All posts by Yitzhak Goldstein

Bill O’Reilly Lays an Egg- The Strategic Blunder Conservative’s Commonly Make

Part I

Why is the Left in a violent-mob frenzy to rewrite American history transforming its heroes, traditions, and founding principles into villains and ideas to be reviled? Why would conservatives pursue the strategy of conceding an adversary’s lie as the starting point to win a broader argument? They do this all the time. Radio conservatives from Sean Hannity to Chris Stigall,1 sling around the term “McCarthyism” attempting to pin this practice on Democrats. The problem is, McCarthyism isn’t “McCarthyism”. Like using “racist” to silence opposition, the Left invented it to dissuade anyone from looking into what they were up to in the 1930’s and 40’s. I did for my Master’s thesis and I know what they’re hiding. Conservatives who use this term are accomplices of the Left in doing a Jimmy Hoffa on the greatest spy and treason scandal in America’s history. In an attempt to paint modern Democrats as racists, Mark Levin and Chris Plante relish in pointing out Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy were Democrats. Their hands are on the same shovel liberals use to bury reasons, beyond slavery, why the South seceded; state’s rights, federalism, and government in unconstitutional service to northern business interests. One researching this history might discover the U.S. government functions so far outside the law, the Constitution is dead. Statists in both parties can’t allow this to happen. On Monday 11 September 2023, Mark Levin declared 9/11 was one of the worst attacks on America second only, not to Pearl Habor but the Confederacy’s “attack”.2 Utter rubbish. The lot of them are doing the Left’s dirty work.

The Left’s historical revisionism is motivated by a desire to destroy the principles upon which America was founded. Why do conservatives aid and abet them? Perhaps they concede small skirmishes waiting to fight the large battles. If they fought the small skirmishes, there might be no large battles. The following is an example of this blunder.

In his book Killing England, political commentator and pop-history co-author Bill O’Reilly besmirches two heroes of the American Revolution. The first in vicarious service to the Homosexual movement. O’Reilly determines as true, the slander Baron von Steuben, a Prussian military officer credited with whipping the Continental Army into shape, was homosexual. The second supports the Left’s war to destroy America. He reprises the long-debunked smear Thomas Jefferson sired six children by house slave, Sally Hemings, writing she “will share master Jefferson’s bed as his lover”.3

And what is O’Reilly’s proof? The “consensus” of modern historians. Historians that are overwhelmingly liberal. Consensus is not scholarship. It is opinion based on a vote. Truth cannot be determined by a majority vote. It can only be determined by hard evidence, solid irrefutable facts, and serious scholarship. O’Reilly insists he is correct about von Steuben and Jefferson. Why? He claims to be an historian. Is this true?

O’Reilly graduated college with an undergraduate degree in history as did I. He taught history for two years in a Catholic high school. I taught history for over two decades in a public high school. That makes us historians, right? Not so fast. O’Reilly holds a Masters’ degree in Broadcast Journalism and Public Administration, mine is actually in history. They are not interchangeable. Basing truth in consensus was the first red flag. Claiming expertise in a professional discipline in which he is untrained is number two. The third is the indefensible absence of end/footnotes, a tactic used by Communist history writer, Howard Zinn.

O’Reilly is not an historian. Instead, he churns out derivative digests synthesizing previously published works of real historians. His book offers nothing new, original, or novel. Why are they popular? Written at the high school level, they appeal to those possessing a shallow knowledge of history. Such readers are ill-equipped to evaluate the historicity of his books. What of O’Reilly’s historical knowledge? It might be prodigious but memorizing a medical library does not make one a doctor.

Every discipline, from astronomy, engineering, geometry, martial arts, medicine, music, to crime lab forensics follow standardized rules, methodologies, protocols, and practices. Individuals are not pronounced black belts, biologists, lawyers, nurses, and so forth until an accredited governing body trained in their discipline, determines they satisfy all requirements. It is no different in the field of history.

Historians do more than take classes. They must be trained and this is done in graduate school. When I started, the director showed me two filing cabinet drawers. The top one was packed full with folders of those accepted into the program. The bottom drawer contained one lonely folder, those few who survived to the end. After years of foundational courses, history students move to methodology classes. They are essential to becoming a trained historian. Students learn how to find and use primary sources, how to sift secondary ones for validity, and how to separate necessary from unnecessary information to support their work. They will write many sourced research papers. At the end of course work, they face the graduate exam. In my case, three professors submitted four essay questions. It took me six hours to answer them. But this is just the beginning. Next is the thesis, the part of the program that kills off so many applicants.

To be declared an historian, the candidate must write and defend a thesis before experts in their field. It is an original work and must either 1) Present a new interpretation of an historical event based on new evidence heretofore not seen, or 2) present an entirely new and possibly novel reinterpretation of an historical event challenging existing ones. O’Reilly has done none of the above. He has not written or defended a thesis in history, an absolute requirement for one to claim the status of historian.

A thesis requires students be detectives, anthropologists, archeologists, sociologists, and forensic scientists. Like crime scene and automobile collision investigators, they collect as much physical evidence as possible, establish chronologies, interview witnesses, and consider prior writing on the subject. This will take one to two years or more. They analyze and draw conclusions, then organize it into a coherent integrated explanation. It must address contrary interpretations and opinions explaining why the student’s is the superior one. O’Reilly ignored information contrary to his consensus conclusion, red flag number four. Writing the thesis will take another year… as long as one can live on little sleep. Thesis advisers will demand students rewrite major portions, scrap the whole affair and start over from scratch, rewrite major portions of the rewrite, scrap them, start over again, and so on. Finally, when their adviser concludes the student has produced a proper thesis, the real fun begins. The student must defend his or her work before a panel of professors all authorities in the thesis’ subject matter. They will attack it from every angle and try to tear it down forcing candidates to demonstrate they know their subject. It is no fun. As a policeman, I faced aggressive and hostile attorneys on the stand trying to pick apart my testimony. The thesis defense is worse. This is why those who survive to the end, bristle when people like O’Reilly claim to be historians. He is a journalist, not an historian. It explains why he botched stories of two men so badly.

Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin von Steuben was born into a military family following his father’s footsteps into the Prussian Army rising to the rank of captain. A local prince in Baden inducted him into the Order of Fidelity conferring upon him the title of baron. Steuben became part of the royal court. Soon thereafter, an anonymous enemy circulated rumors Steuben sodomized young men, a charge he denied. Unfounded or not, a rumor of such dreadful nature was enough to cause expulsion from the court and military. His accuser was never known, no victims identified, and no evidence surfaced that Steuben was homosexual. Nevertheless, liberal historians conclude he was guilty. Steuben relocated to France hoping to repair his military career. It was there he met Benjamin Franklin on a mission to obtain financial aid for America’s war with Britain. Franklin recommended Steuben to the Continental Army. He sailed to North America and joined General George Washington at Valley Forge and was instrumental in fashioning his army into an effective fighting force.4

Historian and Steuben expert John McCauley Palmer writes accusations von Steuben was homosexual were most likely driven by personal jealousies and religious hatred. He was a Protestant in the Catholic royal court of Hohenzollern-Hechingen Prince Josef Wilhelm. After conducting an investigation, Wilhelm concluded the charges were baseless. The unknown enemy continued circulating rumors forcing Steuben to leave the royal court.5

Professor of history Michael Lynch notes the LGBT movement is attempting to rewrite history falsely claiming Founding Fathers welcomed open homosexuals because of their contributions to the founding. Their websites trumpet Steuben was homosexual.6 They feverishly scour historical records looking for tell-tale signs only they can see, important personages were homosexuals. The dead cannot defend their reputations from such horrid smears. They denounce defenders of the accused as “homophobes” trying to destroy anyone standing on Biblical truth with respect to homosexuality.

The liberal History Channel claims Steuben was homosexual. Fancy that, a homosexual serving on the staff of an army for which the Continental Congress drafted rules governing the conduct of soldiers forbidding homosexuals to serve. Moreover, General Washington court martialed Lieutenant Enslin for attempting to sodomize enlisted man John Monhort. Enslin was found guilty of violating Article 5, Section 18, of the Articles of War. Washington ordered Enslin drummed from the Army “with infamy”. He considered sodomy abhorrent and detestable.7 Yet the History Channel would have us believe he had no problem with this Prussian chap who desired to bugger young soldiers in his tent. Laws against sodomy were extant throughout pre and postwar America. Notions the Army would countenance let alone welcome homosexuals is preposterous.

Does O’Reilly address exculpatory evidence with respect to Steuben? No. Palmer’s book was written in 1937, are there newer books with new evidence? Newer books yes, new evidence, no. How can O’Reilly ignore the homosexual movement’s frenzy to claim everyone from the apostle Paul, George Patton, to Bugs Bunny were homosexuals? They are desperate to find masculine homosexual heroes to counter their image as effeminate males with an affinity for buttless chaps and marching divest of clothing in depraved parades. Next, O’Reilly resuscitates one of the most reprehensible libels ever promoted serving in the process as a handmaiden to Left. He writes the Jefferson Foundation proved through DNA Thomas Jefferson fathered six children by his slave mistress Sally Hemings.8 His proof? Its that consensus thing, again. What about the DNA test? Jefferson hasn’t been around to provide a sample for quite some time but I’ll address that soon.

Dumas Mallone’s six-volume biography is perhaps the most thorough published on Jefferson. He writes this lie, about Jefferson “emanated from a single poisoned spring”, James Thomson Callander whom the president “unwisely befriended”.9 Callander was a Scottish pamphleteer who wrote tracks attacking the Crown and Parliament and was indicted for sedition. He fled to North America picking up where he left off writing pamphlets attacking the Federalist Party and the Adam’s administration. Jefferson considered him useful to the Republican Party, strong opponents of the Federalists. In economic straits, Callander appealed to Jefferson. He provided him irregular monetary gifts including funds to write a book on American history. Callander authored an unsigned document exposing Alexander Hamilton’s affair with the wife of James Reynolds who used it to blackmail Hamilton.10

In giving Callander monetary gifts, Jefferson unwittingly left himself vulnerable to blackmail as well. Callander’s pamphlets attacking Adams on behalf of Republicans led to his arrest for sedition. He was fined $200 dollars and sent to prison. Jefferson promised to pay the fine but didn’t follow through for which Callander never forgave him. He was able to raise the funds, pay the fine, and was released from prison. James Monroe later pardoned Callander and the court remitted the fine.11 He then asked for a meeting with President Jefferson in Washington, D.C. He met with the president’s representative demanding appointment as Postmaster for Richmond, Virginia. He threatened to blackmail Jefferson by making public damaging letters and documents. He did not receive the appointment.12 In March 1801, Callander began attacking Jefferson in Federalist controlled newspapers. He revealed Jefferson paid him to attack Adams. This was “fully exploited by Federalist Papers including the best of them, Hamilton’s organ, the New York Evening Post”. At the end of 1802, Callander published his sensational claim Jefferson sired five children by black slave, Sally Hemings. He had never been to Monticello nor spoken with anyone who lived there including Sally Hemings.13 He claimed ambassador Jefferson took Hemings, as his concubine, along with his two cherished daughters to France. He described Hemings’ alleged children by Jefferson as very black when, in fact, Hemings was light complected to the point, children sired by Jefferson might have passed for white. Callander invented children that did not exist.14

So-called Federalists were anything but. They were Nationalists advocating consolidating all and unlimited power into a strong national government, rendering states merely its appendages. Republicans supported a federal government of limited powers and preservation of state’s reserved rights. The Constitution accomplished the latter but faux-Federalists worked to transform a federal into a national system necessitating Jefferson’s destruction. Callander’s calumny proved most useful in that endeavor.15

Then and now, there is no evidence or corroboration for Callander’s claim. It would have been “virtually unthinkable” for a “man of Jefferson’s moral standards and habitual conduct”. He was “fastidious” and devoted to his “dead wife’s memory and to the happiness of his daughters and grandchildren” which “bordered on the excessive”. None visiting or living at Monticello at that time noticed an affair. As was customary then, Jefferson did not comment on the accusations. He believed his moral life and standards spoke for themselves.16

Jefferson’s contemporaries and subsequent historians rejected Callander’s story. It lay dormant until 1974 when Fawn A. Brodie published a book using Freudian psychoanalysis to insist it was true. Barbara Riboud picked up the theme writing a novel depicting Jefferson having the affair. Suppressed memory hypnosis and a fictional novel were not enough to wave CBS off. Instead, the liberal network, practicing fake history, turned the books into a television miniseries. After historians “denounced the project as a preposterous lie”, CBS canceled it.17 “In 1998, retired pathologists Dr. Eugene Foster performed a DNA test on the Y chromosomes” of Sally Hemings’ male descendants. It revealed Tom, “Hemings first born son” who Callander claimed was Jefferson’s, “was not related to any Jefferson male”. However, Easton, Hemings last child, was descended from a male Jefferson but there was no way to say Thomas was the father. Why? Twenty-five Jefferson males lived in Virginia at the time, eight at or near Monticello. Moreover, Easton was born five years after Callander published his story when Jefferson was president. If Jefferson denied Tom was his son, why would he father Easton five years later when having a slave concubine would destroy him?18

Liberal newspapers rushed Foster’s work to press falsely claiming it proved the story about Jefferson and Hemings was true. I was a teacher at the time when a liberal biology instructor burst into the copy room gleefully and mockingly announcing the story about Jefferson had been proven by DNA. I had read the rebuttal debunking this claim and began to explain it. He said because I was not a biology teacher, I didn’t know what I was talking about. I placed a copy of the rebuttal in his mailbox. There was no apology.

DNA tests revealed all but one Jefferson male had a 15% chance of fathering Easton. It dropped to 4% for Thomas meaning the chances he was not Easton’s father is 96%. No letters, diaries, documents, or records among the large Jefferson and Hemings families mention an affair. Evidence points to Thomas’ brother Randolph. Easton was born in 1808 when Thomas was 64 and serving his second term as president. Randolph was 52 and his five sons ranged from ages 17 to 24. A

11 The Chris Stigall Show, KCMO 710AM Radio, 8 September, 2023.

22 The Mark Levin Show, KCMO 710Am Radio 11 September, 2023.

33 Bill O’Reilly, Killing England (New York, N.Y., Henry Holt and Company, 2017). 187, 188, 198.

44 Erick Trickey, “The Prussian Nobleman Who Helped Save the American Revolution”, April 26 2017, Smithsonian, at https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/baron-von-steuben-19096L30481

55 John McCauley Palmer, General Von Steuben (New Haven Connecticut, Yale University Press, 1937), 94.

66 Michael Lynch, “Our Gaydar Seems Broken”, Past In the Present at https://pastinthepresent.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/our-gaydar-seems-to-be-broken/

77 General Orders 14 March 1778, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/washington/03-14-02–138.

88 O’Reilly, 198.

99 Dumas Mallone, Jefferson the President: First Term 1801-1805 (Boston, Massachusetts, Little Brown and Company, 1970), 206-207.

1010 Dumas Mallone, Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty (Boston, Massachusetts, Little, Brown, and Company, 1962), 326-327, 331, 332.

1111 Mallone, Jefferson the President, 207-208.

1212 IBID. 207-208, 210.

1313 IBID. 211, 212.

1414 IBID. 212-213.

1515 IBID. 218.

1616 IBID. 214.

1717 Ann Coulter, “Was Thomas Jefferson on the Duke Lacrosse Team”? July 9, 2019, updated August 12 2020, The Marshall News Messenger, Friday May 5, 2023 at https://marshallnewsmessenger.com/opinion/columns/ann-coulter-was-thomas-jefferson-on-the-duke-lacrosse-team/article-20eed382-a-05a-11c9-bcb0-436538f71

1818 IBID.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Defending the Constitution by Endorsing its Enemies?

How can one defend Constitutional integrity by endorsing the view of its enemies? How can one defend its meaning if ignorant of that meaning? The former is akin to an attorney telling the jury every word uttered by prosecutors with respect to his client’s guilt is true, but, find him not guilty anyway. The latter would be like a football team taking the field having spent zero time studying and learning their plays. Both are doomed to failure.

Chris Stigall is a conservative radio talk show host out in Kansas City, Missouri. The Pacific Legal Foundation, headquartered in Sacramento, California, is a conservative nonprofit defending American’s individual and property rights in Court against abuse by the federal government. I was able to pick up the Stigall Show on Monday 3 October 2022. He was interviewing an attorney for Pacific Legal about a pending case. During the discussion, she said, and Stigall agreed, under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the authority to regulate anything that crosses state lines. Both are profoundly wrong. Prior to penning this refutation, I attempted to contact Stigall through several channels including his station manager, without success. That conservatives are ignorant of the Constitution to the point of endorsing interpretations counter to its meaning, is testament to public education’s success in teaching an imposter. The talk show host and attorney’s error possibly stem from a misapprehension with respect to America’s form of government, nature of delegated powers, state’s reserved powers, and meaning of the Commerce Clause.

America has a federal not national form of government. Although these terms are used interchangeably by teachers, they are, in fact, not at all the same. Under a national system, all power is consolidated in a central government and states comprise its regional subdivisions and have little or no autonomy. The central government makes all laws and applies them to states irrespective of local interests.1 America has a federal system in which States created the general government and delegated to it finite powers. Its authority is limited to international relations, foreign trade, war, copyrights, and standardization of currency, weights and measures, and a postal system. States are not political subdivisions of the general government but retain independent authority within their boundaries.2 They also have the right to take back powers they delegated to the federal government.3 States reserved all powers to themselves over domestic affairs. Federal and state power operate in separate autonomous spheres. Like trains, they run on parallel but separate tracks that do not intersect.4 States enumerated the federal government’s 18 powers in Article 1, Section 8. Any power not delegated is a power denied to the federal government. State’s exclusive authority over non-delegated powers is codified in the Tenth Amendment.5

The federal government may exercise only its enumerated powers and may not create implied from explicit ones. It may acquire new or expanded powers only through the amendment process. Only states may amend the Constitution. It cannot be amended by any branch of the federal government through interpretation. It may not make national laws as those operate on and within states which would violate the 10th Amendment. How does this relate to the Commerce Clause?

The Clause reads;

“The Congress shall have Power: To regulate commerce with foreign Nations,

and among the several States, with the Indian Tribes” [capitalization in the

original].6

Through the Declaration of Independence (1776), Articles of Confederation (1781), and Treaty of Paris (1783), Britain’s 13 former North American colonies declared they were independent sovereign states (nations) and recognized as such by Great Britain and the world. Each possessed an autonomous government and constitution. To raise revenue and protect native industry and agriculture, states erected tariffs and tolls on goods crossing their borders, by land, sea, and river, from other states. They also disputed the boundaries of western lands won through the war.7 In addition, they made separate trade treaties with foreign powers without regard to whether or not it harmed the interests of other states.

For example, under its colonial charter, Maryland controlled the Potomac River right to Virginia’s shoreline. Both used this river to ship upstate and western goods to the coast. To gain access to the river, Virginia successfully negotiated a trade treaty with Maryland. James Madison and others believed similar arrangements might be expanded to include the other eleven states. This might unify them and lead to settlement of western land claims. They called for a Convention to meet in Annapolis, 1785. Some states sent delegates, some arrived too late, and others boycotted. Congress called for a second convention to meet in Philadelphia.8 They met from May through September, 1787, debating and working out a constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. They faced many challenges. Chief among them were trade disputes.

If states created a trade system benefitting all and disadvantaging none, it would diffuse interstate conflicts and bolster their economic strength vis a vis Britain and Europe. A clause eliminating interstate barriers to trade and commerce was the solution. In time, this policy would transform the United States into the “largest area of free trade in the world”. The Commerce Clause would put an end to “mercantilistic systems” of trade.9

John Taylor, perhaps the most towering intellect of the Founding period, noted the power to regulate commerce states delegated to the federal government served two purposes, “to prevent foreign nations from obtaining unjust advantages over the United States” and “to prevent one state from making another tributary to itself”.10 However, and this is crucial, the Commerce Clause delegates to Congress power to regulate trade between the U.S. and three forms of “sovereign entities; the States, foreign nations, and the Indian Tribes”.11 This refers to trade arrangements. It does not grant Congress power over commercial activities in or between states.12 The Commerce Clause’s purpose is to create one voice with respect to foreign trade and to facilitate free trade between states. How is the latter accomplished? By eliminating interstate tariffs and tolls not to erect rules governing commercial activity within and or crossing state lines.

In Federalist 42, James Madison explained the Commerce Clause only delegated to the federal government authority over international trade but not over the commercial activities within states or crossing their borders.13 Under this clause, the federal government makes trade treaties with foreign nations. To argue it empowers a federal government to make national laws governing commercial activities within states is nonsensical. States created the federal government. Did they assign it the function of making trade treaties between it and individual states? Of course not, because states are not foreign nations and commercial activities fall under state’s reserved powers. For example, the federal government may make trade treaties with Indian tribes but it has no authority to make rules governing the manufacture and sale of goods by Indians or sold to non-Indians. It is crucial to keep in mind that commercial activities and trade are not the same.14

The federal government has no authority to make rules governing the manufacture and sale of goods, working conditions, wages, or rules for transportation by air, boat, train or truck, private or public, inter or intrastate. These are functions of state governments.15

Madison noted delegates to the federal convention used the term commerce 34 times during debate and discussion typically in reference to trade with foreign nations. They used the terms commerce and trade interchangeably. This was true for the 63 times authors of the Federalist Papers [Hamilton, Madison, and Jay] used the terms. No delegate to the federal and subsequent state ratifying conventions, used these terms to mean other than trade.16

In Federalist 45, Madison wrote;

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government

are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are

numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external

objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the

power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to

the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of

affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal

order, improvement and prosperity of the State”.17

What about the word “regulate”? Does it not mean the federal government has authority to control commercial activity? Does not control necessarily imply authority to make rules governing such activities in states, especially if it crosses state lines?

Fortunately, we have a treasure trove of documents from the framers. They demonstrate the common usage of the word “regulate” with respect to the Commerce Clause did not mean authority to make rules governing commercial activity. On the contrary, it means “to keep moving” to make regular. The Clause’s purpose is to keep trade moving by, as noted, eliminating interstate tariffs and tolls. The federal government’s power is reactive. It may remove barriers to interstate trade but may make no rules governing commercial activity.

Article 1, section 9, clause 6 states;

“No preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue, to the

ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels to or from one State, be

obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another [capitalization in the original].18

The Article is clear, Congress’s commerce power is to eliminate specific trade policies, employed by states, favoring their domestic industries and commercial activities at the expense of sister states.

Comparing the Constitution’s sections on commerce, with the dictionary extant at the time [1785 edition of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language], it is clear commerce is defined as trade not the manufacture and sale of goods or any other gainful activity. This includes all phases of agricultural production and trade between individuals.19 Hence, the federal government has zero authority to make national laws governing the economic activities of private individuals, companies, or states within or crossing state borders.

Vice President John C. Calhoun, regrettably binned by modernity over his views on slavery, was correct in observing regulation of commerce applies to relations between the United States and foreign nations. Congress cannot “regulate” commercial activities within or between states because such power belongs only to a national form of government and the United States is constituted a federal republic. Calhoun noted the only time the clause would empower the federal government in relations with states would be if one chose to erect tariffs on goods from other states.20

University Professor of Law and Government, Randy E. Barnett, notes in every case when the Constitution’s framers used the word “commerce”, the “narrowest” construction is employed. The phrase “among the states” referred to trade between states and “regulate” meant “to make regular”. Again, Congress has no authority to make rules governing economic activity in any state whether it crosses state lines or not.21

Professor St. George Tucker, an officer in the Virginia Militia during the War of Independence, and later law professor, wrote the Constitution never authorized the federal government to regulate or interfere with domestic commerce in any way. The Commerce Clause was designed to protect domestic commercial activity from federal interference. States never delegated Congress authority to make rules for any form of economic activity among people, businesses, and states.22 Yet, today, Congress and the Court interpret “to regulate” opposite of its meaning. Justice Clarence Thomas observes the “original meaning” (indicating the current one is in error) of commerce “was limited to the ‘trade and exchange’ of goods and transportation for this purpose”. Courts today have turned this meaning on its head by applying it to “any gainful activity”.23

A common understanding of the Commerce Clause remained consistent throughout the founding era. There is “not a single example from the reports of these proceedings [drafting and ratifying the Constitution] that unambiguously used the broad meaning of commerce, and many instances where the context makes clear that the speaker intended a narrow meaning”.24

Professor Brion McClanahan writes, since Chief Justice John Marshall, who was a strong proponent of a national as opposed to federal system, used Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) to create for Congress a “right to regulate interstate commerce”.25 Marshall had access to founding documents and even spoke in favor of ratification at the Virginia Convention. He knew the meaning and intent of the Commerce Clause. He knew Congress has no authority to regulate private or public economic activities inter or intrastate. But he, like Alexander Hamilton, supported abolishing state governments by consolidating all power in a national government. He ruled, Congress could intervene and make rules for commerce “within a single state” if it affected trade with or in another state.26 In so doing, he overturned the Constitution. From Marbury v. Madison (1803) McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and subsequent cases, Marshall created from thin air, a new power for Congress rejected to it by the States and Constitution.

Marshall believed the framers meaning and intent for the Commerce Clause was “too narrow”. Congress should have the power to intervene in the economic affairs of state and people. He wrote, “The manner in which the Congress decides to regulate commerce is completely at the discretion of Congress”.27 Of course, he did. Such power would go a long way toward transforming a federal into a national system and destroy state’s reserved powers. Subsequent Courts built precedent on Marshall’s invalid rulings.

For many years they were successfully opposed by Presidents and Governors but, with the passage of time, and for various reasons, Americans began to accept this rewriting of the Constitution and extralegal abolition of the 10th Amendment. Federal Courts ruled Congress could now make laws governing all economic activities within and across state lines if such activities had a “substantial effect (determined by Congress and the Court), on other states. This is an open-ended grant of power because any “activity when taken in the aggregate, could be said to have a ‘substantial effect” on interstate trade. Marshall and subsequent courts eviscerated limits on Congress’s power.28

States created a federal not national government. Through the Constitution, they delegated to it limited and defined powers. They include foreign relations, international trade, war, and standardization of currency, weights and measurements, copyrights, and a postal system. States did not surrender but reserved all other powers to themselves. No federal branch of government, legislative, executive, or judicial, was given the power of judicial review. None has the sole or final authority to interpret the Constitution’s meaning. That right belongs to the people. Consolidationists at the federal convention proposed granting this power to the federal court but delegates voted it down knowing full well States would never ratify the proposed constitution if it contained such a provision. Therefore, the Court has zero authority to rule on the constitutionality of any law, federal or state. The Commerce Clause was written to prohibit states from restricting the free flow of interstate goods through internal tariffs and tolls. Period. Congress has no authority to regulate the economic activities of people, businesses, private or public, within states or because they cross an imaginary line.

How can anyone defend what they know little or nothing about? This amounts to an inexcusable forfeiture on the battlefield. As one who taught government for more than two decades in the public high school system, I am well aware what they teach is an imposter in place of the real Constitution. This is no excuse for conservatives and those claiming to be originalists, to promote the same imposter. After all, I too was taught the false constitution. I took the time to find the real one and others should as well. You may be surprised to discover how far removed, the one taught in public schools, is from the Constitution ratified by the Thirteen States. Hint, no amendments were ever passed to change the intended, and now opposite, meaning of t

11 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 192), 12.

22 Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1996), 500.

33 Yale Law School, Avalon Project, Ratification declarations by States, at https://www.avalon.yale.edu/18th-century/ratsc.ap.

44 John Taylor of Caroline Virginia, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, James McClellan, editor (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1823/2000), 7-8, 20-21, 27, 29, 42-43, 136, 203, 207-213.

55 IBID. 1, 189-190, 255, 257-258, Carson, 40.

66 Harold J. Spaeth & Edward Conrad Smith HarperCollins College Outline: The Constitution of the United States, 13th Edition (New York, N.Y., HarperPerrenial A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1991), 202.

77 Rebecca Brooks Gruver, An American History Volume 1 to 1877, Second Edition (Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1976), 165-174, 184.

88 Ralph Ketcham, James Madison A Biography (Charlottesville, Virginia, University Press of Virginia, 1996), 169-171.

99 Forrest McDonald, Novo Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 1998), 18, 266.

1010 Taylor, 328-329.

1111 Edwin Meese III, Matthew Spalding, David Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 107.

1212 IBID. 100.

1313 James Madison, The Federalist Papers , Clinton Rossiter, editor (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book from New American Library, 1961), 264-268.

1414 IBID. Federalists 42 and 45, 269-269, 293.

1515 Brion McClanahan, The Founding Father’s Guide to the Constitution (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2012), 34-56, 86.

1616 Randy Barnett, “The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause”, The University of Chicago Law Review (Winter 2001), 113-114, at http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/origins.html.

1717 Madison, 292-293.

1818 Spaeth & Smith, 203.

1919 Barnett, 13-114.

2020 John C. Calhoun, Selected Writings and Speeches, H. Lee Cheek Jr., Editor, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003), 66-74, 113-114, 272.

2121 Barnett, 112-113, 114-116, 124-125, 142, 146-147.

2222 IBID. 135-136.

2323 IBID. 101-102.

2424 IBID. 112.

2525 McClanahan, Founding Father’s Guide, 50. New York State granted to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton a twenty-year monopoly over commercial shipping on rivers within the state. Aaron Ogden operated steam boats out of New Jersey and wanted a piece of the New York trade. He sued in federal court. See Gibbons v. Ogden, Oyez, LII, Supreme Court Resources, Justia, Supreme Court Center at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/22us1.

2626 Thomas E. Woods Jr., and Kevin R.C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution (New York, N.Y., Crown Forum, Random House, Inc., 2008), 106.

2727 Meese, Spalding, and Forte, 101-102.

2828 Woods, Gutzman, 138.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Canceled-Tales From Behind the Blackboard Curtain

For this narrative, I employ initials rather than names. Not to protect anyone’s identity, nor to provide legal cover from which to besmirch someone’s character. Rather, to utter some names would be akin to reading from an “honor” role of malefactors who should be condemned, not celebrated.

Injuries sustained in the line of duty ended my law enforcement career in 1989. The following year I moved from California’s radical Leftwing Bay area to attend college in the Midwest. Possessing a degree in history, I added one in education. A local school district hired me in 1993 to teach 9th grade American history. Over the next 23 years, I taught American History, Advanced Studies, Comparative Government, U.S. Government (my forte), Modern Global Issues, and World History. In a conservative city now, I walked into my first social studies department meeting believing I was safe from the censure and sanction (denial of promotion and assignments) I endured at the hands of virulent liberals running my former police department. To my surprise, the department brimmed with teachers ranging from liberal to Marxist. They began the meeting trashing out BW, a retiring geography teacher, not present, for being in the NRA. They eviscerated conservatives and former president Reagan with harsh criticism and mocked students whose dads were pastors. They were never shy, dilatory, nor quiet about ensuring everyone heard their opinions. Nor were they tolerant of dissenting views. Having paid a heavy price for being a conservative in California, I kept my mouth shut. Following this eye-opening meeting, I visited BW revealing what had transpired. He said they were all very liberal and cautioned me to watch my back. Silence, then, never expressing my views, would be my protective shield. So I thought.

April 1996, near the end of my third year, department colleague BB, slipped in my room after school shutting the door behind him. He bore a warning. BB said I was “under suspicion” by the social studies department for being a conservative. How could that be? I never spoke at meetings or shared my views with anyone on any subject. He explained being a former policeman was a red flag, but that was not what raised the most alarm. Department mockery and ridicule of conservatives at meetings was relentless. They noticed I never laughed or joined in. My silence was de facto proof of guilt. I scoffed at such nonsense. BB was not laughing. He delivered a prophetic warning. If it turned out I was a conservative, they would never accept me, I would never fit in, and I would have a tough career as a teacher. He could not have been more right. What transpired between 1993 and this tale would fill a book. Maybe two.

Fast forward to the beginning of the 2013 school year. Two juniors, PJ and JS asked me to sponsor their after school club. I was supervising after school detentions so declined. In the spring of 2014, having done my detention duty, four days a week, and some Saturdays, since 1997, I decided it was time to give it up. PJ and JS again pressed me to be a sponsor. I asked what the club was and they said The Sons of Liberty, a college Libertarian organization they wanted to bring to the high school level. I pointed out I was a conservative, not a Libertarian, they knew this, and me as a sponsor would probably not be a good fit. PJ and JS insisted this was not a problem. They only needed a faculty member present in order to meet after school. My role would be nil. Against my better judgment, I agreed. Summer break began and I forgot all about it.

During the first week of school, September 2014, assistant principal and activities director CH summoned me to his office. He was responsible for approving and managing extra-curricular activities and clubs. He asked me about the Sons of Liberty. I explained, I never heard of them. I did a Google search and learned they were a college Libertarian club. That was the extent of my knowledge. I only agreed to be the adult in the room, not take an active role in their activities. CH had reservations about approving the group. He said high school clubs should reflect the general student population, not left or right politically. Down the middle. His comment was odd considering the school sponsored a Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered Student Alliance, as well as a Gender Equity Club. Boys with girlfriends in the latter group told me it was an “angry feminist sounding board”. They were hardly moderate or down the middle. I said nothing in defense of the Libertarian Club. Considering what I had been through the past several years, I was disinclined to stick my neck out for anyone.

Beginning in 2010, a cabal of liberal female mostly social studies teachers, began a campaign to get me fired. RI, with whom I began my career, had ascended to become chair of the social studies department for three high and three junior high schools. She aided and abetted the cabal to an unknown degree. An English teacher, SA, and the Librarian JC, joined them in 2015. I called these six blondes the “Turnip Witches”. Most of them had been with the district less than ten years. They began their campaign by spying on me. They listened outside my door (students caught them) and later hid in an attached storage room listening to me (I caught them). They rifled through copy requests I turned into the copy clerk (she told me) and went through handouts in my room (I caught them). They squeezed students for information about what I said in class (kids told me). Turnip Witches then circulated lies about me among staff. Next, on a routine basis, they took their noxious file of lies and half-truths on me complaining to JF, the principal. Each time, in response, he summoned me to his office chastising and lecturing me for my alleged conservative bias. My side? He did not want to hear it. His motto was “perception is reality”. It did not matter if I was conservative and or biased. The fact teachers accused me of these crimes meant this was their perception therefore, it was true. He made up his mind before I crossed the threshold of his office.

He again summoned me at the start of the 2010 semester claiming more “alleged” complaints. He said I had a “reputation for being a conservative”, and this was a “problem” that had “persisted for years”. My being a conservative was the topic of discussion among faculty and it was causing a great deal of controversy, agitation, and concern among them. JF talked as if being a conservative was a crime. He added a parade of teachers were coming to him and they as well as parents were complaining I pushed conservative views in class. They wanted to know why he had not disciplined or fired me. I asked JF which parents were making complaints. He would not tell me. I asked who the teachers were. He said, with a sneer, he would never tell me. He added in mocking tones I would truly be surprised if I knew who some of them were. JF told complaining teachers for him to take action against me they had to make their allegations and names public. They refused. Who were the teachers stabbing me in the back? How could I now trust anyone I worked with from that moment forward? As with previous “anonymous” complaints, JF required me to turn in copies of all handouts, assignments, homework, quizzes, and tests, so he could scour them for bias. I was appalled. Parents of conservative and or Christian students had complained to me about liberal teachers pushing their bias in class. I not only documented this with names, dates, and places, I obtained handouts used by these teachers demonstrating their liberal bias. Why was he not summoning and investigating them? I protested this constituted a double standard amounting to persecution. He should investigate the liberal teachers for bias. He insisted I was the only one about whom he received parent and teacher complaints. Based on my experiences, I suspected “parents” was more likely singular not plural. Without exposing names, I revealed parents complained to me about specific social studies teachers. As coincidence would have it, I later learned these liberal teachers were the very same ones complaining about me. What was JF’s response to my request? He became angry and dismissed me. As I got up to leave, he said, “This is not over. We’re not through yet”.

I was a member of the State Teachers Association, not the NEA. Each time I went to my representative, CB over what the principal was doing to me, he said there was no need for concern. It would all “blow over”. He did nothing and he was wrong.

The State had recently instituted standardized End Of Course exams (EOC’s), for certain courses. American history was one. This was the first year we were to administer the test. We discovered several questions applied to an eighth grade junior high unit, “Opening of the West”. There was a problem. Eighth grade teachers never made it to that unit. Now 9th grade American history teachers had to add this unit to a curriculum they already struggled to finish each year. All because 8th grade teachers failed to do their job. No one gave a hoot about 9th grade American history until EOC’s. I emailed Department Chair, RI asking her how we were to teach a course for which we had no curriculum and only a few days to prepare to boot. RI forwarded my email to DB, leader of the Turnip Witches, and they sent it to the principal.

On August 20, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., JF entered my room and shut the door behind him. He was furious. He told me to have a seat. He sat at the table next to my desk. He handed me an email and demanded to know if I had sent it. Why did he ask? My name was on it. He had cut the header off to hide who forwarded it to him. He said the “parties” who sent it to him were very angry, and then he launched into a violent tirade against me. He accused me of going behind his back. He yelled in my face, “I am sick and tired of you! I have put up with your behavior for ten years. You have tried to undermine balanced assessment! You have not embraced this initiative!” And I mean yelled. As JF’s voice rose, he slammed his open hand on the table repeatedly. “It’s over! We’re through! I’m finished with you!” He yelled in my face.

Was I scared? Yes. I was in the back of a room locked in with a boss who appeared out of control. He was full of rage, his voice yelling, and his eyes furious. He was between the door and me. I felt as if JF would strike me at any moment with no witnesses either. “I was a social studies teacher for years! And I was a darned good one too” JF screamed in my face slamming his hand down on my desk accentuating each word his face red with rage. Where did that come from? There was no antecedent or context for what he was screaming at me. I had not known him when he was a teacher and hence never commented on his teaching. “You don’t support or embrace balanced assessment!” (State tests) he repeated, still yelling. This was the first year we were to give the EOC. How could he claim I did not support what we had never done?

“Of course I embrace it. What are you basing this accusation on”, I asked. I was upset at his ambush and the false accusations he was hurling at me. They were a lie. JF became even angrier. He threw his head back and yelled “No! That is not how I interpret your email!” I explained my concerns about teaching the 8th grade unit, but he did not believe me. Again, pounding his hand down on my desk accusing me of attempting to sabotage his efforts to prepare kids for the exam. Why would I do that? JF had been clear. If kids did poorly on the test, he was blaming the teacher. If I were trying to stab him in the back, why would I do so by sending emails to supervisors not exactly part of my fan club? I asked him this. He repeated, he had had the same trouble with me for ten years and accused me of not supporting the history curriculum and attacked me for teaching in a biased manner. JF yelled he was sick of talking to me about this and of hearing from parents and teachers who complained about me. From that moment forward, I was to submit to him copies of every assignment, homework, test, quiz, and so forth I used in my classes. He would examine each including test questions, for conservative bias. Then he leaned toward me with this strange weird smile on his face but his eyes were all rage.

“You’re very bright”, he said sarcastically, “so let me make it clear so you understand. Any more problems, emails, whatever, and I am writing you up. Do you understand?” His voice had become low and gravelly. “You are a divisive element in the social studies department. It is because of your behavior”, he added. “No one in the department likes you. No one in the department accepts you as a member of the department, and that is why they don’t treat you like a member.” A cabal of liberal teachers was out to get me, unknown collaborators were out to get me, and the principal was as well. Coming to work became unpleasant. It was only the beginning. The Turnip Witches never dismounted their brooms.

“Hostile work environment” is a legal term. For me, it became reality. Word I was what others called the principal’s new “whipping boy” leaked out. No doubt, assisted by the Turnip Witches, Queens of backstabbing. I became a pariah in short order. Math teacher JR taught two doors down from me and we were on friendly terms. I often stood with him in the hallway, supervising students during passing periods. When he saw the principal or an assistant principal approaching, JR said he must shove me against the wall in order to promote his career. Work “friends” asked me not to send emails to them any longer. They did not want a trail, paper or electronic, between them and me. JD my new supervisor was down in the JV building. I emailed him from time to time with work related questions. Instead of replying by email, he walked all the way up the hill to my building and classroom to answer in person. He was not shy in telling me he too wanted no link or record of communicating with me. The district held in-service meetings at various locations including on campus and Central Office. Work “friends” joked they could not sit with me any longer because I was “toxic, radioactive” and “career suicide”. JD coined the term “Career Suicide Gang” and anointed me its undisputed leader. They made these comments and insults in the presence of the principal and assistant principals who did nothing. It got worse. I was still on the history exam writing team. At in-services, the other members refused to sit at the same table as me. This included three of the Turnip Witches. It was so bad the principal was compelled to make them sit with me. This they did, huddled tightly together, as if I was a monster, at the far end of the long rectangular table. Several teachers commented on how bad this looked. Kids learn at an early age unspoken social cues with respect to who is in and who is an untouchable. It carries over into adulthood.

Faculty meetings met in a large lecture hall. The rows of seats were arranged in two sections, one on the left, and one on the right separated by an aisle down the middle. Each row had 12 chairs. I sat in the section on the right, toward the middle of the room, in the last seat on the right. I had the entire row to myself. Was this coincidence or intentional? I decided to conduct an experiment to answer this question. From 2012, until my final day in May 2016, I arrived early to each meeting before anyone else. As teachers filed in, looking for seats, especially those habitually late, they would look at me, the eleven empty seats to my left, back at me, and then walk away. Some chose to stand along walls rather than sit in the same row as me. I knew almost none of them. Was it a good experiment? Consider this, the principal held faculty meetings every month on Wednesdays. Teachers refused to sit in the same row as me for over three and a half years. There were two exceptions. One time Math teacher DF came in late. The meeting was packed. He sat in my row but at the last seat on the left as far from me as possible. He did not even glance at me. DF and I had lived in the same neighborhood, gone to the same church, and I had taken him to work when his car was in the shop. Yet, DF’s neck was like cement, unable to turn. I decided to tweak my experiment. Instead of sitting in the last seat on the right, I moved three seats to me left. Now even late arriving DF would not sit in my row. A separation of eight seats was not enough. KD was an English teacher who had taken a job with another district. For her last meeting she sat next to me. KD said she knew exactly what I was doing with my little experiment. She said the way teachers treated me was a disgrace and the principal was evil and vindictive.

I endured this humiliating shunning every month in addition at in-service training. From faculty meetings to supervising after school pep-rallies in the gym, it was the same story. Teachers moved away from and or would not come near me. I was always sitting or standing completely alone. Did students notice this? Yes they did.

Later that semester, November 2012, JF wrote me up placing me on step one of a three-step termination process. My crime? I used too many free market sources in my history class (not true), and was not “collegial”. JF assigned me to the American history unit test writing team. He tasked us with writing exams teachers would use in common. At the meeting, I pointed out to second year teacher and team leader, AB, The Progressives Unit, included questions on Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. They were problematic. Although fiction, schools teach it as fact. Proposed unit test questions reinforced that notion. Sinclair had been a radical socialist and historians had demonstrated his novel was mostly fiction. I consulted with a professor at a former University who agreed. AB asked me to share my concerns. As the meeting was breaking up, I demurred. She asked me to email them to her, which I did. My very liberal then supervisor, her friend DB, leader of the Turnip Witches, instrumental in my being demoted, twice, and active in trying to get me fired, told AB to forward my email to the principal. This she did.

JF came by my room, unannounced, after school, locked and shut the door, and sat down by my desk. Furious, he said my email to AB was “passive-aggressive”, I was sending “divisive behind the scenes communications”, was using biased sources, the fact that I told students The Jungle was essentially, a hoax, raised concerns I was not teaching the curriculum, kids needed to learn about socialism, and I was trying to undercut AB as team leader. None of this was true. Her sister taught in the district where I lived and my kids attended school. At back to school night, I told AB’s sister she was doing a great job. JF did not believe me. He said he was finished with me and left. He came by just before the Thanksgiving Break, to say he did not want to ruin my break by leaving me hanging. When we came back, he was writing me up.

For attempting to undercut AB, team leader, and using too many free market sources, JF wrote me up placing me on permanent probation. I was to turn in to him, again, copies of every handout and assignment I used in class. None of what he said was correct or factual. He was acting on behalf of the Cabal who were among his favorite teachers. In addition, for 2014, he was moving me from the Varsity down to the JV building on the first floor where the bulk of social studies teachers taught, including the Turnip Witches. Worse, I would be co-teaching one section of World History with DM, a special education teacher, liberal, and friend of the principal who hand picked him to supervise his department. Sitting in CH’s office, with all this running through my mind, I hoped he would not approve the new club. I was between three and four years of retiring and looking forward to a quiet uneventful finish. To my surprise, he approved the club. He gave me no guidance, let alone training on how to manage an extra-curricular activity, which I had never done.

Beginning October 2014, the Club met in my classroom after school on Wednesdays. I had met PJ and JS, now seniors, but did not know the other kids. Membership seemed fluid from week to week. Their format was a debate. Someone made a proposition and then members debated it. Topics included drug legalization, war in Afghanistan and Iraq, free speech and censorship, U.S. support for Israel, Gay rights, and so forth. Students described themselves as anarchists, Libertarian, socialists, anti-capitalists, Anarcho-Capitalists, many labels with which I was unfamiliar. I stayed out of debates and never offered my opinion. Debates were spirited but I did not hear comments anyone would consider inappropriate.

In late April 2015, PJ invited me to join an “Austrian Economics” free market forum on Face Book. Having never been on any form of social media, I was unfamiliar with FB. In addition, I was “technologically challenged” and had to call a family member who walked me through setting up a FB page. I connected with a family member and friends from college, about four in all. I joined the Austrian forum. People from around the world were members and it was a public group.

I posted nothing on this forum. Instead, I made comments on two items posted by PJ and JS. One was a You Tube video by economist Thomas Sowell who is black suggesting fatherless homes played a role in the recent Baltimore riots. I had lived and gone to school in Baltimore’s inner city and gave Sowell’s video a “like”. Another was a You Tube video on Alabama’s Supreme Court ruling against same-sex marriage. PJ and JS took issue with the Court’s ruling from a Libertarian perspective. I pointed out that same-sex marriage was a prelude to the radical homosexual lobby’s next step, adoption rights. I added sarcastically, “I guess I’m a failure as a Libertarian”. A Forum member who went by the handle, “Ignacio”, and was unknown to me, posted comments critical of the Pope. This drew angry anti-Christian responses from other members. When comments devolved into name-calling, I bowed out from the forum never to return.

On Monday May 4 2015, I arrived at school and logged onto the laptop to check email. It contained a warning from one of the seniors to stay off FB. He said the principal was calling kids, one by one, to his office, and conducting an investigation of the Club. It was a “witch hunt”, and they were after me. After me! I was stunned. This could not be true. What had I done?

On Tuesday May 5 2015, PJ came by my room. He said assistant principal JA was now calling in kids and questioning them about an incident occurring between Club members. My name came up during the interrogations. These kids had used school IPADS in the library and became embroiled in an angry debate (I had to ask what an IPAD was). They failed to log off, the librarian saw what they had written, and she ran to the principal with it. Oh brother. I knew JC, the librarian. She had been a new social studies teacher in 1998. The department assigned me to be her mentor. She used the room during my plan period. JC was a liberal, saw the framed picture of President Reagan on my desk, and a book critical of FDR and the New Deal. She never spoke to me and refused my help. Instead, she hung out with the department liberals. Students revealed that these teachers mocked me in front of their students. Later, JC transferred to a sister high school and became a librarian. In 2014, she transferred back to my high school.

I asked PJ what was on the IPADS that led to an investigation and caused such an uproar. How did my name come up? He said JS had become involved in a heated debate with several freshmen club members. It devolved into nasty name-calling and anti-Jewish slurs. He had no idea why my name was part of the investigation as I was not involved.

On Thursday May 7 2015, the principal came by my room after school unannounced. When he was out to get a teacher, he called them to his office to discuss an issue and then ambushed them with a different one in order to keep them off guard. His other tactic was to come by a teacher’s room unannounced and ambush them there, shutting and locking the door to keep out witnesses.

His demeanor was angry and curt. He interrogated me from a list written in his spidery style. He showed me a portion of a FB post he had cut and pasted. According to the principal, JS wrote he was picking something up for me at a store in town. I was flabbergasted. I had no idea what JS was talking about. I had no clue where the principal was going with his interrogation. He refused to allow me to see the text preceding JS’s statement. I learned later, the text referred to JS stopping by a doughnut store on the way to the Club meeting in my room. Period. The principal knew this when he interrogated me. Why did he pretend it said JS was picking something up “for” me when JS clearly did not write that? Why did the principal deceive me? Why did he lie?

Next, the principal asked if I ran the Cub meetings. I said no, PJ and JS ran the meetings. He asked if anyone had made “extremist” statements during meetings. I was typically on my laptop, in the back of the room, and not listening to what members said. I was unaware of anyone making “extremist” comments. JF did not define “extremist”. It was clear he did not believe me. He kept returning to and grilling me about my role in the club and extremist comments. I did not know where he was going with this line of questioning or why he focused on me. I had nothing to do with whatever they were investigating. He showed me a list including anti-Jewish slurs and suggested either I had something to do with, or supported them. This was rubbish. I had done scholarly research for Herbert Romerstein, a Jewish professor who made me an honorary member of his Synagogue in Clinton, Maryland, and I am a member of a Jewish organization. He refused to tell me what was going on but, instead, treated me like a criminal and then angrily left the room. Later that same day, PJ came by. He said a second assistant principal, KT, (there were four) was now calling kids to her office to be interrogated for a third time. She asked them, who ran the meetings, did I run them, did I contribute to their discussions, and what was my exact role. Had the principal not already grilled me about this? Why a third round of interrogations with yet another assistant principal? Why were they focusing on me?

Later that day, JS came by during my plan period. He was very upset. He revealed he had been in the nasty debate with Club members on the IPADS. Three freshmen had gone to the principal claiming JS was gathering guns and bombs to blow up the school. I was shocked. This was the first time I had heard specifics about the incident other than the name-calling. I told JS if there was any truth to these allegations, he would not graduate in two weeks, the district would expel and refer him to the police. This was a very serious matter. Rather than discuss this with me, he and his family needed to consult with an attorney immediately. I told him how angry I was because I was not involved and yet, the focus was on me. JS agreed I had nothing to do with it. He assured me the accusations against him were false. I told him it would still be wise to consult an attorney.

On Friday May 8 2015, with about 12 minutes remaining in hour seven, the final period, the principal entered my room followed by JG, a history teacher. He told me JG was taking my class and to “come with me”. The kids all stared in stunned silence. I followed the principal from the room. He walked me out of the JV building up the hill to the Varsity building, said hello to a few students, but would not talk to me. I was totally in the dark. I followed him into his office complex. I saw JM, assistant superintendent, sitting at a round table covered with papers. Now I was scared. What was going on? He told me to sit down at the table. The principal joined us. JF said that while investigating a situation involving several students in the libertarian club, my name came up leading to an investigation of me. He accused me of being on Face Book 37 hours over the past month, during contract time, using district property, the laptop, making inappropriate comments, and contact with students on Face Book.

JM listed district policies, and their code numbers, I had violated. The best I could hope for was them to write up and move me from step one to step three of the termination process. At worst, he would recommend the Board of Education terminate my employment adding, “You will have to be squeaky clean to even have a chance of holding onto your job”. My chest began to tighten. I felt as if I could not breathe. I have a phobic fear of heights and felt as if someone had shoved me out of an airplane.

JF claimed to be my biggest defender but no more. He repeated his “perception is reality” axiom. JF did not say who or from what he defended me. He showed me a tech-prepared spreadsheet indicating I had been on FB during contract time. I explained, yes, but this was not instead of teaching. It was late April and kids were taking exams and or I was showing a video after exams. That is when I logged on to FB. I did not log off during the day but left the page open. Did this make it appear I was still on FB when I was not? He “accused” me of being a Libertarian. He showed me pages with blacked out (redacted) sections and asked if I had made the comments in response to Thomas Sowell and the Alabama Supreme Court case. I replied yes. He said Sowell’s comments were racist and JM agreed. Had either of these upper middle class lily-white men lived in Baltimore or Philadelphia’s inner city as I had? Did they know who Thomas Sowell was? Racist? I was born with a natural tan, a step below Caucasian compared to them, and father of a mixed race family. Racist?

The principal demanded I confess to being a Libertarian. I refused because that was a lie. He claimed to have documents somewhere to prove I was. He jumped up from the table and ran across the room to his desk. He scrolled frantically through the computer file he kept me. It was robust. He kept muttering, “It is in here somewhere, I know it is. I read it”. Finally, JM suggested he return to the table and look later. Frustrated, JF returned but did not give up. “This is it, this one”, he said triumphantly waving a piece of paper he picked up from the table. It was my comment about the Alabama Supreme Court case. JF said I admitted to being a Libertarian. Was this man dense? I explained my statement, “I guess I have failed as a Libertarian” was rhetorical sarcasm. He could ask the two seniors. He would not let go of this accusation.

Next JF and JM said my comments about homosexuals and adoption were inappropriate and unacceptable. I explained they represented my Biblical convictions. Brushing aside my religious faith, they ruled my views inappropriate and they forbade teachers from sharing inappropriate views with students. JF returned to the You Tube video/interview with Thomas Sowell. He insisted that Sowell’s assertion fatherless homes has anything to do with inner city violence is racist. He asked if I was the one who posted the video and link. No, I was new to FB and had no idea how to post videos and links. Which was true. I did not actually watch the video. “Then why did you give it a like”, JF asked, suggesting I was lying. I told him I was familiar with Sowell, his articles, books, and views. I read the title of the video, had lived in Baltimore’s inner city, and understood what Sowell meant. JF and JM laughed at me in mocking tones. They did not believe me. “Why would you like what you did not watch” JM asked, condescension in his voice. Had I not just explained this? I added I had no time to watch every video. The “like” was a courtesy to those who posted it. This was also true. They did not believe me and suggested I posted the video. I repeated again, I lacked the technological skills to do that which was true. The principal threw his head back mocking me with derisive laughter. He accused me of pretending to be naïve and backward with respect to technology. He called me liar.

JF tossed some papers in front of me. It was a copy from a FB page. At the top right corner was a red ball with a number inside it. It was FB’s notification one had a private message. The principal insisted, because I had clicked on it, this proved I was a liar and knew my way around technology. Was he more technologically backward than I was? Above the red ball were the words “private message”. I pointed this out. The number inside what looked like a billiard ball suggested the number of messages. One did not need to be technologically adept to figure out what it meant, I pointed out. JF continued accusing me of lying about my level of “expertise”. It was obvious to me; at that point, this really was a witch-hunt. When people search for witches, they find them. I explained PJ asked me to join the free market forum, I had never been on FB, and had to ask someone how to set up the page. Again, they laughed at me. JF asked who Ignacio was. I said I had no idea. People on forums typically use a “handle” rather than real names. He said Ignacio was a student at the school. I had no way of knowing this. JF and JM said while downloading FB pages during the investigation, the pages began disappearing. JF accused me of wiping them clean. He claimed my time on FB at school was not with family and friends but, instead, secret communications with students that I was now trying to conceal. What! This was insane! This man was utterly unhinged creating a bizarre conspiracy from whole cloth. I insisted there was no truth in this. If they could read my posts, they could see with whom I communicated, all four of them. JF and JM laughed again calling me a liar and accused me of erasing my pages so no one could see with whom I had communicated.

JM told me I needed to come clean. Wiping my FB page to hide anything was an offense for which he would fire me. I was shocked. I had done nothing of the sort. He repeated the accusation several times. He said either I wiped my pages clean or I had given my password to a student and directed him to do it for me. I could not believe my ears. This was preposterous. They continued to hammer me with accusations. I continued to tell them I had done nothing of the sort. Now the principal accused me of leading a cover up. JM again insisted the time had come for me to stop lying, come clean, and tell the truth. It was an ugly scene. Suddenly, the principal saw a name at the bottom of the half-redacted page. It was not mine. He said, maybe it was not my page after all. It was not mine. Whomever it belonged to had done the erasing, not me. I did not know how to erase posts. Yet, JF and JM sat their attacking, mocking, calling me a liar, and demanding I confess to something I had not done. They accused me of leading a nefarious conspiracy. There was no truth to any of this whatsoever.

JF continued trying to prove I was an “extremist” who made “extremist” comments to the club. He asked if I remembered when he came by my room asking if anyone ever made extremist comments and I had said no. Yes I did. Aha! My answer proved I was a liar. I told him he was wrong. I never heard a kid make an inappropriate comment. Not a kid, you, he said. He considered my FB forum comment about the radical homosexual lobby extremist. Because I denied saying what he considered extremist, this proved I was a liar. I had never heard such demented demented illogic in my life. What gave him the right to decide which views were extremist? What gave him the right to declare the Word of G-d extremist and deny to people, their devoutly held religious beliefs? His illogical assertion made it clear he was bent on my destruction, not the truth. Channeling his inner Thomas Newton, the principal could not let go of his witch-hunt. He then said I violated district policy by engaging in private communications with students not accessible to parents.

JF’s argument was thus; I was on a FB Forum to which students belonged. Unless a parent logged on and joined the forum, they might not see what I said to a student even though the forum was public. Wait a minute, I thought. Did the school allow football, basketball, cheerleading, and soccer coaches, and club sponsors to communicate with students during the day? They did this during contract hours and many used their cell phones. Parents could not see these messages. This double standard drove home the fact they were out to destroy me. They had decided I was guilty beforehand and now were holding the trial. They had their witch.

JF and JM continued to insist I was using FB to engage in secret communications with students and I used FB to hide this fact. This was not remotely true and I said so. JF said I had a “bad image” and “reputation” among teachers for being an “extremist” adding “Perception is reality”. I wanted to point out this “reputation” was among Leftist social studies teachers who were, after all, trying to get me fired. For Pete’s sake, they called conservatives “Nazis” all the time. They had called me a Nazi. As far as these teachers were concerned, anyone who was not a liberal was a fascist extremist. Seeing how unhinged the principal was, I held my peace. He brought up that JS had come my room during my plan period. He insisted we met secretly conspiring on how to run this cover up. He accused me of having a much “closer relationship” with JS “than meets the eye”. Total fantasy. I could not understand why the assistant superintendent did not see the principal was insane, intervene, and end this ugly and degrading meeting. JF accused me of conspiring with JS to wipe my FB page clean to hide my involvement in his political movement and my extremist statements. Had we not already covered this? This was a monstrous lie and I denied it all. He could employ his techies to see who had posted and erased what. It was not me. JF was relentless. He continued to insist I was lying.

JF jumped up from the table a second time and raced over to his computer. He said he had written me up for stuff like this before. He was making no sense. I have copies of the write-up. I wrote about it at the beginning of this narrative. Does what I wrote bear any resemblance to the present accusations? JF told JM I was a member of the Tea Party because I had a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag hanging in my room. That was back in 2012 when he wrote me up the first time. He ordered me to take it down and I did. I was never a member of a Tea Party, instead, the flag was part of a Revolutionary War collection I hung in my room including the Betsy Ross flag. I first put them up in 1999. The Tea Party was born in 2009, after Barack Obama’s election. My flag was up a decade before there ever was a Tea Party. I had told JF this in 2012 and he knew it.

JF then asked if I had passed out papers or handouts at Club meetings. When I said no, he called me a liar. He said the You Tubes I showed during club meetings were extremist so I was lying. I never passed out papers or showed You Tubes. PJ and JS did that. Go ask them. I was in the back of the room and did not participate in meetings. Show me the papers. Show me the handouts. Show me the videos. Go ask those who were there. JF and JM laughed at me again and called me a liar.

JM said they were seizing my laptop. Now was the time to save myself and come clean. Now was the time to tell the truth before it was too late. If they found any form of communication with students on my laptop, or inappropriate content, he would recommend the school board fire me. Now was the time to confess. I told him I had nothing to confess. He would find no communications with any student. He warned me again, if he found anything inappropriate, he would fire me. I asked him to define inappropriate because I had a few cartoons on the laptop mocking school life. Instead of defining inappropriate, he insisted again, it was time to come clean. I repeated there was nothing to come clean about. He said, even if that was true, they were moving me from step one to step three on the termination process. Step four, was termination.

It was now 3:30 p.m. JF walked me back to my room in silence. Everyone was gone as the school day ended at 2:30 p.m. He asked me where the Bible was and began searching for it. It was a science room I had been in only that year. I had two file cabinets and nothing more. Because he was moving me to the bottom floor next year, my third room in three years, I had packed everything up for the move. I only needed a box. Student handouts remained in the file cabinets and the custodians would move them. He demanded I tell him where the Bible was. I could not have it in the classroom, as it would suggest I was teaching from a Christian perspective. I did not answer. He did not find it. He then saw the book, Nullification, by Thomas Woods on my desk. He almost lost it. He picked it up and told me never to bring it back onto school property again. Snatching up my laptop, JF said, “If you can’t serve these kids, if you can’t push them to set the bar higher, you should leave now and never come back”. I have no idea what he meant. He added he would be going over every handout I used in class looking for conservative bias. I pointed to the two cabinets. “I teach World History and Modern Global Issues. Social Studies Department teachers created every handout I use for each course. “Take whatever you want”, I said. He ignored me and swept out of the room leaving me there, on a Friday, in the face of the most bizarre and preposterous accusations I had ever heard, and termination hanging over my head.

Before school, on Monday 11 May 2015, I went to my State Teacher representative and told NS, what had happened. He handed me a business card for the Association lawyer and said to call them. Nothing more. I called several times but no one answered. I stood in a parking lot, my chest tight as if squeezed by a giant snake, dripping sweat, and struggling to breathe. Several students asked if I was okay. I was not. I did not know it at the time, but my doctor later confirmed, I had a heart attack.

On Tuesday May 12 2015, the principal came by my room before class with the lap- top and a yellow legal pad. Unannounced as usual. He found some cartoons he considered objectionable. One depicted a Border Patrol drug dog next to stacks of cocaine and heroin. The caption read, “After searching two school lockers, the drug dog was exhausted”. The other depicted a firing squad. The caption said the school was adding a new punishment to detentions. I never transmitted them to anyone. No one had seen them. Humor is how I deal with stress. He insisted a parent might get his or her hands on my laptop and password, and see them. If he believed all that fantasy conspiracy rubbish, this would seem plausible to him. Right. I had written several articles on the Constitution and a government of limited powers based on original sources. He found them problematic. I had written a letter to a friend about bias against conservative teachers. He wanted to dispute the chronology in my letter. He handed me the laptop, said he would summon me for the write-up, and left. He never mentioned inappropriate communications with students because there was none. He never mentioned erased pages because I had nothing to do with that either. Nor did he apologize for these false accusations.

By the end of the day, rumors flew throughout the school I was being fired. A liberal teacher, TB, stopped by my room after school. Several newer female teachers had come to him and said they heard I was “dangerous”. They were scared. They heard I was gathering guns and bombs to shoot other teachers and blow the school up. Others heard I was going to crash through the building’s front glass doors, in my car on the last day of school, and mow kids and them down. They were asking him and other teachers if it was true and should they be scared. Another colleague said some teachers had a name for me. They called me “Scary” something or another.

Later that day the principal called me to his office. The assistant superintendent was there. They wrote me up. They said my like of Thomas Sowell’s comment about fatherless boys was racist. JS had interviewed me for his final senior project in English. The topic was being a conservative teacher. I noted there were challenges ranging from lack of acceptance to shunning. His teacher, SA, one of the Turnip Witches, ran with the video to the principal. JF wrote me up for talking to students about colleagues. Wait a second, I never mentioned anyone by name, yet liberal teachers trashed me out to their students…by name. They did not care. Because I told JS the principal was moving me to another room the following year, JF wrote me up for revealing “confidential information”. He wrote me up for being on FB during contract time and violating school policy with respect to FB communications with students to which parents were not privy. He wrote me for conducting research that did not pertain to the courses I taught. This was utter hypocrisy. Contract time? Coaches assigned students busy work so they could watch videos of upcoming opponents, draw up plays, and flesh out rosters for their next games. I witnessed this. He wrote me up for not supporting the curriculum. He gave no examples. Not only did I use the same handouts as other teachers for each course, I used their handouts, not mine! Then it got worse.

Principals evaluate teachers every five years. He was placing me on permanent daily evaluation. Because I was now on step three of a three-step termination process, one mistake, one slip-up, and he would fire me. He was placing me on permanent probation. One mistake and he would fire me. I was tempted to point out I was already on permanent probation from the first time he wrote me up three years prior. Double secret probation? I would have to submit to him every lesson, article, homework, quiz, and so forth so he could search each for Libertarian bias. He reiterated, I was under close daily scrutiny. One mistake, he was firing me. He still believed I was hiding something about my “relationship” with JS and “our” political activism. He believed we had engaged in some sort of cover up. Utter nonsense. I had no relationship with any student ever. He believed I was part of an extremist organization, underground, and possibly white supremacist. There was not an iota of truth to this. People born with a natural tan do not make good white supremacists.

I saw the handwriting writ large on the wall. I asked the assistant superintendent, if I retired right then, would I be eligible to receive my retirement bonus. Because the cut off for retirements was February, he had to check to see if it was possible. We all signed copies of my write up and I went back to class. An hour later, I received an email from the assistant superintendent saying the superintendent was unwilling to take my request to the Board of Education. However, JF would be willing to accept my letter of intent to retire. Hint. My doctor said I was unlikely to survive the next year. I submitted my letter to JF stating I would retire at the end of the 2015/2016 school year. He and the vicious despicable Turnip Witches were ecstatic. I could almost hear the Champagne corks popping. I could almost hear the rasp of their claws and them cackling.

On Monday, May 26 2015, at school, I found a spent shell casing in an empty desk drawer. A .32 caliber casing. I had already packed up and cleaned out my room. Who put the shell casing in my desk? I showed it to the NEA representative across the hall. He said not to sweat it. I showed it to a work “friend”. He said someone was setting me up. He too heard the rumors I was gathering guns and bombs to get revenge.

The student named Ignacio came by my room apologizing for what happened to me. He was an exchange student from South America. With his blonde hair and blue eyes, I would never have guessed. He did not understand why the principal fired me considering I had nothing to do with their fight on the IPADS. Nothing at all. He said I never passed out papers or participated in their meetings. I was in shock over how fast and vicious the witch-hunt had unfolded. I felt as if I had walked into a booby trap infested ambush. The principal came by on the last day of school. He claimed he had not been out to get me and would not “bust my chops” my final year. He could afford to be magnanimous. He got what he wanted. Me gone. He had used similar methods to force a math teacher, librarian, and Spanish teacher, with whom I was acquainted, into retirement. He had this down to a science. I was truly stunned that a man so devoid of character, honesty, and a conscience was a high school principal. I never did find out who erased the FB pages. As I stood in my room on the last day of school in May 2015, I wondered if the Turnip Witches would leave me be my final year.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

How A Republic Dies

Ours, as you know, is a government of limited powers. The Constitution confers the authority for certain actions upon the President and the Congress, and explicitly prohibits them taking other actions. This is done to protect the rights and liberties of the people”.1

President Calvin Coolidge

Of course one does meet brilliant men’, said Nikolay Nikolayevich, ‘but they are isolated. The fashion nowadays is all for groups and societies of every sort.—It is always a sign of mediocrity in people when they herd together…The truth is only sought by individuals, and they break with those who do not love it enough”.2

Dr. Zhivago

Long ago, in the year 1787, a tribe known as Gardenites dwelt in the lush valley Arboretum that provided all their needs. Growing in its midst was a tree named Liberty. Inscribed on its sacred bole was General Welfare, a list of powers delegated to Arboretum’s government they called Steward. Only one piece of fruit grew from this tree. Because it contained the seeds of Liberty’s renewal, Gardenites prohibited anyone to eat it. Even though they lived in paradise, some residents began imagining how they could make Arboretum better, if they were charge. Instead of limiting Steward to only protecting Liberty, the imaginers, called Consolidators, would grant him unlimited power to reorganize and reorder life in Arboretum according to their vision for how it should be run. When Consolidators made their proposal to the Gardenite Assembly, they in turn consulted Liberty. General Welfare forbade Steward from taking any action not on its list. Finding no authority for the proposal, Gardenites voted no. A silver-tongued man named Beguile led the Consolidators. His manners were serpent like; his clothes shimmered as if gold. Words flowed from his sibilant tongue like honey as he promised Gardenites a life freed from toil and a cornucopia of plenty for all if they but ate the fruit of Liberty. Seduced by Beguile, Gardenites took and ate the fruit. With the last seed consumed, the words inscribed on Liberty faded, dissolved, and blew away like dust. Consolidators, whose desire was to rule over all Gardenites, seized control and became Steward. Soon briars and thorns grew up among the crops making harvests meager. Rains ceased, the ground grew parched and cracked, and crops began to die. Steward beat the Gardenites to work harder, taking the first portion of each harvest to share with obedient followers. They raided Gardenite homes for items of value they dispensed among themselves. A great sound rent the air. Liberty cracked, split asunder, and crashed to the ground. Arboretum was no more.

At this writing, Democrats and Republicans debate the size and cost of Mr. Biden’s “infrastructure” bill. Missing from the debate is the question as to whether or not federal infrastructure bills are legal in the first place. If not, arguments over size and cost are moot.

Professor Brion McClanahan writes the “general welfare” is one of the most misunderstood phrases in the Constitution. Many, if not most Americans believe it means the federal government is to provide for their material well-being. This includes food and poverty assistance, medical care, paying for college, building roads and bridges, and so forth. This results from an “incorrect reading of the Constitution” leading to approximately “90 percent of what the federal government does being ‘unconstitutional’—and it’s all due to an expansion of government power under the guise of the ‘general welfare”.3

The most important part of the Constitution with respect to the exercise of federal power are Article 1, Sections 7, 8, and 9. They comprise “the power of the ‘sword and purse” consisting of restrictive clauses relative to Congress’s exercise of power. By ill-informed and dishonest reinterpretation of these clauses, they are the mechanisms by which those in power metamorphosed a federal into a national system of government. From day one, Founders who favored consolidating power in a strong central government [Consolidationists] worked to transform the restrictive design of the general welfare phrase into a positive authorization for what they wanted to do.4

Article 1, Section 8, the enumerated powers, comprise a closed loop. The states delegated to the federal government no powers outside it. Professor Forrest McDonald notes the taxation authority of the U.S. government is limited to the common defense and general welfare. Government may tax, borrow, and spend only for what is in the enumerated powers. No authority for infrastructure, roads, bridges, canals, transportation, and so forth is among that list. The Founders rejected federal funding for infrastructure projects because the states as a whole would pay for projects benefitting only one region or locale.5

States sent delegates to Philadelphia in May 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, during the next several months, they drafted a new Constitution. Among the factions attending were “nationalists” who wanted to create a strong central government of consolidated powers. Consolidated from the states, which then would become appendages of the central government with no autonomy or sovereign power of their own. If they succeeded, American government would become much like those in England and Europe wherein the powerful used it as a means to promote favored regional, commercial, nepotistic, and political special interests.

Delegates may not have shared a common vision for what form the new government should take, but they did share a common understanding of the words general welfare. They “lifted” them and their meaning from the document they were sent to revise. In both documents, general welfare refers to government actions benefitting “the union as a whole such as military hardware for the common defense” but not tax expenditures or financing of projects benefitting only specific localities, regions, states, and so forth. This restriction excludes federal involvement with any form of infrastructure or its maintenance.6

In order to create a national as opposed to a federal system, Consolidationists knew they had to alter the meaning of general welfare. James McHenry, of Maryland, wrote in his journal on 4 September 1787 that under the proposed Constitution, the “national” (sic) legislature could not, but should have the power to appropriate money to “erect lighthouses or clean out or preserve the navigation of harbors”. He discussed this with Nathaniel Gorham, Massachusetts, and Gouverneur Morris and Thomas Fitzimmons, delegates from Pennsylvania. Morris said, “The Congress could do so under the ‘General Welfare Clause”. McHenry was aware such an interpretation would allow Congress to grant trade monopolies which, Southern states rejected. Benjamin Franklin also sought to circumvent the restrictive nature of the general welfare. He proposed the words “to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary” be added after the words “post roads” in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7. James Wilson, and the rest of the Pennsylvania delegation, supported this motion. Considering Philadelphia was a major trading port, their self-interest was obvious. Roger Sherman, Connecticut, opposed this change noting, “The expense in such cases, will fall on the United States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut”. Wilson countered that Sherman was not only wrong but his restrictive construction of the term constituted an obstruction of the general welfare. Rufus King of Massachusetts, a state with the important port Boston, saw the larger picture and came to Sherman’s defense. He noted Wilson’s interpretation of general welfare meant government would have authority to establish banks, build roads, and erect commercial monopolies “that would sharply divide the states”.7 Delegates voted Franklin’s proposal down. King’s comment was a foreshadowing of backroom deal making. Politicians call it “log-rolling”. Coastal states obtain federal funding for projects appropriate to their geography by supporting funding for projects in land locked regions. The general welfare prevented such practices.8 Consolidators did not give up.

Gouverneur Morris continued to insist the general welfare should allow the general government to build docking piers (infrastructure) in port city harbors. He told McHenry and Gorham delegates should promote this interpretation. “McHenry was horrified by the implication of so broad an interpretation of the clause”. Morris attempted to alter the meaning of general welfare through subterfuge. As principle penman for the Committee of Style, he wrote the Constitution’s draft. When he penned Article 1, Section 8, he “itemized the powers of Congress in clauses, separating them by semicolons. He inserted one between “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises’ and the qualifying ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare”.9 A semicolon is a “punctuation mark; used chiefly in a coordinating function between major sentence elements (as independent clauses of a compound sentence)”.10 Morris’s alteration would have turned general welfare from a dependent phrase into a stand-alone clause transforming a restrictive into a “positive grant of power”. Congress could then do whatever it wanted. Roger Sherman caught Morris’s trick, brought it to the Convention’s attention, and they directed a comma replace the semicolon.11

Instead of a clause, the general welfare is a dependent or subordinate phrase, a distinction with a difference. Clauses are a “Collection of words that has a subject that includes an active verb”.12 An independent clause “can stand on its own” [contains both a subject and a verb] and “it does not need to be joined to any other clauses because it contains all the information necessary to be a complete sentence”. In addition they; 1) have a subject which tells the reader what the sentence is about, 2) have an action or predicate [verbs that explain or tell what the subject is doing], and 3) express a complete thought, something that happened or was said.13 A phrase is a “collection of words that may have nouns or verbals [nouns-words that name. Verbs/verbals-words that do or are].14 Dependent or subordinate phrases do not complete a thought and cannot stand-alone. For example, the words “general welfare” to a reader mean nothing. For a clause or sentence to stand-alone, it must contain a word or group of words acting as a noun and is the main-focus of the sentence.15 A phrase cannot stand-alone otherwise; it is a sentence fragment, “and is considered one of the worst writing errors one can make”.16 What does all this mean?

The general welfare is a phrase dependent on and attached to the common defense and the enumeration of powers that follow. This enumeration defines the general welfare. Infrastructure is not among the powers listed. The taxation authority of the U.S. government is limited to the common defense and enumerated powers. The federal government has no authority to appropriate money to build roads, bridges, canals, and so forth. To do so would improve the welfare of a specific area, not the nation and thus delegates rejected delegating this power to the federal government.17

When the Convention first presented the proposed Constitution to delegates in Philadelphia, the words “common defense” and “general welfare” were absent. A motion to add them was defeated. Delegates grounded objections on the fact that since Article 1, Section 8, the enumerated powers, constituted the common defense and general welfare, these words were redundant. In addition, delegates who supported a federal as opposed to national system of government, contended consolidationists would twist the meaning of general welfare to expand federal power beyond its enumeration. Roger Sherman noted these words applied to very few “objects” limited to protecting the nation from foreign powers and insurrection.18 South Carolina delegate David Ramsey agreed the Constitution confined the powers of Congress to providing for the common defense and general welfare. To raise money for any other purpose, including internal improvements (infrastructure) was illegal as those were among the reserved powers belonging to the states. Upon this understanding, delegates added the words when the Convention closed in September 1787.19

Criticisms by opponents of the proposed Constitution compelled proponents to defend and explain its problematic parts. They did this through newspaper editorials, essays, and the Federalist Papers. Madison and Hamilton, to a greater degree, were nationalists. Both considered the Articles of Confederation an impediment to creating an American nation. Both supported a national as opposed to a federal system of government. However, they understood states would not support the former because it meant relinquishing state sovereignty. Hence, they supported the proposed Constitution as a first step toward a larger goal. They conceded the general welfare did not authorize Congress to fund infrastructure. Common sense dictated states fund their own projects.20

Anti-Federalists claimed the general welfare “clause” (sic) constituted an unlimited delegation of power to the general government. James Madison addressed this in Federalist 41. He noted Article 1, Section 8, and its 18 sub-clauses comprised the sole meaning of general welfare. The list was restrictive. Congress has power to tax, borrow, and spend only for what is on the list. Most of the list comprise actions relative to the military, foreign commerce, and war.21 In Federalist 45, Madison wrote; “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”.22 Madison provides a concise explanation of America’s republican form of limited government and federalism. Hamilton could not help but show his true colors.

Writing in Federalist 30 and 34, Hamilton insisted the federal government’s ability to acquire revenue and spend had to be commiserate with challenges it faced especially with respect to the machinations of foreign powers. Because no one could predict the future, government’s power to tax and spend should be untethered from limits imposed by Article 1, Section 8. It was logical Congress have the power to tax and spend on any project it deemed for the general welfare.23 Jefferson and Madison corrected Hamilton noting the purpose of the enumeration was to limit Congress’s application of the meaning “general welfare”.24

Future Chief Justice of the United States, John Marshall, ardent nationalist, and enemy of state rights, nevertheless defended ratification at the Virginia Convention. He conceded an enumeration limited the powers of Congress. It had no authority to pass laws beyond that enumeration and, if it did, judges would strike them down as “void” and unconstitutional.25 Anti-Federalists were unconvinced. A critic writing as “Brutus” insisted Consolidationists would use the general welfare to transform the federal into a national form of government.26 The vote to ratify the proposed Constitution was unanimous in only three of thirteen states and was close in five others.27 Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate wrote the states had not delegated to the federal government power to involve itself in the construction and operation of buildings and canals in the States or to subsidize such ventures. Had this not been the case, the States would never have ratified the Constitution. Delegates later added the Tenth Amendment to make clear all powers the States had not delegated to the federal government, they reserved to themselves.28 This issue was bound to come up again.

In 1794, members of Congress proposed allocating federal funds to resettle French refugees from Haitian slave revolts in Baltimore and Philadelphia. Maryland Congressman Samuel Smith argued such an appropriation was constitutional. Virginia Congressman James Madison opposed the bill on constitutional grounds observing, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress for expending on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents”.29 Virginia Congressman John Nicholas agreed with Madison. He proposed, instead, colleagues raise funds through a “private subscription”. Attempting to shame him, Smith said if Nicholas beheld the misery and suffering of the French refugees, he would never have made such a proposal. Backers of the bill said no money would come from the public treasury. Instead, they would subtract the amount of the appropriation from the debt the U.S. owed France from the war.30 Like lawyers then and now, they do not have to be right only have the better sounding argument.

Congressman Madison was President Madison in 1817. Congress submitted to him a bill for “internal improvements”, an appropriation for roads and canals. He vetoed it because it was unconstitutional. Madison observed in his veto message that the States delegated no authority for internal improvements to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. Any other interpretation would mean Congress had the power to do whatever it wanted.31

Thomas Jefferson explained in a letter to Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, (1822) that President James Monroe had “negatived” [vetoed] an “act for internal improvement” passed by Congress. The bill’s supporters claimed authority to tax and spend for any purpose they considered the general welfare. Jefferson countered that Congress did not have unlimited powers to “provide for the general welfare but were restrained to those specifically enumerated”. It was through the exercise of that finite list of powers Congress provided for the “general welfare” and the same applied to taxing, borrowing, and spending. Jefferson believed it was fortunate the bill was passed because Monroe’s veto would “settle forever the meaning of the phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble” [semicolon] at the end of each list or subsection, had been used by the so-called Federalists, to expand the powers of the federal government at the expense of the State’s reserved powers. “It is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first or are distinct, and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following”. In his veto message of the appropriation for the Cumberland Road, Monroe asked, “Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not. The government of the United States is a limited government, instituted for great national purposes and for those only”.32

Although dead some 24 years, Hamilton’s philosophical successors continued working to undermine the restrictive nature of the general welfare phrase by introducing bills for internal improvements. South Carolina Congressman William Drayton declared, “Hamilton’s view would make a mockery of the doctrine of enumerated powers, the centerpiece of the Constitution, rendering the enumeration of Congress’s powers superfluous. Whenever Congress wanted to do something it could simply declare the act to be serving the ‘general welfare’ and get out from under its limits imposed by enumeration”. What would be the sense of an enumeration if, by invoking the general welfare, Congress could violate any restrictions placed on its power by the Constitution?33

One hundred years after delegates in Philadelphia signed the Constitution, President Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill a drought relief measure, because it was unconstitutional. He asked rhetorically, “If government supports the people, who will support the government”? It has no wealth and produces no goods. It can enlarge its role in the lives of people only by taking more of what they earn and produce reducing their freedom and prosperity in equal measure.34 He wrote in his veto message:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution,

and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government

ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is no

manner properly related to the public service or benefit.

A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and

duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson

should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the

Government, the Government should not support the people”.

Cleveland consulted the Constitution to determine if the proposed action was legal. It was not. Presidents like Cleveland, and later Calvin Coolidge, became the exception. Congressmen continued proposing bills violating the meaning of general welfare. Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover participated in undermining federalism, the basis for a government of limited powers. Franklin Roosevelt turned a drip into a flood.

Although the Supreme Court in United States v. Butler (1936) struck down Franklin Roosevelt’s Agricultural Adjustment Act, it nevertheless held that under Article 1 of the Constitution, Congress had broad powers to tax and spend for whatever it deemed the general welfare of the nation, what Hamilton always wanted. Looking back in 1945, Chief Justice Owen Roberts observed that this case decided the long-standing debate between Hamilton and Jefferson over a loose versus strict construction of the enumerated powers and general welfare in favor of Hamilton.35 Although many more decisions to come drove the final nails into its coffin, on that day the Constitution died overthrown by nine men.

The States created a federal system of government. To it, they delegated power over international affairs, treaties, war, peace, and trade. States reserved all other powers to themselves. They prohibited federal involvement in any form of internal improvement. This would include dredging Boston Harbor, building bridges in Minnesota, constructing flood levies in Missouri, subsidies for Amtrak in NYC, a dam in Arizona, windmill farms in California, aid to indigent in Oregon, and farmers in Iowa, all of which it does. “The central government does not exist to provide a paycheck, a job, a road, healthcare, charity for the indigent, or a minimum wage”. The Founder’s acceptance that these are the responsibilities of states and individuals was universal. They would “not have viewed the transfer of responsibility from individuals to the government as a sign of progress”.36

Republican Senators Roy Blunt and Marsha Blackburn, Missouri and Tennessee respectively, support infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, and internet access, but not the Democrat’s bill.37 Today neither Democrats nor Republicans debate the Constitutionality of their acts especially infrastructure bills. Instead, they quibble over cost. They have abandoned federalism, the principle of limited government, and the Constitution. The liberty, property, and even lives of Americans cannot be safe under such a tyrannical form of government. When people say, “Well, at least we live in a free country” and “Land of the free, home of the brave” I shake my head at such ignorance. Like an over the hill actor, they are living on a past reputation that died a long time ago.

11 Calvin Coolidge, Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses (Freeport, N.Y., Books For Libraries Press, 1926/1968), 122.

22 Boris Pasternak, translation by Manya Harai and Max Hayward, Doctor Zhivago (New York, N.Y., Everyman’s Library, Alfred A Knopf, 1958/1991), 15.

33 Brion McClanahan, The Politically Incorrect Guide To the Founding Fathers (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2009), 77.

44 Brion McClanahan, The Founding Father’s Guide to the Constitution (Washington, D.C. Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2012), 38.

55 Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 1985), 264-265. The Latin phrase means “New Order of the Ages” and appears on the reverse of the Great Seal.

66 McClanahan, Politically Incorrect Guide, 78.

77 McClanahan, Founding Fathers Guide, 55-58.

88 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), 355.

99 McDonald, 265.

1010 Frederick C. Mish, Editor-in-Chief, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Addition (Springfield, Massachusetts, Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2001), 1060.

1111 McDonald, 265.

1313 Your Dictionary, “Independent And Dependent Clauses”, at http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/independent-and-dependent-cl.

1414 C. Edward Good, A Grammar Book For You And Me (Sterling, Virginia, Capital Books, Inc., 2002), 8-9, 30-33.

1515 IBID. 3-4, 14-15.

1717 McDonald, 264-265.

1818 McClanahan, The Founder’s Guide, 43.

1919 IBID. 43.

2020 McClanahan, The Politically Incorrect Guide, 78-79.

2121 Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist Papers, Clinton Rossiter, editor (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book for the New American Library, 1961), 262-263.

2222 IBID. 292-293.

2323 IBID. 189-193, 205-211.

2424 Legal Information Institute, “Spending for the General Welfare”, at http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html.

2525 John Marshall, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 20 June 1788, Papers 1: 275-85, Volume 4, page 247 at http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/as21s26.html.

2626 Herbert J. Strong, Editor, selected by Murray Dry from The Complete Anti-Federalist, The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution (Chicago, Illinois, The University of Chicago Press, 1981/1985), 166-174.

2727 Ashbrook Center, “Teaching American History” at http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview/ashbrookcenter/Ashbrook University, Ashland, Ohio, 401 College Avenue, Ohio, 44805.

2828 McClanahan, Founding Father’s Guide, 59, 171, 179.

2929 National Archives, “Santo Domingan Refugees, 10 January 1794” Founders Online, National Archives at https://founders.archives.gov/documents/madison/01-15-02-0017. Original source is Thomas A. Mason, Robert A. Rutland, and Jeanne K. Sisson, editors, The Papers of James Madison, Vol. 15, 24 March 1793-20 April 1795, (Charlottesville, Virginia, University Press of Virginia, 1985), 177-179.

3030 IBID. 179.

3131 Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1996), 48.

3232 Martin A. Larson, The Essence of Thomas Jefferson (New York, N.Y. Joseph J. Binns, Publisher, 1977), 145-146. From Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, D.C., Taylor & Murray, 1854), Volume VII, 17-86 to Albert Gallatin, 16 July 1817, 78-79.

3333 Roger Pilon, CATO Handbook for Congress (Washington, D.C. CATO Institute, 1999), 28-29.

3434 Clarence B Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985 (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1987), 1.

3535 Legal Information Institute. The Court held, in a 6-3 vote, federal funding for agriculture in states was legal but federal management was not.

3636 McClanahan, The Politically Incorrect Guide, 79.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Lifting the Veil on BLM: Critical Race Theory Rejects King’s Dream

PART III

“When people are solely fixated on the issue of race, they tend to view everything that happens to themselves and others of their racial group through a prism that has only two colors—black (oppressed) and white (oppressors). That is far from the reality in America today”.1

Dr. Ron Martinelli

“All the Panther lovers. All the ‘Do it or Die.’ All the ‘by any means necessary negroes…I didn’t see ‘em stand up and do nothing’. Oh really, I don’t believe in marching, I believe in offing the pigs’. Well they got pigs out there. You ain’t offed one of them. What I believe in, I do. Do what you believe in. Or shut up and admit you’ve lost your courage and your guts to stand up…’I’ll off the man. Well off him. Plenty of crackers walking right around here tonight”.2

Al Sharpton, Speaking to Students, Kean College, New Jersey, 1992

On 28 August 1963, in what became the largest civil rights march to date, Dr. Reverend Martin Luther King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech before a huge crowd in Washington, D.C. His vision foresaw a future in which “my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.3 King expressed the Biblical principle of universal brotherhood wherein people of all races see their own humanity in the faces of others. In G_d’s eyes, there is only the human race. One’s heart and character define who they are. However, Critical Race Theory (CRT), the intellectual foundation of BLM, denounces King’s colorblind society and equality of races as a trap set by white supremacists.

Samantha Vincenty, senior staff writer for the Oprah Daily, who is white, insists a color blind society is racist because it “ignores the realities of systemic racism” and thus hides the fact that blacks are “mistreated, underserved, and underpaid”.4 CRT’s adherents and BLM base their “proof” for systemic racism on de rigueur claims police are engaged in a genocidal war of oppression against blacks.5 Mistreated, underserved, and underpaid by whom? Where are the examples? Has she not heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially Title VII? If race-based discrimination in pay were occurring, Civil Rights attorneys would like to know.6 Nevertheless, Vincenty makes the self-validating claim blacks must suffer mistreatment because CRT presupposes “systemic racism” as an incontrovertible fact for its starting point. If not true, their remedial solutions collapse like the proverbial house of cards. Systemic racism is an amorphous creature whose singular quality is plasticity. It is possessed of many meanings and no definitions. From there, Vincenty jumps to the conclusion not to see race is itself racist. Why? It allows those who utter statements about a colorblind society to ignore systemic racism.7 Being called a racist is the greatest fear among the whites she knows but it pales in comparison with black’s greatest fear, “not surviving an interaction with a police officer”.8 Like communist professor Howard Zinn, who used no footnotes in his writing,9 Vincenty provides no sources for her claims. This shields authors from having to defend their research, such as it is, on the one hand and blast critics as racists on the other.

Vincently asserts when white people hear the term racism, they see Jim Crow laws establishing segregated schools, neighborhoods, restaurants, hotels, and public transportation. Since this is illegal, white people assume racism no longer exists. This view blinds whites to black poverty and lack of educational and employment opportunities resulting from institutionalized racism. Institutionalized by whom? Whites, of course. In order to preserve their dominant position in society, white Americans erected a system of structural racism built on oppressing other races. She does not explain how her boss, Oprah Winfrey, overcame structural racism to become one of the richest women in the world. Vincenty also sees the American tradition of individualism as racist and a source of pathologies plaguing black society. Individualism allows whites to see poverty, academic failure, alcohol and drug dependency, and the inability to find and hold jobs as “personal moral failings” rather than identify the real cause. That cause, of course, is systemic white racism. Worse, individualism teaches if one engages in right behavior, (studying in school, working hard, obeying the law), one succeeds in life. If you don’t, you won’t. This view places blame for personal failures on the individual rather than on where Vincenty believes it really belongs, systemic white racism.10 This view generates a neat and tidy rationale for recurring and seemingly impregnable pathologies plaguing black inner cities. It is the white man’s fault. One could ask who created “pregnant teens; families without fathers; or a 50% high school dropout rate” as well as rampant drug abuse among this demographic. Who created its “murderous street gangs preying on their own communities and killing young black adolescents and young adults”? Who gave birth to and promotes “gangsta rap” which denigrates girls as “bitches” and “ho’s”?11 In addition, critics of CRT point out African immigrants from Nigeria are among the most educated and successful of any immigrant group.12 CRT proponents counter the difference is the legacy of slavery.

According to Brandon Jones, blacks suffer a transmissible and inherited generational form of PTSD resulting from slavery, humiliation, discrimination, and hatred by whites in America.13 Original rationales justifying slavery evolved into a systematized structure of oppression by the white against the black race. If this were true, why would black and brown people become police officers? Vincenty claims some minorities are willing to serve Caucasian’s system of racial control to the point of oppressing their own.14 Spokesmen for BLM and their allies are less generous referring to these officers as race traitors.15 Vincenty, writing from the ultra-liberal enclave of NYC, is more than an opinion essayist she is a propagandist for CRT, which, itself, is an adaptation of Karl Marx’s theory of class conflict and exploitation.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels authored the Communist Manifesto. They boiled history down to a constant struggle between two economic classes, oppressors and the oppressed. The former, capitalists, own the means of production as well as natural resources. The latter own nothing therefore trade labor, far below its value, to their oppressors for goods and services. Therefore, these classes are “in constant opposition to one another”. Either this ongoing clash leads to a “fight” ending “in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large” (with the end of oppressors owning the means of production and private property) or it ends “in the common ruin of the struggling classes”.16 As society evolves, the classes remain the same because oppressors devise “new conditions of oppression” resulting in “new forms of struggle that replace old ones”. Society exists in two hostile camps, “bourgeoisie, and proletariat”. The bourgeoisie construct society to prevent the oppressed from ever rising above their class.17 Does this sound familiar?

Proponents of CRT adapted Marx’s theory replacing economic with racial class. Just as Marx contended due to oppression by the bourgeoisie the proletariat could never rise above its station in life, CRT argues the same with respect to race. Whites are the bourgeoisie and blacks the oppressed downtrodden proletariat. As butterflies pinned to a museum display case, blacks cannot escape their race. Born black, black they will always be. Because whites designed society to exclude them, it automatically denies blacks full participation. Where did CRT come from? Like any movement, CRT has its pioneers.

Derrick Bell, Professor of Law at New York University, together with Alan Freeman, a white “scholar”, State University-Buffalo Law School, created the foundations for Critical Race Theory. They and those who followed cleverly refashioned Marx’s theory to explain why blacks fail to thrive in white society.18 It should not escape notice white people were integral to the black struggle for equality going back to abolition. Much like Vincenty, Bell brushes aside this untidy fact asserting, “Whites support civil rights protections for blacks only if those protections would also promote white self-interest and social status”. He views blackness as equivalent to membership in a “permanently oppressed caste”. For white people, “racism is a normal, permanent aspect of life”. For blacks, notions of “equality before the law” is an affront, an insult because systemic white racism fixes blacks in an inescapable oppressed class denied the same rights enjoyed by whites. Therefore, black “moral claims” to equality before the law “are superior to those of whites”.19

Professor Bell, like his CRT replicates, “built his academic career” on “the endless repetition of the claim that whites and white institutions are irremediably racist”. He also embraces Race Traitor, a journal dedicated to the “abolition of whiteness”. Its motto is “Treason to the white race is loyalty to humanity”.20 Bell, like other CRT adherents, insists the American legal system is structurally racist.21 This includes its laws, courts, police, and prisons.22 In addition, “American society at large” is “racist” in its very “construction”. White racism permeates all aspects of American culture and life. This includes its educational, economic, governmental, health care, and religious institutions. Because whites constructed them to promote white supremacy, racism is intertwined with and inseparable from their institutions. Therefore, “oppressed racial groups have both the right and duty to decide for itself” which laws they will obey.23 Looting during summer riot seasons is acceptable because blacks are re-appropriating what whites stole from them through slavery and exploitation.24

Bell condemns and rejects all standards with respect to research methodology as racist constructs. Flouting convention, he eschews source citation contending black oral “storytelling narratives” are more legitimate. Do universities allow white professors to do the same? This carries over in his demand universities hire and promote blacks irrespective of qualifications. Harvard Law always prided itself on hiring professors with law degrees from elite universities, who clerked for the Supreme Court, and worked in a major law firm. In response to pressure from the Black Law Students Association, Harvard hired Bell who met none of these qualifications. He “mocked” them as “exclusionary constructs of a racist white power structure” erected to “deny blacks an opportunity to teach at the nation’s elite schools”.25 Does this hold true for white law school graduates denied employment by Harvard who lack these requisite qualifications? Bell complains, “White society condemns all blacks to quasi-citizenship as surely as it segregated our parents”. Slavery shows what white people did and could do again and “black people will never gain full equality”. Blacks “must confront and conquer” this “reality of our permanent subordinate status”.26

Kathleen Cleaver, once Communications Secretary for the Black Panther Party, is a senior lecturer in law at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. She insists the Panthers were part of a “liberation” movement and violence committed by blacks, especially against police, constitutes “righteous resistance” and “self-defense”.27 Is this not what BLM and its surrogates say? Is there a connection between BLM’s claim attacking police is self-defense and the dramatic spike in assaults against officers? Cleaver teaches revolution to overthrow white society in American and Europe is necessary because they built their societies on colonization and enslavement of black and brown peoples. She embraces communist dictatorships as well as Muslim terrorist groups. In short, she finds common cause with anyone who hates America and the white man.28

Lewis R. Gordon, professor of Philosophy, Temple University, joins professors Bell, Freeman, and Cleaver in pushing CRT. Not only is he a member of the Radical Philosophy Association, but he has authored articles for Political Affairs, the “theoretical organ of the American Communist Party”. He teaches, “White America does not see blacks as individuals, but as a threatening ‘existential reality’ waiting to overtake the country”. He argues blacks suffer “humanistic anxieties” resulting not just from past injustices but “modern slavery and racism”. These injustices continue because white Americans refuse to regard blacks “in racial terms in their ‘blackness”. A color-blind society would cause blacks to disappear. He calls for teaching a new African philosophy that rejects Western Philosophy. Professors should view students “as potential agents to be deployed in the service of ‘progressive’ politicians”. Like other CRT adherents, he speaks extensively on “liberation” of blacks from the white society that “cruelly oppresses them”.29 They can only achieve this through revolution and overthrow of all aspects of white society.

This constitutes but a sampling of CRT proponents. They exist on virtually every college campus. White majority public schools are rushing to implement CRT curriculum. How many Americans understand what CRT is? How many know it is the intellectual foundation of BLM? How many know liberal white teachers have been promoting CRT in public schools for some time? CRT and BLM cannot survive a color-blind society. For them, race identifies who is part of the oppressor and oppressed groups. Therefore, they reject Martin Luther King’s call for non-violent resistance and a color-blind society. Yusra Khogali, co-founder of the Toronto, Canada BLM Chapter, declared BLM rejects the goals and tactics of the “old-guard” who led the civil rights movement in the 1960s. They reject notions of equality, integration, and assimilation into mainstream America. Instead, they want to overthrow it.30

CRT is an adaption of Karl Marx’s theory on class conflict and oppression. It teaches that Caucasians are inherently racist as if part of their DNA. They are irredeemably racist unable to escape their history of exploitation, oppression, and enslavement of black and brown people. They built their civilization and wealth on racial expropriation. They maintain comfortable middle and upper class lifestyles by denying blacks a seat at the table. Whites constructed their institutions to ensure hegemony over other races. The police enforce white rule. Therefore, liberation for the black man can occur only when he overthrows white society and all its institutions. This then, is CRT.

1 Ron Martinelli, Ph.D., The Truth Behind The Black Lives Matter Movement And The War On Police (Temecula, California, Martinelli & Associates, Justice & Forensics Consultants, Inc., 2016), 153.

2 “Flashback, Al Sharpton Screaming At A Crowd to ‘Off the pigs’ and ‘crackers” at https://www.dailywire.com/news/flashback-al-sharpton-screaming-crowd-pigs-and-chase-stephens.

3 Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, A History of the United States Since 1861 (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1990), 695.

4 Samantha Vincenty, “Being ‘Color Blind’ Doesn’t Make You Not Racist—In Fact, It Can Mean The Opposite”, 12 June 2020 at https://www.oprahdaily.com/life/

5 Black Lives Matter at http://www.blacklivesmatter.com/. This is from BLM’s 2015 webpage. They have sanitized and scrubbed some content from their webpage to hide who they really are.

6 National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), “The Current Stat of Equal Pay Laws, at https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/the-current-state-of-equal-pay-laws.aspx

7 Vincenty, “Being Color Blind”.

8 IBID.

9 David Horowitz, The Professors (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006), 358-364.

1010 Vincenty, “Being Color Blind”.

1111 Martinelli, 113.

1212 B. Joseph, “Why Nigerian Immigrants Are One of The Most Successful Immigrant Groups in the U.S., 2 July 2018, at https://medium.com/@joecarleton/why-nigerians-are-one-of-the-most-successful-immigrant-groups-in-us-23a7ea5a0832

1313 Brandon Jones, M.A., Psychotherapist and Behavioral Health Consultant, “Legacy of Trauma, ‘Context of the African American Existence”, at https://health-state-mn-us/communites/equality/projects/infantmortality/session2.pdf.

1414 Vincenty, “Being Color Blind”.

1515 Donna Weaver, Staff Writer, “Black Police officers talk about being seen as traitors by community”, The Press of Atlantic City, 1 March 2016, at https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/crime/black-police-officers-talk-about-being-seen-as-traitors-by-community/article_aef98ab2-dd96-11e5-a926-eba8ce62ad69.htm;

1616 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Joseph Katz, editor, The Communist Manifesto (New York, N.Y., Washington Square Press, Pocket Books, A Division of Simon & Schuster, 1974), 57-58.

1717 IBID. 59-66.

1818 Horowitz, 56.

1919 IBID, 56.

2020 IBID, 56.

2121 IBID, 56-57.

2222 IBID, 57.

2323 IBID, 57.

2424 Khaldea Rahman, “Black Lives Matter, Chicago Organizer Defends Looting: ‘That’s Reparations”, 12 August 2020, Newsweek at https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-chicago-defends-looting-reparations-1524502.

2525 Horowitz, 57.

2626 IBID, 60.

2727 IBID, 89.

2828 IBID, 90-91.

2929 IBID. 197-199.

3030 Taleeb Starkes, Black Lies Matter: Why Lies Matter To The Racial Grievance Industry (Lexington, Kentucky, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016), 30-34.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Lifting the Veil On [S]BLM[K]

 

 

 

My heart goes out to the brave men and women of the Armed Forces and Law Enforcement. You put your lives on the line to protect America from enemies foreign and domestic. Your countrymen have betrayed you. They have handed her over to these people who hate this country and despise everything for which you stand and fight.

At the start of each New Year, pundits and commentators on the passing scene typically offer a retrospective best and worst of list for the preceding year. This is my offering for the Ten Biggest Whoppers of 2020:

1. Mostly peaceful protests.

2. Two weeks to flatten the curve.

3. Social media supports the 1st Amendment.

4. Black lives matter to Black Lives Matter.

5. Follow the science.

6. Emulate your political “leaders”; always wear a mask and social distance.

7. Fair and honest elections.

8. AOC is not an eighth grade girl blogging from her bedroom.

9. Nancy Pelosi does not sleep with the undead.

10. Joe Biden is president.

Growing up in America, like anyone else, I was an avid consumer of pop-culture entertainment, film, and music. By my university years, I perceived the Left was using these medium to inculcate unsuspecting youth with their subversive “values”. Their goal is to deconstruct Judeo-Christian based Western Civilization. Like shop-a-holics, credit card in one hand phone in the other watching the HSN Channel, people seemed incapable of resisting indoctrination. Too many bought into the value system and worldview peddled by cultural and political revolutionaries without question. Even more insidious are public school teachers serving as their political commissars in classrooms. Has there been a ripple effect to this brainwashing?

I have been a Formula 1 racing fan, the world’s premier motorsport, since childhood. My favorite teams included Lotus and McLaren. Several years ago, I gravitated toward Mercedes with her glittering silver cars trimmed in teal. Englishman Lewis Hamilton won his first World Championship with McLaren and then six more with Mercedes. Wikipedia, perhaps the worst source for information, lists Hamilton as black. However, he is actually mixed-race. His dad is black from the Caribbean and his mother white from England where Lewis was born and raised. Over the years, I collected Hamilton apparel, biography, autographed picture, and die-cast racecar. However, because he chose to inject politics into the sport, my Hamilton memorabilia is no more. I have binned it all. Last year, Hamilton decided he was an angry black American, from South Central Los Angeles no doubt, who took up the cause of black Americans BLM claims the police are systematically murdering on behalf of white America. This millionaire jet-setting bon vivant was soon sporting BLM shirts and hats, kneeling sans American flag, and raising the Marxist clenched fist before each race. However, that was not enough. He publicly called out as racists, drivers who did not kneel with him. He forced them to wear black T-shirts reading “End Racism” during the host country’s national anthem. Formula 1’s panjandrums decreed that racetracks and buildings display slogans about racism. However, that was still not enough. Mercedes repainted their shimmering silver cars an angry flat black with BLM-like slogans on the car’s halo device. I was stunned. BLM, started by three Marxists, is a domestic terrorist organization with the blood of police officers and citizens on its hands. Heading into a new season, I wondered how much of BLM’s Kool Aid motorsports fans had imbibed. Time to find out.

I joined several Face Book Formula 1 Groups. One gentleman lamented the manner in which Hamilton has injected politics into the sport causing “divisions” between fans. I noted the hypocrisy of Hamilton and Formula 1 claiming to be fighting oppression while holding races in countries with state sanctioned slavery and in Islamic states where women are second-class citizens. Mr. Qundiso Mpofu challenged me to name such countries. I listed several in Africa, the Middle East, and Red China. Mr. Mpofo insisted there was as much oppression against blacks in the United States as in any other country. Then he made the jaw-dropping claim there was as much slavery in the U.S. as in China! I suggested he had taken leave of his senses and asked him to provide me examples. No response was forthcoming. He was alone among black Hamilton fans who equated criticism of BLM with racism.

On the FormulaNerds page, a member also bemoaned the degree to which Hamilton’s political activism was damaging the sport. I agreed noting, although Hamilton is a great driver worthy of the hype, I could no longer support him. Four members of my family served in the U.S. Military and two, including me, in Law Enforcement. I feel betrayed by his support of BLM. For a week, members responded with “likes”. Then a Liston Alexander asked how, by standing against racism and racial oppression, Hamilton had betrayed me. He asked if the “cellphone pictures were faked”? He chided “people like you” with “law enforcement experience” see the world differently than others, meaning blacks. I asked him to what cellphone images he referred and who was committing acts of oppression and violence against blacks in America’s cities. It is not police gunning down blacks in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, and Philadelphia among others. Does Hamilton speak out about oppression of blacks by other blacks? He has thrown support behind BLM whose message is the white race is inherently (born that way) racist, they constructed America’s institutions to preserve white hegemony by suppressing blacks, and the white race is waging a war of genocide against the black race, with police their instrument of extermination. Considering these are monstrous lies, guaranteed to generate hatred and violence between races, how could I support Hamilton?

Liston Alexander responded writing I had no empathy or understanding of the centuries of systemic racism inflicted on African-Americans. He claimed the only terrorists in America are the “armed supporters of Satan who stormed the Capitol building” and for me to shift the blame to BLM for anything, and black people, who are the “victims tells me exactly who you Are” [capitalization in the original]. I responded writing I owed Mr. Alexander an apology presuming he was an educated intelligent person but that was clearly not the case. I noted the greatest oppression of blacks occurs between Mauritania in the west to Somalia in the east and Chad in the north to Zimbabwe in the south. In addition, I had grown up partly in Baltimore and Philadelphia’s inner cities, and attended majority black schools. Whites did not oppress blacks they were terrified of them. BLM never mentions this. No response.

An argument commonly employed by supporters is to say they do not endorse BLM’s Marxist goals and violence only its struggle against racism. It does not work that way. As the Monster from Austria [MFA] built the National Socialist German Workers Party, he attracted Germans with disparate grievances. Germany’s military was its pride and joy. Veterans believed politicians stabbed them in the back while still on battlefield at the end of the Great War tarnishing them with the stain of defeat. Soldiers wanted the military returned to its former glory. Germans crushed by the burden of war reparations, as well as union workers, believed MFA would restore the economy and jobs. Others rejected the war-guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles and many Germans feared the rise of the Communist Party in the Weimar Republic. Of course, there was the bizarre cult that saw Jews as subhuman and poison to German culture. People representing these factions found themselves supporting the Nazi Party vigorously or as the lesser among several evils.2 History demonstrates that one cannot disaggregate responsibility for the evil a group does by declaring support for only part of its actions. This would be like declaring, although one opposes lynching, nevertheless, they joined the Klan because it supports strong families. In addition, sans support for the NAZIS by these factions, they would not have come to power. This is why, after the war, the Allies did not allow Germans who were members of the Party to say they never supported persecution of and ultimately mass murder of Jews. Who then, is Black Lives Matter?

Former police officer and currently a forensic criminologist Ron Martinelli, Ph.D. writes of BLM, “This is an organized and well-funded, media savvy, national, and international movement, based upon revolutionary Marxist ideology. The movement seeks to systematically attack, diminish, and eventually overthrow the rule of law and the democratic form of government to free whom they see to be the oppressed masses”.3 How can those supporting BLM, like American professional athletes and Lewis Hamilton, not know this? They support an organization seeking to overthrow the U.S. system of government in favor of a Marxist dictatorship. They say so. BLM and its “ancillary militant groups and organizations” drive to defund law enforcement, in order to upend the rule of law, is preparatory to overthrowing American’s “democratic way of life”.4 If this is true, how can so many people, black and white, support [S]BLM[K]? Could the answer be what I have written is false? To answer this question, we repair to BLM’s Webpage from 2015.

Three female Marxists founded BLM in 2013 following the jury’s acquittal of George Zimmerman charged by the state [Florida] with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. BLM used the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri [2014], as the vehicle to catapult it to national prominence.5 BLM’s founders, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, used rare police shootings of unarmed black men to claim these shootings were, instead, the norm and represented a monstrous conspiracy by the white to exterminate the black race. Garza, a lesbian Marxist, began the call for Black Lives Matter on Face Book. Cullors, also a lesbian Marxist, joined the nascent organization while running a convict “advocacy” organization in prisons. Tometi, a Marxist immigrant from Nigeria, ran an advocacy group for black immigrants.6 In 2015, BLM’s website consisted of history, a mission statement, and various political declarations. They asserted white cops were waging a war of terrorism against the black race. Their credo under “We Affirm That All Black Lives Matter” clearly explains “Black lives matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It’s an affirmation of Black folk’s contributions to this society, our humanity, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression”.7 Systemized and intentional means; people organize a process to achieve a specific goal through methods standardized to the point they become a replicable system. It requires an objective and metrics by which those managing the system can measure progress toward that goal and a definition of what accomplishing that goal looks like. Intentional means individuals deliberately created the plan and system with a specific goal in mind.8 Therefore, BLM argues leaders within the white race decided to exterminate the black race. They created a standardized plan to achieve their goal (systematic), methods to ensure its success (institutionalized), and a means (the police). The white race has purposed to commit genocide against the black race according to BLM’s webpage (if they have not sanitized it yet). BLM affirms its right to fight back by any means. They mean killing police officers and race war.9 What do they mean their movement is “ideological”? Clicking on text boxes quickly provides an answer.

Under “Black Villages” it reads “We are committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure requirement supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another and especially ‘our’ children to the degree that mothers parents, and children are comfortable”.10 Other textboxes contain militantly feminist, homosexual, and “transgendered” (sic) statements. BLM is committed to dismantling the traditional Judeo-Christian family structure replacing it with a lesbian ruled matriarchy wherein hermaphroditic men serve their interests like worker bees. They declare, “We are working to [re]build the Black Liberation Movement”.11 Liberation from what? In the 1960s, the Black Power Movement, a liberation movement, founded by Stokely Carmichael, Malcom X, and others broke with Martin Luther King over his insistence on non-violent resistance and universal brotherhood. They preached gathering arms to execute violent revolution and enact revenge on the white race with separation being their ultimate objective.12 The Black Power Movement’s view of the white race as an irredeemable enemy and call for violent revolution, with separation into a black nation lines up with today’s BLM movement.

Calls for healing, reconciliation, and unity are contrary to the worldview of the BLM movement. They despise notions of black life’s “fate in America decided inevitably by white people”. Liberation is freedom from “the power of whites” who have no future in their world.13 BLM denounces “buy black” campaigns because they ignore “our sisters queer, and trans (sic) blacks”. They affirm, “The lives of black queer and trans (sic) folk, disabled folks, black undocumented folks” and black prison inmates “along the gender spectrum”. They assert black poverty is the result of state directed genocide. Blacks in prison are innocent victims of “state violence” and “Black queer and trans (sic) folk bear a unique burden from a hetero-patriarchal society that disposes of us like garbage and simultaneously fetishes us and profits off of us and this is state violence”. Their slogan is “justice, liberation, and peace”, identical to the slogans of communist guerillas in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.14 Knowingly or not, anyone who dons BLM apparel, raises a clenched fist, or takes a knee metaphorically spitting on the American flag, lends support to BLM’s claim white people are beyond salvation and their call to race-war.

I understand the pique of blacks at my critique. Pathologies afflicting black cities include high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, drug use, school dropouts, and unwed mothers. BLM and its supporters have invested too deeply in white oppression narratives as the cause of these pathologies to countenance contrary explanations. Racism is the root cause of their lagging academic and employment accomplishment, compared to Asians and Hispanics. If not for the white race using its institutions and police to hold him down, they would succeed like everyone else. Black crime rates are no higher than other races; the police simply target only them for enforcement. Challenging BLM’s assertions, I encountered anger and brick wall like resistance to the truth. It is easier to blame scapegoats than accept perhaps to some degree; pathologies plaguing inner cities might be self-inflicted. Equally, I understand the pique of whites. From them I rob any rationale for purging their “white-guilt” through self-hatred and prostration before blacks, believing they rightfully deserve the hatred, opprobrium, and debasement BLM hurls at them. I take away the validity of “deconstructing” their whiteness through acts of self-flagellation.

Why do whites submit to debasement and humiliation by BLM and its allies? Why are they sock-puppets spewing the propaganda of those who hate them? What has so annealed them to the point they cannot be reached? Two culprits come to mind. Had pop-culture and public education not first fertilized their minds with the manure of lies and evil propaganda, America would not today be harvesting such poisoned fruit.

22 The BBC, Higher Learning, “Why The Nazis Achieved Power”, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitsize/guides/zsrwjxs/revision/7

33 Ron Martinelli, Ph.D., The Truth Behind The Black Lives Matter Movement And The War On Police (Temecula, California, Martinelli & Associates, Justice and Forensic Consultants, Inc., 2016), 3.

44 IBID. viii.

55 IBID. vii-viii.

66 IBID. 1-2.

77 Black Lives Matter, 2015, at http://www.blacklivesmatter.com

88 Yitzhak Goldstein’s definition derived from educational theory with respect to measuring learning progress.

99 BLM Webpage.

1010 IBID.

1111 IBID.

1212 Daniel J. Boorstin and Brooks Mather Kelley, A History of the United States Since 1861 (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1990), 437-439.

1313 David Horowitz, Hating Whitely And Other Progressive Causes (Dallas, Texas, Spence Publishing Company, 1999), 82-83.

1414 BLM Webpage. I am not writing from memory. Not only did I take notes, I downloaded and copied their 2015 webpage.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Wake Up, We Are At War

Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well—by creating the international child of the future.”1

Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry, Harvard University

There is a threat posed to human freedom by the enormous power of the modern state. History teaches the dangers of government that overreaches—political control taking precedence over free economic growth, secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual excellence and personal freedom.”2

Ronald Reagan

As I write these words, premeditated illegal aliens, hoping to become legal aliens under Joebama’s planned amnesty, amass at America’s southern border.3 They are colonists, not immigrants. Visit any number of “Little Italy’s” in America’s cities. You find Italian flags, food, music, and some people still speaking the old tongue, but it will have a distinctly American feel. The ebb and flow of life is pure Americana. Not so with more recent “immigrants”. They colonize areas to which they migrate transforming them into the places from whence they came. Visit California and you will understand. Colonization, not assimilation.

Prior to the “election”, Republicans from Sean Hannity to President Donald Trump warned that Democrats were “radical” and “extreme” socialists different from previous party liberals. They made a mistake in the first case and were wrong in the second. Calling liberal Democrats radical socialists was preaching to the choir. They already knew this. Republicans needed to reach the average American. Those who attended public schools. Teachers often do not explain what socialism is nor its long tragic history. Instead of labels and name calling, Republicans needed to make the case that socialism destroys economies, destroys freedom, renders people subjects not citizens, and why. Are contemporary liberal Democrats more socialistic than party liberals of yore?

Beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, liberals transformed America into a “Welfare State”. “The premise of the welfare state is the federal government is basically responsible for the material well-being of the American people”4, which, of course, flies in the face of constitutionally limited government. Programs falling under the welfare-state umbrella include poverty assistance, food stamps, medical insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, bank and business bailouts, college tuition subsidies, and so forth. The “federal” government funds these programs by transferring the income from those who produced it to those who did not. However, this is not socialism, right?

As defined by two former adherents, socialism is “The economic system” in which “human” and “material resources” are managed and controlled by a relatively small group of people according to their view of a common good. The difference between socialism and capitalism is, in the former, the few make economic decisions, in the latter, private individuals do.5 Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto wrote, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”.6 When government takes resources, whether corporate or individual, by force, and transfers them to those with lesser resources, they are acting out Marx’s maxim. “Recipients of entitlement spending, whether Social Security benefits, Medicaid, or food stamps, have property rights to income that takes precedence over the property rights of those who produce the income”.7 If a government owns material resources and controls their distribution to effect a desired outcome with respect to the material “well-being” of the people, it is a socialist system. If another government takes by force, through taxation, fees, and import duties, the material resources of corporations and individuals, transferring them to businesses and people to whom they do not belong, in order to effect a desired outcome, this too is a form of socialism. The difference being, in the latter case, private individuals still own the resources. However, since the purpose and outcome for both, determined by the few, is largely the same, the difference is in degree.8

Franklyn Roosevelt’s use of centralized top down economic decision-making to “manage” private resources led to a wholesale takeover by government. This is socialism. At the end of W.W. II, President Truman issued executive orders to seize private businesses “including a coal mine, three oil refineries, an airport, cotton mills, a railroad, the Chicago cab industry, and a rubber plant”. He asserted presidents had constitutional authority to take over private industries during emergencies. Democrats had used W.W. II to force Americans to accept government regimentation of all aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, Truman and New Deal Democrats were wrong on all counts. What they promoted was unconstitutional. After the war, Truman pushed socialized medicine, government control over prices and wages, and even threatened to draft striking coal miners into the U.S. Army if they did not go back to work.9 Lyndon Johnson’s implementation of socialist Great Society Programs would take pages just to list. How are these liberals different from those who Republicans call “radical socialists” in the modern Democrat Party? The difference is in what liberals can get away with now versus then.

Instead of fighting Democrat socialists tooth and nail for the past decades, Republicans waxed sanguine over compromise with their “friends across the aisle”. How is someone determined to destroy the religious and cultural way of life of others, their friend? How does one compromise with those whose lifegoal is to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights? They are not your friends. They are at war with you. Through use of language, liberals spill the beans.

First, as a policeman in California’s radical Bay Area, and later as a public high school teacher in a socialIST studies department, I was the target of numerous unprovoked and unsolicited debates with liberals. They typically took the form of hit-and-run verbal attacks. From these experiences, I reached two conclusions. First, liberals tend to use “Republican” and “conservative” interchangeably as if synonymous. Second conservatives and especially Republicans do not appear to grasp they are in a war with liberals for the fate of liberty. Their attitude toward political defeat is similar to losing a baseball game; “We lost today but we’ll get them the next time”. Could such naïve attitudes explain Republican’s lack of support for President Trump in the face of the nation’s first coup? The struggle to preserve and regain lost freedom is not a sporting event. There will be no rematch, no comeback, and no tomorrow.

The term “conservative” represents an ideology based on a shared set of cohesive and interrelated economic, philosophical, political, and social norms grounded in Judeo-Christian principles.10 Republican on the other hand refers to a political party. Parties are “a group of citizens organized to win elections, control government, and set public policy”.11 The latter lacks the ideological underpinnings of the former. In general, conservatives believe rights are inviolate bestowed on people by G-d as stated in the Declaration of Independence.12 Conservatives embrace the Founder’s cornerstones of American democracy: individual liberty, limited government, representative democracy, and rule of law.13 Liberal’s misuse of terminology and assumption that conservative and Republican are synonymous is autobiographical. It reveals that, for them, ideology and political party are inseparable. They assume Republicans are doctrinaire conservatives because so many Democrats are doctrinaire liberals. They hate Republicans not because they are rivals for political power but because they are engaged in an ideological war and assume Republicans are as well. However, this is not the case.

For example, George Bush 41 let Americans down as much as Bill Clinton did with respect to onerous gun-control laws. Bush 43 stated he would sign a so-called “assault weapons” ban if it reached his desk.14 Former Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney supported abortion, homosexual “marriage” (sic), gun control, and state mandated health insurance, positions no conservative could ever embrace. Since the 1960s, liberals have worked to wed leftist ideology to the Democrat Party until they are one and the same. Historian John Dziak notes that the conjoining of a political party with the state (government) led to the creation of a security state in the former Soviet Union. It was obsessed with protecting its power and rule through the identification of enemies, “real or notional, and then destroying them.” It created a security service that “penetrated and permeated all societal institutions” including education, mass media, and the military. From the Cheka to the KGB, it was ruthless and driven to find and destroy all “enemies”.15 Liberals used to make thinly veiled suggestions that conservatives were crypto-Nazis. Now, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Sandy Cortez, Kali Harris, CNN, the New York Times, and many others are out of the closet asserting conservatives are Klansmen, Nazis, and vile racists, enemies America must destroy. Thin veils are gone.

David Horowitz contends that, until the ascendancy of George McGovern in the Democrat Party (1972), American political contests between Democrats and Republicans were non-ideological family feuds. This changed in the late 1960s when the counterculture Left took control of and reshaped the Democrat Party in its own image. He argues the Democrat Party is now almost indistinguishable from the traditional left-wing parties of Europe that made up the “Second Socialist International”. American liberals in general view rights as creations of government a view shared by European socialists. They reject the principle of limited government as well as the contractual nature of the Constitution. What the liberal media refers to as a “culture war” represents a conservative reaction to the Left’s assault against the Republic’s founding principles. Nevertheless, conservatives, especially those calling themselves Republicans, do not realize they are in a war according to Horowitz.16 Country club blue-blood Republicans from Theodore Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller, both President Bush’s, and Mitt Romney appear to view the Republican Party simply as a vehicle through which they can express their sense of noblesse oblige (nobility obligates). It is their duty to govern by virtue of their aristocratic birth. Ideology plays no role in their motivation to seek office. To win elections they are forced to associate with undesirables in the Republican Party; farmers, blue-collar workers, Christians, pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment advocates, supporters of traditional marriage, NASCAR-types, and the sort who shop at Bass Pro. Once elected, the blue bloods are free to disassociate from the rabble until the next election cycle. Laura Ingraham writes that many Republicans look down “on socially conservative, middle-class Americans as being too radical and hard-edged”. She calls them elitists and notes they “pride themselves on their ‘moderation’ ‘pragmatism’ and ability to forge ‘bipartisan agreements with their ‘good friends’ the Democrats.” She names Senators Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins as examples of liberal Republicans who demonstrate their sophistication and fair-mindedness by agreeing with the liberal Democrat agenda.17 I could add to this list many other names. How are Republicans, doormats for Democrats, a viable alternative?

When Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House, they will be free to implement their three-pronged strategy to remake America in their socialist image and leave Republicans a permanent minority party. They will continue to neutralize conservatives through smear and slander campaigns rendering traditional Judeo-Christian moral values socially unacceptable. Liberals will denature the Republican Party by convincing them election of another Reagan is impossible. Instead, they must nominate “moderate” Republicans (liberals on the installment plan) to have any chance of winning the White House. This will kill support among real Americans for the Republican Party. Democrats will pass far-reaching socialistic legislation to further American dependency on the government guaranteeing Democrat rule in perpetuity. People will vote Democrat or risk losing goodies such as “free” healthcare. In addition, their assault on conservative radio and social media will escalate. Their listeners represent what former Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew called the “silent majority”.18 If liberals can discredit these spokesmen for conservatism, their voice and influence will disappear.

Former Connecticut Republican Congressman Chris Shays built a long career of bipartisanship by aping his liberal Democrat colleagues. Earning a lifetime score of only 44% from the American Conservative Union before he was retired, Shays told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that the Republican Party should broaden its base to include so-called moderates and liberals. Is he an Episcopalian? He added that former Vice President Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh should not be deciding who is or is not a good Republican and that Colin Powell was indeed “a good Republican for a long time”.19 After “good Republican”, Colin Powell turned on John McCain and endorsed Democrat Barack Obama he hit the speaking circuit with further denunciations of conservatives. He warned Republicans must broaden their party’s philosophical message meaning, become liberals. When asked by Bob Schieffer to respond to Limbaugh’s claim he was really a Democrat, Powell stated, “Republicans would be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them”.20 Regrettably, President Reagan appointed classroom Lt. General Colin Powell to deputy national security adviser in 1987.21 George W. Bush later appointed Powell to be Secretary of State. David Frum, liberal’s favorite “conservative Republican”, (who came out in support of homosexual marriage and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016), jumped on the bandwagon with Powell and Shays. He agreed with Obama Chief of Staff and former Clinton hatchet man Rahm Emmanuel that Limbaugh is aggressive, bombastic, has a history of bad marriages, is a fat drug addict, and now is the head of the Republican Party. He accused Rush of wanting the party to lose because this will somehow increase his control over them. He advised Republicans to “modulate” their “social conservatism” meaning silencing the voices of Christians, pro-lifers, and those who support Biblical “marriage”.22 In short, faux conservatives like Shays, Powell, and Frum pushed to transform the Republican into the Democrat-Party Lite. Democrats fight for what they believe in and Republicans help them. Perhaps Republicans forget Reagan won two terms as Governor of a liberal state. When he ran for president, Reagan refused to modulate his conservative message that government was the problem not the solution and won two-landslide elections in the process.

I have no doubt Democrats rigged the 2020 presidential election and, through massive fraud and ballot stuffing, stole it from Donald Trump. It represents the first Lain American style coup in U.S. history. Americans are witnessing a political party, in cahoots with an entrenched bureaucracy, State media, and Big Tech, successfully depose an elected president. If Americans do not take a stand, if they do nothing, it is over. My respect for this country, its institutions, and neighbors will be gone. It will be time to furl the flag. If I am correct about them, Republicans will cast about for a Mitt Romney, Nikki Haley type “me-too” Republican for 2024. They will work behind the scenes to silence Trump supporters and his influence from the party…forever.

RINOs in action

 

 

1 Great Quotes from the War Over Education, Education Watch at http://www.edwatch.org.

10 Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1996), 502.

11 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), 268.

12 Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative (New York, N.Y., Manor Books, Inc., 1960/1975), 9-14. See also; Clarence Carson’s Government, 61-66, Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America (Washington D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2002), -7, 10-12, 310, 396, 397-400, 406-13., Thomas E. Woods Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), 2-6, 17, 20-22., Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson, Martin Anderson, editors, Reagan In His Own Hand (New York, N.Y. The Free Press, 2001), 174-78, 359-360, Gregory L. Schneider, editor, Conservatism In America Since 1930, (New York, N.Y. University Press, 2003), and George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement In America Since 1945 (Wilmington, Delaware, Intercollegiate Studies Institute,1996.

13 Hardy, 31.

14 Eric Lichtblau, “Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports Ban On Assault Weapons”, May 8 2003, The New York Times, at https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/irking-nra-bush-supports-the-ban-on-assault-weapons.html

15 John J. Dziak, Chekisty: A History of the KGB (Lexington, Massachusetts, Lexington Books, 1988), 1-18.

16 David Horowitz, The Art of Political War (Dallas, Texas, Spence Publishing Company, 2000), ix-xii.

17 Laura Ingraham, Shut Up And Sing: How Elites From Hollywood, Politics, And The U.N. Are Subverting America (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing Inc., 2003), 11-12.

18 Francis X. Clines, “Spiro T. Agnew, Point Man for Nixon Who Resigned Vice Presidency, Dies at 77” New York Times, (Thursday September 19, 1996), at http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/19/us/spirot-t-agnew-point-man-for-nixon-who-resigned-vice-presidenc

19 Scott Whitlock, “Andrea Mitchell Features Good Republican Chris Shays to Critique Steele,” News Busters at http://www.newsbusters.org (Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center).

20 Colin Powell on Rush Limbaugh at http://rightwingnews.com

21 Ronald Reagan, An American Life: The Autobiography (New York, N.Y., Simon and Schuster, 1990), 535.

22 David Frum, “Why Rush Is Wrong” Newsweek (March 16, 2009), 25-32.

2 Ronald Reagan, Speaking My Mind (New York, N.Y., Simon and Schuster, 1989), 111. An address to the members of the British Parliament, Palace of Westminster, June 8, 1982.

3 Editors, “Immigration Officials Anticipate Flood of Illegal Immigrants Under Biden Administration”, Headline News USA, December 16 2020 at https://headlineusa.com/flood-illegal-immigrants.biden.

4 Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United State, Volume 5: The Welfare State 1929-1985 (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1987), 1.

5 Brian Crozier and Arthur Seldon, Socialism The Grand Delusion (New York, N.Y., Universe Books, 1986), 15.

6 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works In Two Volumes, Volume II (London, England, Lawrence And Wishart, LTD., 1950), 13-15. See also, https://www.britanica.com/biography/Karl-Marx/quotes. From Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Programme”, Foreign Language Press, Peking, 1972, David J. Romagnolo, editor, page 10 at http://ptb.lashout.net/marx2mao/M&E/cgp77.html.

7 Paul Craig Roberts, “GOP’s Deficit Phobia Ignores Larger Entitlement Problem” Human Events (March 3, 1995), 20.

8 Brian Crozier and Arthur Seldon, Socialism: The Grand Delusion (New York N.Y., Universe Books, 1986), 15-17.

9 Brion McClanahan, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and four who tried to save her (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2016), 102-118.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Yelling ‘Liberal’ In A Crowded Fire

Yitzhak Goldstein, Professor Errant

Ouch!

To be a conservative in a high school socialIST studies department is to experience what a whitetail deer does on opening day. Hunted on all sides. Only, the season never ends and there is no bag-limit. I often thought about forming an organization for conservative history teachers. We could meet together in a telephone booth. Alas, I never found a booth or another such teacher for that matter. Once viperous colleagues, dexterous with cutlery, got me “canceled”, this need seemed moot. Maybe. Still, Americans need to realize, the dearth of conservative teachers means only one side takes the field.

U.S. Government and Constitution was my forte. I was in my 17th year when, on Wednesday 27 January 2010, the principal summoned me to his office. “Close the door” he said, a bad sign. Like an attorney, he scribbled notes on a yellow legal pad during interrogations. Looking up, an angry scowl on his face, he said, “You have a reputation for being a conservative, a problem that has persisted for years. It is the number one topic among staff. They complain to me about what you teach and your bias”. A parent said her special education son never did well with conservative teachers and wanted him transferred from my government class.1 Stunned, I asked when conservativism became a crime. If simply being a conservative was controversial, it demonstrated who was really biased. He was not amused. His eyes went from blue to purple meaning he was furious. “No, you’re the problem” he yelled at me. “You’re the only one I receive complaints about for bias”!

I explained government courses by nature are political. Controversial issues are bound to arise. Because I was the only Constitutional Originalist among the four teaching it, naturally I stood out. Second, I was not the only one receiving parent complaints (if his claim was even true. He was famous for telling teachers unnamed parents complained about them). Each semester parents confided in me objections to the liberal and anti-Christian bias of their kid’s teachers. I witnessed this including those trashing students out behind their backs because their dad was a pastor. I asked these parents to speak up but they declined. Each worried the district would label them “troublemakers”. Worse, they feared liberal teachers would retaliate against their kids. I told the principal I spoke with another teacher who shared my experiences not revealing it was Tim Latham, fired by the Lawrence, Kansas school district for being a conservative (it made national news).2 In addition, liberal colleagues mocked me by name (students told me) in front of their classes. They spread gossip and false stories about me. Nor did I mention the secret journal in which I recorded names, places, and dates of liberal bias and persecution. The principal laughed in my face saying none of what I said was true. I was a liar. I was the problem and cause of controversy in the school. I protested this was not true but he insisted I was making up everything I said. He even claimed there was no liberal bias among colleagues. I was the only one using the classroom to push my views. He could not have been more wrong.3

Because he judged me guilty (of doing what my accusers actually did), from that day forward, I was to turn in weekly lesson plans along with copies of every article, handout, homework assignment, quiz, and test I used so he could scour them for bias. I noted, absent the same requirement for liberal teachers, this amounted to a double standard. He said they did not use biased materials in their classes. “The one’s teaching out of Time, Newsweek, and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth certainly are”, I replied. I added basing his requirement purely on my being a conservative constituted a degree of harassment and even persecution. He was about blow his stack. He claimed many (I believe the term was “parade”) of teachers had come to him wanting to know why he had not disciplined or fired me yet. I demanded to know the names of my accusers. His response was sardonic laughter. He refused to divulge their names adding, with a mocking sneer, “You’d really be surprised if you knew who some of them were”. I insisted it was unfair to demand I answer accusations of anonymous people. He said in a slow drawn out sentence, “You will never know who they are”. Because these teachers did not want their names public, he could not institute formal proceedings however, he was commencing an investigation of me for bias. Dismissed. As I reached the door, he said, “This is not over. We’re not through yet”.4

Somehow, word got out I was on the hot seat. Colleagues called me “toxic” and “radioactive”. They refused to sit near me at faculty meetings, (where I had all 11 seats in the row to myself) in-service training, department meetings, and school sponsored lunches and dinners…for the next six years. Teachers were required to stand in hallways during passing periods monitoring student behavior. When the principal and assistant principals walked by, colleagues said it would be a good career move to be seen slamming me into a wall or knocking me down steps. Word of my troubles “spread” to students. Several revealed they had been involved in debates with liberal teachers over the Constitution. When asked the source of their information, they said I was. Oh brother.

In April my liberal socialIST studies department supervisor revealed I was no longer teaching U.S. Government or Advanced Studies American History. I was demoted. I asked why. She repeated the same pabulum; unnamed parents and colleagues complained about my conservative bias. She refused to share what the principal told her. Even though I was the only history teacher in three high and three junior high schools with a Masters’ degree and published thesis in history, they demoted me to the least desirable courses. A week later, a guidance counselor and an art teacher told me they heard rumors I was being fired. Diabetic, stress played havoc with my blood glucose and heart. My students also said they heard the principal was firing me. The stress was almost unbearable. A custodian I knew warned that history teachers in the other building were “flaming liberals” and hated me. He became involved in a political debate with them, mentioned Rush Limbaugh, and they were furious. My supervisor warned they were “evaluating” him. The principal transferred him to another building. Later that day, a socialIST studies colleague said he too heard the principal was firing me. His students knew this as well. By Friday, I was having chest pains and difficulty breathing. A student walking into my class and said, “Mr. G, what are you doing here? I heard you were dead” I laughed my head off.

Aware for years Lefty colleagues were spying on and trying to cancel me, my self-defense strategy was to use primary source materials, e.g. the Declaration and Federalist Papers in government classes. I was golden, untouchable. I was wrong. Teaching the Constitution from the perspective of those who wrote and ratified it constituted unacceptable bias and got me booted. Worse, I had developed the nefarious practice of examining self-validating political clichés to test their validity. This sparked interested discussion among students. Chief among them was, because one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater First Amendment rights are not absolute. Therefore, it is up to those in power to determine the “limits” to what people may say, write, and publish. If government may “limit” one right, why not others? Can there be any doubt as to where this will lead?

The Career Suicide Gang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ongoing Tales of the CSG (Career Suicide Gang)5

Nancy Pelosi,6 whose visage evokes images of dark cobweb, choked ancient castles where Dracula reposes, recently used the old “fire in a crowded theater” cliché in support of Beijing Biden’s plan to confiscate from Americans various classes of firearms.7 In a 2017 interview, Pelosi first repeated the hackneyed cliché that no right was absolute because you cannot yell “wolf in a crowded theater”.8 In her dotage, we can forgive a misquotation but not Constitutional ignorance. Pelosi wrote a letter to the ‘National’9 (sic) Park Service demanding they not grant a permit to “alt-right” group, Patriot Prayer, to hold a demonstration. A journalist asked Pelosi, whether her request infringed on the group’s First Amendment rights. She answered, “The Constitution does not say that a person can yell wolf in a crowded theater” adding no one has a right to say anything that would endanger others.10 Unfamiliar with this “alt-right”, I read Michael Malice’s book on the subject. I concluded they are comprised of Leftwing capitalists, Rightwing socialists, and anarchists. I came away more confused than ever.11 I never heard of Patriot’s Prayer. Liberal online sites label them racists and “white nationalists”. However, their webpage denounces racism and violence. It concedes such groups show up at their rallies along with violent goon squads from Communist Pantifa chapters but they have no control over this.

If Pelosi knows anything about the Constitution, she keeps this knowledge a secret. The Constitution recognizes, not grants rights. It is a restraining order against government infringing on the rights of individuals. Because rights are G-d given, they preexist all governments. Those rejecting divine origin nevertheless insist rights are part of one’s humanity. People create and construct government solely to protect these rights. The subordinate cannot modify the supremacy of the superior. Government has no authority to regulate free speech nor may it deny a group access to the public square because it finds its speech objectionable. Police authorities are “required to protect liberty” as much as they are people. Pelosi mangled a phrase uttered by Chief Justice of the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes at the conclusion of Schenck v. U.S. (1919). In support of the Court’s 9-0 vote to suppress a man’s free speech, Holmes quipped that the First Amendment did not protect anyone who “falsely” shouted “fire in a theater causing panic”. Schenck was such a bad ruling even Holmes came to regret it. The Court overturned it in Bradenburg v. Ohio, 395, U.S. 1969. The Court held that under the First Amendment, an individual could, “advocate violence even in front of an armed crowd” as long as the speech was not intentionally planned to result in immediate acts of violence. Yet Pelosi reprises a quip from a discredited case.12

What did Schenck say that was so terrible? It was 1917 and President Wilson had just taken the U.S. into Europe’s Great War. Wilson worked feverishly to suppress criticism of his decision. Schenck, Secretary of the Socialist Party, USA, published and distributed a pamphlet arguing conscription was unconstitutional. Wilson, a ‘Progressive’, arrested and prosecuted Schenck under the Espionage Act of 1917. Schenck appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, which ruled against him. Holmes’ made his comment about shouting fire in a theater after the Court’s decision. It was unrelated to the facts of the case. It was not part of the ruling and had “no binding authority”. Today, those who deny any right is absolute use Holmes’ quip to justify intentions to violate that right.13 Denial of a right being absolute of necessity requires someone to determine the limits of that right. Naturally, that “someone” is government. To employ Holmes’ rationale for denial of a right creates an open-ended justification to impose any number of restrictions on the exercise of that right.

What purveyors of the yelling fire cliché miss is the real standard established by Holmes. He declared government could suppress free speech if it determined that speech posed a “clear and present danger” to the government’s effort to prosecute the war.14 His standard assigns government the power to create its own test for what constitutes a clear and present danger. If governments, at all levels couple this “authority” with declarations of states of emergency, from tornadoes to a virus, the threat to the Bill of Rights becomes particularly dangerous. Liberals use Pelosi’s adaptation, “one cannot yell rats on a Black Friday sale in Saks Fifth Avenue”, and Holmes’ clear and present danger test to promote a political agenda having nothing to do with the First Amendment. They use it as a rationale to suppress Second Amendment rights.

If enemies of individual liberty convince Americans Holmes’ comment carries the weight of law, “proving” no right is absolute, what follows? They will use it to restrict targeted rights, incrementally, e.g. Second and First Amendment rights to bear arms, religious expression, and free speech, respectively, ultimately to extinguish them.

A union worker approached Joe “Boss Tweed” Obiden who was touring an automotive plant in Detroit, Michigan accusing him of wanting to take away people’s guns. OBiden flared up in anger and told the worker he was full of s#*t, that he supported the Second Amendment, but he would take away “AR14s (sic). OBiden declared no right was absolute. No one can yell fire in a crowded theater. He also threatened to slap the worker.15 To prove he supports the Second Amendment, OBiden stated he and his sons own “shotguns” and “hunt”.16 OBiden evinces little knowledge of firearms. Growing up in Maryland, I heard his campaign ads, including on gun control, from nearby Delaware. The words, ‘blithering idiot’ come to mind. This is how OBiden and other Liberals read the Second Amendment:

The people, following submission to an extensive and expensive federal

background check, training, and testing, proving a need to own a firearm

may purchase one from a government approved list for hunting and target

shooting at approved ranges. They must register it with the government

and reapply for approval on an annual basis. All semiautomatic rifles and

handguns are military weapons, the property of the U.S. government and

must be surrendered to the nearest arsenal”.

Nick Leghorn notes gun control advocates “invariably” recite the Holmes’ cliché to “prove” no right is absolute therefore they can limit the types of firearms citizens may possess. Holmes based his free speech exception on an emergency; government does not have to tolerate as much free speech in wartime as in peace.17 Holmes was wrong on every count. The Constitution is over and above the government. The subordinate cannot alter this relationship. The Constitution provides no exceptions or escape clause for government to violate the Bill of Rights. Those who argue to the contrary are setting the stage for intended violation of rights based on some conjured up exigency. Leghorn follows this argument to its logical conclusion.

Yelling fire in a theater when there was none would be illegal. However, if there was a fire, or a pack of Pelosi’s wolves running loose, it would not. If mere possession of a human voice does not constitute a clear and present danger, neither does mere possession of a firearm. Government may not regulate the ability to speak prior to criminal misuse. The same holds true for firearms. Mere possession of an AR15 poses no greater potential threat of criminal misuse than OBiden’s shotgun. For the government to apply the Schenck standard to restrict gun ownership, it would have to prove all people purchasing guns do so with the immediate intention to harm someone. This standard is even more problematic considering most purchases are for self-defense. Buying a firearm does not automatically cause harm to anyone. Arguments based on the potential for future harm are hypocritical otherwise gun-Confiscationists would ban the more lethal automobile. At best, banning an AR15 would do nothing with respect to reducing crime (their misuse being miniscule), and, at worst, would infringe on an individual’s ability to protect himself. According to the Declaration, the right to life is, absolute. For an individual to illegally shoot an innocent person violates the latter’s absolute right to life. Sanctions should be on individuals, not the means.18 Nevertheless, the Pelosi’s and Schumer’s of the world stamp their feet insisting no right is absolute so the state has the power to restrict rights.

Thomas Jefferson described rights as “unalienable” meaning under no circumstances could government or anyone else separate people from them. Because rights are endowed by G-d, they exist prior to and apart from government. They are inherent in one’s humanity.19 Because of their inherency, if one person has a right, all do. For a right to be a right, the “exercise of the identical right at the same time” by more than one individual does nothing to compromise its exercise by anyone else. If government can alter or rescind a right, it never was a right. It was a privilege.20 The Constitution contains no ‘Bill of Privileges’. An individual’s exercise of free speech, religion, and association does nothing to limit the same exercise by others. If someone is giving a speech or preaching a sermon, no one is compelled to visit that venue and listen. The same holds true for firearms. Individual possession of a firearm does not deny the same right or pose a threat to anyone else.21 How can proponents of using the yelling fire standard to limit rights define where limitations would end? They cannot. Instead, they would establish an arbitrary standard. Because their plan is to limit targeted rights, that standard is already contaminated. It is beholden to an agenda seeking to abolish that right. Thus, we can see, the yelling fire position is invalid. Perhaps we should prohibit yelling liberal in a crowded fire as it might provoke a search for more gasoline.

11 From my contemporaneous Journal, names included January 27 2010. The student was in what used to be called the Learning Disabled Program (LD) changed simply to Special Education. I was one teacher selected for a push to “mainstream” Sped Kids in regular classes. In the end, he did not transfer from my class, did well, and said he like the class and me.

22 Joshua Rhett Miller, “Kansas Teacher Claims Conservative Views Led to Job Loss”, FOX NEWS, June 12, 2009 at https://www.foxnews.com/story/kansas-teacher-claims-conservative-views-led-to-loss-of-job/. I communicated with Tim by email at first and then by phone. Not only did he lose his job, his Lawrence Kansas District blacklisted him to make sure he never could work as a teacher again. I cannot prove the powers that be are doing the same to me but…

33 The principal operated under a popular business model. Bosses, managers, principals, etc. bring in the accused and confront them with charges. Regardless of the validity or veracity of the charges, the accused is supposed to supplicate themselves, confess to their crimes, admit total guilt, and beg forgiveness. The boss then guides them back onto the right path meaning becoming a total “yes-man”. I read this in one of the books they assigned teachers to read. They told us to skip a chapter in the book and of course, I read it. I also witnessed this. A math teacher, who I had never met, came to me in anger. Why me? Everyone had told him I was the principal’s favorite “whipping boy” and he was to stay far away from me. He was a math teacher, who was butting heads with the principal and wanted my advice. I told him to shut up, stop talking about the principal, stop confiding in other people, and to trust no one. He chose another path. He became a supplicant and allowed the principal to reform him. Once completed, he would not give me the time of day. I was in the right, the target of a malicious campaign by the Turnip Witches to get me fired, so I refused to play the game. I learned how vindictive the principal was.

44 IBID. At the risk of sounding cliché, the account was worse than space allows me to express. Much worse.

55 CSG: “Career Suicide Gang” is a label invented by my final socialIST studies department supervisor when he saw me standing in the hallway talking to CC, also in the principal’s hot seat but nowhere near my level of revulsion and hatred shared by the principal and his stooge minions. It was his way of warning other teachers never to associate with people like us.

66 Known affectionately known as ‘Bela Pelousy’ in some parts…

77 William Jennings Bryan won the Democrat nomination for President in 1896, 1900, and 1908. He lost all three times.

88 David French, “Yelling ‘Wolf’ in a crowded theater? Nancy Pelosi Flunks Constitutional Law” August 24 2017, National Review at https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/yelling-wolf-crowded-theater-nancy-pelosi-flunks-constitutional-law/

99 Federal and National are not the same or interchangeable. A “Federal” government may exercise only those powers delegated it by the States. No such power to create parks exists among the federal government’s powers in Article I, Section 8.

1010 French.

1111 Michael Malice, The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics (New York, N.Y., St. Martin’s Press, 2019).

1212 French.

1313 IBID.

1414 Richard Parker, “Clear and Present Danger Test”, Middle Tennessee State University, at https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/898/clear-and-present-danger-test/

1515 Kylee Zempel, “Biden Tells Man Accusing Him Of Gun Grab He’s Full of Sh_t’ But I’ll Take Your AR-14s”, The Federalist, March 10, 2020 at https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/10/biden-tells-man-accusing-him-of-gun-grab-he’s-full-of-sh-t-but-will-take-your-ar-14/

1616 IBID.

1717 Nick Leghorn, “The Second Amendment And Yelling Fire In A Crowded Theater”, The Truth About Guns at https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/second-amendment-yelling-fire-crowded-theater/amp/

1818 IBID.

1919 Mark Spangler, Editor, Cliché’s of Politics (Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1996), 9. From Charles Baird’s essay, “I Have A Right”.

2020 IBID. 9-10.

2121 IBID. 10-11.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Knives In Black Satin

Following the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the spectacle of Republicans and conservatives in a wild stampede to give her a tongue bath was appalling. Praise from self-proclaimed guardians of Constitutional Originalism was so lavish and extravagant it amounted to nothing less than deification. Had Ginsburg not been Jewish, I half expected the Pope to announce her canonization.

Martha MacCallum breathlessly described Ginsburg like a rapturous teen at the airport awaiting the Beatles arrival in America. Her face glowed as she praised Ginsburg’s towering intellect, great legal mind, inspiration to all women, and lamented Ginsburg being irreplaceable.1 MacCallum was far from alone slathering promiscuous adulation on this stalwart foe of the Constitution and its Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Effusive praise for Ginsburg came from Jeanna Ellis on the Tucker Carlson Show. Chyrons running under her face declared her a constitutional “authority”. An online bio states she is author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America’s Constitutional Crisis, that she is a Constitutional “Originalist”, and senior legal advisor to President Trump. Nevertheless, she declared Americans must respect Ginsburg’s service and legacy. She added Ginsburg was an inspiration to all women.2 Why was she, and not Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court (appointed by President Reagan in 1981, 12 years before Ginsburg) an inspiration to women? How a self-proclaimed “Originalist” and author of a book on America’s Constitutional crisis can heap such praise on a chief architect of this crisis is incomprehensible. Also appearing on Tucker’s show was conservative Judge Jeanine Pirro. She praised Ginsburg’s unconstitutional ruling against the Virginia Military Institute’s establishment as an all-male military academy.3

This strange outpouring of praise and worship for Ginsburg erupted on conservative Sean Hannity’s program so I flipped over to One America News until Laura Ingraham’s Show. I should have remained with OAN. Her guests included Constitutional “scholar” John Eastman (Chapman University) who asserted Americans should thank Ginsburg for her lasting work with respect to equality and social issues (those near and dear to liberal hearts: abortion and the homosexual agenda).4 Republicans continued to weigh in throughout the evening. George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell, and former Congressman Jason Chaffetz were almost unrestrained in their praise for Ginsburg. A guest on one of these shows allowed that Ginsburg was up in heaven now, hanging out with former colleagues William Rehnquist, and Antonin Scalia. How fortunate I am to have a strong stomach. Appalled, I turned the television off. Conservative online groups were no better. I read in disbelief as one “conservative” after another stated we all must respect and admire Ginsburg for her work and “service” to her country. Service? Service to the ongoing campaign to destroy the U.S. Constitution? Disgusted, I logged off and retreated into the mundane world of email. There I found a message from the Trump Re-election campaign declaring Ginsburg an “amazing woman” who led “an amazing life”. I responded asking what was so amazing about a career dedicated to destroying the Constitution and liberty. I received no reply. After beholding what so many Republican “leaders” had to say, who could be faulted for believing it was Ronald Reagan who had just died?

Lavish and effusive praise by Republicans for Ginsburg begs the question, if she is “all that”, why don’t they simply nominate another radical left-wing ACLU lawyer, who also despises the Constitution, instead of casting about for a conservative replacement? If Ginsburg was so wonderful, why don’t Republicans appoint some Stepford liberal to replace her?

Callers to conservative talk radio the following day commented on this stunning spectacle of Republican praise for Ginsburg. Some allowed that perhaps they were being overly “nice” to win political points. Really. With whom? With Constitutional originalists like myself? No way. We despise treason against the Constitution. Praise for those who want to destroy Judeo-Christian values and all that people of faith hold dear is repulsive. Points with liberals? It will never happen. If you are a conservative, the Left hates you. They are waging war against you. They despise every belief, principle, and value you hold dear. The lesson people should have learned from the Bolshevik Revolution is the left is dedicated to your total destruction and subjugation. Another reason no one mentioned comes to mind. Is it possible the Republican establishment worships the same institutions and organs of government power as Democrats? Do they fear criticism of Ginsburg might undermine support and obedience among Americans to the Supreme Court? Could criticism of Ginsburg spur Americans to ask on what basis the Court wields the power of judicial review and find there is none? Moreover, if Americans discover this truth, will they then look at the other branches and ask if what they are doing is constitutional? If Americans discover what public schools do not teach, that the actions and claimed powers of the three branches does not comport with the Constitution, how will they react? Will they try to take government back from their overseers? What does Ginsburg’s record, prior to and during her tenure on the bench, reveal?

In 1980, President Carter appointed Ginsburg to the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court. President Clinton then elevated her to the Supreme Court in 1993. Prior to these appointments, Ginsburg was a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. She rejected the notion rights come from G-d, rejected the principles of federalism and limited government, the Tenth Amendment sovereignty of states in their political spheres, and she rejected traditional Western Judeo-Christian values. Throughout her lifetime, her views never moderated.

From the start, America’s lawgivers grounded cultural, social, familial, and legal distinctions between the sexes (men and women for liberals) in the Law of G-d. Because Ginsburg despised a world based on a patriarchal G-d, her agenda was to remake America into a nation sterilized of sex distinctions. With government force, she sought to dismantle all single-sex institutions, organizations, and clubs including the military, prisons, fraternities, the Boy Scouts, private colleges, and so forth. She even pushed to abolish Mother’s and Father’s Day holidays but that was not enough. Ginsburg opposed laws against bigamy and polygamy because statutory regulation criminalizes these behaviors based on the sex of those involved. Naturally, her radical views applied to prohibitions against prostitution and same-sex “marriage” (sic) which she sought to overturn. To the delight of pervo child molesters, sodomites running down little Cub Scouts, and sex-slave traffickers, Ginsburg pushed to reduce “the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are less than 12 years”. She even argued for overturning the Mann Act which criminalized the “interstate trafficking of women and girls” for the purposes of engaging in sex acts because it violated the “privacy rights” of those involved.5 The authors of the Mann act sought not only to stop the transportation of women, especially young girls, across state lines for prostitution, but also to put a dent in the kidnapping of young girls for such purposes.

It should come, as no surprise Ginsburg abhorred the traditional family in which the man went to work and mom stayed at home to raise the kids. In order to undermine the role of husbands, as a step toward dismantling the Judeo-Christian family, Ginsburg pushed government [taxpayer] supported daycare for unwed mothers. She did not stop there. In her brave new world, not only would women be subject to the military draft but would be billeted with men and sent with them into combat. Ginsburg pushed affirmative action hiring and promotion rules for the military, police and fire departments, public education, and private businesses. Facing federal scrutiny if failing to meet affirmative action “targets”, companies, and organizations calculated the minimum number (quota) of minorities they needed to hire and promote to avoid government sanctions. This led to qualified candidates being passed over, by the less competent, in order to satisfy quotas, especially within police departments. I saw this first hand.6 Nevertheless, this was still not enough. Robespierre Ginsburg pushed to create federal commissioners who would ride through the bowels of government offices in search of people and publications using “sexist” words and expressions. They would scrub these offending words from documents and the mouths of employees. Transgressors would be re-educated. Next, they would fan out across the nation, storming businesses, schools, churches, and maybe homes in search of banned “sexist” terms. Offensive words included, woman, women, she, her, man, men, he, him, and many more. They would root out any word based on a person’s sex (gender refers to the femininity or masculinity of nouns) like noxious weeds and burn them so that no memory of their existence remained. Ginsburg’s Commissars of conformity began to realign pay scales associated with genitalia, for example, librarians versus those operating jackhammers to “equalize” them. Angry liberal feminist harridans, their hair pulled back into severe buns call this “comparable worth”, equal pay for unequal work. They scoured all publications for the slightest reference to an individual’s sex and removed them. Anyone who has read 1984 understands control of what people read and know is central to Orwell’s novel. Ginsburg also supported abortion on demand, for any reason, throughout each trimester paid for by taxpayers including those opposed to child murder based on religious objections.7

In 1996, Ginsburg voted with the majority (Scalia dissented) to strike down the elite Virginia Military Institute’s male only admission policy. Not only did this comport with Ginsburg’s fanatical drive to destroy any organization based on sex, she also saw VMI’s policy as a roadblock to female advancement in the military. Does the federal government have the right to interfere in the education policies of the States? We shall look at that soon. In 2000, Ginsburg again voted with the majority in Friends of the Earth (sic) v. Laidlaw Environmental Services. Ginsburg ruled individuals have a right to sue companies for pollution even if the claimants can prove no harm and the company is out of business.8 This is akin to a patient suing a doctor following surgery even though they can demonstrate no harm. Had Ginsburg’s opinion been that of the majority instead of the minority in Bush v. Gore (2000), Democrats would have succeeded in stealing another presidential election [John F. Kennedy, 1960] and Gore would have been president. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Ginsburg sided with the minority arguing against any limits on late term (including live birth) abortions. She again sided with the liberals in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), wanting the Supreme Court to control, supervise, and set election policies and practices for Southern States, forever. Does the Supreme Court have such authority? In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), Ginsburg again sided with the radical liberal minority seeking to force Christian owned companies to provide abortion coverage in employee medical plans even though this violated their deeply held Christian beliefs.9 Ginsburg argued the government’s “need” to reorder the nature of society superseded anyone’s First Amendment religious rights. Ginsburg voted with the majority, (5-4) in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalizing same-sex “marriage” (sic). Torturing history and the Constitution, the majority claimed the 14th Amendment, ratified to insure Constitutional rights applied to former slaves, actually meant homosexuals, and lesbians could “marry” each other, respectively.10 Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, writing for the dissent, correctly noted the Constitution delegates no authority to the federal government, and therefore the courts, over marriage. Under the Tenth Amendment, what constitutes marriage is a state issue. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to rule one way or the other.

If Ginsburg had no respect for religious freedom, and the Tenth Amendment, let alone human life, what then was her view on the right of self-defense? In Heller v. D.C. (2008), she and the liberals wrote the Constitution does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is only a collective, not an individual right. A person may exercise this collective “right” only while serving in the military or a State National (sic) Guard. She also agreed with Justice Breyer that no one had the right, under any circumstance, to maintain a loaded weapon in their home. Nor did anyone have a right of self-defense.11 Through a 5-4 vote, had Ginsburg and the other Knives in Black Satin been the majority, they would have eviscerated and ultimately abolished the Second Amendment. Once a government hostile to the bill of rights is in power, they will extinguish your right to keep and bear arms. They would ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of firearms in the United States followed by banning the production and sale of ammunition. If you do not have a right to own firearms, you have no need for ammunition. Next, they would close gun stores and ranges. You do not need a place to buy and or practice with what you may not own. Denials to the contrary, confiscation of all firearms in private hands has always been the left’s end game. England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada testify to this fact. As for burying and hiding firearms, what is the point? By then it is too late. You will never be able to keep and bear them again. Ever. Republicans and conservatives lavishing praise on Ginsburg mentioned none of this. Nor did anyone ask if the Court has the right of judicial review in the first place.

Each State sent delegates to what became the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia (1787). Jealous of their fresh won independence from Britain (1783), the Founding Fathers were not about to surrender sovereignty to a new never before tried form of government. Proposals made by delegates to subordinate state executives, legislatures, and courts to federal counterparts were voted down by the majority each time. This is even more remarkable considering many opposed to scrapping the Articles of Confederation refused to attend the Convention.12 The Constitution’s drafters created the U.S. Supreme Court as the final court of appeal with respect to federal law, disputes between state governments, and between people of different states in some cases. They did not delegate to it any authority to make, modify, or alter law, amend the Constitution in any way, create, or abolish rights. So-called “Federalists” (more accurately, “nationalists”), saw creating for the court a power of judicial review over state laws as a means to erode and ultimately annihilate Tenth Amendment state sovereignty.13 Those mislabeled “anti-federalists” by “federalists” opposed them every step of the way.

Convention delegate Edmund Randolph of Virginia proposed creating a national judiciary with authority to veto the laws and rulings made by State legislatures and courts, respectively. This would be similar to the English Parliamentary system Alexander Hamilton and his supporters cherished. The majority of delegates voted down Randolph’s proposal. Charles Pinckney, South Carolina, and Gouveneur Morris, Pennsylvania, followed up with similar proposals and delegates rejected them as well. Randolph did not give up and attempted to convince delegates to accept a revised version of his proposal but it too was defeated.14 The States never gave to the federal Court, the power of judicial review. Proponents of ratification promised delegates to each state convention the court would never exercise such power.15

It was Chief Justice John Marshall, an ardent nationalist and opponent of state sovereignty, appointed by President John Adams, who got the ball rolling. He simply invented for the Supreme Court a power of judicial review. He began by seizing cases beyond the purview of the court. It did not matter how it ruled, only that the court ruled in order to create precedent. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, each case was a step toward establishing by the court, through practice and custom, the power of judicial review. This was unconstitutional because the Founders did not delegate but denied this power to the Court. Federal branches may exercise only delegated powers. Second, it constituted a violation of Article V reserving to the states sole authority to amend the Constitution. Third, and finally, it constituted a violation of the Tenth Amendment reserving all powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the states. Hence, sovereign State powers and functions falling within its political sphere are outside the jurisdiction and purview of federal courts. Marshall wanted to destroy those reserved powers by denaturing the Tenth Amendment. He referred to Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party as “absolute terrorists”. Marshall ran full steam ahead, working with other nationalists, to transform the federal into a national system of government with the states as mere corporations of the general government.16

Although Jefferson and subsequent presidents rejected the notion the Supreme Court possessed the power of judicial review, in time future presidents and political parties came to see this as a tool to enhance executive power and overcome state resistance to their agendas.17 Chief among the Constitution destroying culprits was Franklin Roosevelt.18 Over time, Americans stopped questioning the Court’s claim to the power of judicial review. They assumed the court must have this power because, after all, they exercised it. This is known as “circulus in probando”, circular reasoning. Because the court exercises judicial review, it must have the power to do so. However, they are wrong. Granted, in post-Constitutional and post-literate America, its citizens are ignorant of what powers States delegated to the federal government and too lazy to care. In addition, profligate federal largesse to States led them to prostitute their Tenth Amendment protection against unconstitutional judicial review. Even if the Supreme Court had this power, it would only apply to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The Founders created a limited government whose powers are few and clearly defined. The Constitution prohibits the exercise of any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the enumerated powers.19 Americans appear unaware of this. Great Scott, did they go to public schools?

The States delegated to the federal government eighteen powers in Article I, Section 8. An examination reveals most have to do with foreign relations and war. There is no mention of education, marriage, abortion, firearms, the make-up of the military, clubs, colleges, organizations, the freedom of association, and so forth based on sex or any other criteria.20 Silence in any area means, the federal government has no authority to legislate and the Supreme Court review in those areas. None. Every ruling by the Supreme Court that disregards the Tenth Amendment and the States’ reserved powers does violence to the Constitution and any safeguard with respect to the Bill of Rights. It destroys federalism, the rule of law, and creates a chaotic free-for-all scramble by various factions to gain control of it by any means possible. Now Republicans from Senator Mitch McConnell on down are stressing the need to replace Ginsburg with a jurist who will protect the Constitution. Really? When the Senate was considering the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the following Republican Senators voted yea:

Bond MO, Danforth MO, Hatfield OR, Pressler SD,

Brown CO, Dole KS Hutchinson TX, Roth DE,

Burns MT, Domenici NM, Kassebaum KS, Simpson WY,

Chafee RI, Durenberger MN, Lott MS, Specter PA,

Coats IN, Faircloth MN, Lugar IN, Stevens AK,

Cochran MS, Gorton WA, Mack FL, Thurmond SC,

Cohen ME, Gramm TX, McCain AZ, Wallop WY,

Coverdell GA, Grassley IA, McConnell KY, Warner VA.

Craig ID, Gregg NH, Murkowski AK,

D’Amato NY, Hatch UT, Packwood OR,

Nay: only the following three Republicans stood up for the Constitution:

Helms NC, Nickles OK, Smith NH.

Living in Missouri, I wrote Republican Senator Bond asking why he voted to confirm Ginsburg. He explained it was Senatorial “courtesy” not to oppose Court nominations of presidents regardless of party. I wrote back asking, what about courtesy to the rule of law, to the Constitution, and to the American people? He did not respond. Americans elect Senators to protect the Constitution, and they, in turn, stab them in the back in the name of logrolling. What a disgrace. We must hold them to account for their perfidy.

11 Martha MacCallum Show, FOX, 18 September 2020.

22 Tucker Carlson Show, FOX, 18 September 2020.

33 IBID.

44 Laura Ingraham Show, FOX, 18 September 2020.

55 Phyllis Schlafly, “Senators Overlooked Radical Record of Ruth Bader Ginsburg” Human Events at https://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/

66 Sergeants told white officers at my department to look into transferring to other departments. They believed no white male could be promoted for about 5 years and or until the liberal Chief reached the right quota. Judgments as to the competency of those promoted are subjective. However, officers across the board bemoaned the lack of qualifications and incompetence of more than a few affirmative action hires and promotions. Liberal virtue signaling and quota filling.

77 Schlafly

88 Richard Wolf, USA Today, 18 September, 2020, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s top opinions and dissents from VMI to Voting Rights Act”, at https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/18/i-dissent-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-most-memorable-opinions/2661426002/

99 IBID.

1111 On The Issues, Wall Street Journal, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg On Gun Control; Heller v. D.C.”, at https://ontheissues.org/courth/ruth-bader-ginsburg-gun-control.htm

1212 John Taylor of Caroline Virginia/James McClellan, editor, New Views Of The Constitution Of The United States (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1823/2000), 2-23, 29-30, 35, 40-42, 48-49, 133-137, 143-154, 174. See also Clyde N. Wilson, “Toward Real Federalism”, Ludwig von Mises Institute, The Free Market 9 (August 1995) at https://mises.org/library/ttoward-real-federaism/ and Clarence B. Carson, Basic American Government (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1996), 37-40, 506.

1313 IBID. li-liv.

1414 IBID. 19-23.

1515 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York, N.Y., Simon & Schuster, 2010), 287-291.See also, Taylor, 25, 143, 127-128, 177-179, 196-197, 309,331, 372.

1616 Brion McClanahan, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America And Four Who Tried To Save Her (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2016), 14, 61, 198-202.

1717 All laws, bills, legislation, regulations, and so forth by law must originate from the legislation branch. Beginning with “Progressive” Teddy Roosevelt, executives began to take this function away from the legislative branch.

1818 McClanahan, 75-98. See also, Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression And The New Deal (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2009), 11, 18, 27, 59-60, 102, 116-117. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2004), 17-30, 139-156.

1919 Clinton Rossiter, Editor, The Federalist Papers: Madison, Federalist #45 (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book from the New American Library, 1961), 292-293.

2020 William A. McClenaghan, Magruders American Government (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 2006), 763-765.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Lifting the Veil on the Black Lives Matter Movement

Coronshevik

 

I finally had an encounter with the Coronshevik Red Guard in a large grocery store. One of my kids graduated Medical School calling for a memorable celebration. I flew her in from one state and overnighted Maryland crab cakes and jumbo shrimp from the Chesapeake Bay. We had corn on the cob and Coleslaw but no hush puppies. This would not do for true Marylanders so grabbing my daughter it was off to the store. Wearing proper suffocation devices, we searched high and low for hush puppy mix to no avail. Crafty owners had remodeled the store. My daughter thought she spied the mix on shelves we had passed requiring backtracking. A stout middle-aged woman with dark hair, leading a conga line coming in the opposite direction said in a snarky tone, “You’re going the wrong way”. “It doesn’t really matter” I replied. “Yes it does”, she said snarling at me. “Mind your own business”, I said. Everyone in the aisle heard the exchange. I was so proud of myself. These Kool Aid drinkers are typical of the obedient goons once swelling the Bolsheviks Party’s ranks who later went on to become presidents of Home Owner’s Associations. Doom on them.

Sports are dead

 

 

 

Indians, drums, tomahawk chops, Chiefs, and Redskins, oh my. These symbols represent the closest brush most Americans will ever have with an Indian. One is already gone and if cancel culture has its way, in order to purge their racism, gutless guilt-ridden whites will hurl the rest down into a deep dark basement along with George Washington and Christopher Columbus. White teens, angry and depressed over their skin color, toss and turn at night wishing they could pull a reverse Michael Jackson hiding the shame with which they were born. The BLMM (Black Lives Matter Movement as apart from the organization BLM) is telling white people that they are inherently racist and denial is proof of the crime. Each white person must engage in self-examination for any signs of racism, confess, and root it out. When people march under the BLM banner, utter its slogans, and wear its apparel they are saying; the United States is a terribly racist country, all white people are racists, police brutality is the norm, and those who say “all lives matter” are also racists. White people must engage in acts of contrition to prove they are not racist. Regrettably, this has spilled over into sports.

Smollet-Nascar version

 

 

 

 

NASCAR originated from bootleggers “hopping” up stock cars to outrun

Treasury Department agents attempting to arrest them for the manufacture and distribution of untaxed liquor.1 Mixed race (half white and half black) NASCAR driver Bubba “Smollett” Wallace’s race team found a noose hanging in the pit garage assigned them for the 25 June 2020 race at the Talladega, Alabama Superspeedway. Following the George Floyd tragedy, 

millionaire Wallace bedecked his car with BLM logos, donned BLM apparel, and forced NASCAR to ban fans from wearing attire featuring the Confederacy’s Battle Flag. One man supplants the history and culture of an entire region. From Washington, D.C. the FBI dispatched fifteen agents to investigate this heinous hate crime. Fellow NASCAR drivers pushed Wallace’s car around the track together in solidarity against the racism suddenly plaguing America. FBI special agents left quietly. There was no hate crime. The “noose” was simply a looped rope used to raise and lower doors…in all the pit team garages.2

The oppressed millionaire Hamilton

 

 

 

Formula 1 is a European oriented motorsport featuring single seat, open cockpit, and open wheel car racing. Drivers compete on tracks and courses winding through city streets. It has been my favorite sport since I was a child.

Lewis Hamilton was born and raised in England. His Caribbean father is black and his English mother white. Because of its origins, Formula 1 has always been essentially a “white” sport. Nevertheless, a white team and owner, white trainers, and white promoters gave a young Lewis his shot at making a team. They guided and assisted his training and development until he was ready for the big show. He has won six world championships (the record set by Michael Schumacher is seven). Hamilton owns mansions, a penthouse, and expensive apartments around the world. Mercedes pays him a tidy $52+ million a year. His legion of devoted fans are mostly white as well. Rich, successful, loved and adored, he has it all. Perhaps desiring to add meaning to his dilettante socialite bon vivant life jetting around the world with models and celebrities; one party after another, Lewis decided he was an aggrieved American black man. Maybe he channeled his inner “homey” fantasizing about being rousted by the racist Los Angeles PD. He compelled Mercedes to change its silver cars to a menacing and angry black in support of…Black Lives Matter. His car’s livery sports BLM slogans. Formula 1’s ruling body, apparently unaware of the paucity of black fans, forces drivers to wear “End Racism” T-shirts on the grid before each race. Countries hosting races had to paint BLM-like slogans on their trackside buildings. Not only does pink ball cap wearing Hamilton take a knee before each race, he raises an angry clenched fist, 60s black power style. He condemns drivers who do not kneel as racists. I know this because I was a Hamilton fan, T-Shirts and all. No longer. For his ignorance and betrayal of fans like me, I have binned my Hamilton memorabilia.

Among countries, hosting Formula 1 races are Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Red China, and Vietnam. In Bahrain and the U.A.E., government tightly controls the media, there is no freedom of speech, and all law must conform strictly to Islamic Sharia law. Women in the latter at best are second-class citizens. Red China and Vietnam are brutalitarian Communist dictatorships. The former is a nation of gulags, mass murder, and slavery. Is it not the height of hypocrisy for Formula 1 to take a stand against racism but host races in the above listed nations? Does Red China manufacture team fan apparel? Hamilton hails from one of the nations that brought slavery to North America and colonized Africa, Asia, India, and the Caribbean. How dare this beneficiary of Britain’s historic racism and slavery condemn the United States?

Following the Austrian Grand Prix (2020), retired English former world champion Jenson Button lamented the “bad optics” of not all drivers taking a knee with Hamilton. He said Formula 1 needed to catch up with other professional sports in support of BLM adding, people must discuss racism every day, at work, at home, wherever. Button is wrong. Most people are not racist nor do they need lectures from individuals who believe celebrity status confers on them superior moral superiority over others. Fans watch sports for entertainment not political indoctrination. Could it be Button is the one in need of self-examination? Worse, BLM T-shirts and kneeling validate the notion America is so horridly racist, every black man must look left and right before stepping out his front door because the police are waiting to gun him down. This is a monstrous lie perpetuated by those with a virulently anti-American political agenda. Aiding and abetting The Lie are brainwashed young white people. In addition to the pernicious influences of Hollywood, television, music, and absentee parents, am I going to point an accusatory finger at public education? You bet I am.

I spent 25 years in public education teaching courses in history and government until Leftwing Wokesheviks canceled me. Because I was under constant surveillance for evidence of conservative views by spies in the SocialIST studies department’s Ministry of Leftist Conformity, I was circumspect when speaking. Students repeat what teachers say. I knew everything I said can and would be distorted, twisted, and used against me. Nevertheless, eventually students recognized I did not sing from the same Red sheet music as my colleagues. Some realized what passed for teaching in many classes was, in reality, political indoctrination. What they found most offensive was the “Privilege Walk”.

In April of 2016, several students visited with me after school. These girls were visibly upset relating what happened in sociology class. Their liberal teacher took her class to the auxiliary gym, arranged them in a horizontal line across the middle of the floor, and, read a list of statements that for each student was either true or false. If true, they took a step forward, if false, they took a step back. Questions included; are you white? Do you live with both parents? Do you live in a single family home? Is either of your parents a white-collar professional? Do any of your family members play golf or tennis? Were you born in the U.S.? Has anyone mistreated you because of your ethnicity or race? Do you have all the food and clothes you want? Do you have your own car? Do you have blonde hair? Do you have blue eyes?

When the teacher completed the Privilege Walk, only a few kids had taken steps forward. They were all white, mostly female, and mostly blonde haired, blue eyed. This “white-shaming” had a profound and unpleasant impact on these teenagers. “Cancel Culture” designed this project to prove, by their more comfortable standard of living, white students are the recipients of race-based privileges. Instead of teachers pointing out because of the hard work, education, and sacrifice of parents some kids enjoy a higher standard of living than do peers, they insist racism is the cause for all social-economic discrepancies. College professors and high school teachers have employed the Privilege Walk for years. Their goal is to brainwash white middleclass students into believing any advantages they enjoy over minority students results from “white privilege”. This they claim is a system of institutionalized racism designed to maintain white cultural, economic, and political dominance over other races. The apex of society is a private club. One must be Caucasian to join. Whites do this because of their inherent racism. It is in their DNA. This is what liberal teachers are doing to your kids, people.3

The scheme behind the privilege walk is as insidious as it is ingenious. Once white kids buy in to the notion they are privileged and inherently racist, it neuters any future opposition on their part to the Left’s political agenda. Because the Left cloaks all it does in racial terms, it automatically triggers in young whites, feelings they are racist if they oppose them. For example, they have racialized every aspect of their socialist agenda from global warming, clean water, the criminal justice system, free college, to healthcare. To oppose any aspect of it demonstrates one’s “white privilege”. Hence, young whites shut up and go along with the program. In addition, they are deaf to people who point this out because opposition can only stem from inherent racism even if the one speaking out is black! Not every white middleclass student experiences the Privilege Walk. Nevertheless popular culture, racial grievance groups, and peers bombard them with messages they are the beneficiaries of white privilege. Disbelief or rejection of this notion proves they are racist. It is like the old Salem witch test. Bind and throw the girl into a pond. If she floats, she’s a witch. If she drowns, she was innocent. There is another serious problem with the Privilege Walk.

Minority students see they are the one’s stepping back and only white kids stepping forward. Teacher explanations are clear; those stepping forward are the recipients from society of unmerited privilege based solely on their race. This must engender jealously, resentment, anger, and hatred amongst minorities toward “privileged” whites. Is it possible this form of resentment fuels the rage and violence of recent “protests”? Prior indoctrination by liberal public school teachers sets the stage so that it requires little for leftist college professors to administer the coup de grace. Not only do they teach their captives about systemic white racism, they tell them the standard of living enjoyed by middle-class whites is the direct result of slavery. Professors teach America’s wealth is not the result of rugged individualism, hard work, the free market, entrepreneurs, and innovation supported by the principles of limited government and individual liberty. Rather Americans built wealth on the backs of slave labor. Slaves, who, last harvested crops almost 160 years ago, created the wealth expropriated by white businesses, banks, and government to create its comfortable society. White students seem to accept this Marxist fantasy history without animadversion. Does anyone ask, if this was true, why are former slave empires France, Portugal, and Spain economic wrecks? Why are American blacks richer across the board than blacks in any other country? Does anyone consider the successful struggle of Chinese and Mexicans to achieve success in America?

Proof this indoctrination has “taken” manifests itself in the way white talking heads exhaust the pages of Roget’s Thesaurus trying to paint thugs, rioters, and criminals as saints and the police as bad guys. So heavily has the liberal media bought into notions of inherent white racism, they cover the rare instances of white on black crime non-stop while completely ignoring the vastly more frequent cases of black on white crime. I will say what no one else will; it is because they believe white people, regardless of how innocent, collectively deserve it. Innocent whites are sacrificial lambs. Their beatings, robberies, rapes, and murders pay the substitutionary price for the guilt of the entire white race.

Black professor Derrick Bell, New York University of Law is the pioneer of “Critical Race Theory” (CRT). Bell argues, “Race plays the same role as class in the Marxist paradigm”. Marx argued wealth and the means of production determines economic class and those at the top suppress efforts by those beneath them to rise. Likewise, CRT contends race is also a system locking people into inferior social, economic, and political classes. Bell contends white support for civil rights and equality exists only in those areas in which it promotes “white self-interest and social status”. According to Bell, Professor Alan Freeman, and college professors who embrace CRT, “racial minorities” in America “are a permanently oppressed caste—and racism is a normal, permanent aspect of American life”. In addition, blacks regard “equality before the law” an insult and form of oppression because “their moral claims are superior to those of whites”.4 Critical Race Theory, dominant on most American campuses, asserts that the white race has constructed all institutions and the legal system to maintain its dominance and prevent change. Therefore, being outside the law, blacks have a right to determine for themselves which laws they will obey and respect and which they will not”.5

Professors have taught CRT in colleges for years. BLM spokesmen reflect its ideology through claims looting is not criminal but instead represents reparations owed to black people for slavery. Therefore, to label looters as criminals is racist.6 Could it also explain why white middle-class millennial news reporters excuse the ongoing riots and large scale looting, while liberal Democrat mayors stand by and do nothing? In their minds, the white race must atone for its sins. They wage war against whites who parents raised their children to protect the status quo at all costs. Proof they are racists is angry denial by whites that white privilege even exists.7

In his 1995 book, Lies My Teacher Told Me (praised by communist pseudo-historian Howard Zinn), Professor James W. Loewen writes, “Slavery’s twin legacies to the present are the social and economic inferiority it conferred on blacks and the cultural racism it instilled in whites”. The legacy of slavery and white racism “continue to haunt our society”.8 Loewen’s books, and what he teaches his students, are exemplars of Critical Race Theory. Whites building structural repression of blacks into all American institutions is a central tenet of both CRT and the BLM movement. Its proponents use it to explain all disparities between the races. They also posit a form of inherited generational PTSD to explain why black communities continue to suffer high rates of crime and poverty compared to other minority communities. In short, Slavery was such a horrific experience for blacks they continue to suffer deep psychological pain and emotional trauma to this day. Indeed, many marching under the umbrella of BLM, whether the organization or the general movement, believe “white society” is beyond salvation.9

There is a reason why the liberal Enforcers of Political Correctness become hysterical and “cancel” anyone who dares suggest perhaps the government and blacks are in some measure, to blame. Black economist Thomas Sowell, among others, notes prior to Democrat President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society social welfare and affirmative action programs, (which favors blacks over whites in hiring and promotion) the black community was fine. It had equal or lower rates of crime, unwed mothers, and high school dropouts than whites. When government programs, enacted by liberals, negated the value of a father in the home, the black race, like any other, suffered the consequences. Fathers are an integral part of stable families. For liberals to acknowledge this truth, they would have to confess their programs destroyed the black family. They are responsible for the pathologies plaguing the black community.10

The Black Lives Matter Movement protests, apart from the eponymous organization, is both a political and religious movement. Religions have, to varying degrees, a set of basic tenets and doctrinal beliefs. BLMM’s core religious beliefs include; from its origins, the white race exhibited an overwhelming imperative to conquer, subjugate, colonize, and enslave other races. It is so much a part of its history this desire has entered Caucasian DNA, which they transmit, to all succeeding generations. Nothing can erase either the white race’s history of colonization and enslavement or its genetic proclivity toward racism. Nothing can correct or ameliorate this race’s injustices, past or present. Because of this, and the white race’s inability to excise racism from its DNA, Caucasians are irredeemable. The degree to which the majority of blacks believe the above will determine the future shape of America. If the majority hold to these tenets, the conclusion is inescapable; the black and brown races must separate from the white race. Rejection of these tenets means letting go of a past that cannot be undone and going forward, together, in search of true brotherhood.

11 Had the government received its “cut”, always in the form of a “Tax Stamp”, bootlegging would have been legal. Someone once told me the difference between the government and the Mafia is there are less Italians working for the government.

22 ESPN NEWS, “FBI Says Rope Had Been In Talladega Garage Since October; Bubba Wallace Not Victim Of Hate Crime”, at https://espn.com/racing/nascar/story/_/id/29354447/fbi-says-rope-had-talladega-garage-last-fall-bubba-not-victim-hate-crime.

33 Meg Bolger, “Why I Don’t Facilitate Privilege Walks Anymore And What I Do Instead”, at http://medium.com/MegB/why-i-won’t-facilitate-privilege-walk-anymore-and-what-i-do-instead-380c95490c10. See also, https://edge.pus.edu/workshops/mc/power/privilegewalk.shtml, The Privilege Walk.

44 David Horowitz, The 101 Most Dangerous Academics In America (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2006), 56.

55 IBID. 56-57.

66 Lee Brown, “Chicago Black Lives Matter Organizer Who Called Looting ‘Reparations” Dismisses Peaceful Protesting”, New York Post at https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-black-lives-matter-looting-reparations-peaceful-protests-dismissed/ As a high school teacher, liberal colleagues warned me not to use the terms “riot” and “looters” because it is racist. I responded, for them to say these terms are racist assumes the rioters and looters are black. Now, who is the racist here? Liberal hypocrisy is a bottomless pit.

77 James W. Loewen, “Corrected [ED] How To Teach Slavery”? NEA Ed Justice at https://neaedjustice.org/social-justice-issues/racial.justice/corrected-teach-slavery/. See also, Matt Tefer, “White Fragility: Are White People Inherently Racist”? Financial Review 4 January 2019, at https://afr.com/life-and-luxury-/arts-and-culture/white-fragility-are-white-people-inherently-racist-20190201-hl9mn9/. Cleve R. Wootson Jr., Reporter, 21 October 2016, “To Be White Is To Be Racist, Period, ‘A High School Teacher Told His Class”, Norman Oklahoma, The Washington Post, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/19/to-be-white-is-to-be-racist-period-a-high-school=teacher-told-his-class/. Wayne Hoffman, 6 September 2019, “Boise State To Faculty And Staff: Come Learn How White People Are Racists”, Idaho Freedom Foundation, at https://idahofreedom.org/boise-state-to-faculty-and-staff-come-learn-how-white-people-are-racists/, Dustin Dwyer, “Why All White People Are Racist, But Can’t Handle Being Called Racist: The Theory of White Fragility”, State of Opportunity at https://www.stateofopportunity,michiganradio.org/post/why-all-white-people-are-racist-and-can’t-handle-being-called-racist-theory-white-fragility/, and George Yancy, New York Times, “Dear White America”, at https://www.opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/dear-white-america/. This endnote is of necessity somewhat extensive in order to demonstrate acceptance of Critical Race Theory, and notions of white privilege, is widespread among college professors and liberal whites in the media.

88 James W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me (New York, N.Y., New Press, 1995), 136.

99 Brandon Jones, M.A. Psychotherapist and Behavioral Health Consultant, “Legacy of Trauma: Context of the African American Existence” at https://beath.state.mn.us/communities/equailty/projects/infantmortality/session2.2.pdf.

1010 Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed (New York, N.Y. Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Groups, 1995), 79-85.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail