Our Freefall Into Tyranny
Until the founders made their declaration of independence and gave us the Constitution, humanity’s condition was that of ruler and subject. That relationship had changed little for 5000 years. And then, for the first time in history, America’s founders championed the idea that ALL of our rights came from our creator, that the citizen is sovereign, and that government is our servant. To keep the relationship that way, they wrote a contract, our Constitution, with language that would not allow our elected and appointed servants to easily change it.
While the rest of the world was enslaved, died, were slaughtered, starved imprisoned, impoverished, gassed or gulaged under Socialism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism, our Constitution protected our rights: besides life (and the freedom to protect same), and liberty, our founders realized our God given rights included the freedom—not the right—to succeed. For the first time in history it was understood and written in our Constitution that these were inalienable rights, and they came not from a ruler or a king, but from our creator! But what if most came to believe there was no creator—no God? Hold that thought a minute.
For the most part our servants—our elected and appointed representatives—obeyed their oath to uphold the mandates of our contract, and we became the country of “American Exceptionalism.” Free from the stranglehold of oppressive government, we became the economic powerhouse of the world and the singular example of what truly free citizens could accomplish. But now that is changing, and changing rapidly.
Regardless of a growing history of failure, there are always those who embrace all or parts of those isms. And regardless of all those isms’ history of disaster, there are always those that sell class envy and the promise of: if only they could be in charge they would create a utopia for the oppressed—the little guy. But in America, it was particularly difficult: the Constitution and our history of unlimited opportunity for prosperity stood in the way of their dreams. Worse, unlike elsewhere, the founders, in their wisdom created a high bar to change it in Article V of our contract with them.
So, in the face of unlimited freedom, opportunity for prosperity and a constitution that had served us so well, and the abject failure of every ism in history, would be usurpers of power realized they would have to accomplish their goals by subterfuge—by, as the Marxists Antonio Gramsci wrote and taught his acolytes (Saul Alinsky, et al)—“by a long walk through the American culture. (8) In order of priority, they would have to obtain hegemony over:
3. pop culture and more
They have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations!
Those who would seize power realized there would have to be fundamental change in thinking; if not the words themselves, then what people thought the meaning of the constitution was—hence hegemony at every level of education was paramount and first in priority giving us programs such as Common Core. Hegemony over the media and pop culture was considered a must to popularized progressive ideas from education with the uninformed—with our youth. And so it began—the end game being the total elimination of the greatest political document ever.
Just the highlights of the subterfuge—there is much, much more:
1. The Constitution is a living breathing document that must change with the times. To change and eventually eliminate the constitution, would-be usurpers realized they would have to convince the population that the constitution was a relic of former times: when rich white men ruled over the rest of the population—that the constitution must therefore change with the times. Even though the Federalists Papers are replete with arguments to the contrary, those desiring to implement their ism teach our children otherwise.
2. The law is what the judges say it is. Early on, usurpers decided to use the courts—particularly, the non-elected Supreme Court—to find this power by making rather than simply interpreting law and offering their advice to our elected representatives as the founders intended. (1)(5) Once made, the courts would invoke Stare Decisis. (3)When they found new meaning in the constitution a precedent was set, and they made it difficult to revisit that decision.
Before going on, ask yourself one question: Why would we the citizen ever allow our servants—and those entrusted to interpret and enforce our contract—our constitution—to also change it? We didn’t and wouldn’t. (1)The hubris of those that say so is difficult to comprehend. (2) But they did because we the people and our elected representatives let them! Remember Franklin’s words: “You have a Republic, if you can keep it!”
3. Change the meaning of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. (4) With the assumed power to make rather than interpret the law, representatives circumvented the difficult Article V process to change the Constitution. Now, those wanting unlimited power would interpret the General Welfare clause to mean ‘anything goes’ (5) as long as it was perceived for the general welfare. That change alone would allow our elected representatives to appeal to disparate groups of society and buy their votes under the guise of their general welfare.
In 1937, Roosevelt used the supreme court to facilitate his own brand of New Deal socialism.(5) Our representatives swore an oath they would not allow this to happen, but not enough objected. Power not authorized by we the people was usurped and the precedent was set. (2)(5)
We the people and our elected representatives let them do this! Again, Benjamin Franklin’s words: “You have a Republic, if you can keep it!”
Free from the restrictions reserved only for the states, they could now use federal tax receipts for programs never envisioned by the founders nor found in the enumerated powers to solidify personal and party power. Power for pork, power to get re-elected at the expense of unknown opposition without this power. And use it they did to the extent we now owe 17 plus trillion dollars that can never be repaid. At some time in the near future, we will suffer great privation to restore this country.
4. Over time, eliminate Federalism. Enable un-named bureaucrats (not our elected representatives) to make and write laws that subvert our constitutional rights incumbent not just on federal bureaucracies, but on the states, individuals and their property. Again, in Article 1 Section 8 the courts abrogated the constitution’s all-important limits of the enumerated powers as well as powers reserved only to the states. Perhaps James Madison said it best in a letter to James Pendleton in 1792.
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” For a history of the original intent see (4) The Federalist Papers are replete with such references.
5. What came next? Having thus seized this power to make, rather than interpret and advise our constitution’s meaning, the courts were free to interpret the meaning of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper and other parts so carefully reasoned and thought out by the founders as to almost re-write the meaning of our contract to the extent it is almost meaningless. Just think of the recent Robert’s decision on the ACA. Even though a majority of citizens did not want ACA, and no Republican voted for it, Roberts found law for the administration and K street that will no doubt be challenged and debated for years all at the expense of we the people, and all under the guise of helping the oppressed—the little guy.
Again, we the people and our elected representatives let our servants change our contract! But even at this late hour, “You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”
6. Invent a meaning that takes God out of the Constitution and public life. Maybe a clause in the constitution (that does not exist) that says there must be a separation of church and state. Use the courts to re-enforce the notion. From kindergarten through college, use your acolytes in academia to hammer the notion home: no prayer in public places, no Christmas scenes ad nauseum. Use the media and pop culture and political correctness to drive the notion home and make God and religion un-cool.
Far too often, our first term idealistic representative seeking change is bombarded by K street—the not so new 5th estate of government—and their party’s leadership to support their bill or motion de-jour. If they do, the support for their re-election will magically materialize. If not, the re-election of the new representative will be difficult and probably fail, and business in Washington will continue as usual. Seduced by the power of the federal purse, there is little difference between political parties as there is virtually no restriction on what constitutes “general welfare” beyond the support and power necessary to pass a bill. Both parties want access to that power, and so the practice endures.
A few thoughts: If we are to have the slightest chance for our republic to endure, we must insist that our representatives and appointees adhere to the powers granted to them and nothing more. We must return to the original intent of the founders especially with regard to Article 1 Section 8. Almost everyone understands their must be provisions for the indigent and those in our Republic that cannot care for themselves. Over time, thought, we must phase out government welfare programs keeping only those that we can justify though constitutional processes. We must totally re-think letting faceless bureaucrats make law through the pernicious CFR’s enabling government to promulgate total control dogma such as Agenda 21. Adhering to the original intent of the constitution will greatly reduce the constant pressure from K street to support their program of the hour. Without these measures, business in Washington will continue until our republic collapses under the sheer weight of debt.
Now, for that thought from the beginning: So what might happen if the majority came to believe that there is no God—a thought so assiduously promulgated at all levels of education, pop culture and government? Would it not logically follow that there are no inalienable rights? Would that notion logically suggest that any rights we do have come from government, and therefore may be repealed by government?
The return to the constitution will require education of citizen and representative. No longer can we tolerate representatives whose attitudes and ignorance put the future of the republic in peril. (See (6) for an example) Through our national retreat from god as our creator, and from our collective silence and ignorance of the constitution, we have left the door wide open to usher in the next ism and tyranny! In a little over 220 years, we have almost reverted to the natural state of the previous 5000—the condition of government as master, and we the people as servant. We are in a freefall into tyranny with judges and legislators leading the way aided by the complicit, the ignorant and the silence of we the people. But right now we still have a choice: “You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”
These thoughts are my opinions. I have made them after considerable research and a lifetime of observation and engagement.
Just a few references: there are many more.
(1) Federalists 78 McLeans edition
(2) Is the constitution what the judges say it is?
(3) The argument against precedent
(4) The General Welfare Clause—the original interpretation
(5) Roosevelt Supreme Court interprets the General Welfare Clause
(6)The total lack of knowledge and responsibility of our representatives
Pete Stark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&list=PLF676F5F146D446F5
Congressman Lewis on ACA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTN349d-4Y
(7) Precedent law http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Advisory+opinion
(8) Who stole our culture? https://fttf.sharepoint.com/Pages/whostoleourculture.aspx
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=15221
Recent Posts by Louis Stannard