of evidence, there was little doubt as to the verdict. Walton, Herring, and Brown were sentenced to death. Herrick was sentenced to receive “one hundred lashes on his bare back well laid on.”[6]

Ultimately, only one of the condemned, Herring, would face the noose. Walton escaped his guard soon after the court-martial. Brown, while being transported to New Milford, Connecticut, for execution, slipped away from his guards and disappeared.[7]

An Officer and a Gentleman . . . and a Toy Thief

For George Washington, one of the most outrageous incidents of theft perpetrated by his troops occurred during the middle of September 1776, when a Captain Ramsay[8] caught sight of a group of about twenty soldiers outside of Harlem loaded down with plunder. They were carrying quite a collection, including furniture, poultry, two large mirrors, kettles, kitchen utensils, china, delftware, and, oddly enough, ladies’ garments. A disgusted Ramsey “told them they had been acting exceeding wrong, and would have to answer for their conduct.”

He then exchanged words with the groups’ obvious ringleader, Ens. Matthew Macumber of Col. Paul Dudley Sargent’s Massachusetts regiment. Macumber brushed it off, telling Ramsay that he operated under the orders of Colonel Sargent and that “he had a right to take any thing outside of our lines.” Ramsay wasn’t impressed. Peeking out of Macumber’s bulging knapsack was a pair of children’s wax toys. Ramsay apparently tapped on the toys and sarcastically “jested with him on his having such a pretty sort of plunder.”

Macumber ignored him and went about his business. About that time Brigade-Major Daniel Box arrived on the scene with a handful of men intent on enforcing Washington’s orders proscribing plunder. “I ordered him to lay it down,” said Box, “or carry it back to the place he took it from.” Macumber refused, claiming that he was acting under orders from Colonel Sargent. Box persisted, identified himself, and reminded Macumber of “how express the General’ s orders were about plundering.”

The conversation rapidly turned ugly. Box, wielding a cocked pistol, ordered then men to lay down their plunder or he would fire on the first man that refused. Macumber glanced back at his men, then barked “may lads, stand to your arms and form.” Glaring at Box, Macumber then said “we’ll see who has the strongest party.” Box and his men, badly outnumbered, seem to have leapt over a fence for protection, but were surrounded. Macumber’s men were “clamorous”; several cocked their firelocks and threatened to “blow out Major Box’s brains, if he cocked his pistol again.”

Captain Ramsay, watching the whole unpleasant scene unfold, was afraid a gunfight would break out and accordingly said, “I stood on my guard.” Macumber insisted that he would take the plunder to Colonel Sargent, “who might act with them as he pleased.” Worked up into quite a dander, Macumber declared that he would rather “spill his blood” than give up his arms and plunder on the spot. With little choice, Box backed down.

Not surprisingly, Macumber faced a court-martial on September 19, “accused of plundering and robbery, and also of mutiny.” But several of his men testified on his behalf, insisting that Macumber had expressly forbidden his men to plunder, that a number of men perpetrated the deed out of his sight, and that he ordered them to return the plunder to Colonel Sargent. The court found Macumber not guilty of plundering, robbery, and mutiny, but guilty of offering violence to Major Box. He was sentenced to little more than a reprimand, and ordered to offer an apology to Box.

For his part, George Washington was less than pleased with the verdict. Clearly convinced that the weight of evidence pointed to Macumber’s guilt, the general was annoyed that too much weight had seemingly been given to the testimony of Macumber’s accomplices. “It is to be observed,” he wrote, “that the men who were to share the plunder, became the evidence for the prisoner.”

At Washington’s insistence, a second court-martial was held on September 21. Although Captain Ramsay had not testified during the first trial, his testimony at the second, paired with obvious pressure from the commander-in-chief, resulted in a reversal of the initial verdict. The presiding officers found Macumber guilty of plundering and mutiny and expressed their opinion “that the prisoner be cashiered for said offence; and he is accordingly cashiered.”[9]

In a letter reporting on the matter to John Hancock, Washington expressed disgust at petty thievery countenanced by officers, and that Macumber had been caught with stolen goods “which one would think, could be of no use to him.”[10]

Grand Theft Goose

Military table fare during the Revolution could be somewhat unappetizing, an indignity which Capt. John Baptist Allen was disinclined to endure. A company commander in the 1st Canadian Regiment, Allen’s military career met an ignominious end due to the sordid theft of a hapless goose.

