Category: Culture

Posted on

Judicial “Putsch”

It turns out the Supreme Court has two buckets for holding ideas. One bucket holds the ideas they like and the other the things they don’t like. However, the two buckets aren’t labeled ‘Likes’ and ‘Dis-likes.’ Oddly enough, one bucket is labeled ‘Constitutional’ and the other is labeled ‘Unconstitutional.’

Can you guess which bucket carries which label?

In our nation’s past, the Supreme Court relied on evidence, facts and relevant testimony to determine how any piece of legislation might appropriately fit within its constitutional boundaries.

In the Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution of the federal government, are few and defined.”

The next sentence follows, “Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” He then adds, “The powers reserved to the several states, will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”

Well, the Constitution hasn’t changed.

In fact, since the Bill of Rights can be rightfully considered part of the original Constitution there have only been 15 additional changes or Amendments.  There is no constitutional authority for the the federal government to intervene in the natural, universal and historic definition of marriage.

The Supreme Court came to a wrong opinion with regard to the constitutional facts of the case. The Constitution specifically leaves the ordinary affairs, concerns for life, liberty, and property to the people and their own desires for local governance.

If the Supreme Court can ignore facts and written history can you and I follow their example?  What will happen to our Constitutional rights? Can they also be ignored?

Does this mean restraints on Congressional action no longer apply?  The preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the States’ desire to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers with further restrictive clauses such as:

  • “Congress shall make no law…” (1st Amendment),
  • “This right shall not be infringed” (2nd Amendment),
  • or, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (4th Amendment)

Can Congress, like the Supreme Court and President, ignore these clear restrictions?

The precedent has been set but not by this Court alone:

  1. Under the guise of economic stability the Federal Reserve has created trillions from thin air;

  2. using security as their shield, Congress routinely searches all of our personal effects, without warrant;

  3. hiding behind the facade of compassion the President modifies immigration policy using his cell phone;

  4. and, the Supreme Court has used equality to execute their ruse.

 

What opinions will the Court foist upon us next week?  Maybe, 2 + 2 = 5.

Convincing the Court they got their summation problem wrong might be harder than you think. Especially if the facts, theories and principles of mathematics are left out of the discussion.  If we disagree with the Court, it is only because we have a different view of the real world.  After all, in a 1992 abortion case Justice Kennedy’s opinion included, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Was their ruling simply one of life’s mysteries?

Justice Scalia, in his dissenting view notes, the people have been robbed, “of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

Like Scalia, I too am astounded by, “the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”  In his closing, Scalia lets his arrow fly straight at the heart of the matter,

“The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop- philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

America needs help from more people like you and I. People who believe in self-governance, freedom and liberty within our Constitutionally ordered government.

By Liberty, I do not mean a state of licentiousness, where our culture subverts order and  breeds a defiance of rules.  I mean, rather, a well ordered government which is limited by a set of specifically enumerated powers.

The Bill of Rights was a beautiful extension of the Constitution where the founders admitted the possibility of government growth and usurpation. These restraints were designed to protect men’s rights from the designs of those who are “more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism.”

*   putsch : noun
1. a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, especially one that depends upon suddenness and speed.

Posted on

Oregon’s Gun Grabbers Strain Reality

Oregon’s Gun Grabbers Strain Reality

The most insidious part of  Oregon’s SB 941 is that it is designed to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Illegal or criminal gun transfers and/or purchases are not happening amongst law-abiding citizens. This is disingenuous and farcical at best and down right evil at its worst.

Call or write these folks to tell them “NO on SB 941”

“NO on SB 941”

Rep Paul Evans 503-986-1420 [email protected]
Rep Brent Barton 503-986-1440 [email protected]
Rep Deborah Boone 503-986-1432 [email protected]
Rep Brian Clem 503-986-1421 [email protected]
Rep Betty Komp 503-986-1422 [email protected]
Rep Caddy McKeown 503-986-1409 [email protected]

In the “Screwtape Letters,” C.S. Lewis has Uncle Screwtape say,

“I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of ‘Admin’ …  The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labor camps.  But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.”

