Archive for the ‘History’ Category

Newt Gingrich’s “Zany” Proposals for the Courts

Saturday, December 17th, 2011

"Zany" Court Proposals?

There are those in media who can’t wait to tell you that Newt Gingrich is nuts for wanting to change the courts in any way. Their arguments consist of a defense of the status quo, and they speak in haughty terms about the sanctity of the Constitution, but let us be honest and admit that such huffing and puffing is more bluster than substance.  After all, the US Constitution already provides most powers over the formation of the judiciary to Congress.  They set the number of judges on a particular court, and they set the jurisdiction of the courts, and they decide how many courts there shall be, except that there must be a Supreme Court, which is spelled out in Article III.  The history of Congress changing the composition of the courts is as long as our history, as Gingrich pointed out aptly, but I disagree with some of the examples he used, including particularly the scheme pushed by Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the court with friendly justices.

When Roosevelt found that much of his New Deal program was being found unconstitutional by the “nine old men” on the Supreme Court, he concocted a scheme to change the balance in his favor.  He sent surrogates to Capitol Hill with a plan to add six more justices to the Supreme Court, all of which he would ultimately nominate.  At the time, most of his programs were being found unconstitutional by 6-3 or 7-2 votes, so by adding six more, he would attain a working majority of 8-7 or 9-6 on many of these issues.  It was such a crass attempt to change the court for short-run political advantage that even his own party in the Senate went into virtual convulsions at the suggestion.  This effectively killed FDR’s first court-packing plot, but it did not stop his more subtle plan.

FDR saw that he wasn’t going to get by with such a crudely overt attempt to subvert the court to his will, so he came up with a secondary plan, and he waited a while to implement it.  He discovered that most of these nine old men were not particularly wealthy, and so none had any plans to retire, since at the time, justices could retire to pensions one-half their previous salary.  As Supreme Court justices, most had acquired nice fat mortgage payments, so that to retire would make them unable to live in the manner to which they had become accustomed.  FDR therefore had his surrogates in the House introduce a bill that would increase the pensions of the justices to 100% of their salary, so that they would be induced to retire.  It worked, and in rapid succession, while everybody was focused on his overt plan to pack the court in the Senate, none really noticed this adjustment introduced in the House.  In the end, he got his way, and New Deal programs sped along through the courts.

What Gingrich proposes is not nearly so radical as FDR had accomplished, and yet it is met with more outrage among leftists who would go on record having supported FDR’s plan at the time, they being of the sort who see the Constitution as unlimited in its flexibility.  The truth is that to eliminate the 9th Circuit Court as Gingrich proposes is not such a radical idea in the context of court reforms and changes throughout our nation’s history.  It’s certainly worth considering because some courts have outlived their judicial usefulness or efficacy. All too often, the 9th Circuit Court has been used as an instrument by leftists to promote an activist agenda, and we should consider the merits of Gingrich’s proposal carefully.

On the other hand, the part in all this that bothers me is not that Gingrich seeks to restore the balance of power among the three branches, because like many others, including Mark Levin, whose book Men In Black details the myriad ways in which the courts have become their own sort of ruling oligarchy, I too think the courts need reform.  More troubling to me on the part of Gingrich is that this is the same guy who endorsed Dede Scozzafava for the 23rd District of NY, despite the fact that she is anything but a conservative.  That bothered many conservatives and Tea Party patriots at the time, and it should be noted that this gives me pause with respect to the sort of judges Gingrich might appoint to the high court if he were entrusted with the presidency, while admitting that Mitt Romney had not done any better.

This is the reason the selection of a president, or even a party’s nominee for that office is so critical.  On the other hand, in fairness to Newt Gingrich, it must also be said that the way in which his proposals have been greeted with shrill denunciation is a bit unseemly too, because the Constitution makes clear that the formation of the courts is at the discretion of Congress with the President’s approval through ordinary legislative means.  To raise the sort of ruckus we have seen over this issue since Thursday night’s debate is to overstate the importance of remarks that seemed more aimed at applause than serious legislative priorities.  I could be entirely wrong, of course, and Newt Gingrich might be the wild-eyed courts-smasher they’re all pretending, but it hardly seems likely.  While I question many things about Gingrich’s record, I wouldn’t call this one issue earth-shaking.  In point of fact, the US Constitution makes the issue plain:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (Article III, section 1.)
Later in Article III, it’s given to Congress to establish the jurisdiction of the lower courts.  All in all, Article III makes it plain that the lower courts are subject entirely to Congressional discretion, and the Supreme Court’s make-up and number are likewise under the authority of Congress to determine. Gingrich’s proposals on limiting terms would require a constitutional amendment, and frankly, I have no problem with that either.  This is the primary reason for my opposition to the ridiculously shrill statements some in the media are making about this question, and therefore by implication, Gingrich’s suitability to the office.  There are plenty of  good reasons to question Gingrich, but frankly, this really isn’t one of them. In the establishment media’s desire to undo Gingrich, they’ve actually over-reached this time.
Advertisements

About the Marxist in this Campaign

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

More Accurate Logo

As if we hadn’t already known it, one of Obama’s college cohorts has come forward to say that Barack Obama had indeed been a radical, full-bore communist.  While none of this may be particularly surprising to those of us who have paid attention to Obama’s development as a presidential candidate going at least as far back as his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, I suspect the average American may not have the slightest idea just how thoroughly radical their President’s credentials really are.  This owes to the media that has covered for him, rather than covering him, both in looking at his history and in examining his friends and associations.  Having watched this administration in action for nearly three years, more Americans are realizing something is wrong with President Obama’s view of the country, of values, and of the world in which we live.  What John Drew offers  is a bit of insight into the nature of Barack Obama’s real beliefs and intentions.

According to FoxNation:

Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?

Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”

“Reactionary?”  That’s typical Marxist lingo, but as some have offered, he was younger then, and of course he might have been a good deal more radical in his youth than as he matured.  What is the evidence that this has been the case?  After all, among his first round of appointments were a crowd of Marxists and communists that would have made “Uncle Joe” proud.  Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Samantha Powers(Sunstein’s wife) come immediately to mind, but there are many  more.  As Van Jones admitted publicly, you have to “drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends.”

I’m certain that this bunch of Alinskyite radicals has done precisely that, and Obama most of all.  As I explained in examining Obama’s pro-socialism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, this president believes the left-wing propaganda. One bit of information that has turned up since that speech is that the Weather Underground had its own newspaper back in the 1970s, called Osawatomie.   No kidding.   If you visit the site where this is detailed, you’ll find that much of the jargon and lingo of Obama’s 2008 campaign and his presidency is repeated here.   The point?  He’s a true believer, a man committed on principle to destroying the United States as we have known it.  The key to understanding this is what Drew actually said about his commitment:  He believes an “old-style communist revolution” is a possibility in the US.  Consider that statement, and all it implies, and then remember that Bill Ayers was among those who were planning just such a revolution, and as early as the 1970s, were imagining how to kill off the estimated 25 million people who would not peaceably submit.

I submit to you that if it was your intention to have an old-style communist revolution, if you could capture ruling power by any means, you would be able to wreak havoc on any nation, its economy, and its people, and the reason to do so would be to splinter the civil society into warring factions, or to exploit such factions as may already have existed, and magnify them.  Any nation is ripe for revolution when its people are sufficiently primed, and dissatisfaction is the best way to prime them.  Obama’s policies are surely driving greater dissatisfaction as the prices of food and fuel skyrocket, the value of the dollar plummets, and real unemployment is at greater than 16%, and by some calculations, substantially higher.  The nature of statist revolutions requires calamity, catastrophe, and emergencies, under the auspices of which governments extend their control.

When writing his memoirs, Herbert Hoover characterized collectivist revolutionaries’ actions this way:

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “Emergency”. It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini… The invasion of New Deal Collectivism was introduced by this same Trojan horse.” – Hoover’s Memoirs: The Great Depression 1929-1941

What Hoover identified is the ultimate methodology upon which collectivist demagogues naturally rely:  The emergency.  Under emergencies, whether actual or fictional, governments rely upon the extraordinary power to suspend liberties and natural rights, and to otherwise violate laws it is ordinarily sworn to uphold.  Barack Obama is setting us up for just such an event.  What do you suppose is the purpose of the Occupiers?  Their role is to make the American people call upon their government for aid.  These poor useful idiots, most of them, are too blind to see that they will be the first people sacrificed in the name of such an emergency.

It’s time to face the full horrors of what Obama’s presidency holds in store.  Most of us are accustomed to believing that “it couldn’t happen here,” but the truth is that it is happening here.  It’s time we put a stop to it, and defeating Obama in 2012 is just the start.

Remember When America Didn’t Want Socialism?

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Classic!

I’ve got news for some of you: It still doesn’t.  Of course, things have changed somewhat since this cartoon was first made, two decades before my birth, but since a friend provided me a link to it, I thought you’d like to see it because after all, it’s a classic, and because it should serve as a reminder of what we’re really fighting in this election season.  It’s time to concentrate on Dr. Utopia and his snake-oil.  I know, it’s difficult to think about such things while we’re caught up in the latest details of candidates’ sex lives, but take a break from that blood-sport. Enjoy!

Isn’t it funny that when this was made, Americans driving 70% of the world’s cars was still seen as a good thing?  Yes, I want that country back. On the other hand, I can’t help but think of the current president’s spokesman assuring us “Everything is fine.”

“Make Mine Freedom.”

2012: Will The Progressives Run the GOP?

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Bull Moose or Moose Bull?

In 1911, Theodore Roosevelt began his second campaign for President.  Having retired from the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt tried to capture the the Republican nomination in 1912, because he was angry with President William Taft, who had served under Roosevelt as Secretary of War, and had been Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor.  Failing this, he decided instead to run as the candidate of the Progressive Party.  That party is more commonly remembered by Americans as the “Bull Moose Party,” because upon surviving an assassination attempt, Roosevelt announced he was “as fit as a Bull Moose.”  I prefer to drop that label, and focus instead on what the Progressive Party really was: A National Socialist Party that was subsequently rejected by the American people, but in 1912, resulted in a split in the Republican Party that handed the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a Socialist.  It’s useful to understand the political parties of the time in evaluating the 2012 election, because if the past is prologue,  what we may be seeing now is merely a global re-run of the worst parts of the 20th century.

First, let us understand what the Progressive Party of 1912 had wanted to accomplish, and what its platform contained. Here is a sample:

  • A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
  • Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
  • Limited injunctions in strikes
  • An eight hour workday
  • A federal securities commission
  • Farm relief
  • An inheritance tax
  • A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax

These may sound familiar to you because all of them have become law in some form or fashion.  These may also sound familiar to you because these were the same ideas on which Woodrow Wilson substantially campaigned.  In fact, with the progressives under the flag of the Republican party in Congress, the progressives in both parties succeeded in putting this agenda through, and Wilson was only too happy to oblige.  In short, the “Bull Moose” Party consisted of the RINOs of their day.  They were the barely disguised fifth column of the main socialist political formation, and they managed to convince enough Americans unaware of their designs to aid them in implementing the first steps in converting our country from a Constitutional republic into a Socialist democracy.

Ask yourself this: How many of the current Republican candidates support the list of measures above?  After nearly a century, the answer is: Almost all modern Republicans accept most of the ideas outlined in the platform of the Progressive party of 1912.  So what was the difference, in 1912, between the Democrat progressives, and the Republican progressives?  The Democrat progressives were the US equivalent of European Communists who came to dominate Russia.  The Republican progressives were effectively the same as the National Socialists that would rise to prominence in Germany.  They were both brands of statism, as I’ve discussed previously.