The tragic saga unfolded when Sgt. Zachariah Holsapple appeared in camp bearing a plump goose. Lt. Andrew Peppin asked him where he got it. Holsapple claimed that he purchased the bird about three miles from camp. Unconvinced, Peppin asked if “he did not steal it.” Holspapple denied stealing the bird, but remained under a cloud of suspicion.

The sergeant then offered the bird for sale to his commanding officer. Clearly licking his lips, Allen inquired where the goose came from. According to Holsapple’s later testimony, he openly admitted that he stole it a mile and a half outside of camp and wanted a dollar for it. Allen readily agreed to the purchase, but apparently paid Holspapple with a half-pint of rum from the company stores. Although court records fail to indicate the ultimate fate of the goose, it can be safely assumed that Allen devoured it.

Despite the complete destruction of the evidence, a suspicious Ens. John Gates looked into the incident and had Holsapple placed under arrest. According to Gates, Holspapple confessed to the theft and implicated Captain Allen in receiving stolen goods. Shockingly, when Holspapple was given permission to have a private meeting with Allen, he offered two more geese for sale. A voracious Allen reportedly admitted that he’d love to purchase the birds, but was afraid that “he should be found out” and that his fellow officers “would be offended with him.”

Indeed they were. Although Allen had a reputation for bravery under fire, he also had a checkered history that seems to have nettled his subordinates. The accusations had included drunkenness, drunkenness while on duty, and drunkenness with enlisted men. His gastro-felonious purchase of the goose was simply the last straw.

Allen ultimately faced a court-martial for “purchasing a Goose of Serjt Holsapple, when it appeared, he must have known, or suspected the said goose was stolen.” After Holsapple, Gates, and Peppin testified against Allen, the verdict was harsh and to the point. The officers who made up the court found Allen to be “of a notorious bad character and of opinion that the stealing of the Geese was under his direction, & that he be cashiered with infamy.”[11]

On September 26, Allen penned a desperate letter to Maj. Gen. John Sullivan in an attempt to salvage his commission and his honor. Insistent that he did not deserve “Such a disgrace,” an indignant Allen claimed that he had been “Condamn’d without having the opportunity of producing what Evidances I had in my favour.” In truth, it was an unfortunate situation. Allen explained that “I have left my Wife, Childrin and all my properties in Canada to pursue the Cause of America.” After asking for another court-martial to be convened so that he could produce further evidence, Allen assured Sullivan that “I have not deserved such a disgrace.”[12]

Higher authorities would have none of it. When Congress received Allen’s appeal, it was rejected out of hand.[13] The commander-in-chief was of the same mind, and in a letter to Sullivan explaining his thinking, George Washington refused to intervene. “The evidence so materially contradicts” Allen’s defense, explained Washington, “that I cannot see any objections to confirming the Sentence.”[14]

Check This Out

The crack troops of the Delaware Regiment were easily identified by their distinctive blue uniforms faced in red, a color scheme that was apparently inadequate for one unlucky soldier who possessed flashier stylistic sensibilities. On March 1, 1777, a regimental court-martial was convened to try James Pemberton, accused of stealing an irresistible swatch of checked linen.

While on march earlier that spring, Ens. Griffith Jordan noticed that Pemberton was headed down the wrong road and called him back. As a hesitant Pemberton returned to the column, Pvt. James Moones noticed that Pemberton was fumbling with a piece of checked cloth that he was trying to hide under his uniform coat. In an apparent attempt to conceal the conspicuous bulge of cloth, Pemberton attempted to shift the goods around to the backside of his coat. Unimpressed by the ploy, Moones advised Pemberton to hide the cloth in the snow or he would be found out. In fact, Pemberton did a poor job of hiding his treasure. Pvt. Hugh Coffel also noticed the cloth, and observed that it was brand new material, with “fringes or thrumbs on it, as is common from the loom.”

At his court-martial, Pemberton claimed that he simply had an old checked shirt and that “he had nothing with him that he was afraid of being detected with.” Another soldier, Cornelius Grimes, testified that Pemberton “told him” that he owned a checked shirt, but apparently hadn’t seen it.

The officers who tried the case weren’t impressed with the defense and found Pemberton guilty, sentencing him to “receive thirty nine lashes on his bare back well laid on with the cat o nine tails; & also to make restitution for the linen.”[15]

Blaze of Glory

The recollections of aged revolutionary veterans, often recorded decades after the war, are generally not considered as entirely reliable. The passage of time can serve to cloud memories, conflate precise facts, and exaggerate personal experience. But for the history of any war, veterans’ accounts can record priceless glimpses of the day-to-day minutia of soldiering that would otherwise be lost to history.

On October 8, 1832, Ohio resident and Virginia veteran John Hutt applied for a pension for his Revolutionary War service. Hutt gave a lengthy and detailed account of his service, which was largely in a Virginia state artillery outfit. Hutt’s unit was eventually attached to an infantry regiment under the command of Lt. Col. Charles Porterfield in Nathanael Greene’s southern army, and he later saw service in the state militia during the siege of Yorktown. Hutt certainly didn’t exaggerate his own exploits, bluntly explaining that although he heard “a few whistling bullets” when he was stationed Gloucester Point, “I never was in any battle but marching.”

Near the end of his pension application, Hutt left a curious anecdote regarding his service in the southern theater. The fantastic story might be too good to be true, but nevertheless records a humorous glimpse at Revolutionary War campfire gossip.

Another tale and a part I know to be a fact that a cannon was fired at a late hour of one night while Porterfield commanded and was encamped on a dense settlement of Tories. It was said to alarm and awe them, a report next morning spread abroad that one of Col Porterfield’s regiment had stolen a shirt and trousers and for safe keeping had put them in the gun that was fired. The wide spreading sheet of flaming light spread over the encampment and the loss of the soldier’s shirt and trousers was the cause of much sport and laughter amongst the soldiers in camp.[16]

Joshua Shepherd, Journal of the American Revolution

Thoughts on the First “Presidency” of the Post-American Republic

Posted on by
Reply

America has come full circle. Before 1776, the government was the individual’s adversary. After the Declaration of Independence and later the Bill of Rights, the government became the champion of the individual–his rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. This was the theory, and often the practice. The sovereignty of the individual was the gold standard not just of government, but of a culture that embraced and cherished freedom and happiness. Now, both the theory and the practice are gone. Look at those loathsome, sneering sociopaths with the power they never could have obtained in a better society. They are your adversaries, now and until a similar transformation such as that of 1776-1787 recurs, if and when it ever does. We are honored to have known the rare burst of freedom that America once was; even if we only knew that glorious freedom in its twilight.

Be FOR individualism; not socialism.
Be FOR freedom; not totalitarianism.
Be FOR rationality; not warped “wokeness”.
Be FOR a strong defense; not wars to keep defense contractors happy.
Be FOR capitalism — unhampered, free market capitalism; not big business benefitted by lockdowns at the expense of small business.
Be FOR freedom of speech; and the more they tell you to shut up, the more loudly you should say: GO TO HELL.
Stand for what’s good, and true. That’s the best way to defeat evil. Just let it wither.
#NotMyDictatorship

If the federal government will not enforce individual rights, we will have to find STATES that will.

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”
— Samuel Adams, American founder

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

We Got ‘Em Right Where We Want ‘Em

Posted on by
1

Like many Americans, I’ve been in a funk since last November. Now it’s time to shake it off and re-engage. George Washington presided over a series of lost battles and tactical retreats during the American revolution. But each battle (regardless of outcome) weakened the enemy, and led to eventual freedom from monarchical rule. The ruling class has taken an election, but they’ve substantially weakened their position in doing so. It’s time to take stock of our relative positions and move on.

So, what is the left’s position now? They lost seats in Congress. Even more significant, they lost power in state governments. These are the same state bodies that are going to reapportion congressional districts this year. They’ve exposed their true nature to all Americans. Through their actions over the last year, they’ve revealed themselves to be petty, vindictive, dishonest autocrats. It is not an attractive look. They’ve also exposed all of their covert operators. The media, tech oligarchs, and faceless bureaucrats have taken sides — and now we know it. Much of their power came from secrecy, which they no longer have. All of this was sacrificed to drag a demented, racist has-been across the finish line. President Asterisk enters office in the weakest position of any president in recent history. We’re not at the dawn of the left’s ascendancy. They have peaked. They’re spent. I’m sure they’re not done fighting, but their strategic position is not something to envy. It’s doubtful they can retain power.

However, what conservatives have is quite formidable. We have over 75 million followers. That number is our floor, not our ceiling. Our ranks are growing every day. The more our ruling class attempts to suppress us, the faster our movement will grow. Remember when the left used to warn us, “Don’t mistreat terrorists. They’ll use it as a recruiting tool.” They were right, and it applies here too.

Republicans control a majority of state governments now. Republicans control 32 upper chambers (versus 18 for Democrats) and 30 lower chambers (versus 19 for Democrats and one TBD in Alaska). Republicans are in the driver’s seat for reapportionment. They’ve been on the receiving end of gerrymandering for a long time. Now it’s their turn. In addition, state and local governments stand as a bulwark against tyranny. My home of Star, Idaho recently declared itself a 2nd amendment sanctuary, as many other communities across the country have. Sheriffs are beginning to step forward and assert that they will not enforce unconstitutional laws. Our state and local governments have the ability to push back, and many are beginning to do so.

Finally, and most importantly, we have the truth on our side. We know the election was compromised. We know the left is trying to impose socialism on us. We know socialism never works. We know we are not a racist country and we can no longer be subdued with name calling.

Many on our side are arguing that the left institutionalized election fraud and we’ll never be able to win an election again. That is simply not true. Elections are controlled by the states, and Republicans control the majority of states. Out of 50 states, the vote was compromised in perhaps six of them. Fraud was only able to tip the election because it was close. As Hugh Hewitt used to say on his radio show, “If the election isn’t not close, they can’t steal it.”

Some argue that now that the Democrats have all of the levers of power, they’ll use the military to subdue us. I’m sure a few Democrats have given that some thought and realized the notion is nonsense. Putting aside the optics of another Kent State massacre, it simply wouldn’t work. Soldiers are not robots. They are us. Some would follow their orders, but many would not. So no, military suppression of the citizenry is not an option.

Some argue that now that the Democrats have all of the levers of power, they’ll use the military to subdue us. I’m sure a few Democrats have given that some thought and realized the notion is nonsense. Putting aside the optics of another Kent State massacre, it simply wouldn’t work. Soldiers are not robots. They are us. Some would follow their orders, but many would not. So no, military suppression of the citizenry is not an option.

The use of the military for propaganda purposes is an option. The left will try to use it to intimidate us, but it’s all a bluff. The Democrats moved five divisions of soldiers into Washington D.C. for the inauguration. Let me ask this — does putting on a Kim Jong-un style coronation telegraph confidence or fear? The fact is, our ruling class knows that they’ve overplayed their hand, and they are terrified. But beyond a bluff, they’ve got nothing else. If they want to retain power, they have to do it through politics.

Here’s what they have to work with. They have a propaganda ministry that sacrificed the last shred of credibility they had in the last election. The legacy media approval rating is bouncing around somewhere between that of Congress and used-car salesmen. They have big-tech oligarchs that went out on a limb and then sawed it off. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are now facing legal challenges from state and foreign governments (bet they didn’t see that coming). They’ve got educational institutions which have been politically indoctrinating our children for generations. But COVID-19 lockdowns and remote learning exposed many parents to the reality of what’s been going on in classrooms. It was both eye opening and disturbing. The Democrats have a tenuous grip on political power, and are likely to lose it in the mid-term election. Finally, the left has only minority support from the citizenry.

All we need to do, is keep up the pressure. We need to vote nationally and work locally. Speak over the propaganda by talking to friends and neighbors. Take over school boards. Deprogram our children by talking to them. Engage in local politics. Elect local officials based on a constitutional litmus test. As General George (Washington or Patton — take your pick) would say, “Okay boys. We’ve got’em outnumbered, exposed, and scared — Engage!”

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Star Idaho. He is a retired engineer with over 40 years of experience in the areas of product development, quality assurance, organizational development, and corporate strategic planning. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

America’s First Revolution is Happening Now

Posted on by
Reply

Hear me out and you will understand the title.

There is a difference between a rebellion and a revolution. A rebellion is what occurred in the thirteen colonies in the late 18th century. A revolution is what occurred in Russia in 1917.

A rebellion occurred in the colonies, because the subjects of the king in the colonies were treated differently constitutionally and in law from subjects of the king in England. The colonists had no representation in Parliament and no voice in how they were ruled.

The rebellion resulted in political independence but not in a change in the belief system. The colonists held to belief in the rule of law to which government is held accountable and to Blackstonian legal principles. The legal and political principles that the English had fought for from the Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which established the people’s power to govern themselves through representatives in Parliament, were enshrined in the Constitution. The United States is the Constitution. If the Constitution is set aside and not followed, the United States is a different entity.

For the United States to break from the Constitution is a revolutionary act in comparison to the 18th century rebellion demanding equal treatment for English colonists.

The essence of a revolution is a collapse in the system of beliefs that hold a country together.

A revolution is what occurred in Russia in February, 1917. Most people think that the Czar was overthrown by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but this is not the case. The Czar was overthrown by the collapse in the belief system that defined Czarist Russia. The collapse in the belief system resulted in the February Revolution. The Czar’s military forced him to abdicate in March. A Socialist Revolutionary, Alexander Kerensky became Prime Minister of a provisional government.

The Bolsheviks’ October Revolution was directed against this provisional government. It was not a revolution, because the revolution had already occurred. It was an unseating. The Bolsheviks’ question to the provisional government was: “Who chose you?” The obvious answer was that they had chosen themselves.

If asked the same question, the American Establishment’s answer is the same as the Russian provisional government’s answer.

The structure of belief that defined Czarist Russia was destroyed by the Russian liberals who used the Czar’s need of their support for World War I against Germany to agitate for a Constitutional Monarchy, as existed in England, where the monarch retained some power, but legislation was in the hands of a parliament. Rather than the source of law, the monarch was accountable to law.

The Russian liberals placed a high value on their agenda. In their pursuit of their agenda, they became increasingly aggressive in their condemnations of the Czar’s resistance. Unaware or dismissive of the Czar’s promise to his father not to alter Russia by relinquishing power, the liberals’ denunciations became unsettling to the mass of the Russian people, who kept expecting retaliation from the Czar against those committing sedition against him.

But the Czar could not retaliate, because without the liberals and their organizations the war effort would be impaired. The Czar did not realize the impact on the population of unanswered accusations. Russians concluded that the accusations must be true as the Czar failed to act against his accusers.

I have given you a brief explanation. You can get the complete story if you can find a copy of Russia 1917, The February Revolution by George Katkov.

As a post-graduate at Oxford University, I got to know George Katkov and benefited from many conversations with him. Katklov was a don at St. Antony’s College, Oxford University. It was St. Antony’s that arranged for me to give a Special University Lecture at Oxford on January 20, 1969, a special treat for a graduate student. Even then truth had to struggle its way. Now it has little chance.

This brings us to America’s First Revolution now unfolding. How did it come about? It came about because decades of liberal assaults in the name of one “progressive cause” or another destroyed the structure of beliefs that define the United States. Today we can see with our own eyes, if we open them, that there is no longer any such thing as academic freedom, free speech, freedom of association, privacy, due process. People are fired from their jobs and sentenced to economic peril for merely expressing their opinions or attending the wrong rally or using disapproved pronouns. Those who insist on electoral integrity, the basis of democracy, are demonized as “enemies of democracy.” Legislation is pending that will be used to define any dissent from controlled Establishment explanations as subversion.

You can add to the list. But a long list is unnecessary to show that no important institution in America any longer believes in the liberties and protections guaranteed by the US Constitution or in democracy itself. Not the universities, the bar associations, the media, the courts, the political parties or the Congress.

It is this destruction of belief that constitutes the First American Revolution. The consequences are yet to be fully felt.

Paul Craig Roberts, UNZ Review

Psychological Pathology at the Highest Levels of Power

Posted on by
Reply

The events since January 6 remind me of a borderline personality disorder patient. A borderline personality (BPD for short) is basically a “drama queen”, hellbent on portraying him-/herself as a victim at all costs. BPD people create, exaggerate or manufacture crises in order to paint themselves as the victims, thereby acquiring more psychological and other kinds of power over those around them. To use their favorite word, they “incite” or foster unearned guilt in others, as a way to attain control. Anyone with the misfortune of being the child, parent or having been the spouse of a borderline personality knows what I mean. Mental health professionals like myself know the borderline personality scenario well.

The borderline personality is an emotional tyrant, or bully. At present, AOC, Nancy Pelosi and other emotional tyrants are exploiting January 6 to the fullest. Pelosi claims that the Congress is so traumatized they may never get over it, which therefore justifies unlimited prosecution (media and legal) against Donald Trump, his supporters and anyone who shares his policy views, for all time. In other words, January 6 is an excuse for the dictatorship always intended. AOC likewise made comments that she’s in “counseling” to get over the trauma of being exposed to the events of that day.

I’m not minimizing the trauma of being in a situation like that, not for reasonable people who actually were victims. But you don’t recover from any upsetting event by lying, exaggerating or distorting the details of the event, or by manufacturing a nonexistent guilty party, such as Donald Trump. It’s impossible and unjust to show sympathy or empathy for people who shed crocodile tears over their own misfortune while showing absolutely zero sympathy for the honest business owners and other individuals in places like Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere who will perhaps NEVER get over the financial and emotional distress over having their cities ravaged with the aid and support of political dictators like AOC and Pelosi.

Of course they’re stressed. Being a liar, a cheater and a sociopath is no way to live. The constant quest to control and dominate your fellow man, at any cost, is wildly unhealthy and way beyond neurotic. Living a life of constant political gamesmanship is not healthy, and has massive stress built into it. As a therapist, I don’t recommend it. You’re constantly on the run from yourself, from the truth and from the decent people upon whom you could otherwise rely for support, and instead whom you destroy. I don’t envy these legalized criminals we have installed in the Imperial City and ridiculously label as “leaders”. But I feel absolutely nothing for their plight, because they are not the victims; they are the victimizers.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Howie Carr: Thanks for everything, President Trump Thanks for the balance in my 401(k), tax cuts for the middle class and destroying ISIS

Posted on by
17

Thank you, Mr. President, for everything you’ve done.

It shouldn’t be ending this way, but I and 74 million other Americans just want to thank you for all your efforts on our behalf over the past four years, actually since you came down the escalator at Trump Tower back in the summer of 2015.

In no particular order:

Thank you for restoring the U.S. as the world’s leading producer of energy – after your predecessor sternly lectured us that we “couldn’t drill our way” out of our dependence on unstable Middle Eastern oil providers.

Thank you for the tax cuts for the middle class.

Thank you for destroying genocidal ISIS, which your predecessor called “the junior varsity.”

Thanks for shutting off the endless flow of illegal immigrants at the southern border, and the unending supply of MS-13 gangbangers, among other criminals, as well as the welfare-dependent illiterate indigents who were so destabilizing American society before you became president.

Thank you for calling out the endless hypocrisy of the media — what you so aptly described as “Very Fake News.”

Thank you for promoting economic policies that led to the lowest unemployment rates ever for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and women, among others.

Thank you for doing more to promote peace in the Middle East than all of your predecessors combined. . . .

Thank you for eliminating Obamacare’s “individual mandate,” which fined individuals for not buying health insurance they didn’t want or couldn’t afford.

Thank you for taking more questions from (almost always hostile) reporters than all of the last three or four presidents combined.

Thanks for getting the U.S. out of such foreign policy disasters as the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as ending the fiasco for American workers that was NAFTA.

Thanks for such a booming economy that seven million people got off the food-stamp rolls.

Thanks for all those tweets that drove the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) crazy.

Also, a personal note on Twitter: Thanks for the three tweets promoting my book, “What Really Happened: How Donald J. Trump Saved America from Hillary Clinton.”

As Donald Trump Jr. told me: “That’s two tweets more than he gave my book!”

Thank you for not turning the IRS into an instrument of persecution against your political foes, the way your predecessor did.

Thanks for not surveilling reporters a la the Obama administration.

Thanks for ending state oppression against people of faith like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Thank you for trying to defund “sanctuary cities” where illegals run amok.

Thanks for the three new justices on the Supreme Court — think how much worse Hillary’s picks would have been, and maybe someday they’ll grow the spines they so obviously lacked last month in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Thank you for defanging North Korea and Little Rocket Man.

Thanks for opening up more of our North Atlantic waters for New England commercial fishermen and lobstermen.

Thanks for defending both the First and Second Amendments, and for railing against Section 230, which the billionaire fascists of Silicon Valley are abusing to shut down free speech.

Thank you for appointing U.S. attorneys who actually wanted to put real criminals in prison, without fear or favor.

Thanks for using the death penalty, when necessary, against the worst of the worst serial killers.

Thank you for the travel ban, which has largely halted the flow of terrorists like the Tsarnaevs, who had been welcomed into the U.S. and put on welfare by previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike.

Thanks for the balance in my 401(k).

Thanks for the lowest gasoline prices in decades.

Thanks for the largest number of Americans with gainful employment since the government started keeping records.

Thank you for ordering the elimination of two of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on earth, al-Baghdadi and Gen. Soleimani.

To borrow a line from “The Last Hurrah,” “How do you thank a guy for a million laughs?”

Thanks for all the great nicknames — Crooked Hillary, Li’l Marco, Low Energy Jeb, etc.

Thanks for all the amazingly entertaining rallies, if not for bringing back the Village People’s “Macho Man” song.

Mr. President, I could go on and on and on, but all of us Deplorables and bitter clingers and credulous Boomer rubes just want you to know how much we appreciate the four years you gave us to prepare and fortify ourselves for the impending disaster ahead.

We’ll be back, Mr. President, and so will you.

Howie Carr, Boston Herald