Oregon’s Democratic-led legislature appears to be made of the same sort of quiet men and women. Those, who have the same white collars and skirts, who have smooth-shaven body parts (based on their gender preference) and who will not need to raise their voices, while they take away our liberties.

Crossing the Lines throughout History

Matt Bracken warns us with his recent article at Western Rifle Shooters:

Q_openI am telling you now that disastrous unintended consequences will happen if Congress passes new laws banning presently legal firearms. To make it very easy to remember, and in the spirit of our beloved Department of Homeland Security’s old color-coded security threat levels, let me spell out three lines of demarcation.

The Yellow Line:

The yellow warning line will be crossed with national gun registration laws, including laws forbidding private gun sales without government permission. When that law passes, millions of Americans will feel that they have been pushed directly to the edge of the abyss above the mass graves of history. Defenders of the Second Amendment know what happened in Turkey, the USSR, Germany, China, and other nations that fell under totalitarian rule: in every case a necessary preliminary step on the road to genocide was national gun registration, followed by confiscation. The Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust say, “Never again!” And so do we.

The Red Line:

The red line will be crossed with the passage of laws mandating that currently owned weapons, ammunition magazines, and ammunition quantities above a certain number must be turned in to authorities or destroyed, and thereafter their simple possession will be a felony. At that point, the nation will be on a hair trigger, with a thousand flaring matches nearing a thousand primed cannon fuses aimed directly at the next Fort Sumter.

The Dead Line:

The next line requires a bit of history to explain. In some primitive Civil War POW camps, where lack of funding or logistical constraints did not allow the construction of proper fences, a knee-high continuous railing of wooden slats encircled the prison grounds. Guards with rifles were positioned at the corners and in crude towers. If a prisoner so much as stepped over the narrow plank, he was shot dead without warning, obviating the need for a real fence to contain him. Hence the term “dead line.” Cross the line and people die, right now.

And this is what liberal utopians must understand: after passing the yellow line with national gun registration and transfer requirements, and the red line by making possession of currently legal firearms felonious, the dead line will be breached with the first SWAT raids upon citizens suspected of owning legal firearms made illegal by the new gun control laws. People will die resisting confiscation, in large numbers.

Confiscation crosses the dead line, make no mistake about it.

So this essay is really for you, Mr. Security Agent, because it won’t be elite Manhattan or Malibu liberals or Ivy League professors or politicians or columnists who will be ordered to strap on the sweat-stained body armor and enforce the new gun control laws at gunpoint. No, that grim task will fall to you.

But as long as you are an honorable agent of the people while an employee of the government, and as long as you honor your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, then you will encounter no problems at all with gun owners. Why? Because you will refuse to take part in gun confiscation raids. Period. End of sentence, end of paragraph.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the leading American law enforcement agency, at least in terms of its long history and high prestige. Dear Mr. Security Agent, please consider that F.B.I. also stands for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. Soon, your fidelity to your solemnly sworn oath may be severely tested. It will take a lot of bravery to make your personal integrity a higher calling than following illegitimate orders, simply to maintain your steady paycheck and benefits.

On the other hand, if you no longer resemble the upstanding and honorable federal agents I have known in the past, if that whole oath-to-the-Constitution shtick was a big fat joke to you and you would accept a transfer to the old Soviet KGB or East German Stasi for a ten percent pay raise…then we are definitely going to have a problem. So that oath you swore really matters, one way or the other, and so does your personal sense of honor.

Dear Mr. Security Agent, let me spell it out. If you find yourself in the sub-basement of an annex to a secret intelligence center on the far end of town, waterboarding citizens into revealing the locations of suspected “illegal caches” of firearms, ammunition or ammunition magazines that were legally owned in 2012, then know this one simple fact: tens of millions of Americans will most surely consider you a betrayer of your sworn oath and a traitor to your country.

And so, if you find yourself silently dismounting a covert SWAT vehicle at zero-dark-thirty, dressed all in body armor, counting down to the time-coordinated explosion of battering rams and flash-bang grenades, on a raid against a sleeping household intended to result in the confiscation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition magazines that were legal to own in 2012, millions of Americans who also swore an oath to defend the Constitution will consider you their domestic enemy, and they will resist you with force of arms. Just as the soldiers of King George were resisted on another notable gun confiscation raid on April 19, 1775. It used to be called “The Shot Heard ’Round the World.”

