The English Roots of American Liberty

MAGNA CARTA - King John signing

by DIane Rufino, January 20, 2018

From the Declaration and Resolves (petition to King Charles listing the colonies’ grievances against the King and Parliament), the Declaration of Independence, to the Bill of Rights / Declaration of Rights adopted by the individual states, to the US Constitution, and to the US Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers looked to English history for the words and templates to navigate the colonies towards independence and then into a republic. They reflected on the abuses of the Kings and the compacts demanded by the people to check those abuses, as well as the Enlightenment era philosophy on government in building a lasting republic. It is said that our Founding Fathers were wise and extremely well-read, but moreso, they were keenly aware of England’s history, which was, of course, also the history of the American colonies.

The colonists certainly embraced the liberty they found in the American colonies and the chance they had to self-govern as they saw fit. They worshipped according to their conscience, they engaged in trade freely, and they established their own colonial governments. But then they began to see that new-found liberty in jeopardy. The historic abuses of the English monarchy on its subjects now turned to the colonies. The colonists were taxed without their representation in Parliament (a right listed in the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights of 1689), their trade interfered with (Tea Act), their colonial assemblies suspended (violation of their colonial charters), they had standing armies kept among them (in violation of the English Bill of Rights), they were forced to quarter troops (in violation of the Petition of Right of 1628 and English Bill of Rights), and their firearms and ammunition were confiscated (in violation of the English Bill of Rights). And when they protested and remonstrated these violations of their rights as English subjects, as those of centuries earlier had done, King Charles III ignored and mocked them. To the King, the colonists were crude, almost laughable in their simpler ways. He accused them of acting like petulant children and essentially being bothersome. He did not answer their written complaints, nor was swayed when they pleaded to him, “as loyal subjects,” to please intervene on their behalf to Parliament (for such things as the Intolerable Acts). By 1774, the King had had enough of them and accused them of being in active rebellion against Great Britain. All the colonists wanted was to have their rights respected. [Watch the DVD Set “Liberty – The American Revolution” (PBS) to feel the frustration the colonists felt in the years leading up to the American Revolution].

The question was this: How would the colonists respond?

Well, we know how they responded. Looking at the totality of the situation (“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States…”), the colonists, assembled in the Second Continental Congress, felt it had no other meaningful course but to seek its independence. In asserting what they believed was their natural right of self-determination and right of self-governance, they took a cue from their English roots (the Grand Remonstrance of 1640) and set forth a list of grievances against the King. In the Declaration of Independence, they listed 27 grievances – abuses of their rights – which, as the colonies declared, justified their separation from Great Britain.

When the fighting began the colonies weren’t seeking their independence; they were merely rebelling against tyranny. But North Carolina and then Virginia, and then others, began to call for independence, and on July 2, 1776, the resolution declaring independence was adopted and on July 4, Jefferson’s formal Declaration was issued – “to a candid world. The rebellion turned into a war for independence. Luckily, trust in George Washington paid off and friendship with France paid off as well. After our victory at Saratoga, France sent troops and its naval forces. British General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, VA on October 19, 1781 and on September 3, 1783, representatives of King George III of Great Britain and representatives of the United States of America signed the Treaty of Paris to officially end the American Revolutionary War. Article I of the Treaty read: “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states…” The colonies were free.

But then next question was perhaps more important: How would they secure the liberty and individual rights they had just fought for? What kind of government system would best suit that goal?

Luckily our Founding Fathers were students of history and philosophy. They studied the Greek and Roman republics and knew what made them great and what led to their demise. They knew the history of England – a monarchy – and knew that although the great charters of liberty were written by the English to limit the conduct of the King and then to include Parliament, they also knew that those protections often went unnoticed. There were several attempts in England’s history to limit (forever) the rights of kings to place themselves above the law, but in some cases, the king took the “Divine Right of Kings” doctrine far too seriously. The Divine Right of Kings was the political/ religious doctrine in England that asserted that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. Indeed, the history of England was a series of repeated events – abuses of the King over his subjects followed by a charter or petition demanding that their rights be acknowledged and that the King recognize limits to his power, followed by periods where the King or Kings ignored the charter/petition and subjects were again abused, followed by another petition, etc. For example, King John (1199-1216) signed the Magna Carta in 1215 after his barons took up arms against him, but almost immediately, he broke those promises. In 1928, Parliament presented King Charles I with the Petition of Right, complaining of a series of breaches of law and the Great Charter (Magna Carta) he had committed. The violations were of four general types – unfair and illegal taxation, as well as imposing taxes without the action of Parliament, many due process violations, including imprisonment without cause, quartering of soldiers on subjects, and imposing martial law in peacetime. The remainder of his reign would be marked with such extreme abuses that he would eventually be brought to trial and executed. James II, his son, would be another abusive king. With James II, the people (and Parliament) had had finally enough. He was removed by a bloodless revolution and the new King and Queen, William and Mary (Mary being James II’s daughter) signed the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Drafted by Parliament, the Bill of Rights officially set limits to the right of kings to put themselves above the law. The statute which offered the throne to William and Mary legally conditioned their rule on signing and respecting it. And subsequent kings would thus be limited as well.

All of our Founding Fathers knew that history very well. Again, England’s history was the history of the American colonies. But it was, after all, a monarchy. And a monarchy, as shown, was incapable of truly securing the inalienable rights of the individual. A democratic form of government would work either. True democracy is mob rule. It is always a rule by the majority. It could easily be tyranny by the majority.

In drafting the Constitution, which created our system of government here in the United States, our founders decided the best form of government would be a republic. Their study of history taught them that. As James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 10: “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government … ”

At the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, the task of the delegates was to design the new republic as wisely as possible. like what Dr. Joe Wolverton II wrote in a 2004 article for The New American: “They believed they could find the key to inoculating America against the diseases that infected and destroyed past societies. Indeed, it has been said that the Founders were coroners examining the lifeless bodies of the republics and democracies of the past, in order to avoid succumbing to the maladies that shortened their lives.”

The Constitution was signed by the delegates on September 17, 1787 and then it was sent to each state to be ratified or rejected. Several of the delegates were unhappy with the final draft because it did not include a Bill of Rights and some, including the powerful George Mason from Virginia, promised to try to defeat its ratification in the state conventions. (Patrick Henry planned to help Mason do so). Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed strongly that a Bill of Rights needed to be added, but Madison, author of the Constitution, did not. Jefferson wrote: “A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.” States like Virginia and North Carolina and Rhode Island would not ratify unless a Bill of Rights was added, and New York was up in the air. Although it may have been likely that 9 states (as required by Article VII) would have ratified so that the Constitution would have done into effect, the states couldn’t imagine a union without the large powerful states of VA, NY, and NC. And so a deal was made with Madison at the VA Ratifying Convention. He would submit a Bill of Rights as amendments to the Constitution in the first session of the first US Congress. Madison was an honorable man. The rest is history.

Before the deal was made, however, Patrick Henry got up before the Convention to make the case that a Bill of Rights was necessary to secure the blessings of liberty from a government that (as history has always shown) will eventually become too powerful. He spoke these words: “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else!….. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

Madison introduced his proposed amendments to the Constitution (a Bill of Rights) to Congress on June 8, 1789, and after a committee put them in final form and Congress adopted them, they were sent to the states on September 25 for ratification. Out of the twelve proposed amendments, the states ratified ten. There are approximately 26 individual rights identified in the Bill of Rights (excluding the unenumerated possibilities in the Ninth Amendment). Of those 26 individual rights, 9 can be traced back to Magna Carta, 7 can be traced to the English Petition of Rights of 1628, and 6 can be traced to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

I used to think our Founders were divinely inspired to write some of the documents that they wrote….. the words, the themes, the ballsy language. But when you go back and study England’s illustrious history and you read the great charters and documents of liberty – the 1100 Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Rights (1628), the Grand Remonstrance (1641), and the English Bill of Rights of 1689 – you realize that our Founders had all the templates they needed. In many cases, they followed in the very footsteps of their forefathers – English subjects – who petitioned every hundred years or more for their rights and for the King to limit his jurisdiction over their lives. For example, the Grand Remonstrance listed a series of grievances against Charles I, from the beginning of his reign, explaining why he needed to answer for his actions. In drafting the Declarations & Resolves of Oct. 14, 1774 (series of petitions and resolutions to King Charles I and Parliament in response to the Intolerable Acts), the First Continental Congress adopted the same petition formats that the English used to their King to petition for the rights that were being violated. In drafting the formal Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson used the same format in order to condemn King Charles III and to make the case to a candid world why the people of the American colonies were seeking their political and legal separation from Great Britain. And so history lessons like this are so important because they serve to remind us that our system rests on a very distinguished history of standing up for liberty against tyranny and that the principles embedded in our documents are ones designed to withstand the abuses of those in power, in any branch. And that is why it is so important that those principles should not be taken for granted, maligned just because our fore-fathers were products of another era, or happened to own slaves or represented social norms of the day or happened to sneeze the wrong way, or “legislated” away from the bench by activist judges. Charles I was a miserable, ambitious King who, perhaps more than any other King of England, embraced the notion of the Divine Right of Kings and hid behind the artificial status it created. He quarreled with Parliament (the people’s body established by the Magna Carta to give them representation when it came to taxation) over taxes. He wanted more and more to finance his endless wars. When Parliament wouldn’t give him the funds he demanded, he merely dissolved the body. He did so three times from 1625-1629. When he dissolved Parliament in 1629, he resolved to rule alone and to get the money he needed. And so he raised revenue through non-Parliamentary means – including Ship Money (taxing those who lived along the coast). Most of these things helped to lead to his demise, which followed after he waged a civil war on Parliament itself, which he lost. Charles was tried, convicted, and executed for high treason by (a rump) Parliament in January 1649. He was beheaded. I point to Charles I because he was so abusive and dismissive of the rights of the people that the damage he did signaled the end of British system. After he was executed, Oliver Cromwell served as Lord Protector over England until his death in 1658. The monarchy was restored two years later, at which time, Charles II took the throne. He ruled until 1685 and when he died, his brother James II took the throne. He was deposed less than 3 years later. William and Mary were offered the throne and England got an official Bill of Rights at their coronation.

But one good thing came out of Charles’ reign. He cracked down quite heavily on the Puritans in England, and as a result, they emigrated (ultimately) to New England to found colonies based on religious liberty and eventually to establish the commonwealth of Massachusetts. The history of England is also one of religious tyranny and persecution, and no doubt provided the passion that certain Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, had to secure religious freedom in the colonies.

England’s history is vital to our education because in her 600-year-or-so history, her people have stood up for their rights – rights they believed were fundamental and essential to their humanity and dignity – and in the end, their petitions, once merely requesting for the recognition of certain rights, became a Bill of Rights (1689), officially recognizing essential rights belonging to the individual that government was obligated to respect. While England does not have an official Constitution, per se, it considers a group of documents (including the English Bill of Rights) as being its “constitution” or governing document. But those documents, which represented the plight of the English for their rights to be free and to be free from government made it to the minds of our American Founders who then incorporated it into our nation’s founding documents. Our founding documents are superior to England’s because in this country, there is an “official” Constitution and an “official” Bill of Rights and both are predicated on something the English system is not – that government power originates from the individual. Those documents memorialize not only the formal recognition of inalienable individual rights, but they set important limits and boundaries on government. If you don’t think the English system of protest and petition didn’t work and if you don’t think it SHOULD be the model we embrace here – consider this: Each time the English people petitioned for their rights, those rights were enlarged, as mentioned above. Also consider this: The ability to have and bear arms originated as a “duty” in England, under the Militia laws. But after many years of the Crown confiscating guns and leaving England’s subjects undefended and vulnerable in the face of despotic Kings (willing to arrest and imprison them merely for political reasons or belonging to the wrong religion), that duty became a “right” in the English Bill of Rights. We have our Right to Have and Bear Arms (Second Amendment) because of the will and determination of the English people.

References:

“English and Colonial Roots of the US Bill of Rights – http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/roots-chart/

Virginia Ratifying Convention, Thursday, June 5, 1788 – http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm

Federalist No. 6 (Alexander Hamilton), Avalon Project (Yale Law School) – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed06.asp

“Liberty – The American Revolution” (3 disc, DVD set), PBS – https://shop.pbs.org/

The Petition of Right of 1628 – http://www.constitution.org/eng/petright.htm

The Grand Remonstrance of 1640 – http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur043.htm

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 – http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

Dr. Joe Wolverton II, “The Founding Fathers & the Classics,” The New American, September 20, 2004. Referenced at: https://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/tyrrany/the-founding-fathers-the-classics/

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

QUESTION: Was – Is – Secession Legal?

SECESSION - Map of North America after Confederacy was formed

by Diane Rufino, but based in large part on Leonard “Mike” Scruggs book THE UN-CIVIL WAR, January 19. 2018

On July 4, 1776, thirteen British colonies announced their secession from Great Britain and declared to the world their just reasons: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the Earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separate.” (paragraph 1 of the Declaration of Independence)

The Declaration of Independence (second paragraph) goes on to say: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….”

The Declaration then goes o to list numerous grievances against the British Crown and Parliament. Most of these have to do with the British Crown and Parliament usurping the powers of the colonial legislatures, but mention is made of the King keeping troops among the colonists in times of peace, quartering British troops, cutting off colonial trade with the rest of the world, taxing the colonists without their consent (representation), depriving colonists the benefits of trial by jury, arbitrarily dissolving colonial charters, inciting insurrection against the colonies (including among the unfriendly Indian tribes), and more. (Ironically, the one thing not mentioned among the list of 27 grievances was the disarming of the colonists and confiscation of their arms and ammunition – the one thing that inspired Patrick Henry to submit resolutions he’d written to the Virginia colonial legislature to build and train a militia from each county; “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?….. The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come. The war has actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”)  After the listing of the specific grievances, the Declaration emphasized that neither the King nor Parliament would listen to their complaints and pleas for relief. “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

In the closing paragraph, the signers declare that the colonies are “Free and Independent States.” This paragraph also contains the words “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World” and “with firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.”  Note that the United States of America were not formed into a single national state, but a confederation of independent and sovereign states.

Previous to the Declaration of Independence, both North Carolina (May 20, 1775) and Virginia (early 1776) had already declared their independence from Great Britain. North Carolina took the lead in calling for independence from Great Britain, and her state flag reflects the two historic dates on which she did so – May 20, 1775 and April 12, 1776. On May 20, 1775, a Charlotte government committee drafted the Mecklenburg Resolves which declared the residents of Mecklenburg County, NC independent of Great Britain:

Resolved, That we the citizens of Mecklenburg county, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us to the Mother Country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown, and abjure all political connection, contract, or association, with that nation, who have wantonly trampled on our rights and liberties — and inhumanly shed the innocent blood of American patriots at Lexington.

Resolved, That we do hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people, are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self–governing Association, under the control of no power other than that of our God and the General Government of the Congress; to the maintenance of which independence, we solemnly pledge to each other, our mutual co-operation, our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.

Resolved, That as we now acknowledge the existence and control of no law or legal officer, civil or military, within this country, we do hereby ordain and adopt, as a rule of life, all, each and every of our former laws, wherein, nevertheless, the Crown of Great Britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities, or authority therein.

On May 31, the Committee put the document in final form and adopted it. The updated document announced that all the colonies were independent of Great Britain:  “Whereas by an Address presented to his Majesty by both Houses of Parliament in February last, the American Colonies are declared to be in a State of actual Rebellion, we conceive that all Laws and Commissions confirmed by, or derived from the Authority of the King or Parliament, are annulled and vacated, and the former civil Constitution of these Colonies for the present wholly suspended. To provide in some Degree for the Exigencies of the County in the present alarming Period, we deem it proper and necessary to pass the following Resolves:  (1) That all Commissions, civil and military, heretofore granted by the Crown, to be exercised in these Colonies, are null and void, and the Constitution of each particular Colony wholly suspended……….”

The Resolves were delivered to the North Carolina delegation meeting at the Continental Congress with the hope that the entire Congress would vote and adopt it. The Congress felt the time was not right and did not take the matter up.

On April 12, 1776, the Fourth Provincial Congress, meeting in Halifax County, adopted the “Halifax Resolves,” which gave North Carolina’s delegates to the Continental Congress the authority to vote for independence. It was the first state to give such authority to its delegates.

On May 4, 1776, the colony of Rhode Island declared herself independent of Great Britain, and in late May – June, the Fifth Virginia Convention passed a series of resolutions rejecting all aspects of British authority and establishing a new form of independent government for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, then urged the Continental Congress to follow Virginia’s (and North Carolina’s) lead.

On June 7, 1776, Lee introduced a resolution (the Lee Resolution) to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia declaring independence, and John Adams seconded the motion.

Lee’s resolution declared “That these United Colonies are, and of right out to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.”

The Continental Congress adopted the resolution, finally declaring independence for the 13 colonies, on July 2, but this day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4, when the “formal” Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, was adopted.

Clearly, the idea that a people could separate from a government that did not serve them, or in the worst case, had become tyrannical and abusive, was something the colonists believed was a natural right.

The right of self-determination for people seeking independence is firmly established in international law. With US backing, Panama seceded from Columbia in 1903. Norway seceded from Sweden in 1905. In the United States, the right of self-determination and therefore secession is supported by the precedence of the Declaration of Independence which declared our own secession from Great Britain.

While the Declaration of Independence is of immense importance as a founding document, it is the Constitution of 1787 and the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791 that are the official founding documents. The Constitution was made official by the approval of the people of each state acting independently in convention, not by the people of the United States in general. Nor did these states surrender their sovereignty to the United States. Only limited government powers were delegated to the Federal Government and every state reserved the right to withdraw these powers. In fact, three states – Rhode Island, Virginia, and New York – specifically stated in their ratifications that they reserved the right to withdraw. Other states had less strongly-worded reservations, but no state would have ratified the Constitution if they believed that in doing so they would be surrendering their newly-won independence.

When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, “That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”

On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”

On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”

As demonstrated by the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, they made it explicit that if the federal government perverted the delegated rights, they had the right to resume those rights. In fact, when the Union was being formed, where the states created the federal government, every state thought they had a right to secede, otherwise there would not have been a Union.

It was to guarantee the sovereignty of the states that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added to the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment is a particularly straightforward restatement of the federal nature of the government established by the Constitution: “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.”

Since the Constitution was ratified by sovereign states who desired to retain their sovereignty, the document is classified as a social compact. In essence, it is a contract and thereby its legality is guided by contract law, one of the oldest areas of law. The Constitution is a compact – a contract – between the individual sovereign states, which are the parties, to create the federal government (the creature, or if likening the compact to agency law, the government would be the agent) in order to carry out certain common functions for the states in order that the Union itself could be successful. In the case of Chisholm v. State of Georgia (1793), the Supreme Court expressly declared that the US Constitution is a compact. The right of withdrawal or secession is inherent in the basic document (ie, the right of secession “supersedes” the Constitution) and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments further establish it as a right retained or reserved to each state. It is the option of each state, not the federal government (merely the creature or agent), as to whether it shall remain in the Union or whether it will withdraw. The right of secession was almost universally accepted until Lincoln came up with a new theory of the Constitution – based on a treatise on the Constitution, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written in 1833 by then Supreme Court associate Justice Joseph Story. [It should be noted that Story’s treatise was highly criticized by leading constitutional experts of the day – including Henry St. George Tucker, Sr., John Randolph Tucker, Abel Parker Upshur, James Kent, and John C. Calhoun. Calhoun was revered as an expert on the Constitution and perhaps even more “Jeffersonian” than Jefferson himself.]

New Hampshire’s constitution of 1792 contains very strong words reserving its sovereign powers as a state. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison circulated the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions among the states. These resolutions strongly supported the Doctrine of States Rights and thus also the right of secession. Together these resolutions became known as the “Principles of ’98.”

The Kentucky Resolution, the work of Thomas Jefferson, asserted States’ Rights in very strong terms: “If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a Nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy….”  (Kentucky Resolutions or Kentucky Resolves of 1799)

The Virginia Resolution, the work of James Madison, asserted States Rights also in very strong terms; perhaps stronger: “That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to Interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”  (Virginia Resolutions or Virginia Resolves of 1798)

The doctrines of Nullification, Interposition, and Secession are all rights reserved to the states under Natural Law (the Law of Nature and God’s Law) and by the US Constitution (both implicitly by the limited nature of the delegations of power to the federal government, and expressly by the Tenth Amendment). Furthermore, they are remedies available under contract theory (compact law).

None of the states disagreed with the “Principles of ‘98” (which, by the way, were articulated to resist the unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts, signed into law by President John Adams, which were gross violations of several of the Bill of Rights, but most notably the First Amendment).

The New England states threatened secession on five occasions: (1) In 1803 because they feared the Louisiana Purchase would dilute their political power; (2) In 1807 because the Embargo Act was unfavorable to their commerce; (3) In 1812, over the admission of Louisiana as a state; (4) In 1814 (the Hartford Convention) because of the War of 1812; and (5) In 1814, over the annexation of Texas (which had seceded from Mexico). Additionally, many New England abolitionists favored secession because the Constitution allowed slavery.  From 1803 to 1845, anytime that New England felt that their political power or commercial power might suffer, they threatened secession. Yet when the Southern states did the same, a war was initiated to force them to remain in the Union against their wishes.

As early as 1825, the right of secession was taught at West Point. William Rawle’s View of the Constitution, which was used as a text at West Point in 1825 and 1826 (and thereafter as a reference), specifically taught that secession was a right of each state. Rawle was a friend of both George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and his 1825 text was highly respected and used at many colleges. A subsequent text by James Kent maintained the same position and was used at West Point until the end of the war in 1865. Several Union and Confederate generals were at West Point during the time Rawle’s text was used. Rawle even spelled out the procedure for a state to secede, explaining: “The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of each state. The people alone… hold the power to alter their Constitution.”

The right of secession was very well-stated by none other than Congressman Abraham Lincoln himself in 1848: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.”

That same year, Lincoln further stated: “Any people that can may revolutionized and make their own of so much territory as they inhabit.”

But in 1861, Lincoln adopted a view of secession more expedient to holding the Southern states in the Union against their will. He discovered the theory that Supreme Court associate Justice Joseph Story concocted in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, asserting that there was an American nation in the minds of the people before the States were formed. This humbuggery had been strengthened by Daniel Webster’s eloquent but disingenuous and speeches to Congress, claiming that the Constitution was not a compact.

So, Lincoln characterized the orderly, democratic Secession Conventions of South Carolina and the Gulf States, conducted in accordance with Rawle’s treatise on the Constitution, and carried out step-by-step in the same manner as the states when they declared their independence from Great Britain and formed the United States of America, as a rebellion perpetrated by a small minority and proceeded on a path that every member of his Cabinet meant war.

As to the question of whether Secession is legal today, the answer is yes. Again, the right is an inherent and natural right, seared into our history by example (secession from Great Britain), implied by the very limited nature of the general government created by the Constitution and the limited powers delegated to it under that document, and expressly reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.  Lincoln’s government may have waged a war to somehow reclassify the nature of the conduct of the Southern states in 1860-61 (“rebellion” rather than secession) in order to force those states back into the Union, but its actions cannot change the fact that those states exercised a natural and inherent sovereign right. The Constitution was never amended to prohibit that right to a State and despite attempts to judicially remove it, as well requiring the Southern states to include such a prohibition in their amended state constitutions (in order for them to be “re-admitted” to the Union that Lincoln said they never left), such actions are merely exercises in futility; they are extra-constitutional actions that lack authority or power of enforcement. The right of a people of self-determination, as it applies to government, can never be legislated, decreed, or written away. It is an inalienable right, having its place among the other Laws of Nature and among God’s Law.

***  For an in-depth discussion on the topic of Social Compact, why the US Constitution is, in fact, a social compact, and the remedies naturally available to the parties of a compact (which in our case are the individual states), including the remedy of secession, please read by article “The Social Compact and Our Constitutional Republic,” which is the article preceding this one.

BOOK - The Un-Civil War (Mike Scruggs)

— This article is based, in good part, on Leonard “Mike” Scrugg’s book: THE UN-CIVIL WAR: SHATTERING THE HISTORICAL MYTHS (Chapter 6, Constitutional Issues and the Un-Civil War). The purpose of this article and the reason for relying so heavily on Mr. Scruggs’ book is to get the reader interested not only in the topic at hand but also to be motivated to purchase and read his most excellent book in its entirety and then to share the information with others!

References:

Leonard “Mike” Scrugg’s, THE UN-CIVIL WAR: SHATTERING THE HISTORICAL MYTHS (Chapter 6, Constitutional Issues and the Un-Civil War), 2011, Universal Media (Asheville, NC).

Walter Williams, “States Have a Historical Right to Secede,” Columbia Tribune, April 25, 2009. Referenced at: http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023ee6-5191-5fd7-85a8-b533bfab9c2e.html [The section on the Rhode Island, Virginia, and New York Resumption Clauses – included at the time that these states adopted the US Constitution – is taken entirely from Mr. Williams’ article]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Social Compact and Our Constitutional Republic

CONSTITUTION - at the Philadalphia Convention

by Diane Rufino, Jan. 21, 2018 (first section only; other sections attributed to other authors)

I. INTRODUCTION

A Social Compact is an agreement, entered into by individuals, that creates some form of self-government and results in the formation of an organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection and the performance of common functions to serve the community of individuals. To form an organized community, a surrender of some personal liberties is the trade-off.

Perhaps you may remember the Mayflower Compact from your days in grade school. You may remember that it was a document – you probably don’t remember what kind of document it was – that was drafted aboard the Mayflower, as it brought the Pilgrims to the shores of what would one day become Massachusetts. Well, the Mayflower Compact is actually quite significant. It was the first American document to establish a framework of self-government. It was perhaps the first the American Social Compact. The Compact was drafted by the Pilgrims as they sailed across the Atlantic and was signed on November 11, 1620 and became the governing document of Plymouth Colony.

I know that most people have never heard of the term “Social Compact” but I make the case here that this term is probably one of the most important terms to know and understand. The next American Revolution will be to wrestle power away from the federal government and to transfer it back to its rightful depositories, which are the States and the People themselves. The only way this will be possible is if the American people understand that the US Constitution is a social compact, was intended as such, was promoted as such, and was commonly referred to as such up until the end of the Civil War. All of the primary documents that explain the Constitution, refer to it, document its drafting, its adoption, and ratification characterize it as a “social compact.” Early Supreme Court decisions refer to it as a “social compact.” (See Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793; Calder v. Bull, 1798), and dozens of lower federal courts, as well as state courts, have done the same. When the colonies sought their independence from Great Britain, they articulated in the Declaration of Independence they believed that governments are products of social compacts (constitutions establish government authority, and set appropriate limits, all by the consent of the governed) and due to the “compact” or “contract” nature of that agreement, they had the right, under the Laws of Nature and God’s Law, to establish a new government, of their own design and suited to serve them accordingly (“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them….”)

Compact Theory, as will be discussed below, follows the same legal theories as contract law, which is one of the oldest areas of law. There are parties to a compact, there are assigned obligations and benefits, there are consequences for a breach, and there are remedies. In the case of the Constitution, the parties are the individual States. The government is NOT a party but is the creature – it being created by the Constitution. The federal government was “created” to serve the States – to perform those common functions that each state would have to perform alone but could be more efficient, more effective, and uniform, when performed for all. The federal government was created as an Agent for the States – against, to serve their interests, thus making it easy to form and remain together in the form of a Union (a “confederation” of sovereign states). Being the rightful parties to the compact (ie, the “contract”), the obligations and benefits are reserved to them only. The obligations are that each State delegate some their sovereign powers (listed in Article I) to the federal government for the good of the Union and respect that the federal government will govern supremely on those objects. And the benefits are those mentioned – the federal government would serve as the Agent, mainly providing safety and defense, dealing with foreign nations, ensuring regular commerce, and providing a common currency. A compact is a formal, and stable embodiment of the terms on which a group of people decide to live together in a community. It creates their government and represents the “consent of the governed.” The compact retains the same meaning and terms until the people agree to change it.

So, one benefit of a Social Compact is that the parties have a right and an expectation that the terms will remain the same. In the case of the Constitution, the government created is one of limited powers, with those powers expressly listed for each branch. All remaining government power is reserved to the States (both implied by the limited nature of the delegation of power and expressly by the Tenth Amendment). So when the federal government exceeds its powers under the Constitution and passes an unconstitutional law, establishes an unconstitutional policy, or renders an unconstitutional court “opinion,” the States, as the parties to the compact, have a RIGHT to ensure that the government exercises only those powers given it and to PREVENT such unconstitutional law, policy, or court opinion from being enforced on We the People. After all, when the government assumes powers not delegated to it, it naturally usurps them from their natural possessor, which is either the States or the People themselves.

James Madison explained this concept best, when he articulated the doctrines of Nullification and Interposition in his Virginia Resolves of 1798, which were written for the Virginia legislature in order to nullify the Alien & Sedition Acts, which were clearly unconstitutional, and prevent the residents of the state from being subject to them. The Virginia Resolves read: “That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” In his term “interpose,” he encompasses “nullification’ as well, which is the doctrine that says any law made without the proper authority (ie, an unconstitutional law) is automatically null and void and therefore unenforceable. Of course the federal government will never admit on its own that any of its actions are unconstitutional. It is up to the sovereign States to do that. In this manner, government can be kept in check.

It is Compact Theory that provides this level of protection against government tyranny for We the People.

Besides keeping the federal in check with regard to its rightful powers, States like South Carolina also believed it had the right to intervene when the government violated the basic nature and purpose of its being – to govern for the individual States equally; that is, not to operate government primarily for the benefit of certain States or certain regions over others.

When South Carolina, at the end of 1832, took strong action to oppose the high protective tariffs supported by Andrew Jackson’s administration, the Tariffs of Abomination (of 1828 and then 1832), which were exceedingly burdensome and crushing on the economy of the state, it looked to the compact nature of the Constitution for justification: On January 22, 1833, Senator John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, submitted the following resolutions:—

Resolved, That the people of the several States composing these United States are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification; and that the union, of which the said compact is the bond, is a union between the States ratifying the same.

Resolved, That the people of the several States thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, That the assertions, that the people of these United States, taken collectively as individuals, are now, or ever have been, united on the principle of the social compact, and, as such, are now formed into one nation or people, or that they have ever been so united in any one stage of their political existence; that the people of the several States composing the Union have not, as members thereof, retained their sovereignty; that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to the general government; that they have parted with the right of punishing treason through their respective State governments; and that they have not the right of judging in the last resort as to the extent of the powers reserved, and of consequence of those delegated,—are not only without foundation in truth, but are contrary to the most certain and plain historical facts, and the clearest deductions of reason; and that all exercise of power on the part of the general government, or any of its departments, claiming authority from such erroneous assumptions, must of necessity be unconstitutional,—must tend, directly and inevitably, to subvert the sovereignty of the States, to destroy the federal character of the Union, and to rear on its ruins a consolidated government, without constitutional check or limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in the loss of liberty itself.”

South Carolina, in convention on November 24, 1832, adopted an Ordinance of Nullification which protested the constitutionality of the tariffs and stated that it would not provide the federal government with said tariff revenue. This would become the so-called Nullification Crisis of 1832. President Jackson threatened to invade South Carolina with federal troops and collect the revenue by force, but a compromise tariff bill was quickly reached in Congress which averted the crisis and which eventually lowered the tariff to pre-1828 levels. Nullification worked !! It prevented government abuse on the people and businesses of Virginia. (The tariff was discriminatory on southern states, particularly South Carolina and the Gulf States; the North did not pay tariffs because of the items that had duties attached; the North manufactured those items – that’s why the tariff was a “protective” tariff… it protected the industries and products of the North !!!!)

Another benefit of characterizing the Constitution as a Social Compact is that if the compact is violated, the State, as a party, has the option to resume its powers. Actually, it has the option of resuming those powers even if there is no violation, but merely because the compact is frustrating its “happiness.” We know the States viewed the Constitution as a compact when they debated it in their ratifying conventions, because all used that term. And we know they believed they had the inherent right to resume the powers delegated because three states, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, explicitly included Resumption Clauses in their ratification decisions. They reserved the right to withdraw from the compact. Other states had less strongly-worded reservations, but no state would have ratified the Constitution if they believed that in doing so they would be surrendering their newly-won independence.

When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, “That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”

On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”

On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”

The most extreme benefit of a Social Compact is the right of a State, as a party, to secede from the compact.

In adopting her “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” on December 24, 1860, the Palmetto State explained her right to do so based on the compact nature of the Constitution.

“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act…….

The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were– separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation.

By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily implied their continued existence as sovereign States. But to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared 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. On the 23d May , 1788, South Carolina, by a Convention of her People, passed an Ordinance assenting to this Constitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution, to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken.

Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.

We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: ‘No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.’

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that ‘Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,’ and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.”    [For the full Declaration, go to: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp ]

Note that South Carolina’s real issue with the federal government was the tariff issue; it was the immediate issue. Lincoln promised to support a new protective tariff (which Buchanan has just signed it in his waning days) which would elevate the tariff to its highest levels ever. But legally, the federal government has the authority under the Constitution to erect such tariffs. South Carolina agreed to that authority in adopting the document and joining the Union. It very well could not try to make a legal argument for secession based on its opposition to the high discriminatory tariff. But the slavery issue is a constitutional issue. And it represented an actual, palpable breach of the compact which would justify its withdrawal from the union.

In adopting the Constitution, the states understood that they would be free to leave the Union, as situations dictated. After all, they left the Union established by the Articles of Confederation to establish a new Union under the Constitution. But that Union was different and only those states that adopted would be members of that new Union and bound by the Constitution. Article VII states that 9 states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to go into effect.

So, to recap, the particular benefits of a Social Compact lie in the remedies it provides the parties should the compact be violated, or breached. The consequences for a breach of the compact are simple: If a State breaches, the others, acting alone, can decide whether to consider the compact broken which then would allow it to be relieved of its obligations (ie, the State would no longer be bound by the Constitution). If the federal government attempts to assume powers not delegated to it, the States have a right, even an obligation, to identify that unconstitutional act and prevent its enforcement.

And an extreme remedy is always available – the right of rescission. Rescission is the right of one of the parties to rescind or cancel the contract for cause. It is the right of a party, if there are many parties, to withdraw from the agreement. This is the remedy of secession. The abrogation, or cancellation of a contract, or withdrawal or secession from a compact, is a remedy designed to restore the parties to the positions they would have been in if no contract or compact had ever been formed. As explained above, once a State decides to secede, it resumes all the powers it had delegated away and resumes its natural station under the Laws of Nature. It is then free to establish a new form of government that suits is purposes. As to the remaining States, they are free to remain in the compact, which at that point would be a new Union. That Union is free to remain on the same terms and under the same conditions.

The Constitution was roundly understood and recognized as a Social Compact up until the years leading to the Civil War. Again, all our founding documents and primary documents explaining the Constitution and referring to it characterize it as a Social Compact. But something happened in the years when South Carolina started to become contentious with regards to the high protective tariffs. The protective tariffs had became a hallmark of the Whig Party platform and then the Republican Party platform. Leading Whig (House Speaker, then Senator) Henry Clay initiated a new government plan to help businesses. It was called the “American System” and included protective tariffs and internal improvements. The money raised by high protective tariffs would be used not only to fund the government (about 1/3 of the revenue), but it would also go to the North, for internal improvements to further industrialize those states. In other words, the protective tariffs, according to the South (and particularly South Carolina, led by Senator John C. Calhoun), were nothing more than a government scheme to plunder the wealth of the South and transfer it to the North for its benefit. When the government realized that South Carolina was not playing along smoothly, was bucking the system, and was threatening to even leave the Union over the tariff situation (perhaps other Southern States would follow suit), and they had just causes under compact theory, suddenly the notion of the Constitution as a Social Compact became a liability. All of a sudden, political leaders began asserting that the Constitution was not a Social Compact, including Senator Daniel Webster and then Abraham Lincoln himself. Lincoln came up with a new theory of the Constitution – based on a treatise on the Constitution, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written in 1833 by then Supreme Court associate Justice Joseph Story. He would classify the Constitution as establishing a “perpetual Union” that the States had fully intended to create. [It should be noted that Story’s treatise was highly criticized by leading constitutional experts of the day – including Henry St. George Tucker, Sr., John Randolph Tucker, Abel Parker Upshur, James Kent, and John C. Calhoun. Calhoun was revered as an expert on the Constitution and perhaps even more “Jeffersonian” than Jefferson himself.] In 1833, after spending almost all of his life referring to the Constitution as a compact, leading politician and powerful orator (a “thundering” orator), Senator Webster took to the Senate floor and delivered a speech expressly denouncing the Constitution as a compact. [That speech, by the way, was given in response to the Resolutions introduced on Jan. 22 by Senator John Calhoun (shared earlier) to explain why South Carolina nullified the federal tariff].

It should be noted that years earlier, Senator Webster’s position was quite different: “But, sir, there is a compact, and no man pretends that the generation of today is not bound by the compacts of the fathers. A bargain broken on one side is a bargain broken on all; and the compact is binding upon the generation of today only if the other parties to the compact have kept their faith.” Works of Daniel Webster

If the Constitution is not characterized as a Social Compact, in total disregard of history and ignoring all of our historic documents, then we do not have the relationship between the government and the States, and the government and the People, as the States and our Founders intended. Liberty would not be safe. If is not a Social Compact, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. If we reject the status of the Constitution as a Social Compact, as liberals and progressives would like (because they favor a strong central government with plenary powers), then we must get used to the permanent notion that the federal government as the creature is more powerful than its creators. The powers “reserved to the States” would be usurped whenever the government deems it beneficial to do so. The powers surrendered to it by the States and by the People could not be resumed by them and the government would have total control over any object and over any individual or group it wishes. It would effectively mean the end to federalism – the only option left to limit the federal government. It would leave the States at the mercy of the intentions of DC politicians. The government would have a total monopoly over the meaning and scope of its powers (sorta like the monopoly it has now!) and our rights and the States’ rights would be exercised only at the good graces and designs of the federal government.

Lastly, if the Constitution is not characterized as a Social Compact, then the States do not have the remedies articulated earlier. Then the States truly have no option to secede and Lincoln’s Union will have become a reality – one that is perpetual. It will be perpetual because the government now has the right to seek its own longevity; under Compact theory, government only exists as long as it rightfully protects the rights of the individuals and serves them well.

II. DEFINITION & ORIGIN of the SOCIAL COMPACT (This section comes from: Martin Kelly, “The Social Compact,” ThoughtCo.)

The term “social contract” refers to the belief that the state exists only to serve the will of the people, who are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. The people can choose to give or withhold this power. The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system.

The term “social contract” can be found as far back as the writings of Plato. However, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded on the idea when he wrote his classic, Leviathan, which was his philosophical response to the English Civil War. In the book, he wrote that in the earliest days there was no government. Instead, those who were the strongest could take control and use their power over others at any time. Hobbes’ theory was that the people mutually agreed to create a state, giving it only enough power to provide protection of their well-being. However, in Hobbes’ theory, once the power was given to the state, the people then relinquished any right to that power. In effect, that would be the price of the protection they sought.

Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke each took the social contract theory one step further. Rousseau wrote The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, in which he explained that the government is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. The essence of this idea is that the will of the people as a whole gives power and direction to the state. John Locke also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract. He stressed the role of the individual and the idea that in the ‘State of Nature,’ people are essentially free. However, they might decide to form a government to punish other individuals who go against the laws of nature and harm others.

It follows that if this government no longer protected each individual’s right to life, liberty, and property, then revolution was not just a right but an obligation.

The idea of the social contract had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The U.S. Constitution itself starts with the three words, “We the people…” embodying this idea of popular sovereignty in the very beginning of this key document. Thus, government that is established by the free choice of its people is required to serve the people, who in the end have sovereignty, or supreme power to keep or get rid of that government.

III. THE SOCIAL COMPACT and CONSTITUTION REPUBLICS (This section comes entirely from the Constitution Society, 2007)

Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the U.S. Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. Although these principles are discussed in civics books, the treatment of them there is often less than satisfactory. This section will attempt to remedy some of the deficiencies of those treatments.

The Social Contract and Government –

The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively.

The social contract is very simple. It has only two basic terms: (1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision by deliberative assembly. There are no agents, no officials, that persist from one deliberative assembly to another. The duties of the social contract are militia. There may be customs that persist from assembly to assembly, such as customs for due notice, parliamentary procedure, judicial due process, and enforcement of court orders by militia. This second term could be called the constitution of society, but it precedes a constitution of government and should not be confused with it.

There is also a constitution of nature that precedes both the constitution of society and the constitution of government. It is also convenient to speak of a constitution of the dominion that follows the constitution of society and precedes the constitution of government. It arises after a society is created (by adopting the social contract), and after it acquires exclusive dominion over a well-defined territory. That is when we get things like a right to remain at and to return to one’s birthplace, which makes no sense for a society with no territory (such as nomads).

A constitution of government, such as the Constitution of 1787, is the next step in the development. It is to establish institutions, offices, procedures, duties, and structures that persist from one assembly to another that are not just customs. It is at that point that we begin to get things like laws, and paid agents and officials, whose jobs continue beyond transient assemblies. We also get taxes, standing armies, and professional law enforcers. Such pooled powers are generally exercised by delegating them to some members of the society to act as agents for the members of the society as a whole, and to do so within a framework of structure and procedures that is a government. No such government may exercise any powers not thus delegated to it, or do so in a way that is not consistent with established structures or procedures defined by a basic law which is called the constitution.

While it is possible in principle for such a constitution to consist entirely of a body of unwritten practices, traditions, court decisions, and long-established statutes, in practice no such basic order can be considered secure against confusion or corruption if it is not primarily based on a written document, which prescribes the structure, procedures, and delegated powers of government, and the retained rights of the people, and which is strictly interpreted according to the original intent of the framers.

Although in principle the procedures may allow for the direct adoption of legislation by vote of the people, this is both impractical and potentially dangerous, especially to the rights of minorities, so that it is generally best that most legislation require approval at some point in the legislative process by a deliberative assembly, a body of elected representatives rather than by direct popular vote, and that any such legislation be subject to judicial review, whereby legislation not consistent with the constitution can be voided. Such a form of government is called a republic, as distinct from a democracy, in which all legislation is adopted solely by direct popular vote. And if it operates under a well-designed constitution, it is a constitutional republic.

It is important that the deliberative assembly fairly represent all the competing interests of the people, so that the concerns of minorities can be weighed and not ignored. But fair representation is insufficient if deliberation is not effective in analyzing and anticipating all the consequences of any decisions that might be made. The consent of the majority should be necessary for action, but that consent should never be sufficient for action.

Origins of the Social Contract –

Critics of social contract theory argue that almost all persons grow up within an existing society, and therefore never have the choice of whether to enter into a social contract. Not having a choice, they say, makes any such contract void.

The original proponents of the social contract theory, John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, answered these critics, but not in a way that is entirely satisfactory. To understand how the social contract comes about, we need to look at the kinds of contract that prevail during each stage in the development of a human being in society.

Each of us begins life under the terms of a special kind of social contract called a filial contract, between a child and his parents, and by extension to his siblings. That contract is established at the moment of bonding between parents and child following birth, and the terms of the contract are that the child will provide the parents certain pleasures that come with parenthood, particularly the satisfaction of helping to form a happy and admirable adult, and support for the parents in their later years, and in turn receives their love, support, guidance, and protection during childhood.

Although a filial contract can exist in a family that is isolated from any larger society, when the parents join a society, they pool their rights and duties as parents with other members of that society, and thereby become agents of the larger society in the raising of their own children, and accountable to that larger society for doing so properly.

As a child grows, it encounters other members of the larger society, usually beginning with other children. Whenever any two or more individuals meet with the understanding and expectation that they will live together in harmony and not fight with one another using any available means, they are establishing a social contract among themselves. In most cases they will be contracting with persons who have already established such a contract with still other persons, so that the terms of the contract are not only to live in harmony with those in direct contact, but also with all those with whom each of the parties is already engaged in a social contract, and by extension, to all others that those are in a social contract with, and so on. In other words, the social contract is transitive: if a is in a social contract with b, and b with c, then a is in a social contract with c. In this way each of us is bound under a social contract with all the other members of the society, most of whom we have never met.

As a person makes the transition from childhood to adulthood, his obligations change to match his abilities, and the filial contract gives way to the larger social contract and obligations to larger communities at the local, provincial, national, and global levels.

Of course, the social contracts of several societies may not extend to one another, giving rise to tribes or nations, whose members are bound by social contract within their membership, but are in a state of nature with respect to one another. If that state of nature involves active conflict, whether at the individual, tribal, or national level, it is said to be a state of war.

Breaches of the Social Contract —

Although the situation of there never having been a social contract is a fairly simple one, the situation of either deceiving another into thinking there is a social contract between them, or of entering into a social contract and then violating its terms, can be much more complicated, and much of law and government is concerned with dealing with such situations.

In his treatment of the subject, Locke tended to emphasize those violations of the social contract that are so serious that the social contract is entirely broken and the parties enter a state of war in which anything is permitted, including killing the violator. Today we would tend to place violations on a scale of seriousness, only the most extreme of which would permit killing. Some would even go so far as to exclude killing for any transgression, no matter how serious, but that extreme view is both unacceptable to most normal persons and subversive of the social contract itself, which ultimately depends not on mutual understanding and good will, but on a balanced distribution of physical power and the willingness to use it. Sustaining the social contract therefore depends in large part on so ordering the constitution and laws as to avoid unbalanced or excessive concentrations of power, whether in the public or the private sector.

Checks and Balances –

The framers of the U.S. Constitution addressed the problem of avoiding unbalanced or excessive concentrations of power in government by adopting a constitution in which legislative, executive, and judicial powers are largely divided among separate branches, with each having some power to check the abuses of the others. Legislative powers were further divided between two legislative bodies. Some powers were delegated to the central national government, which others were reserved to the component states or the people.

Around the end of the 19th century, however, it became increasingly apparent that excessive and unbalanced concentrations of power in the private sector could subvert the system of checks and balances in government, and the first anti-trust laws were passed to try to provide a check on those undue influences. Unfortunately, such legislation has not been entirely effective, and we now face a situation in which to an intolerable degree the real powers of government are being exercised not by constitutional bodies but by secret cabals based in the private sector but extending throughout government, cabals which are increasingly coherent and increasingly abusive of the rights of the people, including the right to have government be accountable to them and not to a power elite. The continued constitutional development of this society will therefore require the development of a new, more sophisticated system of checks and balances that extends throughout the private sector as well as the public and does not entirely rely on market forces.

Much of the abuse that has developed arises from the assumption by the national or central government of powers not delegated to it under the Constitution, and the erosion of the powers of the States with respect to that central government. Some of those powers are arguably best exercised by the central government, but without constitutional authority even the exercise of reasonable powers becomes an abuse and leads to an escalating cycle of abuses as more and more people resist such intrusions, creating a crisis of legitimacy not only for those unconstitutional activities but for the constitutional ones as well. If government is to be brought into compliance with the Constitution, then there will have to be a carefully planned program of repealing or overturning unconstitutional legislation and official acts, combined with a number of amendments that will provide the needed authority for legislation and acts which are best exercised by the central government, and the re- enactment of legislation based on such amendments. That will leave a difficult problem of dealing with all those actions conducted without constitutional authority before the amendments are adopted. Making the amendments retroactive is not permissible under constitutional principles, which exclude not only ex post facto laws but ex post facto amendments as well.

Of Rights Natural and Constitutional –

Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.

The fundamental natural rights are life, liberty, and property. However, it is necessary to be somewhat more specific as to what these rights include. Therefore, constitution framers usually expand them into such rights as the right of speech and publication, the right to assemble peaceably, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to travel over public roadways, and so forth. The exercise of such natural rights may be restricted to the extent that they come into conflict with the exercise of the natural rights of other members of society, but only to the minimum degree needed to resolve such conflict.

Such natural rights are inalienable, meaning that a person cannot delegate them or give them away, even if he wants to do so. That means that no constitutional provision which delegated to government at any level the power to take away such rights would be valid, even if adopted as an amendment through a proper amendment process. Such rights apply to all levels of government, federal, state, or local. Their enumeration in the constitution does not establish them, it only recognizes them. Although they are restrictions on the power of government, the repeal of the provisions recognizing them would not remove the restrictions or allow the delegation of any power to deny them. The people do not have that power, and therefore cannot delegate it to government.

Yet constitutions recognize the power to deprive persons of their rights under due process of law. Strictly speaking, a person may not be deprived of such rights in the sense of taking them away. Natural rights are never lost. Their exercise can, however, be restricted or, to use the proper legal term, disabled. While some might question the practical distinction between losing a right and having it disabled, that distinction is important. A right which is disabled under due process may also be re- enabled by the removal of that disability, and the disability is removed if the social contract is broken and persons return to the state of nature.

Due process is not defined in the written U.S. Constitution, which points out the fact that the constitution consists not only of the written document itself, but the body of court precedents, legal definitions and traditions, and prevailing civic processes as of the date the written document was ratified, which is called pre-ratification Common Law. It also includes the commentaries and records of the debates of the framers and ratifiers insofar as they provide guidance on how to interpret the provisions of the written document. The constitution is further expanded to include the body of court precedents since ratification which interpret its provisions, called post-ratification common law, but only insofar as those court precedents are consistent with the written document, pre-ratification Common Law, and the original intent of its framers and ratifiers.

Certain rights, therefore, such as the rights of due process and the right to vote, are contractual. They have no meaning in a state of nature, only within the context of a civil society. And they are defined within Common Law rather than in the written Constitution.

Due process requires, among other things, that any disablement of a right be done only by a court of competent jurisdiction in response to a petition to do so, and after arguments and evidence are heard from all sides to support or refute the granting of such petition. The only rights which may be disabled by statute and without a specific court proceeding are the rights of majority, or adulthood. Common Law recognizes that persons are born with disabilities of minority, and constitutions and laws typically define some age at which those disabilities are removed, such as age 18 in the United States for purposes of voting, although it may allow for such disabilities to be removed earlier, or retained past the usual age of majority, upon petition to do so. Due process therefore requires that each and every right which is to be disabled be argued separately on its merits, and the ruling or sentence of the court explicitly disable each such right.

This requirement therefore comes into conflict with legislation which prescribes the disablement of certain rights for persons convicted of certain types of crimes, such as the right to vote or to keep and bear arms, without that disablement being made an explicit part of the sentence or the sentencing hearing. Such legislation must be considered unconstitutional, for even though there may be due process in the case which results in the explicit disablement of the rights to certain liberties or properties, those disablements are openly stated and argued, and the statutory inclusion of other disablements that are not made explicit or separately argued is a denial of due process.

Duties under the Social Contract –

While a constitution prescribes the legal rights of individuals and the powers of government, the social contract also includes certain duties which members assume upon entry. Those duties include the duty to avoid infringing on the rights of other members, to obey just laws, to comply with and help enforce just contracts, to serve on juries, and to defend the community.

It is important to recognize that although individuals have a right of self-defense in the state of nature, when they enter into society under the social contract, the pooling of that right transforms it into a duty to defend the community, and therefore to risk or sacrifice one’s life, liberty, or property if such defense should require it. The right of self-defense is no longer supreme, although it survives the transition to society as a duty to defend oneself as part of the community. Pacifism in the face of mortal danger to oneself or others is therefore not consistent with the social contract, and persons who insist on that position must be considered not to be members of society or entitled to its benefits, and if they live in the same country, have the status of resident aliens.

This duty implies not only individual action to defend the community, but the duty to do so in concert with others as an organized and trained militia. Since public officials may themselves pose a threat to the community, such militias may be subject to call-up by officials, but may not be subject to their control except insofar as they are acting in accordance with the constitution and laws pursuant thereto, and in defense of the community. Since any official designated to call up the militia may be an enemy of the constitution and laws, and may fail to issue a call-up when appropriate, militias must remain able to be called up by any credible person and independent of official control.

Another important duty is jury duty. Since officials may be corrupt or abusive or their power, grand jurors have the duty not only to bring an indictment upon evidence presented to it by a prosecutor, but to conduct their own investigations and if necessary, to appoint their own prosecutors to conduct a trial on the evidence. Petit jurors have the duty to not only follow the instructions of the judge to bring a verdict on the “facts” in a case, but to rule on all issues before the court, overriding the judge if necessary. No matter how despicable an accused defendant might be or how heinous his acts, they have the duty to find that accused not guilty if the court lacks jurisdiction, if the rights of the accused were seriously violated in the course of the investigation or trial, or if the law under which the accused is charged is misapplied to the case or is unconstitutional; and to find the law unconstitutional if it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the accused, if it is not based on any power delegated to the government, if it is unequally enforced, or if it is so vague that honest persons could disagree on how to obey or enforce it. Since most jury instructions now discourage petit juries from exercising that duty, almost all convictions brought by such juries in which there was an issue in law must be considered invalid, due to jury tampering by the court.

Governmental Powers and Duties –

Some critics of social contract theory argue that there are some powers of government that are not derived from powers of the people or delegated to the government by them. However, a careful analysis will show that all powers exercised by government derive either from the people as a whole, or from some subset of the people, or from one person, and that only the first are legitimate. The power to tax? Persons in the state of nature have the power to tax themselves, although they would not ordinarily think of it that way.

Most written constitutions prescribe the powers delegated to government, but are not always explicit about the duties. It is implied that the government has the duty to exercise its powers wisely and pursuant to the purposes of the social contract. But some persons argue that the power to act is also the power not to act. Could the government choose not to exercise its power to conduct elections, or to defend the country, or to maintain a sound currency, or to organize and train the militias of each state? No. Except in case of emergency, and only for the duration of the emergency, government must exercise the powers delegated to it according to their purposes to the best of its ability. That is its duty. Just as it is the duty of every member of society to exercise his or her powers in service of the community.

References: Ernest Barker, ed., Social Contract, Oxford U. Press, London, 1960. Contains the essays: John Locke, An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government; David Hume, Of the Original Contract; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract.

James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention. The definitive record of the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, The Federalist.

Bernard Schwartz, The Roots of the Bill of Rights, Chelsea House, New York, 1980.

Leonard W. Levy, Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution, 1988, Macmillan, New York. Scholar examines “original intent” doctrine and its alternatives.

Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 1984, Independent Institute, 134 98th Av, Oakland, CA 94603.

Clarence Streit, Atlantic Union Now, 1962, Freedom & Union Press, Washington, DC.

**** The Constitution Society gives its permission for this last section (“The Social Compact & Constitutional Republics”) to be copied with attribution for noncommercial purposes.

This post includes a compilation of two previous works:
I. My original composition

II. The Intro about Social Compact: Martin Kelly, “The Social Compact,” ThoughtCo., June 26, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.thoughtco.com/social-contract-in-politics-105424

III. “The Social Compact & Constitutional Republics,” 2007 Constitution Society. http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm

Other Resource: “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” (The Avalon Project; Yale Law School) — http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Open-Mindedness of Liberals; It’s a Dangerous Thing

OPEN MIND

by Diane Rufino, Nov. 25, 2017

In 1886 Sir Edward Clarke delivered a speech in the U.K. House of Commons and in polite way of insulting someone, he said: “The mind was indeed so open that it had nothing in it at all.”  In 1908, a periodical called “The New Quarterly” published excerpts from “The Note-Books of Samuel Butler,” and in Butler’s notes, he commented: “Cursed is he that does not know when to shut his mind. An open mind is all very well in its way, but it ought not to be so open that there is no keeping anything in or out of it. It should be capable of shutting its doors sometimes, or it may be found a little draughty (empty).”

In 1940, Professor Walter Kotschnig at Holyoke College once told his students: “Keep your minds open—but not so open that your brains fall out.” (Some credit Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer and author, with the phrase, but they are wrong).  We’ve all heard this line. I’ve even seen it in a fortune cookie – several times.

Shortly thereafter, Kotschnig gave in the campus chapel at Smith College in which he repeated his “open mind” expression. In part, he spoke: “Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mold the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! There are still things in this world which are true and things which are false; acts which are right and acts which are wrong.”

And in 1951, then-president of Smith College, William Allan Neilson, addressed its graduating class: “Go out and face your new job with an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.”  He explained that viewpoints should not be so fixed that there is no possible chance to investigate new and sometimes better ideas, but in contemplating situations, the urge to bring about change should not blind the person from using reason and intelligence.

The point is that colleges use to employ professors who urged students to keep an open mind to further the advancement of society, to improve our country, to enrich our body of thought, and in general to further our culture and civility; they urged students to keep an open mind to show intelligence and a willingness to improve, always to be dignified human beings, worthy of the brain that God gave us in order to sustain us as a species exponentially more intelligent than any other.

Today, colleges employ professors who indoctrinate their students in the opposite direction – to open their minds so completely that in fact their brains fall out. And so, we see the extent of social decay that their empty skulls have produced.

There are many examples that can be given as to the ridiculousness of the liberal mind, and the insane policies and insane circumstances that exist because of it, such as the creation of “safe spaces” so that certain fragile liberal individuals can retreat in safety from harsh words and uncomfortable situations, the chilling of free speech for fear that certain words, terms, and certain thought might hurt someone’s feelings, the removal of historic monuments and the Confederate flag because liberals believe there can be no explanation for their existence than it supported or represented slavery, or the violent protests on campus or when conservative guests are set to speak simply to prevent their message from reaching any audience at all (common sense tells us that if one believe he/she holds the superior position, then he/she shouldn’t be afraid of the other side), or the creation of the violent, terrorist liberal group known as Antifa, or the near-fatal assault on Republican congressmen at a baseball field, or the mock beheading of President Trump, or the mock gangland style execution of Trump in a music video, or the direct (and indirect) calling for the assassination of Trump, or the first-time ever on-air commentary during a presidential inauguration imagining what would happen if Trump were assassinated and who would take over (they happily concluded that Obama would continue as POTUS), or the willing acceptance by a woman that she doesn’t need to be married or have a father around to have a baby and then raise it, or indoctrinating our youth to think that gender shouldn’t follow a strict “male” or “female” choice, or indoctrinating our youth to think that sexuality is a choice (and not determined by birth, or genetics; imagine that logic?), or indoctrinating our youth to believe that gender is fluid (it can change depending on what the person feels), or pushing the narrative that raising a child by a same-sex couple is equivalent to a mother-father couple (each gender teaches a child certain qualities; it’s not about the child not getting enough love or care), or the destructive belief that because others have so much more than they need, that wealth should be redistributed so others can be comfortable. The liberal mind disavows religion, disavows the laws of Biology, promotes implicit theft (by all-too-willing to take from others; jealousy), promulgates poverty, and furthers the decay and erosion of society and the dysfunction of its members.

I have gone into a few chosen examples below of what liberals believe and what the liberal mind has produced, and I apologize that they are disjointed and perhaps not the best of examples, but they happen to be the ones I’ve chosen for this article.

SOCIALISM –   Liberals want stuff; they believe government should take care of them and they don’t care at what cost it is provided.

Today’s liberal colleges and universities, today’s Democratic Party, and today’s minority groups clamor for a socialist government – one that provides the country’s non-achievers and underachievers every essential service and benefit for a comfortable life. They claim that these are what every individual is “entitled to” from their government. Why should they be constrained by a lack of education, or lack of ambition, or lack of a job, or lack of a father to the children they willingly bear?

Socialism is a system of government control over the economy of a nation. In a socialist country, the individual is unimportant when compared to the welfare of the group.

To accept this is to reject the Declaration of Independence. To reject the Declaration of Independence, in favor of socialism, is to reject the very premises on which this country was founded: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….”  The premises, of course, are four-fold: (1) That every individual enjoys certain inalienable rights (rights that can never be surrendered to a government), including Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (ie, property and all the efforts and rewards in obtaining property); (2) That government is instituted among men, deriving its powers from the consent of the governed (individual sovereignty; government derives from the people – they decide, through consent, which powers government will have over their lives and communities; (3) That the primary role of government is to secure and safeguard the individual’s inalienable rights; and (4) That when government fails in this primary purpose or otherwise becomes destructive of its ends, the people have a right to alter or abolish it (including deciding to separate or secede from the body politic tied to that government, thus breaking allegiance/political bonds with that government).

To reject these foundations is to accept the notion that government, and not the people, hold all political power and that government can rule over the individual in any way it thinks is best for the “good of the collective” (the general good) and make decisions accordingly, including suspending rights that can no longer be viewed as “inalienable.” Under socialism, individual rights become temporary until they need to be surrendered or regulated for the good of others.

Benjamin Franklin’s words remind us of the consequences: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  But the consequences are far worse. Far from “not being deserving of Liberty,” the liberal who adopts socialism over the assurances in the Declaration, actually will surrender his liberty, probably never to regain the notion of individual sovereignty again.

Willing ignorance and rejection of our founding ideals isn’t “open-mindedness”; it is sheer idiocy.

ALINSKYITES –  Liberals see themselves as change-agents, with total disregard to the norms, institutions, guidelines, and boundaries that help provide a framework for acceptable conduct in civilized society and total disregard for acceptable tactics.

Because liberals are often one-issue individuals (gay rights, transgender rights, BLM, abortion rights, open immigration, no racial profiling for Muslims, freedom from religion, anti-Trump), they are often passionate about that issue and also oblivious to the views of others. We recognize many of them as protesters; We see them with their faces covered up in some instances, we see them protesting whenever and wherever they can, we see them all over college campuses, we see them carrying signs that most would find offensive (yet they are the first to cry when something offends them), we often have a hard time figuring out if they are males or females, we hear them chanting rehearsed, pre-fed lines and sound bites, and we spot them all over social media. The one thing we know is that when we hear them speak or see what they write, we know they are clueless, essentially functionless, and unfortunately, useless to society. They offer nothing positive. They don’t want to take us forward down the road, only backward.

And hence, they are perfect Saul Alinskyites. These functionless idiots serve a purpose to someone like Saul Alinsky, to a party like the Democratic Party, to socialists and communists like Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

In 1971, a rabid progressive/liberal named Saul Alinsky wrote a book titled Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Essentially, he wrote it as a playbook for those who think like him and who desire radical change through politics. His book would be the foundation for today’s Democratic Party’s “community-organizing” initiative. It would outline how to use subversive tactics in order to seek political power. It was such an influential book that some very notable persons subscribed to it, including Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Frank Marshall Davis, and President Barack Obama. [One might recall how Obama was a protégé of Ayers and Dohrn, and that his mother was linked to Frank Marshall Davis].

What Rules for Radicals teaches, specifically, is how Liberals and Progressives (ie, the Democratic Party) can effectively use the weaknesses in our political system, as well as the weakest members of society, and how they can ultimately bring about the socialist state that they ultimately seek. In fact, he begins the book: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”  Alinsky then provides a collection of rules (12 to be exact) to guide the process. If anyone should doubt that the playbook he outlined is for ignoble (shameful) goals, just read his forward, in which he acknowledges who inspired him: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

[Taken from Steel-On-Steel; see reference that follows] Progressives exploit the weaknesses inherent in the system, made weaker by pitting opposing forces against one another. They also oppose independent, morally strong, educated people because those individuals, especially in groups, can’t be manipulated easily. They attempt to end-run constitutional rights with social contract and dialectic consensus methods. Alinskyites engage in large-scale social engineering, attempting to unfreeze a society using chaos, and to then refreeze it in a new predefined shape. The dividing lines they polarize people on are most often racial, economic, religious and political. The main goal of Alinskyites is to cause social instability through subversive and divisive rhetoric. One method is to control the outcome of the education system by lowering the standards of education so that it creates a dependent class. As adherents to the Cloward-Piven strategy, they use their political platforms to overload a society with social spending programs and class warfare to the point that hatred and division cause social panic. Once they’ve created a problem, they propose themselves as the answer and use wealth transfers and the trumping of rights as the method to bring about “equality.”  [https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/ ]

In his book, Alinsky further discusses the eight (8) levels of control that must be obtained before a true social state can be created and how, once again, to turn America’s “useless idiots” into “useful” ones in order to achieve that goal. The eight levels of control are:  Healthcare (control healthcare and you control people), Welfare (take control of every aspect of their lives), Poverty (increase the poverty level; poor people don’t fight back when everything they need to live is provided to them), Debt (increase the  debt as high as possible; that way taxes have to be increased, this producing more poverty), Gun Control (remove the ability of people to defend themselves from government; that way government can establish a police state, if necessary), Education ( thought control), Religion (remove the belief in God from the government and schools), and Class Warfare (divide people into the wealthy and the poor and vilify the wealthy; this will cause discontent and make it easier to tax the wealthy even more to support the poor). “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they’ve come to revere.”

Question:  How many liberals and progressives know that through their activism, their one-issue politics, their participation in community organizing efforts, they are moving the United States towards socialism?  Do they even know what “socialism” is?  Do they know that Alinsky merely simplified and modernized Vladimir Lenin’s original scheme for world conquest by communism (under Russian rule, of course)? Do they know that the same levels of control were originally embraced and promoted by Karl Marx?  Do they know that “useful idiots” (that is, useless idiots “weaponized” for political power) have destroyed every nation in which they happened to seize power and control?  And if they actually knew and understood all this, do you think that they would willingly seek the destruction of this country?  Question #2:  How many levels of control have been obtained already in the United States?  All but one, right?  All levels of control have been achieved except gun control, and we see how aggressively and rabidly liberals are seeking it. You have to ask yourselves why it is such a top priority for them. President Obama sought gun control and Hillary Clinton was even a stronger advocate. She, as most other liberals do, immediately turn a shooting incident into a mandate for gun control laws (even though most incidents could have been prevented if the government had been diligent in actually enforcing the laws already on the books!)  As you can see, the Progressives have done their homework, have embraced the Alinsky model, and have been successful at fundamentally transforming not only the character of too many people in this country but transforming the country in general.  Question #3:  How have the “useless idiots” (the ones targeted through so-called “community-organizing” efforts) been benefitted?   Who has really benefitted by the Alinksy method?  Feeling empowered by the hype and promises made in community-organizing, and feeling empowered by being part of a social-change movement, liberals open their minds so much to grasp this power that, in the process, they lose reason, accountability, common sense, and yes, even grey matter. They become like Stepford Wives… totally submissive to the party and robotic in their speech and actions. They are pawns without realizing it, and having no understanding of how politics works (the intense adversarial nature of it), they don’t see how they are simply being used for the benefit of others. In what world would a government that has complete political control allow a large group of people to breed without consequence and without responsibility, while providing little or nothing by way of economic benefit?  At some point, the free ride will end and they will be treated like the liability and burden that they are. By the way, Josef Stalin was the one who coined the term “Useful Idiots.”  (Once he concentrated his power by manipulating them, how did his regime treat them?)

Ironically, if you look at the history of the Alinsky model and its place in progressive/liberal politics, you’ll notice that making temporary “useful” idiots out of “useless” idiots, for social change often does nothing meaningful for those “idiots.” They may get a bone here and there, but the real benefits are to others (ie, the wealthy political leftist elite)

Conservatives are finally catching on the Alinsky method and are familiarizing it for several reasons:  (1) They want to help identify and defeat the divisive tactics of the left; (2) They want to use those same tactics to their own advantage or to counter the left; and (3) They want to help explain to certain groups that they are intentionally being manipulated. As we on the right can easily see, many of the people (drinking the “kool-aid”) aren’t even aware that they are being manipulated (“Being, in essence, weaponized against their fellow man.”  Steel-On-Steel)

As political elites and strategists have known for a very long time now, certain groups, including the poor, the dependent, and the overly open-minded liberal, are easily manipulated. Hillary Clinton herself remarked that they are stupid and easily manipulated. James Carville, a onetime Democrat political consultant and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, came right out and said that “not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well.”

IMMIGRATION –  Liberals see immigrants (lots of them) as essential to their cause – to their plan for social and political change – and don’t care about the legality part

I just happened to have been in Washington DC this past January for the Women’s March. I traveled to the nation’s capital to celebrate the inauguration of Donald Trump as president and decided to spend a couple of extra days enjoying the beautiful and vibrant city and taking advantage of all its history lessons; I did not know in advance about the march. But getting out and observing the march, noticing the various individuals marching and protesting, I was given a unique peek at the tactics of the liberal/progressive movement (ie, today’s Democratic Party). Under the guise of protesting for their individual issue, the protesters were invited and encouraged to march together the day after the inauguration so that the Democratic Party could claim that “the people” are rejecting Trump as their president.  In other words, they scheduled the event to say “F U,” in as colossal a way as possible, to Trump. The various groups were “collected” – and yes “manipulated” on account of their one-issue politics – into serving the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party, which is to discredit, distract, delegitimize, and obstruct Trump in any and every way possible in order to frustrate his tenure and success as president. Alone the groups are small, weak, and even inconsequential. For example, the large group of feminists at the rally were protesting for equal rights, equal right in the workplace and equal pay. I guess they never heard of all the gender equality laws (and amendments and Supreme Court cases). I guess they’ve never read or even heard of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which is posted in every Human Resources Department in every place of employment. I guess they forgot that Roe v. Wade and further cases give women the exclusive right to kill and destroy a baby growing inside, even though that baby has a father.  Alone the liberal groups might be small and weak, yes, but pooled together, they make a more powerful political statement.  And they are happy to collaborate, because in the end, it’s about moving their one issue forward.

The liberal/progressive movement has now targeted immigrants. The more, the merrier!  They have politicized immigrants, including illegals, turning them into victims who have a gripe and can, with the help of the collective group of liberals, seek demands.

California has by far the largest number of unauthorized immigrants, about 2.3 million in 2014. About six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants live in the six states with the largest populations of unauthorized immigrants—California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Texas. And in six states, the numbers of illegal immigrants has greatly increased – Virginia, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. The great influx of Latino immigrants has changed California from a purple state to a blue one.  California’s Proposition 187 (“Save Our State” initiative) would have denied all public services to illegal immigrants and forced all state employees to immediately report illegal immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for deportation.  It appeared on the ballot in 1994 when California Republican governor Pete Wilson was running a very hard-fought campaign for reelection, which he won. Prop 187 was approved by the voters, but it galvanized the Hispanic vote against the GOP from that year on. California is now known for its high progressive income taxes and high welfare benefit levels (ie, wealth redistribution) – a haven for immigrants who don’t come to the United States with skills to fully support themselves and their families. California rewards its Hispanic immigrants and they reward the Democratic Party. We see the same in New Jersey and New York.  We see states that want to turn or remain “blue” (Democratic) supporting policies that attract Hispanics and other immigrants (those that take advantage, and even scam, welfare and other assistance programs). Low-skilled immigrants go where they can best afford to live.

Refer to the Pew Research Center data below:
A = Unauthorized immigrant population, 2014

B = Unauthorized immigrant share of population, 2014

C = Unauthorized Share of immigrant population, 2014

D = Unauthorized immigrant share of labor force, 2014

E = Share of K-12 students with unauthorized immigrant parent(s), 2014

F = Share Mexican of unauthorized immigrants, 2014

G = Change in unauthorized immigrant population, 2009-2014

__________A_______B____    C______D____     E______F_____G_

Total               11,100,000      3.5%           26%            5.0%           7.3%           52%           n.s.

Alabama         65,000             1.3%           39%            1.8%           2.8%           52%          -15,000

Alaska             10,000             1.3%            17%            1.9%            2.4%           13%           n.s.

Arizona           325,000           4.9%           35%           6.6%           12.2%          81%           n.s.

Arkansas         70,000             2.4%           48%           3.5%            6.0%          70%           n.s.

California        2,350,000        6.0%          22%           9.0%           12.3%         71%        -190,ooo

Colorado         200,000           3.8%           37%           4.9%           10.2%         72%           n.s.

Connecticut    120,000           3.4%            24%           4.7%             5.5%         18%           n.s.

Delaware         25,000             2.7%            31%            4.0%             4.2%         43%           n.s.

DC                   25,000             3.9%             26%            4.9%             6.6%           3%            n.s.

Florida             850,000           4.2%           20%            6.2%             7.6%          19%           n.s.

Georgia           375,000           3.6%             36%            5.2%             8.4%          56%        -55,000

Hawaii             45,000             3.2%            18%             4.6%             5.2%            3%            n.s.

Idaho               45,000             2.7%             42%             4.0%            6.8%           87%           n.s.

Illinois             450,000           3.5%             24%             5.0%            7.2%           71%       -55,000

Indiana            110,000           1.6%               32%            2.2%            3.5%           63%           n.s.

Iowa                40,000             1.3%                26%            1.8%            3.2%           62%           n.s.

Kansas             75,000             2.5%                35%           3.4%             6.7%           74%    -20,000

Kentucky        50,000             1.1%                30%            1.7%              2.1%           50%           n.s.

Louisiana        70,000             1.5%                36%            2.2%             2.2%           39%     15,000

Maine              <5,000             0.3%                8%              0.4%            0.4%           N.A.          n.s.

Maryland        250,000           4.2%                27%            5.9%             7.5%            11%           n.s.

Massachusetts 210,000           3.1%               19%            4.0%             4.6%            2%      35,000

Michigan         130,000           1.3%                20%            1.7%               2.3%           35%          n.s.

Minnesota       100,000           1.9%                23%            2.7%              3.8%            45%         n.s.

Mississippi      25,000             0.8%                37%            1.3%              1.3%             69%        n.s.

Missouri          55,000             0.9%                24%             1.3%              1.8%             39%        n.s.

Montana          <5,000             0.3%                14%             0.4%              0.1%            N.A.       n.s.

Nebraska         45,000             2.5%                38%             3.2%               6.7%            61%       n.s.

Nevada            210,000          7.2%                36%             10.4%             17.6%           70%     -30K

New Hamp      10,000             0.8%                14%             1.0%                1.3%            2%         n.s.

New Jersey     500,000           5.4%                24%              7.9%              7.6%           24%       45K

New Mexico   85,000             4.0%                37%               5.6%              10.1%         91%         n.s.

New York       775,000           3.9%                17%                 5.9%              6.0%           25%       n.s

N. Carolina    350,000           3.4%                43%                5.0%             8.7%           60%       n.s

N. Dakota         <5,000          0.5%                13%                 0.7%             0.7%           N.A.       n.s.

Ohio                95,000             0.8%                19%                 1.1%              1.5%           28%       n.s.

Oklahoma       95,000             2.4%                41%                 3.4%            6.3%           71%        n.s.

Oregon          130,000             3.2%                32%                 4.8%            8.6%           71%       n.s.

Pennsylvania   180,000         1.4%                22%                 2.0%           2.6%           20%     50K

Rhode Island   30,000           2.9%               21%                  4.0%             6.4%           6%        n.s.

S. Carolina       85,000           1.8%                37%                 2.6%              3.9%          64%   – 15K

S. Dakota           5,000             0.6%                21%                0.8%              0.6%         22%       n.s.

Tennessee       120,000           1.9%                37%                 2.8%              3.9%          49%      n.s.

Texas              1,650,000        6.1%                35%                 8.5%               13.4%         71%       n.s.

Utah                100,000           3.5%                39%                 5.4%                7.4%         72%      n.s.

Vermont          <5,000             0.3%                8%                   0.3%              0.0%        N.A.      n.s.

Virginia           300,000           3.5%                28%                 5.0%               6.5%        14%    35K

Washington     250,000           3.6%               27%                5.0%             8.8%          52%    40K

West Virginia <5,000             0.2%                15%                 0.2%             0.3%           N.A.      n.s.

Wisconsin       80,000             1.3%                27%                 1.9%               3.2%           74%     n.s.

Wyoming        5,000               1.0%                27%                 1.4%                2.3%          58%      n.s.

Note: All numbers are rounded independently and are not adjusted to sum to the total U.S. figure or other totals. Percents and Change calculated from unrounded numbers. (90% confidence in rounding)

“N.A.” – Not available. Base of percent is too small to produce a reliable estimate.

“n.s.” – Change is not statistically significant.

Download data on unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., 2014.

Source: Pew Research Center estimates for 2009 and 2014 based on augmented American.  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

Why does immigration matter and why is it such an important issue for Democrats that the US have an open-door policy, that states be able to have sanctuary cities, and that illegals be granted amnesty?  It’s because immigration has the potential to the demographics – and hence, the electoral power – of the states that Donald Trump depended on to win the presidency. Immigration is a power play – a strictly political issue, and NOT a moral one, as they might claim. Immigration has the potential of being a game-changer for the Democratic Party and the liberal-progressive movement. It has the potential of changing the political landscape in a major way in favor of liberal-Democratic policies. Just as Lyndon B. Johnson realized the potential of poor blacks when he signed the Aid to Families With Dependent Children legislation (the welfare program as we know it today) and greatly enlarged other assistance programs (his “Great Society”) when he said: “I’ll have those n*** voting Democratic for 200 years,” todays liberals know the potential power of having a majority of people existing or at least dependent on the government for their essential needs. The power to control is the power to manipulate.

If you question LBJ’s logic, which is the same logic of the Democratic Party, just look at the results of his programs. They were intended to lift blacks out of poverty; yet the poverty rate is almost the same today as it was in 1965 (17.3% in 1965; 15% in 2012).  This is despite the now 92 + federal programs designed to help lower-income Americans. For instance, there are dozens of education and job-training programs, 17 different food-aid programs, and over 20 housing programs. Instead of giving people the temporary assistance they may need to become employable and become self-sufficient (ending dependency), democratic government policies have done the opposite – they have discouraged work and education, and have helped destroy the one institution that is most important in determining success – families. Rather than being temporary programs and helping to lift individuals and families out of poverty, government programs have become true social programs, or permanent programs. Instead of moving people out of poverty, they are now designed to make people “comfortable” in their poverty…. So much so that it is no longer worth investing in an education or a meaningful employable skill. Liberals and Democrats have taken LBJ’s scheme, saw the political brilliance in it, and have run with it.  The scheme, of course, is to entangle politics with hand-outs and freebies, including a Get Out of Jail FREE card. And we see it quite clearly with immigration. The Liberals have politicized them. They are participating in Antifa, they are participating in violent protests, they are bashing the US flag, they are hostile to the current administration, they are frustrating our court system, they are demanding rights, they are flocking to sanctuary cities.

I watched an episode of FOX News this morning. In discussing amnesty for illegal immigrants, Juan Williams said that morally, the United States has a moral obligation to take care of illegal immigrants who are here in this country by providing them healthcare, welfare, education opportunities, etc.  His opponent responded by telling him to take that argument to the average middle-class taxpayer, who is already watching his tax dollars go to pay for a huge amount of social services (of which he himself, and his family, is not eligible for) instead of for his own family’s needs. Illegal immigrants and their children are costing the American taxpayers $135 billion, the highest ever. This price tag includes healthcare, welfare, other freebies, education, prison costs, and increased law enforcement expenses –  http://video.foxnews.com/v/5591274873001/?#sp=show-clips

According to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IFLI), illegal immigration to the U.S. costs federal, state and local taxpayers a staggering net cost of $116 billion a year – an increase of some $16 billion compared to previous estimates – according to a new study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The study is the most comprehensive to date on the cost to federal, state and local taxpayers of the nation’s 12.5 million illegal immigrants and their 4.2 million citizen children.

The report, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” examines the cost of illegal immigration through a detailed analysis of federal, state and local programs that are available to the nation’s illegal immigrant population, their U.S.-born children, or accessed via fraud.  The study tallies the impact on education, medical, justice/enforcement, welfare and other government programs. The report notes that the $116 billion cost of illegal immigration falls on state and local taxpayers disproportionately – by a ratio of roughly 2 to 1 – with state and local expenditures totaling $88.9 billion and Federal expenditures totaling $45.8 billion, with only approximately $19 billion recouped in taxes. [http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjO_QBRC4ARIsAD2FsXOUPz-giyM_Ptgcrt1mC4ar6rPbB2qdsd1kkxncvKxiQwuT8aO-2dYaAtUPEALw_wcB ]

Democrats and liberals love to say that illegals pay taxes, but they are intentionally misleading and deceptive. They pay consumption taxes, like sales taxes and gas tax, which everyone pays as a function of being a consumer. But they do not pay federal income tax. In fact, the taxes they pay are wholly inadequate to cover the costs that they incur and the burden they pose on actual taxpayers. Here are the facts:

  • The staggering total costs of illegal immigrants and their children outweigh the taxes paid to federal and state governments by a ratio of roughly 7 to 1, with costs at nearly $135 billion compared to tax revenues at nearly $19 billion.
  • All told, the nearly $135 billion paid out by federal and state and local taxpayers to cover the cost of the presence of 12.5 million illegal aliens and their 4.2 million citizen children amounts to approximately $8,075 per illegal alien and citizen child prior to taxes paid, or $6,940 per person after taxes are paid.
  • On the federal level, medical ($17.14 billion) is by far the highest cost, with law enforcement coming second ($13.15 billion) and general government services ($8 billion) third.
  • At the state and local level, education ($44.4 billion) was by far the largest expense, followed by general public services ($18.5 billion) and medical ($12.1 billion).
  • The study also includes cost and tax revenue estimates per state. The top three states based on total cost to state taxpayers for illegal immigrants and their children: California ($23 billion); Texas ($10.9 billion), and New York ($7.5 billion). [Ibid]

Mexicans remain the majority of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population; the “estimated” number of illegal Mexican immigrants (aliens) was 5.8 million in 2014. On top of this, the number of unauthorized immigrants from all other nations – especially those from Asia and Central America – is growing. In 2009, the number of illegals from all other nations (other than Mexico) was 325,000. In 2014, that figure rose to 5.3 million. As if these numbers aren’t staggering enough, remember our laws allowing chain migration and recognize that illegals are breeding like crazy. Their numbers are growing very rapidly.

On one of Tucker Carlson’s shows, he commented: “Millions of low-skilled workers are flooding into the country and clearly something needs to be done. Facts rarely matter in the national debate surround immigration, including in Washington DC; instead, to supporters of an open immigration policy, it’s about morality and emotion. But facts must be addressed because they have real consequences for legal Americans. Illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $135.8 billion dollars each year. Illegals pay about $19 billion in taxes which leaves a deficit that the American taxpayers are on the hook for of $116 billion. To put that into perspective, Americans spend $70 billion each year on college tuition. If we didn’t have the immigration burden that we have, that $116 billion could provide a college education for every American child, with about $50 billion left over. That sum could go towards fixing roads, it could be spent on healthcare, etc.”

Tucker then brought on a spokesman, Mr. Dan Stein, for the Center for Immigration Studies, the organization which compiled the data referenced. The spokesman explained that the typical immigrant in this country is related to someone already here. “Every initiating immigrant has already brought 3.5 family members with him/her to the country. This is known as chain migration. Each legal immigrant from Mexico has already brought an average of more than 6 others with him/her to the United States. Most have low prospects of contributing economically (of getting a good-paying job). 24% of those who have come here through chain migration are over 50 years old (and not able to speak English) and hence, they barely work or don’t work at all. But they will be able to collect social security benefits, after never paying into the system. If 700,000 DACA recipients receive amnesty, they stand to bring millions more under our policy of chain migration. The only reason to excuse this situation is because for the left, its is a chance to gain and hold onto political power. On the right, Republican politicians are being pressured by the business lobbyists (who fund their campaigns and have a lot of power) who want to keep labor costs low. Ordinary Americans are ignored. They are losing their jobs to these immigrants. They need their taxes lowered because they have had stagnant wages for years and have watched as costs have gone up for everything. The average immigrant makes about $36,000 per year (below the poverty line) and therefore, has a negative federal tax liability.”

To continue an immigration policy at the current rate and with the consequences it brings ensures that actual taxpayers will never get a break. They will continue to subsidize the lifestyles of others….  and most offensively, subsidize the lifestyles of those that shouldn’t even be here. The American taxpayer, and the legal citizen should NOT have to subsidize and fund an insidious policy that is political in nature and designed only to effect a shift in party allegiance. It is simply politics at its worst and is outrageous.

For Liberals to embrace open borders and an open immigration policy is just insane. It’s just as insane as them piling more people on social welfare programs, offering more entitlement programs, and driving the nation further into debt. Clearly, the cost of allowing illegal immigration to continue is far too high. Anyone with an ounce of grey matter can understand this. Combine this with the fact that the federal government is specifically tasked – is REQUIRED – to enforce a rational and meaningful immigration policy, and we see that liberals are simply beyond ignorant and reckless on this issue. But then again, open immigration isn’t about what is moral and compassionate (as the Pope likes to espouse, while never once offering to open the Vatican coffers to fund their social costs); it is a “kool-aid” issue that masks a more sinister goal – to bring in more potential Democrats. The political ambitions of today’s liberals continue to destroy brain cells and continue to put the health and vitality of the country at risk.

[Jeffrey S. Passel an D’Vera Cohn, “Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009; Decline in share from Mexico mostly offset by growth from Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa,” Pew Research Center, Nov, 3, 2016.  Referenced at:  http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/ ]

NYC TERRORIST ATTACK –  Profiling and Vetting are Highly Offensive to Liberals, even when innocent American lives are at stake

On Halloween Day, October 31, in New York City, a legal permanent resident who came to the US from Uzbekistan committed an act of terrorism that mirrored those being committed in European nations, especially France and England. Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented Home Depot truck down a New York City bike lane, intentionally targeting and plowing into pedestrians and bicyclists, before slamming into a school bus, killing 8 and wounding 12. He got out of the truck and shouted “Allahu akbar” (“God is great” in Arabic) before the NYC police were able to subdue him. When the police later were able to go through Saipov’s effects, they learned that he had pledged loyalty to ISIS and had plotted the attack for weeks before carrying out in the name of the Islamic State.

How did someone so hateful of America come here?  It turns out that Saipov came to the United States seven years ago from Uzbekistan under the Diversity Visa (DV) Program, a State Department program which offers a no-questions-asked (with respect to ideology and terrorism) lottery for people from countries with few immigrants in America. The DV program makes up to 50,000 immigrant visas available annually, “drawn from random selection among all entries to individuals who are from countries with low rates of immigration” to the U.S., according to the information provided on the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services website. Applicants must prove they have a clean criminal record, have a high school diploma or its equivalent, or have at least two years of work experience within the past five years in order to qualify. The program originated as part of a bill introduced in 1990 by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, then a member of the House. Schumer’s measure to make a set number of visas available to “diversity immigrants” from certain countries was absorbed into a larger House immigration bill, which was sponsored by Schumer and 31 others.

The House legislation passed in a bipartisan, but contested, vote (231-192), while the Senate version passed more easily (89-8). The bill went on to be signed by then-President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Up until that point, the US was essentially only acknowledging terrorism abroad, primarily with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. In 1979, Iranians kidnapped fifty-two American diplomats and citizens and held them hostage for 444 days (until Reagan took office in 1981) and in 1988, a suitcase bomb exploded aboard New York-bound Pan Am Flight 103, killing all 259 passengers and crewmembers, along with 11 people on the ground, in Lockerbie, Scotland. (Libya’s leader, Gaddafi, finally claimed responsibility in 2003).

In light of the rapid and violent escalation of terrorism all over the world and especially here in the United States, our Congressmen never thought to get rid of the DV program in favor of a more sensible immigration policy – a merit-based one, one rationally related to our national interests, the most important being safety and self-preservation. They never thought it important, for safety reasons, to come together in a non-partisan fashion, and repeal the policy?  How many “Allahu Akbars” did they need to hear shouted before innocent American lives were taken?  Do they not bother to look at the data that entire executive departments are tasked to gather regarding terrorism, radicalism, and countries in which both are thriving?  It took someone like Donald Trump, vaulted to the presidency by common-sense Americans, to think along such lines. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) sponsored the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, which calls for its elimination and President Trump has come out in support of it, calling the DV program “outdated,” adding that it “serves questionable economic and humanitarian interests.”

In their infinite wisdom, Democrats provided a beauty of a program that was able to bring potential and actual terrorists into our communities in the aftermath of the 9/11 NYC terrorist attack.

Liberal federal judges want to keep that door open as well.  How many liberal circuit courts of appeal have struck down President Trump’s common-sense travel ban so that officials can know, with some degree of confidence, who exactly is coming into our country.

TEXAS CHURCH SHOOTING –  As greater numbers of people reject religion and its tenets, a crowning achievement for liberals, violent crime (mass shootings, that is) has increased

The incidence of violent crime (mass shootings, that is) has risen as greater numbers of people reject religion and its tenets.  Conversely, violent crime decreases as greater numbers of people are religiously active in their community. Religion establishes a strong moral climate for its believers.

The rise in this phenomenon of ‘Man’s inhumanity to his fellow man’ forces us to assess whether the social engineering of liberals/progressives starting in the late 1940’s (with the “Wall of Separation” decision, Everson v. Board of Education, 1947) has created a social climate that feeds man’s dark side. In today’s America, everyone is a victim, and as a victim, others must be pay or be punished.

On Sunday, November 5, a gunman walked into a small Baptist church in the very small town of Sutherland Springs, Texas, and began shooting all its parishioners. The gunman, Devin Kelly, was an Air Force veteran who was dishonorably discharged and confined for a year for severely beating his wife and her baby son.  As Kelly walked into the church, he said: “Everyone die.” He killed 26 people, including toddlers and the elderly. The youngest victim was a baby in its mother’s womb, just 2 months or so from birth, and the next was only 18 months old. The eldest was 72. As Kelly walked from pew to pew, he shot point blank at the terrified church-goers, who were cowering and covering their loved ones. He pumped bullets into the bodies of those who were cowering, and took care to make sure that if anyone appeared to still be alive he would shoot them some more.

Clearly his intent was to shoot all 50 or so parishioners. If it hadn’t been for a neighbor who sprang into action, got his rifle, and began shooting at him, he may have succeeded in his mission. But he did more damage and was responsible for more carnage than a person can ever imagine. In such a small town, and with the church being as much of a family gathering as a church service, the deaths were particularly heart-wrenching. One family lost 8 members, and probably everyone in the small community lost someone close to them. The pastor lost his 14-year-old daughter.

Devin Kelly was a deeply, deeply disturbed individual. He was violently, physically abusive as well as psychologically abusive. His depravity knew no bounds. His ex-wife detailed how he abused her: “He would choke me, punch me, kick me. There would be times where I would be on the floor curled up and having to protect my organs because he would be violently kicking me on my side. He kicked me like I was less of a person; that’s how it made me feel.” She said he once pulled a gun and held it to her head while they were driving on an empty road, and asked her: “Do you want to die?'” He threatened to kill her, her son, and her family if she ever told anyone about him hurting her or pulling a gun on her. As he put it: “I could just bury you somewhere here in the desert and nobody would ever find you.”  He smacked her infant son around so hard that his skull was fractured. Kelly pled guilty to charges of abusing his then-wife and hitting his stepson “with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm,” according to documents.

Where does such evil come from? How do monsters arise among us?  And why do they?

I give a lot of thought to those questions. And I invariably think back to an old Cherokee parable that I had shared with my kids many years ago. The parable goes like this: An old Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life. He told him: “A fight is going on inside me… It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego. And the other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. This same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”  The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf will win?”  To which the old chief simply replied: “The one you feed.”

I think it’s true that everyone has a fight going on inside them, inside their hearts and in their head, and some days the angel wins and some days, it seems like the angel doesn’t hold up too well.  Who doesn’t feel the demon winning sometimes when things go bad or tragedy strikes?  Who wouldn’t feed that demon when, say, a child gets gravely ill or passes? Or when someone they love dies unexpectedly? They question the sense it makes and why good doesn’t prevail, as we expect it should. Who wouldn’t feed the demon when debts pile up, the house bills can’t be met, and the stress level is almost unbearable?  Or when a person loses his or her job at the worst possible time?  Or is mistreated by a horrible boss?  Or mistreated by their spouse?  Who wouldn’t empower the internal demon in an environment that is consumed with division and hatred, pitting one group of individuals against another? Or when there is injustice?  Or in a politically-charged environment, with critical issues at stake?  Or in an environment where individuals continue to have “diversity” shoved down their throats when in fact, diversity has often resulted in a great loss of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, self-censorship, a cold-impersonal workplace, lowered standards (as in education), changes to the holidays and traditions that have been part of our nation’s history for so long (holidays like Christmas and Columbus Day being renamed, Easter being eliminated, and now establishing a new “special” month — Hispanic History Month or Hispanic Appreciation Month…  c’mon), challenges in how history is taught and viewed (we can’t offend anyone in any way), a sense of insecurity, and even instances of anxiety (being forced to exist with others that clearly don’t share similar values, customs, and norms).  Some people cannot cope when they lose control of the important things in their life.

Without being properly grounded and guided, without a clear understanding of boundaries and expectations, without proper preparation for the real world, and without proper love and support, a person can feel lonely and helpless as the internal war wages on. Without the sense of community and a tangible feeling of compassion and care, a person can go further down a dark road and sink further into despair. Unfortunately, the progressive era has destroyed, eroded, and undermined all those indispensable supports and guidelines that individuals need to keep the demons at bay. They’ve taken religion and morality out of our schools, out of our public square, and out of government.  I remember we started every morning during my public school years with a prayer (up until high school) and then with a time of silence (last years of high school, where the home room teacher would encourage us to say a prayer to start the day out strong). As short and seemingly inconsequential as those early morning moments may seem, I remember being reminded every day of right versus wrong, that I was grateful for my life and its possibilities were in my own hands, and that all said-and-done, I would be accountable to God for how I conducted myself. It grounded me and yes, it pushed me to be the best version of myself I could be.  It brought me back to my Sunday school and my church service lessons which taught me about God’s grace and God’s love, how faith doesn’t depend on anything visible or provable, but in simple belief and acceptance, how Jesus calls us to live according to God’s laws so that we can best love and help serve on another.  It reminded me of the people I grew up in the church with – learning that each of them had their own cross to bear, in one way or another, yet they were there for others and their crosses. I used to spend many days in my church not because I was a sponge and wanted to soak up the Scripture; I just enjoyed and felt comforted being with such a warm and generous and selfless group of people. They were always happy.

In an era when anything goes, that’s exactly what we’re seeing – everything goes, including one’s mind, one’s composure, and one’s conduct. We’ve mocked and rejected the immutable laws of Biology. We’ve destroyed the notion of a stable nuclear family and even the tradition understaning of what a family even looks like. Up until about 40 years ago, a man and a woman planned for marriage so that they could be in the best position to start a family and provide for their children – in every way possible… with a stable home, with the intent for a good education, with some savings for their college, with a mother who nurtures them and a father who provides and protects them. The family stayed together because there were priorities and there were social norms and there was the notion of a life-long commitment for the sake of the family, for the well-being of the children. Now, the traditional family unit is mocked and sex is the reason that couples come together rather than true companionship and a desire to build a life together. And as a result, couples stay together only as long as things are good and each isn’t too miserable. Children are born before a walk down the aisle and certainly before the “planning.”  Without the planning, unnecessary stress is placed on the parents and a marriage is strained. In some cases, children are born just for a government check and a way to opt out of the work force, thus they grow up in a home without a father, without proper structure, and without proper influences and role models. How many women do you see today pushing a stroller and maybe another little one tagging along without a ring on their finger and without a husband?  Over 69% of babies born in Greenville, NC are born out-of-wedlock. The statistics show that children raised in single-parent households perform poorer in school, are more likely to drop out of school, to have or cause a teen pregnancy, to have spotty employment records, to go on to live in poverty, have psychological and/or emotional issues, and to experience a divorce in adulthood. In short, children who are not raised in a stable two-parent home have a lesser chance of success as an adult. Again, years ago, the priority for young men and women was to find someone they love and to raise and provide for their children so that they could have even a better life than them.

A decent, productive society needs its proper institutions and the values that keep them on strong footing. It’s just common sense.  It’s just common sense that taking away the lessons of love and goodness, the traditional norms of right versus wrong, personal responsibility, and acceptable social behavior will only have deleterious effects on the individual and the community in general. Turning the public school system into a social experiment without proper standards leaves a child without a sense of personal boundaries. And allowing and even glorifying conduct that condemns Christians and mainstream America as a bunch of nut-jobs and fanatics while embracing conduct that exceeds the bounds of acceptable behavior and defies historic religious tenets and the laws of Biology leaves them questioning what exactly is right or wrong. They question the authority that defines morality and what is right or wrong. Liberals and progressives have left and are leaving communities in decay because of their lack of values and their outward rejection of common sense. Parents, what happens when you don’t establish clear boundaries for your toddlers and young children with respect to conduct and expectations?  They become little monsters; they walk all over you, they control you, they are disobedient. And they carry that superior, uncontrolled personality with them into adulthood.

Liberals and progressives thrive on hatred, jealousy, class division, racial tension, religious intolerance, gender confusion, and the notion that each individual is far more important than he or she really is (in the grand scheme of a community; it pushes socialism of wealth and services but individualism in political issues and in everything else).  These are the conditions now in which children are raised and the conditions under which Americans live.  We see an increase in the dissolution of the family. We see an increase in drug use, and an increase on dependency in general. We see more people content to live at the so-called poverty level. We also see an increase in aberrant human behavior and in alternative lifestyles and gender confusion, and are told depression runs very high in those circles. Our homes are not safe; our streets are not safe. More people than ever are falling apart and having emotional and nervous breakdowns. Is there any reason that we see an increase in violence?  Kelly had issues and certainly had the devil winning too many battles inside his head and heart. I’m not excusing his behavior by any shade of the imagination and I am glad he is no longer with us. But society may have helped create that monster by not providing the support and guidance he needed or emphasizing and re-enforcing throughout his childhood (including in the school system) the lessons that nurture the human heart and shape the human mind.

In all too many instances, we are seeing individuals feed the wrong wolf.  And in a godless society, devoid of morality, and corrupted by the godless and the power-hungry, it is becoming far too easy and commonplace to feed that wolf.

As we see with liberals, as Mr. Joseph Heath of the University of Toronto writes: “All too often, when we study social problems, there is an almost irresistible temptation to study what we would like the cause of those problems to be (for whatever reason), to the neglect of the actual causes. When this goes uncorrected, you can get the phenomenon of ‘politically correct’ explanations for various social problems. Many of these explanations trickle down from the Ivory Tower into public consciousness through the media, as well as through direct instruction in colleges and university, becoming the ‘conventional wisdom’ that shapes our political debates. Most academics (liberals) prefer that the cause of a given social problem be one government can do something about.”  The excuse or the explanation that liberals give for mass shootings is that it is too easy to get guns. Yet it was a firearm in the hands of a healthy-minded neighbor who shot at Kelly, distracted him, and prevented further carnage. “If only we had gun control, we wouldn’t have these shooting.” “Another deadly mass shooting because people can get guns.”  The shooter himself, as a person with free will, is never to blame. They never look to the character, the mind, or the intent of the person pulling the trigger.  No, liberals make excuses for him. “It’s the gun’s fault.” They fail to realize that a person intent on killing someone will find a weapon to do so, or weaponize something like a truck or a tank of propane. Most of the shooters, if not all, were left-leaning. Most of the shootings could have been prevented if the government had enforced the laws that are already on the books?  For example, in the case of Devin Kelly, the Air Force failed to provide information about his criminal conviction to the FBI database used in the background checks for gun purchases, and as a result, he was able to get the guns used for the shooting. (A recent Air Force review has turned up “several dozen” similar cases where the Air Force has failed to provide such information to the FBI).  In the case of the Las Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, although he purchased 33 out of his nearly 50 guns individually (those 33 were rifles; the authorities, ATF, are only notified when there are multiple gun sales – two or more handguns in an individual purchase), the fact that he purchased all of those 33 in less than a year should have set off a red flag. The ATF dropped the ball.

The rise in mass shootings speaks to the rise in mental health issues and the fact that as a society we are so consumed in not hurting anyone’s feelings or making anyone feel uncomfortable or feel less than completely normal that we allow such mental defects to go untreated. Aberrant behavior is excused, marginalized, or even swept under the rug. Being that most, if not all, of the shooters were liberal thinkers or otherwise left-leaning, we have to look at why such individuals become so violently unhinged. Also, the rise in gun violence and mass shootings speaks to the climate of our communities, the low expectations of our citizens, and the pressures on individuals, all of which are the direct result of liberal government policies.

HIGH SCHOOL LIBERALISM –  High schools have become a field day for liberals and for social experimentation

The open-mind policy of liberals has given us this beauty (true story, although the name of the school and the students are kept anonymous, for obvious reasons):  Two high school football players were caught (by many) in the act of sodomy in the school’s bathroom, using peanut butter as a lubricant. Students entering the bathroom and others just passing by heard their very loud grunting. One student stood on the toilet in the adjacent stall, and filmed the encounter while other students peered into the stall of the sex-crazed lovers and took videos on their cameras. Finally, teachers arrived and then the school police officer. The officer broke up the coupling and within minutes, news spread throughout the school. My son came home from school and shared all this information with me. Later that night it was corroborated by his best friend, whose mother is a teacher at the school. Teachers and administrators were treated to a recap of the event.

I asked my son what was going to happen to the students and so he told me he would find out the next day at school or get the 411 from his friend. Well, the next afternoon when my son came home from school, I asked for an update. He started off: “Mom, you’re never going to believe this….”   Turns out that instead of the students talking about a rightful expulsion of the two football students and the inappropriateness of such an act in a high school bathroom, there were a good many of them who wanted to excuse the incident and instead, use it as an opportunity to promote the equality of homosexuals and teach about homosexual sex in school. Now, one could have used the opportunity to talk about acceptable conduct as a teenager, or the morality of teen sex, or abstinence, or sexually-transmitted diseases, or the appropriate uses of peanut butter.  But only individuals whose minds are so open that they are incapable of common sense or rational thought (ie, liberal-thinking) could think this conduct is acceptable or that it is a teachable moment on inclusion OR Biology. Years ago, students would be traumatized over such an incident, and they would run home to their parents and tell them. The parents, of course, would hurry over to the school and camp out in front of the principal’s office, if need be, to get a favorable promise of how the incident would be handled and what policies and courses would be put in place to make sure that it did not happen again.  Years ago, teens were taught right from wrong and taught morality at home, by their parents, according to the dictates of their conscience. Today, thanks to liberal policies, the public school system teaches them what and how to think about sensitive issues. And so they think, just as these 14-18-year-olds did, from the most liberal point of view.

CONCLUSION

Make no mistake, Liberals are destroying the United States with empty-headed logic and policies…. They suffer from a mental defect that renders them incapable of allegiance to and accepting of the values and principles of liberty that the country was founded on and on which the country was once great.

In 2005, famed radio personality Michael Savage wrote a book entitled Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. You can guess what point he was seeking to make. And in 2011, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, Jr., a board-certified clinical psychologist, wrote a book entitled The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness in which he diagnosed the ideology of the left as a tangible mental illness. In The Liberal Mind, Dr. Rossiter writes: “The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda’s madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains.”

Others, on the other hand, have characterized liberalism not so much a novel mental disorder, but rather as special class of illness already widely studied since the late ‘60s – narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Rusty, in the “Political Insider,” writes: “The Mayo Clinic defines NPD as ‘a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration.’  This seems in tune with the fact that liberals – along with their degenerate offspring asking for ‘safe spaces’ and hiding from chalk – believe their policies and platforms fall in the majority – or the 99% if you will – despite being outnumbered by conservatives in 47 of 50 states.” There are other symptoms that define NPD and the left alike… For example, liberals ignore the first rule of nature, that only the strong survive, and instead, want their kind treated differently, like victims or like snowflakes, offering a long list of reasons for their failures and situation and blaming others (such as “white privilege” or the “greedy wealthy”). Ignorance obviously plays a central role in their wholesale claims of racism and “white privilege.”  Indeed, ignorance on various levels, defines a liberal.

Liberals also like to rebel against social norms; they don’t believe they need to be confined by them. As Dr. Rossiter explains: “Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded….. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.  A social scientist that understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do. … A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”  Liberals have no conscience when they see how others are harmed – robbed (ie, overtaxed), regulated, silenced, vilified, punished (punished for being white – a non-protectable overly-broad racial group; punished for being successful, punished for having a job, punished for scoring well on the SAT, etc) – when they act out or to further their goals.

Liberals are notoriously intolerant (even though one of their “issues” is tolerance) and sanctimonious. They love to claim moral superiority. Sadly, although they love to argue their points, they abhor facts and have no stomach for robust debate on the merit of issues. Rather than pursue a real discussion, they try to insult the other side with foul language and name-calling or by discrediting with any one of their “isms”(racism, fascism, etc) or “phobes” (homophobes, islamophobe, etc). Or they may simply try to shut the other side down with their common phrase “white-privilege” (thus showing which group of people see nothing else about a person except skin color !!)  Liberals — this is the group that stalks on social media, hides behind dozens of fake Facebook profiles, and shows up at rallies, speeches, and presentations NOT to respectfully offer an alternative viewpoint, but only to shut that event and that speech down with the conduct of a 2-year-old brat or a gutter rat.  They loudly and brutishly impose and vomit their non-existent set of self-righteous morals on the world from every conceivable soap box they can find.  The only reason racism still exists (and perhaps is now even on the rise) is because of liberals emphasizing all-too-loudly and all-too-often the differences between the races, exaggerating claims, and making mountains out of mole-hills. They took the cue from Barack Obama, who had an uncanny knack of turning every incident into a racial incident.  Some might say that they are have an innate ability for applying Alinky’s “rules” for radicals.

And still the list of symptoms of this mental disorder, this derangement syndrome, this NPD (these neuroses) continues. Rusty writes, “Furthermore, they expect constant praise and admiration. This is a staple of college liberals and their constant ‘look at me’ attitude.  The need to feed their pride consumes them, fueling a self-importance that must continue to grow through perpetual media coverage. Protesting sidewalk chalk, protesting topless sunbathing, protesting the right to have a ‘safe space,’ protesting the First Amendment, etc. And all the while they look for support for their protests, they look for praise, they look for admiration – which the media usually obliges. There is a meme that demonstrates what earned praise back in 1944 and what earns praise today. It reads: ‘1944: 18-year-olds storm the beach at Normandy facing almost-certain death.  2016: 18-year-olds need safe spaces because words hurt their feelings.’”

Rusty continues: “The very premise on which the liberal platform of wealth redistribution and social justice are based, is jealousy. They want what others have, and they want it without cost to themselves, either monetarily or based on time. They are envious of those with wealth, health insurance, homes, etc. It is a common attribute upon which all liberal protesters rally around. Is there anything that personified this more than the Obamacare fight?  An Obama legacy measure that was opposed by a wide margin, 54-41 percent.  Yet it was still rammed down the collective throats of the American people.  Why?  Because liberals honestly thought that once the plebeians had a chance to see their ideas, they would go along with it. The liberal movement amounts to nothing more than making excuses to legitimize a platform of laziness and entitlements.  We’ve seen these in campus protests, minimum wage protests, anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism protests, and advocates of perpetual welfare.   Their solution to counter corporate greed is to steal from those that have worked hard to attain their level of wealth, and give to those who refuse to reach such a work ethic. ‘Tax the Rich’ anyone? Money for nothing, or entitlement, seems to be a birthright for the left. All of these symptoms – the narcissism, the righteous indignation, the intolerance, their sense of moral superiority, the ignorance, the need for praise and admiration, the jealousy and sense of entitlement – seem to define an individual who is unable to express their frustration in a rational manner – hence the campus protests.  The Mayo Clinic diagnosis of NPD (“In order to make yourself feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to belittle the other person to make yourself appear better”) seems to speak to liberals directly.  That’s practically a tailor-made diagnosis for Trump protesters these days…..   In the end, Savage was right. Liberalism is a mental disorder.”

Some have even characterized progressive liberalism as a religion, albeit socio-political in nature. “For liberals, their sermons are driven by quasi-intellectual discussion prompted by observations made with extreme cognitive bias and uses books such as Rules for Radicals, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (by Peggy McIntosh) and After Hegemony (by Robert Keohane) as their bibles. Their savior, of course, is the Democratic Party, or perhaps Karl Marx.”  (News24)

Liberals have gladly and willingly taken the advice of today’s college professors: “Keep an open mind.”  The difference between today’s wacko professors and the ones in the mid-20th century, like Professor Walter Kotschnig at Holyoke College and William Allan Neilson of Smith College, is those professors added a “BUT” after that same bit of advice. Today’s liberals have rejected any limit as to how open their minds can be, and as a result, their brains have indeed fallen out.

 

References:

Quote Investigator.  https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/13/open-mind/

Travis Fedschun, “NYC terror attack suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, entered US through Diversity Visa Program,”  FoxNews, Nov. 1, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/01/nyc-terror-attack-suspect-sayfullo-saipov-entered-us-through-diversity-visa-program.html

Children in Single-Parent Families.  Referenced at:  http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/106-children-in-single-parent-families?loc=1&loct=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiA84rQBRDCARIsAPO8RFxtQe0V4yKBsvhsT2Lc8UFyBHKOCL39MjspttNi_NpFc5bRJSHdaGAaAktIEALw_wcB#detailed/1/any/false/573,869,36,868,867/any/429,430

Bruce Ashford, “To Anyone Who Thinks Antifa is Good for America,” Bruce Ashford blog, August 25, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://bruceashford.net/2017/to-anyone-who-thinks-antifa-is-good-for-america/

James Lewis, “Atifa is Unamerican,” American Thinker, August 21, 2017. Referenced at:  http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/antifa_is_unamerican.html

IRLI Staff, “New FAIR Study: Illegal Immigration Costs $116 billion Annually,” Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), September 27, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.irli.org/single-post/2017/09/27/New-FAIR-Study-Illegal-Immigration-Costs-116-billion-Annually?gclid=Cj0KCQiAjO_QBRC4ARIsAD2FsXOUPz-giyM_Ptgcrt1mC4ar6rPbB2qdsd1kkxncvKxiQwuT8aO-2dYaAtUPEALw_wcB

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals, Steel On Steel (News Radio with John Loeffler).  Referenced at:  https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/

Rusty, “6 Reasons Why Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” Political Insider, May 4, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://thepoliticalinsider.com/6-reasons-why-liberalism-can-be-considered-a-mental-disorder/

“Liberalism: True Political Ideology or Mental Disorder?.” News 24, Oct. 22, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Liberalism-True-Political-Ideology-or-Mental-Disorder-20131022

W.W., “Culture of Violence in America,” The Economist, June 23, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/mass-shootings-and-gun-control

David Briggs, “No Time For Crime: Study Finds More Religious Communities Have Lower Rates Of Black, White and Latino Violence,” The Huffington Post, Dec. 4, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/no-time-for-crime-study-f_b_4384046.html

Emily Shapiro and Karma Allen, “Texas Church Shooter’s Ex-Wife Says He Held a Gun to Her Head,” ABC News, Nov 14, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-church-shooters-wife-held-gun-head/story?id=51112194

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hypocrisy, and Unconstitutionality, of Affirmative Action Policies at Ivy League Universities

IVY LEAGUE - SAT score manipulations (by race)

by Diane Rufino, Nov. 22, 2017

As most of you may know, I take education very seriously. It is directly linked to the absolute right (fundamental right) to the pursuit of happiness, including the right to develop one’s talents and skills, and also to the absolute right of an individual to work and provide for oneself and one’s family. Education is a competition; the entire process is a competition. A child competes, through grades, first for the opportunity to take honors or higher-level courses. And then a teen competes, through grades, for a class ranking which is critical for application for the better colleges and universities. And then the graduating high school student competes, through credentials, for a spot at the college or university of choice. The better the student has competed in education, better the school he or she can get into. The better the college the student graduates from, the better the job he or she will get (and hence, better salary). This is how life works; this is how it has always worked.  It is fair because there is reason expectation involved and often those who achieve the most in education are the ones who worked the hardest, invested the most energy, or sacrificed the most. It is fair because it is absolutely color-blind and neutral to a whole host of factors. The system is, simply-put, a merit-based system.

A 2009 Princeton Study of ALL Ivy League schools and other leading universities, however, is revealed that the system of admissions is anything but fair and neutral. It is 100% based on race, which is unconstitutional, and 100% based on racial stereotypes, which is, in this day and time, audacious and outrageous. The Princeton Study revealed that at Harvard, for example, Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SAT’s than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than African-Americans to have the same chance of being admitted.  The findings on “Admissions Preferences” above show a similar scheme of discrimination and disenfranchisement: When an African-American applies to a leading university, he/she has 240 points added to his/her SAT score. When a Hispanic student applies, he/she has 185 points added. And when an Asian-Americans apply, 50 points is SUBTRACTED from their scores.

If this scheme isn’t predicated on stereotypes, then I don’t know what is. Notice there are insulting stereotypes (invidious stereotypes), as with African-Americans, and there are complimentary ones, as with Asian-Americans, but both are wrong. I don’t know if we can say there is a stereotype yet regarding Hispanics. For the most part, the great influx of Hispanics into our country has been fairly recent and there may be a language barrier that is a legitimate factor to assume they cannot score as high as whites or Asians. But being a new arrival to the United States should not guarantee you a spot at a top university.

Race-based affirmative action is patently unfair. To give one group a benefit, another group suffers a detriment. A decision to affect a group of people based on race is racial at the least, racist most likely at its core, and patently unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (or implied in the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause). A decision based on race is offensive, just as it is when it is based on gender, eye color, physical stature, or genetic predisposition to cancer. These decisions are based on characteristics that are immutable – characteristics that one is born with and hence cannot change. We hear the phrase: “You just have to make due with what you’ve got.” We all have to “make due with what we’ve got.”  As a one-time egg and a one-time sperm that by true happenstance came together, there was no putting a request in with the big guy upstairs for a particular set of characteristics. Our lives are the consequence of Biology (and yes, its many miraculous systems).

As I look at the results of the Princeton Study, and the attention it is now getting, I’m becoming increasingly angered at the term “White Privilege.” How does that work when Blacks and Hispanics are automatically given a hefty handicap on their SAT scores, thereby allowing them to “meet requirements” for a spot at a prestigious university when whites have to sink or swim on the exact score they earn. It sounds like the most important door they must walk through to start a career and find ultimate success in their lives is the door that most clearly dispels that myth. The ones pushing the “white privilege” narrative just happen to be the ones benefiting from the reverse discrimination scheme.  Not only is it an annoying display of hypocrisy but it shows just how ignorant they are of what is really going on in society.

A lawsuit filed in 2014 (Students for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Harvard) accused Harvard University of having a cap on the number of Asian students – the percentage of Asians in Harvard’s student body had remained about 16% to 19% for two decades, even though the Asian-American population had more than doubled (and become a larger percentage as a minority group). In 2016, the Asian-American Coalition for Education filed a complaint with the US Department of Education against Yale University, where the Asian student population had remained between 13% to 16% for twenty years, and against Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia, Cornell, and Princeton. The AACE urged the DOE to investigate their admissions practices. Furthermore, the lawsuit cites the 2009 study by Princeton sociologists that concluded that while the average Asian-American applicant needed a much higher SAT score to be admitted (1460 SAT score), a white applicant with similar GPA and other qualifications only needed an SAT score of 1320, while Hispanic applicants only needed a score of 1190, and African-American applicant only needed a score of 1010.

For many years, Blacks and Hispanics have benefitted from affirmative action. Now it has come to light that in order to benefit these minority groups, another minority group, Asians, have been harmed. Herein lies a novel constitutional question for the Supreme Court.

In 2016, the Supreme Court handed down a decision regarding affirmative action in the case Fisher v. University of Texas. In that case, the same group, Students for Fair Representation, sued the University of Texas on behalf of a white applicant over its affirmative action admissions policies. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s ruling, opined that affirmative action (for its aim in creating diversity in education) is one of the many factors that the school can use in its admissions policy, but must be used carefully and should be re-evaluated yearly, and then remanded the case back to the lower court with instructions to apply the high standard of strict scrutiny to the school’s race-conscious policy. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy explained: “Using race in the admissions process is acceptable if the program is narrowly tailored for the goal of greater diversity.”  The Harvard case is different because it focuses on affirmative action’s negative impact on a minority group and not on an individual. In fact, as several legal experts have cited, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. in his dissenting opinion in the Fisher decision, expressly pointed out (and advised?) that that Texas plan discriminated against Asian-Americans, and therefore could be a future theme to be pursued by opponents of affirmative action.

Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard law professor who successfully argued the Klaus von Bulow case before the Supreme Court and who was part of OJ Simpson’s “Dream Team” (defense team), echoed that same view following the Fisher decision. As he said: “The idea of discriminating against Asians in order to make room for other minorities doesn’t seem right as a matter of principle.”

Consider the case of Asian Jia, an Asian-American high school student from New Jersey who applied to 14 universities, including Harvard, Duke, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, Princeton, Columbia, Rutgers (his safety school), New York University, Georgetown, and the University of Pennsylvania. His SAT score was 2340 out of 2400, his GPA was 4.42 and he took 11 Advanced Placement (AP) courses. In addition to playing tennis, participating in the debate team and playing violin in the state orchestra, he did advocacy work for an Asian-American student group. He expected he had a pretty good shot at all the schools he applied to. However, he was rejected from Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania (my alma-mater). Learning about the affirmative action policies at these schools, including the statistics asserted in the lawsuit, has left Jia feeling jaded. “I felt that the whole concept of meritocracy — which America likes to say it exercises all the time — has been defeated in my mind,” he said.

Luckily, the US Justice Department is now getting involved.  It sent a letter to Harvard University, dated November 17, advising it to turn over a variety of records that it had requested in September, including applications for admission and evaluations of students, by race. If Harvard continues to stall or refused to turn its records over, the DOJ has threatened to file suit to obtain those records. The federal government also potentially has the ability to influence university admissions policies by withholding federal funds under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids racial discrimination in programs that receive federal money.

Interestingly, the student group, Students for Fair Representation, a conservative-leaning nonprofit based in Virginia, has filed similar suits against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Texas at Austin, asserting that white students are at a disadvantage at those colleges because of their admissions policies.

Steve Kurtz of Fox News posed this important question: “Many Americans of all types have serious moral problems with programs that judge people by their race. It’s not only an undesirable way to go about things, it also creates perverse incentives. When groups that underperform are, in essence, rewarded, while groups that outperform are punished, how will things change for the better?”  [“Is Harvard Racist? If You’re Asian-American, Their Admissions Policies Just Might Be,” Oct. 13, 2017]

In a country so focused on the very letter of the term Equal Protection, it is amazing to find that we very rarely live up to that true promise.

 

References:

Maxim Lott, “Rejected Asian Students Sue Harvard Over Admissions That Favor Other Minorities,” FOX News, Nov. 18, 2014.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/18/rejected-asian-students-sue-harvard-over-admissions-that-favor-other-minorities.html

Anemonia Hartocollis and Stephanie Saul, “Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans,” NY Times, Aug. 2, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/affirmative-action-battle-has-a-new-focus-asian-americans.html

Collin Binkley, “Feds Threaten to Sue Harvard to Obtain Admissions Records,” FOX News, Nov. 21, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/21/feds-threaten-to-sue-harvard-to-obtain-admissions-records.html

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Where in the Mourning for the Victims of the NYC Terrorist Attack

 

NYC Terrorist Attack - memorial #2 (Andres Kudacki, AP photo)  (photo by Andres Kudacki, AP)

by Diane Rufino, November 3, 2017

On Halloween Day, October 31, an Islamic jihadist, a heavily- bearded 29-year-old Uzbekistan demon drove a rented pickup truck down a crowded bike path near the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan, targeting, striking, crushing, and killing eight cyclists and pedestrians and injuring twelve.  Of the eight victims, six were foreign tourists and two were American. The incident is the deadliest terror attack that New Yorkers have seen since 9/11.

It has been four days and we still haven’t spent time learning about the victims and the families who are suffering from a senseless terrorist attack and from the political malfeasance of our government. They deserve our attention; they deserve for us to know who they were and what kind of individuals they were and how much they were loved by others.

Those killed in the terrorist attack have been identified as:  Darren Drake, 32, of New Milford, N.J.; Nicholas Cleves, 23, of New York; Anne Laure Decadt, 31, of Belgium; and Hernán Diego Mendoza, Diego Enrique Angelini, Alejandro Damián Pagnucco, Ariel Erlij and Hernán Ferruchi, all from Argentina and all aged 48-49.

Darren Drake worked at the World Trade Center, just blocks away from the attack. His father described him as “The most innocent, delicate kid in the world.”  At the hospital where he learned of his son’s death and had the heartbreaking task of identifying him, commented: “You don’t know how hard it is to see someone you’ve loved with your whole heart for 33 years lying dead.”

At 23, Nicholas Cleves was the youngest victim and only New Yorker to die in the attack. He lived near the site of the attack in Manhattan’s trendy West Village and worked as a software developer. He had just started his first job out of school. As his friend, Bahji Chancey, described: “He was a really, really kind, not heartless, intelligent and curious person. We always had conversations about what he was studying at school.”  His high school issued its condolences: “He was the most decent, kindest, human being, and just the nicest person to have around. He was kind, caring, curious, interested, and a great friend. He always had a kind word when you would pass him in the hall, and the biggest smile, and always offered to help, no matter the situation.”

After high school, Cleves enrolled in classes at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, NY, where he majored in computer science and minored in physics. As a university student, Cleves studied Italian, worked as an IT assistant, and tutored students in astronomy.  Philip Glotzbach, the college’s president, said in a statement posted Wednesday on the college’s website: “An incident of terrorism that takes the lives of innocent people anywhere in the world touches each of us in our fundamental humanity. But the effect is more pronounced, and far more personal, when our community is directly linked to such a horrendous event.”

Anne Laure Decadt, who traveled to the US from Belgium, was married and a mom of two young sons – just three years old and three months old.

The 5 victims from Argentina were childhood friends and were visiting New York City in celebration of their 30th high school reunion. They had been planning the trip for years. As teenagers, they had bonded in the halls and classrooms of the Instituto Politécnico, a technical high school in Rosario, Argentina’s third largest city. They graduated from the school together in 1987, and on Saturday, October 28, eight of the former classmates gathered to fly to the United States to celebrate their milestone reunion. They were united in life and united in death.  Argentine President, Mauricio Macri, called the group “model citizens” and made clear that “there can be no place for gray areas in the fight against terrorism.”

My heart goes out to the people of New York City and to the families of those killed in cold blood by yet another Islamic terrorist.  As anyone knows who has lived or visited NYC, it is the truly the city that never sleeps. It never sleeps because its people are full of life and energy; they want to do things, see things, take part in things. It’s full of culture, entertainment, education, business, history, technology, architecture, excitement.  It’s the reason people all over the world travel to visit her. It is profoundly tragic and unacceptable that terrorists among us cannot and are not being flushed out and exiled. They are not Americans but enemies. It is unacceptable that radicalization and ideology-motivated violence upon one another is permitted in this country – a country that was once founded on Christian love, peaceful coexistence, unity, and service to one another.

In this Brave New World that America has become, the brave are ordinary citizens who take their lives in their own hand when they dare to venture out on our American streets, in our American cities, dare to take the subways or airplanes, or take part in celebrations and public holidays, or go to concerts or nightclubs. The brave are our first responders and our law enforcement.  This is not the country we want. We want the country we once enjoyed before these animals and barbarians came here to harm us.

To Senator Schumer, who’s ingenious mind thought to actively bring in individuals, without any merit-based assessment or background search, and all the other members of Congress who joined him…  You career politicians willingly put diversity before safety, and put politics before common sense. Your job is to keep the country safe and NOT to re-populate the United States and engineer our social fabric. This is what happens when self-important politicians re-define their roles and the role of the government in general.

Make no mistake, the evil perpetrator, the assassin of innocent Americans, Sayfullo Saipov, was plucked from Uzbekistan for no other reason than to represent a population from the Middle East that is under-represented here in the United States. This is called social engineering. Saipov became a legal US resident seven years ago, under Shumer’s program, the Diversity Lottery Program, that should have been repealed as terrorism began escalating in the Middle East towards the end of the 20th century (1990’s) and certainly in conjunction with the Patriot Act following 9/11. In their infinite wisdom, our legislators provided a beauty of a program that was able to bring potential and actual terrorists into our communities in the aftermath of the 9/11 NYC terrorist attack.

As the government knows, or should have known, Uzbekistan exports a high percent of terrorists, jihadists, and ISIS sympathizers and there is a good reason for it. First of all, Uzbekistan borders on Afghanistan, a hotbed of jihadist activity and radicalization. Second, although the temptation and the recruitment for radicalization is all-too present, the country has a long and notorious record of restricting the religious practices of its majority Muslim population. For example, all clerics are government vetted; all madrassas are government controlled and infiltrated by undercover informants, and until recently, children under 18 were banned from attending mosques.  Pilgrims to Mecca have to go through a rigorous government vetting process and are then accompanied on the journey by government minders. Uzbekistan’s post-Soviet ruler, Islam Karimov, who died last year, outlawed Islamist political parties and imprisoned and tortured dozens of religious activists. The government keeps a “black list” of people it has decided are religious extremists – including Islamic jihadists and ISIS-sympathizers. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, “Those on the list are barred from obtaining various jobs and travel, and must report regularly for police interrogations.” Until the country’s new president shortened the list back in August, it contained some 18,000 names.  [See Julia Ioffe’s article]  Yet Uzbekistan continued to be a country included in the government’s masterful “diversity program.”  The lack of concern for America’s safety is incomprehensible.

How bad of a monster is Saipov?  As he lay recovering in his comfortable hospital bed, supported in his medical treatment by the American taxpayers, he continued to profess that he was proud of what he had done. He even requested to display the Islamic State flag in his hospital room. He was motivated to carry out the ISIS-inspired attack (carried out to the T according to its “playbook”) after watching a video of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in which he questioned what Muslims in the United States were doing to respond to the killing of other members of their faith in Iraq.  I ask, which individuals are most likely to respond to recruitment such as that?  Christians? Protestants? Baptists? Jews?  The common sense answer is that it would be those from the very region pouring out such radicalized individuals, stemming from an interpretation of the religion of that region.

As if that isn’t bad enough, Saipov was on a Homeland Security watchlist but somehow he slipped through the cracks. How did that happen?  Even more, how often do we hear that happen?  We talk about a vetting policy when it comes to immigration, but we know that a policy, like our federal immigration laws, are merely words. It takes enforcement to give meaning to them. Without enforcement or even the competence to carry it out, the laws and policies are merely talking points.  It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Jerry schools a Rental Car agent:

Jerry:  I don’t understand. Do you have my reservation?

Rental Car Agent:  We have your reservation, we just ran out of cars.

Jerry:  But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation.

Rental Car Agent:  I think I know why we have reservations.

Jerry:  I don’t think you do. You see, you know how to ‘take’ the reservation, you just don’t know how to ‘hold’ the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation: the holding. Anybody can just take them.

The most important part of an immigration program is its enforcement. Supremely delegated to the federal government, Americans expect its enforcement to be diligent, judicious, and efficient. Otherwise, amend the Constitution to leave the task to the individual states.

In light of the string of terrorist attacks here in the United States and the on-going recruitment and radicalization of Muslims by terrorist groups, and in light of the diversity-related disfunction that is dividing our communities and college campuses, eroding our First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech, inciting endless meritless protests and civic disruptions, and posing safety risks, is it so hard to institute a common-sense policy when it comes to immigration criteria:  In deciding who comes into the country, why don’t we look for individuals (no matter what their background is) who WANT to be Americans rather than look for individuals simply to BE Americans.

 

References:

Julia Ioffe, “Why Does Uzbekistan Export So Many Terrorists,” The Atlantic, November 1, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/11/uzbekistan-terrorism-new-york-sayfullo-saipov/544649/

Max Radwin, Anthony Faiola, Samantha Schmidt and Amy B Wang, “Old Friends from Argentina Reunited in New York; They Died Together in a Terrorist Attack,” The Washington Post, November 1, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/01/five-old-friends-from-argentina-reunited-in-new-york-they-died-together-in-a-terrorist-attack/?utm_term=.649373933dea

Renae Merle and Marwa Eltagouri, “New York software engineer killed in terrorist attack had a ‘rare capacity for emotional IQ’,” The Washington Post, November 2, 2017.  Referenced at:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/01/of-the-eight-killed-in-new-york-only-nicholas-cleves-called-it-home/?utm_term=.a67173a074c7

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Senator Bob Corker Unravels as He Realizes He Can’t Win Re-Election

Bob Corker and Trump

by Diane Rufino (inspired by George Liberty), Nov. 2, 2017

You gotta love politicians and their hypocrisy.  Last week we were all treated to Sen. Bob Corker’s grade school antics. Unfortunately, things aren’t going so well for Corker (R-TN) right now with respect to his upcoming re-election; he apparently isn’t too popular. He blames his growing unpopularity on President Donald Trump and as children do in such situations, they lash out and say mean things. He said Trump is a liar, is unfit for the office, debases the country, and shouldn’t be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes. Furthermore, he referred to the White House a Day Care Center.

The truth is that Corker asked President Trump to endorse him for re-election and said he couldn’t win without it, but Trump refused to do so.

Sen. Corker, there are a few things I would like to get off my chest.  Considering all that President Trump has accomplished and is trying to accomplish, and despite a total incapable and dysfunctional Congress (which has been for many decades now), perhaps you can answer the following questions for me and millions of other Americans:

What exactly has Congress done over the past few decades with consummate politicians like yourself to “take care of the people’s business” and to ensure the safety, well-being, and integrity of the nation?

(1)  Our debt has quadrupled since George W. Bush and many times over since Ronald Reagan. What has Congress done?  NOTHING. It continues to spend, spend, spend, and Oh, and then it finds more and more things to spend our citizens’ hard-earned tax dollars on.

(2)  Never before have so many enemy and hostile regimes benefitted by funding from our government (no meaningful or tangible strings attached) or our policies.

(3)  Our people are out of jobs, out of opportunities to move forward in their hopes of living the American Dream, are losing the jobs they have to immigrants who are flooding into the country illegally and without full accountability to the federal government who will work for less, are being subject to a dilution in their education because of the magnitude of Hispanic-speaking students and families overloading the public school system, are being forced to wait for healthcare services because of the new burden to the healthcare system, and are watching their once-safe communities being infiltrated with drugs and crime. What has Congress done about these enormous and unfair burdens on the average citizen? What has Congress done about the unfair re-distribution of their wealth, their tax dollars, and their services?  NOTHING.  Congress continues to turn its back on the immigration problem.  It continues to abdicate its most essential role as the supreme government entity over our nation’s homeland security and safety; immigration is required to be handled by Congress by the Constitution. Furthermore, as terrorists and criminals continue to bleed into our country through our open borders, they worry more about how it will affect “diversity” rather than safety.   ranks have swelled to highest ever. What has Congress done?  NOTHING.  It continues policies to put more and more people,

(4)  Welfare ranks have swelled to highest ever. What has Congress done?  NOTHING.  It continues policies to put more and more people on welfare and means-tested programs, including those pouring into the country illegally and those displaced by the violence in the Middle East. It continues policies NOT to encourage dependents to take responsibility for themselves and their families – for example, by getting an education, learning a skill or trade, preventing any further pregnancies – but rather to entrench the lifestyle as a permanent way of life. Rather than require a transition to self-dependence, Congress continues to make welfare a reasonable alternative to working by making it more comfortable to live in borderline poverty.

(5)  Wars….  Where is our country’s resolve?  Where is our strategy to win and then get the hell out?  We have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, we have helped to depose and assassinate Libya’s Muammar Quaddafi, we have acknowledged that Pakistan is the second largest sponsor of terrorism yet we have given them $19 billion since 9/11 (for reasons unknown; $1.8 billion last year), we have given Iran the green and our blessings to move forward on their nuclear weapons program, we have created the void in the Middle East by our softness on terrorism and our inaction that terrorists were able to capitalize on to establish the Islamic State (ISIS), and we are watching as Islamic violence is spreading all over the globe – in Africa, Europe, and Asia. What has Congress done?  It bowed to the policies of a Muslim president, Barack Obama, too conflicted in his own ideology to act effectively for the benefit of this country. It spent trillions of dollars, watched as American lives were lost in the Middle East, either to the fighting or to beheading, appeased our enemies whenever possible, refused to acknowledge terrorists for what they are (even refusing to use the word “terrorist”), allowed Obama to name Islamic leaders and organizations in positions to advise him and Homeland Security, and continued to SPEND without results.

(6)  You have continued to raise taxes on the Middle Class. When fellow Democrats passed an unconstitutional healthcare bill, the Affordable Healthcare Act (c’mon, we all know it was unconstitutional; the Supreme Court did too), coercing Americans against their will to do something for the government, you did NOTHING. The ACA became yet another tax on the Middle Class (thanks the Supreme Court and its legal hijinks to try to find a way to justify Congress’ huge power grab) and rather than take the Supreme Court’s illogical and tortured “opinion” to either re-draft the bill or to repeal it, you continued to allow it to be enforced on We the People. And we are helpless as rates continue to skyrocket year after year.  Year after year, you refused to address the growing American debt. You never cut spending in any attempt to stem the bleeding. A nation unable to control its spending or unable to pay its debt is not a strong nation. It is a vulnerable nation. Your Congress has had lower ratings consistently than the lowest rating of ANY POTUS since Reagan.  Wow, and that includes Jimmy Carter !

(7)  You voted 63 times (with other disingenuous Republicans) to repeal the Un-Affordable Care Act (ACA) when you all knew full-well that President Obama would use his veto power.  While conservatives and those hurting from the ACA were looking for you to serve them, you played typical beltway politics. You took every opportunity to look good while knowing that it was only a useless exercise; your votes could never translate into anything of substance. But when Trump told you straight on: “Look, I have the pen and I’m willing and ready to sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Send it to me,” your true character came out.  You refused to do it. You refused to pass such a bill. (Yes, you voted for a partial repeal and for the “skinny repeal bill,” but not the repeal and replace bill Trump and Republican voters asked for). The reason you have lost confidence with your state’s constituency is because of this. You’ve lost credibility, trust, and integrity with them.

(8)  For the last 30 years, you have sat by and watched as jobs have left the country and have left families without an income. What did you do?  NOTHING.  You did nothing to protect the American worker.

You and Congressmen like you have presided over the worst three decades in our country’s history, from an economic and safety perspective. You have been utterly ineffective. In fact, it is Congress that is the Day Care Center. (or the Looney Bin). Unfortunately, Congress has been a striking example of kindergarten antics – romper room behavior, childish finger-pointing and name-calling, and dysfunctional conduct.

So, I ask you…  What have you done to deserve the endorsement of President Trump?

Donald Trump, like the great majority of Americans, finds this history of ineptness unacceptable and his decision to run was not motivated by the glorified tenure in government like you seem to want, but rather by the desire to switch direction, clean the government up of its mess, its self-interested actors, and its leeches, and to finally put it to work for the benefit of the American citizen.

Sen. Corker, President Trump may be all the things you claim…He may be the unpolished politician, he may often speak without censure, he may be one of those who has to get the last word in, and he may even misspell a word here and there, but unlike slick, self-interested politicians like yourself who speak with forked tongues, crafted language, and false promises, Trump is a breath of fresh air. You speak like an agent of the government while Trump speaks like an agent of the people.

You want to know how I know that your name-calling is merely an exercise in playground politics?  Since Donald Trump took office, you voted 86.3% with his policies, which is admirable and commendable. Obviously, you and he think alike and for the most part and want the same policies for the country. Yet because he could not promise that he would endorse you for re-election, an endorsement that you absolutely need, you chose to lash out and somehow undermine his standing with the American people. What a big, important guy you are. Senator Corker, maybe it was your disingenuous position with respect to Obamacare that planted the doubt in President Trump. Perhaps he knows that the opponent you would have faced will work with him where you couldn’t.

That’s politics.

This time it didn’t work in your favor, but you sure liked it when it did.

“There are moments in life where you don’t get a do-over, where the true nature of your character is revealed. You either step up to the plate or lose your chance forever. These moments shape a life. These moments earn you the right to say to yourself ‘at least I got the important stuff right.”   ― P. Dangelico, Wrecking Ball

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment