In 1607 Jamestown was established as the first permanent colony in the New World. What few people know is that the original charter called for establishing the colony as a sort of communal experiment where there would be no property rights, no independent commerce, no capitalism per se. Within 2 years more than half the colonists had died. It was an early experiment in social engineering patterned as a forerunner of the modern day communist model. It was a complete and utter failure, a bust, a disaster that almost brought down the entire colony. The colonists had learned their lesson and made adjustments, to survive.
In 1620 the Plymouth Plantation was established by William Bradford again using a communal social model similar to the failed experiment in Jamestown. William Bradford took meticulous notes now known as History of Plymouth Plantation and later compiled in the book Of Plymouth Plantation. The book is quite a difficult read for modern day man. Most modern Americans just do not have the reading ability and/or intelligent faculties to comprehend such a book. I am not necessarily recommending the book as I myself have not yet reached to ability to consume such an enterprise. I was like most of you, educated in government schools. That aside it is obvious Bradford was very thorough in his assessment of the experiment. Bradford had similar results as John Smith in Jamestown noting that even with the loyalty of God and religion he was not able to motivate the people to do for each other what they would do for themselves. Bradford abandoned the experiment, to survive.
A book I do recommend is The 5000 Year Leap. This book unlike Of Plymouth Plantation is at least written in modern American English. It does the best job I’ve ever seen in laying out the historical birth of our nation and the meaning of a “Divine providence”. Most people are capable of ferreting out fact from fiction if they have a sound reading background. I know that everything in this book is true and real. It is the real American story. I consider this book to be the greatest book ever written on the subject. President Reagan said, “The 5000 Year Leap should be required reading for every student in America.” I agree. It tells the story of America like you’ve never heard if like me you are a product of government education. This book along with another, Original Intent by David Barton I believe encapsulate and embody the meaning of the birth of our nation. I highly recommend the reading of these two books if you are at all curious about the truth. Neither book is of an author of the original documents, but both have that foundation and are much more palatable to our modern understanding.
Today the teaching of history and philosophy in America’s classroom is rapidly being eliminated. I believe this has been the long shared goal of progressives for years. First, they simply attempted and succeeded in changing the story. Once any mention of God or any supreme being was eliminated it censored vast amounts of history in text books leaving holes in the accounts that were hard to explain away. The modern history book simply did not attempt to explain these holes. The next logical step for the progressive government education administrator was simply to eliminate the subject altogether and forever censure the minds of our youth. That would clear a path for the fertile indoctrination of the progressive agenda. They have been largely successful in their strategic goal. The subject is covered in many books and thoroughly documented under titles such as Dumbing Down America, The Death of Common Sense and others. America, just go read something! But I digress.
Now, let’s get back to our story.
Colonists growing tired and weary of tyranny fought and won their liberty, this we all know. The leaders of their day were extremely well read and generally well educated, this we do not generally know. We know the names of these people, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin. But have you ever heard of George Mason or Fisher Ames? George Mason is considered by historians to be the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and Fisher Ames helped Mason frame the First Amendment. Why were these men left out of history books? Thomas Jefferson gets most of the credit for many of the accomplishments that were really crafted by people like Mason and Ames. Why? Are the history books wrong? In some cases, I would say sadly, yes, but generally history books are not written by historians. They are written by authors and contributors with a political agenda. This is why one must read the original documents or something close to it to get at the truth. I suspect the motive behind the duplicitous behavior of those with historical revisionism in mind comes from the fact that Mason and Ames were very religious men. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand is famously known as agnostic amongst many within our elitist academic culture. This is also false. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were probably two of the least overt religious followers but neither were atheist or agnostic by a long shot. Thomas Jefferson actually authored a book entitled The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, a subject of which is obviously enshrined in the title. Jefferson authored many bills that strengthened protection for religious rights including, A Bill for Punishing Disturbers of Religious Worship and Sabbath Breakers, A Bill Annulling Marriages Prohibited by the Levitical Law and Appointing the Mode of Solemnizing Lawful Marriage, and A Bill for Appointing Days of Public Fasting and Thanksgiving. James Madison offered numerous Presidential proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting and thanksgiving. Jefferson refused to do so on the grounds he believed these functions are better left to the states, hence the popular belief Jefferson was anti-religious. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it would be a challenge to anyone who could come up with a ‘Founding Father’ who was hostile to religion in general. It just didn’t happen.
So what did the founders intend for us and why are these truths no longer self evident? The founders intended a system of LIMITED government. You find evidence of that obvious fact in the Bill of Rights. Why did they believe it necessary for a Bill of Rights? Well, actually the Bill of Rights were not included in the original document as most of the original authors of the Constitution believed it was spelled out clearly enough without listing each right. But pragmatism won out over ideals and the first ten rights were listed. The Tenth Amendment is probably the most beaten down right of all as it is clear evidence the founders intended all powers not specifically listed and given to the Federal government were reserved to the states and the people. If not true why else have such an amendment? This is why progressives have sought to tear down the Tenth Amendment first. Read it. It means what it says. Is there any right given to the Federal government to impose a national health care standard on the people for example? Of course not. The states may have that right, but the Feds do not, that is clear.
