Republicans unveiled their tax plan in September to mixed reviews. That was to be expected. It hasn’t gotten any better in recent weeks.
Americans generally want lower taxes. They also want the Republican Party to do something they promised while begging for votes.
Let’s not ask for too much.
One called on the Rush Limbaugh Show in late September suggested that people read Federalist No. 21 to understand why taxes should be lowered. Hamilton, this caller said, showed us the light.
Limbaugh joked that he rapped it. Either way, here is Hamilton entering another modern debate. There is now an app for that, unfortunately.
Hamilton proposed in Federalist No. 21 that “indirect” taxes, meaning tariffs, should be used more extensively than direct because direct taxes created substantial problems for an economy. The modern income tax is a direct tax.
Except we shouldn’t listen to Hamilton. He didn’t mean it. Less than three years after writing Federalist No. 21, Hamilton turned around and argued for…drumroll…a lengthy list of direct taxes, ostensibly because the country “needed it,” but Hamilton suggested that such taxes would only be used in a time of war. The United States wasn’t at war in 1790.
That was Hamilton’s “m.o.” His duplicity knew no bounds.
John Taylor of Caroline called him a tyrant as did a number of forward thinking Americans at the time. They could see Hamilton’s constitutional machinations wrecking the fragile fabric of Union.
His top down approach to every problem and his penchant for advancing a stronger central authority at the expense of the states were the exact opposite positions he favored while scribbling the Federalist essays, and many could see that Hamilton’s desire to recreate the corruption of the [Rothschild] British constitution would eventually destroy the Union.
It wasn’t “state’s rights” that ripped apart the Union. It was Hamiltonian nationalism, the belief that the general government can do anything it wants as long as it is “necessary and proper” for the “general welfare” of the American people, the Constitution be damned.
That is the real story of America, but every school child is fed the opposite narrative from the time they enter kindergarten as a little mind of mush. Uncle Sam knows how to indoctrinate kids, and we want more Uncle Sam in education. Doesn’t make sense.
With Constitution Day a little over a month ago, Americans should reconsider their Hamilton love. They should first avoid downloading the app. After all, Hamilton’s Constitution, the Constitution he favored in 1787 when he called for unlimited central power or the Constitution he advanced as Secretary of Treasury with expansive “implied powers” was the opposite of the Constitution he sold to the states as primary author of the Federalist essays and in speeches to the New York ratifying convention. And he clearly knew it.
Hamilton, for example, knew his “assumption scheme” where the general government would assume the debts of the several states was expressly rejected by the Philadelphia Convention, but he pushed for it anyway. Same with his favorite project, the Bank of the United States. That idea was shot down so thoroughly that no one in Philadelphia in 1787 thought it would be resurrected once the Constitution was ratified. They were wrong.
Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 69 that the American presidency would not resemble a king only to push for executive powers while Secretary of Treasury that George III would have recognized.
Hamilton was a brilliant, narcissistic, psychopath, a man with a real “American story” of “rags to riches,” but a man who did more to undermine the original understanding of the Constitution—an understanding he helped craft—than anyone in American history.
Conservative Americans should stop rapping about Hamilton and start railing against him. If they truly believe in a general government of limited powers, of real “grass roots” politics, then Hamilton is not their guy.
There is a reason a leftist political activist like Lin Manuel-Miranda wrote a play about Hamilton. That should give any conservative pause. Miranda didn’t hijack Hamilton’s legacy. He merely lifted the veil.
But by letting Miranda tell the story, “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story,” Hamilton gains a reputation he doesn’t deserve. Hamilton’s musical should rather be “Hamilton: The Liar.”
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is the first in a series of articles giving an introduction to the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution.
Federalist #1 serves as an introduction, setting the stage for the series of papers that will follow. The paper provides an overview of the primary issues involved in the ratification debates, and seeks to establish a negative characterization of the opposition, clearly meant to diminish their objections in the eyes of the public.
Hamilton wastes no time trying to establish that ratification of the proposed Constitution is imperative. He employs hyperbole as a rhetorical tactic throughout the Federalist #1, and he jumps right in, asserting that not only does the very existence of the Union depend on establishing the Constitution, but also the future of good government throughout the world.
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country…to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made…And a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”
Hamilton moves on to spend the bulk of his first paper trying to create a negative impression of those opposing ratification. The hyperbole continues to flow from his quill pin as he accurately defines the main objection to the proposed Constitution, while simultaneously characterizing opponents’ fears as unreasonable, or even self-serving.
Hamilton exemplified the contempt which the Eight Banking Cabal Families hold towards “”common people””, once stating:
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…
The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second.”– Alexander Hamilton
Alex H. was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis on January 11, 1755. Alex’s father James abandoned the family, fearful that the mother of his child would be charged with bigamy. You see Alex was a product of adultery.
Perhaps Alex’s position above was to over compensate for his own shady ‘well born’ beginnings. It of course is not his fault and that never should be held against him. But the above quote by Alex is callous, narcissistic, and in keeping with how the banking sociopath feels toward his fellow man.
FEBRUARY 25 1791:
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, (JEWISH BORN ALEXANDER LEVINE IN THE WEST INDIES), AS SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, PUSHED A BANK BILL THROUGH CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. THE FIRST BANK WAS THEN FULLY DOMINATED BY THE ROTHSCHILDS, MONTEFIORES, GOLDSMIDS, MOCATTAS, & OPPENHEIMERS.
DOCUMENTS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM PROVE THAT ALEXANDER HAMILTON RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM THE ROTHSCHILDS FOR HIS DEED IN BINDING THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE STATES TO THE INTERNATIONAL ZIONIST BANKERS.
A study of the ratification debates reveals there were objections to many specific constitutional provisions. But almost all of them revolve around one foundational issue: many Americans feared establishing a strong central government at the expense of the states, and worried that it would prove impossible to limit the new government to its delegated powers.
Hamilton recognizes the root of his opponents’ objections and seeks to diminish them in the minds of his readers. He calls into question the motivation of his opponents by characterizing concerns about over-expansive federal authority as a lust for personal power.
“Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments.”
Hamilton reveals his preference for centralized government as he takes on the notion that the national government proposed by the Constitution could become too powerful and devolve into tyranny. He argues that anemic and inefficient governance, like that under the Articles of Confederation, poses a far greater threat to liberty.
“On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”
Hamilton then contrasts the unreasonable nature of his opponents with his own fair-mindedness through a disclaimer, making it clear he supports the Constitution.
“Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it.”
But he implores his readers to consider his arguments based on their merits, writing that they “will be open to all, and may be judged of by all.”
After listing the prime arguments against the constitution he intends to address, Hamilton concludes by returning to the subject he opened with: the imperative need to ratify the Constitution, arguing that without it, the Union will cease to exist, and indeed some opponents hope for just that outcome.
“But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.”
PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON BEATS THE ZIONISTS!
IN 1833 PRESIDENT ANDREW JACKSON STARTED REMOVING THE GOVERNMENT’S DEPOSITS FROM THE ROTHSCHILDS’ SECOND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
IN EARLY JANUARY 1835, JACKSON PAID OFF THE FINAL INSTALLMENT OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. JACKSON NEEDED NOW ONLY TO COMPLETE THE FINAL REMOVAL OF ALL US DEPOSITS IN THE ROTHSCHILDS’ CENTRAL BANK.
On January 30 1835, an assassin by the name of Richard Lawrence tried to kill President Jackson but failed. President Jackson later claimed that he knew the Rothschilds were responsible for the attempted assassination.
Related News:
Political Vel Craft 