The Lesser of Two Evils

With midterm elections nearly upon us I again find myself thinking of how the lesser of two evils affects the course of the country. I’ve written several times before of accepting the premise of the enemy in the political arena of ideas.

I have to say first off that I am not a Republican. And because people tend to assume that because I don’t agree with them in perfect lock step, that I must be whatever they imagine to be the most radical opposite, I have to extra-super-duper-emphatically say that I’m definitely not a Democrat.

The problem I have with the modern Democrats, to whom I usually refer to as “Demoncraps,” is that they are rabid and insane liberals who are in favor of the totalitarian philosophy that Big Government, particularly the federal government, should be in charge of everything everywhere, and that they, as our superiors in intellect, should decide what is right regarding everything for everybody. This, by the way, is not a new thing in the world. It’s as old as dirt.

The problem I have with Republicans is that they have a tendency to believe in and accept the premises of the radical left. I think that most Republicans, while sincerely wanting what’s best for everybody, don’t really realize what is and is not constitutional and just how far the federal government has drifted away from the following of constitutional law into the area of the liberal totalitarian agenda.

I have no hope for the modern Democrats so the focus here is not on them. I would prefer to place my thinking where it might do some good rather than just pointing out everything that is bad.

Yet every single day I find myself in conversation with Republicans who believe that some programs which were instituted in great controversy, by liberals in some point in the past, accepting them as a forever and always kind of done deal.

Picture World War II. Hitler takes Paris. Watch the History Channel for about thirty seconds and you’ll see the video of him gazing pensively at the Eiffel Tower. Now imagine if you will, that World War II were stopped at that point, where Germany holds more than half of France and speculate with me about how the world would now be had they just decided to go no further.

Would Paris be to this day part of France? Or part of Germany?

If you said it were part of Germany then you would be tacitly acknowledging the inherent right of Germany to own and rule France, wouldn’t you?

Now I could never imagine the likes of Eisenhower or Churchill saying, “Well, that’s nice. The Germans stopped at Paris and I think we should just stop too and let them have it.”

This is what is meant by accepting the premise of the opposition. You cannot win on such terms.

There are other ways of accepting the premise of the opposition. One of the most egregious and insidious ones I can think of comes up every time there is an election. This is why I hate the subject of Political Science and have abandoned it for Political Philosophy. I would rather think about what is right and wrong for a government to be involved in than focusing my attention on all of the lies politicians have to create in order to make sure the other guy doesn’t win, whether he is right or wrong.

I have to be honest, and I know this will hit a bad spot with some people who read this, but I’ve never been a fan of President Trump. I don’t agree with anything the Democrats say about him, most of it being just totally fabricated, but I do have my own objections to him which strangely enough the Democrats never comment on. Certainly he’s better than any Democrat but that does not make him the best president ever. The problems I have with him are mostly constitutional. He ran the country as a businessman, not as a Constitution loving president. He knew the right things to do about a lot of things in business terms but the United States is not a business. It’s a country. It should be run as a country.

The consequences of doing the right things for businesses and the economy, but not doing them in constitutional ways, are demonstrated by what happens when he is no longer the president. The next guy is free to totally reverse everything accomplished. The economic destruction and loss of freedom we are now witnessing is caused by the Democrats, however the reason that they are able to do it is because President Trump did what was successful for the economy rather than reinforcing the constitutional rule of law.

The thing with government is that while you love and trust the guy you voted for, who is currently in charge and making things in your own life seem to go right, will not be in charge forever. The next guy inherits all of the power that you’ve entrusted with the last guy. Sometimes the next guy is just outright crazy and completely willing to use the same powers to reverse the gains of his predecessor.

If President Trump would have run the country according to the Constitution, limiting the powers of the federal government, instead of running the country as a business, doing everything possible to set the federal government on the constitutional path and explain to the People what is Constitutional, it is very likely that we would not be experiencing the horror show that is the Biden presidency. Even, in this hypothetical speculation, had he enforced and promoted the Constitutional rule of law, Biden’s powers would have been seriously diluted as the worst case example or Trump would have won so decidedly the Democrats could never have had a chance of defeating him.

That, after all, is what the Constitution mainly does. It limits the powers of the federal government to screw with our individual lives.

So, how did we get here?

The basic truth is that Hillary is evil and popular. Everybody on the political spectrum to the right of Che Guevara knows this to be true. The Republican Party, when Trump was running, was split between a guy with a reputation for being a fervent constitutionalist, Ted Cruz; and a businessman, Donald Trump, with a big record of historically siding with liberals.

“But only Trump can beat Hillary!” his supporters claimed, “And Hillary will destroy the entire country!” It seems the argument was persuasive enough to convince enough people to side with Trump over Cruise to nominate him as the Republican candidate.

We had then the situation that Hillary, a representative of the ultimate evil in the universe, verses Trump who said that Hillary was the best ever Secretary of State and the Clintons were good people, and that he was in support of federalized health care and in full agreement with a lot of liberal federal policy programs but he should be elected because he could run them better than Hillary can. Yes, he did say all of these things. A simple Google search will typically find them.

While this is true that he can run them better, as any businessman could, the real question should not be concerned with who can be better at running liberal federal programs. The real question for the constitutionalist should be, “should these liberal programs even exist under the constitutional rule of law within the federal government?”

In eight years Obama cranked up the national debt by eight trillion dollars. President Trump did the same thing in just four years. Neither of these examples of presidents would hold up to a strictly constitutional scrutiny. Or for that matter, even cursory scrutiny.

The reason we are here is largely because half of the Republican Party “held their noses” and voted for President Trump because “Hillary is so bad that he is the lesser of two evils.”

Not to go on and on about President Trump because as I said, he’s better than any Democrat in so many ways that I don’t have the time or inclination to enumerate them here. If you are a hard core constitutionalist as I am and honestly review all of the things he signed into law you will see my objections to him. The only standard for judging a president for a constitutionalist is how well he preserved, protected and defended the Constitution.

And it’s not that someone voted for the lesser of two evils in only the 2016 election. It’s that people who do vote for the lesser of two evils in elections, always vote for the lesser of two evils in every election. They do this out of the fear implanted in them by their side of the media of what will happen if the other guy should win.

The leadership of the Republican Party knows this. They are experts in Political Science. Do you ever wonder why Mitch McConnell, possibly the most RINO politician ever, keeps winning? Simple. The voters of Kentucky keep getting faced with the decision of him or someone worse.

So he keeps winning. So the Republicans keep nominating him. The Democrats keep putting up someone so horribly worse that they get terrified. The voters keep voting for him. So he keeps winning. So the Republicans keep nominating him. The Democrats keep putting up someone so horribly worse that they get terrified. The voters keep voting for him. So he keeps winning. So the Republicans keep nominating him. The Democrats keep putting up someone so horribly worse that they get terrified. The voters keep voting for him. So he keeps winning.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round.

There is a basic marketing principle at work here. If you keep buying it they’ll keep selling it. If you stop buying it they will have to develop other products for you to buy or go out of business.

The same principle applies to political parties. If you stop buying their spineless politicians they will either develop a better product or lose power. And if they are in the business of political power they will not for a second consider giving it up. You as a voter should not be worried about what will happen if the other guy wins. You as a voter should make them worry about what happens if they don’t put the right guy up for election.

How do you get rid of the RINOs who won’t follow the Constitution and keep siding with every liberal program ever spawned? This is easy. Learn the Constitution, as is your civic duty as a citizen of the United States, and never vote for a candidate who won’t follow it, for any reason. Then, and most importantly, tell the Republican Party that you are no longer buying their product because they are not constitutional enough.

Either that or just keep voting for the lesser of two evils and hang tough until politicians become honest. (Editorial note here: You have no idea how difficult it was for me to type the previous sentence for laughing.)

There is this meme that while funny explains exactly what keeps happening. I include it here wishing I could credit the person who originally came up with it. Not voting for Isengard is a vote for Mordor. It could say that the lesser of two evils is still evil. That's all fine for a Lord of the Rings geek but for a guy who is a constitutionalist it says not voting for someone who does not vote for the Constitution is a vote for another guy who will not follow the Constitution.

Thus we drift further and further down the path from the Founding Fathers and their design for a maximal freedom country, with a minimal federal government enforcing its dictates on us. Voting for the lesser of two evils pushes the needle on the dial to the left. Not the right.

There is a philosophic principle which underlies all of this that I hope is helpful to you if you are tired of the leftist trend of our country. If you have to compromise your principles to keep from losing, you’ve already lost anything worth fighting for.

I’m not going to tell you who you should or should not support. I do know that if the Republican Party feels like it is losing power and knows why, and you are willing to hold to your ground for the sake of the Constitution, maybe in a couple of election cycles they’ll get the point and start selling a better product.

As for me I will always support the Constitution and never support someone who I believe is incapable or unwilling to follow it.


(Afterthought to posting this; if you vote for RINOs because they are the lesser of two evils, you are making and promoting RINOs.)

How the General Welfare Clause is Supposed to Work

Of the few things in the Constitution that are an outright pain in the ass the General Welfare Clause tops the list. I would like to spend more time on writing about other things like bogus and unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings that the States should openly and loudly not follow. I would like to spend more time writing words to persuade more people on the conservative side of the political spectrum to use constitutional arguments against Joe Biden rather than pointing out Jill’s rather poor style choices.

But damn it, the misunderstanding and misapplication of General Welfare keeps coming up. So General Welfare it is…again.

The words “General Welfare” appear twice in the Constitution. Once in the Preamble and once in Article One, Section Eight.

So, here is the Preamble, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Here is the first clause of Article One, Section Eight, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….”

Just to get this out of the way, “promote the general Welfare,” is within the context of the Preamble. It means something different than “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” as in Article One Section Eight.

In the Preamble, which is not a legally binding clause, they are talking about the general welfare of the People of the United States. It is not specific as to how they planned to promote the general welfare of the People. It should also be noted that it does not say, provide for the general welfare of the People. It says promote the general welfare.

In Article One, Section Eight the context is specifically talking about the States themselves. The context of a non-legally binding clause where they are talking about promoting the general welfare of the People does not become context for another part of the Constitution that is legally binding and says specifically to, “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

Shorter version: the Preamble says “promote.” Article One Section Eight says “provide.”

Promote, in the context of the Preamble, means to encourage the general welfare of the People. Provide, in the context of Article One Section Eight, means to pay for things that the United States needs.

This is a huge difference between the two and they are not interchangeable. So Article One, Section Eight stands alone in meaning, being both legally binding and specifically naming and limiting the things the federal government is allowed to tax and spend on.

In understanding any written words context is king. It always matters. As with any sentence if you subtract any words from it, or add any words to it, you change the meaning.

Article One, Section Eight is one single sentence. Certainly in most modern grammar it would be considered somewhat of a run-on sentence and wouldn’t get a good grade from my fifth grade teacher. It is specifically punctuated for a list of separate clauses though, which technically makes it okay. Here it is in its entirety.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

I have emphasized two terms in it that cause most of the problems of understanding within Article One Section Eight itself. Again, you cannot add the context of the Preamble’s use of “general Welfare” to this. It’s not legally binding and is talking generally about the People. Article One, Section Eight is talking about the “United States.” Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming are States.

My aged grandmother, as much as I love her, is not a State. Neither is yours. Neither is anybody named Bill, Chuck, Ted, Betsy, James, Jane, Mary, Frank, Alex, Brett, Gwen, Nikki, Bob, Alicia, Janet, Joe, Victor, Greta, Fred, Todd, Scott, Debbie, Dusty, Marcia, Jack, John, Albert, Virginia, Dick, Larry, Curly, Moe, Shemp, Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Mickey, or any other name of any person that comes to mind.

Thus the term “general Welfare of the United States” means these guys; Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Not these guys; Bill, Chuck, Ted, Betsy, James, Jane, Mary, Frank, Alex, Brett, Gwen, Nikki, Bob, Alicia, Janet, Joe, Victor, Greta, Fred, Todd, Scott, Debbie, Dusty, Marcia, Jack, John, Albert, Virginia, Dick, Larry, Curly, Moe, Shemp, Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Mickey, or any other name of any person that comes to mind.

Let’s take something as a valid example of how this is supposed to work. The Navy thinks it needs more ships. “To provide and maintain a Navy” is listed in Article One, Section Eight as a power of Congress. So the Secretary of the Navy goes to Congress and asks for more ships. Congress decides if it is in the “general Welfare of the United States” for the Navy to have more ships. If they decide in favor of it they then are allowed to “provide” the funding by “lay[ing] and collect[ing] Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence.”

Now let’s take something that would not be a valid example. Larry, Curly and Moe didn’t save enough money for their retirement. So The Three Stooges go to Congress and ask them for money to cover for their own ineptitudes. Congress decides in the best interest of Larry, Curly and Moe to “provide” for the “general Welfare” of some of the People “of the United States.” Then by “lay[ing] and collect[ing] Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” to pay The Three Stooges, they take money from everybody else. So The Three Stooges get free money for their ineptitudes and everybody else pays the penalty for them.

See what I did there? I inserted something that is not part of the original clause. This is not a valid or legal thing to do.

It might be a good thing for Larry, Curly and Moe but it isn’t for the general welfare of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Now I happen to love the Three Stooges, as any intelligent freedom loving human being should, but I don’t think it is in the best interests of the United States for the federal government to take my money by force and give it to them as a reward for their poor life choices. However I would like to have some compassion for them. So let’s not leave them in destitution and do what we can to take care of them, okay?

The good news is that the Constitution does actually cover this. It’s called the 10^th Amendment. Under the 10^th Amendment if, say, Ohio, (because who doesn’t love Ohio, right?) wants to see The Three Stooges living in comfort in their old age, they can come up with a program to see them taken care of. That’s what States are for. If California doesn’t like the Three Stooges, as any liberal/socialist/communist/scumbags are prone to do, they don’t have to pay their money to the Stooges. See how that works? It's their choice!

The federal government, were they actually to follow it, takes care of the needs of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The States take care of the needs of Bill, Chuck, Ted, Betsy, James, Jane, Mary, Frank, Alex, Brett, Gwen, Nikki, Bob, Alicia, Janet, Joe, Victor, Greta, Fred, Todd, Scott, Debbie, Dusty, Marcia, Jack, John, Albert, Virginia, Dick, Larry, Curly, Moe, Shemp, Bugs, Daffy, Porky, Mickey, or any other name of any person that comes to mind.

Most people have heard of this thing provided in the Constitution called the divisions of power. This is one of those divisions of power. If the federal government controls everything, that’s not a division of power. If powers are split between the federal government and all of the States, that is a division of power.

One way a small group of people control everything. The other way larger groups of people are in control of the things they think are important.

One way is totalitarianism. The other is relative freedom in a representative republic.

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Six, Gimme Your Money

It is a challenge. A very big one.

What I’m talking about is trying to convince other people that the federal government has no interest in following the Constitution as it was written. More than that is in trying to convince people of the degree that the federal government has deviated from following it.

I’ve written before about the consequences of accepting the premise of the enemy in the political arena of ideas. The basic upshot of this is that if one wishes to win, one should not fight on the enemy’s battlefield while accepting their rules and terms of engagement.

This is very important in today’s politics.

I see day after day honest conservatives buying into every single premise that liberals propose, as if what the liberals are proposing is the irrevocable truth. I really wish we, as a country, as limited government conservatives, as people who want our freedom, wouldn’t do that.

In football terms this would be like the coach of your team, when playing defense, granting to the opponent’s team half of the distance to the first down on every single play. “Ten yards to first down?” the coach says. “I’ll give you five yards!”

Possibly it’s worse than that. It’s more like each play the coach grants the other team half of the distance to the end zone. Then when playing offence the coach grants the other team half of the distance to their own end zone on every play. Then the coach accepts the opponent’s desire to have his team play in hand and ankle cuffs, with their feet embedded in hundred pound concrete blocks. You’d have to be a very crazy and self destructive team owner to hire a coach who operated in this way.

There is this crazy idea of the living Constitution, where the federal government, currently mostly run by liberals, defines the interpretation of the Constitution that best serves their own interests, or more likely their own investment portfolios, and that’s just what we all do.

If you think this is the way it is supposed to be then I’ll be happy to join you in a game of Poker wherein the rules are living as interpreted by me.

The constitutionality of Social Security was challenged very early on in three cases. Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, and Helvering v. Davis. As you can read the particulars of the cases elsewhere, I’ll spare you the long and boring details. These cases hinged on the Tenth Amendment verses the “General Welfare” clause of Article One, Section Eight.

For those who regularly read my posts you all know that I’m not a big fan of citing authority with regards to matters of constitutionality. In this case I’m going to diverge from that just a bit and refer to the guy who was largely responsible for writing it. The following are two quotes from James Madison that make a very large portion of the point for me. I do so with the belief that he wrote it, so he must have had some idea of what he was really talking about.

"With respect to the words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

These two quotes are quintessentially the point of view of the conservative use of government verses the liberal use of government.

Now the liberals will loudly proclaim, “See! You had to go outside of the Constitution to make your point!”

Very well then. Forget the opinion of the guy that wrote it. We can make the point within the Constitution itself, just as Madison said. Let’s look at the first and last clauses of Article One, Section Eight then. I don’t even have to follow up with the Tenth Amendment.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

"…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Sandwiched in between these two clauses, which are part of a single sentence, is a list of things that Congress has the power to do. In short they are allowed to tax, pay the debts, provide for defense, borrow money, regulate commerce, establish rule of naturalization, make laws on bankruptcies, coin money and regulate the value of it and of foreign coin, fix the standard of weights and measures, provide punishment of counterfeiting, establish post offices and roads, copyright laws, constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court, write laws to punish pirates, declare war, authorize civilian ships to capture enemy ships during war, raise and support Armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the land and naval Forces, provide for calling forth the militia, provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia and its officers and training, do some stuff about the national capital, necessary government buildings, forts, arsenals, etc..

It’s funny how the liberals always remember the “provide for the…general Welfare” part of the sentence, which is by definition grossly taken out of context. They also always forget the “general Welfare of the United States” part of the sentence as well as the “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution.” Particularly the word “vested” which in this context means that in order for the power to be valid it has to be named somewhere in the Constitution.

(Note: “General Welfare of the United States means, strangely enough, general welfare of the United States. Ohio is a State. New York is a State. Texas is a State. When did Social Security achieve statehood?)

My. Isn’t that convenient?

On this site I found the following synopsis of the Steward case:

“In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the tax under the Social Security Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power. Writing for the majority, Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo found that the tax did not coerce the states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment. The Court underscored the high rate of unemployment and poorly performing economy in concluding that the tax would benefit the general welfare. According to the majority, the Act would benefit both the states and the federal government. The majority rejected the argument that the Act provision was void as involving an unconstitutional attempt to coerce the States to adopt unemployment compensation legislation approved by the Federal Government. 

"In dissenting opinions, Justices McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Butler viewed the Social Security Act as a Congressional overreach. These dissenters came to be known collectively as the Four Horsemen, the conservative members of the Court who opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda.”

Because it was a 5-4 split the decision came down to one single person. If one of the five would have ruled the other way then absolute truth for the taxation of the People of the United States would have fallen the other way.

In addition to the logical fallacy that one person can ever be the deciding factor of ultimate truth for everybody, the Supreme Court looked at the economy as it was in 1937 and concluded based on that, that taxing the ever living crap out of us is constitutional, then, now and for all time. Had the economy been great they might have concluded that it was unconstitutional. Or is it constitutional only in a bad economy and unconstitutional in a good one?

It begs the question of, what is the standard for determining constitutionality if it is not the actual text of the Constitution?

More likely it is “constitutional” because they say so—not because the Constitution says so—and they’ve got all of the biggest guns behind them, and great profits to make on their investments with political conflicts of interest, so what are you going to do about it bucko?

I was recently engaged in conversation with someone regarding Social Security and the Supreme Court. This guy knew the Constitution. He knew that there is no authorization within it that gives the federal government authority for Social Security. He freely admitted the Supreme Court had no authority to make the decision they did. Yet he was of the opinion that Social Security was constitutional because the Supreme Court said so and nobody had yet challenged it so the Supreme Court could overturn it.

This is exactly what is meant by accepting the premise of the enemy.

I get it. They’ve decided that’s what they are going to do and there is nothing at the moment I can do to stop them. They are taking the money under false and fraudulent pretenses and there is nothing I can do to stop them.

But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them doing it! That doesn’t mean I have to change my mind and believe it is constitutional until some other future Supreme Court comes along and tells me that I should think otherwise. The Supreme Court does not have authority over my mind!

I’m reminded of the lyric in the song by Rush, “No, his mind is not for rent, To any god or government, Always hopeful, yet discontent, He knows changes aren't permanent, But change is.”

This is the attitude we must take. Don’t give your mind away to the liberal’s ideas of what things are.

If we let the Supreme Court tell us what to think and we think it is true simply because they said so, the battle, the war and the country is already lost. If we know what we know and are bold enough to say so, while articulate enough to express it to other people, enough people will eventually believe it and stop supporting the tyrannical idea that the federal government gets to do whatever they want.

As it is the Supreme Court is just another part of a very large mechanism to force the will of the federal government on the People of the United States, at the expense of their freedom.

Over and over again, decision after decision, I see both liberals and conservatives waiting in eager anticipation of what the Supreme Court decides with regards to every single case. Doing so in the hope that they will be in agreement with their own minds and so they can go ahead and do as they wish. Then when they return a decision against their own best interests and in conflict with their own way of thinking they just shrug their shoulders and walk away saying, “oh well, the Supreme Court said so. We’ll just have to get a future court to overturn that.”

That’s the liability of the Supreme Court and what makes them dangerous. They can decide for everybody on one day how things are supposed to be, on whatever whim they want, in direct contradiction to the Constitution, and then on the next day decide the exact opposite, or something else, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. And we accept it.

“The Supreme Court says they can take my money based on whatever they think is important, as defined by them, so here’s my wallet. God bless America!”

There is a word we the People seem to have forgotten. Totalitarianism.

There is a lot I could say about Social Security. I could say that if you set up a private pension company based exactly on how Social Security is set up you would be locked up for fraud. I could say that it’s just another way for a corrupt government to justify taking our money. I could say it is taken by threat of force and spent as an additional tax. I could say that if they didn’t take so much of my money now I wouldn’t need their help later in life. I could say that as all fraud collapses eventually so will this one. I could say the economy would be better with that money in our pockets instead of theirs. I could that and many, many other things about it and I could make a very convincing case that every single one of these other things is true.

I could never say that it is constitutional.

 

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part One

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Two

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Three

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Four

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Five

The Premise of the Enemy: Part 3

I have long been an admirer of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.” For thousands of years this document been regarded by the military minds of the world as almost Biblical.

For those who have not read it, it’s not just about blood and guts and glory. It’s not fighting for the sake of fighting itself. It’s fighting out of the sake of necessity, when peace becomes no longer an option and how to win the battles once there is no other choice but to join them. Thus we find things in it like chapter two, verse two; “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

There are many of its principles that are also pretty handy for living life in the world today. I’ve seen versions of it adapted for running a business. There are versions of it that deal in political philosophy as well as political science. As well, and of course, there are modernized versions of it on how to win modern wars and battles.

The biggest take away as it applies to the subject of today’s blog post is from Chapter One, titled as “Laying Plans,” is verse number eighteen and nineteen which says, “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

Second to that is the entirety of Chapter Six which is aptly titled, “Weak Points and Strong.” The first and foremost part of it is verse two which says, “Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.”

Now these references make complete and obvious sense to someone studying tactics on a battlefield or strategy in war but they also make sense when fighting in the arena of ideas.

You would have thought General Patton insane in World War Two had he gone to General Rommel and politely asked him where he wanted to fight the next battle, what terms he wanted to fight on, then willingly complied with every one of Rommel’s wishes as to his own movements. These are the terms of battle on a battlefield during war.

So why is it that so many people who oppose political liberalism are so willing to do exactly the same thing when fighting in the arena of ideas?

If you can’t win on a battlefield by accepting the terms of the enemy why would you ever think that you could win in the arena of ideas by accepting the terms of the enemy?

If you want to restore America to its rightful constitutional rule you must never accept or forward the premise of the enemy.

Don’t fight them on their terms.

In the arena of ideas the terms of battle are the words that are being used. The words are your weapons. The words are also the enemy’s weapons. If you buy into the enemy’s words you buy into their use of their weapons against you.

What they are trying to do is get you to buy into their premise. As all warfare is based on deception they are trying to deceive as many people as they can. When you buy into their premise you are surrendering ground to them.

There are two old propaganda tricks that come most heavily into play in the arena of ideas. The first is to redefine the words so that they mean things that they really don’t. The second is what is called the “Big Lie,” which is the principle that if a person repeats a lie often enough it becomes accepted as the truth.

Any of their misdefined words that you accept can be looked on as ground surrendered. Any of their premises that you accept based on those words is a battle that you’ve lost. This is how they gain strength. This is how you lose strength.

All you’ve done is accept their terms of battle.

Don’t allow them to phrase the argument as “protecting a woman’s right to make her own choices regarding reproductive health care” when what you are really talking about is killing unborn babies.

When someone says “I’m for protecting a woman’s right to make her own choices regarding reproductive health care” and you answer with something like, “It’s not a woman’s right to make her own choices regarding reproductive health care when there is a fetus involved,” you are a fool and you will lose. You’ve immediately accepted the enemy’s conditions of battle with you. The trap has already closed upon you and you can anticipate a quick defeat at best and days of grinding your teeth in frustration at worst.

As with the propaganda tool of repeating a lie making it seem like the truth the opposite is also true; if you repeat the truth enough it destroys the lies. The way to handle it is to instantly refute their misdefinition of words. To reproduce is to have children, not kill them. Reproductive health care is defined as medical care for people who want to have children, not participate in the destruction of human life. It is irrefutable that it is a human and that it is alive. The ending of a human life against its will, outside of self defense, is murder. You should recognize the irony that if someone were to kill a mother who is pregnant and the baby dies as a result, that person could be charged with two counts of murder. Because politics are very obviously involved and the numbers of abortions over the years count into the tens of millions, this, by definition, makes it genocide.

Never allow them to deal with you in anything other than completely accurate terms.

If a liberal comes to you and says, “I don’t want to take your guns. I just want some common sense restrictions on military style assault weapons,” don’t engage them on those terms. First notice that they will never call them rights. They are weapons but there is no military on Earth that uses the weapons that they are trying to ban. They are common rifles and hand guns. They are not particularly powerful. They are not automatic, they are semi-automatic. Be clear on the difference. There is an axiom the military uses to decide what weapons a soldier will carry; the smallest that will reliably get the job done is what they use. The bullet fired from an AR-15 does not travel five times faster than a bullet from any other gun, contrary to what Biden says.

Yesterday I went down my Twitter feed and copied and pasted everything into a word processor file. There are quite a few things that the left is trying to push into being accepted premises that we need to watch out for.

The first is that the United States is a democracy. It isn’t. Never accept that it is. Article Four, Section Four of the Constitution defines the United States as a republic. Know the difference. If it were a democracy we would vote directly on national issues rather than having elected or appointed representatives vote on our behalf.

Then there are things like The Chips and Science Act. It’s supposed to “boost semiconductor manufacturing in the United States and lower the cost of products we use every day.” While that all sounds well and good, and even if it were true, which it isn’t, under the 10^th Amendment it is none of the federal government’s business.

There is a complaint against Rand Paul that he voted against disaster relief for tornadoes and floods in his state of Kentucky. Again there is no federal authority for disaster relief in the Constitution either in Kentucky or Florida or anyplace else. It’s a violation of the 10^th Amendment. More than that though was certainly that a larger portion of the bill included a bunch of spending having nothing to do with disaster relief. What they are not telling you is the real reason he voted against it.

There is a lot of bragging and criticism about what the current administration has done regarding the job market. Again this is none of the federal government’s business under the 10^th Amendment.

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to do anything regarding anybody’s health care at all, excepting those of its own employees. Medicaid and Medicare are both none of their business. Again it is a violation of the 10^th Amendment.

If you feel inclined to praise the federal government for taking our money from us and sending it to support the Ukraine in their war against Russia you need to know that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes them to do this.

As much against drug use as I personally am there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to do anything about marijuana or any other drug, excepting only the banning of the importation of them. There is plenty that the States can do though.

The federal government has zero constitutional authority over anything regarding energy, oil production or the production of nuclear power. The Department of Energy is flat out unconstitutional. As is anything having to do with what they laughingly call “clean energy.”

The federal government has no constitutional authority over education. Every time a republican president even nominates someone for this position, with or without congressional approval, he is buying into the premise of the liberal enemy.

“Made in America” is one that always annoys me. Not when companies in the United States say it. When the federal government says is. It’s not one damn bit of their business where someone makes something and where I choose to buy it from. Not even a little bit. US companies, you want my business? Make a better product at a better price. The stamp “made in USA” is not an excuse for a poorly made over priced product. Stop relying on the federal government to protect you.

The federal government has no business within your communities. They have no business with anything regarding the cost of insulin. National infrastructure, outside of roads for the Post Office, is unconstitutional and falls under the 10^th Amendment. They have no authority to enact a minimum wage. It’s not any of the federal government’s business who marries who or why. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to decide what wages should be or how much corporations should make in profit.

They have no business dealing with Social Security or anybody’s retirement. Additionally Social Security is an unconstitutional Ponzi scheme. If you did the same thing privately they would throw you in prison for fraud.

The 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, 19^th, 23^rd, 24^th and 26^th Amendments all violate the 10^th Amendment. The 14^th was only passed through the worst example of political corruption and constitutional violations that I’ve ever heard of in my years of studying the history of the country and its politics. The federal government has no valid authority to decide who is free or not. They have no valid authority to decide who can vote or not. They have no valid authority to set the requirements for voting. These are all issues for State government to sort through for themselves.

Every single time somebody who calls himself a constitutional conservative goes along with any of this, in any way, he has given away his part of the battlefield to the people who are enemies of the country and Constitution. He has bought into the idea that the other side is right and has sold your personal liberty, as well as the liberty of the States, down the river.

The idea that the federal government is supposed to rule over us in all of these ways is the false premise that too many people have bought into to continue to exist as a free and civilized country.

We live in a country where it is assumed that presidents can rule with the power of kings, where the Supreme Court rules as an oligarchy and Congress is free to do whatever they want as long as they can call it by the morally ambiguous term, “general welfare.”

It’s no small wonder why there is so much trouble.


The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three

The Premise of the Enemy: Part Four

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Five, Roe v Dobbs

Okay, okay, okay. I get it. The cases were “Roe vs. Wade” and “Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.” The point is that these two cases highlight the differences between a ruling in an almost perfectly bad activist Supreme Court and a really good one.

Many years ago I was in that place of special boredom wherein I found myself idly in front of the television surfing through the hundred thirty channels of garbage I had to choose from. Most people wouldn’t call me a religious man, at least in any traditional way, but I have always held dear the aspiration to be a philosopher. I like to think but at the time had nothing too really interesting to think about.

Inevitably I stopped for a brief moment on a channel which featured a televangelist preaching his sermon. I can’t recall, and actually probably never knew, who this preacher was, however something he said caught my attention. So I paused for a while to listen to the point.

You could probably guess from the title of this article that he was talking about abortion. Being that this was many decades ago, and my thoughts on the subject were not fully formed, it was something new and different to me that I thought would be worth the investment of some time in contemplation.

He was talking about the Declaration of Independence. Specifically the part where people “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….” I don’t recall the entire sermon and even if I did I would not attempt to relate it to you here. The major idea of his point was that among these three—Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—the right to life was far more important than the other two.

What good is it to have the liberty to pursue happiness…when you’re dead?

This is a damn good point!

Whether we are talking about the liberal concept of rights or the conservative concept, no right is worth even the ink and the paper to put the words on to express them, without the right to live.

Can’t shoot your gun to defend your life if you’re dead. Can’t have the freedom to speak if you’re dead. Can’t petition your government for redress of wrongs if you’re dead. Can’t worship as you please if you’re dead. Can’t vote for who you want if you’re dead. Can’t live in a house if you’re dead. Can’t get “free” health care if you’re dead. Can’t get a “free” education if you’re dead.

Can’t do anything if you’re dead.

Can you?

Therefore the right to life is the highest of them all.

Let’s put off, for now, the ridiculous argument of the seven dip-shits who decided the case, that the Due Process Clause in the 14^th Amendment gives a woman the right to privacy—it is really a ridiculous argument—and focus on the above point. What is the right to privacy…if you’re dead?

There is an old saying that in public relations and propaganda you should never, for any reason, accept or forward the basic premise of the enemy. You cannot win on their terms, just as a general is most likely to lose on the battlefield chosen by the enemy, fighting according to the enemy’s rules. Don’t help them in any way. Always attack at their critical points.

I’m reminded of my lifelong best friend at this point. He owns his own business, always joking with me about what that business is. He calls himself a “sanitation engineer.” This is somewhat flowery language for a guy who pumps raw sewage for a living. Well, he’s good at it and his family business is now worth millions of dollars. For the sake of brevity let’s just say that he really knows his shit.

The point being that someone can take the most unsavory subjects and call them something more socially acceptable.

When you are dealing with a political subject there is one thing you must do to win.

ALWAYS CALL IT WHAT IT IS.

It’s not a right to privacy to abort a child. It is the killing of a defenseless human being. It’s not the protection of a woman’s reproductive health care. It’s killing a baby. It’s not protecting abortion rights, especially because with the introduction of the word “rights” it becomes political by definition.

Whatever else is involved in the political debate regarding abortion there are two things that are always absolutely true.

1) All pregnancy involves at least three people. The other two people have rights too.

2) The mass killing of human beings for political reasons is genocide.

This is the battlefield of public relations and propaganda that we need to keep in our minds in order to deal properly with this subject in the arena of ideas. Never abandon those two points. The further afield you go from them the weaker your arguments become. The closer you stick to these simply expressed absolute truths the stronger your arguments become. They are points of irrefutable fact. They are the points where the right to live is the strongest and the supposed right to kill is the weakest.

1) It is a denial of the baby’s right to live as well as a father’s right to reproduce.

2) When politics are involved you are talking about genocide.

Now there are people out there who you are not going to convince. This debate is not about them. There will always be the insane. Our job is to convince as many of the people who are on the fence as we possibly can. Sanity is calm and quiet. Insanity is frantic and loud. When you talk to those frantic and loud people just know that there are sane and quiet people listening in the background. They are your audience. Play to them in your rationality and stick to the points and you’ll gently move the dial back toward the right. Be rational in your manners and you will appeal to whatever rational people who are there to hear you.

You are not debating Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. You are debating the Right to Live vs. Genocide.

Now on to the Supreme Court and yet another reason why they are the most dangerous part of the most dangerous organization on Earth. I explained in my Supreme Court Series, Part One how when the Supreme Court is confronted with a clear conflict of interest to following the Constitution they will introduce things from outside of the Constitution to justify their position and rulings. I also showed in my Supreme Court Series, Part Two how when they can’t find anything else outside of the Constitution to justify their rulings they…well…just kind of make it up according to what they personally think is best for society.

Now here in the fifth installment of the series I have to point out that the ruling on Roe vs. Wade is even worse than that because it is a combination of the two. The Court, in their infinite wisdom, couldn’t find something in the Constitution to support their ruling, nor could they make a case that their ruling served the American People’s best traditional interests. So in this case they took the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, hitched that to the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, plus the Fifth Amendment’s right to remain silent, and from this claimed that the Constitution includes within it a right to privacy. And that somehow this supposed right to privacy is above the right of a baby to live.

In other words, they just pretended that various parts of the Constitution say things that they don’t say and applied them to subjects that they don’t apply to and told the American People that that’s what the Constitution really says.

The Fourth Amendment; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

This does protect a woman from an unreasonable search, by government officials, of their person’s. Well, nobody in the federal government is searching women’s wombs to see if they are concealing another human being in there! It’s a ridiculous misapplication of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment; “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The modern shortened version of this is “the right to remain silent” because you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself. That in itself is a pretty drastic, once removed, radical reinterpretation of what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court, in Roe, took that radical reinterpretation and radically reinterpreted it again to say that it expresses a right to total privacy; forgetting completely that the total context of the Fifth Amendment was protection from the government regarding accusations of criminal activity.

The idea of a woman killing her baby is so far removed from these two considerations, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, that they are totally non sequitur.

The idea that any of these considerations authorizes the Supreme Court to allow the tens of millions of American human beings to be killed since this decision, and that the American People happily swallow and comply with this tripe, is what makes the modern concept of the Supreme Court supremely dangerous.

Because it is political, by definition, the Supreme Court, with the Roe decision, has authorized the genocide of the most defenseless of the three people involved in every pregnancy. And thus, that person is deprived of the right to life and every single right guaranteed by the Constitution and human nature beyond it.

Nothing in the Constitution authorized them to do that. Nothing moral in all of the laws of Heaven and Earth could ever justify anybody doing that. If they can push the clear and precise language of the Constitution to mean this in this case, and get away with it, they can push it to the point where they can justify the government’s killing of anybody.

Conversely there is only one sentence in the entire Dobbs case that you should know.

“Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

That’s all that anybody should have ever said about it from the Constitutional viewpoint. As I’ve said previously, if it’s not directly named within the Constitution the Tenth Amendment applies.

There is one last point I wish to make on this post. The following text comes from a woman whose identity shall remain anonymous.

“I have a story to tell that I have told very few people, but one that haunts me, even though it happened many years ago. It might give some of you an idea why I find it impossible to believe those who claim abortion is about the woman, not about the money.

“I had a friend who had made the decision to get an abortion, but who was frightened to go alone, so I went with her to support her. At the time I neither objected, nor supported abortion, I just wanted to be there for my friend.

“The clinic was packed, at least 30 young women waiting for their abortion, hardly an empty seat in the waiting room. As we sat there, watching girl after girl led into the back rooms, the swinging door suddenly swung outward, and a doctor, carrying a young woman came out.

“She had passed out, during the procedure I suppose, and was still unconscious as he carried her in. She was covered from the waist down with a white sheet. As he swung in through the door, the sheet fell away, exposing that she was unclothed from the waist down.

“He never seemed to notice. He didn't notice the sheet had fallen, or the horrified looks as we watched him carry her partially naked through that room, leaving tiny drops of blood on the linoleum and strode over to a chair and unceremoniously plopped her down in it.

“A nurse hurriedly ran over to her, and covered her back up, holding her head up while the girl, who was starting to come around drank some juice the nurse was giving her. She soon realized she wasn't dressed, and started crying, obviously embarrassed.

“The same nurse helped gather her up and into another back room, what happened to her after that, I don't know. I sat there speechless, looking around the room at the other women; no one would look at each other.

“I wish I could tell you that this story had a happy ending, that it made my friend change her mind, but I can't. I wish I could tell you that any of those women walked out, but I can't. I lost touch with that friend not long after, so I don't know how it affected her life.

“But that young woman has haunted me all these years. I can never forget how that doctor, in such a hurry to make his table available for the next abortion, just treated her like she was nothing. That abortion wasn't about that girl, it was about the money. They all are.”

This woman’s story is regrettably not unique. For obvious privacy issues I can’t reveal who said this to me. Nor can I reveal the account of the other woman who said to me that when she had an abortion she felt like “just another slab of meat.”

As bad as the abortion mills seem to treat the women whose rights they claim to be defending, never forget the simple fact that any one of us could have had it much worse.

Any one of us could have been the baby.

 

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part One

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Two

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Three

Why the Supreme Court is Dangerous: Part Four