After having lived under the King of England’s vision of ‘Ruler’s Law’, a derivation of Roman Civil Law, the founders were explicit that all law must derive from the ‘Consent of the People’, hence ‘People’s Law’, a derivation of English Common Law. Under ‘People’s Law’ no lawmaker has any more power to rule over another citizen than does any other citizen. The only exceptions to this rule would be spelled out and ‘listed’ in the Constitution. It is and they are. Anything above and beyond the plenary powers imbued by the Constitution would be considered an ‘Usurpation of Powers’ by the people and should be opposed by the people even by the point of the gun if necessary. This is what the founders believed.
So how is all this to be applied by the people? Here is a simple way to know when your federal government has overstepped their bounds. I call it the ‘6-20-10 Rule’. The ‘6-20-10 Rule’ is just the name I’m giving it but spells out the powers of the Executive, the Congress and the Judiciary respectively. These are not all explicitly listed in the Constitution as some are implicitly taken but are generally accepted and unlikely to ever change without new Constitution amendments. I have a problem with a couple of them but will accept for pragmatic argument’s sake: Here they are in abbreviated form:
- Chief of state charged with carrying out the laws of the land
- Commander in chief of the military
- Chief executive officer of the executive branch
- Chief diplomat in handling foreign affairs
- Chief architect for legislation
- Power to grant pardons and reprieves
- To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises and to pay debts, provide for the common defense and general welfare
- To borrow money
- To regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes
- To establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws for bankruptcies
- To coin money, regulate it’s value and that of foreign coin and fix the standard of weights and measures
- To establish post offices and post roads
- To promote the progress of science and arts by securing limited times and exclusive rights for authors and inventors
- To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
- To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations
- To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules for captures
- To raise and support armies for which no appropriation of money to that use shall be for longer than two years
- To provide and maintain a Navy
- To make rules for the regulation of the land and naval forces
- To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
- To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia
- To exercise exclusive legislation over the District of Columbia and authority over all places by consent of the state legislatures for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings
- To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers and all laws vested by the Constitution
- To admit new states into the Union
- To dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of other property belonging to the United States
and 1 added power embodied in Amendment XVI
20. To lay and collect taxes on incomes
- Cases involving the meaning or application of the Constitution
- Cases arising under the laws passed by Congress
- Cases involving disputes between the United Stated and foreign powers
- Cases affecting ambassadors or other officials of foreign governments
- Cases relating to the admiralty or maritime problems
- Cases in which the United States is a party
- Disputes between two or more states
- Disputes between citizens of different states
- Disputes between citizens of the same state over claims or land grants in different states
- Cases involving suits between a state or citizen of a state and a foreign government or citizen of a foreign government
and 1 power repealed by the 11th Amendment
Disputes in which the citizen of one state sues another state
Any power, act or order by any of the three federal branches of government outside of the ‘6-20-10 Rule’ is an usurpation of power and must be opposed by the people and/or their state representatives.
Analyzing the list which branch do you think is more powerful? Clearly with the breadth and depth of enumerated powers I believe the Legislative Branch should be the most powerful. But I was taught in our government schools about the ‘Balance of Power’ and ‘Co-equal Branches’, etc. I now believe I was taught wrong. It looks like the Executive Branch should be the next most powerful and the Judicial is last. What is the true pecking order today in my opinion?
The Federal Courts according to the Constitution appear to be the most limited of the three branches deriving their powers primarily to hear cases between and amongst the states and cases concerning foreign governments. But where is it today? We have seen a single Federal District Judge shut down all of Congress and/or the President, even preempting and taking over national security without access to security data. The Federal Courts receive the largest part of their power in the form of Constitutional judicial review. This has evolved into a broad and expansive power that has far eclipsed it’s intended application according to the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal courts the power to lay taxes, create new legislation, confiscate property or give orders to any citizen without due process? Over time judges have assumed certain powers of all three branches of government, having not properly limited themselves to judicial proceedings. Judges are probably the biggest offenders and usurpers of their proper function and deserve our utmost attention. We must acknowledge that the unelected Federal Judicial Branch contains individuals that can and have made law, enforced law and ruled on the other branches’ laws, even ruling on their own enacted laws. The Supreme Court has been asked and has complied with requests to rule on “policy issues” clearly a function of Congress and the Executive branch, not the Court. Prime examples we all recognize of course is Roe v. Wade in 1973 declaring abortion the “Law of the Land” thereby preempting both Congress, the Executive and the States from exercising their proper role. The clearest example of this technique to date was Obergefell v. Hodges in 2014 declaring “marriage equality” for all. These cases are the clearest examples of judicial usurpation since the only arguments that can be manufactured are not even “inferred rights” from the Constitution but rights created based upon the Court’s collective personal views. They will argue things like “equal protection” hold sway when in fact the ‘Equal Protection Clause’ was designed to force the states to protect its citizens with “the equal protection of the laws” enacted in their state. The Court here ‘created’ a new law and essentially directed each state to write new laws in accordance with their unwritten one. The courts should not even be hearing cases rooted in state and local policy provided they were duly passed by the states.
So how did we get here? You will find no explicit reference in the Constitution about anything resembling ‘Judicial review’. Judicial review I believe began in 1803 when the Marshall Court took it upon themselves in a case Marbury vs Madison. The case is not as important as the taking of power in effect declaring the Court to be the ‘Supreme rule’ in cases to include Constitutional law. Even though the Constitution is silent on this the Court inferred the power of judicial review upon itself by virtue of the judicial structure as described in the Constitution. But the Constitution only says there shall be one Supreme Court and does not even specify how many judges although again inferring there shall be at least one or arguably two since it does mention a Chief Justice. The Judicial branch has assumed its position as the most powerful branch using the concept of ‘stare decisis’, the ever increasing entropy of power abrogated from precedence and because we simply haven’t had a Congress and Executive branch willing to curtail their incursions.
It is clear to me at least the Executive branch is the second most powerful branch as it has evolved today. Presidents cannot declare and execute war on their own, although they have. The president has no power to order regulations of any kind or abrogate those powers to a self-appointed czar, although again they have. He has no power to make and execute orders to anyone outside the executive branch, although he has. Presidents tend to take powers they do not have. We see many examples of that but what about the power they are charged with, like Executive edict #1, to carry out the laws of the land. President Obama had his Attorney General flatly issue a directive to refuse to carry out the provisions of the “American Defense of Marriage Act”. It is expressly forbidden and illegal for a president to ignore a law just because he does not like it and is an act worthy of impeachment. How many Presidents have ignored the “War Powers Act”? Until such time as it is declared unconstitutional the law must be followed. How such laws are declared unconstitutional is open to debate, I concede, but I have already established the power of Judicial Review until such time we can retake that power in some form.
Congress is more powerful according to the Constitution but look at Legislative edict #3. This is where all three branches of government teamed up in 1943 to usurp power from the people. I wrote about this in Capitalism and the Courts last year. FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court to rule that Congress has the power to regulate almost anything. But the Constitution specifically limits the regulation of commerce AMONG the several states. This is where history becomes very important to understand the background, motivation and derivation of this power. This power was constructed by the founders to allow the federal government the ability to regulate commerce to the extent that all states had equal access and that no state shall lay duties or impose tariffs on another, a problem of it’s time under the Articles of Confederation. They also gave power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and the Indians. Where do you think Obamacare falls here? Nowhere is it mentioned that Congress, the President or the Courts have any power to regulate anything on the citizen level or for that matter the state level unless it is to ensure equal footing amongst the states. We all understand the word AMONG don’t we? It does not say WITHIN. The usurpation of power encapsulated in the evolved form of the ‘Commerce Clause’ as it is known is in my opinion the most serious of all. Where Congress should be exercising their power they have instead abrogated to the Treasury or the Federal Reserve giving them power to borrow and to set the value of our currency. The Treasury department is not even under Congress but part of the Executive branch. The Fed (short notation for the Federal Reserve) is not part of either. The Fed is technically an independent corporation not answerable to Congress, the President or the federal courts. Congress does not have the power to create another congress, which is really what they have done in creating the Fed, but worse because there are no checks and balances applied to the Fed, no veto power over their actions and not even any transparency evidenced by the on-going efforts of certain legislators inability to see the books.
So where do we go from here and how can we change and hope for a better future? First, we must educate ourselves and others. Second, we must organize amongst like-thinking individuals and devise plans to overthrow the denigrative agendas from within our current governments. Third, we must repeal and replace those who seek to bring us down bringing forth those who wish to restore the nation to it’s rightful roots. And fourth, we must maintain everlasting vigilance. Does this not sound a whole lot like what the ‘Founding Fathers’ did to create a ‘More perfect union’? Alas, history must repeat itself once again.
Conservatism in America began with its founding, however we will concern ourselves with the modern conservative movement which began in the early to mid 50s.
The modern American conservative movement is often identified by historians to be born in 1953 with the publishing of The Conservative Mind by Russel Kirk and the founding of the National Review by William F. Buckley in 1955. The late William Buckley is considered by many to be the modern father of conservatism as he had a tremendous gift for articulating the modern views of the ideology. The movement did not gain enough in strength to field a presidential candidate until 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran against the incumbent Lyndon B. Johnson but lost in a landslide. However, that election showed that the movement had taken root, ala a grass root that appealed to a wide spectrum of voters who initially were composed of various fractious groups, namely disaffected Roman Catholics, some libertarians, anti-communists and a variety of other traditionalists. Conservatives would not field another candidate until 1976 when Ronald Reagan tried to take over the Republican Party from Gerald Ford. But again the conservative lost, this time in the primary and it was said the movement was doomed. But Reagan vowed to return and he did in sensational fashion when in 1980 he defeated the Democrat incumbent in an electoral landslide, the first elected incumbent president ousted since Herbert Hoover in 1932. Ronald Reagan was then reelected in 1984 by the largest electoral margin in history, cementing the conservative movement as a permanent force.
The conservative movement drifted toward a big-government bent with the election of George H. W. Bush in 1988. However, it was this era that the second coming of conservatism was reborn in the body of one Rush Limbaugh who became the iconic voice of the movement from the time of his national arrival in 1989 to present. Rush took the mantel from William Buckley to become the modern day “politiwonk of conservatives”. Even with Rush Limbaugh, the movement had to be content with maintaining a base of supporters without national leadership as Bill Clinton had ousted the moderate Bush in 1992. And so the hiatus continued for 8 long years but with conservatives controlling Congress for most of the period were able to moderate the progressive leanings of Bill Clinton. Finally George W. Bush tried to redefine conservatism by labeling his brand “compassionate conservatism”, which we found out just meant bigger-spending and bigger-government, perhaps in response to the mainstream media’s attempts to skew and obscure the ideology as “mean and stingy”. President Bush had upheld the conservative long-held philosophy of supporting a strong national defense but had failed on the domestic side and drove conservatives to the bunkers once again. Hence, Barrack Hussein Obama, the most liberal member of the Senate defeated the moderate of moderates, John McCain and buried conservatives again.
But as history shows, when political overreach exceeds voter expectations new movements are born. One such movement was born of this overreach, the “Tea Party Movement” which began with the idea from a CNBC business reporter suggesting ironically that we should hold a tea party in Chicago of all places. The Tea Party Movement possessed an amazing ability to avoid identifying with any single leader or leadership organization and concentrated on the broad electorate in the 2010 midterm elections with great success. As the newly formed Tea Party Movement gained strength the mainstream media began to fight back as they sought to define the new movement as “angry white racists” before it could lift off its grass roots. But the movement was so broad and non-centralized, the mainstreamers could not identify a single leader to demonize and were left with vague references and innuendos that thus far have been ineffective against its leaders, however they did succeed in driving the movement somewhat underground. The mainstreamers were aided by a politically active IRS who harassed and intimidated the Tea Party participants. The movement was further eroded by the emergence of Donald Trump starting in May 2015 who attracted some of the less conservative elements of its membership.
The conservative movement or what is left of it has now completely adopted its new leader in “Constitutional Conservative” Ted Cruz. It seems whenever movements begin to attach adjectives to their names, aka, “compassionate”, “constitutional”, “social”, “fiscal” is when we must admit we may be again on the decline. We think of Ronald Reagan as “conservative”, nothing more and nothing less, but it is the “Johnny-come-latelys” who just wish to be elected under the mantel of conservatism who corrupt our name. The measure of a true conservative according to Reagan is one must stand on all three legs of conservatism, i.e., ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, and NATIONAL DEFENSE. When judging one’s characteristics to meet Reagan’s guidelines who among the current movement leaders satisfy all three?
I have concluded that only Ted Cruz satisfies all the criteria to take over the mantel of conservatism. Rush agrees. In fact Cruz has redefined conservatism to such a degree that even Ronald Reagan would not measure up to the new standard.
One could write a book on the subject, but this will be a condensed summary of the events beginning with the birth of Progressivism in modern America. First we must ask, “What is Progressivism?” Progressivism is a belief in a strong central government to take a leading role in the shaping of the economic, cultural and societal disposition of it’s country and citizenry. That is MY definition. Progressivism has been around since shortly after the nation’s founding but did not take root until 1912 when the movement’s first president was elected.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson, elected as the 28th president of the United States is considered by most historians as the father of modern American Progressivism. Using his progressive agenda Woodrow Wilson was responsible for many progressive programs and ideas. He secured passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 which established the Fed as the proprietors of the nation’s banking concerns. Woodrow Wilson was the first to challenge the governmental orthodoxy with a solid progressive agenda and used his executive powers to extreme, most say illegally to further his cause.
Progressives such as Woodrow Wilson did not believe in civil rights for blacks. Woodrow Wilson believed that giving blacks the right to vote was “the foundation of every evil in this country”. He was the first president after the Civil War to re-segregate portions of the federal government requiring separate bathrooms for blacks in many government buildings. One of Wilson’s biggest heroes was Abraham Lincoln, but not as the Great Emancipator but for his reputational fortitude to impose his will on the country. Wilson admired Lincoln’s dictates to suspend habeas corpus, enforce the draft and his willingness to project power across the land. Wilson presided over World War I exercising what many historians consider the most dictatorial American presidency ever by imprisoning American citizens of German descent and suspending habeas corpus. Wilson took it a step further by actually imprisoning political prisoners, not just Germans. He believed in extreme venues some of which were adopted by Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini, such as eugenics, political propaganda, Socialism and the gas chamber. Indeed, Adolph Hitler got many of his ideas from Woodrow Wilson and American Progressives. Besides Adoph Hitler, Wilson had many admirers of his ideas on how “to groom a better society through eugenics and the social state” including the Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells. Progressives of this era believed in a kind of eugenic hegomony to weed out bad human traits and were prone to the belief that certain races were inferior, especially of African descent and needed to be controlled through eugenic sterilization programs. These are things you will not find in the modern day history books, as liberals write the history books, but can be verified with a little digging.
By the pre-World War II era American Progressives were firmly entrenched in American society, not just in politics. They had taken over higher education and were working to secure control over elementary and secondary education. Progressive domination started in the universities primarily in the Ivy League schools and spread across the land until most university professors were considered mainstream Progressives. Indoctrination would proceed with teachers and professors at the higher level and descend with their teachings to the lower levels, a sort of TOP-DOWN then BOTTOM-UP approach, the bottom being the foot soldiers who would then support the progressive agenda. Book publishers and their editors were overwhelmingly progressive and controlled the print media almost in its entirety.
In politics, American Progressives were initially supportive of Benito Mussolini in his rise to power in Italy where he sought to bring economic reforms in the form of what we today call Fascism. But what is Fascism and why did Progressives identify with it? Like Progressivism and similar to Socialism, Fascism was a governmental system heavy in the use of central power to exert it’s influence and sometimes outright will on it’s citizens. Fascism sought to control all business and industry interests that were not outright nationalized by the government. It differed from Communism in that Communism sought to own everything. Socialism was just fascist or communist light merely seeking to control and/or own most of the business and industry interests using only as much power as necessary to achieve those ends. Just remember, Fascism is control, Communism is ownership and Socialism is some aspects of both. Mussolini was known by Progressives as the Father of Fascism. American Fascists, Socialists and Progressives were almost indistinguishable in the 1920s and 30s. Columbia University became the clearing house for budding Fascists in 1926 when it established Casa Ilaliana, a center for the study of Italian culture – fascist Italian culture. Mussolini had personally contributed to the school to promote his ideas in America as he was actually looking for allies and saw the United States as one possibility.
The rise of Mussolini was soon followed by the rise of Adolph Hitler, both of whom were Fascists who studied marxist and socialist doctrine from Russia and patterned their ideas after Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. By the start of World War II the world was dominated by the derivative cousins of Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism and Progressivism. It wasn’t until Hitler began to slaughter the Jews that American Progressives began to turn on he and Mussolini. In those days Progressivism was just a softer version of Fascism seeking to control as much as possible without outright ownership. But Progressivism would later evolve to eventually accept some aspects of federal business ownership. Progressives supported eugenics to groom society, but believed it could be done more humanely than what was being practiced by NAZI Germany. Progressives gradually distanced themselves from Fascist Germany and Italy and at some point began to refer to themselves as liberals, same people, different name, as they’re progressive brand had been throughly damaged by Hitler and Mussolini mainly for their campaign against the Jewish people. History was rewritten to the claim that Hitler was modeled after right-wing ideology. Most Americans wrongly identify right-wing extremists as Hitler types. NAZI is derived from the German word NAtionalialsoZIalist a derivative of the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist German Workers’ Party in English. Does that sound right-wing to you? Of course not!
Progressives continued to use the liberal label until 2008 when they were reborn again as Progressives in a primary debate with Hillary Clinton declaring herself a modern Progressive. Liberals had ruined their name like the Progressives before them and now must revert back to their former label to complete a 100 year cycle. But are they any less radical? No. Their ideas are still composed of elements of the same ole doctrine of the same ole Marxists, Socialists, Communists and Fascists. They still believe in Keynesian Economics. They still believe in programs to maintain the socio-economic status quo; that will keep a loyal voting block using government handouts. They still believe in a strong central government, a Federal Government with many unchecked powers. Eugenics has morphed into abortion, human genetic engineering and human euthanasia having adopted these new modern tools to “groom a better society”. Their latest tool, a semi-nationalization of health care can now be expanded to control and groom society through diet control, health care rationing and age care justification regulation. The same people who have been arguing for years for government to “get out of the wombs of women” now want complete control of ALL citizens’ bodies AND their body parts. Progressivism continues to evolve. That is the nature of it’s origin, that is to progress is to constantly change, but many of their new ideas are beginning to look very similar to the old ones. Some progressives are now arguing for government controlled sterilization programs and are open to the idea of genetic engineered reproduction. The only thing missing in bringing them full circle back to eugenics is the issue of race. But modern progressives now know they can get around this roadblock by applying social economic factors to any proposed regulations and obtain the desired results. Some Progressives have also recently proposed much more liberal abortion regulation arguing that babies can be legally aborted up to the age of self-awareness, of which they have arbitrarily set to 2 years old. Sounds crazy? It is, but most people thought of partial birth abortion as extreme. But many Progressives argued for it. And even crazier, very few, but some Progressives were supportive of the idea of letting botched abortive babies who survived the procedure die by withholding food and water. One such individual who supported that idea and argued against the Born Alive Protection Act is now President of the United States.
No matter what you call the extreme isms, Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Progressivism or Liberalism, they all have one thing in common – a powerful central government that has ALWAYS led to and ALWAYS will lead to tyranny for the people. So it now appears that Liberals have now transformed themselves into the New Progressives and really have returned to their roots, their extreme progressive roots. Now the rest of us just need to catch up and learn about those roots so we will know where they are headed.
Capitalism is a democratic system composed of buyers and sellers who collectively create a market for goods and services for that of which the consumer may desire the benefit of. Capitalism is a democratic system since each buyer and each seller vote with their dollars as they bid up or down a price for a good or service. It is pure democracy in action. When the system is allowed to function without interference it works to bring the best prices for the best goods and services and the consumer benefits. When the system is distorted by special interests who lobby government and receive special favors then it is primarily the special interests who benefit. When politicians legislate unreasonable regulations it is the politicians who benefit. It is that simple. The federal government’s only legitimate function in the regulation of capitalism is to ensure an environment rich with players, that is, buyers and sellers to prevent an uneven playing field for which someone can set up a monopoly. The Commerce Clause is the only legal framework derived from the Constitution that gives any legitimacy to the federal government to regulate anything in commerce. But from the Commerce Clause the federal government now lays claim to powers far exceeding its intended constitutional limitation. So how did we get here?
There have always been those in government who since the founding of the nation have wanted more control over business and commerce. It started with Alexander Hamilton who persuaded George Washington over the objections of Thomas Jefferson to support the idea of a central bank. But other than the idea of a central bank those who desired a system of central planners were kept at bay until the aftermath of the Civil War when reconstruction was imposed on the South using expanded federal powers. The founders knew there was a natural tendency, a sort of entropy of power to expand federal control. This is why the Commerce Clause is only that, one short clause of the Constitution and does not appear as a basic tenet in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights were deemed superior to all other rights, hence all Ten Amendments are positive rights to and for the people and limitations to the federal government. The original intent of the Commerce Clause dealt with the power of the federal government to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign governments. It also was meant to deal with commerce and relations with the Indian nations. The Constitution was intended to put up a wall between the federal government and the states and the people so that most regulatory power would be reserved by the states and the people. These rights and the federal government’s limits were consummated with the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment thus precluded any federal regulatory powers over commerce beyond the limitations of the Commerce Clause. Over time that wall has been gradually worn down until 1942 when it was completely obliterated with the Supreme Court case of Wickard V. Filburn. A farmer by the name of Roscoe Filburn had been ordered by the federal government to destroy his wheat and pay a fine for exceeding a government imposed allotment based on the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, a part of FDR’s New Deal. Filburn was planning to use the excess wheat for his own use to feed his own chickens. Filburn’s actions was not interstate commerce. It was not even commerce. It was widely thought that the court would rule against the government thereby making the 1938 act unconstitutional, but for years the court had been under attack by President Roosevelt who had been threatening to take control of the Supreme Court by adding several of his hand-picked justices to ensure a loyal majority. The case was purposely chosen for its flimsiness to showcase the newfound power of the Federal government. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn and the wall was finally crumbled. That ruling is considered by many as the seminal moment in our history that has led to the unending expansion of federal power, that being if the courts can regulate the feeding of one’s own chickens they can regulate anything. With this expansion, capitalism itself has increasingly come under attack, for the only way to grow government ever larger is to take a larger share of capital for the federal government.
Now that the courts had opened up this new path for federal expansion, politicians and judges were free to go about the systematic destruction of the capitalist system. So how would they go about it? One way would be to allow special interests more power and influence. Check! Nationalize troubled industries. Check! Use the courts to undo contract law. Check! Use executive power to overthrow the hierarchy of debt in investment vehicles as was done to push GM bondholders down the food chain below equity shares held by privileged groups such as the unions. Check! Another way would be to insert themselves between the buyers and sellers so as to un-democratize the process and to over-regulate. Check and check! Insert regulators and special interests such as unions between market supply and demand. Check! Use wage and price controls. Check! Use government subsidies to support prices of their favorite industries and special taxes and excise taxes to punish out-of-favor industries. Check and check again! But the best way to destroy capitalism is to simply deny the system capital. This is traditionally done by imposing high taxes so as to remove capital from the private sector to be transferred to the public sector so that it can be re-disbursed by politicians, albeit just a form of wealth redistribution. Wealth confiscation and redistribution using the tax code has the additional benefit of pyramiding power upon those in government that spend or redistribute the money.
Power pyramids also occur in business where in poorly managed companies managers quickly learn the best way to grow their power is to increase head count thereby requiring ever larger budgets. In business these practices are curtailed or eliminated in bad economic times. But it is these very times that are ripe for government to expand their power base and unlike in business once expanded government rarely contracts. When business is threatened by higher taxes and regulation it simply hoards cash waiting for better opportunities. If these conditions persist beyond the bounds of survivability, business will invest elsewhere, that is in foreign countries. Capital leaves the country forever. This is the phase we currently find ourselves in. We have already seen this when states raise taxes beyond reason. Companies and individuals simply pack up and move to a more business friendly state. I must admit that unreasonable state income taxes in the state of Idaho was one additional reason that led to my family’s move to Texas several years ago where there was no income tax. But when federal taxation becomes unreasonable, capital must be redeployed to foreign interests. The idea of capital deformation was the very reason for the creation of the European Union. Several of the socialist nations in Europe were losing capital to other European nations friendlier to business. In order to preserve the socialist system a loose union would regulate currency and stop the capital migration. Now we are seeing many European countries curtailing some of the socialist aspects in favor of more capitalism simply because they have not been successful at slowing the capital deformation. Quite simply, they are running out of money. We may be seeing the early phase of new capital growth in the economies of Eastern Europe, China, India, Brazil and virtually every developing nation while the United States remains stagnated as we pursue socialist policies. The next phase of capital redeployment involves the actual relocation of companies and their assets. When this phase kicks in, unemployment soars far beyond the current level. We are in the early phase of this. And now, you have the perfect political storm where the people can be rallied against big business or what is left of it and its final ouster and the eventual roll-up of the capitalist system. But the anti-capitalists want an insurance policy, so they continue to pursue additional attacks.
The anti-capitalists have learned that their best work is done behind the scenes. They seek to find others to do their dirty work without a vote being cast. Obama uses the “pen and the phone”. The Courts use personal edicts disguised as legal opinions. Let’s not forget how far they have come, or progressed as the liberals would say. A bad judge need only find one little loose thread in the text and he or she will pick at it a little at a time until the entire text comes unraveled. The Constitution is “evolving” they say, like they are God and hath given it life. This is what is meant by the “living and breathing document” without which they could not justify their new edicts. But let’s not be fooled. The phrase “living and breathing” is hyperbole, a way to contrast “living” with “dead” and so who wants to defend a “dead” Constitution. No, the Constitution is not dead, but neither is it “living and breathing” like a human being or an animal, lest it be one who consumes all manner of flesh in its path. Perhaps this is what they mean?
This is why with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia we find ourselves at a new and dangerous crossroads. Progressives just need one more of theirs to find newly hidden gems in the Constitution. We are one Supreme Court Justice away from losing our right to privately own a gun if the left can argue that only the “militia”, an army in their minds can carry guns, or if the courts recognize the “speech codes” already implemented and practiced on many of our University campuses as the new limitations on speech. And if they recognize the left’s practice of limiting “Freedom of Religion” and change one little word from “of” to “from”. It is not far-fetched. It is here. All they need is one more judge, one more pen and one more piece of paper for which to write the new meaning of the Constitution.
Remember poor ‘ole’ Roscoe Filburn? All he wanted to do was feed his chickens.
The roots of “political correctness” can be traced back to the beginning of language, but we will concern ourselves with the modern version as used in America. No doubt “political correctness” has been a part of the social fabric of every society throughout the world and has been used to extreme in some locales. “Political correctness” in America can be traced back to the 1980s when it was invented by university administrators and professors seeking to gain control over the campus discourse. It had the secondary benefit of promoting the inventors as the “Arbiters” of “politispeak”, that is the language of “political correctness”. University administrators and professors have long had a strong desire (I say arrogance) to be the supreme experts ON their subjects and OF their subjects and with that “political correctness” was born even though it was not called that at first. Since the 1980s more than 350 universities have adopted “speech codes” in an attempt to regulate what they, the “Arbiters” consider politically incorrect and insensitive speech. Almost every court case brought against the self-imposed “Arbiters” of “politispeak” as a result of these codes has been won by their opposition, but they continue to impose their will upon the campus and via fiat, the nation. It is really just a form of political cowardice as the “Arbiters” know they will not only lose in the court of law but in the court of marketplace ideas.
The first example of modern “political correctness” I can find that had any consequence was the firing of Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder who was canned by CBS for making controversial statements about blacks and their heritage. From that event “the left” quickly learned that political correctness could be used as a tool against their enemies. They began to sharpen their newly discovered tool aimed primarily on people they deemed as conservatives. But the tool has stabbed some of their own over the years. No matter. Leftists figured they could better control the national discourse by using the ever evolving tool of political correctness as created on America’s campuses by the professors and administrators and be damned of the collateral damage.
The first use of the term “political correctness” probably occurred in the early 1990s. It was used against Clarence Thomas in his confirmation to the Supreme Court. Not that the allegation itself was necessarily politically correct but the application of the tool now had evolved to the extent that the burden of proof had been successfully shifted from the accuser to the accused. Clarence Thomas was not fit to be on the Supreme Court said the political correct “Arbiters”, not because of the possibility of his guilt but because of the seriousness of the charge.
In the mid 1990s we entered a new era where hate crime laws were enacted by several states and the federal government. These new laws carried stiffer sentences for identical crimes based on who was the perpetrator and who was the victim if it could be proved that the crime was committed with the thought of hate in the perpetrator’s mind. “Political correctness” had entered a new phase where words didn’t have to be spoken but the act of thinking politically incorrect could portend a longer sentence. The political correctness “arbiters” of “politispeak” were now elevated to “thought police”.
The “politically correct thought police” then proceeded to nab Rush Limbaugh in 2003 for expressing his thoughts on how media bias was responsible for rating Donovan McNabb as a quarterback stating “that media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well”. Rush Limbaugh’s contract with ESPN was terminated. Now, a person is guilty of “political incorrectness” when they honesty verbalize their thoughts. As a result of this event, Rush was again tagged with an additional violation in 2009 for doing absolutely nothing except to bid on a minority ownership stake in the St. Louis Rams. “Political correctness” had now evolved to a useful stage where it could be effectively used on the desired enemies of “the left” and now retained a lifetime penalty.
In recent years, hate crime legislation had been expanded to include homosexuals as people needing special protection. Technically, the new hate crime laws could be interpreted to be used against church pastors in preaching against homosexuality. With the addition of the new hate crime laws “political correctness” had successfully fully penetrated all first amendment concerns, although the “thought police” have not yet brought suit against any church that I know, the infrastructure is indeed in place. Expect it to happen at the right political moment and brought of course by the ACLU, enforcers of the “political correctness” code.
Now recently we have a case where a respected journalist, Juan Williams was fired by NPR for deviating from the “politically correct” script in committing a liberal apostasy for expressing his thoughts of fear when boarding an airplane that contain individuals wearing middle eastern garb. It is a “political correctness” crime quite similar to that of the Rush Limbaugh incident proving that “political correctness” is an equal opportunity institution, seeing that Juan Williams is a self-described liberal. But Juan Williams is really just the collateral damage in the war between the left and Fox News. I believe I have pieced together this story thus:
In October of 2010 Bill O’Reilly went on “The View” and caused a stir by saying that “Muslims killed us on 9/11”. Then on the following Monday in a totally unrelated event Glenn Beck highlighted George Soros on his afternoon TV program in a less than endearing way. The next day George Soros gives $1 million to Glenn Beck’s biggest antogonist, Media Matters and another $1.8 million to NPR designating the funds to be used to hire 100 new political reporters, reportedly 2 for each state. The day after that Juan Williams is fired.
The war on “political incorrectness” appears to be following the “rules” set out by Saul Alinsky, that is to isolate them, them being Fox News in this case. And the events on the Glenn Beck and O’Reilly TV shows were not totally unrelated after all. There are no coincidences. NPR has a history of agregious and offensive statements made by their reporters on other occasions that far exceed those made by Juan Williams. Compare the treatment of Juan Williams to other so-called journalists for NPR. Here are just a few examples:
Nina Totenburg, NPR correspondent said on the July 8, 1995 edition of “Inside Washington”, “I think he [Senator Helms] ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there’s retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it”.
NPR commentator Andrei Codrescu said on the December 19, 1995 edition of “All Things Considered”, “The evaporation of four million people who believe this crap [the Rapture] would leave the world an instantly better place”.
According to Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center there were 40,000 complaints waged against Codrescu and only 60 against Williams. Then NPR seemed to violate their own hypocritical rules when NPR CEO Vivan Schiller in a news conference said, “he [Juan Williams] should have kept his feeling about Muslims between himself and his psychiatrist or his publicist”.
We now have people afraid to even speak when they “see something” or “hear something” as our Homeland Security suggests to report possible crimes such as that which occurred in the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. “Political correctness” has now turned deadly.
So now the evolution of “political correctness” is almost complete. We have the marriage of “hate crime” legislation with “speech codes” and sensitivity norms established by the “Arbiters” turned into the “Thought Police”. Add to that the open purchase of speech by the wealthy philanthropist George Soros hoping to turn his product into a pseudo-fascist political speech machine to be used against his enemies. As such we now have the marriage of state controlled thought with the capitalist idea of a free and open market of the purchase of speech. This to some is the definition of a soft or liberal fascism. The “Thought Police” are now the “Thought Fascists”. They are not happy to just police your thoughts, they want to control them.