Weigh this against our current situation.  Today, many conservatives look at Romney, or Gingrich, compare them with Obama and are frequently led to ask:  What’s the difference between leftist progressives and so-called “right-wing” progressives?  The truth is that just like in 1912, the differences are few, and you will note with some disappointment that Woodrow Wilson was able to implement most of the planks of the socialist platform outlined above because he had the support of a large number of progressive Republicans who were just enough to rule the day together with Democrats in Congress.    If this sounds familiar when considering Speaker Boehner, and the rest of the Republican sell-outs in our current House GOP leadership, you’re spot on.  The differences between today’s progressive Republicans and 1912’s “Bull Moose” Party are essentially nonexistent.   When you realize that certain powerful players financed both the Bull Moose and Republican parties in 1912, not as a political insurance policy as is so common these days, but in order to keep them at odds, and thus effectively keeping them at rough parity, giving the election to Democrats.  You can bet that this is what is being done in the US at present.

The progressives have always used their friends in the Republican party to undermine conservatives.  This is not a new tactic or practice, and in this sense, Ross Perot was much the same thing, with his runs in ’92 and ’96.  Those of you who believe the establishment wing of the Republican party would rather see Barack Obama elected than to let conservatives into power must understand that this would not be the first time such things have happened in electoral process in the United States.

This is done for no other reason than to prevent the rise of a populist conservative in the Republican party.  The progressive would win every election if they could, and they do their level best to carry that out, rigging both parties with firmly progressive candidates.  That way, while they would prefer the Democrat progressive, the very worst outcome they expect to see is a Republican progressive.  You and I are the rabble to be kept in line with appeals to patriotism, faith, and unity.

In 1992, Ross Perot arose to run on behalf of the “volunteers,” who were roughly analogous to the Tea Party today.  He was doing so well at one point that he suspended his campaign, which was enough to prevent him from winning, but not enough to allow Bush to win: He still  siphoned off enough of the electorate to give Bill Clinton a plurality.  It worked so well that in 1996, they brought him back for a second round.  Dole was a weak candidate, but Clinton had significant problems, so a little insurance was needed. Once again, Bill Clinton failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote, winning with a plurality instead. While not as stark as in 1992, it was clear that without Perot in the race, there was at least some chance Bob Dole could have won.

You might ask what any of this has to do with Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party.  My answer to you is that conservatives are being set up again.    The progressives aren’t finished, and they intend to win in 2012 irrespective of the Republican Party primaries.  Enter Americans Elect.   As I’ve explained before, Americans Elect is a group that is seeking to put a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states in 2012.  They’ve not yet picked a candidate, who will be picked later on-line, but this candidate will almost certainly seek to appeal to the disaffected Tea Party types.  The purpose of that candidacy will not be to win, but to divide the center-right and allow Obama to be re-elected.  Their candidate will pose as the modern-day variant of the “Bull Moose” party, and in many ways, it will be.  Be prepared for this to play out. Increasingly, you may notice the Americans Elect ads on sites around the Internet.

All of this is contrived.  I see no way to overcome the progressives of either party in the 2012 election without some radical new thinking about our remaining choices.  Mitt Romney is currently attacking Newt Gingrich as not being conservative.  This is roughly akin to a singularity calling the kettle “black.”  While Newt certainly has his warts, Willard has more.  The conservative base generally recognizes this, which accounts for Gingrich’s meteoric climb since the beginning of Cain’s fall.   Conservatives and Tea Party folk  are looking for a real conservative, and while they are forced to overlook many flaws in Gingrich to see him as a conservative, they look at Romney and see what has been widely described in conservative circles as “Obama Lite.”  No conservative wants to vote for such a prospect, and that they’re willing to turn to Gingrich speaks volumes about their displeasure with Romney.

As this blog has reported, many of these same conservatives and Tea Party patriots would have preferred Sarah Palin to the lot of those still now in the race.  The reason for the ups and downs of the primary season thus far is largely due to the fact that conservatives are seeking a single candidate upon which they can all agree.  They look around the party, and they notice flawed candidates, and while no candidate is ever perfect, they simply see little to recommend in the ones now offered.  The worst part is: They’re right.

If you think conservatives are being set up, I have a suspicion you’re right.  Karl Rove is still out there stirring the pot, and whether he’s a Romney guy, or he’s banking on some late entry, he’s not finished either.  He represents the same progressive wing of the Republican party, so there’s little doubt but that where Rove is, trouble can’t be far behind.

Beware the “Bull Moose” or any reasonable facsimile thereof.  Be sure that a late entry isn’t designed to lead you to slaughter.  The progressive wing of the Republican party isn’t a friend to conservatives, never mind Tea Party folk, and while I have no advice to offer you on candidates to support, I nevertheless remain convinced that the progressives of the Republican party would rather assure Obama’s victory than to let an actual conservative win.  It now falls to you to decipher who that may be.  Progressives favor progressives, and they stick together irrespective of party.  The Republican progressive view themselves as the “loyal opposition,” and in this you should recognize with which ideology their loyalties lie.  It isn’t free market capitalism.  It isn’t conservatism.

 

Barack Obama Unmasked: Calls for National Socialism

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

At Least He Now Admits His Aims

Before you discard what I’m telling you as the mere rantings of another conspiracy kook, I’d like you to consider with me what are the facts of President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, KS, on Tuesday.  Apart from the opening gaffe that I’ve already covered, I’d like to talk to you about the dishonest and irrational pronouncements of this president, and the virtual repeat of history’s worst calamities this man is intent upon recreating.  When I examine his words, and I think about their meaning, it becomes clear where this president is leading us.  If you think the worst regimes of the 20th Century were monstrous, what this man has in store for the American people will shock you when you consider what he’s really advocating.  Most people will hear the applause lines and think this had been just one more political speech, but this speech had been the confessions of a tyrant.   I’d ask you to bear with me as I help you to see the plain truth of it, if you haven’t noticed it already.

