The freedom we have enjoyed is fragile; and it is endangered. The acreage of our freedom is rapidly shrinking.

The most endangered species in the world is the citizen who is free.

We will most assuredly lose the freedoms we have enjoyed unless we understand how to preserve them.

Do you:

Understand why freedom exists where it does and nowhere else?

Understand the crucial difference between positive freedom and negative freedom?

Understand why and where freedom originated and what is required for it to flourish and be retained?

Ever stop to consider what our life and the life of our families would be like if we fail to preserve the freedom we inherited?

Ever consider what the world itself would be like without an America that is free?

If we don’t understand these things, we cannot preserve our freedom. Worse, we will have no excuse to offer for permitting it to be taken from us; we will deserve the opprobrium we will receive for creating the squalid lives our children and grandchildren will surely endure. Worst of all, the loss of freedom will again subjugate the human spirit to the will of the few for generations. More blood will be required to resurrect it.

These posts will occur over a period of months, perhaps even longer. In them I will give the lessons I have learned from a lifetime of the study of human freedom.

You should consider subscribing in order to receive all the posts I put on the Culture and Freedom website to be sure you have the entire series. Please subscribe by using the easy and secure subscription box in the right column on the Home page. Each of the posts in this series will be included in a special Category called History of Freedom. If you have enjoyed past posts, you might alert your friends through the Facebook, Twitter, and other links available to you on the site.

The development of the idea that all individuals have an intrinsic, natural right to freedom is – historically speaking – a recent phenomenon. But it is no accident of history.

The existence of freedom in America is the result of an unquenchable thirst for the right of personal expression; and it is built on the recognition of the infinite worth of every individual member of the human race.

It exists because of the willing sacrifice, suffering, murder, and heroism of millions of unknown and unheralded individuals who resisted the exercise of power over their individual choices exerted by the few in order to control the many.

“Might is right,” has been the modus operandi of human organization throughout history. Aggressive individuals, Warlords, Emperors, Kings, Oligarchies, Plutocracies, Committees of Public Safety, and Soviets all exercised brutality and lies to organize lesser humans for purposes of plunder, monument building, and adventurism; or as cogs on the wheels designed by the powerful, of the powerful, and for the powerful.

Most people believe they know how everyone else should live. Some of these are absolutely committed to making others live that way. Exceedingly few in this group actually gain sufficient power to carry out their dream of how people should live their lives. Nietzsche announced the Superman. Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and a host of others became him.

Now, it is bureaucrats who have become Superman. They are not murderous; rather they are a stifling, suffocating, smothering panoply of regulators, and their work  is no less toxic to freedom; no less lethal to the human spirit than the more overt manner of the others.

They are charged with inspecting and controlling every aspect of your life, what you eat, where you go, what you earn, the size of the rooms in your home, what you feed your dog, how your correct your children – everything; every nuance of your life is under their microscope and under their control.  Cogs on the wheel indeed.

If freedom dies by regulation rather than by the sword it is no less dead. We are confronted by threats of violence demanding that we relinquish our freedom or die; and we are confronted by threats and intimidation from a dense web of legal apparatus to relinquish our freedom to the regulators.  It’s for our own good, they say.

My mission; our task is to prevent all manner Supermen from supplanting our dream with theirs. 

The desire to exert control over the activities of other people is widespread in America today; the only disagreement is how it should be done. The “might is right” theory of government has been, and still is the most prevalent form of human political organization.

Human freedom has occurred only once in human history. We alone have had the privilege of experiencing it; but dark and ominous clouds portend a tempest that threatens to shatter our fragile homestead of freedom so carefully built at such great cost through the centuries.

To hear the debate in Washington D.C., you would think that cutting back by 1.5% or 2% on the federal budget will be the end of the world.  While the economic conditionof the country is circling the bottom of the toilet bowl there are prominent politicians who will continue to say that they need to spend even more money.

There isn’t any money, of course, but that is barely a speed bump – they just print it, or borrow it.

The tired refrain goes:  ”I think we are a compassionate country; we don’t want people to starve or not get good medical treatment; we don’t want people living on the streets; we don’t want our senior citizens eating dog food.  So I propose that we act compassionately and not with hatred toward those less fortunate than us.  We need to quit giving tax breaks to big busineses and fat cats and share our good fortune with others.”

“In fact, I’m so convinced that we are a compassionate nation, and I care so much about our hurting fellow-citizens that I’m going to take even more of your money and give it to somebody else who I have determined needs it more than you do.”

“I realize they may or not be willing to work; they may or may not be willing to work; and I realize that you may not be able to support the charities you have supported before because you will have less money, but I care so much that I’m going to do this anyway because it’s the right thing to do.”

This is what these people are saying.  In the original Greek.  So look at this:

hat tip: Investors Business Daily

It’s clear that there is no U.S. interest in our involvement in Libya.  No U.S. citizens were in danger.  Libyians were involved in the bombing of a German discotheque in 1986, but the perpetrators were punished in court. Libya has not attacked any U.S. interest since the Lockerbie incident in 1988 23 years ago.

The U.S. dropped Libya from the ‘state sponsor of terror watch list,’ and even restored diplomatic relations with the country in 2006 because the country had dismantled their nuclear program under the eye of inspectors.  In my previous post I showed why President Obama has launched the current attack.  His has become an imperial presidency.  Mr. Obama has become a warlord.

What I want to point out in this post is that we actually have more Constitutional warrant; War Powers Act authority; and United Nations resolution cover for actually launching an attack against Mexico then we do Libya.  The only thing we wouldn’t have is cover provided by the Arab League so eagerly sought by Mr. Obama.

Mexico has either been unable, or unwilling to prevent its criminals from illegally crossing our border for the purpose of breaking U.S. laws.  The results of these efforts have contributed to the addictions of millions of Americans  creating anual expenses in the tens of $billions for additional police, prosecutions, incarcerations, treatments, and medical costs. 

Libya has done none of these things against the United States.  Sure its a crummy country with with oil and a horrible “leader;” but it has done no damage to the United States that begins to compare with what the Mexican government has allowed to happen.

Mr. Obama doesn’t like what was happening in Libya, so he sent our military to do something about it.  It has nothing to do with protecting our country – it’s just what he wants to do.  He is using our military to do something we have no say in; to do something he just decided he wants to do. 

What happens when some future president follows Mr. Obama’s precedent and launches the U.S. military to create a ‘no-fly zone’ over Mexico, for example, because he personally doesn’t like the way they are doing things?  That he doesn’t want any Mexican blood shed on his watch?  Too many people dying in Mexico!

Could any of those supporting the President in Libya make a coherent argument that this imaginary future president would be acting illegally? Unconstitutionally?  No.  The precedent has been set. 

Can Obama supporters say that more people have been murdered in Libya than in Mexico therefore we must not do it?  No.  Could they say that Libya did more to harm the U.S. than Mexico?  No.

Do I think we should launch any kind of military action against Mexico?  Of course not. 

I’m only pointing out that Mr. Obama is a complete cowboy when it comes to the use of American military might to carry out something personal concern to him; something that is completely unconcerned with U.S. security, and in fact could destabilize the entire Middle East.  And he has set the precedent for any future president to engage in any kind of war ‘kinetic military action’ against anyone in the world just because he personally wants to.

The reason for my new-found fear is that it just dawned on me that for the past several years I have been earning more money than Chrysler Corporation; even more than General Motors.  In fact, I’ve been earning more than Chrysler and General Motors combined, for crying out loud!

Well, it could be different this year what with the government taking some of my money and spreading it around to GM.  Hey, if you don’t count their $billions in debt, or their (almost) unlimited stash of taxpayer money they can tap whenever they want, they are looking almost profitable!  Now if they could just sell some cars.

I was hesitant at first to make this post public for fear of Mr. Obama finding out just how much I really make compared to GM, but he’s busy right now licking his wounds from the trouncing he got by that Iranian guy Mahmūd Ahmadinezhād over nuclear weapons.  Besides, Mr Obama will attand a lecture tomorrow by Mexican President Calderone about what a horrible place America is for Mexicans to visit and collect welfare, and that if we don’t stop treating Mexican citizens like this, he might call us names and discourage them from coming!  I know that will keep the president’s attention off me because he will be apologizing to illegal Mexicans for several days.  Besides, everyone who works for GM has been making more than GM too; if I’m in trouble, so are they!  Except I don’t belong to the UAW.  Isn’t socialism great?

It occurred to me today as I was thinking about the so-called ‘green movement’ what an arrogant bunch they are.  Their hubris knows no bounds.  First, they presume that the rest of us are so ignorant that we actually think they are engaged in environmental causes.  We know this isn’t true because they have no interest in truth. 

They make up the loss of species out of whole cloth; they never applaud the hundreds of new species discovered each year.   They lie about Polar Bear population; and Arctic and Antarctic Ice.  They lie about the so-called ozone hole, rising sea levels, glaciers around the world, and the contribution humanity has made to the preservation of species throughout the world.   They mislead by showing certain pictures with captions that are not true.  They lie about the loss of forest land.  They lied about DDT.  They are willing to see tens of millions of children die in order to preserve mosquitoes.  They are inconsistent: they don’t want anyone to kill any animal life, but (at least occasionally) they bathe and kill tens of millions of bacteria and other flora living on their body  They are willing for thousands of accidents to occur annually on our highways injuring thousands of people when there are too many deer; they are fine with cougars killing joggers and schoolchildren.

Their real interest is in using the goodwill of the people to create a socialist, command and control power structure throughout the world.  Little wonder many communists because instant environmental converts as soon as the Soviet Union fell.  Would any of them suggest that Gorbachev and the communists throughout eastern Europe were implementing good environmental policies before the people threw them out?

But what occurred to me today is their innate arrogance.  They are of the opinion that people are so powerful they can destroy the earth; that humanity has become so godlike that we hold the power in our hands to destroy or save nature.  They have postulated this in various incarnations over the decades: global winter, global warming, mass starvation, CO2 poisoning and on and on, but their predictions universally are proven to be wrong.  Environmentalists are the true apocalyptic false prophets.  Their basic assumption is that the universe as created by God is impotent in the face of almighty Man. Move over God, here comes Man.  The rest of us remain more humble about the power of man.

Please look at these pictures and tell me you really believe these goofballs.

Please note one of man’s highest achievements in the upper left quadrant – an airplane. 

 Who in hades do they think they are anyway?  They are sufficiently arrogant that they think Man can ruin or save the earth; they even more arrogant to think we will believe them.

But what I find ironic is that very famous, very public people are also trying to overthrow our government but nobody says anything about it.  What’s the big surprise?

Consider the move by Franklin Roosevelt, the mama’s boy who had to be constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court in his attempt to overthrow the U.S. government.  

This may come as a surprise to you, but it was the Supreme Court which stated that the Roosevelt regime was attempting to take over the constitutional authority of the Congress.  This was only a very public attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. 

The court further said that even if the Congress was willing to go along with the unconstitutional plan and wanted the Executive branch to take over these duties, they could not constitutionally do it.  The Constitution forbids one branch of our government to abdicate their power to a different branch – even if they want to.  The question of our time is whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States still has the courage to protect the Constitution for us during this present Democrat Party assault against it.  If they don’t, then we will have to revisit our government and make the changes we require.  It is our government; not theirs.  We must not let them take it away from us.

A Closer Look at Attempts to Overthrow American Constituted Government  

Democrat politicians including Mr. Obama have conspired to use the powers of the government through the Internal Revenue Service to force you to purchase a service from a private company.  If you fail to do it, they will know about it because they also force you to tell them the last details of your private financial income and expenses because of the income tax system they have implemented.  They have the power to take money from your bank or Credit Union without your permission and without notice.  They have the power to seize your property, your real estate your boat – anything – without warning and sell it.  Then when you can no longer provide for your children, then can take them too.  Should you seek to hide from them by using cash – living off the grid so to speak – if they find you, you will be sent to jail.

A number of states and other organizations are filing suits in federal courts in order to overturn all or parts of this unconstitutional monstrosity.  Mr. Obama and his regime will count on the Supreme Court to declare that the U.S. Constitution permits the Congress to institute these provisions because of the “Commerce Clause.”

What is the Commerce Clause?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”  That’s it.

During colonial times prior to the U.S. Constitution, some colonies would exact huge taxes on goods shipped through their territory as a means of raising money.  As an example, tobacco grown in Virginia going to Massachusetts would have to pass through Pennsylvania or New Jersey, and then New York.  These colonies could charge whatever taxes they wanted on the commerce being moved through their territory.  This created disunity among the colonies, and if we were to have a union, this problem had to be resolved in the Constitution.  The writers of the Constitution wrote the “Commerce Clause” in order to stop the practice.

Almost universally for the first 156 years of our Republic these words in the Constitution were used exclusively to solve the problem they were written to address.  Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson routinely tried to overthrow the federalist system outlined in the Constitution, but the federal courts denied them the power they wanted.  But the Great Depression gave Franklin Roosevelt the opportunity to begin the overthrow of our Constitution.  Remember the immortal words of that great philosopher Rahm Emmanuel, “You never want to waste a crisis.”  Especially if it will help you overthrow constituted government.

Enter Franklin Roosevelt, Progressive

During the early years of his presidency, Roosevelt and his allies in the Congress passed a dizzying number of laws that sucked power away from the people and the states to the federal government.  Which our Constitution was written to prevent.  Many of these were challenged in the federal courts, and most of the challenges were upheld by the Supreme Court declaring Roosevelt’s attempts as unconstitutional.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937

In the weeks following his re-election and taking office in January 1937 – out of sheer frustration with the Constitution and the Supreme Court seeking to uphold it – in February 1937 Roosevelt proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.

This legislation would give him the power to “pack the court” as it was referred to.  Despising the members of the court upholding the Constitution and opposing its overthrow; and desiring to impose his own vision of federal power by subverting it, Roosevelt proposed that for every sitting Justice on the Supreme Court who was 70 ½ years old, he could appoint an additional Justice up to a maximum of 6 additional Justices which would make a total of 15 instead of 9.  Everyone knew why he wanted to do this – he wanted to create an imperial presidency;he wanted the power to implement the laws he wanted regardless of whether or not they were constitutional.  He wanted to make himself a ruler rather than a temporary administrator complying with limitations imposed by the Constitution.  He wanted a Supreme Court that was actually part of the Executive Branch – a group of “yes” men who would help him dismantle the U.S. Constitution by rubber-stamping his power grab.

Almost immediately following his death a move was begun to amend the Constitution to prevent any other person from grabbing the power Roosevelt had.  On February 22, 1951 the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the people of the United States limiting any one person from being elected President for more than two terms; Roosevelt was elected 4 times.  He will live in as much infamy as the the assault on Pearl Harbor which he, himself said would live in infamy.  He did much more to destroy the constituted government of the United States than did Imperial Japan.  What an awful man he was.

West Coast Hotels Co. v. Parrish (1937)

Congress proposed the legislation but was wary about the outcome.  While the legislation was struggling in Congress, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of West Coast Hotels Co. v. Parrish in March of 1937.  In this case, Justice Owen Roberts who had consistently ruled in favor of the Constitution and against Roosevelt reversed his previous positions and gave the federal government the power to rule in cases of state minimum wage laws.  This power is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but the “Commerce Clause,” they said, gives them the power.  The reasoning of the court was that the restriction of liberty of contract by state law is a legitimate function of government if the government is only trying to protect someone’s health, and, they said, minimum wage laws protect a person’s health.  Note: if your motives are compassionate, restricting freedom is no problem.  (Nose thumb at the Constitution.)

Everyone knew that the Justices were afraid of Roosevelt and the Progressives in Congress and their attempt to pack the court.  Everyone also knew that Justice Roberts had gotten cold feet, backed down, and participated in opening the door to the end of the federalism the Framers had created in the U.S. Constitution.  So his change of heart was “the switch in time that saved nine.”

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)

The next domino to fall undermining the Constitution was NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937).  The Justices ruled that the federal government (through the newly created National Labor Relations Board) had the power to regulate all activities between business and labor unions throughout the United States because of the “Commerce Clause.”

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Then Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 decided that the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 – which among other things set quotas on wheat production – was Constitutional.  Now, the Executive Branch of the federal government could decide who much wheat you could grow in your own land.  Complements of the “Commerce Clause.”

The Agriculture Adjustment Act was designed to keep wheat prices artificially high even during a time when people in the U.S. were on the verge of starvation, visiting soup kitchens by the millions, and hitching rides on trains around the country to try to find work.  Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard was charged with carrying out this abomination, and fined a farmer by the name of Filburn.  Farmer Filburn grew wheat, and was permitted by his masters in Washington D.C. to sell some of it under this legislation. 

Filburn complied with the amount of wheat he was permitted by Roosevelt to sell, but he grew some extra wheat he did not sell – he used it to feed his chickens, he didn’t sell any of it.  For this, the federal government issued him a fine for violating a federal regulation made up in the Roosevelt White House.

He refused to pay the fine, and the case eventually got to the Supreme Court which ruled that not only does the federal government have the power to control the amount of wheat you can sell; it also has the power to control how much you grow for your personal use!  Here’s how distorted the thinking was.  They ruled that if Filburn grew wheat for his personal use, it violated the Commerce Clause because that might mean he wouldn’t need to buy wheat to feed his chickens from someone else who might have grown it in another state!  By not purchasing wheat from someone else for his chickens, Filburn violated federal control on interstate commerce.  By growing his own wheat for his own personal use, he violated the dictates of the President!  Pay the fine.

A Few Other Observations about how the Courts Interpret the “Commerce Clause”

The federal government spends $billions of your tax dollars to keep the prices of cotton, wheat, peanuts, sugar, milk, soy beans, corn, rice, and about 15 more artificially high.  So your taxes provide corporate farmers money to keep the price of all these commodities higher than they would be if there were a free market.  You pay taxes to keep the price of milk high, and then you are taxed to pay to subsidize milk for schoolchildren because the price is too high!  I’m not joking.  All this is accomplished through the “Commerce Clause.”   Progressives call this “progress.”  Some of you vote for people like this.

To further irritate you, I point out that a recent Washington Post investigation discovered 75 acres of Texas farmland that had been converted into a housing development. Today, the homeown­ers on these properties (which are worth well over $300,000 each) are eligible for fixed payments for the lawn in their backyards because of its “historical rice production.“ Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks.  They’re still coming.

Besides this, we have about 40 million acres of cropland for which the owners are paid to not grow crops in order to keep the prices high.  “Commerce Clause” as implemented and interpreted by liberals and Progressives. See here.

Other Things Our Government Masters Control Because They Define Them as “Interstate Commerce”

Today, the federal government controls the racial complement of school classrooms, property taxes for racial balancing of public schools – without representation, racial hiring quotas, affirmative action, federal crimes not listed in the Constitution, the FBI, information required on restaurant menus everywhere, all tobacco products, what you can do with your own land through the “Endangered Species Act,” ( including many species which reside in only a small plot in one state – Delhi Sand fly, Delta Smelt, toads, worms, and more; mud puddles on your own land through Wetlands, Clean Water Act, Navigable Waterways legislation) automobile gas mileage, turn signals and endless other accessories on your car, the breath you exhale…All of this and much more has been permitted by the Supreme Court through the “Commerce Clause” which I remind you says, “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” 

However noble, however compassionate the motives of those who enact and support such travesties; to define these issues as impacting interstate commerce is a travesty.  If some of these things need to be done, let us find a better; a legal, a constitutional way.  Otherwise, we will have permitted our own Congress and federal courts to destroy our document – the people’s document; our declaration on the limitations of governmental power – the U.S. Constitution.  If they want to change it, let them follow the Constitution on how changes are to be made.

Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995)

The Leslie Salt Company dug shallow ponds on their own property permitting sea water to flood in filling the ponds.  The company would then let the water evaporate leaving the salt from the ocean which they could then harvest, purify, and sell.  A suit was filed and finally Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995) was decided by the Supreme Court. 

