It is shocking, but true. America is already a socialist nation—for the most part. All the earmarks of socialism are incorporated into our society. From the globalist socialist United Nations controlling our shameful foreign policy machine to Big Tech monitoring and censoring free speech to confiscatory taxation—America has fallen very low on the freedom scale.
Classic socialism started out being defined as “government ownership of the means of production.” This is why the government of the Soviet Union confiscated all the businesses, factories, farms and other means of production, murdering millions in the process.
However, the above definition is not an accurate definition of socialism today. Just as classic Marxism, built on atheism, has now morphed into Neo-Marxism and the Critical Race Theory, so the definition of socialism has evolved.
Frederich Hayek wrote that the definition of socialism has come to mean income redistribution in pursuit of “equality”, not through government ownership of the means of production, but through the institutions of the welfare state and the “progressive” income tax. As America is discovering, this is all so much poison for a society.
The shift began to occur particularly during the Woodrow Wilson administration, then was put on steroids during the Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) and Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) period. “It was under FDR that the Bill of Rights suffered a severe, and potentially lethal, mutilation that has progressively (double entendre intended) weakened it ever since. FDR attempted to redefine rights, asserting that every American has a ‘right to a useful and remunerative job,’ ‘a decent home,’ ‘adequate medical care,’ ‘a good education,’ and so on.”
A visitor to the FDR memorial in Washington, D.C. will be treated to this Orwellian redefinition of rights: “Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, Freedom from Fear.” Note the shift.
According to the Founders, rights were natural rights bestowed by God and merely protected by the government. Government did not grant any right. This is emphatically clear in our own founding documents. The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States formally states that the people retain all rights absent specific enumeration in the Bill of Rights.In other words, God gave us rights and we only ceded a certain enumerated few to the government in order for more protection of them. But make no mistake, said the founders, if we have overlooked some of these rights in our enumeration, the people still owned those also!
Franklin Roosevelt deceptively changed all of that. Freedom of speech, for example, is far different than freedom from want. The only way one can be free from “want” (housing, food, medical treatment) is to forcibly redistribute what one segment of society produces and give it to another. But for government to forcibly redistribute actually means that it forcibly removes my personal production to meet the personal needs of others. This is not freedom. This is slavery, to one degree or another.
Now, decades later, we cannot seem to escape the clutch of this wicked socialism. The only debate seems to be how much or how little money we can unconstitutionally steal from one portion of society to give to another. Or, how much can we confiscate from our own citizens to give to foreign countries. This is to bribe them with liberal Marxist ideals such as “women’s studies” in Muslim countries or to put pressure on foreign nations to recognize homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. We are in the clutches of socialism.
The Los Angeles Times reported last week that “The U.S. Capitol Police on Tuesday announced that the agency was opening regional field offices in California and Florida to investigate threats to members of Congress in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”
Ostensibly, the reason is that “threats against members of Congress have increased in recent years. As of Tuesday, total threats so far in 2021 were double what they were at this point a year ago.”
This seizure of States’ Rights by the Federal Government is shocking to those who are unaware of what is happening in our nation; it has been expected for those who have followed the trend of Marxism/Socialism that has enveloped our nation. This amounts to a Democratic SS Force—a National Police Force.
John Kachelman, Jr. has pointed outthat “according to announcements, [Nancy] Pelosi will assign the Capitol Police to various ‘hot spots’ throughout our nation” for the “purpose of confronting those deemed ‘radical extremists.’ Informed readers know this is a term identifying those who believe in the Constitution and not the extremists residing in Washington, DC” who flagrantly abuse the “rule of law.”
According to the Marxist playbook, followed by Hitler and other socialists, this is just the beginning. The foot in the door for totalitarian control.
John Adams, the second president of the United States and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself, in an 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson, reflected upon the entire course of American history.
The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity … I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that whose principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.
America has been great because America was founded upon the bedrock principles of Christianity. Other founders could be quoted to the same effect. Those principles include the sacredness of human life, of personal liberty, and personal property.
It was precisely because of these pillars of freedom that America created a limited federal government—the Constitutional system. It is an incontrovertible fact that this system was specifically designed to allow power to flow from the bottom up; from the people to their representatives of government. Weaker at the top; stronger at the bottom. It is also a fact that every other national government is designed from the top down wherein bureaucrats control nearly every aspect of citizen’s lives.
One of the hallmarks of this bottom up Constitutional system is the local police department. Law enforcement in local areas is not to be controlled by politicians at the top.
Art Thompson, the CEO of the John Birch Society, says it best:
Actually, the United States is one of the last countries, if not the last, to have widespread local police power instead of types of national systems that exist elsewhere. No country can become totalitarian as long as the local citizens have direct responsibility for and control of local police departments. It is one of our essential checks and balances.
There are those who want to change our American system into something resembling the rest of the world. In the process, they want to remove responsibility from the citizens and the ability of the local police departments to answer to the local citizens through their city government, becoming nothing more than units in a national police force.
