Tag Archives: American history

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

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

Freedom and the Role of the Militia Part II

What I find most galling are not Republican allegations former Democrat Vice President Joe “Boss Tweed” Biden leveraged his position to benefit his son Hunter in Ukraine.1 Nor do I find Democrat accusations President Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine pressuring President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate potential Biden influence peddling most galling. Democrats want Americans to believe Trump withheld aid while Ukraine was at war with Russia. However, Putin invaded Ukrainian Crimea on 20 February 2014 and later sent military units across Russia’s western border into Ukraine to assist “separatists” in May of the same year. Trump did not place his party line call to Zelensky until July of 2019, five years later.2 Can we be frank? Notions Ukraine would survive let alone prevail in a war with Russia are preposterous. Therefore, American military and economic aid would be pointless. Why then do Democrat and Republican administrations send it? Are Americans willing to offer their sons to die for Ukrainians fighting Russia? Is the U.S. willing to risk nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine? We must address yet another reality.

Since Tsar Nicholas I, Russia has pursued a policy of “Russification” in conquered nations and territories. Imperial Russia took control of the education system, mass media, and popular culture in subjugated countries. They replaced native tongues, customs, history, literature, art, music, and holidays with those of Mother Russia. Whether the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania for those who attended public schools) the Caucasus, Poland, or Ukraine, conquered people were forced to grow up as Russians.3

Soviets added a new dynamic to Russification by transplanting hundreds of thousands of Russians to the Baltics and especially Ukraine. The Communist’s goal was to displace natives and breed them into a minority population or, at least have a forward base of Russian immigrants embedded in targeted nations. Under Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviets uprooted entire Russian villages and moved them to Ukraine. In 1926, only 8.2% of Ukrainians were ethnic Russian. That figure rose to 16.9% in 1959 and 22.1% in 1989. In addition, by 1985, the Soviets had relocated by force, over 185,000 Ukrainians to faraway places in Russia and to the Baltics. So successful was Russification (America’s open-borders crowd pay attention), that native Ukrainians living along their eastern border with Russia dropped from 33.4% in 1926 to 2.3% by 1970. In a conflict with Russia, where will their loyalties lie? With whom will ethnic-Russian “Ukrainians” side?4 The idea that America can simply show up with her military and straighten this all out is ludicrous but still, this is not what is most galling. Instead, it is the profound degree of self-inflicted constitutional ignorance afflicting so many Americans. Who asks; what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to seize the wages and property of American citizens and hand it over to foreigners in other countries? Go ahead and look. I’ll wait. You will be the subject of an archeological dig before you find it because no such authority exists. What the Constitution does not authorize it forbids.

The Constitution’s Framers and State Ratifying Conventions were clear in 1787-1788; powers they delegated to the new federal government were finite and few. The Framers enumerated (listed) them in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. These powers are explicit. They rejected notions that, through novel interpretations later on, anyone could create implied from explicit powers. Scottish immigrant James Wilson became a prominent Philadelphia attorney and patriot. He signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and was a “Federalist” delegate to the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. Wilson described the new form of government that would replace the Articles of Confederation as a “confederate republic”. It was not a “single centralized state” because that would lead to “despotism” and tyranny. The federal government had only those powers delegated to it by the States. It could not exercise powers it did not have nor could the government imply powers into existence.5 No one is asking why the U.S. government, under Democrats and Republicans, is stealing the money and property of its citizens in order to buy and reward “friends” around the world.

I suspect to some degree America’s ruling class elite have always hamstrung the cause of liberty. They do not quite trust Americans, even their political followers, with liberty. A condemnation of liberals and Democrats? On the contrary. Republican Presidents, including Richard Nixon, George H W and George W Bush, and candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney ran as conservatives who would defend the Constitution. Once in office, as Presidents, Governors, or Senators, they shed conservative principles like snakes squirming from old skin. It is as if they believe the job of supporters is to get them elected and then shut up and go away until the next election. They talk a good game and then make one compromise after another always moving in the direction of opponents. One can find unease and mistrust of social “inferiors” even in the writing of some conservatives.

Writing for conservative The American Spectator, Daniel McCarthy notes liberals believe the mere existence of firearms, in conjunction with the election of Donald Trump, whose words have radicalized the young, is the cause of public mass shootings (PMS). For liberals the only remedy is to remove Trump from office, ban and seize all firearms in private hands, and double down on suppression of “hate speech”. This in spite of the fact police investigations reveal those guilty of PMS are typically creatures of the Left, not Trump supporters. McCarthy notes the Second Amendment’s intent was to protect the firearms liberals want to seize. He adds that a “well-regulated militia” means a citizenry well practiced with arms as opposed to a standing army. To be effective, the militia must have the same firearms as a federal standing army. So far so good. Then McCarthy runs off the rails. He asserts notions the Second Amendment supports citizen rebellion, like Shays’ Rebellion, is “right-wing folklore”. McCarthy offers as proof the Virginia Declaration of Rights, authored by George Mason that “inspired” the Second Amendment. Its stated reason for arms is to maintain a well-regulated militia “under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power”.6 Where to start? Part one covered the meaning of “militia”. Here we turn to a story of mistrust by the people’s “betters”.

Typical high school government textbooks allege the Articles of Confederation had failed. This led to unpaid State and private debt, violence, and economic chaos verging on tearing the union apart. “Shays’ Rebellion in Western Massachusetts (31 August 1786-June 1787) was only the most spectacular of several incidents”.7 They assert “By 1786, people in many states were on the verge of rebellion…Led by Daniel Shays, a veteran of the Revolution, hundreds of angry farmers and laborers banded together, marched on court houses, and freed imprisoned debtors from jail”. Richard Hardy, like other government textbook authors, uses Shays’ Rebellion (a name invented by enemies of the farmer’s protest) as an argument for abolishing the Articles and replacing it with a strong national government of centralized powers.8 This interpretation was strongly echoed by liberal teachers (is there a distinction?) with whom I taught and the jock-coaches principals assign to teach government. Ill-versed in the subject, the latter deviated not from the script. Little, if any, of what they teach, including the book’s representation, of Shays’ Rebellion is accurate. The same holds true at the University. For example, a typical college text explains “hard times, tight money, and heavy taxes” sent Massachusetts farmers to debtors’ prison while others “lost their land”. The farmers’ rebellion was “put down” by “state troops”.9 Liberal John Garraty’s text asserts Shays’ Rebellion was the result of Massachusetts attempting to pay off its war debt with the tax bite “falling most heavily on those of moderate income”. He describes mobs shutting down courts to prevent foreclosures and Daniel Shays leading an army to seize the federal arsenal in Springfield, a battle they lost.10 Liberal historian Samuel Eliot Morison, despised by Communist Howard Zinn, author of the most popular fictionalized history passing as truth in public schools and universities,11 writes that Shay’s Rebellion consisted of poor farmers facing harsh economic conditions who demanded relief from their State government. They seized control of courts in Western Massachusetts preventing them from opening until the legislature amended the Constitution. Their demands included ending requirements debts be paid in specie and ending legal favoritism of coastal commercial interests at the expense of farmers. Morison labels Massachusetts’ Governor James Bowdoin a “staunch conservative” who called out the militia to put down these illegal protests.12 Postwar economic conditions were indeed harsh in several colonies but were not the cause of the so-called Shays’ Rebellion. Liberal teachers wield the story in classrooms as a “cautionary tale” to convince students the United States must have a strong national government of consolidated powers. Moreover, at the expense of State and individual rights.

Scare stories are part and parcel of the weapons used by those pushing an agenda to effect a desired outcome. Their creators spin and spoon-feed them to gullible Americans all too willing to embrace lies over truth. It works because Americans are too intellectually lazy to think beyond the accepted wisdom of the herd. Manipulators fuel preexistent worry and fear already planted by mass media and government schools (global warming, Putin under every bed) to create panic and alarm. Their goal is to cause rash imprudent reaction. The nation’s “Father” was the target of such an effort.

With no desire to leave Mount Vernon again, George Washington was enjoying retirement from public life. In 1786, he received visitors and letters from friends and veterans reporting on a “rebellion” in Massachusetts. Their shared goal was abolition of the Articles of Confederation and replacing it with a strong national government of consolidated powers. They wanted to reduce or eliminate State sovereignty. They weaved scare stories ranging from exaggeration to outright lies. Washington was already discomfited by hysterical scare stories he read in newspapers written by editors who also shared a strong desire to scrap the Articles. Political leaders, former army officers, bankers, merchants, and large landowners added their voices to claims the nation was falling apart and about to disintegrate into revolution or civil war.13

General Henry Knox, Washington’s former artillery commander, along with others, knew Washington was a large landowner constantly dealing with squatters. Therefore, they painted Massachusetts’ rebels in the most lurid and false terms. They told him rebels wanted to close courts to stop foreclosure on land for unpaid debt, seize land belonging to the rich, and that Massachusetts’ militias were too weak to oppose them. Knox claimed a “licentious spirit” was widespread among the rebels and they were “malcontents” and “levellers” who, through violence, would abolish all social, economic, and class distinctions. In addition, they would erase all private debt and redistribute amongst themselves the land they seized.14 Knox used the term “levellers” to spark alarm in Washington and others. It sprang from the English Civil War of 1642 between Charles I and Parliament. Near the end of that war, common soldiers discussed what improvements they desired for postwar England. Levellers wanted to abolish the tax-supported state church, establish basic natural rights belonging to all men, declared sovereignty was in the people not kings, and that government was a social-compact with the people.15

Through malice or ignorance, Knox was conflating Levellers with English “Diggers”. The latter were essentially proto-communists. Basing their doctrine on the New Testament, Diggers wanted all unenclosed land seized and made communal, farmed, and its produce distributed by the commune to the poor. England would abolish private property along with “unequal wealth”.16 Knox’s misrepresentation of Shay’s Rebellion, and use of the term “Levellers”, had the desired effect. He conjured images of rogue uneducated, poor, and debt- ridden rabble rising up to burn the homes and farms of the rich, looting businesses and banks, and overthrowing the government in Boston. None of this was true.

The men in Western Massachusetts who marched on and closed courts in several towns were comprised of farmers, large landowners, merchants, Revolutionary War heroes and veterans, and political leaders. They were typically middle class, from leading long established families, and were neither poor nor debtors. They rebelled because land and note speculators, led by Governor James Bowdoin, had taken over the government in Boston. Like other states during the war, Massachusetts issued paper notes to pay its soldiers, farmers, and merchants from whom it requisitioned supplies. Not backed by specie, inflation ensued and soon, like the famous Continentals, they were worthless. People had to eat and pay bills so, when speculators offered to buy these notes for a fraction of their face value, their holders sold them. After the war, Bowdoin and his cronies bought up as many notes as they could. Once in power, they passed a law requiring the State redeem them at full face value, with interest, and much of it paid in specie. To finance redemption, Bowdoin’s government passed a head tax on families for every male 16 and older and farm families tended to be large. In addition, the state would tax their land. Those unable to pay faced losing family farms and going to prison. The State had forced soldiers, farmers, and small merchants to accept worthless notes during the war. From them speculators bought these notes for next to nothing. Now the state was taxing those who lost an enormous sum selling the notes to speculators to pay an even greater amount to redeem them on their behalf.17 Public school texts seem to leave out this part of the story.

Is it any wonder farmers in Western Massachusetts reacted in anger and protest? They demanded a change in the law. Specie was scarce and farmers knew the government in Boston was robbing them to benefit Bowdoin and his wealthy cronies. Boston was deaf to farmers’ complaints. Their protests became larger and eventually they closed local courts to force change. They were not attempting to overthrow the government. Bowdoin reacted with force. The State Legislature granted him authority to arrest, torture, and even hang rebels. He could also seize their land and sell it. To his benefactors, naturally. He suspended habeas corpus meaning he could arrest and keep rebels, even political enemies, in jail until they rotted. This he did. Massachusetts’ militia was more than large enough to suppress the rebellion but, when Bowdoin called it out, they refused. They would not march against men they knew to be honorable, patriots, and war veterans. Bowdoin and his rich speculator friends passed the hat amongst themselves and raised enough money to hire a mercenary army of 4,400 led by war veteran General Benjamin Lincoln to suppress the “rebellion”. Following several skirmishes, the rebellion ended when Lincoln’s State army seized the federal arsenal at Springfield before the farmers did.18 Proponents of a new “national” government did not tell George Washington this side of the story.

Although a war hero, Daniel Shays was a newcomer to Western Massachusetts. He was leader of one of many groups who protested what Boston was doing. Those comprising “rebel” groups never called themselves “rebels, insurgents”, or “Shayites”. The press and allies of Bowdoin invented these labels. The same way the left uses “right-wing” for conservatives implying the latter are Nazis. Shame on you Daniel McCarthy. Instead, they referred to themselves as “Regulators” a term originating in England during the 1680s. Britons who took this name opposed corruption, cronyism, and tyranny in government. Americans knew this history. The term Regulator gained usage In Britain’s North American colonies in the 1760s, first in North and then in South Carolina. Lawyers and land speculators gained control of Carolina County Courts and used their position to levy heavy taxes, fees, and fines on farmers. They jailed delinquent taxpayers, seized, and sold their land. When the governments in each colony refused to reply to the farmer’s pleas for relief, they took matters into their own hands forming organizations of Regulators who drove corrupt lawyers, judges, and officials from office. Like Massachusetts, the aristocracy consolidated political power into its hands rewarding themselves and cronies at the expense of farmers, exactly what Britain’s appointed Royal Governors had done in the colonies. Each state in turn suppressed rebellion. Following in the footsteps of those who came before, Massachusetts’ Regulators vowed to end tyrannical government in Boston based on cronyism and corruption. Their goal was to rewrite the hated State Constitution of 1780.19

Men who favored creating a European style strong national government with centralized powers used Shay’s Rebellion to argue the government under the Articles was too weak to survive. They stoked fear and panic. “Nationalizers” created and disseminated false narratives through the media they controlled. They pressured Madison and Washington to support abandoning the Articles in favor of a yet, unwritten new form of government.20 It is remarkable that American patriots did not realize that, in beholding the rebels of 1786, they were seeing themselves in the mirror of 1776. There can be but one explanation. These men evinced a trait shared from time immemorial among those who would rule. They do not trust “lesser” citizens to rule themselves sharing the same amount of freedom as their “betters”. It is why they target the Second Amendment, freedom of speech, and challenge the outcomes of elections. Even some Republicans, conservative pundits, opinion makers, and movers and shakers believe in government for, not of the people. They want their base to vote and then shut up. Do not accommodate them. Read and learn the truth.

11 Peter Schweizer, Secret Empires (New York, N.Y., HarperCollins Publishers, 2018), 55-73. Spoiler alert, Republicans have their hands in the till as well.

22 Natalyia Vasilyeva, The Associated Press, “Russia’s Conflict With Ukraine: An Explainer,” 26 November 2018, The Military Times at https://www.military-times.com/news/yar-military/2018/11/26/russias-conflict-with-ukraine-an-explainer/

33 Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, A History of Russia, Sixth Edition (Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 2000), 332, 333, 380, 394, 397, 575-576.

55 Pauline Maier, Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 (New York, N.Y. Simon & Schuster, 2010), 104, 108.

66 Daniel McCarthy, “Liberalism Cannot Stop The Shootings”, American Spectator at https://spectatorus/liberalism-cannot-stop-shootings/

77 William A. McClenaghan, Magruders’ American Government, 2000 Edition (Needham, Massachusetts, Prentice Hall, 2000), 37.

88 Richard J. Hardy, Government In America (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), 45.

99 Rebecca Brooks Gruever, An American History, Second Edition, Volume 1 to 1877 (Reading, Massachusetts, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1976), 175.

1010 John A. Garraty and Robert A. McCaughey, The American Nation: A History Of The United States, Sixth Edition (New York, N.Y., Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), 151.

1111 Mary Grabar, Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation against America (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, 2019), 6, 12, 14, 23-28, 251, 257.

1212 Samuel Eliot Morison, The Oxford History Of The American People, Prehistory to 1789 (New York, N.Y., A Mentor Book from New American Library, 1972), 390-394, 395.

1313 Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 1-3.

1414 IBID. 3-4.

1515 Goldwin Smith, A History of England (New York, N.Y., Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1974), 305-334.

1616 IBID. 334.

1717 Richards, 1-10, 15-16.

1818 IBID. 23-61.

1919 IBID. 64-74, 61-63.

2020 IBID. 89-116, 129-138.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Dependent On Militia Membership? Part 1

The entertaining Greta

My opposition to Red-Flag laws has been steadfast countenancing no exceptions. Until now. Liberal Time Magazine’s Girl, er um “Person”1 of the Year’s trembling quivering rage-filled Greta Thunberg, who should be starring in H. P. Lovecraft inspired movies, could be that one exception. Ghostwriters and Handlers, please, do not allow Greta near sharp objects or anything that goes bang. Perhaps parents should be scheduling counseling sessions rather than enabling Greta’s delusions of imminent human extinction. Scandinavia once gave the world Vikings. What happened?2

From the Great Depression, mass starvation, to man-created global warming, the Left needs crises with which to menace people. Only through scare tactics terrifying the masses can they evoke reaction based on emotion rather than reason. People who have lost their minds seldom make good decisions. Since the Second World War, the Left, either through ideological compatibility or supreme naïveté, has promoted notions the way to deal with adversarial nations (Communist dictatorships) and people is through non-violent appeasement. Leftists are moral relativists rejecting concepts of good and evil. Therefore global and personal conflicts result from misunderstandings not malevolent intentions. Because people have “issues”, not problems, conflicts can be resolved without anyone having to accept blame or facing consequences. All Stalin needed was a couch, a good listener, and a hug. Today, if the puny underweight wretched victim of bullying stands up to his tormentors, school administrators suspend him along with the thugs. Through its evangelists teaching in public schools, the Left has indoctrinated Americans to reject notions of self-reliance and taking responsibility for their own safety. Lockdowns, shelter-in-place, hide under your desk or in your home…Hence, they grow up to despise the Second Amendment. They are aghast at the idea citizens can own guns and decide when and where to use them in self-defense. Appearing on Fox’s Martha MacCallum Show in response to the Fort Worth Texas church shooting, Democrat strategist Doug Schoen argued people are not competent to carry guns for personal defense. This he added, should be left to the police who, coincidentally, were not there.3 The Left hates the Second Amendment for two reasons; first, it exposes their unwillingness to stand up to bullies and criminals whether on American streets or as heads of State. Think, Justin Trudeau. Second, it is an obstacle to the Great Project.

Whether taking the name Liberal, Socialist, Progressive, Central Planner, Democratic-Socialist, and so forth, Statists are determined to dismantle the Second Amendment either through abolition or redefining it out of existence. Until accomplished, it remains the single greatest impediment to The Project begun by 19th century American Progressives and European Socialists. Its central imperative is to bend the will of the individual completely to the volition of the State to plan, control, and regulate every aspect of human existence. And, the Left is the State. Because altering the Constitution has proven un-doable, the Left has chosen to redefine the Second Amendment as they did the Commerce, General Welfare, Necessary and Proper, and Supremacy clauses until they mean the opposite of their intent. For example they claim owning firearms is dependent upon membership in a federal (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) or State (“National” sic Guard) standing army. This claim could not be more wrong.4

Proponents and enemies of the Bill of Rights have debated the Founders’ meaning of “militia” ad nauseam. Rehashing it here would seem superfluous. That is, if its enemies were not using mass media, popular culture, and public dis-education to peddle lies conjoined with an American public too intellectually lazy to read and think for itself. As a recovering public school teacher, I can attest to the pervasiveness of this mental lassitude.

Mises Institute’s Ryan McMaken writes that the Founders’ idea of a militia was not one comprised of “unorganized amateurs”, called up by local authorities, to address insurrection or invasion. Instead, it was to consist of men between a certain age range, proficient in arms, possessing some degree of training in military discipline and tactics, a system of choosing officers, subject to call up by State or local authorities, and under civilian control.5 McMaken’s conclusion is problematic. In the 1740s, the French, perennially at war with England, established a large fort at Louisbourg near Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. From there the French threatened New England with invasion and provided safe haven for pirates and “cruisers” who raided its fishing villages and naval commerce. Finding the British unwilling to act, in 1744 New England raised an army of unorganized amateurs including commoners, farmers, merchants, fishermen, and so forth. With little or no experience, these New England boys executed a successful amphibious landing under difficult conditions, besieged the fort for three months, and forced the French to surrender.6 During the French and Indian War, the British could not have defeated the French without the assistance of colonial militia troops, amateur soldiers who fought as local units under American command.7

On 1 October 1768, in a lead up to what became the War of Independence, Britain dispatched 700 troops led by General Thomas Gage from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Boston. His orders were to suppress resistance to British commerce, trading, and tax laws.8 A month later (8 November 1768), King George III declared Bostonians to be in rebellion against English law and government. British political and military leaders drew up plans to subdue the insurrection.9 They employed their standard method of subjugation; round up, jail, and execute the rebellion’s leaders and door-to-door searches for arms and munitions in private hands. Colonials often stored gunpowder in storehouses outside of town due to its volatility. In order to prevent the Red Coats from seizing it, locals formed militias to guard them. In Virginia, Patrick Henry led the Hanover Independent Militia Company comprised of armed locals independent of the Governor’s control. They comprised the nucleus of resistance against British forces. Other colonies replicated this strategy.10

In 1774, British soldiers marched from Boston into the countryside to seize colonial supplies of gunpowder and weapons in Charlestown, Cambridge, Medford, and Salem. Forty thousand militiamen met the British, called “Bloody Lobsterbacks”, by locals, at Charlestown. These amateurs drove them back to Boston without firing a shot.11 British confiscation of private arms led to the “shot heard round the world”, the British march on Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts, to seize arms.12 Among the militiamen awaiting the British attack were farmers, craftsmen, mechanics, gentlemen, laborers, slaves, dairy farmers, and veterans of the French Indian War. Americans gave as good as they got forcing the British back to Boston.13

McMaken contends, “Gun Rights advocates fixate” on the latter part of the Second Amendment, “The people having a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” as the rationale for private ownership of arms separate from militia membership. He asserts the Second Amendment’s purpose was to guarantee that States “would be free to raise and train their own militias as a defense against federal power and as a means of keeping defensive military force available to Americans while remaining outside the direct control of the federal government”.14 He is correct state militias are supposed to be outside federal control but his assertion the militia is the primary focus of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The Second Amendment clearly contains two independent parts that framers could have fashioned into separate amendments. In fairness to McMaken, his purpose was to demonstrate State Militias are to be independent of federal control and that the so-called “National” (sic) Guard is a standing army and a gross violation of the Constitution.

Drafters wrote definitions of a militia into State Declarations of Rights and later into the federal and State Constitutions from 1791 on. They typically refer to “the mass of ordinary citizens, trained to arms” who would be available for call-up by State or local authorities, and to which was often appended an age range for those subject to service. Founding Fathers from Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Adams to Thomas Jefferson made clear the purpose of the Second Amendment was “that every man” be armed.15 Was this not so that the people would be equipped for militia service if needed? True but only in part. The Founders clearly saw that as an auxiliary advantage. However, the stress was that all men possess the right to keep and bear arms and government in no way have the power to infringe on this right or disarm the people. During debates over ratification of the proposed Constitution (1788) at the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry declared, “The great object is that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun”. Zachariah Johnson added, “The new Constitution could never result in religious or other oppression because ‘the people are not to be disarmed of their weapons”. Not militias, people. At the Massachusetts’ ratifying convention, Samuel Adams stated, “That the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms”.16 Again, these rights, freedom of speech, religion, and arms belong to individuals, not states or any other form of organized political entity including militias.

Many States, including Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, and others specifically state people have an individual right to keep and bear arms and it is not tied to membership in a militia, military, or any form of security force.17 The Founders knew Americans opposed standing peacetime armies (as we have today) and that States were reluctant to cede any of their sovereignty to this new untried federal system of government. They also knew government, like an irresistible force of nature, attracts to it men of ambition, those craving power, and men with no moral scruples. Therefore, they added the militia phrase. States would retain the means to resist federal usurpations of their power and infringement against the liberties of people. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal government, facing a national emergency such as invasion or insurrection, could request the states call up their militias. Governors would send them to federal authorities who in turn would arm, equip, and organize them into a standing army. The States would retain the right to choose officers commanding their militia units. Once the crisis was resolved, militiamen would return to their respective states and mustered out of service. Constitution or not, efforts to “federalize” (actually, “nationalize”) State militias placing them under presidential control began almost at once just as so-called Anti-Federalists had warned.18 The individual right to possess arms was always a separate issue.

English philosopher John Locke’s Treatises On Government were widely read (1689) in the colonies. He argued man had a “natural” (G-D given) right to life, liberty, and property. Inherent in each is the right to the means of defending it.19 Under the supervision of Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.20 Drawing on many widely held philosophical and theological roots; Jefferson wrote that all rights are individual and a gift from G-D. Among them are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property, wages, and the fruits of one’s labor). Rights imputed by Divinity are inherent in the nature of each individual’s humanity. People are born already possessing these rights. A right to life presupposes a right to the means of defending it.21

The Second Amendment employs the words “right” and “shall not be infringed demonstrating it refers to “a right that is already assumed to exist” (which comports with the Declaration). It does not say, “The people shall have a right to keep and bear arms.” The amendment recognizes but does not grant the right” [emphasis in the original].22 Requirements to join the military, a militia, or engage in a government specified activity in order exercise a right would negate that right. Any regulation, red tape, or hoops one must jump through before accessing a right is a gross infringement and, again, negates it as a right. Governments can in no way qualify a right. No vote by a majority of one’s neighbors to limit a right in any way is legitimate. In addition, people cannot through constitutions or laws, “agree to an infringement on their rights”.23 This is because of the inherency of rights. Only Divinity can alter or abolish rights divinely created. So why does the Second Amendment continue to confound people?

George Mason’s proposed draft of the amendment read, “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state”.24 Madison’s version read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well-regulated militia being the best security to a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”.25 Madison, like Mason and other Founders, wanted it understood that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right separate from membership in any form of militia. For example, those objecting to military service on religious grounds, still possessed the right to keep and bear arms. This would not be true had the right been dependent on being in a militia. Madison’s intent “is clear not only from his wording, but also from his notes for his speech proposing the amendment”. He states it pertains to an individual right which his “colleagues clearly understood the proposal to be protective of individual rights”. Massachusetts delegate Fisher Ames wrote that among other rights, that of bearing arms “to be inherent in the people”. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, Madison’s friend Tench Coxe argued that the delegates wrote the Second Amendment to “guarantee the right of the people to have ‘their private arms’ to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia”. Madison read Coxe’s articles and agreed, the amendment pertained to an individual right.26

So much, did the Founders write about the Second Amendment; its meaning is beyond question. These documents and writings are available to anyone. On what basis can opponents of an individual right interpretation justify their position? Simple. The truth is unimportant. Only the Great Project matters. All narratives, including history, must be made to fit and support it. Like a starfish turning a clamshell over searching for a vulnerability by which to penetrate its defenses, so too do enemies of the Bill of Rights search for weaknesses. They find it in contemporary American’s unfamiliarity with grammatical construction.

It is important to keep in mind, of the Bill of Rights none refers to “States having rights”. Each refers to a right of the people. These are individual rights. To argue the Second Amendment applies only to members of a military organization turns it into a State not individual right. We have clearly seen that was not the Founder’s intention. If the Founders had intended military or militia membership dependency in order to own or possess arms, “Why would they say, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Madison and those who shaped the amendment’s wording “chose to put the militia reference into a dependent phrase” choosing “the weakest possible construction by using the participle (word formed from a verb) ‘being’ instead of writing say, ‘Since a well regulated militia is necessary…” The militia wording’s weak form demonstrates its framers listed it as a right of states. “The main independent clause” of the amendment reads, “The people’s right to have guns ‘shall not be infringed”.27

An independent clause is a stand-alone sentence dependent on nothing. The militia part of the Second Amendment forms a dependent phrase. It cannot stand alone by itself containing a subject, verb, and complete thought. Therefore, it is secondary in importance to the main independent clause. The words; “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” would mean what by itself? The words; “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” would mean what without the first part of the amendment? People have a right to keep and bear arms. By reversing this order, the amendment’s drafters made emphatic that the independent clause was its most important part. “The Founders correctly intuited that in a bill of rights (list), the last thing the reader should have ringing in his mind’s ear is the absolute prohibition on infringement of the natural right to own guns”.28

If the Bill of Right’s enemies read America’s founding documents and writings, they know the truth. None of that matters. What does matter to them is total disarmament of American citizens. The Great Project cannot culminate until that happens. Toward that goal, the end always justifies the means.

11 Unlike men and women since the dawn of time, those on the Left are stymied when it comes to determining their sex, of which, there are but the two aforementioned options.

22 As with the Marjory Stoned Man Douglass high school “useful idiots,” Emma Gonzalez, Cameron Kasky, David Hogg, et al, the Left cowardly uses kids as stooge props, their youth supposedly giving them and their terribly immature and uninformed rantings an unassailable immunity against critique. Isn’t this what Muslim terrorists do, hide behind children?

33 Martha MacCallum Show, FOX News, 31 December 2019.

44 Sheldon Richman, “Reading the Second Amendment”, The Freeman 2 (February 1998), 112.

55 Ryan McMaken, Mises Institute, 22 August 2018, “Why We Can’t Ignore The ‘Militia’ Clause Of The Second Amendment”, Mises Institute, at https://mises.org/wire/why-we-cant-ignore-militia-clause-second-amendment/

66 Marvin Olasky, Fighting For Liberty And Virtue: Political and Cultural Wars in Eighteenth Century America (Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, A Division of Good News Publishers, 1995), 93.

77 IBID. 97-98, 102-105, 107, 109.

88 Stephen Halbrook, The Founder’s Second Amendment (Chicago, Illinois, Ivan R. Dee Publisher, 2008), 13.

99 IBID. 17-19.

1010 Halbrook, 104-105.

1111 Willard Sterne Randall, Ethan Allen: His Life And Times (New York, N.Y., W. W. Norton & Company, 2011), 8.

1212 Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause, The American Revolution 1763-1789 (New York, N.Y. Oxford University Press, 2005), 272-274.

1313 Randall, 8, Halbrook, 76-79.

1414 McMaken.

1515 IBID.

1616 Stephen Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (Albuquerque, New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, 1984), 73-75.

1717 McMaken.

1818 Edwin Meese III, Matthew Spalding, and David Forte, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 139-143.

1919 Gary A. Shade, “The Right to keep and Bear Arms: The Legacy of Republicanism vs Absolutism,” at http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/TheRightToKeepandBearArms.PDF.

2020 Clarence B. Carson, A Basic History of the United States, Volume I: The Colonial Experience 1607-1774 (Wadley, Alabama, American Textbook Committee, 1987), 182-183.

2121 Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution (Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas, 1985), ix, 60-63. See also, Gary T. Amos, Defending the Declaration (Brentwood, Tennessee, Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Publishers, Inc., 1989), 35-74, 117-118.

2222 Sheldon Richman, “Properly Interpreting the 2nd Amendment” Human Events (June 16, 1995), 16.

2323 IBID.

2424 Halbrook, Founder’s Second Amendment, 22.

2525 Shade.

2626 Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed, 76-77.

2727 Richman, Reading the Second Amendment, 112-113.

2828 IBID.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Sometimes correlation does mean causation

Students of firearms policy and law may have noticed a trend over the decades.

  • FDR’s — socialist — New Deal, 1933-1936
  • National Firearms Act of 1934
  • Johnson’s Great — socialist — Society, 1964-1965
  • Gun Control Act of 1968
  • Green New Deal, 2019
  • Holy Moley, every possible gun control proposal you can imagine, 2019

To achieve socialism, you must implement gun control. For all its proponents claim , But that wasn’t real socialism, every attempt at it has led to chaos and death. You know. In their hearts, socialists know it; they just think the death and destruction are worth it for control. In the case of the Green New Raw Deal, they think that turning the continental United States into a China-style toxic waste dump to build unreliable “renewable” (meaning the the PVC panels and wind gennies need constant “renewal”) energy, and reverting to an Early Medieval Period tech level, with the commensurate reduction of population, is good.

And they realize that the rest of us disagree, and can only be forced into it at gunpoint… if we don’t have the means to prevent it.

Thus, the new wave of gun control.

Sadly, it’s working, slowly but surely.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Well, harumph, we do have our standards

One of the facebook groups I belong to will have members that from time to time post links to some pretty egregious anti-semitic posts on facebook or twitter. I know this is shocking considering how many people I know that have done nothing more than post a news article to a crime someone from the religion of pieces has committed and have been put in facebook jail. Usually a violent and bloody crime by the way. So this member posted about 20 links to different facebook accounts. Pretty much all of them had the same thing. A graphic with a knife dripping blood, and a prayer, which, could be translated from Arabic. The gist of the prayer is oh Allah, come a kill all the Jews, let the streets run with their blood, yada yada yada. Being a sensitive soul, I took offense. So I did what everyone else was suppose to be doing with this, we reported it. Wish I had taken a screenshot of it for you, but I didn’t intend for it to become part of a column. The post is now gone happily, but sadly for my multimedia portion of the column. Love those graphics. To my utter shock and amazement, yes I am kidding, facebook said “We reviewed your report of XXXXXXXX” it apparently doesn’t violate their community standards and is not hate speech and they suggest I just block him. Fine, how’s about I use a Centurion tank, s’ok?

Now, why did this rather unsurprising incident wind up in a column? Would you like to know what does trigger facebook’s delicate sensibilities and violate their hate speech rule? The Declaration of Independence. America’s Declaration of Independence.

Facebook labels newspaper’s post ‘hate speech’; It was the Declaration of Independence

The Liberty County Vindicator had been posting excerpts of the Declaration of Independence daily leading up to July 4th. The first nine posts were published without a problem. The 10th post, which included paragraphs 27 through 31 of the Declaration of Independence, was deleted by Facebook.

According to Casey Stinnett, The Vindicator’s managing editor, the paper received a notice from Facebook that said the post “goes against our standards on hate speech.”

Hate speech, ok, so praying to Allah to kill all the Jews and blood run through the streets like a gully washer isn’t hate speech. What is?

“While The Vindicator cannot be certain exactly what triggered Facebook’s filtering program, the editor suspects it was most likely the phrase ‘Indian savages,'” Stinnett said in the statement. “Perhaps had Thomas Jefferson written it as ‘Native Americans at a challenging stage of cultural development’ that would have been better.”

He blamed the incident on an “automated action.”

“The removal of the post was an automated action,” Stinnett wrote. “If any human being working at Facebook were to review it, no doubt the post would be allowed.”

Casey, you have far more faith and trust in facebook than I do. Because I think if the monitoring team had realized it was The Declaration of Independence, they would have gone back and taken down posts 1-9 as well. Harumph, they do after all, have their standards.

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail