The Ground Zero Mosque Flap: Masterful Prestidigitation

August 21, 2010

So some Muslims want to open a Muslim community center near the World Trade Center site…now reverently called “Ground Zero.” Both left and right are using this topic to inflame emotions of the American sheeple. It’s working beautifully. Both sides are shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theater, so to speak. And when sheeple’s emotions are inflamed, it cancels out objective thought, and turns eyes away from tyranny to the most recent magic trick performed by DC and their media.

“Ground Zero.” Where have I heard that term used before? Oh, now I remember. Wikipedia says “The Oxford English Dictionary, citing the use of the term in a 1946 New York Times report on the destroyed city of Hiroshima, defines “ground zero” as “that part of the ground situated immediately under an exploding bomb, especially an atomic one.”

In Hiroshima…then in Nagasaki. When Harry Truman authorized the vaporization of hundreds of thousands of Japanese CIVILIANS at a time when the Japanese diplomats were BEGGING Washington for terms of surrender other than unconditional surrender.

Did the “Ground Zero” chickens come home to roost?

Don’t you have to wonder WHY Muslims want to place a Muslim Community Center in a commercial area where nobody lives? How many other Muslim Community Centers in the New York area are comparatively placed outside neighborhoods? But how many blocks away is a Muslim presence acceptable? If four blocks away is still on “hallowed ground,” just where does the hallowed part end?

Certainly, if property rights mean anything (and they mean less in New York than anywhere I can think…think “rent control”) one should be able to use one’s property any way one chooses. But the Muslims know how this is being “spun” here in America. So why push forward with an “in your face” challenge that will engender such animosity? Even if the animosity is not founded in reality? Is that the message of the Quran? I’m told Islam is all about peace.

Ever read the Quaran? It’s on my reading table right now. I find it hard to read and unfamiliar in style. And, some of those verses we hear about concerning the treatment of women and dealing with infidels are in there. But the Bible has some pretty gruesome stories in it, like all the times the children of Israel wiped out other tribes…men, women, children and their animals…all because God didn’t like them. So, Christians ought to be a little more tolerant of Muslims and the book upon which they founded their religion, since allegedly Christians, Jews and Muslims ALL serve the same God…and the Christians and Jews both revere the Old Testament, which contains all that premeditated murder and gore.

The Catholic Church…”Ground Zero” of all Christian faiths…doesn’t have a really great track record for religious tolerance over its history. Remember the Crusades…against Muslims? Remember the Inquisition…against heretics?

“Xenophobia” is the uncontrollable or unreasonable fear of foreigners. This is a curious fear, especially when practiced by the citizens of a country founded by and built by foreigners. We Americans have become xenophobia specialists.

Look what we did over time to the Native Americans that were here when we arrived in North America. Hell, we started that a century or more before the US became a nation. Remember the French and Indian War of 1754? Remember the 1838 Trail of Tears? Washington still has a Bureau of Indian Affairs that manages Native Americans like a day care center gone horribly wrong.

Look what we did to African blacks that we imported as slaves over a span of over 150 YEARS. And don’t tell me it was a Southern thing. Many of the ship owners ferrying blacks between Africa and America were from Northern colonies.

Look what Washington did to the island kingdom of Hawai’i in 1893. Washington rolled in military troops and overthrew the royal family of Hawai’i and stole the whole chain of islands. President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology in 1993, but Washington didn’t give back the islands.

Look what we did to the Japanese Americans here in 1941. Washington rounded them up and placed them in concentration camps for the duration of WWII. Their property was seized and not returned to them. This little atrocity happened a mere 69 years ago.

The building at 45 Park Place, New York, is a thirteen story building. It is not ON or NEAR the WTC site. It’s nearly four blocks away. But there is a church DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET from the WTC property…St. Paul’s Chapel…and The Catholic Church of St. Peter (at Church and Barclay Streets) is closer to the WTC than the Muslim property. Apparently, it’s OK with Americans that Christian churches are near Ground Zero, but not any other flavors.

It is not a mosque. It will reportedly have a culinary school and a basketball court, along with a prayer hall. Find me another Muslim mosque with backboards, hoops, ovens and stand mixers.

9-11 Facts

What was the reason we invaded Iraq and presided over the execution of our former puppet dictator, Saddam Hussein? To avenge the 9-11 attack…even when that excuse was an overt lie by the Bush Administration? Over 4,000 of our young people got killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands were wounded…allegedly avenging the deaths of 3,000 at the World Trade Center. And CONSERVATIVE estimates from around the world say that over 1 million Iraqis died as a result of our acts of vengeance. And America is STILL paying $3 a gallon for gasoline. Someone tell me the logic of that Washington decision.

DC is so incompetent, it can’t even invade a country and steal their oil correctly. But it’s the best in the world at filling body bags.

Osama bin Laden issued two fatwas (an interpretation of the Quran) — in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.

Now it’s nine years later. We still have military boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia, but now also in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don’t think Washington has grasped cause and effect yet.

There may have been radical Islamists on the airliners that struck the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. There may have been radical Islamists on board the other two planes that crashed…one in Pennsylvania and one into the Pentagon.

But hear me loud and clear.

Never in human history has a multi-story building collapsed into its own footprint without the use of high explosives. Towers One and Two came down into their own footprints. Then, later in the same day, Tower Seven…a 47-story skyscraper not struck by either plane…collapsed into its own footprint. Didn’t tip over. Straight down at the speed of gravity.

If a building is damaged and begins to collapse, it will fall in the direction of the weakest structural members. The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble.

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

I’m not directly going to state exactly WHO destroyed the World Trade Center buildings. I do not know exactly who did it. But I will emphatically state that something OTHER than jets hitting Towers One, Two and Seven caused their collapse. It takes MONTHS, not hours…for a highly trained demolition company to rig a building to be “pulled,” the term for explosive demolition. So, no matter who pulled these three buildings…they planned it months ahead of 9-11-01.

Washington and its lapdog media have successfully laid the 9-11 attack at the feet of Islam, all the while knowing that they did not do it. And every time DC needs to divert the attention of the American sheeple from its truest agenda, it trots out a new anti-Islam story that pisses off the populace. And look at all the talking heads that inflame this newest story. They are either (a) too stupid to know the truth, or (b) complicit in the perpetuation of a lie. So the media gives a hummer to Washington while humming the National Anthem. And Washington does a reach-around on the media as their reward. The parties raise a bunch of money on a bullshit story, and the media sells a bunch of advertising. And the nation only gets to watch.

If you still believe in the US Constitution, you still believe that the words of the First Amendment are true. That says that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof.” So that allegedly limits Washington from interfering in religious matters. But if the states want to make laws respecting the establishment or prohibition of religion, they are entirely within their rights to do so.

Is it too much to ask of Americans that they practice what they preach? Tolerance includes putting up with viewpoints diametrically opposed to your own. As long as Muslims are not issuing a call to action to murder infidels, Islam is all talk. As Jesus said, “first take the speck out of your own eye rather than pointing out the beam that is in your neighbor’s eye.”

Finally, here is how all this folderol ties to the topic of Secession. Any state that secedes will not be invading other nations. It will mind its own business. The new nation will be able to break its ties with the criminal elements in Washington DC and forge new friendships with the nations of the world…even Muslim nations.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Tom Baugh at the NC “Restore The Constitution” Open Carry Rally

August 20, 2010

Black Hats Versus White Hats

(Editor’s Note: Tom was a guest speaker at the recent rally. “Open Carry” means that many of the attendees where openly carrying some sort of firearm. These are Tom’s speech notes. A short video of Tom follows this text.)

Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for having me here. I want to thank the organizers, because they have done something phenomenal here. They’ve invited a contrary voice.

For those of you who have read Starving the Monkeys”, you know that I’m not a big fan of political rallies, because it is my opinion that we are outnumbered in this country. Now, I know that is a very unpopular thing to hear, but if you look, for example, at some of the speakers who have been up here already, if the educational system has been taken over, can you count those people as part of us anymore? If so many people are dependent on checks, either directly or indirectly, from the government, can you count those people? Or have we lost them, to them?

If that’s the case, then political rallies, or hoping that elections can change anything, are not going to work. Let me give you a thought experiment about that.

Imagine you are on a plane carrying twenty people, and you crash on a deserted island. Seventeen of them get together and decide to enslave three of you. Because you are in the minority, is it your responsibility to accept that slavery? Of course it isn’t.

If they let you have rallies, and vote and send out fliers and write your representatives, is that going to make any difference whatsoever? It will not. So what you have to consider is, if one day we wake up in that world, and we may already be there, what strategies do we employ then? What strategies do we use on that deserted island, with seventeen people trying to enslave the three of us?

It will not be rallies. It will not be elections. The topic of that is beyond the point of our talk here today.

But, I challenge you to accept that uncomfortable possibility, because it may very well be true today. Because if someone says, “we surround them”, where’s the evidence? If we surrounded them, would we have the health care bill? If we surrounded them, would the government no longer listen to anything we had to say? If we surrounded them, would any of these problems we’ve discussed today even exist?

I know that is an uncomfortable thought. But if we are going to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, it is something you have to come face-to-face with, and not to continue to hope that the next election will change it. Because it may not. And it is likely not to.

Hope is not a strategy.

I’ve heard many of the speakers here today talk about the idea that the Founding Fathers gave us this right or that right. Nonsense! No man can give you rights. Your rights sprang into being the moment you were conceived. And your rights don’t depend on being in the majority, either, nor on what country you live in. If you were the only person on the planet to understand this, you would still have the moral claim to your rights. The other six billion people would be wrong, and if they tried to enslave you, you would be morally justified in anything you chose to do to secure those rights. Only the practical limitations of what actions were available to you might stay your hand, but certainly not ethics. You have rights by, and of, yourself, even if you stand completely alone. But you’re not alone. Not yet. You just aren’t able to vote anymore to retain the practical ability to exercise those rights without consequences.

So, this is a rally to “Restore the Constitution”. When you say these words, I know exactly what you have in your mind. You have in your mind the same idea that each soldier, sailor, airman and Marine, second lieutenant and ensign, cadet and midshipman, have in their minds when they take the oath. You have in your mind the same idea I had in my mind when I took that same oath. And that idea is that the Constitution is about liberty, and all our problems today are because we’ve drifted away from that.

But my friends, that idea is wrong. The Constitution isn’t about liberty, it is about power. The idea you have in your head about liberty comes from the Bill of Rights, which is really just a yellow liberty sticky note on the poster of Constitutional power. And this means that the Bill of Rights is just marketing spin to get you to accept the power of the national government over the states, and over you. Let me explain that.

If you read the original seven articles of the Constitution, and I mean really read them, you see there is nothing about liberty in there, except for some marketing spin in the Preamble. Everything else in those seven articles is about raw, undiluted national power. You can read more about what I’m going to say in Boston T. Party’s excellent book, “Hologram of Liberty”. I’m going to just hit you with some of the high points before I move on to what I really came here to talk about.

We are all taught that the Constitution guarantees our liberty through checks and balances. Oh really? Well, how successful are those checks and balances working out? Recently we all cheered when the Supreme Court struck down some gun laws we didn’t like. But, the larger story is that these decisions happened because of one vote on the Supreme Court. Think about that. Your liberty hinges on the actions of one person wearing a black dress. Just one person. Is that a system of checks and balances? Your liberty, our liberty, should never depend on the actions of a single person. The fact that this decision went our way was luck. Nothing else but luck. Remember that deserted island story? If the islanders put together a Supreme Court to adjudge your complaints, would you be morally obligated to accept the result if someone in a black grass skirt said you had to be a slave? Of course not.

My friends, the articles of the Constitution are articles of power, and you must never forget that. They are articles of the power of the national government over the states, and over you. As Boston says in his excellent book, our current situation has arisen either as the result of the Constitution, or in spite of it. No other possibilities exist, and neither of those are particularly soothing, are they? Wake up, friends.

Anyway, enough of that. I’m not here to convince you that the Constitution is alive and well. And I don’t have to convince you of that. Time, reality and bitter experience will do that for me soon enough. I just hope that all those people taking oaths have that idea of liberty in their minds, and not the idea of power. Because if they are really swearing allegiance to that idea of power, then may God help us all.

So what am I here for? To pop fantasies that continue to enslave us? No. I’m not really even here to talk to you. My real reason for being here is to talk about you to two specific groups: the media and law enforcement.

After the previous rally in Virginia, the media was ablaze with stories about how these people were crackpots and gun nuts. You in the media said that these people were out of touch with reality, and a menace to our society. Well, I want you to consider the reality that these people are the good guys. They wear the white hats, and if you in the media had any sense and believed your own rhetoric, you would understand this and support their efforts wholeheartedly. Why? Because they aren’t the real menace. The real menace that you should fear are those who didn’t show up today. The people here today, the white hats, still believe that this country can be pulled back from the brink. They believe it so much that they are willing to show up here armed, despite the personal risks, to make a point.

These people here today think that you in the media are merely misguided, or lazy, or otherwise benign. On the other hand, many of those growing number who won’t come to rallies like this, let’s call them the black hats, have learned to see you in the media as deliberately destructive. They see you as the propaganda arm of the powerful. And when you denigrate the efforts of people such as these, in their minds you prove them right.

I’ll get back to that in a moment, but now I want to turn to law enforcement. You, too, should be celebrating these people as the good guys. Why? Because they still believe that most of you in law enforcement are good guys, too. They see and hear stories of weapons being seized from people who do nothing wrong, and are still willing to write this off as the actions of a few bad apples. But the black hats, those who no longer believe these things, see you in law enforcement as merely the intimidation arm of the powerful. When you in law enforcement kick in doors in the middle of the night, and shoot pets and children, and harass people in their daily lives, the black hats understand these things as a systemic problem, and not just the result of a few bad apples.

The sad thing is that they are both right. Not all media people are bad, and not all law enforcers people are petty tyrants. But you, individually, don’t have to be bad for things to continue to spin out of control. No matter how good or how righteous you in the media or law enforcement think your respective causes may be, the powerful can simply reward the most effective propagandists, or the most effective intimidators, with jobs and promotions. And just as easily deny these things to those who refuse to propagandize or intimidate. The result of this selection process is that things slide farther downhill. And in the process recruit more and more people to the black hat view of the world.

So let’s dig a little deeper into that black hat world view, shall we? Why not?

The white hats believe that our economic crisis is the result of mistakes, or shortsightedness, or simple corruption or greed, and that we can just work our way out of it and get back on top. The black hats, on the other hand, understand that our situation was the result of a deliberate act of financial terrorism, specifically designed to transfer trillions of dollars taken by threat of force, or intimidation, from our citizens, and give that ransom to the powerful. And that the selling of this economic terrorism and payment of the subsequent ransom was the job of the propagandists in the media. And all of it was perfectly legal, and done under the watchful eye of the Constitution you here today wish to restore, which guarantees protection by national force against those states who might resent their being plundered by powerful interests in New York. And that hard work isn’t going to be enough against enemies like that.

So how might those enemies face justice? Well, the white hats still believe in law and order, and that ultimately justice will prevail. But, consider this thought experiment. If everyone in the country were as well armed as these people here today, would a growing law enforcement community be required? Well-armed, who would fear robbers, murderers and rapists? Who would fear drug dealers? Who would fear terrorists? None of these bad people would have a chance. So then why does law enforcement continue to expand, and restrictions on personal action and responsibility grow faster and faster each year, and each month? Simply put, the black hats interpret this situation as that the fiction of law and order is merely used as a shield to protect the truly guilty from the rest of us.

The white hats continue to pledge their allegiance to the flag of this country. Many of them still bother to say the word “indivisible” when they recite this, too. Black hats, on the other hand, don’t pledge their allegiance to a piece of cloth, but to the principles, of liberty and justice for all, which that pledge is believed to represent. And not some cheap pseudo-patriotic kindergarten substitute, instead.

White hats believe in liberty and justice for people of all races and creeds. Black hats believe in this, too.

But, whereas white hats reach out the hand of fellowship to those of different races and creeds, black hats intend to then clasp those hands and join in mutual, armed strength to fight those who have, for generations, pit us against each other for the benefit of a powerful few.

White hats are concerned that they might have their guns taken from them, and many of them are willing to fight to the death to prevent this. Black hats, however, understand that being armed is a state of mind. A man of skill, knowledge and determination can become armed at any time he chooses, and with that skill and knowledge obtain more weapons from his enemies who no longer need them. Cold dead hands won’t win this war, my friends. Fight back smarter.

White hats hold rallies to convince others of the importance of their cause, hoping that if enough people could be educated, then the phantom majority would rise up and set things right. Black hats understand that the majority of people, addicted to their checks, want things just as they are. And black hats also understand that liberty, and a man’s ethical claim to his rights, aren’t dependent on, and shouldn’t be dependent on, the whim of others, no matter to what numbers the tyrants may grow.

Which brings us to the upcoming election, and the hope for change. White hats believe that an election will change everything. Black hats accept the reality that it probably won’t change anything, and that history shows that tyranny ratchets ever legally and legitimately forward at the whim of the populace, until chaos reigns.

White hats are afraid that their time is coming to a close. Black hats are confident that their time will come.

So you in the media, are you merely the propaganda arm of the powerful? Are the black hats right? If not, then come support these good people, and others like them around the country. Because if they fail, and if I am right, you, too, will be writing the checks for the hell which must be paid. Along with the rest of us disposable cogs.

And you in law enforcement, are you merely the intimidation arm of the powerful? Are the black hats right? If not, then come support these good people, and others like them around the country. Because if they fail, and if I am right, you, also, will be writing the checks for the hell which must be paid. Along with the rest of us disposable cogs.

But, I am realistic enough to know that neither the media nor law enforcement will change their paths to help set things straight. The lure of their checks is too strong. And so what must come, will come. But along the way, both you the propagandist and you the intimidator will serve our larger purpose by creating a crucible from which leaders are forged. And for that, I thank you both.

And thanks to all of you good people here today, hoping to set things right, for taking the time to listen to these words.

Tom Baugh is the author of Starving the Monkeys, Fight Back Smarter. He is also a former Marine, patented inventor, entrepreneur and professional irritant.

Teach Your Kids to Shoot

August 19, 2010

This is a secessionist website. Secession will not happen without a “well-regulated militia.” A militia is comprised of able-bodied adults, usually over age 18. But why wait until your kids are 18? Teach them NOW to be riflemen. Make Washington scared of your children because your family knows how to use firearms.

Here’s a tip for divorced dads without custody. Aren’t you always looking for something to do with your kids when it’s your day or weekend for visitation? Teach them shooting. Shooting gobbles up lots of hours, will draw you closer as child and parent, and will create wonderful memories. Girls are many times better shots than boys, so don’t leave out your daughters.

One of the best things you can do for your children is to teach them to shoot. Shooting accurately will give any child confidence. Since shooting is an individual skill, a child does not have to compete with anyone but himself. If you have children that are small of stature, and are not going to be jocks or cheerleaders, shooting can provide them with a sport that does not require size or strength. Even children with learning disabilities can learn to shoot. Shooting teaches kids early on how to do things safely while having a great time. Just like in the martial arts, kids learn the responsible use of deadly weapons. And, shooting BBs can be done in your backyard, at the range or even inside your home.

Start with an air rifle, or as we called them…”BB guns.” You can buy a Daisy BB rifle for less than $50 at Walmart. Make targets on plain paper with your kids as an art project. The targets can be bullseyes, or zombies, or cartoon characters. Then take an old cardboard box, stuff it with crumpled newspaper, and tape the targets to the box. Presto! Cheap, homemade entertainment. And, the box target will capture the BBs, so you can use them over again.

And don’t forget that kids can compete with others if they want. There are lots of organizations that promote youth air rifle competitions. They can win certificates, medals and trophies as they grow in skill levels. Learn more about competition at: Three Position Competition

Let me tell you about how I learned to shoot.

On Christmas Day 1963, I got a Daisy Air Rifle. I was ten years old. Life now had meaning.

I had been pining after a “BB gun” for a couple years since getting to shoot one in Boy Scouts. But Dad said I had to be 10 before I got a rifle. I was devastated on my tenth birthday…August 31st, when I got some other gift…a new Murray bike from the local hardware store. What an ingrate I was! But if you are a boy, focused like a green laser on a certain icon of masculinity that possesses mystical properties, all else fades away.

My Dad won marksmanship trophies in rifle competitions in Italy when he was in the Army in 1945. So he was a good teacher of a very willing son. He taught me the basics of marksmanship and safety, and then turned me loose on a world filled with potential targets.

My friends and I all had BB guns. Back then, all birds save the Robin (the state bird) were fair game, and we were hell on birds. When I think back about it now, we were just killing for fun, and I have pangs of regret. But all the other shooting we did was terrific fun and created lasting memories.

Back in the mid-60s, you could buy BBs in a tube of 250 or 500. I’ll bet that I ran 100,000 BBs through that rifle over a 4-6 year period, and I think that estimate is conservative. I can remember days when we’d shoot 3 or 4 tubes a day. Combine the desire to shoot well with that much shooting, and good things happen.

My Daisy rifle had only fixed sights. There was no such thing as adjustable sights or a scope on a BB gun. But I consider that one of the reasons that I am such a good rifleman today. If you shoot a lot of BBs with an air rifle, you can see where the BB goes. Most of the time your eye can follow the BB from the end of the gun to its target. So, you observe the effect that gravity has on a BB. You also observe the effect of wind that will push a BB one way or the other. Shooting year-round shows you that BBs travel better in crisp cold air than in muggy summer air.

My point is that a slow BB rifle, shot a jillion times, will train your son or daughter how to be a great shooter. You learn to adjust for gravity, windage and elevation instinctively over time.

By age 14, Dad trusted me to shoot his Winchester bolt action .22 rifle. And shoot it I did. I could walk or ride my bike to the hardware store a couple blocks away and buy .22 long rifle cartridges with my lawn mowing money. Then I could go out into the woods and fields around Kent City and shoot stuff. We never had to ask permission or have adult supervision.

That .22 rifle was my next teacher. It had an adjustable peep sight at the back end, but I never adjusted it. I just kept shooting like I did with my BB gun. I automatically adjusted shots for distance and windage. It was a gut feeling, not a math formula. And I got very good with a .22 rifle, even at long distances.

Back in June 2010, I was at a rifle range and made an iron sights headshot on a target at 250 yards with that same .22 rifle I used as a kid. I made center-of-mass shots on human silhouette targets at 400 yards. That old Winchester rifle still shoots great, and it’s mine now.

I have now moved on to using scopes on certain of my “big boy” rifles. But I’m still a purist when it comes to optics. I still like iron sights best. And my fancy optical scopes don’t have illuminated reticles or red laser dots. My philosophy about optics is that simple is best. Hi-tech optics rely on batteries, batteries fail, and Murphy’s law will always change circumstances for the hunter or shooter. Best to learn the hard way and use simple scopes or iron sights.

Riflemen of old were taught to shoot the “rifleman’s quarter mile.” You were considered a true rifleman if you could shoot a tight pattern at 500 yards with iron sights. You can still learn to shoot that way through The Appleseed Project.

So, in conclusion, I highly recommend adding the shooting sports to your family’s list of activities. You will NEVER regret the time you spend shooting.

Secession is the Hope For Mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

America Has Fallen and Can’t Get Up

August 18, 2010

More About Natural Law

by David McElroy

America has fallen….and can’t get up. The wolves of Wall Street are picking her bones. Many wait, with baited breath, for the fat lady to sing. Face it folks, America is no longer the sweet land of liberty. It has become the land of the fee and home of the slave. How the mighty have fallen! How?

John Dewey is often hailed as the “Father of Modern Education” in America. He was a socialist product of the 19th Century. He engineered the transition from the one room schoolhouses to the “public fool system” we see today. He is largely responsible for the moral decay that led to America’s plunge into the depths of oppression, debauchery, and destruction. He did not teach logic or reasoning skills. Why?

“You can’t make socialists out of individualists,” Dewey stated. “Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.” (1.) Dewey was a Rockefeller protégé born in 1859. He set the stage for the fall of the American people in the banker driven national socialist Union consolidation after the War Between The States.

Dewey built his legacy on conforming the individual to the society as defined by state interests, presuming man was created for government, rather than vice versa. Dewey is quoted saying “There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.” (2.) Dewey did not teach “right or wrong”, but he taught teachers Darwin and Marx!

Dewey kicked into gear the concept of tailoring indoctrination to the needs of industrialists luring people away from independent farm life into the industrial slums where they might be dispossessed and made dependent. Factory workers, waitresses and stock boys did not need much education, and critical thinking skills were not in the robber barons’ interests! Americans gave up their productive agrarian lifestyles to become consumers mobilized by Henry Ford and fueled by Rockefeller. Debt came into style with the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913, The Creature From Jekyll Island, as G. Edward Griffin called it.

Horace Greely said “It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom.” In 1963, Madalyn Murray O’Hair evicted the Bible, and God, from the public schools of America to hasten the atheist Marxist agenda. Courthouses followed.

No wonder today’s youth are confused, immature illiterates who know more about Justin Bieber, Britney Spears or Lady Gaga than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Jesus Christ. Just look to the National Education Association (of socialists)! As early as 1936, the NEA official position was “We stand for socializing the individual.“ (2.) We have come far from The New England Primer and the firm foundations of truth our rebellious Founding Fathers stood upon in in issuing The Declaration of Independence.

The deception of Americans is not limited to classrooms. Courtrooms have become venues of subversion, with judges’ deceitful instructions to juries and confusing legal terms with plain English to defraud the ignorant souls before the bench. Judges not only fail to mention the US Constitution has been suspended since 1932, but insist that juries must only determine if the defendant violated the letter of the law as narrowly defined by the state’s judge and prosecutor. This is part and parcel of the modern doctrine of “Legal Positivism”, the belief that the state is the supreme authority for creating, interpreting, and enforcing the law. .. declaring all legal truth is decided by the state.

This new legal paradigm was established after the Civil War when Harvard’s new president, Eliot, in 1870, named Christopher Langdell as Dean of the Harvard Law School, the flagship of American jurisprudence. He “believed that man did not need the aid of God and of the Holy Scriptures….Langdell sought to eliminate both from legal education – not by default, but by design. He along with president Eliot, had embraced the new faith that swept the academic world in the latter 1800’s – that Darwin’s theory of evolution was the key to all of life, including the law.” (5.) This was a huge leap away from Blackstone’s legal precepts that America’s patriot founders held.

The state often prevents presentation of evidence favorable to defendants, even when prosecutors know the accused are innocent! The state, and it’s laws, must never be questioned. They do not tell us, as did John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, in 1789, that “The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” This was upheld again in 1902 by Justice Oliver Wendell Homes and in 1941 by Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone. “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge…” as stated in U.S. vs. Dougherty. Recall how jurors are selected and instructed these days. Just reading a Fully Informed Jury Association pamphlet will disqualify a juror from service.

FIJA notes “The only a power the judge has over the jury is their ignorance!” The state’s interests prevail, not the rights of the people the state was to hold as being unalienable, which shall not be infringed. Be sure to check your brain at the door, empty your pockets and pass through the scanner upon entering the halls of “justice”! Fearful, ignorant, unarmed people are easier to rule, aren’t they?

There is some debate on the term unalienable, largely due to the way students are misled in the current use of dictionaries. I trust Noah Webster. Some say that term Jefferson used declaring our God-given rights means inseparable, and others say it means no lien may be laid against those rights. In reality, both apply, as the first speaks of inseparability, and the latter addresses forbidding a means of separation.

Marxists intend to separate us from our rights, and have already placed liens against us through Social Security, birth certificates and such. Government is taking out life insurance on us based on the value of taxes remitted to the International Monetary Fund…without our knowledge or consent. We are considered chattel, or slaves, while we live, per Senate Document 43 @ 73rd Congress 1st Session and Executive Order 13037. We are often more valuable dead than alive. Constant war insures industrial profits and repeated returns to the government on all those policies. The FBI, CIA, NASA, the FCC and many other agencies are technically not agencies of the United States. (3.) The IRS is an agency of the IMF, an agency of the United Nations. The IMF serves as the US Treasury! (4.) We are defrauded, and have no representation.

We are not taught to consider the whole meanings of words in the dictionary, but to parse them out, choose “either” this “or” that definition. It is the old divide and conquer strategy in education. God is holy, which implies wholeness in every compartment, or space, or “hole”, in pure reality. All real things have more than one facet by which to relate with other real things, with different shades of meaning, or variable dynamics, in each facet. Our linear thought processes, in a fashion similar to the way a prism divides the spectrum of light from a ray passing through , follow only one definitive thought or object at a time and miss the whole context of the greater spectrum unified and specified in considering all the definitions of a word in a logical progression. Tyrants prefer we not see certain facets or the dynamics of hidden relationships. They like to blindside us and focus our attention. Following the branches of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is dividing us in the diverse chambers of artificial precepts and leading us to eat the fruits of evil. For the whole matter, feed from the root, not the fruit! Where do your children feed? The “public fool system”?

Dewey, of course, had many fellow travelers, like Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union, author and journalist Edward Bellamy, who proposed government control of all media, and Edward Louis Bernays, propaganda pioneer. Bernays was busy molding public opinion in “engineering consent”. He posed, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?” His answer: “The recent practice of propaganda has proved it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.” Where is your limit? At what point will you part ways with the socialist stampede? On the rocks below?

Of course, the deluge of international socialists upon the American society is pervasive. Even the seminaries and churches of America have departed from Holy Scripture and godly precepts. Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared “Some of my best friends are communists!“ Many think the contest is between the choice of a republic or a democracy, but it’s actually the old contest between fascism and communism. Are you single minded in seeing this in America?

Do you respect those professional scribes who teach us godless socialism, draft the course of our society, dissuade us from Law of Nature and Nature’s God? Do Pharisees lead you to worship in a politically correct fashion, serving the evangelical needs of the Zionist agenda promulgated by Rothschild and the Luciferian gang? Why do you abide billionaire bankers who rob you , deceitfully manipulate you towards a communist global gulag? Why send our sons and daughters to be sacrificed on the altar of war to seek the blessings of corporate profits? Do you really think your vote will change things in a corrupt election system? How much heinous crime is hidden behind the mask of National Security? Why do we tolerate “representatives” who mock us and admit they don’t even read the laws they propose to impose upon us while exempting themselves as they grow fat at the public expense? Do you want to be afforded no more rights than a draft horse or a milk cow? Sheepish? Are you chicken?

“Bold knaves thrive without one grain of sense,” noted John Dryden in the 17th Century, “but good men starve for want of impudence.” Are you ready to be impudent in the face of tyranny?

Rebellion birthed freedom, the Christian American Heritage of Liberty in which no man was above the law, wherein all stood as equals before the law. And while every person was entitled to be educated and ignorance of the law was no excuse, the law was to be clearly understandable by average men, and schooling was a matter of choice rather than compulsory. Law was intended to uphold our God-given rights and dignities as human beings, and preclude state tyranny. We have state tyranny recognizing no rights or dignities under the law. Just try boarding an airliner to check on this. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

Thomas Jefferson noted “the several States comprising the United States of America, are not united on the principle of the unlimited submission to the General Government…” States created the Constitution. The federal government has totally breached and discarded the Constitution. Sovereign States, and We the People, should no longer be bound by it either, as that binding contract is nullified by the evil District of Criminals unilaterally and arrogantly refusing to abide by the terms specified. The Union is a fraud, and should be prosecuted in revolutionary zeal if we are to restore the republic. George Washington said that “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Dangerous public servants insist on being fearful masters, and we need to assert our authority.

Truth be known, we must secede to succeed! That is what our patriot forefathers knew, knowing full well their very lives hung in the balance. They took the risk. Many were burned, but they sacrificed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to birth a legacy of freedom. Live free or die… the choice is yours.

(1.) Why Our Schools Teach Socialism by Joe Larson, from the Aug. 2001 Idaho Observer.

(2.) Read The Closing of the American Heart: What’s Really Wrong with America’s Schools written by Ronald Nash, (Probe Books 1990) 91.

(3.) See cases U.S. v. Strang, 254 US 491, and Lewis v. US, 680 F.2nd, 1239

(4.) See Diversified Metal Products v. IRS, Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Public Law 102-391, and Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition pg. 816.

(5.) God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles by Herb Titus, Basic Life Principles 1994, 5-6

David McElroy is a semi-retired soldier for Christ fighting for Truth, Justice, and Liberty for All. He resides in Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Copyright 2010

The Case For And Against Natural Law

August 17, 2010

By Russell Kirk

Heritage Foundation Lecture #469
July 15, 1993

(Editor’s Note: This essay is not light reading. But since Thomas Jefferson used Natural Law as the very foundation for the Declaration of Independence of the American colonies, I think it is wise for us to know just what Natural Law really is. How can we consider secession if that separation is based in so-called “positive law,” which is man-made law? Positive law is frankly the law of the mob…whatever group of people with the most guns and jails says it is. In order to rise above positive law, we must seek a higher source…an irrefutable standard…an irreducible simplicity as our foundation. And natural law must not be conflated with common law. Natural law is the precept that certain rights or values are inherent in human nature as we exist as conscious beings. But common law is the legal tradition whereby rights are understood by judicial recognition.

As Russell Kirk observed: “There exists no single best form of government for the happiness of all mankind. The most suitable form of government necessarily depends upon the historic experience, the customs, the beliefs, the state of culture, the ancient laws, and the material circumstances of a people.” Those words mitigate against a nation of 300 million, and point us toward smaller and more manageable nations as the last best hope for individual liberty.

Russell Kirk was a legendary thinker in the last half of the 20th Century. You’ll see what I mean in this treatise.)

The literature of natural law is complex, copious, and monthly growing vaster. All I aspire to accomplish in this second lecture on “The Future of Justice” is to offer some general introduction to the subject, together with reflections on the protections and dangers of natural-law doctrines, and observations concerning natural law and constitutional government.

A great deal of loose talk about natural law has occurred in very recent years. It was objected to Judge Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court that Bork did not believe in natural law; and when Judge Thomas was interrogated for that bench, the objection was raised that he did believe in natural law. These protestations came mostly from the same group of senators. Clearly a good many public men and women nowadays have only vague notions of what is signified by this term natural law.

Objectively speaking, natural law, as a term of politics and jurisprudence, may be defined as a loosely knit body of rules of action prescribed by an authority superior to the state. These rules variously (according to the several differing schools of natural-law and natural-rights speculation) are derived from divine commandment; from the nature of humankind; from abstract Reason; or from long experience of mankind in community.

But natural law does not appertain to states and courts merely. For primarily it is a body of ethical perceptions or rules governing the life of the individual person, quite aside from politics and jurisprudence. When many persons ignore or flout the natural law for human beings, the consequences presently are ruinous — as with the unnatural vices that result in the disease of AIDS, or with the ideological passions, defying the norm of justice, that have ravaged most nations since the First World War.

The natural law should not be taken for graven Tables of Governance, to be followed to jot and tittle; appealed to in varying circumstances, the law of nature must be applied with high prudence. As Alessandro d’EntrevŠs writes, “The lesson of natural law is in fact nothing but an assertion that law is a part of ethics.” And, he concludes “The lesson of natural law [is] simply to remind the jurist of his own limitations…. This point where values and norms coincide, which is the ultimate origin of law and at the same time the beginning of moral life proper, is, I believe, what men for over two thousand years have indicated by the name of natural law.”

On the one hand, natural law must be distinguished from positive or statutory law, decreed by the state; on the other, from the “laws of nature” in a scientific sense — that is, from propositions expressing the regular order of certain natural phenomena. Also natural law sometimes is confounded with assertions of “natural rights,” which may or may not be founded upon classical and medieval concepts of natural law.

The most important early treatise on natural law is Cicero’s De Re Publica. The Ciceronian understanding of natural law, which still exercises strong influence, was well expressed in the nineteenth century by Froude: “Our human laws are but the copies, more or less imperfect, of the eternal laws so far as we can read them, and either succeed and promote our welfare, or fail and bring confusion and disaster, according as the legislator’s insight has detected the true principle, or has been distorted by ignorance or selfishness.”

As interpreted by the Roman jurisconsult, and later by the medieval Schoolmen and Canonists — Thomas Aquinas especially — the legacy of the classical jus naturale endured with little challenge until the seventeenth century. In England during the sixteenth century it was powerfully upheld by Richard Hooker in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. In the Christian world the natural law was received as a body of unwritten rules depending upon universal conscience and common sense, ascertainable by right reason. But with the stirrings of secularism and rationalism during the seventeenth century, a new interpretation of “natural law” began to develop, conspicuous (near the end of the century) in the works of Hugo Grotius and Baron Samuel von Pufendorf. This latter secularized concept of natural law was held by many of the philosophies of the eighteenth century, and took on flesh during the French Revolution, when it was vulgarized by Thomas Paine.

Nevertheless, the older understanding of natural law was not extinguished. It was ringingly reasserted by Edmund Burke, in his distinction between the “real” and the “pretended” rights of men. Through the disciples of Burke, and through the influence of the Catholic Church, the classical and Christian natural law has experienced a revival in the latter half of the twentieth century.

During the nineteenth century, natural-law concepts were overshadowed by the powerful Utilitarian system of Jeremy Bentham; by the theories of John Austin and the Analytical Jurists; by legal positivism; and later — particularly in the United States — by legal pragmatism. In the United States, the older and newer schools of natural law have contended against each other since the latter half of the eighteenth century, and both have been hotly assailed by positivistic, utilitarian, and pragmatic interpretations of law. Yet appeals to the “natural law” or “a higher law” have recurred often in American politics and jurisprudence; both conservatives and radicals, from time to time, have invoked this law of nature.

The Catholic Church continues to adhere to the classical and Thomistic understanding of the natural law — to an apprehension of Justice that is rooted in the wisdom of the species. Sir Ernest Barker put thus the idea of natural law: “This justice is conceived as being the higher or ultimate law, proceeding from the nature of the universe from the Being of God and the reason of man. It follows that law — in the sense of the law of the last resort — is somehow above lawmaking.”

The most lucid and popular exposition of natural law it to be found in the Appendix, “Illustrations of the Tao,” to C. S. Lewis’s little book The Abolition of Man. Therein Lewis distinguishes eight major natural laws of universal recognition and application, together with several illustrations of each, drawn from a wide diversity of cultures, religions, philosophical discourses, and countries. He expounds the Law of General Beneficence; the Law of Special Beneficence; Duties to Parents, Elders, Ancestors; Duties to Children and Posterity; the Law of Justice; the Law of Good Faith and Veracity; the Law of Mercy; the Law of Magnanimity. No code of the laws of nature ever having existed, it is ineffectual to try to enforce that body of ethical principles through courts of law; no judge hands down decisions founded directly upon the admonition, “Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land” — or the Commandment’s equivalents in the Babylonian List of Sins, the Egyptian Confession of the Righteous Soul, the Manual of Epictetus, Leviticus, the Analects, or Hindu books of wisdom. Nevertheless, such perpetual precepts lie behind the customs and the statutes that shelter father and mother.

So much, succinctly, by way of definition. Turn we now to the difficulty of explaining natural law to the average sensual man. Permit me to discourse with you for a little while about natural law and the moral imagination. Incidentally, I am helped here by an unpublished essay by the late Raymond English, who understood and praised the natural law, and understood and despised the claims for “natural right.” Let me quote English directly:

The natural law cannot be understood except through the elements of poetry and imagination in the soul. The poetic and the moral imagination are parts of human reason. For the man who does not feel himself in some sense a child of God, who is not possessed by the “desire and pursuit of the whole,” and for whom words like honor are meaningless, the notion of natural law must be a Mumbojumbo, a bogle to make children behave tolerably well, a fantasy from the adolescence or the childhood of the race. Poets, James Elroy Flecker says, are those who swear that Beauty lives although lilies die; and the natural law is the poetry of political science, the assurance that Justice lives though states are imperfect and ephemeral. Justice is to politics what beauty is to art; indeed, beauty and justice become almost identical at the highest levels of human aspiration.

Permit me, ladies and gentlemen, to repeat here that the natural law is more than a guide for statesmen and jurists. It is meant primarily for the governance of persons — for you and me, that we may restrain will and appetite in our ordinary walks of life. Natural law is not a harsh code that we thrust upon other people: rather, it is an ethical knowledge, innate perhaps, but made more clearly known to us through the operation of right reason. And the more imagination with which a person is endowed, the more will he apprehend the essence of the natural law, and understand its necessity. If such a one, despite his power of imagination, offends against the natural law, the greater must be his suffering. So I have discovered in the course of a peregrine life. And over a good many decades I have found that most contemners of the natural law are dull dogs, afflicted by a paucity of imagination. As Adam Mickiewicz instructs us:

Your soul deserves the place to which it came, If having entered Hell, you feel no flame.

Such is the case for the importance of natural law. Permit me to turn now to the case against natural law, as expressed by the legal positivists — most strongly, perhaps, by the German scholar Hans Kelsen. They regard natural law as a body of sentimental fictions; they hold that the state is the only true source of law. The views of John Austin and the Analytical Jurists are similar: all law is decreed by the political sovereign, they hold. Rather than moving abstractly among the several schools of jurisprudence in the twentieth century, I offer you now the contents of a letter I received recently from a German inventor and industrialist who had read in the Bavarian magazine Epoche some remarks of mine on natural law. My correspondent is a very intelligent and indeed talented man, considerable of a naturalist in that he studies flora and fauna. In politics, I suppose he may be classified as a German liberal of the old school. His communication, refreshingly innocent of the jargon of jurisprudence and ethics, suggests the mentality that lies behind the denigration of natural law by positivists and secular humanists, who recognize and deride the Christian and the classical origins of the idea of natural law.

“Whether the term ‘law of nature’ is more frequently used nowadays, or whether the jus naturale is an old invention,” my German correspondent begins, “I think this term is wrong and misleading. There is no law or legislative system which can be derived from nature. Nature has rules developed during evolution, but there is only a jus hominis and no jus naturale.”

“In other words,” my friend goes on,

all ethical norms are developed and worked out by human beings, in this case mostly by the homo stultus, subspecies sapiens…. The order of nature follows in many respects the right of the stronger, which, in fact, keeps nature with all its plants and animals in excellent shape. But mankind has set up ethical rules, good ones and bad ones, very different from natural rules. Many of these man-made rules are quite bad, sinning against nature….

The very deplorable situation of the species homo stultus comes from wrong ethical rules, which are against nature. I am not pleading for the right of the stronger between human beings, but for more influence of the rare subspecies sapiens, especially of those individuals who understand nature — which means also the nature of human character. Unfortunately Jesus did not understand the real nature of men; nor do the socialists understand it when they expect that people will work for the state rather than for themselves….

I offer another example, in which American legislators have chosen the wrong solution. There is a law in the United States, if I am correct, which forbids the killing of foreign heads of state. If I am correct this is concerned with clandestine actions, e.g. by the CIA. This law is unethical. Assuming that no American president or the American government plans to eliminate a foreign dictator just for fun, but rather because he is a danger to the United States or to his own people or both, then removing a dictator as soon as possible would save the lives of many; and is, in consequence, completely justified.

We should agree that right is an exclusively human creation. What is regarded as rightful by one group of people within a community, can be regarded as wrongful by another group. I seek a terminology where there is a clean and clear distinction between what comes from nature and what comes from human efforts. Human efforts are aimed very often, with the best intentions, in the wrong direction. I mean “wrong” in this sense: against nature, for nature cannot be neglected without harming the human race….

Failing to realize that often human character is bad must lead to destroying a society through leniency. We have to determine when our ethical laws accord with nature and when they counteract nature. We must not ignore “the rule of the fittest,” when we decide to kill a dictator, for instance. We acknowledge the right of every nation to use as much force as possible when fighting another nation to death. The fight between nations follows what could be called natural right, but is better called the rule of nature.

For this German correspondent of mine, you will have noted, “nature” signifies animal nature, Darwinian nature, red in tooth and claw. Therefore he despises appeals to natural law, and believes that not only all positive or traditional law, but all ethical principles, are human creations merely. And these human contrivances, he implies, sometimes may be mistaken; we might be wiser to found our human institutions on the principle of competition, favoring the fitter.

Here, I suggest, we perceive the mentality that lies back of the jurisprudence of Hans Kelsen and certain other positivists: critics of the whole concept of natural law.

Yet in one matter my correspondent does turn to the extreme medicine of natural law: his commendation of tyrannicide. This is interesting, as it is related to Germany in this century.

German jurisprudence demands that the citizen be strictly obedient to the state, for the state is the source of all law, the omniscient keeper of the peace. No law but positive law has been recognized in Germany since the fall of the German monarchy; natural law has no place at all.

Adolph Hitler, chosen Reichschancellor by lawful means, and confirmed in power by the Reichstag in 1933, was sustained later by national plebiscites. He was the head of the German state, the source of all law, to which all Germans had been taught obedience. Yet certain Germans — army officers, scholars, professional people, chiefly — found his actions evil. By quasi-constitutional means he had subverted the constitution. His popularity had become tremendous, and his military power. Only by death might he be removed.

Therefore a little knot of brave and conscientious men determined to save Germany and Europe by killing Hitler. They had been reared in the doctrine that all citizens must obey the inerrant state. In this exigency, however, they turned to doctrines of natural law for justification. Was there no remedy against an unnatural master of the state? In the teachings of natural law they discerned a fatal remedy. Fatal to them, at least; for nearly all of the heroic men involved in the several conspiracies against Hitler died frightful deaths. I knew well Dr. Ludwig Freund, a kindly professor of political science, one of the two survivors of the first plot to kill Hitler. By nature Professor Freund was a law-abiding gentleman. And being law-abiding, in defense of true law he was prepared to slay the chief of state, perverter of Germany’s laws and the laws of man’s nature.

I repeat that we have recourse to natural law, as opposed to positive law, only as a last resort, ordinarily. My only service as a jurist occurred in Morton Township, Mecosta County, Michigan, some decades ago, when for two consecutive terms I was elected — unanimously — justice of the peace. When determining a disputed boundary between two farms, a justice of the peace does not repair to theories of natural law and meditate upon which of two claimants is the more worthy of judicial compassion; rather, the justice of the peace turns to statute, common law, possibly to local custom — and to the files of the recorder of deeds at the county seat. And so it is with the ordinary administration of law at every level. Statute, charter, and prescription ordinarily are sufficient to maintain the rule of law — the end of which, we ought not to forget, is to keep the peace.

Yet to guide the sovereign; the chief of state; the legislator; the public prosecutor; the judge when, in effect, he sits in equity — to guide you and me, indeed — there endures the natural law, which in essence is man’s endeavor to maintain a moral order through the operation of a mundane system of justice. Unlike my German correspondent, the sustainer of natural law knows that there is law for man, and law for thing; and that our moral order is not the creation of coffee-house philosophers. Human nature is not vulpine nature, leonine nature, or serpentine nature. Natural law is bound up with the concept of the dignity of man, and with the experience of humankind ever since the beginnings of social community.

It will not do to substitute private interpretations of natural law for common law or civil law, any more than it would have been well for England, during the Reformation, to have obeyed the “Geneva Men” by sweeping away common law and the whole inherited apparatus of parliamentary statutes, to substitute the laws of the ancient Jews. Positive law and customary law, in any country, grow out of a people’s experience in community; natural law should have its high part in shaping and restraining positive and customary laws, but natural law could not conceivably supplant judicial institutions. Yet were natural-law concepts to be abandoned altogether — why, then, indeed, the world would find itself governed by The good old rule, the good old plan, That they shall take who have the power, And they shall keep who can…

Turn we now to relationships between the natural law and the American judiciary. Not since Associate Justice Joseph Story adorned the Supreme Court of the United States, early in the nineteenth century, has any member of the Supreme Court had much to say about natural law. Nevertheless, in recent decades a number of Supreme Court decisions seem to have been founded upon natural-law notions of a sort. I think, for instance, of the Warren Court’s decision (the opinion written by Chief Justice Warren himself) that congressional districts within the several states must be so drawn in their boundaries as to contain so nearly as possible the same number of persons within the several districts — a matter previously left to the discretion of state legislatures. In part, this intervention was founded upon Jeremy Bentham’s principle of one man, one vote; but also there seems to have lurked at the back of the minds of justices the notion that exact political equality, as told by numbers, somehow is “natural,” whatever state and federal constitutions might prescribe and whatever the opinions of the Framers may have been. One might cite, too, the Court’s decisions in the school-desegregation cases. This question having been raised, let us examine how far we should appeal to natural law against statute and Constitution. Here we turn to an historical example and to the judgment of a leading American political and religious writer who endeavored to reconcile the claims of authority and the claims of freedom.

I refer to the “higher law” controversy of 1850 and to Orestes Brownson, the Catholic scholar and polemicist. In March 1850, on the floor of the United States Senate, William Henry Seward made his famous declaration that there exists “a higher law than the Constitution.” He was referring to the Fugitive Slave Law and the Supreme Court. At once a hot controversy arose. In January 1851, Brownson published his review-essay entitled “The Higher Law,” in which he refuted the claim of Seward, the Abolitionists, and the Free- Soilers to transcend the Constitution by appealing to a moral “higher law” during debate on the Fugitive Slave Bill.

Brownson agreed with Seward that

“there is a higher law than the Constitution. The law of God is supreme, and overrides all human enactments, and every human enactment incompatible with it is null and void from the beginning, and cannot be obeyed with a good conscience, for “we must obey God rather than men.” This is the great truth statesmen and lawyers are extremely prone to overlook, which the temporal authority not seldom practically denies, and on which the Church never fails to insist….”

But the concession of the fact of a higher law than the Constitution does not of itself justify the appeal to it against the Constitution, either by Mr. Seward or the opponents of the Fugitive Slave Law. Mr. Seward had no right, while holding his seat in the Senate under the Constitution, to appeal to the higher law against the Constitution, because that was to deny the very authority by which he held his seat…. After having taken his oath to support the Constitution, the Senator had, so far as he was concerned, settled the question, and it was no longer for him an open question. In calling God to witness his determination to support the Constitution, he had called God to witness his conviction of the compatibility of the Constitution with the law of God, and therefore left himself no plea for appealing from it to a higher law.

We cannot be bound, Brownson continued, to obey a law that is in contravention of the law of God.

This is the grand principle held by the old martyrs, and therefore they chose martyrdom rather than obedience to the state commanding them to act contrary to the Divine law. But who is to decide whether a special civil enactment be or be not repugnant to the law of God? Here is a grave and perplexing question for those who have no divinely authorized interpreter of the divine law.

The Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, Brownson remarked, had adopted the Protestant principle of private judgment.

But this places the individual above the state, and is wholly incompatible with the simplest conception of civil government. No civil government can exist, none is conceivable even, when every individual is free to disobey its orders whenever they do not happen to square with his private convictions of what is the law of God.

The Church, Brownson writes, is the authoritative interpreter of the divine law. He reminds his readers that the state is ordained of God; but the state is not the supreme and infallible organ of God’s will on earth.

Now it is clear that Mr. Seward and his friends, the Abolitionists and the Free Soilers, have nothing to which they can appeal from the action of government but their private interpretation of the law of God, that is to say, their own private judgment or opinion as individuals; for it is notorious that they are good Protestants, holding the pretended right of private judgment, and rejecting all authoritative interpretation of the Divine law. To appeal from government to private judgment is to place private judgment above public authority, the individual above the state, which, as we have seen, is incompatible with the very existence of government, and therefore, since government is a divine ordinance, absolutely forbidden by the law of God — that very higher law invoked to justify resistance to civil enactments…. No man can ever be justifiable in resisting the civil law under the pretense that it is repugnant to the Divine law, when he has only his private judgment, or, what is the same thing, his private interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures, to tell him what the Divine law is on the point in question, because the principle on which he would act in doing so would be repugnant to the very existence of government, and therefore in contravention of the ordinance, therefore of the law, of God.

Brownson’s argument — which we have not time enough to analyze in full today — in substance is this, in his own words: “Mr. Seward and his friends asserted a great and glorious principle, but misapplied it.” It was not for them to utter commands in the name of God. Their claims, if carried far enough, would lead to anarchy. The arguments of some of their adversaries would lead to Statolatry, the worship of the state.

The cry for liberty abolishes all loyalty, and destroys the principle and the spirit of obedience, while the usurpations of the state leave to conscience no freedom, to religion no independence. The state tramples on the spiritual prerogatives of the Church, assumes to itself the functions of schoolmaster and director of consciences, and the multitude clap their hands, and call it liberty and progress!

Brownson advocated compliance with the Fugitive Slave Law, which clearly was constitutional; indeed, obligatory under Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution It was his hope to avert the Civil War which burst out ten years later. “Now there is a right and a wrong way of defending the truth, and it is always easier to defend the truth on sound than on unsound principles,” he wrote. “If men were less blind and headstrong, they would see that the higher law can be asserted without any attack upon legitimate civil authority, and legitimate civil authority and the majesty of the law can be vindicated without asserting the absolute supremacy of the civil power, and falling into statolatry — as absurd a species of idolatry as the worship of sticks and stones.”

Very possibly, ladies and gentlemen, you have found in these passages from “The Higher Law” and in Brownson’s general argument various considerations highly relevant to our own era.

As Brownson remarks, the natural law (or law of God) and the American civil law are not ordinarily at swords’ points. Large elements of natural law entered into the common law of England — and therefore into the common law of the United States — over the centuries; and the Roman law, so eminent in the science of jurisprudence, expresses the natural law enunciated by the Roman jurisconsults. No civilization ever has attempted to maintain the bed of justice by direct application of natural-law doctrines by magistrates; necessarily, it is by edict, rescript, and statute that any state keeps the peace through a system of courts. It simply will not do to maintain that private interpretation of natural law should be the means by which conflicting claims are settled.

Rather, natural law ought to help form the judgments of the persons who are lawmakers — whether emperors, kings, ecclesiastics, aristocratic republicans, or representatives of a democracy. The civil law should be shaped in conformity to the natural law — which originated, in Cicero’s words, “before any written law existed or any state had been established.”

It does not follow that judges should be permitted to push aside the Constitution, or statutory laws, in order to substitute their private interpretations of what the law of nature declares. To give the judiciary such power would be to establish what might be called an archonocracy, a domination of judges, supplanting the constitutional republic; also it surely would produce some curious and unsettling decisions, sweeping away precedent, which would be found highly distressing by friends to classical and Christian natural law. Only the Catholic Church, Brownson reasoned, has authority to interpret the laws of nature; but the Supreme Court of the United States, and the inferior federal courts, and our state courts, take no cognizance of papal encyclicals. Left to their several private judgments of what is “natural,” some judges indubitably would do mischief to the person and the republic. The Supreme Court’s majority decision in the case of Roe v. Wade — in which a pretended “right of privacy,” previously unknown, was discovered — in actuality amounted to a declaration of the “natural right” of a mother to destroy her offspring.

Now it seems to me curiously naive to fancy that American courts always would subscribe to Thomistic concepts of the laws of nature, and abjure Jacobin doctrines of natural right. Courts of law must ordinarily accord with the general legislative authority; otherwise the Book of Judges is followed by the Book of Kings.

In the seventh edition of The Conservative Mind, I have written that the first canon of conservative thought is “Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality, which Coleridge called the Understanding, cannot of itself satisfy human needs…. True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.”

Now Mr. Robert Bork, whose opinion as to the application of natural-law doctrines by members of the Supreme Court I have just now endorsed with some vigor, has taken notice of this. In an essay entitled “Natural Law and the Constitution,” Mr. Bork advises my friend Mr. William Bentley Ball to abjure my exhortation of this sort. “The dictum also is inaccurate,” Bork adds, “for it arbitrarily disqualifies as conservatives people who accept and struggle to preserve every conservative value but who do not believe that such values derive from a transcendent order.” One might as well say, I suggest, that the Church ought not to emphasize the dogma of the Resurrection because that might alienate some people who are not Christians, but are possible well-wishers.

I have thought highly of Mr. Bork — although he seems to have no clear understanding of natural law and its function — but he appears to have thought lowly of me. Perhaps we both have been mistaken.

That federal judges, Mr. Bork included, have not been learned in the natural law is one of the educational misfortunes of our age. When the time is out of joint, we can repair to the teachings of Cicero and Aquinas and Hooker about the law of nature, in the hope that we may diminish man’s inhumanity unto man. The natural law lacking, we may become so many Cains, and every man’s hand may be raised against every other man’s.

© 1995 Persimmon IT, Inc.

States, Not Supreme Court, Must Decide Law And Protect Freedom

August 16, 2010

by Chuck Baldwin

(Editor’s note: I’m honored that Chuck would quote lil’ ol’ me in his column. Thanks, Chuck. And, by the way, regarding the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution…if you resign from the club, the club rules no longer apply to you.)

I am going to borrow heavily from two outstanding columns that appear on my son’s web site, One author, Russell Longcore, is a publisher; the other, Wilton Strickland, is an attorney. Both are avid proponents of State sovereignty and independence.

Longcore’s column is entitled “Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the American Republic.” See it at:

Strickland’s column is entitled “Staying Away From The Federal Courthouse.” See it at:

Both of these gentlemen share my conviction that the only chance we have to maintain and defend liberty in these United States is for free and independent states to rise in righteous indignation against the onslaught of federal tyranny that is rapidly destroying our republic. America–as one nation–is beyond redemption. The federal government is too arrogant, too malevolent, and too drunk with power to ever allow itself to be returned to the principles of federalism and constitutionalism. And this is true no matter which of the two political parties is in charge.

Fortunately, America’s founders did not create “one nation” with 13 (now 50) provinces. They created a confederated republic with 13 (now 50) “Free and Independent States.” (Declaration of Independence) This means that even after the US Constitution was ratified in 1787, the states maintained independent, nation-state status. Therefore, each State is duly authorized and charged with the responsibility of protecting the rights and liberties of its citizens–even if that means resisting (peaceably or otherwise) the federal government–including the right of states to secede, if need be, in order to protect their liberties.

In opposing my friend and Harvard-trained attorney Edwin Vieira’s column propounding the unconstitutionality of State secession, Longcore proffers the Natural Law (my term, not his) right and process by which states may secede from an unnatural and coercive union. He calls it a “practical blueprint for secession.” Here it is:

1. Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.

2. Re-establish the “well-regulated militia.” That is the power of the sword.

3. Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a document of governance fit for a nation.

4. Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.

5. Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.

“Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.”

Longcore ends his treatise with these words, “Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?”

Strickland’s column is equally trenchant. He perceptively says the following:

“Under the Constitution of the Founders, the states decided which powers the federal government would have; today, it is the federal government that decides which powers the state governments will have.

‘”Conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ who run to federal court and beg for this treatment are their own worst enemies. Their quest for a federal veto on local matters such as gun control or property takings does just as much harm as the American Civil Liberties Union’s quest to eradicate religion from public view or to establish abortion as a secular sacrament.

“Liberty cannot survive without independence, and a temporary victory in federal court today blazes a path to a thousand defeats tomorrow. As the Founders understood, any power that MIGHT be abused WILL be abused, so it must be avoided. Although the states abuse their power as well, such abuses have limited geographic scope and allow us to escape as a last resort. There is no escape from federal power, unless one wishes to expatriate or renounce citizenship (which the federal government is making more difficult every day).

“If you confront an unjust law in your state, advocate its repeal. If that doesn’t work, vote for candidates who will one day repeal it. Failing that, bring a challenge in state court based on the state constitution–the U.S. Supreme Court cannot interfere unless the case involves the U.S. Constitution or federal law. And as mentioned before, leave the state if you are ultimately unsatisfied with it; do not spoil it for the others who wish to remain there.”

Amen! Brilliantly stated!

Right about now I can hear all the Big-Government centralists and unionists out there shouting, “What about the supremacy clause of the Constitution?” To which my son, Tim Baldwin (a constitutional attorney, historian, and author), writes:

“One of the constitutional tools by which socialist and nationalist ideologues have incorporated political principles of centralization and state annihilation is through the ‘Supremacy clause’ of the U.S. Constitution, which states, ‘This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ (USC, Article 6) To many people, this phrase has been construed to mean whatever laws and treaties those in the federal government pass, execute and uphold are binding on the people of the states and their respective governments. Admittedly, this concept has taken a stronghold in America and has been treated as the accepted principle of constitutional law for generations. Undoubtedly, every law student attending an ABA accredited law school is taught this as fact, just as I was when I attended Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. Not everyone agrees with this construction, however.

“Big-government and monarchist himself, Alexander Hamilton sheds light on the error of this position in 1787 when he addressed the concerns of those Americans who rejected the U.S. Constitution because of the fear that the expected effect of the ‘Supremacy clause’ would be to subvert the sovereignty of the States to govern themselves according to their constitutions. Hamilton attempts to calm their fears, saying, ‘It will not follow from this doctrine [of supremacy] that acts of the large society [i.e., the union] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.’ (Federalist Paper 33) Perhaps everyone in America would concede this, but what is not agreed upon is what the States can and should do about those laws that are NOT PURSUANT to the constitutional powers of the federal government. Many place the burden of correcting that grievance on the U.S. Supreme Court, as if a body of nine judges appointed by the executive of the federal government are an adequate remedy for the machinations of that distorted philosophy broadly accepted by those in federal office. Contrarily, those who believe in the principles of a federalist system should recognize that each unit of the union (i.e., States) have the duty to do what Hamilton suggested in response to those laws contrary to the constitution: ‘These [laws] will be merely acts of usurpation, and WILL DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH.’ (FP 33, emphasis added) These laws should be treated as no law at all, and moreover, as attacks on liberty, and should be resisted on every level of the union, from federal to state to local governments, as well as individuals.”

As I have said before, if the founders intended that the federal government should have unlimited power and authority to decide (translate: dictate) all matters of law and liberty, why, in the name of common sense, did the states retain their individuality, independence, and sovereignty following the ratification of the US Constitution? What was the 10th Amendment all about, if the federal government was the final arbiter and authority in all matters of law and liberty?

Our form of government has often been called a “great experiment,” but why? There have been similar documents protecting individual rights and liberties before the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. Our founders were well versed in the sagacious counsel of the enlightenment philosophers, theologians, and patriots of many generations preceding them. For example, read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, and you will easily see where Thomas Jefferson came up with many tenets of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, many will argue today (with good points) that the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution of 1787 that replaced it. America did not invent republicanism or the love of liberty.

What America did invent is the doctrine of FEDERALISM: that a nation would exist with dual jurisdiction (federal and State), that each authority (State and federal) would respect the other’s jurisdiction and would not intrude upon the other’s jurisdiction, and by so doing, liberty and republicanism could be better protected. That was the great American experiment.

With that said, should the US Supreme Court eventually attempt to declare Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill unconstitutional, the State of Arizona should forthwith IGNORE IT! Or better yet, the Arizona State Supreme Court should declare the US Supreme Court ruling unconstitutional. Arizona, and as many states that still have any sense of freedom and federalism left in them, should also ignore and refuse to participate in Obama’s national health care monstrosity. In fact, there is a host of unlawful federal dictation that states should ignore.

Since the War Between the States (and especially since the Presidential administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt), the principle of federalism (dual jurisdiction) has been eradicated to the point that today most people have lost all understanding of, and appreciation for, this distinctively American principle. Today it is so bad that virtually everyone within the federal government (with the exception of Congressman Ron Paul and a handful of others) sees Washington, D.C.’s power and authority as being virtually unlimited. Remember the US congressman who recently said the federal government could do anything? Sadder still is the fact that most attorneys, newsmen, ministers, and even State governors and legislators today believe the same thing. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a prescription for disaster. And that is exactly what we are experiencing right now: a disaster. And that’s why continuing to focus on electing Republicans or Democrats to national office will never accomplish the goal of restoring liberty to the people of the states: Washington, D.C., doesn’t believe the people of the states have any liberties, except by their leave.

I say again, the only chance we have to maintain and defend liberty in these United States is for free and independent states to rise in righteous indignation against the onslaught of federal tyranny that is rapidly destroying our republic. And this demands that people who understand, and are committed to, federalism and State sovereignty run for State office, and that people who believe in freedom, and want to protect it, support only those men and women who will boldly stand for this great American principle.

America has only one chance to regain freedom–only one chance: a State (or better, a group of states) standing forcefully on the principle of State jurisdiction and authority (federalism), which means it (they) should immediately implement Mr. Longcore’s first three action-points mentioned above; and if it becomes necessary, points four and five as well.

Obviously, there are some states that are much better suited to resist the intimidations and bribes of Washington, D.C, and stand for their own independence and authority than other states. But as Mr. Strickland said above, if your State is determined to remain the slave of Washington, D.C., “Leave the state . . . do not spoil it for the others who wish to remain there.”

New Hampshire’s State Motto is “Live Free or Die!” It’s time that states (including New Hampshire) understand that if they are indeed going to “live free,” they must reinvent, for this generation, the American experiment of federalism and heed the sage counsel proffered by Russell Longcore and Wilton Strickland (and others like them): face up to the fact that the states, not the US Supreme Court (or any other federal component), must decide law and protect freedom for the people of their states. And if states do not heed this counsel and stand up NOW, this insatiable, liberty-eating monster that is known as Washington, D.C., will quickly swallow up the few remaining liberties that we have left.

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded.

Freedom And Illusion

August 15, 2010

…Mostly Illusion

By Fred Reed

August 15, 2010

Fred Reed

When I was a kid long, long ago, before time began, or anyone had thought of why time ought to begin, or what it might be good for, I lived in rural King George County, Virginia. The county bordered on the Potomac River and was mostly woods. Dahlgren Naval Proving Ground, on which my family lived, sloped down to Machodoc Creek, perhaps three-quarters of a mile wide.

Things were looser then. When I wanted to go shooting, I put my rifle, a nice .22 Marlin with a ten-power Weaver, on my shoulder and walked out the main gate. At the country store outside the gate I’d buy a couple of boxes of long rifles, no questions asked, and away my co-conspirator Rusty and I went to some field or swamp to murder beer cans.

Today if a kid of fifteen tried it, six squad cars and a SWAT team (in all likelihood literally) would show up with sirens yowling, the kid’s parents would be jailed, the store closed and its proprietors imprisoned, and the kid subjected to compulsory psychiatric examination. Times change.

In King George if a buddy and I wanted to go swimming, we might go to the boat dock, which was for public use, and jump in. We did this by day or night. Almost never were there other people around, certainly no lifeguard. Or we might take my canoe, bought with paper-route money, and paddle out into the nighttime water and glory in being young and free and jumping overboard to swim. No one thought anything of it. It was what kids did.

Today, unsupervised swimming is everywhere forbidden. Worse, swimming at night, hundreds of yards from shore. In a canoe without floation devices approved by the Coast Guard. No supervising adult? No proof of having taken a governmentally approved course in how to paddle a canoe? Impossible in these over-protected, vindictively mommified times.

We saw no need of floatation devices because we were flotation devices. We could swim, easily, fluently, because we had been doing it forever. I don’t think I knew anyone who couldn’t have swum the width of Machodoc. Nobody supervised us. Nobody thought we needed supervision. And we didn’t.

If we wanted to fish, an urge frequently upon us, we just got our poles and did. We caught mostly cat, perch, and bream and the occasional wildly combative eel. Adults had nothing to do with it. We didn’t need fishing permits. Nor did we need help.

What I didn’t notice then, but remember now, is that we didn’t look nervously about to see whether our elders might disapprove. We knew they wouldn’t. We were fishing. So what?

The whole world worked that way—unsupervised, unwatched, left alone. In winter the Cooling Pond on base froze deep, and way after dark fifty of us would sail across slick new ice on skates, unsupervised. Adults skated, but they were skaters, not Mommy. And if you wanted to stay late till you were the only one on the (huge) pond, sailing fast, ice hissing under blades, not tired because you are sixteen and don’t know what the word means—you did. No supervision.

The boys had cars. The county being mostly empty, we spent endless nights driving, driving, to Fredericksburg to get Might Mos at Hojos, or just putting miles behind us on winding roads through the woods, alone, with friends, with our girls.

What I remember is how free we were. Solzhenitsyn once told of stopping on some desert desert highway, getting out of his car, and marveling that no one knew where he was, or cared. That’s how it was in King George. You parked with your girlfriend for endless hours on some blind pull-off into the woods. No one asked where you had been or what you were doing or, more likely not doing. Parents didn’t care because they didn’t need to care.

In retrospect, it felt unregulated. And was. In today’s world of over-policing by militarized hostile cops, of metal-detectors and police in schools and compulsory anger-management classes and enforced ingestion of Ritalin or Prozac, King George sounds, well, dangerous. I mean, how can you let kids run around as they like, with…with….guns, (eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!) and beer, and unregistered canoes without supervision by a caring adult, and…?

The answer of course is that we supervised ourselves. Within limits, anyway. I do remember lying on the roof of my father’s station wagon and looking up at the brake pedal because I hadn’t taken that unbanked downhill S-turn on Indian Town Road quite as well as I had planned.

But, being Southern kids, we boys knew how to handle guns, and the girls knew how to handle us, and though the country boys were physically tough from doing real work (consult a history book), we were not crazy in the head, as the phrase was. To the extent that adolescents are willing to be, I guess we were happy. We just didn’t know it.

The wretechedness we see today—the kid who shoots ten classmates to death, the alleged students strung out on crystal meth, the suicides, the frequent pregnancies—just didn’t happen. Why? Because (I strongly suspect) we were left the hell alone. The boys were allowed to be boys and the girls, girls. We grew like weeds, as our natures directed, and so did not have anorexia or bulimia or the sullen smoldering anger that comes of being a guy kid forced to be a girl or androgyne or flower.

I cannot speak well for the girls, except to say that they were sane, good-natured, and splendid. I do know that the boys needed, as plants need sunlight, to take canoes up unknown creeks, to swim and bike and compete—without a caring adult. In fall we used to play hours of pick-up basketball at the base gym—unsupervised. The brighter of us read voraciously. Some took up ham radio or read physiology texts. But we needed physical exertion, adventure, and freedom.

We had them. The consequence? Our heads were screwed on right. We probably even thought that the world looked to be a good place for a while. Although the entire high school had easy access to fire arms, nobody ever shot anyone. The idea would have seemed lunatic. In rare fights, boys might punch each other in the nose. Pick up a tire iron? Kick the other guy in the head? Not a chance.

The foregoing will enrage the whole sodden bolus of therapists, psychological beard-scratchers, counselors, feminists, fruit-juice drinkers, and congenitally insecure promoters of sun block. But it worked.

© 2010 Fred Reed

The End of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

August 14, 2010

Courtesy Third Palmetto Republic

(Editor’s Note: ALL states will eventually deal with this thorny issue.)

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the major components of the “safety net” which was put in place by the federal government for the supposed reason that Americans are too stupid to plan for their own retirement and health care. These programs are socialist institutions that rob property from all Americans and distribute it according to the federal government’s whims. They all started with the promise that the government would take a percentage of everyone’s income and stash it away in a safe account, and would only pull from that account to pay out benefits of these programs. However that promise was quickly broken, the money was spent, and the programs have since been funded by inter-generational theft. In other words, a Ponzi-scheme of epic proportions. The people who are working for a living now are paying the current bills for the people who are retired. This is exactly the same scam that Bernie Madoff was pulling, except that the amounts are in the Trillions instead of in the Millions, and we are all forced to participate unwillingly. At least Madoff’s investors had a choice.

No Ponzi-scheme is sustainable, just as no socialist program is sustainable, and so what we are facing now is the inevitable end of these social programs as they bankrupt the United States government, as the following chart illustrates:

What you can see here is that the amount of government spending on these programs (green, blue, light blue) has become the largest chunk of the federal budget, equal to the total amount of all of the other government programs. What’s worse is that the government is doing nothing to reduce its debt, and in fact these programs are adding to the debt, so the interest owed (red) is ballooning out of control. This graph shows this trend proceeding out to 2080, but the fact of reality is that investors are not dumb, and they will not continue to invest in the US government if nothing is done to change these trends. Countries like China who buy US Debt as well as individuals who buy US Bonds won’t continue to do so forever, especially in light of their current policies. Long story short, all Americans are headed for a train wreck thanks to the actions of the federal government.

If there’s one thing the federal government loves it is power, and so they are taking measures to try and delay this catastrophe. One such proposed measure is to raise the legal age of retirement so that the feds can delay paying out the benefits owed to those folks who have been robbed their entire lives. (Notice I don’t say they have paid into the programs: you don’t pay the government, the government takes your money. It isn’t voluntary, therefore it is theft.) A neat little feature of this system the feds have put in place is that every year the retirement age increases automatically by two months, but apparently that isn’t fast enough for our current high-spending politicians, so it has been proposed that the age be raised to 73. Meanwhile, the average life expectancy of an African American man is 70 years, and about a third of South Carolina’s population is African American.

The conclusion that we can draw from all of this is a tragic one, but it is one that we as South Carolinians have to face. Socialism has consequences: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are coming to an end, and the United States Federal Government is going bankrupt. If we do nothing but try and vote in new representatives, we will be caught on that sinking ship as they destroy every remaining bit of freedom and prosperity that we enjoy. The feds have the use of force on their side and the ability to print money out of thin air, so when they go down it won’t be like an individual going bankrupt, where they just lose everything and start over. No, they will try everything possible to prop up their image of legitimacy including printing more and more money (causing rapid inflation), starting wars, stealing more property from Americans, and defaulting on promises they have made in the past, including the “safety net.” All of that money that has been taken from us over the years is gone, and just like with any robbery it is very unlikely that we’ll get any of it back.

So what could we do as a free South Carolina to compensate those who have had so much of their money placed into these programs through the years? If we are successful in reclaiming our independence, what will happen to all of those folks who are expecting to get something back out of medicare, medicaid, and social security?

First of all, and most importantly: we as South Carolinians will be able to make this decision for ourselves. Instead of sending a few representatives to Washington, DC to be outnumbered by the populous states, we will be able to solve these problems ourselves through our State government.

Let’s consider a few possibilities:

* South Carolinians decide to simply end Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
This solution is the most improbable, but it deserves some discussion. People who have been robbed all their lives to pay for these programs would lose all of that money, so it would probably be a very unpopular solution. (note that they will also lose all of that money when the US goes bankrupt if we don’t secede.) However, the economic prosperity that would come from the lack of taxes and debt required to pay for these programs might be worth it, along with the moral clarity of not using younger folks as slaves to pay for benefits.
* South Carolinians decide to phase out Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
We could devise an interim solution consisting of two parts: an age cutoff and a temporary funding source. The age cutoff would be a number such that anyone younger than that number would not receive any benefits. It could be set at 40, 45, 50, etc, depending on how long we want to have this crushing debt burden and how many people are willing to give up the benefits. The funding source could be one of many things: the state could sell off land, the state could run a lottery system, people could voluntarily donate to the funds, there could be a temporary sales tax, etc. This interim solution will need to be worked out by the representatives of the people, but it is probably our best hope at taking care of our seniors and avoiding catastrophe.
* South Carolinians decide to continue Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
A third possible solution would be that in a free South Carolina the people decide to keep the existing programs as they are. While I personally would hate to see this happen because of the nature of socialism, it is a possibility. An independent South Carolina wouldn’t have to pay for things like hundreds of military bases and hundreds of thousands of troops around the globe (as the US government does,) so the people could decide to keep the payroll taxes and keep the social programs. I believe this is the worst option because it would lead to high taxes and runaway debt just like we have with feds.

In summary, the “safety net” of the federal government is quickly turning into a death trap that is sucking our economy dry and eroding all of our liberties. Along with these unfunded liabilities, the most populous states are going bankrupt and getting federal bailouts, yet not changing any of their policies. The federal government is creating money out of thin air to pay for all of these things, but that simply cannot go on forever. The longer we wait as South Carolinians to reclaim our own independence, the worse things are going to get. If we want to restore our liberty we are going to have to make sacrifices and make hard decisions, but at least we’ll be free and independent so we can do what is in the best interests of the people of South Carolina.

US Is Bankrupt and We Don’t Even Know

August 13, 2010

by Laurence Kotlikoff


(Editor’s Note: I posted this one “as is,” to show you that even the economists in a Ruling Class Boston University are not blind to the fiscal and economic disaster looming just over the horizon. But even double taxation won’t work, since doubling all taxes would kill the economy, and DC would not collect what it needs. No, ladies and gentlemen, even the most logical solutions to fix America will not work. And keep in mind…the solutions he proffers would not affect a state that secedes from the Union. The IMF can go pound sand.)

Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt. Neither spending more nor taxing less will help the country pay its bills.

What it can and must do is radically simplify its tax, health-care, retirement and financial systems, each of which is a complete mess. But this is the good news. It means they can each be redesigned to achieve their legitimate purposes at much lower cost and, in the process, revitalize the economy.

Last month, the International Monetary Fund released its annual review of U.S. economic policy. Its summary contained these bland words about U.S. fiscal policy: “Directors welcomed the authorities’ commitment to fiscal stabilization, but noted that a larger than budgeted adjustment would be required to stabilize debt-to-GDP.”

But delve deeper, and you will find that the IMF has effectively pronounced the U.S. bankrupt. Section 6 of the July 2010 Selected Issues Paper says: “The U.S. fiscal gap associated with today’s federal fiscal policy is huge for plausible discount rates.” It adds that “closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 percent of U.S. GDP.”

The fiscal gap is the value today (the present value) of the difference between projected spending (including servicing official debt) and projected revenue in all future years.

Double Our Taxes

To put 14 percent of gross domestic product in perspective, current federal revenue totals 14.9 percent of GDP. So the IMF is saying that closing the U.S. fiscal gap, from the revenue side, requires, roughly speaking, an immediate and permanent doubling of our personal-income, corporate and federal taxes as well as the payroll levy set down in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

Such a tax hike would leave the U.S. running a surplus equal to 5 percent of GDP this year, rather than a 9 percent deficit. So the IMF is really saying the U.S. needs to run a huge surplus now and for many years to come to pay for the spending that is scheduled. It’s also saying the longer the country waits to make tough fiscal adjustments, the more painful they will be.

Is the IMF bonkers?

No. It has done its homework. So has the Congressional Budget Office whose Long-Term Budget Outlook, released in June, shows an even larger problem.

‘Unofficial’ Liabilities

Based on the CBO’s data, I calculate a fiscal gap of $202 trillion, which is more than 15 times the official debt. This gargantuan discrepancy between our “official” debt and our actual net indebtedness isn’t surprising. It reflects what economists call the labeling problem. Congress has been very careful over the years to label most of its liabilities “unofficial” to keep them off the books and far in the future.

For example, our Social Security FICA contributions are called taxes and our future Social Security benefits are called transfer payments. The government could equally well have labeled our contributions “loans” and called our future benefits “repayment of these loans less an old age tax,” with the old age tax making up for any difference between the benefits promised and principal plus interest on the contributions.

The fiscal gap isn’t affected by fiscal labeling. It’s the only theoretically correct measure of our long-run fiscal condition because it considers all spending, no matter how labeled, and incorporates long-term and short-term policy.

$4 Trillion Bill

How can the fiscal gap be so enormous?

Simple. We have 78 million baby boomers who, when fully retired, will collect benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that, on average, exceed per-capita GDP. The annual costs of these entitlements will total about $4 trillion in today’s dollars. Yes, our economy will be bigger in 20 years, but not big enough to handle this size load year after year.

This is what happens when you run a massive Ponzi scheme for six decades straight, taking ever larger resources from the young and giving them to the old while promising the young their eventual turn at passing the generational buck.

Herb Stein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under U.S. President Richard Nixon, coined an oft-repeated phrase: “Something that can’t go on, will stop.” True enough. Uncle Sam’s Ponzi scheme will stop. But it will stop too late.

And it will stop in a very nasty manner. The first possibility is massive benefit cuts visited on the baby boomers in retirement. The second is astronomical tax increases that leave the young with little incentive to work and save. And the third is the government simply printing vast quantities of money to cover its bills.

Worse Than Greece

Most likely we will see a combination of all three responses with dramatic increases in poverty, tax, interest rates and consumer prices. This is an awful, downhill road to follow, but it’s the one we are on. And bond traders will kick us miles down our road once they wake up and realize the U.S. is in worse fiscal shape than Greece.

Some doctrinaire Keynesian economists would say any stimulus over the next few years won’t affect our ability to deal with deficits in the long run.

This is wrong as a simple matter of arithmetic. The fiscal gap is the government’s credit-card bill and each year’s 14 percent of GDP is the interest on that bill. If it doesn’t pay this year’s interest, it will be added to the balance.

Demand-siders say forgoing this year’s 14 percent fiscal tightening, and spending even more, will pay for itself, in present value, by expanding the economy and tax revenue.

My reaction? Get real, or go hang out with equally deluded supply-siders. Our country is broke and can no longer afford no- pain, all-gain “solutions.”

Laurence J. Kotlikoff is a professor of economics at Boston University and author of “Jimmy Stewart Is Dead: Ending the World’s Ongoing Financial Plague with Limited Purpose Banking.” The opinions expressed are his own.

You can view the Professor’s interview at: Kotlikoff Interview
Copyright 2010

The Georgia Governor’s Race: Meet The New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

August 12, 2010

Tuesday August 10th was the Republican primary runoff. The two finalists were former Congressman Nathan Deal and former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel. Deal squeaked out a victory by only about 2,400 votes.

The primary vote tells me that the citizens of Georgia like politicians who are part of the System, rather than political outsiders. And that means that the citizens of the State of Georgia have no stomach for secession on any level.

At the beginning of the year, Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine was the odds-on favorite. Polls showed him ahead of all other Republican candidates by at least 20 points. One of his campaign “planks” was to eliminate the Georgia state income tax, which should have been wildly popular. The nomination was his to lose.

And he lost it. Or perhaps it is better said that it was stolen from him.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution must have not wanted Oxendine to be Governor. They trotted out stories of old ethics investigations, some over 14 years old, that besmirched Oxendine’s reputation. The headlines were huge, but the findings that there was no breach of ethics were hard to find. Naturally, the lazy TV stations’ news staffs used the newspaper’s stories as their sources and ran the stories over and over. Oxendine was unable to overcome this attack, and in the first primary, he came in fourth.

Karen Handel ran a great campaign, and she has an impeccable record of service in Georgia. She was current Governor Sonny Perdue’s choice to succeed him. But that was not enough to take the primary from Nathan Deal.

Consider Nathan Deal. Deal went to Congress in 1992 as a Democrat. He switched to the Republican Party in 1995 after the Gingrich windstorm swept a bunch of Republicans into Georgia congressional seats in the Fall 1994 elections. On March 29, 2010, the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report concluding that Mr. Deal improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) lists Deal as one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress, for trying to influence officials for personal gain.¹

Curiously, that story never got traction in Georgia. Here is a guy that has been proven to have violated his ethical responsibilities, and he’s Teflon. Karen Handel beat this drum in nearly every one of her TV campaign ads. But Oxendine gets investigated and found not guilty of ethics violations, and he’s given the bum’s rush. And Handel ends up in second place.

No one has to tell me that politics is a blood sport. I get that. I’m just telling you gentle readers that this article is much more about the mindset of Georgia voters than about the qualifications of the candidates.

Georgia Republican voters have sent a message. They have said…with their votes…that a guy who has 18 years’ experience as a Congressional insider is more desirable to them as the Republican candidate for Governor. They want a Governor who knows how to get things done in Washington…even if his hands are dirty. And how can you blame them? When DC is the heart that pumps Federal blood to Georgia, why would you want someone unfamiliar with the congressional circulatory system?

Now here comes the other shoe dropping…the Democratic candidate.

Roy Barnes is the former Georgia Governor and the Dem’s candidate. He clubbed all the other candidates in the Democratic primary. Roy was Governor from 1999 to 2003. He was a country lawyer and spent many years in the Georgia Legislature before becoming Governor. His term was marked by mild controversy over the old “stars-and-bars” Georgia flag, and educational changes he made that angered union school teachers. He was replaced by Republican Sonny Purdue in November 2002 in a Republican mid-term sweep. In Roy’s campaign ads, he said that other states are “making fun” of Georgia over discussions about secession in the Georgia Senate.

So, the choice for Georgia in November is a corrupt Republican former Congressman and a do-nothing Democrat former Governor.

No one is talking about how broken Washington is. No one is talking about the collapse of the dollar. No one is talking about the Georgia militia, or even thinking about establishing their own money. Georgia is safely tucked into the vest pocket of the DC criminal class.

The Georgia citizens continue to validate the hopelessly broken and irreparable Federal system by their willing participation in meaningless elections. Voters are willing to hold their noses and vote. They are happy to choose party apparachiks over principled candidates. They would rather be Americans than Georgians.

Is it any wonder that I wrote the article Stop Voting?

Secession is the hope for mankind. Who will be first?

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2010, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.