Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Monday, March 05, 2012


Some interesting things going on at deLiberation. Check it out.


Admiral38 said...

Dear Editor:

I was somewhat nonplussed to see the opinion in your March 9 issue, “No to AIPAC, No to Israel, and No to War” a fiery essay by Sheldon Richman, from the dubiously titled The Future of Freedom Foundation, appearing in a county newspaper. It was especially disturbing for its siding with the most dangerous trouble spot in the Middle East, Iran, and taking a stand which could affect the entire civilized world. Both Obama and Netanyahu are not threatening to destroy Iran, far from it. They are seeking a non-violent solution to the present situation brought about by Iran’s intransigence and dissembling over its vague nuclear plans.

Who is Richman? I know Richman as an American left-libertarian political writer and academic, best known for his advocacy of market anarchism. Richman and his comrades argue that disparities in wealth and social influence result from the use of force by the state to steal and engross land and acquire and maintain special privileges. The members of this school typically urge the abolition of the state. They conclude that, with state interference eliminated, it will be possible to achieve “socialist ends by market means.” Perhaps this explains his out-of-hand rejection of American foreign policy.

Richman states that Ahmadenijad never threatened to “wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.” In that, he’s correct. Amahdenijad actually said “to drive Israel into the sea.” I think he’s over-parsing the words of the Iranian’s political leader who himself is probably certifiable and is a puppet to the religious caller-of–the–shots, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who finds the freedoms enjoyed by democracies to be offensive.

Richman also claims, without proof, “Netanyahu is shamefully using the Holocaust card as a license to launch an aggressive war against the Iranian people.” That is the most outrageous and far-fetched accusation he could have made. Israel does not seek war…they just want to be free from the threat of being atomized. I would point out that Israel is not the entity that is threatening to use atomic power to disrupt the entire Middle East, it’s the Iranians under the leadership of Amahdenijad, who openly advocates the destruction of the only Democratic state in the Middle East. That is, unless you don’t think “driving into the sea” is equivalent to “wiping them off the face of the Earth.”

I am fully aware that our Constitutional Freedom of the Press allows you to publish anything you choose whether it’s accurate or not, germane to your location or mission, or even the wild ravings of a maniac. Your subscribers will draw the any lines required. As one, I do not find the sort of mass-mailed propaganda such as that produced by the patriotically-dubbed and noble-sounding “Future of Freedom Foundation to be informative fare. As far as that goes, I always thought “The Knights of the White Camellia” had the loveliest of names.

Sheldon Richman said...

Provide me a link to a speech in which Ahmadinejad uses the phrase "driving into the sea." The speech that has gotten all the attention did not use that phrase. It spoke of the "regime in Jerusalem" being erased from the pages of time, quoting Ayatollah Khomeini. He did not mention "Jews." You might explain why the Jews of Iran, a 2,500-year-old, 25,000-person community get no hassle from the Iranian regime or people. You might also explain how the 18th most powerful politician in Iran, with no authority over the military (Ahmadinejad), can be the new Hitler.

As for your other baseless charges, they are all addressed in my article, with links substantiating what I say. Also see Laurence Vance's "Some Caliphate."