Citizenship

Goodbye federalism

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

As I have been re-reading Madison’s notes as edited by Solberg I have picked up on some details that the 23 year old college senior (slow learner) missed. In fact, I would recommend a re-read of a lot of stuff as an adult—you’d be amazed at what holds up and what does not.

But I digress—as most of my friends and relative note…often. Reading Madison’s notes on the federal convention reveals a lot. Many of the debates are still unsettled from day one. What are we as a nation. Do we have a general, national government or a federal republic? I can argue it both ways as my old hero Harold Fatzer did on occasion when he was chosen (by rotation) to write a majority opinion against which he had voted—his majority was solid and well thought out but his dissent was masterful, logical and chiding of the majority. I can write a legal paper on the textual federalism of the Constitution. I fervently support a federal republic and believe the national government has done more to destroy than protect.

I am writing this about the fact and not the law. The Constitution of the United States is regarded as antiquated. Franklin D Roosevelt wrote to Samuel B. Hill, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on July 6, 1935, stating, “I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation.” I did not find a quote for his reference to the Constitution as a “quaint 18th century document,” but the sentiment fits with his attitude toward Congress and the Supreme Court. And I would posit that most in elective office agree.

What Hamilton and a number of people at the Convention preferred was a national government—some went as far as to propose the elimination of states. At that point even Madison was in favor of a stronger central government than he was after persuasion by Jefferson during ratification. The argument was that the states were a roadblock to a strong (read militarily powerful) nation. And of course the states were a hindrance to commerce—actually California does not recognize the commerce clause when it comes to firearms and the Ninth Circuit says fine.

If I end up interspersing current events with this it is that the same forces are at work today and this is about where we are. There is no provision in the Constitution for a national police force. The federal government has 150,000 “law enforcement” personnel which essentially constitute a standing army within our borders while the natural defense of society—the militia of the people—is further infringed. George Mason who drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights wrote in Section 13: “That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” The Department of Homeland Security has become a power unto itself and has voided much of what is left of federalism. Does this bother the electorate—hint, the candidates are both believers in national government. As Clinton and Bush gave up their defense of their gubernatorial powers when they arrived at the juncture of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues, so too will Romney if elected.

The arguments ranged back and forth on the merits of democratic election versus a republic. And at the Convention, there was a compromise. We are told today by those who wish a more powerful and intrusive government that compromise is not a bad thing. The Senate was to be selected by the legislatures of the states as a bone to the republicans. The fear was that a complete democracy would endanger the rights of all. As the growth of democracy gained power in the 19th Century, the Progressives manipulated the Populists into assenting to their power grab and the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 leaving the Senate of the United States unaccountable to those states they represent.

The situation we are in now—a national, central and unaccountable government—is not a failure of democracy but rather the natural consequence of democracy. It arises out of a public school system which has, as its primary mission, the indoctrination of the population in the current political system. This sets them up to accept the demagoguery they became acquainted with in school. Unfortunately the progressives have control of education regardless of who holds the government through the NEA and AFT.

The document remains but the reality is different. The courts and Congress cannot control the Executive because they do not have the will. This is not a new phenomenon of the Clinton-Bush-Obama years. Andrew Jackson once said, “Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

More quotes:

“I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate about me.” Theodore Roosevelt whose 1912 campaign made suggestions about the need to revise the Constitution to give the central government more power.

““The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit; and if Congress be overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution, – it will be from no lack of constitutional powers on its part, but only because the President has the nation behind him, and the Congress has not.” Woodrow Wilson who believed there was a “transcendent constitution” that superseded the dead written document.

So we are here with a national rather than a federal government that Republicans and Democrats alike are comfortable with.

Standard
Citizenship

A case for a change

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

There are two major candidates, one of whom will be elected in December, with different aspirations. Mitt Romney wants very much to be President. To that end he will promise anything he needs to promise and will have a tough time following through on those promises if elected. This is not intended as an endorsement of Mr Romney.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, is President. He made all those promises four years ago, and to achieve some he ignored others. He wants very much to transform America. It worked for FDR—four times. It was only after World War II ended and Truman lifted wartime restrictions that the nation began to recover from the recession of 1931.

So let us look at the transformation so far. The “bailout” of the auto industry involved a takeover of two companies in order to preserve the union welfare state of those companies and give the government a “stakeholder” place in decision making. The bankruptcy law was violated and preferred stockholders, many of them public employee and teacher pension funds, were left holding the bag to assure government preferred stakeholders—aka the UAW. When franchises were closed, the fact that some had paid serious money for their franchises was not a consideration. Apparently volume of sales was not either.