The first thing this professional demagogue said was intended to establish his legitimacy via his maternal grandparents.  He spoke about their lives, and the work they did, and he sugar-coated their beliefs.  He used his grandparents as a device of  nationalistic appeal to his countrymen:

“My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.”

Germany wasn’t fascist in strict definition.  Germany was a state dominated by national socialism.  This is the root of the term “nazi.”  The original word that is its root is the German Nationalsozialismus.  With this in mind, it was then surprising to some to hear President Obama say the following:

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

You can put a lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The President here is selling the notion of a “New Nationalism” that he defines as Teddy Roosevelt did.  Roosevelt’s nationalism had a distinctively socialist flavor, as does the President’s.  For those unfamiliar, or who have been misled by generations of revised history, let’s clear something up:  The Nazis were never right-wingers.  The notion of right-wing as we know it in this country is entirely unlike that which is known to Europeans.  In our terminology, right-wingers are conservatives, and libertarians.  In Europe, the right wing is merely a nationalistic slant on the same old socialism.  Obama understands this, and this is why he references Teddy Roosevelt, a man thought kindly by many Americans for his purported streak of independence, but more importantly, for his charge up San Juan Hill.  The truth of the matter may be disconcerting to some Americans, but Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, little different from Wilson, or any of the others, varying only slightly as the Europeans of the day who were either internationalists(Wilson) or more nationalist(Teddy Roosevelt.)  They were all monstrous leftists.

The cat Mr. Obama here lets out of the bag is that he’s about most of the same things.  He says here that he is in favor of redistribution of wealth in the name of social justice, much like Teddy Roosevelt had been, but also like another monster, in Central Europe arising from the ashes of a post-World War I Germany.  In order to downplay fears, Obama offered:

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

I wouldn’t laugh too hard.  Roosevelt had become a radical, and he was a socialist, and to an extent, even a communist.  Let’s be clear about another thing, while we consider all of this:  The only difference between Hitler’s Nazi Party and Stalin’s Soviets is that the two were rival gangs within the same broad philosophical and political range.  There’s no difference, in fact, between their theories, because what they all really are falls neatly into a simpler term, popularized by Ayn Rand, and reintroduced to Americans who had forgotten it, or never known it, by radio host Mark Levin in recent years:  Statists.

All of European polity, then as now, consists almost entirely of one form of statist thought or another.  The particular form is irrelevant, because they’re all equally bad in the end.  Statism is best defined as the theory of politics that demands all people must exist for the purposes of the state, as some form of the expression of the will of the collective, or of God.   Theocracy is one form of religious statism, but so is Monarchy(Divine Right, and all of that.)  Secular statism includes Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, but also Democracy.  The Chinese government has now rebranded themselves as State Capitalists.  I’d like you to consider the meaning of that term, because it means simply capitalism as practiced by the state without respect to the notion of individual rights.  Strangely, this concept sounds a good deal like the National Socialism Barack Obama now offers, but there is an excellent reason this is the case:  They are for all intents and purposes identical.

Both concepts are characterized by a diminution of the rights of individuals, and the aggrandizement of the state.  The right of property is in varying degrees eliminated, and ultimately, this always leads to a totalitarian state in order to keep the populace suppressed.  What Obama now offers is no different, if you listen closely.  The President of the United States has just declared that the idea of Capitalism, and Free Markets, is dead:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.  But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.  I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Not only has Obama told a gigantic lie, but he has rewritten history as well, all in two nifty paragraphs.  For ease, let’s examine them in list form:

  • “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.
  • “If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.
  • “Sure there will be winners and losers.”
  • “It doesn’t work.”
  • “It has never worked.”
  • “I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.”

I don’t know of an economist, anywhere, who has ever suggested the free “market would take care of everything.” This is either a bold-faced lie, or a statement of Obama’s grotesque misunderstanding of capitalism.  To operate, a free market requires the existence of a government to enforce individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and to punish those (and only those) who violate those rights.  The market also won’t take care of you, the individual.  That’s your job.  The market and free-market economists have never made promises to take care of individuals.  Instead, they have said individuals should take care of themselves, and within that framework, the market will allocate resources accordingly.

The idea is not merely to cut taxes and regulation, but the spending that demands ever more of it.  For all the huffing an puffing that emanates from Washington, we’ve seldom seen actual reductions in spending, and certainly, never enough to make a long-lasting systemic improvement.  I would like for this lying, pathologically dishonest president to tell us in which years the total number of regulations in the United States ever saw a net decrease.  Please, name that year.  Even under Ronald Reagan, that was never true, although her certainly did curtail the rate of growth a bit.  Still, I have yet to see any administration leave office with a smaller body of regulations in force than had been upon its inauguration.  He’s lying.

There will always be winners and losers.  That’s life, and that’s nature.  What the president doesn’t want you to realize is how big a role government now has in choosing who those will be.   Redistribution of wealth, his precious socialism, is nothing but the government choosing who shall win or lose.

Here, he tells us free market capitalism doesn’t work, and never has, and pretends we have tried it.  When?  Not in my lifetime.  Not in his.  Not during the life of his parents or grandparents.  No, free market capitalism, to the degree it ever existed has never been known in any substantial degree by any American less that 121 years of age.  How many of those are around?  The simple truth is that since 1890, with the passage of the anti-capitalist, anti-free market Sherman Anti-trust Act, what had been the dawn of full capitalism in America was quickly put on the tracks toward the establishment of a nation of plunder, as per Frederic Bastiat’s description.

President Obama is lying to the American people, and there’s simply no way around that fact.  More importantly, since he wouldn’t be the first proven liar to occupy the White House, he’s proposing what can only be considered the most radical sort of regime for America’s future.  He proposes full governmental engagement in the redistribution of wealth, and his lengthy speech is designed to give cover to it.  Time after time, he ignored the actual historical record in order to present you with lies, mis-characterizations, and thorough revisionism.   What Barack Obama herein offers you is the promise of National Socialism, as he has now freely admitted, but also State Capitalism as the Chinese propagandists now call their system.  What you need to know is that when Barack Obama tells you about his intentions, he’s telling you about the “dreams from [his] father,” an avowed communist.  You can put lipstick on them, eye shadow, and false eyelashes too, but his plan is the same old National Socialist  pig, and so is our president.

His presidency is now itself a national emergency, and escorting him firmly out through the White House gates in January 2013 must be our response, having inaugurated his replacement.  There is nothing that can mitigate in favor of keeping a man in that high office who wishes to undo the whole of western civilization in the name of a failed theory that has accounted for the slaughter of tens or hundreds of millions of people.  Obama must go.

Frédéric Bastiat’s Nation of Plunderers

Sunday, December 4th, 2011

Frédéric Bastiat

That’s what we’ve permitted ourselves to become, isn’t it?  Rationalize it in every conceivable way though we may, when we get beyond all of the petty justifications we spout in order to sound less monstrous, we have become a nation of plunderers.  There are exceptions, as with any generalization, but it cannot now be said that a majority of Americans have clean hands in the matter.  To some degree, greater or lesser, the blood of this fact taints most of us.  Some of you will know what I mean, but others may be less familiar with the concept.  I believe in informed consent, which means that to give one’s consent to an action, one must have full knowledge of the consequences, risks, and tribulations that may attend that action.  What I do not believe is that by ignoring the full facts, but still giving one’s consent in willful ignorance, one can somehow hope to evade moral responsibility for the results.  In his great text, The Law, Frédéric Bastiat, the great French economist, statesman, and author offered all of the reasons a nation must avoid transformation into a den of thieves and villains, though the robbery be legalized.  It is important to note that as the United States has been on a long and progressive march to precisely the sort of nation Bastiat lamented, most of our citizenry have accepted this devolution.

Our founders, imperfect though they may have been, understood clearly what Bastiat would tell us only a half-century later.  Though they were no longer alive to appreciate his works, appreciate them they would have because in them may be found some of their own ideas.  What the founders understood, but Bastiat made explicit, is that the only thing a government offers to its people is force.  By force, I mean the legal monopoly on power to coerce, compel, and even kill.  Strip all of the other dressings from the function of government, and this is all that remains.   Bastiat asked the question: In which purposes may that force be turned?  His answer was simply: “Justice.”  At this point, many become confused, because the term justice has been likewise demolished and diluted and demeaned to have virtually any and all possible meanings at once.  In Bastiat’s conception, justice was merely the protection of the rights of life, liberty and property, as well as the enforcement of compensations and punishment for the violation of same.  In short, Bastiat argued that government exists to create an objective guarantor of these simple human rights.   For students of American history, familiar with our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, this idea should be very familiar indeed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[74] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

How familiar would Bastiat’s words on the subject have seemed to our founders, and the framers of our Constitution?  Let us consider his thoughts on government’s purpose as laid forth in The Law:

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

What Bastiat understood too well, as his own nation began its collapse into socialism, is that there can be no law that does not respect the rights of life, liberty and property without destroying the entire purpose of law.  Limited to these ends, but nothing more, the law serves all people equally, showing favor to none, but merely confirming the natural rights of all people.  His enduring argument is that a nation based on such an objective standard of law could flourish, and that its people would have none to blame but themselves for their particular predicaments or standing.  Of a “Just and enduring Government,” Bastiat wrote:

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.

This is a monumentally important concept Americans must finally reconsider:  So long as government extends into all parts of every American’s life, no American is safe from the predations of other Americans.  So long as it is accepted that government’s duty is merely to guarantee the rights of individuals, the government is correctly limited, and it does no harm to any citizen.  Each citizen is then safe from predation, or as Bastiat calls it, “plunder,” because protecting people from plunderers, or punishing plunderers is the government’s only just purpose.  As Bastiat explains, man can live by only two basic methods: by his own ceaseless labor in creation of property(material wealth,) or by seizing the property(and wealth) of others.   That’s really all there is, and no exceptions exist in all the world.  What Bastiat noticed is that since people have a tendency to exert themselves to the least necessary extent, they will easily be convinced to engage in plunder by their own rationalizations, or the justifications provided by others.  This is the siren song of socialism, or indeed any form of statism, and Bastiat knew it well.  In explaining how plunder is to be prohibited by the law, he wrote:

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

Bastiat also understood what would happen when the law is turned to the purposes of legalized plunder.  When the proper purpose of law is to prevent or punish plunder, turned to the purpose of managing the plunder instead, the law becomes a great and vast evil from which no man is safe.  This is the reason our framers gave to us a Constitution that protected against plunder, even if the understanding of that Constitution has been perverted precisely to permit the very practice it had been instituted to prevent.  On the Results of Legal Plunder, Bastiat wrote:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

Consider this carefully in examination of our own country, not as it was founded, but as it has come to be over the span of the last century of Progressivism, from both the left and the right.   His enduring prescience was to realize that such a system would of necessity destroy and obscure the differences between actual justice and all the fraudulent forms we’ve been offered in its place.  What else could be the meaning of such contrived notions as “social justice,” “environmental justice,” “economic justice,” “racial justice,” and any other contrivance and dilution of actual justice you can imagine?  Consider only one of these, for instance “economic justice,” by which the speaker intends to say that taking from one person to redistribute to another person or person(s) is a matter of justice.   Is it?  Or is it truly injustice?  If plunder is the determinant, then such notions are all only plunder dressed up behind a facade of some bastardization of actual justice.   As Bastiat notes, justice concerns itself only with the protection of life, liberty, and property.   With what does “economic justice” concern itself?  The answer is clearly: The collective violation of the rights of life, liberty and property.

Many will have noted that when Governor Palin began making use of the term “crony capitalism,” others began to notice the issue.  “Crony capitalism” is merely another form of plunder:  Use the law as an instrument to get from others that which you otherwise would not have gotten.   What it describes is a system in which plunder is not merely legalized, but normalized and institutionalized through the political process.  Two parties, a politician and a corporation, collude to the benefit of both by using the power of the politician to enrich both.  Is there any doubt but that this is the meaning of Solyndra, or any of the other “green energy/jobs” initiatives in which the current administration has invested our precious dollars?

This is ever the purpose of those who extend the meaning of justice from that which it is, to that which it is not.  How many plunderers do you know?  Are you a plunderer yourself?  Before you blanch at the suggestion, consider it carefully:  Do the things you may receive from government, directly or indirectly, spring from the plunder of the property and wealth of others?  In short, are they yours, in fact, or are they really the property of others bent to your purposes, or so-called “needs?”  You need not even have consented to it, at least not knowingly, and yet there you are tied as another perpetrator and victim in this institutionalized plunder.  Examine all the ways you are being plundered, but then examine more carefully all the ways in which you plunder others.

You might claim, as most will, that: “I had no choice, and besides, they plundered me, first.  Mine is just compensation for an earlier plundering of my property(wealth.)”  Let me ask you bluntly then: If your neighbor’s house is robbed, is it thus acceptable for him to rob the houses of his neighbors?  You would decry that suggestion, and tell me that “two wrongs do not a right make.”  I say to you the same, but that some robberies are given cover of legality does not excuse them.   You might say, for instance, that your situation is dire, and having been plundered all these years, you now have no choice but to resort to legalized plunder.  Is this your best offering against justice?  I am in that stage of life in which I am the constant victim of the plunder, but as a child, I was the beneficiary once too:  Did my parents pay directly for my education, or did they rely upon the plunder of their neighbors, many without children, to pay for said primary education?  I could offer that I was a child, but then I must admit that my daughter also received a public education for most of her schooling, and I might note that for one child, the taxes I paid might well have been roughly proportional to the benefit, but nevertheless, I cannot ignore the timber in my own eye on this matter.  Very few of us have unstained hands.

Yet, even if this is so, that we have nearly all participated to some degree, greater or lesser, does it excuse our continuing the practice?  Bastiat thought not.  He completes The Law with a brief suggestion, exhorting readers “Let Us Now Try Liberty:”

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! A way with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

Whatever else you may say about Bastiat’s work, we must admit he had been thorough, and we must acknowledge the wisdom of his position.  He knew what most of our founders and framers had known with respect to the purpose of the law, and why it must be kept to those vital purposes, but permitted no more.  In subsequent centuries, we have permitted the law to fall into disrepair, beguiled with promises of plunder, as we have been plundered, but there exists now a burgeoning front of Americans who have never lived by any means but plunder, from cradle to grave, and they expect it to grow and magnify.  Politicians, engaged in a different form of legalized plunder, have created this army of plunderers to excuse and offer cover for their own(as detailed by Sarah Palin, Peter Schweizer, and a number of others.)  Unless and until the American people recognize that these interwoven systems of plunder are the root cause of most of our discontents, our miseries and our pain, we will continue to suffer them until revolution begets even greater and more perverse systems of plunder.  None of us should think ourselves absolved, but let us take Bastiat’s words and restore justice in law.  That’s the only way we’ll save our nation.

Note: I would encourage readers to read The Law in its entirety.  I’d also encourage you to read Bastiat’s other works, translated here.

Occu-Pests Don’t Speak For Me

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

Do They Speak for You?

I am tired of the notion that these people speak for the 99% of us who are not billionaires.  I’ve grown frustrated listening to their complaints, offered with feeble-minded attacks on wealth, money, and the general notion of capitalism.  There’s a problem with those who lead these Occupy efforts:  They don’t give a damn about this country, its people, or any of the things about which they pretend to care.  Instead, what interests them is cultural rape.  They intend to change this country without your consent, in its laws, in its culture, and in its economics.   The leaders of the OWS movement are simply predators, and while they claim that violence is against their principles, they incite it, they provoke it, and they use the poor misguided folk who are following them to act as their buffer.  BusinessInsider published an interesting piece on the larger aims of the Occupy movement, and I’m afraid the American people have no idea about how thoroughly these people have developed their designs on America.  They’re going to attempt to re-write your Constitution, while you sleep, and as you watch the latest news on the silly stories of the day.

They imagine themselves as a modern-day version of the framers of our current Constitution, laboring in secret to present us with a new Constitution, in order to save us from ourselves.  Let me state emphatically that if they manage to carry off this coup d’etats, I will oppose them, and violently, if need be.  Let me throw down a marker now, so that all may know my position:  If the Occupiers, their leaders and benefactors succeed in trying to foist on the great mass of the American people some foreign system of government, which it now seems is their clear intent, I will be among the counter-revolutionaries who they will be forced to kill.  Write it down.  Bookmark it.  I will not surrender to these people, because in the main, they do not have my consent, and they do not speak for me.  Ninety-nine percent?  My ass!

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like for you to consider what the Occupy movement really has in mind.  This isn’t about the typical complaints, and it isn’t merely about some bankers, some tax rate, or some scheme for  redistributing your wealth.  It’s much more insidious than that, and you need to know that when the poor schmucks who follow the lead of this manufactured movement wind up looking stupid on television, it’s not because the movement has no firm goals, as we all first thought, but because the rank-and-file Occu-Pest doesn’t know what those goals actually are.  In order to understand what it is that they’re going to attempt, you must first understand some history, and I’d beg of my readers to educate themselves with a sense of urgency.  The leadership of this movement is trying to create a bit of theater, in mimicry of a historical event, and you must understand its importance if you’re to have any hope of confronting them.  You in the Tea Party had better pay close attention, because many of you will already know this history, but I am going to show you how they intend to use the weight of history against you and your beloved Constitution. If you wish to know how they are going to attack you, you must know that the past is prologue.  You must know that none of this is really new, but the manner in which it will be done is novel.  Finally, I think we can begin to see what they intend, and for once, I think you ought to know it so that you can do something constructive in opposition.

First, I would like you to acquaint yourselves with the Committees of Correspondence.  These were shadow governments that our founders formed in order to confront the British empire.  These committees were used to oppose the British and essentially superseded the colonial legislatures.  This was the method by which we eventually arrived at the pre-revolutionary state that would lead to the Declaration of Independence and our ultimate separation from the British. It is important to understand that those who are leading the Occupy movement are attempting to carry out something similar, although their desired ends are much different.  They intend to use a seemingly democratic movement to undermine freedom via the state, and they intend a quiet take-over.  Many have referenced their intentions, but it’s clear that most don’t quite understand.

The first thing necessary to their movement is the claim to legitimacy.  This is the meaning of all of this “99%” garbage they’re throwing around.  The truth is, they don’t speak for one percent of one percent of one percent of Americans.  Nevertheless, this will be their claim, and they will try to establish the providence of that claim through the use of media.  As we’ve seen, many in the media are in bed with the Occupy movement, and in at least one case Breitbart has uncovered, they are the media.  Don’tbe surprised when you find that they are now going to claim to be of you, by you, and for you, the American people.  Last week, I reported to you their plan for a national assembly, and now here’s their plan for creating this illusion:

1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.

2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.

3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.

4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.

5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.

6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently.

7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.

8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.

9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.

10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to “purchase” delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate “sponsorship”.

(H/T Business Insider.com)

This is a continuing attempt to make all of this look organic, but more importantly, to legitimize it and to pretend that they speak with authority for the ninety-nine percent they claim to comprise.  In effect, they are trying to create the appearance of an analog to the 1770s and the Committees of Correspondence.  Of course, the next part of their plan is even more insidious, and it is to replace the US Constitution by methods not unlike those employed to replace the Articles of Confederation, except that they will have nothing like the support among the American people that supported revising our Articles of Confederation.  Back when it was first suggested that our first form of government (Articles of Confederation) be revised, that’s what the delegates had been tasked to do.  Instead, they crafted an entirely new constitution and presented it for ratification.  In some contexts, this might have been considered a treason, except that any such claims have been made moot by the subsequent ratification and adoption of our Constitution. Most Americans forget that George Washington was our first president under this current constitution, but that he was not the first President of the United States.  Under the Articles of Confederation, that was the presiding member of Congress, who happened to have been Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781 – July 9, 1781.)  Most people don’t know this because they aren’t taught it, along with so much else in our precious history.

Once you realize what Soros and the others who are driving this intend, it becomes obvious what their methodology will be: They intend to speak on your behalf, and to trump up a movement to convince those in government that they are speaking on your behalf.  There’s only one way to prevent this, and you should fight against it with full resolve. Confront them by telling your representatives in Washington DC that the Occu-pests don’t speak for you.  Confront them by telling the media, loudly and often, that the Occupiers don’t speak for us.  They’re trying to capture the legitimacy born of their 99% claim, but you and I know they don’t speak for anything like the 99% they claim.  It simply doesn’t exist.  There is no overwhelming desire on the part of the American people to replace or radically amend the United States Constitution. I will consider all such radical propositions as they are: Acts of treason.  Also, be aware that this other phony movement, Americans Elect, exists to try to change the way we elect Presidents.  It’s full of Soros shills too, and as I’ve reported before, I cannot trust anyone or anything related to the aims of that man or the multitude of organizations he funds and backs and manipulates.

This movement is being manipulated for one ultimate purpose:  To destroy and replace the US Constitution.  There is nothing else but that goal.  I consider the people leading these Occupiers as fomenting insurrection, while actively plotting treason.  I realize many of the rank-and-file Occupiers don’t understand this, however there will come a point at which they will begin to endanger the Republic, and in their mindless, unthinking support of this Marxist movement, they are assisting to destroy the United States.  In the sense specifically, they don’t speak for me.  They don’t speak for ninety-nine percent, or anything near that number.  They are the loud and vociferous cacophony of ne’er-do-wells who have in largest measure contributed to our current state of presumptive decline.

Ladies and gentlemen, these people and their leadership do not speak for me.  They do not speak for anybody I know personally.  I don’t know any person who actually supports them.  I don’t know a soul who thinks we should ditch our Constitution, never mind by the dictates of some Marxist cabal of Soros flacks.  I don’t know one person, anywhere in my extended circle of friends and family who actually believes in anything the Occupiers are espousing.  None.  Maybe you do, but I’d like to know from my readers:  Do they speak for you?  Do they?  Is George Soros acting on your behalf?  Somehow I doubt it, but rather than make any assumptions, as the Occu-Pests have done, I’m not willing to speak for others.  If the Occupiers don’t speak for you, you should let your government, and the media, and every person you can find to tell them that fact.

They don’t speak for me, and I’d rather die than submit to the mobocracy they envision.

The Push to Destroy Your Liberties

Tuesday, October 25th, 2011

Still Relevant

We have discussed a number of very serious issues here, but some things simply cannot be repeated often enough.  Among the subjects we’ve visited and re-visited is the matter of our Constitution, and how it is being systematically undermined.  Part of the reason the statists get away with this is because they work in secret, putting a public face on their activities that never reveals what they’re really trying to accomplish while trying to sucker us into going along.  Many Americans have fallen for this approach because the fact is that they’re ignorant.  I mean  that quite literally:  They simply don’t know the subject matter, and so are easily misinformed about it.

The subject of how they’ve become misinformed is a question for another day, but it’s time to address the subject matter in detail.  Many Americans have been led to believe  that our system of an electoral college to select a President is bad, because it defeats direct democracy.  The question isn’t whether that’s true – it is – but whether that is a good thing for our nation.  Don’t be fooled by those who pitch to you the notion of eliminating the electoral college, or subverting it.  The electoral college has been and remains a vital force in protecting the long-term health and stability of the nation.

There are several projects out there, most of them being pushed or coordinated by Soros flunkies and shills, who seek to eliminate the electoral college, or to essentially neuter its effectiveness.  This is because the electoral college serves an important function in restraining the capricious will and whimsy of the great body of the electorate.  It’s one of the most important checks and balances in that lovely list of them that had made our Constitution durable.  In our Constitution, there are checks on the Congress, on the President, and even on the judicial branch.  There were also to be checks on our political power.  You might wonder why the framers of the Constitution would do this, but what you must know is that despite the fact that technology changes, the underlying human nature that avails itself of technology never does.  The framers knew this.  They knew that Democracy is merely an angry mob waiting to happen, and that no nation could survive wild gyrations in the battle between competing angry mobs.  Their grand idea was to eliminate the power of angry mobs by muting them and taking away some of their ability to overwhelm orderly changes in government and its institutions.

The electoral college works to stabilize a vast nation with diverse interests by seeing to it that no grossly unbalanced regional interest can hold sway over the nation.  It also places a final line of defense in place against usurpation.  In 2008, that line of defense failed, but not because the system had broken.  Instead, it was only because the people in the system are so corrupt.  No law and no system of laws can prevail so long as corruption runs free within it.  The electoral college permits that a person can win the presidency without securing the plurality of the popular vote if the candidate can win support of a majority of the electors.  Remember, under our system, your vote at the polls in a presidential election is not really binding on an elector.

This is particularly important when you remember that you could theoretically build a majority of the electorate with just the top ten most populace states like California, Texas, New York, Florida, and so on, while overlooking the interests of the less-populated but much more numerous states.  This would create a condition in which a President so-elected would have no inclination to serve the interests of these smaller states, despite the fact that they are much more numerous.  In a popular election, a President might win in 49 states by a narrow margin, but in a single state by a large margin, and win the election, so that the will of the people of 49 states was ignored on behalf of the will of the people of one state.   Remember, ours is a federal system, meaning that despite our tendency these days to think of Washington DC first, the states are really intended to be the seat of most governmental authority and power.  Some will make the specious claim that we are one nation, and as such, should vote as a single electorate rather than a collection of aggregated electorates, but this ignores what the framers sought to insure:  Stable self-governance.

Here are a couple quotes from delegates to the Constitutional Convention that explain their thinking:

“The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.” — Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.” — Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

One can’t help but look to the fools now occupying Wall Street and realize that Gerry was correct. More importantly, however, this mechanism was put in place to ensure that the Federal government would uphold its duty to the states, specified in Article IV, Section 4, wherein it says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government…”

Obviously, they were not speaking of the Republican Party, which did not exist at the time, but rather the concept of a republic, as I have discussed elsewhere. In the coming months, there will be a number of challenged to our Constitutional form of government, and you ought to be intellectually armed to confront them.  Understanding how the electoral college helps preserve our way of life along with our system of government is key to restoring this nation.  Just as a century ago, progressives looked for new ways to subvert this Republic, and managed to enact at least two amendments destructive of it(16th and 17th,) now they are back in force to finish the job.  It’s fitting, then, that our current President is like the the one who took office in March 1913, and who held the American people and the Constitution in a contempt rivaled only by our current president: Woodrow Wilson.  Learn your history, and learn the meaning of your constitution. Teach its brilliant underpinnings to your children and grandchildren.  It’s the only hope we have of preserving it.

Is the US Declaration of Independence Illegal?

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Illegal?

This was the central question of a debate held as a scholarly exercise between American and British lawyers in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, at Ben Franklin Hall.  Clearly, I’m partial to the outcome of the debate, but the points put forward by both sides were interesting to say the least.  As a fan of Natural Law, I definitely support the argument the American attorneys put forth. These sorts of exercises are important in remembering why we are a country, and what had been the philosophical basis of our founding.  We need to remember our history and heritage of liberty, no more than ever.  The event was sponsored and presented by the Temple American Inn of Court in conjunction with Gray’s Inn, London. H/T to Drudge for finding this story.

I think all of us should spend a good deal more time examining our founding, so that we can better understand those principles to which we have committed.  For ease, here are the cases put forth by the respective sides:

The American Case:

The Declaration is unquestionably “legal”. Under basic principles of “Natural Law”, government can only be by the consent of the people and there comes a point when allegiance is no longer required in face of tyranny.

The legality of the Declaration and its validity is proven by subsequent independence movements which have been enforced by world opinion as right and just, based on the fundamental principles of equality and self-determination now reflected in the UN Charter.

The British Case:

The Declaration of Independence was not only illegal, but actually treasonable. There is no legal principle then or now to allow a group of citizens to establish their own laws because they want to. What if Texas decided today it wanted to secede from the Union?

Lincoln made the case against secession and he was right. The Declaration of Independence itself, in the absence of any recognised legal basis, had to appeal to “natural law”, an undefined concept, and to “self-evident truths”, that is to say truths for which no evidence could be provided.

The grievances listed in the Declaration were too trivial to justify secession. The main one – no taxation without representation – was no more than a wish on the part of the colonists, to avoid paying for the expense of protecting them against the French during seven years of arduous war and conflict.

As per the norm, our British friends were slightly more long-winded.  Go read the entire story. Then go read the Declaration of Independence and decide for yourself.  We should really all review these documents occasionally.