Through the years various conservatives have warned of the desire and move of the leftist in America to “nationalize” our police force, or at least assert “national” control over local law enforcement. By means of the liberal media police have been demonized ever since the 1960’s where they were called upon to quash communist-funded hippie rebellions. Unfortunately, those communists are now in power, represented a few years ago by Barack Obama.
Obama sought to create a national police force, utilizing FEMA corps of the DHS. Millions of rounds of ammunition were bought by the federal government.More ominous still was Obama’s 2008 statement while running for office. “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve he national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Obama’s totalitarian scheme is now becoming reality in the Biden Administration.
Wisconsin has emerged as a battleground in the debate over whether to apply to Congress to call a convention to propose amendments under Article V of the Constitution, otherwise known as a constitutional convention (Con-Con). Supporters and opponents of a convention clashed at a recent Wisconsin Senate committee hearing, displaying the stark differences between the two sides.
The Con-Con Resolutions
Wisconsin is a top target of Con-Con proponents in the current legislative sessions, with four resolutions having been introduced.
Two of them — Senate Joint Resolution 8 (S.J.R. 8) and Assembly Joint Resolution 9 (A.J.R. 9) — follow the wording of Mark Meckler’s Convention of States (COS) Project application, urging Congress to call a convention to propose amendments “that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.”
The hearing, held on Wednesday, March 24, in the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Legal Review and Consumer Protection, was over S.J.R. 8 and S.J.R. 12.
False Claims and Tall Tales
Following testimonies from sponsors of the resolutions, the committee heard testimony from Meckler, the president of COS. Meckler started off by spouting his tall tale that Article V of the U.S. Constitution was the Founding Fathers’ solution to federal overreach, ignoring the reality that constitutional enforcement was the Founders’ solution to usurpations.
The traveling salesman then discussed each of the three topics advocated for in his COS resolutions — term limits, fiscal restraints, and jurisdiction limitations on the federal government. According to Meckler, legislators could use the resolution text to enact a number of constitutional changes for each of the three individual topics.
While the suggestions Meckler listed — including reversing illegal Supreme Court precedents, limiting the Court to nine justices, and term limits for unelected government bureaucrats — might sound appealing to conservatives, they illustrate one of the many dangers of the COS resolution specifically, and, more broadly, any Article V convention.
The text is so vague that even if a convention did not stray from the resolution text — a prospect no one should count on — the text could be twisted to justify a slew of amendments that increase and entrench the power of the federal government. Tellingly, a September 2016 Article V convention simulation hosted by Convention of States ended up proposing amendments that did just that.
In the most revealing moment of his testimony, Meckler attempted to refute his constitutionalist critics by equating case law with the Constitution. While constitutionalists argue for enforcing the Constitution, Meckler questioned “which constitution they’re referring to.” Holding up a book listing every Supreme Court ruling, Meckler stated that case law has become the real “Constitution of the United States of America.” Thus, rather than nullifying these rulings — much of which are blatantly unconstitutional — Meckler claimed the solution is to change the text of the Constitution itself.
Shortly after Meckler, Ken Quinn, the northern regional director for U.S. Term Limits, testified. Among other statements, he claimed that “there’s no such thing as a runaway convention.” He further stated that an “Article V convention” is not synonymous with a “constitutional convention,” baselessly claiming that the latter would require unanimous consent.
These two allegations by Quinn are easily refuted by looking at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Originally convened to merely amend the Articles of Confederation, the 1787 convention led to the drafting and ratification of the current Constitution. Furthermore, while the former document required unanimous consent for making constitutional changes, the convention threw out that rule and required only nine of the 13 states to ratify the new constitution.
During his testimony, Quinn claimed that he had once supported “an organization” that opposed a Con-Con but changed his mind after researching the matter himself. He made multiple false claims about The John Birch Society, including that it argues the U.S. Constitution was illegally adopted, and that it originally supported an Article V convention.
The John Birch Society Responds
It was not long before Christian Gomez, research project manager for JBS, was called upon to give his testimony. He began by refuting the peddlers’ claims about an Article V convention and JBS. For example, he noted JBS’s 1967 response to a letter inquiring about a Con-Con in which it unequivocally rejected the idea.
Gomez also set the record straight about the lobbyists’ unfounded assertions that an “Article V convention” is different from a “constitutional convention” and urged the committee not to get distracted by mere semantics.
Not only does no a such distinction exist in Article V’s text, but contrary to Meckler’s claim that his proposal would not be a “convention of delegates,” Gomez noted New York’s 1789 application for a “Convention of Deputies” under Article V. More recent application resolutions, including in Louisiana and Connecticut, have used the term “constitutional convention.”
Additionally, Gomez pointed out that even if a distinction existed, it could easily be abandoned in the same way that the 1787 constitutional convention abandoned the Articles of Confederation’s requirement of unanimity for the ratification of constitutional changes.
Further illustrating how the term “convention of states” is merely a lobbyist-created talking point to make a Con-Con more appealing to state legislators, Gomez noted how Meckler himself had called for “single-subject constitutional conventions” in his 2012 book Tea Party Patriots and how he co-hosted the “Conference on the Constitutional Convention” with left-wing law professor Lawrence Lessig.
Having refuted the Con-Con peddlers, Gomez used his testimony to note Article V’s purpose of fixing potential defects in the Constitution, rather than to limit the federal government. He further noted that an Article V convention would be more likely to increase and entrench an expansive federal government through poorly-worded amendments, amendments that blatantly increase the size and power federal government, or a new constitution altogether. The current problems with the federal government, Gomez argued, stem from a disregard of the Constitution rather than problems with the document.
In the limited time he had to testify (more on that later), this writer emphasized Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s warning that “This is not a good century to write a constitution,” and how the Left would take advantage of any Article V convention to advance a far-left agenda in line with international norms.
Committee hearings are intended for legislators to examine arguments for and against proposed legislation prior to making a decision. However, Senator Mary Felzkowski (R-Irma) showed her cards — and bias — early. This was not surprising, considering her sponsorship of both the COS and term-limits resolutions — ironically, she is currently serving her fifth term in the legislature.
After asking Gomez his solution to federal overreach in lieu of an Article V convention — to which he aptly responded by pointing out officials’ duty under Article VI to nullify unconstitutional laws, and how it is an immediate solution as opposed to the Article V process that often lasts decades — Felzkowski began attacking his position.
The five-term legislator claimed that nullification would be ineffective at reining in federal spending such as the $1.9 trillion spending, to which Gomez noted the importance of educating citizens to vote out fiscally irresponsible members of Congress, and also the ineffectiveness of most balanced-budget amendments. In fact, states can help rein in federal spending — 80 percent of which is unconstitutional — by abolishing the Federal Reserve and by passing a State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act.
Unsatisfied, Felzkowski accused Gomez of basing his arguments on the dangers of a Con-Con on hypotheticals — despite the other side relying far more on untested hypotheticals. She ended her tirade by claiming Gomez was “only including parts of the information” — as if the other side does not do this — and that “it’s very hard to take what you’re saying seriously.” Notwithstanding the irony, it is unfortunate that a legislator used the hearing to be an advocate rather than an observer.
The Uhl Family Steals the Show
The most impressive testimonies during the hearing were delivered by the five-strong Uhl family.
The first in the family to testify were Christy and Alise. Christy, 11, stated the obvious fact that the U.S. Constitution is not the problem, meaning the solution is to punish corrupt politicians rather than change the Constitution. Alise, 12, noted that the Founding Fathers, who adhered to Christian principles, sought freedom and a limited government. Those principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution would be in danger with a constitutional convention under Article V.
Immediately after the girls’ testimonies, Senator Duey Stroebel (R-Saukville), another sponsor of the two resolutions, went on the defensive, repeating the falsehood that an “Article V convention” is somehow distinct from a “constitutional convention.” Such a response was unprompted and unnecessary, indicating the effectiveness of the girls’ testimonies.
The girls’ parents, Curtis and Dominique, also testified. Among other thoughtful points, Curtis noted that when considering the COS resolution, a representative had stated “we have to do something,” a poor attitude when the Constitution and freedom are at risk. Curtis also referred to Meckler’s lofty statement that state legislators “have the power to alter the structure of the federal government.” The former noted that only 2,445 representatives and senators from 38 states can initiate a constitutional convention that would affect over 300 million people — a frightening thought.
Dominique, in addition to pointing out several reasons why a Con-Con is a dangerous idea and referring to alternative constitutions crafted by the Deep State, called out the self-promoting lobbyist Meckler for lying about COS’s popularity. She also went into depth about realistic steps the states can take — and are presently taking — to nullify the federal government.
The nullification bills Dominique mentioned included a Texas bill to comprehensively examine the constitutionality of federal actions and, if necessary, nullify them; a Missouri bill to robustly prevent enforcement of past, present, and future gun controls; a Kentucky bill to prevent unconstitutional federal National Guard deployments; and an Oklahoma bill to nullify unconstitutional presidential executive orders. Dominique showed the committee that a wide variety of superior options exist to an Article V constitutional convention.
Another impressive testimony was given by Elayna, 15. She pointed out a significant reason why an Article V convention is particularly dangerous today: Human nature is depraved, and the character, wisdom, and morals present among the Founding Fathers — and present in early U.S. history — have significantly deteriorated in the nation today.
If a convention under Article V happened today, Elayna stated, political leaders would not trust in God as the Founders had, but they will largely be overcome with greed and seek to advance their personal agendas. As evidence, she noted how Con-Con advocates are already seeking to aggregate unrelated, centuries-old Article V applications with newer ones in an attempt to reach the 34-state threshold.
Furthermore, Elayna asked, if amendments such as congressional term limits or a Balanced Budget Amendment are so popular, why can the regular process not be used? Rather than open up the Constitution in a precarious time using an untested Article V convention, she concluded, any proposed amendments should go through the regular process.
Elayna received a barrage of questions from the committee members, particularly Senators Stroebel and Felzkowski. Their questions included why the Founding Fathers included Article V in the Constitution and what alternatives to an Article V convention should be used. Elayna answered those questions ably, impressing many of those watching.
The committee’s questioning of Elayna, along with Stroebel’s unprompted comments following her sisters’ testimonies, indicated a level of fear in response to their testimonies. They had no other reason to make those comments or question Elayna so intensely. Furthermore, they asked no questions of the girls’ parents.
The Uhl Family’s testimonies — particularly their daughters’ — were effective, powerful, and intelligent. Being a family that homeschools, their testimonies also illustrate the importance and clear advantage of giving one’s children a proper education, divorced from the left-wing indoctrination and dumbing-down present in the public-school system.
Throughout the hearing, a notable distinction between the two sides’ testimonies was their substance. Those in opposition focused solely on the subject of the hearing, namely why an Article V convention would be harmful to Americans’ God-given freedoms and how Article VI offers an immensely superior alternative.
On the other hand, most of the testimonies in favor — with the exception of a select few — were vague and did not address the topic at hand. For example, many of the individuals focused on their life stories or talked about problems in the federal government without discussing how Article V, specifically, would solve those problems.
The committee also was inconsistent in its treatment of the two sides. Immediately before this writer testified, it imposed a five-minute rule for testimonies, preventing me from delivering half of my testimony. However, multiple subsequent individuals in favor of a convention — who largely did not directly address the topic at hand — spoke longer than five minutes without interruption.
Finally, Dr. Wayne Sedlak, a pastor from West Bend, registered to testify in opposition to the resolutions with the help of a legislative assistant. However, the committee never called on him to testify. After Dr. Sedlak confronted the committee about this error, it allowed him to submit written testimony. Nonetheless, excluding him from the oral hearings deprived the committee and those watching of a powerful voice in opposition to a convention and in favor of nullification.
As of this article’s writing, S.J.R. 8 and S.J.R. 12 still await an executive session, in which the committee will decide whether to send the resolutions to the floor. Whichever way it, and the legislature, decides, could have significant ramifications for the entire country and the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
Wisconsin residents can contact their legislators in opposition to a Con-Con by visiting The John Birch Society’s legislative alert here. Everyone can take action against Con-Con applications in their respective states by visiting JBS’s action project page here.
Critical Race Theory (CRT) has spread into almost every area of society. Beginning in the 1970’s with various radical lawyers and liberal activists desirous of canceling the culture of America, CRT has now moved into education, sociology, religion, government, philosophy, the arts and even medicine—practically every area of human experience. Collegiate campus activists, who have been taught to admire socialist/communist agitators such as Antonio Gramsci, Cesar Chavez, and Barack Obama, now are mobilized against American society.
What is the CRT?
Critical Race Theory is thinly veiled anti-white bigotry. To CRT activists all of Western culture is tainted by the “bigotry” that comes with being white.In turn, all institutions and traditions of America have been polluted by the past and our “institutional racism.” Whiteness is a moral blight by nature and all white people are compliant in oppression.
What exactly are these institutions that are so poisoned with whiteness? Our entire educational system which holds academic achievement as a high standard; our value system which believes an eternal standard of right and wrong exists—this is only a “white man’s construct”; critical thinking that enables one to solve problems logically is “racist”; logic and reasoning or mathematics are supposed to be “white people’s ideals”; the family structure of husband, wife, and children—inherited from the Bible—is a “white man’s organization” that needs replaced by Black Lives’ Matter “villages”; the holding of “private property” is once more, a white construct; “legal reasoning” and “neutral principles of constitutional law” are all racist ideals. The list goes on.
Luis Miguel documents how this works in Seattle where the city government held on June 12 a “whites-only employee training session.” Attendees were instructed to “undo your own whiteness” so as to be held accountable to people of color. Training literature declared that “racism is not our fault but we are responsible.” In other words, a white person is racist by genetics.
Concepts such as “individualism” and “intellectualization” are white people’s racist constructs. All Caucasians own in their DNA an “internalized racial oppression.” Training materials included this gem: “city employees who identify as white [are to] … reflect, challenge ourselves, and build skills and relationships that help us show up more fully as allies and accomplices for racial justice.” Reach down inside and find that racism that lies deep within!
Since the assumption is that whites are born with “racism” in their DNA, training in Seattle admonished, “We’ll examine our complicity in the system of white supremacy … how we internalize and reinforce it—to begin practices that enable us to interrupt racism in ways to be accountable to Black, Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) folks within our community.”
How shall we interrupt our whiteness, especially since it is in our genetics? Employees in the seminar were taught how to “interrupt” their whiteness by being “honest and implicate yourself either in the moment or in past experiences in which you acted or thought similarly.” Condemn yourself for being white.
This all is social engineering gone mad. “CRT is the opposite of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance.’ It’s a bitter movement bent on vengeance against everything branded as ‘white.’”
CRT in Health Care
CRT has even entered the once hallowed-halls of medical science.
Wesley J. Smith, writing in The Epoch Times, points us to a recent article in The Lancet, the world’s oldest medical journal, which has now left the field of “science” and amazingly, entered into the territory of “wokeness.” Readers are encouraged to make race the primary focus of “the concept of intersectionality” to describe “how multiple social categorizations—such as race and gender—interact to confer interlocking oppressions and privileges.”
Deserting even the realm of common sense, the authors of The Lancet article Time to take critical race theory seriously: moving beyond a colour-blind gender lens in global health, write the following:
“Like gender’s problematic binary of male versus female, race is a complex social construct with biological implications, the classifications of which vary across history and geography.” Gender itself is not male and female and it is “problematic” to so consider the sexes.
As Dr. Duke Pesta pointed out, Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset, in The Revolt of the Masses, defined the appearance of this modern “woke” “mass-man,” a barbaric figure whose ignorance was a necessary precursor to the rise of the violent masses. The “mass-man” could emerge to destroy his own culture. “This type of anarchist ‘did not care to give reasons or even to be right.’ Ortega argued that cultivated irrationality is what set apart 20th– century fascist and communist movements from what came before: ‘the right not to be right, not to be reasonable: the reason of unreason.”
Another “scholarly” screed speaks this way about the sin of “whiteness.” “This racial consciousness needs to be part and parcel of our efforts to address gender inequity worldwide … Only then will we develop an essential sense of humility and self-awareness to be antiracist in our work.”
Wesley J. Smith comments: “That’s not anti-racist. It’s crass bigotry, unvarnished and cruel, and moreover a blatant call to societal dissolution.” This is the point of the CRT–societal dissolution.
An Open Letter to Citizens of Texas: An Answer to Rep. James Frank (District 69)
Representative James Frank(TX-District 69) recently announced that he will not support the House Bill 1359, which calls for a secession referendum in the State of Texas. His reasons are three; (1) His Love for this Country, (2) The US and Texas Constitutions—there is no specific “provision” in either of these for secession; (3) The Profound Consequences for Texas.
What follows is not an open call to secede, but a challenge to consider the principles upon which secession is grounded. To dismiss the possibility of secession as “illegal and ill-advised,” as Frank does in his letter, is what I am challenging. At the same time, I will overlook his dismissive remarks that those who wish to “leave the Republic” are some “self-described patriots.” Patriotism is not the issue; it is liberty.
While acknowledging the “profound consequences” (Frank’s #3), such as pensions, social security, status of Texans serving in the military, etc. that a separation would bring, it should be remembered that the consequences for remaining attached to the United States might be profound as well—loss of free speech; indoctrination in halls of learning; excessive taxation; a wildly out-of-control unconstitutional welfare system; a ministry of Truth (propaganda) that is already being organized at the Federal level; the crushing of Texas jobs, cancellation of 2nd Amendment; the loss of free and fair elections, and more. The only issue here is if we will allow people to weigh the profound consequences for themselves.
Pertaining to love of country (Frank’s #1), it must be stated that all of us love this country. The issue is not whether we love this country, but whether we love the gifts of God such as life and liberty more than the United States of America. The main issue I wish to address is his second objection, pertaining to the Constitution.
No Specific Provision for Secession?
Rep. Frank fails to understand the very essence, the nature of the U.S. Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #78, explains the entire principle.
There is no position which depends upon clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority [federal government] contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy [federal government] is greater than his principal [the people which created the deputy]; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
Hamilton was arguing for the interposition of the Courts to protect people, but the principle is the same. That principle is that the people delegated only so much authority to the federal government; that the federal government is merely the deputy created by the principal, the people; that the master is the people and the federal government is the servant. The Federal government is the creation of the people, and it is “we the people” that give to the government its right to exist.
Why was it thus created? Not an instrument to grant rights to people, but a creation of the people to protect what God gave us; namely, life, liberty and property. Authority flows upward from the people, which is why the Constitution begins, “We the People.” Rights to life, liberty, property, and self-government preceded the creation of government.
This is the basic fundamental premise upon which all of our statecraft was built and explains why the Founders would sign a document that reads, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …” They did not look for permission for secession from England in English statutes. This same concept is built right into our own Constitution, for the 10th Amendments provides that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The right of self-government is one of these.
The argument for secession therefore has never been that one can find its justification in a specific statute which provides for it, but is man’s appeal to Almighty God for the right of self-government, an argument based upon natural law. Ignoring this basic fact throws our entire system into wild confusion, a confusion represented by Frank’s reasoning of the “illegality” of secession on the basis that “there is no provision” in the Constitution that grants this right. The Constitution never didgrant us rights—those come from God.
Rep. Frankturns the entire nature of our Constitution on its head. Such reversal of authority is a common error, but a fatal one. American governing is such that it is the people who grant to the Federal Government its rights, not the other way around. To accept the alternative revokes Hamilton’s main point and asserts that the “deputy” is indeed greater that the “principal,” that the “servant” is greater than “the master,” for the servant does not give us a provision to withdraw!
When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia 1787 to draw up a new constitution, they were not creating a national system to “grant rights” — they already owned these rights from God. What was done in Philadelphia was to create a central government by granting to it certain specified powers that had previously belonged to their several states. The right of secession therefore, is based upon the presupposition of an inalienable right of free people to consent to the form of government under which we must live.
William Rawle, in one of the first commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1825 and used for many years at West Point Military Academy, stated, “The secession of a free state from the Union depends upon the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.” Again, “The United States were formed into a federal body, with an express reservation to each state of its freedom, sovereignty and independence.”
If Rep. Frank is correct, that secession is “illegal” and “ill-advised” then never is there an escape from a government that works to usurp the will of the people, for that is a dictum that admits of no recourse.This cuts the legs out from beneath the Founders themselves. He takes the position that he does not favor a proposed referendum vote (HB 1359), which is only to allow the people to voice their opinions in the ballot box as to whether they would favor secession. Rather than withholding a vehicle whereby the people can speak, the earnest invitation is to give the people voice. Vote HB 1359 and liberate the will of the people.
“Politics” is one of those words that has taken on ugly connotations in almost every context in which it is used. It has the air of manipulating people for some personal gain. Indeed, one of the definitions of “politic” is “shrewd, crafty, unscrupulous.” If we leave it right there, then the issue of Christian involvement settles itself.
However, political science refers to the methods and principles of governing. When used in this sense, it is more statecraft, which is “the art of managing state affairs.” Used in this way the entire issue of Christian participation takes on a different color. Let’s back up to some basics.
God created man in his own image (Gen. 1:26). Only mankind (humanity) was created by God with this “image.” This apparently refers to the capacity of humans to exercise free will; to have moral sensitivity; to manage rational behavior. The point, however, is that humankind only, of all of God’s creation, has intrinsic value.
An extension of this value is liberty—freedom of movement and choice. This is man’s endowment from God because man cannot sustain himself without labor or work. Man is to utilize (subdue, have dominion over, Gen. 1:28) the creation to that end. The original order from the Creator was to work or labor in order to eat (Gen. 2:15-16). God’s design therefore implies liberty in order to accomplish this.
At the same time, private property is an extension of my labor, an extension of myself. “Thou shalt not steal” implies private ownership of property. Even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the same in 1972 in Lynch v. Household Finance. Property rights are “fundamental civil rights.” Further, the right to property is inseparable from the right to liberty. One cannot exist without the other.
What is Law?
“Law” is simply “rule of action.” Frederic Bastiat, in his classic essay The Law, wrote it best. “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” Are Christians banned from crafting laws by which to protect their God-endowed rights? Surely not.
Law then, as Bastiat breaks it down, is defined as “the common force that protects this collective right [and it] cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.” That is to say, law is the common force of a number of people and only has the authority of those individuals in defense of life, liberty, and property.
We ask: Is it right to defend my life with force? If yes, then, I may do it collectively as well with a “common force.” Is it right to defend my liberty with force? My property? “Thou shalt not steal” is again, good law—but it is meaningless without an enforcement mechanism. Empty words without teeth. Remember, even the apostles carried swords (Luke 22:38).
If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then we might ask how was it that God Himself so provided for those things in the Old Testament? Defense of any of these is certainly not inherently wrong. The “common force” is nothing less than government. If a Christian may engage in defense of life, liberty or property as an individual, he or she may do so as part of government.
Is it possible that a “common force” (government) can be used for nefarious ends? Of course. But it is also possible for the collective force or governing authority to do right. This is the basis of Romans 13:1-7.
The New Testament
Let’s check our answer with the New Testament. The apostle Paul was arrested in Jerusalem (Acts 23). Kept in a Roman prison, he discovered that a plot had been laid for his life by the Jews. This conspiracy (23:12) was made known to Paul by his nephew while visiting the apostle. Paul instructed the young lad to take the information to the commandant. The commandant considered the news credible and prepared almost 500 armed soldiers—acting as a police force and deterrent to the murderous plot of the Jews—to transport Paul to Caesarea.
Here is a case of an apostle, utilizing the lethal force of government to protect his life and ensure a miscarriage of justice did not occur. It is certainly right to use violence for self-preservation. If it is right for Paul to use it, it is right for another Christian to participate in the governing authority that Paul used.
It seems less than satisfactory for one to respond, “Well, the Roman soldiers and governing authorities are going to hell anyway, so let them to the killing.” By that lack of rationale one would hope that conversions among the military or police or state officials would not occur so that we may protect ourselves with the devil’s population!
It seems clear that a Christian may engage in statecraft—organizing laws and regulations for a community based upon Christian standards, including enforcement mechanisms. The only issue therefore, is: What kind of governance is it by which we can best maintain the liberties granted to us by God? The perfect answer is provided succinctly by the one and only Thomas Jefferson.
In a letter to Gideon Granger in 1800 Jefferson explained how centralization of government would lead to despotism and loss of freedom.
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens, and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. And I do verily believe, that if the principle were to prevail, of a common law being force in the United States, … it would become the most corrupt government on the earth.
If you wish to maintain your liberties, keep the governing powers local. With words that are so accurate they ring prophetic, he continued,
What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government. The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations. Let the General Government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations, except as to commerce, which the merchants will manage the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves, and our General Government may be reduced to a very simple organization and a very inexpensive one; a few plain duties to be performed by a few servants.
The House impeachment hearings were little more than political theater — a partisan fistfight with the majority party coming out the “winner.” In the process, it created the illusion of deep division and disagreement. Devoted Democrats and Republicans are both convinced that their team is fighting for their interests against a determined foe on the other side of the aisle.
But while everybody obsessed over the political theater playing out on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC, they completely missed the sideshow that could actually impact their lives. Even as Democrats and Republicans engaged in a contentious public spectacle in the media spotlight, they worked in concert behind the scenes to steal your liberty and your wealth.
While you argued over the gory details of impeachment with your friends on Facebook, Congress passed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The nearly 3,500-page bill authorizes $738 billion in defense spending in Fiscal Year 2020. It creates a “Space Force,” so the U.S. can expand its empire into the cosmos. And Congress rejected a provision that would have made it just slightly harder for the president to unilaterally send American troops into combat. In other words, Congress agreed that it would not bother to do its job and declare war before sending the U.S. military to conduct offensive combat operations as required by the Constitution. It will continue to let the president make that call on his own. You know – the president the House just impeached.
Even worse, the current iteration of the NDAA extended provisions written into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that effectively authorize government kidnapping. The vaguely worded sections purport to authorize the arrest and “indefinite detention” of anybody the president decides might be associated with “terrorism” and subject them to the law of war. In effect, the government can deem you a terrorist and lock you away without due process. Government kidnapping may sound like hyperbole, but that’s exactly what the NDAA authorizes in effect.
Speaking of war, while all eyes were glued to the three-ring circus in D.C., the Washington Post released documents revealing that the U.S. government has been lying to us about the war in Afghanistan for decades.
“A confidential trove of government documents obtained by The Washington Post reveals that senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.”
As one three-star general put it, “What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking. If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction .?.?. 2,400 lives lost.”
This seems, maybe, just a tiny bit, significant. But the news barely saw the light of day. It was completely buried under an avalanche of impeachment reporting.
The sad truth is that these papers that have been mostly ignored provide legitimate grounds for impeachment – not just of Donald Trump, but Barack Obama and George W. Bush to boot. But when it comes to war, Congress maintains a bipartisan consensus supporting the endless, unconstitutional foreign interventions and the presidents who run them. And the media is complicit, focusing on the fake wrestling matches on Capitol Hill instead of reporting on real wars
And while we’re on the subject of bipartisan consensus, let me remind you that Congress reauthorized sections of the Patriot Act in the latest stopgap spending bill. This means the federal government will be able to continue to spy on you without a warrant and in complete disregard of the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) predicted it would happen.
Today, while everyone is distracted by the impeachment drama, Congress will vote to extend warrantless data collection provisions of the #PatriotAct, by hiding this language on page 25 of the Continuing Resolution (CR) that temporarily funds the government. To sneak this through, Congress will first vote to suspend the rule which otherwise gives us (and the people) 72 hours to consider a bill. The scam here is that Democrats are alleging abuse of Presidential power, while simultaneously reauthorizing warrantless power to spy on citizens that no President should have… in a bill that continues to fund EVERYTHING the President does… and waiving their own rules to do it. I predict Democrats will vote on a party line to suspend the 72 hour rule. But after the rule is suspended, I suspect many Republicans will join most Democrats to pass the CR with the Patriot Act extension embedded in it.
And indeed they did.
And finally, while Congress-critters battled it out on the House floor, behind the scenes, congressional leaders worked with the Trump administration to hammer out a $1.4 trillion spending agreement. According to an Associated Press report, the deal “fills in the details of a bipartisan framework from July that delivered about $100 billion in agency spending increases over the coming two years instead of automatic spending cuts that would have sharply slashed both the Pentagon and domestic agencies.”
So, let’s review. While America was mesmerized by the pro-wrestling event on Capitol Hill, Congress agreed to maintain the government’s “authority” to kidnap you, to keep spying on you without a warrant, to continue unconstitutional wars, and to spend you deeper into debt.
Political theater makes for splashy headlines and heated debates, but it really has very little impact on your life. The political class, including the mainstream media, would prefer you pay attention to the fluff, not to the things that really matter. Perhaps instead of obsessing over impeachment or the latest debate over a Trump tweet, you would be better served to pay attention to what they don’t want you to pay attention to.
Freedom irritates the left. Not their own freedom—but yours. Democrats live with a hatred; a despising of the very principle of liberty. This is the essential difference between the left and the right—not merely how spend money and upon what—but whether or not to curtail your freedom.
Consider free speech. The free and open exchange of ideas has been the hallmark of American society for over two centuries. The First Amendment has served as a prohibition against the Federal Government from managing any kind of speech. Alarmingly, however, more than one-half of Americans today favor a “re-writing” of the First Amendment whereby “hate speech” would be illegal. The survey was taken by the nonpartisan Campaign for Free Speech (CFS).
College campuses lead the nation in showing contempt for free speech. Most college students, according to surveys, want restrictions on what they call “offensive” speech. Marxist professors have instilled a pure hatred for free speech in the student bodies. Witness the hostile reception conservative speakers have had at various Universities around the country.
Even the liberal American Bar Association (ABA) documents in a recent article the silencing of various speakers at college campuses. The authors, Stephen J. Wermiel & Josh Blackman, try to explain that it comes from “both sides”, left and right, but conclude that the “incidents” of disruption to speakers on the liberal side are “less common.” Indeed! And it is more than a stretch to say that “hecklers” wearing “Make America Great Again” hats equate with the violence of shutting down speakers and forcing college campuses to withdraw conservative invitations to speak. Silencing by force is the leftist method.
Force has been used so much by the left that some Republican-led state legislatures have felt the need to impose policies on their state university campuses to allow free speech.
Under the rubric of “hate speech” the big tech giants Facebook and YouTube have already shut down Alex Jones’ voice on InfoWars.Some Christian voices, like Julio Severo, are put in “Facebook jail” for posting Bible verses such asabout homosexuality. Google suppressed Prager University and Twitter temporarily banned Candace Owens. So prevalent has this forcible silencing of speech been on the left that Bill Maher was compelled to ask, “If you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech. That’s free speech for the speech that you hate.”
Consider Climate Change. The Paris Climate Accord from which Trump withdrew in 2017 is all about force. Those who preach the Green Gospel of saving the planet cannot garner enough support for their message by normal debate and means of persuasion. Therefore, these globalists wish to sign American taxpayers on to a globalist “Carbon Pricing Panel” whereby the dictators of the United Nations will force reparations from the United States to pay for our environmental sins. These payments will be distributed to Third World and developing nations.
All of us have pulpits. Some of us preach the gospel of Christ and by reasons addressed to the mind ask worshippers to contribute in collection trays. Leftists and socialists of the Democrat Party cannot garner enough support for their doomsday message that the Sky is Falling, consequently they must save us all—by forcing us to pay contributions to their collection baskets. They cannot rely on freedom or the free-flow of ideas, so proponents of the Green Gospel use force.
Fred Singer, prominent scientist at the Heartland summit, a University of Virginia environmental science Professor Emeritus, and founder of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, observed, “This is about money and power. Science plays a small role, and mostly it’s being misused….It’s a matter of really trying to control things.”
Consider attacks on private property. So essential is this to freedom that John Adams commented that this was the single foundation stone undergirding all human freedom and liberty. “Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.”
The left knows this as well. The all-out attack on private property by the program Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), fostered by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development program and flourishing under HUD funding, has become common-place in American cities.
Big government planners do not like that you have the “freedom of association.” Liberty to live where you like and with those whom you are most comfortable is anathema. We must pare down your liberty branches! Cities are bribed with the endless access to federal money to “re-distribute” the racial mixes of their populations. Cities such as Baltimore, MD are placing minority families in white suburbia. No freedom here.
Liberal bastion Minneapolis, Minnesota became the first city to end single-family zoning. The Mayor of the city called such housing a mark of racism and “self-segregation” that must be halted at once. The white population is in his cross-hairs. Other cities are beginning to follow suit. 1
There are also a large number of organizations, such as Center for Study of Social Policy, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE); Center for American Progress (CAP); W. Kellogg Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and others, that are in the business of bribing cities with large amounts of George Soros money to forcibly re-zone various neighborhoods or re-draw school boundaries to dismantle schools that have “too large a white or Asian population.” 2
Another group, PolicyLink, a radical activist group, pushes policies such as “parks equity” which states that lack of access to city parks are partly responsible for “racial performance gaps” in school and on the job. The manifesto therefore is for middle-class tax-payers, once again by force, to begin funding more parks in slum areas of the country.
The common denominator in all of this is lack of freedom. Force replaces it. This is the tool of the left.