In spite of the fact that it was their own property, and in spite of the fact that they were not altering existing ponds in any way, the Supreme Court determined that before the water might evaporate, it’s possible that migratory birds could land on the water thus making these ponds subject to federal jurisdiction because these birds constitute interstate commerce under the “Commerce Clause!”  There was no ‘commerce’ related to the birds because it was not a vacation spot, no one came to see them; the ponds were not involved in any way with the birds’ ability to fly from one state to another because they were recently created; and there was no evidence that the birds actually stopped briefly at the ponds.  No matter, it’s just another power grab on the part of the federal government.  The “Commerce Clause” has become an excuse for the federal government to overturn constituted government in the United States with the willing complicity of the Supreme Court.  The’ migratory bird’ gambit has been used over and over to protect mud puddles and shut down otherwise permitted uses of private property.

Planning to Completely Overthrow Constituted Government

Despite the aggregate damage to our Constitution so far, now the Obama regime would have us go even further to create an imperial presidency by creating legislation that would command you to make a purchase from a private company solely because you are a citizen of the United States.  Because they think you should do it.  Through the “Commerce Clause” of course they get to control the price you can be charged for this service.  Wow, the price of citizenship has gone up.  This gang of Progressives wants illegal aliens and felons to vote, but want you to pay a fine if you refuse to spend your money the way they want you to.

Do you actually think the U.S. Constitution permits the government to force you to purchase what some bureaucrat deems to be a public good from a private company?  Do you?  Are you really willing accept what they are trying to do with your country?   I don’t have time here to deal with it, but the Constitution itself denies all of these powers to the federal government be declaring itself to be a document of enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8; all other powers belong to the states or to the people themselves.  Amendment 10 – part of our Bill of Rights says, ”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 federal government exercises powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution all the time.  I really hate to sound like a radical, but where in the Constitution does it say Social Security would be constitutional?  Where is that enumeration about giving tax dollars for education purposes?  Where in the list of enumerated powers does it say the government can pay for your health care?  None of this is constitutional.  If we need to do it, let’s find a way to do it without overthrowing the people’s government.

If the Constitution is not a document of enumerated powers, it is a document of unenumerated powers.  Either it has the limitation of the powers granted to it in the Constitution or it has no limitation on its power at all.  Remember why there is a United States of America: to create a government of limited powers so the people can thrive.  Do you really want the United States federal government to be able to do whatever they want to do?  Seriously?

By the Democrat Party Interpretation of the Constitution the Following Could Become Reality:

What if a future Administration and another Congress decide that you need to be required to purchase a certain kind of food only available at stores regulated and approved by the federal government?  What if you didn’t want to buy it or eat it?  By the logic of the current regime in Washington and their supporters, you would be forced to do it.  There is no difference whatsoever between forcing you to purchase health care or forcing you to purchase a certain kind of food.  In fact, they go together.

Since the government is taking over your state of health and paying for it, they get to determine what constitutes health, and which foods hurt your health and which help it.  No doubt Mr. Obama will have us purchasing government subsidized arugula from Whole Foods in the near future because it’s good for your health.

What if another administration and another congress decide that you need to be required to purchase a bicycle for transportation because they control carbon dioxide and don’t want you driving your car anymore?  (With subsidize public transportation; you won’t need it anyway.)  What if the government controls the construction and safety of bicycles?  They do, of course.  What if the government had a controlling interest in one of the major bicycle manufactures and wanted you to purchase their bikes?  Would you buy one?  What if you didn’t buy it, but the government took the price of it out of your tax return?  Would you then be celebrating Mr. Obama?  By the logic of the current regime, you will learn to like the health care bill once you understand what’s in it. Ditto for the new bicycle and health food bill.

What if a future Regime in the U.S. determines that certain races of people are more prone to costly diseases than others because of inherited genetic issues?  What if they determine that the restriction of liberty is a legitimate government enterprise if the motive is to improve health, and that not treating these people is in the public interest?  Would you then support the principles espoused by Mr. Obama?  Would you then want the Supreme Court to continue the dismantling of constituted government in the U.S?  Would you then be silent about what is happening during your lifetime?  What if a future government determined that gay people cost more to treat medically than heterosexual people and therefore the restriction of liberty is a legitimate government enterprise if the motive is to improve health and refuses to treat them?  Would you sit by and let that happen?

If the Supreme Court permits the government to force you to purchase one commodity or service, they can force you to purchase anything they choose.  Anything.  Think about it.

Many utopian, ideological Progressives; along with people who went to public schools for too many years, and those who are disappointed with their present state of affairs are vulnerable to the slick promises of those who would be their masters.  They are subjected to the smooth, slick propaganda of the mountebanks in Washington D.C., and end up supporting ideas and programs that will impoverish their lives, and stifle their freedom.   Like Esau, they are willing to sell their Constitutional birthright of freedom and opportunity for the short term benefit of a bowl of lentil soup.  It is our task to talk them out of it.

If you think the Democrat Party including Mr. Obama are not trying to overturn the Constitution by redefining what it means and making it the antithesis of what it clearly states, please make a coherent comment on this post.  Declaring through legislation that 2 plus 2 equals 7; or 19, or whatever they decide it should be does not mean that they have changed the laws of mathematics.  Nor does their declaration that the Constitution gives the federal government powers that the Constitution clearly does not give the federal government mean that it suddenly has those powers.

Mr. Obama and the Democrat party are engaged in an open attempt to overthrow the constituted government of the United States. It’s tough to hear it stated in such a way, but I think I have made my case.  The charge will be denied, of course.  I will be labeled as inconsequential and uninformed; but my thesis is true.  The attempt to overthrow our constituted government legitimated by the Constitution on the part of the Democrat Party by means of creating unlawful legislation is no less illegal and immoral than those who would try to overthrow our government by other means.  A pox on both their houses.  Let’s prosecute anyone who would attempt it regardless of their motive, position, status, or means of operation.

So What do we do About this Attempt to Overthrow Constituted Government in the United States? 

• We must support those states which are mounting a defense of the U.S. Constitution against the Congressional attempt to overthrow it. 
• We must raise the level of communication from those of us who love our country and those in the Congress who would overthrow it. 
• We must always keep our communication appropriate. 
• We must support and elect only people of whatever political party that we are absolutely certain want to retain the historic limitations placed on federal government by the Constitution as it is legally amended.
• We must make clear our position, and make clear to them that we expect them to follow the Constitution and not subvert it.  
• We must be articulate and not make any statements that can be used against us.  If we give them any reason, they will find fault with the messenger and pretend that there was no message. 
• We must not lose heart; we will reap in due time if we don’t faint. 
• We must stay winsome. 
• We must not make false accusations against those who are engaged in overturning constituted government – the truth itself is bad enough. 
• We must not be confused by slick, pedantic, side-stepping rhetoric from those who want to divert us from our task of saving the Union. 
• We must realize that taking the country the framers gave us back will take years.
• We must cut through the “newspeak,” think critically and make coherent arguments.

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’” 

“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”  1984

Let Mr. Obama make idiotic statements about there not being any earthquakes the day after the legislation was passed; no asteroids destroying the earth…  I don’t think Mr. Obama is any towering intellect, but I think he is smart enough to know what we are talking about when we say this is the end of legally constituted government in America – he only wants to belittle people who disagree with him.  Nasty sarcasm shrinks Mr. Obama to a 25 inch inseam, and he knows better.  It’s just his well hidden anger leaking out when he goes off the teleprompter.

Here is a link to a post at www.americanthinker.com with some more suggestions about how this power grab may be overcome.  Hat tip, Larrey Anderson.

It was created this way because the people forming it had real life experience with a hegemonic, central governmental power – that of King George III.  The Parliament and the King instituted whatever they wanted – even if the people didn’t want it.  (This may sound vaguely familiar.)

This exercise of the power of the few over the many has been the experience of all humans from the beginning.  Dictators, Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, and military Generals have forced the common citizens to comply with the leader’s vision of what was the good society in every corner of the world in every time throughout history.

The brief experiments at democracy and republicanism during the existence of the Greek city states are not a real exception.  Yes, citizens had input on the influence and structure of government, but in almost every case, there were many more slaves than citizens living in those cities.  Slaves had no input whatsoever, and could not vote, so government by consent of the governed wasn’t practiced at all.

Following the Dark Ages, the influence of Christian ideas about the central value and importance of individuals began to chip away at the concept of the divine rights of Kings.  Having to listen to the concerns of noblemen and barons and Pope Innocent III diminished the power of the central government in England.

The major liberty sought by those who finally left the British Isles and parts of Europe for the Americas was freedom of religion.  They came to these shores and created – over a couple of centuries – a republican, federalist system designed to forever constrain the power of the central government from gaining increased hegemony over individuals.  This is why the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers; the founders created it so the federal government could not do anything other than what the Constitution stated specifically it could do.

Unfortunately, at this period in our history the Constitution has long been disfigured beyond recognition by political manipulation on the part of Representatives, Senators, and Presidents; but most of all by the federal court system including the Supreme Court.  For some 80 years our republic has existed on the accumulated goodwill, and  moral and economic capitol of previous generations.  Not that many lately have not pursued moral and economic success, but only that our effort has been increasingly seen as immoral and bigoted by those who desire to return power to the king.

With the recent overstepping of our Congress at the urging President Obama imposing their vision of what your your life should be, we have indeed returned to government without the consent of the governed.  The imposition of what the few believe to be ‘good for us’ rather than continuing the concept of freedom for citizens probably puts any return to Constitutional federalism and the Bill or Rights out of reach.  The Democrats have just denied you significant parts of your Bill of Rights.

Mr. Obama has said in the past that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his vision. He has stated, “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”  With those words, Mr. Obama reveals that he sees the U.S. Constitution as a roadblock to imposing the laws, rules, regulations, and benefits he wants to implement.

It also shows that his vision for the country is entirely different from what the founders created it to be, and what most Americans think it is.  He wants the government to have powers the framers denied to it.  He wants to take powers of freedom away from the people and give it back to the government as if our War for Independence to end coercive powers of government never occurred.  He does not believe in the divine rights of Kings, but it is clear that Mr. Obama believes in the divine rights of Presidents.  Because he believes in his right to force you to live the way he wants you to live rather than the way you want to live.

By his willing and open overthrow of  the U.S. Constitution with its prohibitions on any activity by government other than what is explicitly permitted, he reveals his belief that he should be free to choose for you, and you should not.  Under this regime, the government does not owe you independence from its coercive powers to control your speech, your economic welfare, your freedom to assemble with those you choose; no - in Obama’s world it owes you retirement, healthcare, income of a certain level, and so on.  This means, of course, that it will have to confiscate money from other people in order to hand out these new ‘positive rights.’

Mr. Obama has also been quite open about his intentions of taking money away from some people and giving it to others – some special people he personally wants to support.  He lamented the direction of the civil rights movement because they followed the Constitution; because they had “…a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

By “redistributive” he means that he sees wealth earned by those who sacrificed, denied themselves, and worked hard to accumulate as not belonging to them at all.  Rather, it actually belongs to the government; in his view, your wealth is a government commodity.  It is a commodity that the government has the right to “redistribute”  to the people Mr. Obama sees as more deserving of it than you.  Certainly in his mind, those who earned it and sacrificed to accumulate it are not deserving of it, else he would not use the coercive powers of government to take it away from them so he can give it to people he deems worthy of it.  And so the concept of “private property” dies with most of the remaining parts of the Constitution under President Obama.

There is no longer any doubt about what he meant when he said just prior to his inauguration that he was just 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America. Forcing us to pay taxes without our consent, forcing us to purchase a product from a government controlled entity against our will, denying us the right to enter into contracts with people of our choosing for purposes of healthcare – all of this and more is breathtaking.  We have just witnessed a coup d’état sans violence.  The Constitution was written in order to protect us from people like Mr. Obama.  Now it is gone.  The smiling, benevolent, suffocating bureaucracies he is imp0sing are no less coersive than the Politbureaus, Oligarchies, and Star Chambers we have seen elsewhere.  Denying you freedom is denial if it comes with a fist or a smile.

It only remains to ask if you are willing to throw them out of office before we lose another Constitutional right – the right to vote.  This one is no more or less sacred than the others we have already lost.

“But, uh, you know, Wen, uh… my presidency depends on your support!” 

Better yet, send me your own captions and I will print them in a future post.  

President Barack Obama meets with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a bilateral at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Dec. 18, 2009. 

This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House. 

(Official White House disclaimer at Flickr.com)  I am in compliance, I am not suggesting approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

We show up at rallies only to be called an unwashed mob, Nazis, obstructionists; we show up at town hall meetings with our elected representatives and are pushed out of the meeting by union thugs, delayed until the room is filled with supporters only, ignored, denounced, degraded, treated like junk.  We are considered evil by the mainstream media outlets even as they are going broke for loss of audience share.  Without doubt we terrify the assorted communists, fascists, socialists, pinkos, bureaucratic totalitarians, and new age relativists in power now; we would ruin their (almost completed) takeover of American cultural, economic, political, and religious life.  We point our that their vaunted new clothes are only imaginary, and their naked hatred of the human condition is unsightly.

We are aghast at why they insist on instituting programs that stifle the human spirit; why they think the imposition of their utopian ideas is a better approach than the principle of liberty.  We are baffled by their naïve, child-like approach to evil wherever it exists in the republic itself or the world at large. 

For 23 years I did talk radio in Portland, Oregon, and one of my most memorable interviews was with British philosopher Dr. Roger Scruton regarding his book The West and the Rest, ISI Books 2001.  Recently Dr. Scruton wrote a brief essay titled “Totalitarian Sentimentality” you can (and should) read the essay here.   Purchase the book at a discount here.

“Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay.  Conservatives therefore maintain severe and – to many people – unattractive attitudes.  They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service.  They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency.” 

“Liberals are of course very different.  They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment.  They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included.  And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better.  Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give – something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves.”

For liberals, “Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess.  This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs.  Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves.  On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden.  The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase of its power both to tax us and to control our lives.”

 Read this essay; read the book – you’ll love them both.

Increased Costs 

1. Mr. Obama has decided to reward his home state by making Illinois the home of the biggest nest of terrorists this side of Tora Bora.  Yes, the Obama has decided to bring the world’s worst terrorists to America.  

A few years ago when the state was flush with money, they built a new state prison for $145 million.  Then they ran into recession problems and didn’t have enough money to actually house prisoners – they are currently using about 10% of the prison’s capacity.  Obama has agreed to purchase the prison from the state of Illinois. 

Attorney General Eric Holder promises that they will pay to “harden” the prison making it, “the most secure prison in America.”  Yeah, Gitmo is already Geneva Convention, and Red Cross approved; already hardened,  It is the most secure prison in the world – we spent tens of $millions making it that way.  No matter; the Obama plans to let it grow weeds while he spends more of your money hardening yet another prison right in the heart of America.  

Today, Illinois officials and U.S. Senators were crowing about creating $1billion worth of jobs for Illinois residents, and they surely need that!  They didn’t say much about duplicating what we already have in Gitmo.  Heck, let’s create some more jobs! 

Legal Problems 

1. Once these terrorists (and alleged terrorists) set foot on U.S. soil they get all the same rights you have.  (You should be encouraged that you will be doing your part by footing the bill for $millions in legal fees provided at no cost for these animals.) 

A failure to convict any of these guys would require that they be released into the U.S. population.  Sure hope they stay in Illinois. 

2. The 2005 Real ID Act bars aliens who have been members of terror organizations, or who have had training in terror camps from entering the U.S.  Oh well, Mr. Holder will find a way around that.  But that could set a precedent permitting more known terrorists into the U.S. couldn’t it?

3. The Obama administration already proposed the idea of releasing Gitmo guys into the U.S. population, and of course we couldn’t expect them to get by without knowledge of the language or any income so they would have to be given welfare benefits.  How’s that hope and change working out for you?  President Bush wanted to attack the enemy while they are on foreign soil to prevent them from coming to the U.S. Barack Obama trumpets the announcement that he wants to BRING the terrorists into the U.S. and roll the dice on whether or not they can be convected of criminal activity!  Whole lot of change; not much hope.

4. Some U.S. judges will be sympathetic to detainees who have been held for years, and will be inclined to dismiss the charges on the basis that the prisoner’s (now) Constitutional right to a speedy trial has been denied, and set him free.

Increased Danger 

1. Most of the lawyers elbowing each other to try to defend these terrorists are ACLU radicals who use our legal system to ruin the country.  (If you think I’m making it up, read about the founder Roger Baldwin.) 

The ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdul Rahman was convicted of facilitating the 1993 World Trade Canter bombing and is serving time in a federal penitentiary.  His defense lawyer Lynne Stewart is also serving time in the federal pen. (The ACLU represented her, but lost in federal court.)  

She was convicted of passing messages from Rahman to his terrorist organization in Egypt – while he was in federal prison.  She had unrestricted access to him as his lawyer. 

Every one of the 200-odd detainees brought into the heart of our country will have numerous lawyers – each of whom will have unlimited access to their clients providing ample opportunity for more facilitation of terror in the U.S. 

2. Obama and Holder say the federal system needs more beds anyway, and the prison in Illinois has 1600 of them.  They are planning to house dangerous U.S. criminals in the same prison with some of the best terror recruiters in the world.  What could go wrong? 

Recruitment of disaffected, hardened, angry criminals will undoubtedly occur.  Remember that communication between Jeremiah Denton, John McCain, and other prisoners occurred in Vietnam despite them being isolated from each other for years.  Expect more domestic terror as a consequence of Obama’s stupid decision. 

3. Recently Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” terrorist who tried to blow up an airliner full of civilians by igniting explosives in his shoe was moved.  Yes, he is serving time in a federal penitentiary after conviction, but he and his lawyer said Mr. Reid’s First Amendment rights were being violated because he couldn’t have communal prayer with other Muslim inmates.  Do you think a federal judge would deny Gitmo detainees the same?  Me either.  Think of this as a growth opportunity.

4. Each of these terrorists (and alleged terrorists) Obama insists on bringing into our home will have access to Muslim spiritual leaders for counsel.  Do you really think a federal judge will deny freedom of religion in a federal prison to a Muslim?  Yeah, right. 

This will also provide opportunity to facilitate communication between terror inmates since the spiritual leader will have access to more than one inmate.  It will also give them the opportunity to carry messages into and out of the prison for the terrorists. 

Cases dismissed 

Without doubt many of the terrorists from Gitmo will be turned loose into the U.S. population.  This is true because they can’t be convicted in a civilian court.  They will not be given the right to face their accusers because the accusers are CIA undercover agents, or other undercover law enforcement personnel.  In addition, none of these terrorists were given their Miranda warnings, and the U.S. government will refuse to testify if it means that sources or methods will be compromised. 

Conclusion

Obama says these problems can be handled by conducting certain prosecution witnesses interrogation in camera.  How stupid!  Would you expect secrecy when you have radical lawyers sitting in the room to defend their clients?

If you can’t provide prosecution witnesses because they fear for their life; and you can’t reveal how the prosecution got the information; and if you can’t prove that the defendant was warned about his (now) Constitutional right to not testify against himself; and if you can’t show how some of the information was generated because of enhanced interrogation, how can a jury find for the prosecution?  Many of these guys will not be convicted.

There will be some of the detainees who will never even have charges brought against them because the evidence that they were engaged in terrorist activities is insufficient to prove in a civilian trial.  They will be released into the U.S. population because that is what the court will require. 

Granting radical lawyers access to some of the world’s worst criminals; putting these terrorists in the company of deadly, angry criminals permitting conversion; and permitting the terrorists to ‘pray’ together because a denial of it would violate their (now) Constitution right is a recipe for disaster.  You will see terror recruitment and terrorists activities increase in the U.S.  During the election next year you will have the chance to respond to the political party who thinks we are better off with terrorists IN the U.S. instead of somewhere else.