Francisco Ferrer

And I apologize for arousing your horror of a nation free of debt.

Does wishing a country free of a bloodsucking government qualify as being "after it"? So be it, then. I am also "after" my own country.

He should not have had to resign this position. Wars are based on lies and without wars there would, alas, be no war heroes.

The debt that the Greek government owes to European banks should be renounced for the simple reason that repaying it would involve the violation of property rights on a massive scale. I realize that such a statement seems to fly in the face of the facts of the case. Banks lent money to Greece with the reasonable expectation that it would be repaid, principal and interest. If the money is not repaid, then the lenders are deprived of their rightful property. The problem is that the borrowers, various officeholders in Greece, did not make a promise to repay the loans themselves, but to use the police power of the Greek government to force others to make good on the borrowed money. In short, they put others on the hook through taxation. While it may be true that some Greek taxpayers may have voted some of the borrowing politicians into office and some taxpayers may have used some public goods purchased with the loans, it does not follow that all present and future taxpayers are morally liable. Furthermore, one should not feel any great sympathy for the lenders, for anyone that does business with government is fully aware that his profits ultimately come from money acquired through coercion. Of course, the likely result of debt renunciation is that Greece's government would never be able to borrow again. And would that be so horrible? A government deprived of the ability to obligate other people to cover its irresponsible spending? Why, that policy should be adopted in the USA forthwith! For all his sins, Andrew Jackson can at least win one's respect for paying off the national debt in 1835 and not leaving a future generation of Americans to make good on loans they never contracted.

Yes, prayer is all we'll have left once the left takes its hammer and tongs to the remaining shreds of the Constitution.

A gathering of delegates billed as a body to revise the Constitution would not have to establish an entire new government to be a runaway convention. Suppose, for example, states sent delegates for the express purpose of writing a balanced budget amendment. Nothing in the current Constitution would restrict those delegates to adopting only restrictions on deficit spending. They could also, if they wished, draft amendments to permit school prayer, prohibit the burning of the flag, and outlaw abortion. And the states could follow by ratifying one, two, all or none of the changes. Most puzzling, however, is how conservative and libertarian proponents of an Article V convention evade the damage that the left could do through such a process. Do limited government types imagine that they could meet by themselves to rollback federal power, and not attract the involvement of Democrats, progressives, civil rights activists, the Occupy Movement and the We Are the 99% crowd? Why should we assume that the same corrupt forces that have ruled Washington for the past century would play no role in a convention of Constitution "reformers"? In addition to, or instead of, a balanced budget amendment, we could get amendments to abolish the electoral college, remove the two-term limit on presidents, make D.C. the 51st state, strip Constitutional protections from corporations, provide access to medical care for all citizens, or guarantee a right to employment for all citizens. Allow me to post the thoughts of a fellow Doom-and-Gloomer: If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. --James Madison, Letter to George Lee Turberville .

Earlier you said, "Of course" my criticism was a smokescreen. "Of course" means "certainly or definitely." But now you are unable to state what plans or intentions I supposedly wish to hide. Thus, you are quick to accuse, reluctant to substantiate. I understand. Sometimes it is easier to discuss a critic's alleged secret agenda than to take on his argument.

Of course it is a smokescreen. We all agree, you included, that this exponentially expanding centralized state will end badly on it's current path. You have attested to the corruption and Congresses insane legislation, ad naseum. Therefore, we make this push now within the Constitution. The alternative involves more risky paths. A... Definition of "smokescreen": "2. An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions." Apparently you regard as a subterfuge my concern about what politicians with a history of power aggrandizement might do to the present (albeit weak) Constitutional limitations on federal government. It is a concern that has been voiced by no less than a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Kindly submit what plans or intentions might I (or we) be attempting to conceal.

It would have exactly the same authority the original Constitutional convention had. Delegates met to revise the Articles of Confederation and then ended up proposing a new framework for government -- which afterwards states had to vote on. It is hardly a smokescreen to point out the very real dangers posed by calling on present day politicians (overwhelming big government Republicrats and Demoplicans) to correct errors, weaknesses and omissions they might discover in a 228-year old document.

I think we can rule out Ayn Rand. As Reidy points out, the appearance and occupation are lifted directly from costume legend Edith Head. As for the voice, director Brad Bird provided the vocal himself and has said that he was going for "half Japanese and half German." An early 1950's interview with Head (at 0:36):

In fact, it was a coup. As Carl Watner has written, The Constitutional Convention was originally called to amend the Articles, not supersede or annul them. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states were pledged to a perpetual union, and no provision had been made for dissolving their association - except that any changes in the Confederation had to be done by the unanimous agreement of all the States. Thus, there are only two ways to view the Constitutional Convention. Either the individual States had the right to secede (without the agreement of the other States) or else the Founding Fathers instigated a revolution to change the governing institutions of the country. In the latter case, they "assumed constituent powers, ordained a new constitution, and demanded a plebiscite thereon over the head of all existing legally organized powers. Had Julius [Caesar] or Napoleon committed these acts, they would have been pronounced a coup d'etat." The fact that the Articles of Confederation were still the fundamental law of the thirteen states was simply ignored by the members of the Constitutional Convention. There is no reason not to call a convention meeting for the express purpose of revising the Constitution, a "Constitutional convention." Article V does not specifically refer to an amending convention as a "Convention of the States." The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Historian Kevin Gutzman and Constitutional attorney Bruce Fein have both supported amendments through a convention and have both referred to the second option in Article V as a Constitutional convention. The men who fought in the Revolution certainly had principles when it came to throwing off a foreign tyrant. Those principles were soon forgotten when the mood seized some of them to centralize power, establish a chief executive/commander-in-chief/military dictator, a lifetime judiciary, and a Congress with the power to tax and to pass any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers. Yes, the "high principled guys" who authored Article V and its feature to amend through a convention also came up with Article I, which created Congress, a monster infamous for turning citizenship into servitude. Let's look only at the laws it has enacted within the past two years: March 7, 2013: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–4 August 9, 2013: Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–23 August 9, 2013: Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–28 August 9, 2013: Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–29 November 27, 2013: Drug Quality and Security Act, Pub.L. 113–54 February 7, 2014: Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113–79 March 21, 2014: Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113–89 April 3, 2014: Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act, Pub.L. 113–94 May 9, 2014: Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA), Pub.L. 113–101 May 20, 2014: Kilah Davenport Child Protection Act, Pub.L. 113–104 June 10, 2014: Water Resources Reform and Development Act, Pub.L. 113–121 July 23, 2014: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 113–128 August 1, 2014: Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act, Pub.L. 113–144 December 18, 2014: Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013, Pub.L. 113–242 December 18, 2014: Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act, Pub.L. 113–245 December 18, 2014: American Savings Promotion Act, Pub.L. 113–251 December 18, 2014: Credit Union Share Insurance Fund Parity Act, Pub.L. 113–252 December 18, 2014: EPS Service Parts Act of 2014 Pub.L. 113–263 December 18, 2014: Insurance Capital Standards Clarification Act of 2014, Pub.L. 113–279 And we are supposed to expect today's politicians to lead us us into the Promised Land? Such Levined bread is indigestible.

Article V provides no restrictions on what sort of changes could be made to American government at a Constitutional Convention. Such an assembly would be limited only by the character and personality of its delegates. In 1787 the delegates to America's first Constitutional Convention included Benjamin Franklin, Elbridge Gerry, James Madison, George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and George Washington, But even with those esteemed defenders of liberty present, the Constitutional Convention was a “runaway.” It was convened under the Articles of Confederation with its purpose only to propose amendments to the Articles. Yet it ended up drafting an entirely new form of government. Thus, all we have to do now is find present day men and women with higher principles than the Founding Fathers. They must be a dime a dozen in every state legislature.

For whatever is pompous, pretentious and portentous in America's $100 gazillion hype industry--Buscemi is the safest, sanest antidote. If only what the link title implied was correct, and the whole movie was recut with "Nucky."

The Wikipedia article about Mencken quotes from works that he never meant for publication, yet at the same time does not mention his critical role in promoting the careers of black writers: "By being the first white editor to publish the work of black writers in a mainstream white magazine, he helped open the gates for the Harlem Literary Renaissance."

Hooray, the lying braggart is gone. Now NBC can get back to shilling with integrity.

The loud mouth Muslim crazies often rail about the Crusaders. Does not address the author's unsupported contention that Al Qaeda is a response to the Crusades of the Middle Ages or the claim that some (unnamed) liberals have been calling for an apology for those Crusades.

From the linked article: We, the Christians, the Crusaders, the West, we had nothing to do with the destruction of Arab civilization. All this Al Qaeda fulminating about “the Crusaders” is just a phony rationale for their pathological hatreds. Where is the evidence that Al Qaeda's attacks were provoked by the Crusades of the Middle Ages? The actual motives appear to be quite different. Hopefully, this history will enable those liberals not inextricably buried in self-mortification to resist their perennial call for America and the West and the Vatican, et el, to “apologize” for the Crusades. Apologize... to whom? Certainly not the Arabs. Certainly not the Turks. Who specifically has been issuing a perennial call for an apology? But if there is to be an apology, how about one to include Crusader murders of Jews and fellow Christians?

It's not enough that news reporting be truthful. It must also be complete. Pick up any newspaper and you'll see one story after another merely transcribing a press release or repeating the statements of a spokesman--without any attempt to contrast those views with another side. A typical story might cover groundbreaking for a new public park. The mayor, some council members and other dignitaries will be in attendance and will be quoted at length about job creation, safe playgrounds, greenspace, etc. Yet nothing will be said about eminent domain used to remove those previously residing on the land, exactly how the architect/contractor was chosen, or the long term cost of providing police protection in a commons. The average reader does not notice because very few have an understanding of what Bastiat called "What is seen and what is not seen."

Mencken, in addition to being a literary and political critic was also a social critic, a profession that now appears to be extinct in the American scene. So, yes, he was a snob--a well qualified one--who could deftly attack stupidity, gullibility, superstition, and, as we hear in the recording, "America's lust for the hideous." As for modern day Menckens, the only one who might have been able to scale his Olympian wit, Gore Vidal, is now dead.

I get goosebumps when you call me "darling." But that's all. You know. The impotence.

Problem 1: Brian Williams has propagandized on the air about himself on assignment. Problem 2: Brian Williams has propagandized on the air about the government. Two different problems in need of two separate solutions. Solution to Problem 1: Fire his butt. Solution to Problem 2: Fire his butt. How to implement Solution to Problem 1: contact NBC here: http://www.nbc.com/contact/general How to implement Solution to Problem 2: contact NBC here: http://www.nbc.com/contact/general I've sent my email. Now it's someone's turn to post another Photoshop of Williams or to complain about my "impotent bitching."

They vital point is that for for thousands of Christians who had nothing to do with the fall of the Holy Land, the Crusades were a vicious and unprovoked offensive war. One would not guess that from reading Mr. Goldberg, whose agenda has no room to admit that Jews also became targets of armies on their way to Jerusalem and inside the hallowed city.

FF, I disagree. I believe it is perfectly possible to focus on Williams's lies about his past and the organization he works for. We can do both. Talking about one does not preclude the other. I don't even know how that would work. In this thread I see a great number of pictures of Williams, a la Forrest Gump, appearing at historically important events. I see very little about the anchorman's long-time role as a conduit for Establishment propaganda. Williams's whoppers didn't begin with his artificially enhanced curriculum vitae. It's just that the execs at NBC have no qualms about the whoppers that serve the power elite. Here's what will happen: Williams will be canned or made to go through some form of rehabilitation. Then his ridiculous, self-made heroism will become as newsworthy as a deflated football. And at that point everybody, with the exception of a few marginalized watchdogs on the far left and far right, will go back to sleep.

FF, Why on earth would that be good? Do you think people on OL want that? I don't. Here's an idea. Fire him and replace him with a journalist with integrity. Michael As long as we focus on his phony helicopter story, Brian Williams will be infamous only for misrepresenting his own resume. And his replacement will be some pretty face who has learned that the only punishable sin in mass media (besides racism) is exaggerating personal war stories.

I'm glad Jonah Goldberg has taught us that the Crusades were "a defensive war" to recover Holy Lands conquered by Muslims. That means that the thousands of fellow Christians killed by Crusader soldiers on their way to the Middle East must have been Muslims in disguise. That means that the siege and sacking of Constantinople, the seat of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the largest city in Christendom; the vandalism of the Imperial Library of Constantinople, the last of the great libraries of the ancient world; and the desecration the Eastern Orthodox Hagia Sophia cathedral--must all have been to "protect" Christian life and property. No wonder Goldberg was such a big fan of that other sham of "defensive" aggression, the Iraq War. "Defensive" Crusaders sacking the Christian city of Constantinople.