Another aspect of the transformation of the auto industry is the new green technology. An example of this is the new Chevy Volt. GM loses $49,000 on every one that leaves the factory in order to reach a price point of $40,000. In addition the taxpayers pick up another $7,500 in a tax credit to bring the price down to a level where people will buy the vehicle.

The genius of the American auto industry has been its ability to produce vehicles that capture the consumer. And scuttle those that do not. They did not have to deal with the fiat that “you will build this vehicle” mentality of the Combloc. The Edsel was a failure—Ford ditched it and followed with the Mustang. Despite Ralph Nader the Corvair was extremely popular—there is a 61 driving around town that is in better shape than Ralph.

Ford escaped the “bailout” by having shepherded its resources to where it would not have to take a reorganization. Not to worry. New EPA CAFE standards took care of the the popular Crown Victoria. The company will survive, but a solid, powerful vehicle has been removed from production. Its replacement, the AWD Taurus-SHO, is unlikely to last as many miles and has a higher price tag to begin with. And with Executive Order 13603 in place, Obama has “authority” to seize industries in the name of national security.

The “bank bailout” saved some companies that should have been allowed a quiet demise. The real estate bubble which brought it down was caused largely by federal requirements to “open up” the housing market. To avoid pressure by compliance agencies, the banks loosened credit requirements to the point that massive groups of people were approved for loans they could never pay. There were people in certain counties in Colorado who were refinancing every eighteen months. There was a joke in the consumer community about using Visa to pay Mastercard—eventually the house of cards (so to speak) tumbles.

As the Congress set about remedying the financial situations there were companies that should have gone under, but were “too big to fail” so they were propped up. The regulations bill that the President signed had not been read by its sponsors. Retiring Sen Chris Dodd said it would take a couple years to find out what was in it.

So we come to the quick fix comprehensive health care reform. Like the financial services bill it was rushed and rammed through without time for reading or reflection. So much for the promise of transparency. What is in it—other than a tax that is unlawful because it originated in the Senate or else in the mind of an intimidated Chief Justice—is not clear. What is not in it is: cost control, frivolous lawsuit control, and cost increase control. Without these, the temporary nature of the bill is apparent—the costs will crash the government.

Then we come to the assertion that the President has authority to order the assassination of anyone he deems a threat to the American people. In asserting this power—which was not asserted in the Divine Right of Kings—the President places himself with banana republic dictators as well as Vlad the Impaler, Caligula, Stalin and Rasputin.

The President has also issued executive orders giving himself authority Congress and the Constitution will not. He tires of waiting for Congress. He has always, from his own statements, been frustrated by the Constitution’s negative liberties. He would like to change this Constitution out for one that mandates redistribution. And he clearly is looking for three more appointments to the Supreme Court in order to achieve this.

Mr Obama recently remarked that is is nearly impossible to effect change from the inside. Perhaps the community organizer needs to get back outside.

Standard
Education, Humor, Technology

Assumptions

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Assumptions will ultimately lead to disappointments. This is one of the reasons I do not accept any politician as the answer. The fact that a person says he or she is going to do something does not mean it will get done. Sincerity is the essential tool of the con-man.

When someone is elected there will be disappointment, especially on the part of ardent supporters. Yet they tend to use the denial mode provided by cognitive dissonance. What candidate X ran into was the delaying and blocking tactics of the reactionary opposition. What supporters then do is double down and eventually begin looking for another champion—and go through the same set of assumptions–like my friend who was anxious to get married for the fourth time because “this is the right one.”  Ah, the triumph of hope over reality.

In ordinary life, the same thing happens. Because I have had the good luck to get the computers and printers going at some point in the late Pleistocene, certain people have made an assumption that I know what I am doing. I have been able to get the printer to work using the options that are right there. One of these days, however, my luck is going to run out.

It is somewhat like the lawyer “Uncle Paul” Wilson talked about who seemed to be the master of every task until the day he got in his balloon and went back to Omaha.

Standard
Citizenship, Education

Antique Roman

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

 

Never believe it.
I am more an antique Roman than a Dane.
Here’s yet some liquor left. – Horatio in Hamlet act V

It takes awhile to find that line though it rings true to me—it always has and yet it is not found in the memorable quotes because it is not “profound” to English lit professors. I admit to having not read the play itself since high school, following the admonition of my Shakespeare scholar father to watch rather than read.

Why I relate to the specific line is that I, too, am more antique (republican) Roman than 21st Century progressive American. The Roman republic was created when Lucius Junius Brutus defeated the tyrant Lucius Tarquinus Superbus (the Proud) and ended the monarchy in 509 BCE. From this republic which was defended by blood—Brutus watched the execution of his own sons for attempting to restore the monarchy. During the Republic 509-44 BCE the people of Rome began referring to themselves as Citizens and at Brutus’ insistence took an oath:

Omnium primum avidum novae libertatis populum, ne postmodum flecti precibus aut donis regiis posset, iure iurando adegit neminem Romae passuros regnare.
First of all, by swearing an oath that they would suffer no man to rule Rome, it forced the people, desirous of a new liberty, not to be thereafter swayed by the entreaties or bribes of kings.

We have never, since the beginning of the American Republic, been required to take such an oath although we insist on school children repeating a mindless pledge to a flag that was written by a socialist minister and used to enforce a belief in a unitary democracy.

At any rate, the antique Romans believed in defending the Republic but not giving power to a king or a dictator. Unfortunately, as time progressed the Senate allowed generals their way and was happy with conquest. While maintaining the trappings of republicanism, the actual form of government that began to develop was an empire. Cato the Elder, Rome’s Joe Lieberman, would end his senate speeches on any topic with ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam or “in my opinion we should destroy Carthage.” While Republicans would counter this, in 146 BCE Rome destroyed the Phoenician port of Carthage and the die was cast about a century before Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

At any rate, Caesar was content to keep the fiction of a Republic—the Senate made him dictator for life in 44 BCE. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a shorter term than expected as Marcus Junius Brutus, descendant of Lucius Junius Brutus, led the assassination that got him mention in Dante and Shakespeare. With Gaius out of the way, his nephew Octavian defeated Antonius and Brutus to become Caesar Augustus. Plutarch used the term “fall of the Republic” rather than “rise of the Empire.”

I am more of an Antique Roman than a 21st Centuty progressive. I am a citizen of the Republic.

Standard
Education, Free Society

Amending the Constitution

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

Amending the Constitution of the United is an arduous process. It was intended to be for good reason. Any questions; try reading the California Constitution. There are several “amendments” in the pipeline at any given time. They vary from definition of life to a balanced federal budget. The primary impact of most of these would be the full employment of lawyers. The really hot one right now seems to be “the People’s Rights Amendment,” a rhetorical attack on the Citizens United decision with the effect of eliminating the Bill of Rights altogether. You may read my analysis posted 24 April.

I divide the amendments into limitations on government, housekeeping, individual rights, powers of government.

Articles I-IX are limitations on the federal government and individual rights.

Article X is limitations on federal power and powers reserved to states respectively and to the people.

Article XI limits the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Article XII is a housekeeping amendment on the method of choosing elector.

Articles XIII, XIV and XV are about individual rights. Article XIV also places the limitations of Articles I-IX on the states and their subdivisions.

Article XVI says the federal government may tax income from whatever source.

Article XVII took the appointment of the Senate away from the legislatures and made it by general election.

Article XVIII was one of two populist amendments, this one created national prohibition—a “noble experiment” that unified organized crime across the country and provided plots for numerous movies.

Article XIX is women’s suffrage. Out west it was not necessary. It was only in some of the eastern states that this was necessary.

Article XX reset the days for commencement of presidential terms and congressional terms. It also provided some flexibility in selection of the vice president and succession issues.

Article XXI repealed Article XVIII and gave ATF authority to enforce state laws contrary to the Commerce Clause.

Article XXII created term limits for president.

Article XXIII allows the District of Columbia the same number of Presidential electors as the least populous state. This basically gives the Democrats three guaranteed electors.

Article XXIV abolished use of a poll tax or other tax as a condition precedent to voting.

Article XXV provides for succession due to the death, disability or resignation of a President. Section 4, which has never been used, is problematic as I could see it as a coup d’etat provision.

Article XXVI provides for suffrage at 18.

Article XXVII Congress cannot raise its pay during the session. No change in compensation will take effect until after the next congressional election. This was one of the original twelve proposed, but it took a while—and a bunch of scandals—to take effect.

While I do not favor amendments for their own sake, I do see some areas that could increase liberty.

Repeal Article XVI. The current mess we are in has come from a monopolization of the taxing power by permitting unlimited taxation of income. When the government had to rely on tariffs and excises it did not expand and it did not engage in worldwide military adventurism. The income tax made military adventures by the Executive possible.

Repeal Article XVII. The direct and democratic election of Senators has increased demagoguery and reduced the accountability of the Senate. The purpose of the Senate was to represent the states—as such senators were appointed by, and accountable to, the legislature. This is extremely important in the Senate’s role in treaties but also in national legislation that may impact on small states. Also, senators with national constituencies may ignore their own states entirely.

Repeal Articles XVIII and XXI. When prohibition was repealed, the government kept in place a regulatory system to protect “dry” states from the commerce clause. Repeal would eliminate the A from ATF.

Repeal Article XXII. This proposal would eliminate term limits on the presidency. A good compromise would include changing the impeachment standard from Treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors to the during good behavior standard for judges. Term limits reduce accountability and were adopted as a knee-jerk reaction to FDR.

Add Article. Prohibit the bundling of regulatory or criminal laws onto budget legislation. It is a common practice to tie unpopular laws to “must pass” budgets.

Add Article. All federal criminal and regulatory statutes shall have a sunset clause. Most criminal laws at the federal level were passed in the heat of reaction. Reconsideration on a regular basis might result in appropriate corrections or repeals.

Add Article. Prohibit the federal courts from the awarding of punitive damages. Punitive damages are a quasi criminal remedy in a civil case. The motivation arises out of two basic premises. The most common is the feeling that a jury will find conduct so outrageous that it needs to be stopped and can best be stopped by excessive awards. The other is that a prosecutor can meet the preponderance of evidence standard for a tort case (every criminal trespass is also a civil tort) but not the reasonable doubt standard required for a criminal conviction. In addition to tort lawyers using the punitive damage tactic, political entities such as Southern Poverty Law Center and the various Public Interest Research Groups will use it as the means of “shutting down” those entities they have decided need shutting down.

Having escaped the Peoples Democratic Republic of California in 1963 I have avoided the idea that a Constitution needs to address every legal contingency. So I will leave it there.

Standard
Free Society

“Not my party”

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

The “teaser” on the Ron Paul’s response to Romney’s speech said, “It’s not my party.” Further, the Washington Post portrayed Ron’s supporters who walked out as spoiled brats who had never won a caucus or primary. Scratch WaPo as a reliable source.

The demonization and marginalization of Ron Paul has begun. This is a bad move by a political party that has a shrinking share of the electorate and only through good fortune is facing an incumbent whose record and negatives outweigh his positives. But this good fortune can be tossed aside by the actions of the Party and a pro-Obama mainstream media.

What Dr Paul said was not a repudiation of the Party but a statement that no one person owns the Republican Party. What he was saying is that the party is not owned by any person or faction. While the ham-handed tactics of the Romney faction prevailed at this convention, they are not etched in stone, but rather reflect a neo-conservative philosophy that may disappear as the ex-Trotskyites progress into senility and beyond. Youth, Hispanic voters and the disaffected are not jumping on the bandwagon in large numbers. And neither the “Romney vision” nor the Ryan budget are going to address the fiscal and social breakdown that is coming.

The glimmer of hope for the Party lies in the platform. If enough of the Congressional Candidates take it seriously, it could make a difference. Time will tell.

Standard
Education, Writing and diction

Neo-libs anyone?

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

In the study of journalism, English literature and law I came across a common thread, the ideal of precision in the use of language. One of my favorite scenes in Ulysses involves Dubliners in a pub arguing Shakespeare’s meanings as if the Bard were their writer—the truth is that the language is as much theirs as it is the language of London, New York or Kansas City. So I have a vested interest (as a labor relations manager I wore a three-piece suit) in the integrity of the language. And I tend to lecture people such as Bob Livingston on use of the term “liberal.”

The following comment made to Fox was “moderated” by disqus, the censor used by numerous sites including Fox. Since the Wall Street Journal is the jewel in Murdoch’s Crown, there is no need to subscribe to Fox for anything but entertainment news and Stossel

I am going to say something here that may upset a lot of people.  But I am educated in the classical liberal arts which include rhetoric, grammar, logic, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy and music.  I have studied Latin extensively.  The root of the term liberal is the same as the root of the term liberty.  Until we, as a people–not we as a State–stop using the term liberal interchangeably with the terms progressive and statist, we are allowing them to misuse the word they have appropriated.  FDR was not a liberal.  Harry Truman had some liberal tendencies as did JFK.  On the Supreme Court, Hugo Black had liberal tendencies and actually knew the Reconstruction Amendments were about individual rights.  William O Douglas and William J Brennan both believed in the power of government apart from limitations–that the Commerce Clause was that grant and that it superseded all amendments.  Both of the authors of the commerce clause (Hamilton and Madison) held the view that it was not a license to expand federal power, but a preventive of arbitrary and intrusive  state interference in the peaceful conduct of crossing state lines with goods.  

 

The word liber means free.  Anyone advocating that the constitution grants authoritarian or absolute power to the central government has no claim to that title.

The liberals of the late 18th Century were referred to as anti-federalists. We often refer to big government populists as “neo-conservatives.” Does this make post FDR statists “neo-liberals” or neolibs for short?

 

Standard
Education, Free Society

Forget November — Start Now

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

This was titled After November What?! The problem is that after the election lethargy sets in and everyone starts talking like the fan who calls into sportstalk radio after the BCS championship game to state that no wimpy SEC team that never played in Lincoln can call itself the National Champion. Everyone who has ever listened to sports talk radio understands this point. And there are thousands of fans that realize that bad calls happen and there is nothing that can take them back. They quietly wonder about next year and realize that there are five or six seniors for whom there will be no next year.

So every election night is like Super Sunday to the faithful—it just drags on like a game between two teams that have decent defense and no offense. And that is what makes it a spectator sport. Every election night, the losing side talks big about the next election. And a few make good on threats to move out of (city, county, state, country). And there will be a few for whom there will be no next time.

The reality of 2012 is that there are two major party candidates who are not defenders of the Republic. Romney does not understand and Obama is openly hostile. They believe in a system where they divide the spoils and they increase the influence of their respective parties. And they have a public that demands entitlements—yes, subsidies on agriculture, protective tariffs, and bailouts are all entitlements.

So I was writing this to talk about after November. What is going to happen? The party pros are going to be working on the next election, it’s the people who will be overjoyed or distraught. The pros are talking about marketing. What message needs to get out to win the election? How do they sideline the nuisances like Paul or Kucinich?

People are not going to be involved until they are needed—the strategy is to formulate the program and get people involved when there is work to be done. This is not a strategy—it is a habit. The establishment goes into sleep mode for three years, then expects to energize like Popeye slamming a spinach flavored AMP and take on the big boys.

Let’s look at it. The Democrats have been at this since Andrew Jackson lost the Presidency in the House of Representatives in 1824. Did he make a concession speech and go into Ostrich mode until September of 1828? No. He got off his duff and formed alliances. He wrote letters and met with leaders including Martin Van Buren who had organized Tammany Hall. 1828 was the year John Quincy Adams and the National Republicans went down in defeat. The main goals of Democrats are winning elections and governing. Since 1913 they have espoused a cogent progressive stance, and while out of power they still actively push their philosophy and agenda with a major consistency and do not sleep. In other words, campaign mode never ceases. And while they have been out of the White House more than in it since 1950 they have kept Congress with few exceptions.

The Republicans, on the other hand, have been in business since 1858 and, despite a run from 1861 to 1909 with two breaks for Grover Cleveland and one for Andrew Johnson, have been the minority party. If you look at American history, it is a hodge podge of defunct political parties—Federalist, National Republican, Populist, Progressive. The Republican Party may follow suit. The reason is that the Republicans eschew full-time politicians as a necessary evil. So the dilettante of the season with the program of the season is nominated—and surprise, it’s the nominee that the establishment wants except when there is a massive movement like Goldwater.

So how does the Liberty Movement take over a party. First, whether Obama or Romney wins in November the Republican establishment can best be described as moribund. It can hang on for one or two more elections, but it is looking back to the glory of Reagan without a sense of what Reagan was about. The Reagan years were not a significant dint in the march of Progressivism. What youth wants is a march to Freedom. And if they cannot get it, they will not put up with the Party, and the party that does not have youth has no future.

I am of two minds on Romney. He is a dilettante who has a feeling of entitlement because his father was denied the nomination. His idea of foreign policy is the PAX AMERICANA. He supports the policies of Bush and Obama regarding “the war on terror.” His campaign has resorted to dirty politics for the purpose of making the Convention in Tampa a coronation that will lead to the conquest of Obama. The only reasons I can cast a vote for Romney are: 1) He would appoint some fairly vanilla justices to the Supreme Court whereas without a Republican majority in the Senate and even then a lot of them roll with “history.” 2) He would wake up a substantial segment of the anti-war movement that sleeps while “the chosen one” occupies the house at the juncture of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues.

Remember that our goal is not putting Romney in the White House. While there is hope that he can be brought around—he had a “come to Jesus” moment at the NRA convention—he likely would continue on the path to implosion at a slightly smaller pace—it is even likely that he will serve only one term, leaving Obama out there plotting to pull a Grover Cleveland. The more likely scenario is that a popular Democratic Governor will emerge. Both parties look for the (con)man on the white horse. Our goal instead is to advance the cause of the liberty movement, to bring down the Imperial Presidency and to restore the Republic with its limits on power and its individual rights against the tyranny of the majority.

There is the alternative of a “third” party which has been defined as any party not Republican or Democrat. American history is littered with third parties. The key is to capture the Party without getting sucked in. This means going precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. It is better done outside of an election year, but you need to start where you are. Remember, the socialists never sleep, the establishment never sleeps. Unless we can take back the Republic we might as well sleep through it and line up for goodies.

THE REPUBLIC IS WHY REPUBLICANS EXIST.

This will not be an easy battle. No political battle is. But what is the alternative?

The alternative is an evergrowing government surrendering the sovereignty of the American people to the a world government under the United Nations. And it has been politicians who have given over the sovereignty that is not theirs to give.

The alternative is a copy of an East Bloc “Peoples Democracy” where your papers are being asked for.

The alternative is a national police force where the crimes are interpretations of vague concepts.

The alternative is an isolated Presidency, unfettered by the law and advised by commissars.

The alternative is an education system where the learning and literature of the past is thrown in the fire for the latest fad from UNESCO

The alternative is that the next generation (yet unborn) will have no knowledge of our history.

The alternative is a catastrophic failure of all the systems of government with no clue what to do other than beg from the Chinese.

Do we want these alternatives?  Or do we want to spread the word, work for the future. Socialists believe in the inevitablity of their cause, that the end of history is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long ago they abandoned the withering of the state—Marx was a crackpot; it was Lenin and Stalin who determined the course of history.

Are we ready to say no to that dialectic? Are we ready to say “YES” to the struggle for Liberty. And if we say “yes” are we ready for the long struggle that answer entails. Some of us will not see the end of the struggle, but it will require us to begin.

So start talking to friends. Get hold of Heinlein’s book Take Back Your Government—read it and share it. Work on issues as they come up.

And pray that the whole system does not implode.

Standard
Uncategorized

A reprieve: but for how long?

No copyright notice as this is just news.

The committee drafting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has adjourned without reporting a treaty to the nations or General Assembly for signature.  This is probably do to Senator Jerry Moran’s effort in obtaining signatures of 50 Senators besides himself against the draft treaty.

Be wary.  The ATT will not go away.  A second Obama Administration will likely push a total gun ban and work by Executive Order.  Justice Antonin Scalia is on board with this.  It is time to assure that anti-gun candidates do not become Congresscritters.

Standard
Uncategorized

Small Arms Treaty — an open assault on our rights

(c) 2012  Earl L Haehl  Permission is granted to redistribute this in whole as long as credit is given.  Book rights are reserved.

Within two weeks, President Obama is set to sign the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The anti-gun movement is awaiting ratification to begin the disarmament of the American People. At present more than 60 Senators are leaning toward ratification of this treaty and the President is leaning on the rest. This is a grave moment because the ultimate sovereignty of the United States ultimately boils down to the ability of the people to repel invasion.

We are quietly celebrating what we call the War of 1812 which James Madison stumbled into. It was the only time a foreign power invaded the United States and burned the government buildings to the ground. It was not the scattered national army, but the Maryland Militia who convinced Admiral Cochrane that the British did not want a war of attrition.

Since 1913 the government has been attempting to consolidate power in Washington as part of a consolidation of national powers under an international body. In 1919 the Senate wisely rejected the Treaty of Versailles (actually the Treaty of Paris signed at Versailles) which placed severe controls on Germany that made life miserable and gave rise to Hitler’s National Socialist movement. This treaty was a bad thing and would not have stopped Hitler even had the United States joined.

After World War II, the mood changed and there was a consensus that the world needed a new international organization. Senator Robert Taft opposed this as an entangling alliance and warned that we would regret this. The U.S. Senate ratified the Charter and the United States joined the nation. At the motion of the Soviet Union, the headquarters was located in New York City.

The location has an upside and a downside. The United States may keep an eye on the goings and comings of foreign diplomats. The high cost of living in NYC may discourage smaller nations from sending too large a delegation. The downside is that it essentially doubles the number of spies with diplomatic immunity and draws heavily on both local and national assets for security.

A disproportionate percentage of UN funding comes from the US, which was, in the latter half of the 20th Century, a great engine of wealth. The US is no longer that mighty engine and is “obligated” to the same level of support and threatened by General Assembly if it does not support organizations like UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). The interests of UNESCO are contrary to the interests of the United States and yet it dictates curricula to the US Department of Education which in turn dictates curricula to the states. The goal is a society indoctrinated in a world view inimical to our own system and history.

Reagan properly cut off US funding for UNESCO, but under Clinton, this country went crawling back apologizing—Clinton also kow-towed at the Western Gate after the Massacre at Tienanmen Square. The whole outlook has been “international.” The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto accords after the Senate voted 95-3 to reject the terms. He also signed the International Criminal Court treaty but never submitted it to the Senate.

Both Bush Administrations were also international in outlook, especially when justifying military adventures.

In the history of the United Nations, UN Peacekeeping troops have a spotty record. In Katanga, the UN Peacekeepers support the Communist leaning Central government of Zaire against the Western leaning Katangan government of Moise Tshombe. In Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) the UN oversaw an election which was won by Bishop Abel Musarewa and Josiah Gummede. The Marxist party of Robert Mugabe stayed at war and the UN, at the insistence of US Ambassador Andrew Young sided with Mugabe and the next election was rigged. Then there was Angola where the Marxist government held power only with the assistance of Cuban “volunteers.” Dr Jonas Savimbi’s pro Western UNITA party held out until George H.W. Bush, in order to curry favor with the UN, pulled support from Savimbi.

During the Rwandan Genocide the primary weapons were machetes. Belgian UN peacekeepers gave shelter to 2000 disarmedTutsis in a school with Hutu Power people outside. Everyone outside were Hutu. The Belgian troops left and the slaughter began.

So now, President Obama is asking us to trust that a UN technical treaty will not have a significant impact on Constitutional rights, namely the right to keep and bear arms. Meanwhile his lackeys have assured the Brady Campaign that it will. Kleptocrat and former Secretary General Kofi Anan has praised the treaty for disarming citizens.

This is a treaty about centralized power, about making the world safe for dictators.

I am of the opinion that if there is a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution itself, the Constitution prevails. We unfortunately have some justices on the Supreme Court who value the consensus of International Law over a written (not “living”) Constitution.

Just in from Senator Moran’s office: http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ContentRecord_id=2b02a67f-2179-41fc-be55-3502163c8510 Senator Moran and 50 others oppose the treaty if it will interfere with Second Amendment rights.

Meanwhile, Kurt Nimmo over at Infowars,com has, through his sources, obtained a draft of the proposed treaty. The language specifies international trade, but this is no problem for the O-Team. In all gun ban legislation, the interstate commerce clause is invoke with the additional language stating that since intra-state transfers may affect interstate commerce they are also reguliated. I have no doubt that the progressives will attempt to clamp down on domestic transfers.

This will include:

  • Reimposition of the 1994 assault weapon ban. There will be no grandfather clause on magazines or weapons in the possession of the population.
  • All private transfers of firearms will have to go through registration.
  • All reloading equipment and components will be registered.
  • Military ammunition will be prohibited to “civilians.” NOTE: The only non-civilians in the criminal justice system are those who are in a custody status and have not had their civil rights restored. Military ammunition includes: .45ACP, .45 S&W (a cowboy action load), 9mm Parabellum, .30-30, .30-06. 6.5mm Swedish, 7×57 Mauser, 8×57 Mauser, .308 Winchester, 7.62 NATO, 7.62 rimmed Imperial, .223 Remington, 5.56NATO, 7.62×39 Combloc, 5.45×39 Combloc and numerous other rounds.
  • Black powder weapons will fall under registration.

Realize that the 51 Senators opposing the treaty will be under extreme pressure from the White House and remember that we expected the Arms Reduction Treaty to go down in defeat.

Standard