You may consider the sentiments expressed above to be absurd, hyperbolic, dangerous, ridiculous, or simply wrong-headed. But please understand that tens of millions of Americans feel this way to their cores, and they will not be disarmed without a fight. Well-meaning but naive liberals should understand the certain-to-follow consequences of new gun control laws intended to disarm their fellow citizens in the name of “public safety.” LEOs and FLEAs should understand the dire consequences of participating in gun confiscation raids, in direct violation of their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The unintended consequences of this misguided utopian fool’s crusade to ban guns would include a second civil war as agonizingly painful as the first one, if not more so, since there would be no front lines and no safe areas for anybody, anywhere. Every sane American wants to prevent such a calamitous outcome as a “dirty civil war” on United States soil.

But know this: those tens of millions will never be quietly disarmed and then later forced at government gunpoint Q_closeonto history’s next boxcars. If boxcars and detention camps are to be in America’s future, then you, Mr. Security Agent, will have to disarm them the hard way first. Not Piers Morgan, not Michael Moore, not Rosie O’Donnell, not Dianne Feinstein, not Chuck Schumer.

Original Post by: Matt Bracken was born and raised in Baltimore, and graduated from the University of Virginia and Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training in 1979.

 

Posted on

Wonderful Satire – Travel back to the trials of life in 1903

Rare Original Letter from 1903

Originally Posted on April 10, 2015 by Dani

(Seeing as how this column (5 reasons marriage doesn’t work anymore) has become quite popular lately, I thought it was fitting to share this similar concern from a distressed gentleman in 1903, written to the New-York Tribune in a fit of distress.)

(Not really, this is my satire. But you get it… don’t you?)   –  Dani

 

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to this esteemed publication because I have a serious concern about the future of our cities, indeed the very fabric of our great nation. It is my belief, as a gentleman of New York and an established member of society, that marriage can no longer be the sanctuary and happy haven it once was, in our new industrial age.

What is the hindrance to domestic bliss, you ask? I shall give you five reasons. The first, my dear sirs, it is nothing less than Henry Ford’s cursed invention, the automobile.

No more can gay parties of young people ride out for a day of fox-hunting or horsemanship, and so become engaged to a worthy partner of their choosing. No longer to docile ladies and comfortable gentlemen engage in Sunday drives in small buggies, just the right size for appropriate closeness to one’s spouse.

No! No! Today we zoom about in these infernal machines, so loud we cannot engage in civilized conversation and so dirty that our driving-clothes are reproachably sullied after a short outing, requiring much more time and energy spent on the laundry. No lady, no matter how beautiful, can be made to look desirable in those hideous goggles, and we daily see young people dashing about with hair askew and windblown, quite the opposite of the order and decency that makes for healthy matrimony. The automobile is so corrupting our morals and meddling with our society that I fear within 20 years young people will not wish to marry at all, but will live listless lives of unproductive excitement-chasing, all in the pursuit of speed and thrills.

Which brings me to my second point. Young men, rather than donning a sharp waistcoat and boots to meet ladies of repute, are now walking about in whatever dismal jacket they see fit, without so much as a proper hat to appear respectable. It’s no wonder the young ladies are so unwilling to become tied down to one of these scamps – indeed, my esteemed neighbor, Mrs. Winston, informed me last evening that her niece neglected to become engaged until the eve of her 28th birthday, because of lack of suitable mates. I’d wager she finally found herself a fellow with a clean waistcoat, but I fear for her fair, younger sisters.

So, this leads me directly into point three. I married my own bride when I was only just 20 years old, fresh from university, with a steady income from my family’s estate and pockets full of dreams, all set to marry a young lady my parents approved of. Why on God’s glorious Earth are these young ladies and gentlemen not doing the same? Why not marry, set up house, bring forth lovely children and make your families proud? I will go back to my first point, that the automobile has much to do with this, although I also fear that we have been too lax with our youngsters and indulged their whims for too long. Our country shall suffer without these blessed young marriages, I’ll tell you.

Point four follows in equally dismal observations: that more young men are ceasing to farm and breathe the healthful country air, but are instead hanging about in dirty cities, with uncivilized work. What gentleman runs factories, I ask you? Not a genuine one, as all the real gentlemen are growing food and families in the broad countryside of our lovely nation. Time in cities will not serve our young people well, I tell you, as they will age into minds as cramped as a Harlem tenement. Do not even conscience the thought of the young ladies they shall find in such places – all immigrants and servant-girls and ladies of ill-repute, to be sure.

Which brings me to my last and final point, indeed the most grievous one of all to me – that our young ladies and gentlemen can hardly be called such anymore, as the old names and old crests mean nothing to today’s youth. Why, just the other day I was purchasing goods at Mrs. Parris’ shop and a young fellow had never heard of my family name. I tell you, this might be America but my grandfather is from good English stock and his lands and titles ought to mean something. Young people nowadays should have some respect for the old ways and the old country, even if we are in the new world.

For these five points and many more, I regret to say that I fear marriage is done for, dear sirs. I hope that we may yet rescue it, but only if we burn every automobile and industrial building to the ground. With modern contrivances I just simply cannot see how anyone can remain in a happy union, and so I shall retire to the country with my dear wife and wait out the end of my days in despair for my beloved children, who have been so led astray by that damnable Henry Ford and his ilk, inventing needless contraptions and ruining our society.

Sincerely, the Honorable Mr. Alastair Jenkins, Esq.

View the original post here and give this girl a nice “Thank you” for a job well done!

Posted on

Today’s MUST DO

Today, I have a MUST DO for you (and your posterity…)

I want to recommend a book that is a literal gold mine of history, ideas and strategies for Conservatives.

The book is TAKEOVER by Richard A. Viguerie.

Viguerie’s style and story-telling is entertaining and informative. He provides great insight into the political machinery that is enamored with using the utopian ideals from a failed progressive platform to harm today’s Constitutional Conservatives. And, all within the Republican party.

Reading the book will be the easy part.  Restoring America to its founding principles, those of self-governance, free-markets and individual liberty, will not be as easy.

For right now, let’s not get bogged down in the seemingly impossible but concentrate on the do-able and get the book!

While you read, enjoy the knowledge, wit, wisdom and history that Viguerie presents. In the end you will see the value of simply remaining true to your common-sense desire for freedom. The ideas we carry concerning liberty are not complex. They are simple, self-evident and part of our American heritage. Clarence B. Carson, a historical economist, writes in his book, The American Tradition:

“That the central American tradition was erected around the goal of liberty is manifest in the great documents of our history. It was explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the structure of government provided for in the Constitution of 1787. Liberty was declared to be the object of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties of 1641, and was undoubtedly the purpose of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.”

Therefore, it will be worth your while to get a copy of TAKEOVER and contemplate the ideas and associated actions that will be necessary to restore our American tradition of individual liberty.

Jenny Beth Martin, the co-founder and President of Tea Party Patriots, wrote the Forward which I will share here:

Q_openThere is a bitter political civil war taking place that will determine whether America remains a constitutional republic. It is a timeless struggle between those who have power and those who desire to be free. The modern version of this struggle is not between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Republican Party itself.

This civil war began over one hundred years ago and not with the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

It is a civil war between limited-government, constitutional conservatives and the progressive, establishment wing of the GOP. And make no mistake: the establishment wing of the Republican Party is progressive, and has been ever since conservatives stymied Teddy Roosevelt’s attempt to reclaim the Republican presidential nomination in 1912 and make progressivism the governing philosophy of the Republican Party.

In the years since 1912, this civil war has been playing out, and for the majority of that time, from the Taft-Eisenhower campaign of 1952 to the Tea Party’s battles to nominate and elect limited government constitutional conservatives in 2010 and 2012, Richard Viguerie has been in the thick of the battle.

Richard’s objective in writing this book is to provide a plan for conservatives to win this civil war based on the lessons he has learned—from both success and failure—in over fifty years of being active in the conservative movement at the national level.

It is a plan for constitutional conservatives to take over the GOP so that we may restore the liberty and opportunity that the Founders intended and protect that great document, the United States Constitution.

The millions of Americans who are drawn to the Tea Party movement understand that progressives in both the Democratic and Republican Parties have usurped power and overrun the Constitution. The Obama administration is the most extreme example of progressive rule, but the road to where we are today was built with the willing participation of establishment Republicans.

James Madison foresaw the likelihood of this civil war, although not within a political party, in Federalist No. 44, where he wrote, “In the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.”

Madison’s “remedy” must play out within the Republican Party since the Democratic Party has been completely taken over by progressives whose policies cannot succeed without ignoring and violating the Constitution.

In TAKEOVER Richard shows us that the ballot box of the Republican primaries is where we must begin to fulfill Madison’s remedy of electing “more faithful representatives.”

Time is running out, and if we fail in this task, our children, grandchildren—our posterity—will never know the America for which millions have sacrificed their labor, capital, lives, and limbs. Unless the Republican Party fulfills its promise and becomes the constitutional alternative to the progressives, I fear the “American experiment” is over.

The rise of the Tea Party citizenry and the election of young, principled constitutionalists to the Congress and in state legislatures is a sign that this war is about to turn, and in TAKEOVER Richard Viguerie gives us a road map to make it turn in our favor.

Where we are now is the culmination of decades of struggle, which is why the younger people in our movement especially must know what has worked and what has failed up until now.

It is to the younger generation, who has the most “skin in the game,” that TAKEOVER is addressed. Those who join us in this civil war are fulfilling an obligation to our children, grandchildren, and generations yet to be born that I dare say is no less consequential than that of the Founders.

Q_closeThe goal of Richard Viguerie’s TAKEOVER is for limited-government constitutional conservatives to take over the Republican Party and govern America in 2017. I urge you to read the book, follow the plan, and get in the fight today.

 

Screenshot_2167

 

Forward was originally published at ConservativeHQ and can be read here: Permalink

Posted on

Last Night’s Pizza-box and your 2nd Amendment Rights

Over-Stepping the Boundary Line

The anti-Federalists recognized the dangers of arbitrary,  capricious or whimsical actions by a nation’s ruling class. The anti-Federalists also understood that it didn’t matter if the ruling class was comprised of an individual like our US President, or a monarch like King George III. They knew danger could also arise from oligarchies, or democracies when  government oversteps it’s boundaries.

Over-stepping occurs constantly because of Republican traitors and Democratic idealists. The Democrats love big government and they are simply following their natural ideological bent.

Republican platforms at the national, state and county levels all oppose big government (cf., Ending Groundhog Republicanism). Although Republican statists claim they are against big government they rarely vote against big government. It turns out to be a convenient campaign ploy to retain votes from their conservative base.

The Republican elites in Washington, DC know all too well how to use their positions to threaten industries, extort corporate contributions, or legislate market disruptions that bring rewards to certain beneficiaries.

My words here are well chosen. You may think of treason as “acting to overthrow one’s government.” There is another definition which I intend. It is, “the betrayal of a trust or confidence, or a breach of faith.”

You and I have been betrayed

The Republican ruling class has placed their bets on a house of cards. They have wagered our children’s futures for their rewards today. They have immunity from ObamaCare. Do you? They hinder your job prospects while opening the field for themselves and their friends. They create factions among us and set contradictory and unattainable priorities.  This not only confuses citizens, it confuses markets.

Businesses need accurate information for making sound and efficient use of their resources. Are production capacities at optimal levels? Should the product mix be modified to take advantage of changing circumstances, supplies, or increases in market demand? No business can make an informed decision when the market is distorted by government intervention. There are false incentives, unwarranted subsidies, cheap money and limited access to natural resources. Each of which negatively and artificially impacts business decisions.

These contradictory and unattainable priorities confuse and hobble working people in our communities. Their unattainable priorities  are really false promises. Pennsylvania’s anti-federalist delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1776 recognized this. They identified the political maneuvering behind these false claims which were, “exciting [the Federalists] hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce….”

anti-Federalist Proposals

The anti-federalists also documented their dissent for the proposed Constitution because it did not include a provision for the right to bear arms.  Their desire was to include wording which would guarantee no future jurisdictions could subvert this natural right for personal and family defense.

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.”

In particular, notice the phrase “and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them”.

You and I have been told the 2nd Amendment covers this and protects our right to bear arms.  You may even believe that it’s language is complete. You may be of the opinion that the phrase in our 2nd amendment which reads “shall not be infringed” is as good as gold.

Yet, our 2nd Amendment right is the right most often infringed. Our Democratic led Oregon state legislature is intent on infringing this right daily during the current legislative session.

Additionally, Constitutional Amendments can be repealed. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the 21st Amendment.

What defense is there for stopping devious, disingenuous  or corrupt men after they gain office?

First, arm yourselves with facts.

Did your Republican representative vote for the $1.1 trillion CR/Omnibus budget? This improvident legislation fully funded Pres. Obama’s scheme to “fundamentally transform America.” Obama received his needed wink and nod from two weak-kneed RINO’s,  Speaker Boehner and Rep. Walden. Those two RINO votes made the difference as it passed 214 to 212 on its initial journey through the House.

The only legislative restraint on Obama’s takeover of one-sixth of the US economy (healthcare), his executive amnesty plans and the EPA’s unprecedented assault against America’s natural resource sector was funding. Not any longer – the House fully funded all of Obama’s initiatives.

Our Turn Now

Use your knowledge and power in your local elections. Your proximity gives you more power in the local arena. Use it or lose it – vote for Liberty.  Elect conservative men and women to your County Commissioner positions. Encourage your County Commissioners to support the 2nd Amendment by passing legislation prohibiting the funding of activities which violate your inherent rights.

Elect true conservatives at every level of local government (even the County Dog Catcher if that position is an elected office.)

Elect true conservatives in all State and National races, whether House or Senate.

If your representative violated your trust, just throw ‘em out,  along with last night’s pizza-box.

Recommended Books…

Screenshot_2163Screenshot_2167Screenshot_2166Screenshot_2165Screenshot_2164

Posted on

Iron Handed Despotism

“Miserable is the lot of that people whose every concern
depends on the WILL and PLEASURE of their rulers.”

– Dissent of Pennsylvania Minority

In the article, Under the Guidance of an Arbitrary Government, I mentioned the anti-Federalists and I have received several questions about their ideas. Aside from, “Who are those guys?”, I received many questions about the motivations of the anti-Federalists, and their recommendations during the Constitutional convention of 1787.

Today I’ll start a series answering those questions and I’ll show you the similarities between their positions and the mindset of today’s Tea Party patriots. The Federalist and the anti-Federalists were both vibrant contributors to the creation of our Nation, our Constitution  and our Bill of Rights.

Wikipedia explains…

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.

The anti-Federalists were the Tea party heroes of the day because they recognized the sublime, self-evident and universal truth of Lord Acton’s statement, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

A Pulitzer Prize historian, Leonard W. Levy, notes, “The Framers and their supporters are known to us as the Federalists, and those who opposed ratification are the Anti-Federalists. The name Anti-Federalist was an opprobrious (shameful) epithet artfully fastened on those who opposed ratification by those who shrewdly called themselves the Federalists. (History is written by the victors.)”

The “victors” knew the power of propaganda in swaying the public mind. We see the same distorted and inaccurate clamor in today’s issues like “environmental justice”, “income equality”, or “a women’s right to choose.”  The terminology or language of the debate is framed purposefully so that the opposite view automatically gets a negative sounding connotation. For example, the “pro-choice” position was chosen rather than the more accurate title “pro-abortion”. This makes those holding the opposing view sound tyrannical because they are against choice and freedom. When the stated position is positive, what is left but negativity?

Using the pamphlet, entitled “Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention” from December, 1787, as a sample we can see the clear articulation of sound anti-Federalist ideas.

The anti-Federalist believed in local governance and representation, just like today’s Tea Party. They  accurately predicted these potential problems with consolidated power under the Constitution:

  1. “[M]ust necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states”
  2. would produce, “one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism”
  3. “The powers of Congress… are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments; whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed.”

 

Couple these well-warranted fears about state sovereignty with Jefferson’s dream of many thousands of small government jurisdictions composed of local communities and you can see the beauty of dispersed governmental power. With these historical insights we can understand why liberty-loving Americans are so disappointed with Speaker Boehner and the establishment Republicans in their efforts to consolidate more federal power under President Obama’s recent “CROmnibus” legislation.

As citizens, you and I are supposed to carry the ultimate authority.  Our ability to have meaningful engagement becomes evermore diluted as federal consolidation diminishes our voices. Jefferson agreed. In his correspondence with Abigail Adams he admitted, “If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one [a nation] of the most extensive corruption; [it will be] indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.”

The fears and questions raised by these Founders are the same ones I have today:

  • Is the “majority” always right?
  • How does the minority get represented when the majority is unwise and abusive?
  • How will we ensure local authority vs. control from those in far distant cities?
  • How do we hold those who have violated our trust accountable?
  • Is there a “higher law” to which men are accountable?

Thoughtfully consider these questions and send me your comments.

Check in next time as we tackle more of the fundamental ideas voiced by the anti-Federalists and read their recommendations for our future.

Posted on

Under the Guidance of an Arbitrary Government

Biggest Upset in 100 Years

Matt Kibbe, of FreedomWorks, reported today that over 13,000 phone calls and 20,000 messages were received by the U.S. House encouraging House members to vote against Rep. Boehner for Speaker of the House.

In his correspondence Kibbe told supporters, “You more than doubled the number of Republicans standing up to Boehner when you got 25 Republicans to vote against the Speaker– the biggest number in 100 years.”

This is fantastic because these true representative heroes, (although, “defectors” from the elite Republican ruling class), stood on principle. They did not stand on personal gain, enhanced standing or promises for committee chair positions. They stood on principle!

This incident, with only twenty-five “defectors”, reminds me of a historical event – the Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention.

On December 18, 1787, twenty-three men wrote out their well documented and succinct reasons for opposition to the ratification debate regarding the proposed U.S. Constitution. They had numerous reasons, including taxes, standing armies, debt, and a well-founded fear that, “under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny.”

These twenty-three men, faced tremendous ridicule and harassment in their public lives. The start of the ridicule came in regards to some dire predictions (all of which have actually come true) and they were accused of voicing arguments whose, “harangue is long and insidious.”

The daily newspapers distributed rebuttals which also labeled them, “among the weak, the wicked and designing.” These twenty-three men were falsely accused of being of a, “disposition, beyond all conception, obstinate, base, and politically wicked.”

The anti-Federalists were actually right!

It is not the degree of political rancor that makes one decision right and another wrong. Neither is it determined by public sentiment or personal choice. It is not this particular vote or that one. Rather, right and wrong are stipulated by underlying principles. Right and wrong aren’t ever-changing, or indeterminate and they must be confirmed by historical experience.

For example, through the ages, murder and theft have been decidedly wrong. It does not matter how big your army is, or how ruthless your neighborhood gang might be – it is wrong to murder and steal.

The underlying principle concerns human rights and the unjustified killing of innocent human beings or the inherent self-evident rights of persons with regard to their property.

I think our experience today, confirms their good reasons for skepticism.  Let’s see what these twenty-three patriots had to say:

“…the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism…”

AND…

“…the question then will be reduced to… whether… the people of America are now willing to resign every privilege of freemen, and submit to the dominion of an absolute government, that will embrace all America in one chain of despotism; or whether they will with virtuous indignation, spurn at the shackles prepared for them, and confirm their liberties by a conduct becoming freemen.”

Like these men, I too want to avoid becoming “the unwilling instruments of tyranny” and I want to thank you and these men for “conduct becoming freemen.”

Keep up the good work and don’t let your establishment Rep., whether Republican or Democrat, rivet any shackles around your ankles.

Posted on

Conservatives vs. Boehner and the Republican Facade

Conservative Challenger to the Establishment’s Gang

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) said Sunday that he will challenge John Boehner (R-Ohio) as Speaker in the new Congress.

“I’m putting my name out there today to be another candidate for Speaker,” Gohmert said on “Fox and Friends.”  Gohmert said that after “years of broken promises, it’s time for a change.”

This is Good News

This is important for all Americans and especially for Republicans.

Establishment Republicans in the House have become too enamored with the Big Red “R” and the big money their offices control. They have lost sight of their founding principles. They have forgotten what limited government and free-enterprise look like.

Margaret Thatcher, in her first speech to the Conservative Party Conference (circa, 1975) described the conservative vision,   “A man’s right to work as he will. To spend what he earns. To own property. To have the state as a servant and not as a master. These are the British inheritance.”

These are uniquely American traits and we successfully spread these ideas to the rest of the world. In fact, Thatcher’s Great Britain inherited them from America.

These were the originating ideals of America but, today, we are at a tipping point.

Our World is Changing

Just six years ago Obama claimed that conservatives, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In the same way, although America’s founders exhibited a profound respect for Christian principles and the moral relevance discovered through Biblical doctrine, then Senator Obama voiced, “we are no longer a Christian nation.”

Our Republican ideals are not composed of wacko, fruit-cake, right-wing blather. Our ideals are the true ideals firmly rooted in the the American Tradition.

They are the ideals of hard-working farmers, ranchers, business men and women who, like myself, have a natural love for freedom and liberty. These ideals represent what we, as conservatives want to preserve – our constitution and therefore, our nation.

Our conservatism is, simply, the best and most accurate assessment of the real world – the world where you and I live. We must fight to stop progressives, compromisers, or moderates, from weaving false ideas into our kid’s textbooks and the vocabulary of the nightly news.

Our Founders Knew Better

The truth is, we don’t cling to our Bibles or guns because we’re bitter. Rather, we cling to things that are true. This is our deepest conviction and stems out of a deep affection strengthened by evidence and rational assessment.

The objectivist Ayn Rand observed, “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”

Do you see her point? The middle of the road is thought of as morally superior, yet, because the middle of the road is not based any principle at hand, it must be based on caprice, or whim.  If it were based on some higher principle, what would that higher principle look like?

  • Is pragmatism the highest good?
  • Would maintaining a rich facade of “care and concern” be better than facing fiscal reality?
  • Is it only a game? Does it matter who wins and who loses?
  • Is it a higher good to sacrifice this item in hopes of accomplishing that one?
  • Is compromise the highest good?

What’s wrong with these principles, and what we lose if we forget what really matters?  Each of these examples might seem legitimate but what are they based upon? What will be our foundation for determining the future direction of our nation’s policies?

America exists because of a calling, “to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” not because of feel-good platitudes.

Ronald Reagan, as one of the world’s most profound conservative communicators (and a close friend of Margaret Thatcher) described our American Ideals in his speech entitled, Our Noble Vision: An Opportunity for All, given March 2, 1984:

An opportunity society awaits us. We need only believe in ourselves and give men and women of faith, courage, and vision the freedom to build it. Let others run down America and seek to punish success. Let them call you greedy for not wanting government to take more and more of your earnings. Let them defend their tombstone society of wage and price guidelines, mandatory quotas, tax increases, planned shortages, and shared sacrifices.

We want no part of that mess, thank you very much. We will encourage all Americans — men and women, young and old, individuals of every race, creed, and color — to succeed and be healthy, happy, and whole. This is our goal. We see America not falling behind, but moving ahead; our citizens not fearful and divided, but confident and united by shared values of faith, family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom.

It’s high-time that voters brought these uniquely conservative, thoughtful and prudent American ideals to the forefront of our own local communities.

Do not let these traditions of Liberty become dusty, old and irrelevant. Tell your House member to vote for the principled conservative, Rep. Gohmert, or pack up and get ready to come home early – for good this time!

Tell Your Representative to Replace John Boehner HERE!

Link to more ringside headlines: