Skip to main content

I really hate it when consistency demands that I defend those with whom I disagree...

... but I try to do it anyway.

In this case, it's Eric Dondero of Libertarian Republican, whose views I generally find both ideologically repulsive and factually challenged. In the entire Sonny Landham case, Eric has consistently held to the belief that it is not only acceptable, not only OK, but actually desirable to come up with derogatory epithets like "jap," "gook," or "camel-dung shoveler," and that to call people out on this language is panty-waist political correctness run amuck.

I have already explained--both here and in the comments section of Eric's own blog--precisely how venal and idiotic I find such a stand.

But then, on Third Party Watch, someone using the handle Rudi Dekkers attacks Eric not because of his views, but because of his military service:

Oh yeah, Dondero: Did you know that Thomas Jefferson and many of the founders opposed the establishment of a professional government military? In a letter to Francis Hopkinson Jefferson said that the federal Bill of Rights must prohibit a “permanent military”. Nearly all of our state bills of rights prohibit standing armies. The federal constitution only allows armies to be raised in extreme emergencies, after Congress declares war, and only for a term of 2 years or less. The federal bill of rights says only a militia is a safe defense of a free state.

So, no thank you for your serving yourself to my tax money to pay you for participating in the biggest ongoing illegal welfare scam of the the last 2 centuries. Let me know when you’ve learned the conservative principle of being responsible for your actions and I’ll tell you where you can send the restitution checks.


OK, Rudi, let's dance.

1) You don't know your history or your Constitution. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution prohibits a standing army.

From Article 1, Section 8 [the powers of Congress]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...


This section prohibits not standing armies, but appropriations to support the army of over two years. It also clearly distinguishes between "Armies" and "the Militia."

And since the first military appropriations for a standing army (albeit one allowed during the 1790s to shrink at one point to a few hundred men) were all passed by Congresses containing a high proportion of men who had either participated in the Framing of the Ratifying of the US Constitution, it seems a bit ... idiotic (yes, that's the word I'm looking for) to contend that immediately upon writing and ratifying the Constitution the men who did so quickly gutted it.

As for Thomas Jefferson's ideas on militias and armies, let's just say Jefferson spoke for himself and not much of anybody else on such topics, that his views often changed, and that the politician who worried so much about expanding government powers as President engaged in one of the largest expansions of government powers ever in making the Louisiana Purchase.

So quote Jefferson all you like; it's immaterial here.

2) "So, no thank you for your serving yourself to my tax money to pay you for participating in the biggest ongoing illegal welfare scam of the the last 2 centuries."

Let me put this in simple words for you, Rudi Dekkers, so that you can understand it: welfare exists when someone receives a wealth transfer simply for existing, without earning it. The men and women of our armed forces, whether in combat or not, have paid dues in time and in blood that you obviously don't understand or appreciate. Eric, whether I think his politics stink or not, paid his share of those dues.

I've lost brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in other shitty places around the world. I completely disown the militaristic, imperialistic nightmare that American foreign policy has become. I will not stand for you flouting idiotic historical fantasies and badmouthing their names and their sacrifices.

I spent 21 years in the US Armed Forces so idiots like you could have freedom of speech.

But I also spent that time defending my right to fire back.

Comments

Eric Dondero said…
That's actually a very good explanation of welfare, that I hadn't heard of before: "Welfare exists as a transfer payment from the government for people who do not do anything."

That was the coup de grace against Dikkers idiotic argument.
It wold be interesting to read a consideration of the uses and misuses of Jefferson's vast correspondence. Lie the Bible, it offers something for every occasion.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...