Skip to content

Unserious Nation

November 22, 2017

Patrick J. Buchanan

11/20/2017

Source …..

How stands John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” this Thanksgiving?

How stands the country that was to be “a light unto the nations”?

To those who look to cable TV for news, the answer must at the least be ambiguous. For consider the issues that have lately convulsed the public discourse of the American republic.

Today’s great question seems to be whether our 45th president is as serious a sexual predator as our 42nd was proven to be, and whether the confessed sins of Sen. Al Franken are as great as the alleged sins of Judge Roy Moore.

On both questions, the divide is, as ever, along partisan lines.

And every day for weeks, beginning with Hollywood king Harvey Weinstein, whose accusers nearly number in three digits, actors, media personalities and politicians have been falling like nine pins over allegations and admissions of sexual predation.

What is our civil rights issue, and who are today’s successors to the Freedom Riders of the ‘60s? Millionaire NFL players “taking a knee” during the national anthem to dishonor the flag of their country to protest racist cops.

And what was the great cultural issue of summer and fall?

An ideological clamor to tear down memorials and monuments to the European discoverers of America, any Founding Father who owned slaves and any and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen.

Stained-glass windows of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson have been removed from the National Cathedral. Plaques to Lee and George Washington have been taken down from the walls of the Episcopal church in Alexandria where both men worshipped.

But the city that bears Washington’s name is erecting a new statue on Pennsylvania Avenue — to honor the four-term mayor who served time on a cocaine charge: Marion Shepilov Barry.

Whatever side one may take on these questions, can a country so preoccupied and polarized on such pursuits be taken seriously as a claimant to be the “exceptional nation,” a model to which the world should look and aspire?

Contrast the social, cultural and moral morass in which America is steeped with the disciplined proceedings and clarity of purpose, direction and goals of our 21st century rival: Xi Jinping’s China.

Our elites assure us that America today is a far better place than we have ever known, surely better than the old America that existed before the liberating cultural revolution of the 1960s.

Yet President Trump ran on a pledge to “Make America Great Again,” implying that while the America he grew up in was great, in the time of Barack Obama it no longer was. And he won.

Certainly, the issues America dealt with half a century ago seem more momentous than what consumes us today.

Consider the matters that riveted America in the summer and fall of 1962, when this columnist began to write editorials for the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. What was the civil rights issue of that day?

In September of ‘62, Gov. Ross Barnett decided not to allow Air Force vet James Meredith to become the first black student at Ole Miss. Attorney General Robert Kennedy sent U.S. Marshals to escort Meredith in.

Hundreds of demonstrators arrived on campus to join student protests. A riot ensued. Dozens of marshals were injured. A French journalist was shot to death. The Mississippi Guard was federalized. U.S. troops were sent in, just as Ike had sent them into Little Rock when Gov. Orville Faubus refused to desegregate Central High.

U.S. power was being used to enforce a federal court order on a recalcitrant state government, as it would in 1963 at the University of Alabama, where Gov. George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door.

As civil rights clashes go, this was the real deal.

That fall, in a surprise attack, Chinese troops poured through the passes in the Himalayas, invading India. China declared a truce in November but kept the territories it had occupied in Jammu and Kashmir.

Then there was the Cuban missile crisis, the most dangerous crisis of the Cold War.

Since August, the Globe-Democrat had been calling for a blockade of Cuba, where Soviet ships were regularly unloading weapons. When President Kennedy declared a “quarantine” after revealing that missiles with nuclear warheads that could reach Washington were being installed, the Globe urged unity behind him, as it had in Oxford, Mississippi.

We seemed a more serious and united nation and people then than we are today, where so much that roils our society and consumes our attention seems unserious and even trivial.

“And how can man die better than facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?” wrote the British poet Thomas Macaulay.

Since 1962, this nation has dethroned its God and begun debates about which of the flawed but great men who created the nation should be publicly dishonored. Are we really a better country today than we were then, when all the world looked to America as the land of the future?

 

Advertisements

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Announces December Vote to Repeal Net Neutrality

November 22, 2017

Sean Moran

11/21/2017

Source …..

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai plans a December vote to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rule.

The FCC will vote on December 14, 2017, to repeal the agency’s 2015 Open Internet Order, which established net neutrality. The rule, known as the Open Internet Order, reclassified the internet as a public monopoly. Critics chided the rule, stating that it would diminish the freedom of the internet. Proponents argue that the regulations prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against content providers.

Chairman Pai plans to unveil his proposed rulemaking to repeal net neutrality on Wednesday.

Pai declared in a statement on Tuesday:

For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress.  This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States.  And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.

But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama.  On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet.  That decision was a mistake.  It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.

Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet.  Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.

Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015.  Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.

Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed Internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote.  This time, it’ll be different.  Specifically, I will publicly release my proposal to restore Internet freedom tomorrow—more than three weeks before the Commission’s December 14 vote.

Fellow Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr said in a statement, “Today, the Chairman circulated a draft order that would restore Internet freedom by reversing the Obama-era FCC’s regulatory overreach. Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefited from a free and open Internet because the FCC abided by a 20-year, bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet access. The Internet flourished under this framework. So I fully support returning to this approach, which will promote innovation and investment for the benefit of all Americans. I look forward to casting my vote in support of Internet freedom.”

Free State Foundation President Randolph May issued a statement cheering net neutrality’s repeal. May argued, “The FCC’s current regulations, put in place at President Obama’s direction in 2015, constitute a misguided act of regulatory aggression leveled at the dynamic broadband Internet marketplace. It is none too soon to repeal them. Already, there is persuasive evidence that applying a public utility regulatory regime to Internet service providers has slowed investment in new facilities. As demand for Internet services continues to grow exponentially, the nation can ill-afford to risk deterring investment in new high-speed networks.”

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said, “The ‘Restoring Internet Freedom Order’ released today by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a bold strike turning America away from the path we were on — turning the internet into a cross between the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles.”

Katie McAuliffe, executive director of digital liberty, argued, “Chairman Ajit Pai has been instrumental in reforming the FCC to reflect the rapidly changing telecommunications industry. Governing 21st-century technologies with 20th-century regulations is not a strategy for keeping the United States as a worldwide leader in technological innovation. Chairman Pai and the FCC have made reforms necessary to keep the United States competitive in the global economy and to ensure that all Americans have access to the information they need.”

FCC Chairman Pai told Breitbart News in a previous exclusive interview that we need to repeal net neutrality to preserve an open internet.

Pai told Breitbart News, “We need an open and free internet for the 21st century, and if that gateway is closed, we’re essentially left behind. So that’s one of the things we want to do is to promote ubiquitous internet access so that every American who wants it can get it and there’s no telling how broadly the entrepreneurial spirit can flourish if we empower Americans with access to a free and open internet.”

 

Charlie Rose, John Conyers, Al Franken… more Democrats hit with sexual assault charges as the “Party of Women” continues to reveal its rank hypocrisy

November 22, 2017

11/21/2017

Source …..

Quite frankly, I don’t know how anyone — especially women — can remain Democrats after the string of grotesque sexual assault allegations we’ve seen over the past month.

What began with blockbuster details about allegations of serial sexual assault and misconduct against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein that stretches back decades has turned into a cascade of allegations against Democratic political figures and many media and entertainment figures who support them and claim to be such “champions of women.”

The latest is Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whom, according to , “settled a wrongful dismissal complaint in 2015 with a former employee who alleged she was fired because she would not ‘succumb to [his] sexual advances.’”

The Conyers case is particularly harmful to his party because he’s not just the longest-serving member of Congress, he’s also an iconic civil rights figure who, obviously, is not a defender of a woman’s right not to be sexually harassed in the workplace (or anywhere else for that matter).

The news site noted that, according to four signed affidavits — three of which are notarized — from former Conyers staffers allege that the Michigan Democrat, the ranking member “on the powerful House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public.”

For his part, Conyers said in a statement issued hours after the Buzzfeed story was published that he indeed made the settlement, but he vehemently denied the sexual harassment charges — which he gets to do because, legally, he didn’t admit to any. (Related: Harvey Weinstein revelations prove Hollywood is a left-wing cesspool of perverts, pedophiles and rapists.)

But of course, there’s that settlement thing; innocent people don’t have to “settle” such cases.

Also, what’s worse is what the Conyers case reveals: A secret settlement arrangement that is also a pretty well-used tactic aimed at not only keeping such complaints out of the public’s eye but also as a way to ensure those female victims remain quiet.

“I was basically blackballed,” one victim told Buzzfeed. “There was nowhere I could go.

“It is a designed cover-up,” Matthew Peterson, who worked as a law clerk representing the complainant said of the reporting process. “You feel like they were betrayed by their government just for coming forward. It’s like being abused twice.”

Conyers’ accusations come amid others against longtime TV correspondent and personality Charlie Rose, who was fired by CBS News on Tuesday after the allegations were made public and he apologized (lamely) for them.

“A short time ago we terminated Charlie Rose’s employment with CBS News, effective immediately,” said a statement posted to Twitter from CBS News President David Rhodes. “This followed the revelation yesterday of extremely disturbing and intolerable behavior said to have revolved around his PBS program.”

In addition, PBS — with whom Rose also worked — sacked their relationship.

“In light of yesterday’s revelations, PBS has terminated its relationship with Charlie Rose and canceled distribution of his programs. PBS expects all the producers we work with to provide a workplace where people feel safe and are treated with dignity and respect,” the public broadcaster said.

Claims of sexual harassment against Rose, first reported by The Washington Post, are just the latest against Democratic supporters, politicians and entertainment figures. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has been accused of groping women and forcefully kissing another against her will.

Maybe the problem isn’t just Democrats. After all, some Republicans (including our president) stand accused of sexual harassment, even of minors.

Maybe the problem is that we’ve vested way too much power in too many of the same people for far too long.

We can’t do much about the lecherous treatment engaged in by the Weinstein’s of the world but we sure can do something about long-serving hypocritical congressmen: We can vote someone else into their seat.

 

San Francisco Judge Blocks Trump’s Sanctuary City Order

November 21, 2017

Joel B. Pollak

11/21/2017

Source …..

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III issued a permanent injunction Monday against President Donald Trump’s executive order directing that federal funds be withheld from “sanctuary city” jurisdictions.

The original order, issued January 25, aimed to “Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.”

San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenged the order, which Orrick blocked temporarily in April on the grounds that it was too broad and infringed on the powers of the legislative branch to control federal spending.

In response, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum clarifying the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the order, stipulating that the federal funds to be withheld would be limited to discretionary grants from the department to local law enforcement authorities.

But the judge said in July that memorandum was not enough to stop other agencies from interpreting the executive order in a broader sense, and that the memorandum could easily be withdrawn.

In his ruling on Monday, Judge Orrick said:

[E]ven if the President had spending powers, the Executive Order would clearly exceed them and violate the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition against commandeering local jurisdictions. It is so vague and standardless that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and is void for vagueness. And because it seeks to deprive local jurisdictions of congressionally allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard, it violates the procedural due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

The Trump administration has already appealed Orrick’s original, temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Congress could also enforce President Trump’s policy simply by enacting legislation to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities — assuming Orrick’s 10th Amendment concerns about commandeering are overcome.

Proponents of sanctuary cities celebrated Monday’s ruling, while opponents remain incredulous that any part of the United States could defy federal immigration law under the protection of the courts.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice told Breitbart News: “The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law. The Justice Department will vindicate the President’s lawful authority to direct the executive branch.”

 

Pentagon pays for transgender soldier’s gender reassignment surgery after a federal judge blocked Trump’s ban last month

November 21, 2017

Hannah Parry

11/14/2017

Source …..

  • The soldier, who identifies as a woman, became the first active-duty service member to receive such an operation paid for by the Defense Department
  • The patient, an Afghanistan veteran who earned a Combat Infantry Badge in Operation Anaconda in 2003, went under the knife on Tuesday
  • Vice Admiral Raquel Bono, head of the Defense Health Agency, approved the waiver request for the surgery Monday
  • Move comes just weeks after a federal judge in Washington blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the military

The Pentagon has paid for an infantry soldier to undergo gender transition surgery after a federal judge blocked President Trump‘s ban on transgender service members last month.

The soldier, who identifies as a woman, became the first active-duty service member to receive such an operation paid for by the Defense Department when she went under the knife on Tuesday.

Vice Admiral Raquel Bono, head of the Defense Health Agency, which provides medical care to active-duty personnel, approved the waiver request for the surgery Monday, defense officials told NBC News.

The patient is an Afghanistan veteran who earned a Combat Infantry Badge in Operation Anaconda in 2003.

The move comes just weeks after a federal judge in Washington blocked President Donald Trump from banning transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.

Trump announced in July that he would ban transgender people from the military in a move that would reverse Democratic former President Barack Obama’s policy of accepting them and halt years of efforts to eliminate barriers to military service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The transgender service members sued in August to try to block the ban, which had not yet gone into effect, and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted them an injunction halting enforcement of it until their case is resolved.

The service members asserted that Trump’s policy violated their rights to due process and equal protection under the law under the U.S. Constitution.

Kollar-Kotelly said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claim that the ban was unconstitutional because the administration’s reasons for it ‘do not appear to be supported by any facts.’

After his policy announcement on Twitter, Trump signed a memorandum in August that directed the military not to accept transgender people as recruits and halted the use of government funds for sex-reassignment surgeries for active-duty personnel unless the process was already underway.

The memo called on Defense Secretary James Mattis to submit a plan to Trump by February 21 on how to implement the changes, and the Pentagon has created a panel of senior officials for that purpose. In the meantime, the current policy of allowing transgender people to serve remains in force.

Mattis in June already had delayed allowing transgender recruits to join the U.S. armed forces on July 1 as previously scheduled.

The judge tossed out the suit’s challenge to the sex-reassignment surgery directive, saying none of the plaintiffs had shown they would be impacted by that prohibition.

‘The court saw through the smoke screens that the government tried to throw up to hide what is actually going on here, which is straight-on bias and prejudice against transgender people,’ added Jennifer Levi, director of the transgender rights project for the anti-discrimination group GLBTQ Legal Advocates Defenders said at the time.

The Justice Department said it was disappointed in the ruling and evaluating its next steps. Spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said the suit was premature because the ‘Defense Department is actively reviewing such service requirements, as the president ordered, and because none of the plaintiffs have established that they will be impacted by current policies on military service.’

Trump’s action appealed to his hard-line conservative supporters. The president in February also rescinded protections put in place under Obama for transgender public school students.

The service members who sued Trump, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and military leaders in August had been serving openly as transgender people in the U.S. Army, Air Force and Coast Guard. They said Trump’s ban discriminated against them based on their sex and transgender status.

They also said they relied on the 2016 policy put in place by Obama to reveal they are transgender and called Trump’s reversal unfair, arbitrary and a violation of their privacy rights.

The Trump administration argued that transgender people might harm military unit cohesion and that they suffer medical conditions that could limit their ability to perform duties or deploy.

The judge said the military previously commissioned a study that debunked concerns about unit cohesion, military readiness, or healthcare costs related to transgender troops. That report estimated there were 2,450 active-duty service members and 1,510 in the military reserves.

‘In short, the military concerns purportedly underlying the president’s decision had been studied and rejected by the military itself,’ Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

LGBT Activists Just Rewrote Children’s History Books And You Won’t Believe What They Had To Say

November 21, 2017

Mommy Underground

11/20/2017

Source …..

The LGBT community continues to double down their attack on children, and yet again they bring the battle into the classroom.

Knowing children are taught to believe everything they read, their latest tactic hits children at the center of it all – academic text books.

Since the LGBT rhetoric and ill-formed opinions usually go ignored, LGBT activists have decided to rewrite history books, and you won’t believe what they say.

Now, when children go to school, they are forced to read history books, highlighting LGBT “achievements.”

And when a California school wanted to use history books the LGBT community didn’t find acceptable, the books were rejected because they did not contain any “LGBT history.”

LifeSite News reported:

“The Advocate reported that the California state board of education approved “10 LGBT-inclusive history textbooks” for elementary school students in grades K-8 last week.

 It also rejected two textbooks on the grounds that they did not include “LGBT history.” The exclusion of LGBT history violates California’s FAIR Education Act.

 The FAIR Education Act, once informally called the LGBT History Bill, was written by Senator Mark Leno. FAIR stands for “Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful.”

 It ensures that the political, economic and social contributions of people with disabilities as well as those people identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are included in textbooks of California’s state-funded schools.

 It also added sexual orientation and religion to a list of characteristics that California schools already could not present in a negative way.”

The notion of including LGBT folks as a “protected class” is outrageous.

Deciding to live an unnatural lifestyle should not earn special privileges.

But there’s one thing LGBT activists must learn – history cannot be rewritten. Attempting to change the school curriculum to highlight their continued corruption of family values is nothing innocent children need to read.

It’s actions like this, which encourage more and more parents to homeschool their children.

Children should not be forced to “relearn” the LGBT’s version of history.

Let it be known, the LGBT community is not trying to peacefully allow Americans to “choose” their lifestyle.

They are trying to force it onto Americans, and even worse, they are targeting children.

LifeSite News continued:

“Rick Zbur, head of Equality California, told the Advocate that this “is the next step for California students to learn about the contributions of LGBT people.”

 “Approval of these textbooks means that California schools will now have access to approved materials that accurately represent LGBTQ people …”

Renata Moreira, executive director of the pro-homosexuality Our Family Coalition, told the Advocate that “LGBTQ students, and those with LGBTQ families, will finally be able to see themselves and our history accurately reflected in textbooks in California.”

 But as Mommy Underground previously reported, this trend is nothing new. The LGBT community has been working tirelessly to have textbooks rewritten.
What are your thoughts on having LGBT activists rewrite children’s history books?

Do you think the LGBT community should stay out of the classroom?

 

Their America, and Ours

November 3, 2017

Patrick J. Buchanan

11/3/2017

Source …..

“Meet you at Peace Cross.”

In northwest D.C. in the 1950s, that was an often-heard comment among high schoolers headed for Ocean City.

The Peace Cross, in Bladensburg, Maryland, was a 40-feet concrete memorial to the 49 sons of Prince George’s County lost in the Great War. Paid for by county families and the American Legion, it had stood since 1925.

Before the Beltway was built, Peace Cross, at the junction of U.S. Route 1 and Maryland Route 450, was a landmark to us all.

Last month, two federal judges from the 4th Circuit ruled that Peace Cross “excessively entangles the government and religion” and must come down. A suggested compromise was to saw the arms off, so the monument ceases to be an offensive cross.

One wonders: At what moment did Peace Cross begin to violate the Constitution?

Answer: Never. No alteration has been made to the cross in a century. The change has come in the minds of intolerant judges and alienated elites where the dirty creek of anti-Christian bigotry now flows into the polluted stream of anti-Americanism.

Both are manifest in the rampage to rip down memorials to the men who brought Western Civilization to the New World and made America the great and good country we were blessed to inherit.

Monday, on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly called Robert E. Lee “an honorable man,” who chose to defend the people among whom he had been raised.

“It was always loyalty to state first in those days,” said Kelly, when asked his view on Alexandria’s Episcopal Church taking down plaques to its greatest parishioners, Lee and George Washington.

An explosion of outrage greeted Kelly’s defense of Lee.

Yet, what has changed in half a century? As Ingraham noted, FDR, an icon of liberalism, referred to Lee as “one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.”

Asked in 1960 how he could keep a portrait of a man who tried to “destroy our government” in his Oval Office, President Eisenhower wrote his critic back:

“General Robert E. Lee was one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history…

“To the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

“Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.”

Have some terrible new truths been unearthed about Lee we did not know in 1960?

No. The change has taken place in the poisoned minds of modernity.

Some will never concede there was principle or honor in the cause of a South that declared independence in 1860-61, emulating the 13 colonies that declared their independence in 1776.

In his tribute to Lee in 1960, Ike addressed what was at issue in 1860 that brought on the war.

“We need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.”

Ike refers not to a “Civil War,” but to the “War Between the States.” And correctly so. For the South did not seek to bring down the U.S. government, or overturn Lincoln’s election, or seize power in the capital — but to leave the Union, to secede, as Jefferson and John Adams voted to secede from Britain in 1776.

Asked on Fox News about what is happening today with the public insults to our national anthem and the desecration of our monuments, Justice Clarence Thomas raises questions being asked by many Americans:

“What binds us? What do we all have in common anymore? … We always talk about E pluribus unum. What’s our unum now? We have the pluribus. What’s the unum?”

The spirit that produced the war in the 1860s, and lasting division in the 1960s, is abroad again. A great secession of the heart is underway.

 

America’s Hamiltonian Empire of Lies

November 3, 2017

Tom DiLorenzo

10/15/2017

Source …..

In his essay, “Anatomy of the State,” Murray Rothbard wrote of how states preserve their power with a number of tools, most notably an alliance with “intellectuals.”  In return for power, positions, and pelf, the “intellectuals” work diligently to persuade “the majority” that “their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable.”  This is the “the vital stock task of the intellectuals.”  The “molding of opinion” is what “the State most desperately needs” if it is to maintain is powers, wrote Rothbard.  The citizens themselves do not invent theories of the benevolent state; that is the job of the “intellectuals.”

In his outstanding new book, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America (foreword by Ron Paul), historian Brion McClanahan explains with sterling scholarship how one “intellectual” in particular, Alexander Hamilton, invented out of whole cloth a mythical founding of the American state that bears no resemblance at all to the actual, historical founding.  His intellectual successors, most notably Supreme Court justices John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black, cemented this myth of the benevolent, consolidated, monopolistic state through decades of legal opinions based on a mountain of lies.

This of course is exactly what John C. Calhoun observed during his time when he wrote in his 1850 Disquisition on Government that a written constitution would inevitably be “rewritten” by “the party of government” in a way that would neuter it as a source of limitations on governmental powers.

Hamilton has become “the new hero of the Left,” writes McClanahan, for the Left has finally realized that he was “the architect of modern big government in America,” something that many conservatives have long failed to realize.  Hamilton’s voluminous writings formed the bedrock for generations of legalistic arguments that perverted the Constitution and created the “insane modern leftist legal world.”  It was Hamilton and his ideological heirs who invented the “loose construction” and “implied powers” theories of the constitution, which has so “screwed up” America.

McClanahan shows what a duplicitous liar Hamilton was, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing in his Federalist Papers essays, and then spending the rest of his life doing exactly the opposite.  He defended states’ rights and federalism in these essays but when pressed by Jefferson and Madison, he “would often backtrack and advance positions he favored during the Philadelphia Convention, namely for a supreme central authority with virtually unlimited power, particularly for the executive branch.”  This was “the real Hamilton,” who “made a habit of lying when the need arose.”

It was Hamilton who first spread the outrageous, ahistorical lie that the states were never sovereign and that the Constitution was somehow ratified by “the whole people” and not by state conventions, as required by Article 7 of the Constitution itself.  It was Hamilton who Calhoun must have been thinking about when he warned of “intellectuals” reinterpreting the constitution in a way that would essentially destroy it.  Hamilton’s lifelong goal, as McClanahan demonstrates, was to subjugate the citizens of the states to the central government and render the states irrelevant and powerless.  The most Hamiltonian of all presidents, Abraham Lincoln, finally achieved this goal.

The Machiavellian Hamilton as Treasury Secretary assumed the state war debts as a means of creating a giant system of political patronage.  He put unemployed war veterans on the dole, thereby initiating the American welfare state.  He led an invasion of Pennsylvania with 15,000 conscripts to attempt to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.  Nothing came of his invasion since all the whiskey tax “rebels” were pardoned by George Washington.  Nevertheless, the invasion served Hamilton’s purpose of allowing him to denounce all resisters of state power as somehow being clones of the violent French Jacobins.

The subject of a national bank run by politicians out of the national capital was discussed at the constitutional convention and decisively rejected.  Hamilton rewrote that history, too, to make the case for the constitutionality of central banking. His worshipful disciple, Chief Justice John Marshall, would cement this idea into place in his McCullock v. Maryland decision.  Hamilton’s bogus arguments in favor of a central bank were “a turning point in American constitutional history” because that is where he invented the fantasy of “implied powers” of the Constitution.  Once this path was taken, the constitution had the potential of becoming nothing more than a rubber stamp of approval of anything the state ever wished to do, limited only by the imaginations of Hamiltonian members of the judiciary

John Marshall was a virtual intellectual clone of Hamilton who spoke favorably of federalism, but codified federal supremacy and “implied powers” in his Supreme Court decisions, described in clear-as-a-bell writing by McClanahan.

Even more destructive of constitutional liberty were the writings of that great Bostonian blowhard, Justice Joseph Story (“Marshall’s right-hand man”), whose Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written while he was both a Supreme Court justice and a Harvard law professor, have exerted enormous influence on the American legal and political systems. Like Marshall and Hamilton, Story “suffered from historical amnesia” and “manufactured an image of the American founding and American government that did not match the historical record.”  He lied through his teeth, in other words, to advance the idea that the founding fathers created a consolidated, monopolistic, centralized state even more powerful and monopolistic than the British empire against which they had fought a war of secession.  His lies that the states were never sovereign, that the central government is “sovereign” in all matters, implied powers, and all the rest, were repeated by Abraham Lincoln, beginning with his first inaugural address, as he “justified” committing treason by levying war upon the Southern states (the exact definition of treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution).  Hence, it is the Hamiltonian, nationalist myth, not Jeffersonian states’ rights and federalism, that made the “Civil War” inevitable.  All of this, McClanahan points out, was always thought to be necessary by generations of Hamiltonians if they were to ever implement their economic policy program that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.”  This “system” of protectionist tariffs, central banking, corporate welfare, and a large public debt was anything but “American.”  It was the rotten, corrupt, British system known as “mercantilism” brought to America.

Then there is the twentieth-century Hamiltonian Justice Hugo Black, FDR’s favorite Ku Kluk Klansmen.  Nominated to the Supreme Court in 1937, Black had been a member of the KKK ever since the early 1920s.  He used his association with the KKK, and its “nationalist agenda” of ridding America of “immigrants, blacks, and Jews,” and its “anti-Catholic agenda,” to become prominent in Alabama politics.  His rabid support for FDR’s presidential bids won him a seat on the Supreme Court.

Hugo Black’s main demolition of constitutional liberty came in the form of his opinions regarding the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights to include the states.  This was never intended by the founders, who said nothing in opposition to the state-sanctioned “official” religions that existed at the time, among other things.

Thanks to Hamiltonian Hugo, virtually every issue facing Americans today is a federal issue.  His “incorporation doctrine” was the final nail in the coffin of American federalism, as McClanahan explains.  This is why the federal judiciary claims “sovereignty” over almost everything, from same-sex marriage to “transgendger bathrooms,” all aspects of the welfare state – everything and anything.  This is Hamilton’s America – a leftist lawyereaucracy hell bent on imposing totalitarian rule on the rest of us.

Don’t waste your money on that stupid New York City play about “Hamilton.”  Spend a tiny fraction of that theater ticket money on How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America instead, and educate yourself and all of those around you about their real American history.

 

The Tip of a Prosecutorial Iceberg?

November 3, 2017

Andrew P. Napolitano

11/2/2017

Source …..

Earlier this week, the government revealed that a grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C., indicted a former Trump presidential campaign chairman and his former deputy and business partner for numerous felonies.

Both were accused of working as foreign agents and failing to report that status to the federal government, using shell corporations to launder income and obstruction of justice by lying to the federal government.

The financial crimes are alleged to have occurred from 2008 to 2014, and the obstruction charges from 2014 to 2017. At the same time it announced the above, the government revealed that a low-level former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and become a government witness.

Does any of this relate to President Donald Trump? Here is the back story.

At the same time that Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Gates were guiding the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, Russian agents were manipulating American social media sites so as to arouse chaos in general and animosity toward Hillary Clinton in particular. The Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as independent counsel to determine whether any Americans had criminally helped the Russians.

The alleged crimes of Manafort and Gates appear to have nothing to do with Trump, nor have they any facial relationship to the Russians. So why were these two indicted by a grand jury hearing evidence about alleged American assistance to Russian interference with the 2016 presidential campaign?

When prosecutors confront a complex series of potentially criminal events, they often do not know at the outset of their investigation where the evidence will lead them. Sometimes they come upon a person who they believe has knowledge of facts they seek and that person declines to speak with them. Such a refusal to speak to the government is perfectly lawful in America, yet it often triggers a prosecution of the potential witness so that prosecutors may squeeze him — not literally, of course — for evidence to which they believe he can lead them.

The ultimate target of Mueller’s investigation is President Trump. It is standard operating procedure when prosecutors have a high-level target to charge those below the target with something just to get them to cooperate. Though the charges against Manafort and Gates need not be related to the Russians or to Trump, they must be real. It’s clear they are, as each is facing more than 20 years in prison. Mueller believes that that prospect is enough to dispatch their lawyers to make deals with him.

The danger of such a deal is that Manafort and Gates may offer to tell Mueller what they think he wants to hear — even if it is not truthful — so that they can have their prison exposure lessened.

There is more danger in the seemingly smallest of this week’s Mueller-generated events. Papadopoulos was interviewed voluntarily by the FBI on Jan. 27. He was arrested on July 27 for lying to FBI agents during that interview. In a secret federal court proceeding on Oct. 5, he pleaded guilty.

In a profound miscarriage of justice, federal law permits FBI agents to lie to us but makes it a crime for us to lie to them. Nevertheless, why was the Papadopoulos guilty plea kept secret? What was he doing between his arrest and his plea and between his plea and its revelation?

Judges are very reluctant to close their courtroom doors in any criminal proceeding, even if both the prosecutors and the defense counsel request it. The public has a right to know whom the government is prosecuting and what deals or punishments it may be obtaining. Yet if prosecutors can convince a judge that public knowledge of the existence of a guilty plea might harm an ongoing criminal investigation, the judge can keep the plea secret.

That is apparently what happened here. It appears that Papadopoulos was gathering evidence for Mueller, probably by talking to his former Trump campaign colleagues while wired — a process that would have been fruitless if his guilty plea had become public.

Because Papadopoulos admitted under oath that he lied to FBI agents, the courts will treat his guilt as certain. That gives Mueller great leverage with him. It also gives Papadopoulos great incentive to help Mueller — truthfully or not — because he knows he is going to federal prison. He also knows that if Mueller likes what he hears, a five-year prison term could be reduced to six months.

Hence, Papadopoulos could be a treasure-trove for Mueller on the production of any evidence linking the Trump campaign and the Russians and any evidence of Trump’s personal knowledge or acquiescence. Papadopoulos has already produced a wild tale about meetings with a Russian professor and a female Russian government agent in London that the FBI apparently believes.

Is this any way to conduct a prosecution?

I have argued for years that squeezing defendants and witnesses by threats and promises to get them to spill the beans is a form of extortion or bribery — not much different from the extortion and bribery that the government regularly prosecutes. “You tell us what we want to hear and we will ask a judge to go easy on you. If not, you will suffer great losses.” It is bad enough that the feds can legally lie to us and get away with it, but can they also legally threaten and bribe witnesses to testify against us and get away with it? Can they do this to the president?

In a word, yes. My arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Squeezing witnesses and defendants is a way of life for federal prosecutors. For the president, it is the tip of a dangerous iceberg.

 

Report: Former Democrat FEC Chairman Calls for Americans Sharing ‘Fake News’ to be Fined

October 22, 2017

Charlie Nash

10/19/2017

Source …..

Former Democratic FEC Chairman, Ann Ravel, is pushing for the introduction of fines for individuals sharing “fake news,” according to a report.

In the proposal, citizens of the United States could face libel penalties for sharing “fake news.”

“After a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure,” Ravel proposed. “Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

According to the Washington Examiner, the proposal could affect “users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times.”

“She would include ‘fake news,’ not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of ‘disinformation.’ And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit,” they reported. “She would also use regulation to ‘improve voter competence,’ according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’”

In response to Ravel’s proposal, former FEC Chairman Lee Goodman claimed, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com.”

“A fatal flaw of Ann’s proposal is that it cannot define what is, or is not, ‘disinformation’ in a political message,” he continued. “Nevertheless, it proposes to tag threats of libel lawsuits and liability to thousands of American citizens who might want to retweet or forward a message that somebody else subjectively considers to be ‘disinformational.’ I call that the big chill.”

“Americans should not be required to sign a national registry everytime they post a political video on YouTube,” Goodman concluded.

Elections lawyer Andrew Woodson mirrored Goodman’s concerns, adding, “Any proposal built on intimidating Americans from sharing news stories on social media is headed in the wrong direction.”

 

%d bloggers like this: