Thursday, July 05, 2018

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776)

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Massachusetts: John Hancock
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

Sunday, May 20, 2018

TO STOP A KILLER YOU HAVE TO THINK LIKE A KILLER

Okay, so now we've got another Texas school shooter who used a handgun and a shotgun to kill or maim 23 people, including a wounded school resource officer and two teachers.

In this case, the brat was angry at a little girl who repeatedly rejected his romantic advances to the point she had to reject him loudly and openly in front of other students because the little asshole wouldn't take, "NO", for an answer.  He killed her first before turning his attention on anyone else he deemed to dislike him.

In all of these cases, the killers had a reason to kill, at least in their tiny little minds, so any attempt to identify a potential threat before a tragedy unfolds has proved to be in vain.  So let's get over the mental health bullshit and recognize the obvious:  People kill for any number of reasons, we cannot identify them beforehand and thinking we can fine-tune that effort will be met with continued failure and more attacks.

First, we have to identify the problem:  That is the fact most public schools still have not been hardened to discourage such attacks.  There is a call for metal detectors, but that will work just as well as it works for airports:  The terrorists can't get into the boarding area anymore, but they do have a generous supply of victims standing outside being screened, so what do the terrorists do?  they bomb and attack the line of victims waiting to be screened!

If you want to stop killers, you have to start thinking like a killer.  What would I do if I was so inclined?  I'd wait for the line of students to back up waiting for the metal detector and I'd slaughter them outside like sitting ducks.  That's how damned stupid these metal detector people are.  And trying to prevent some little maggot from getting a gun in a nation of 300,000,000 guns isn't even a cogent thought.

The first thing you do at a school is you allow ingress and egress at one point, and you don't allow, "open campuses", ever, because that allows students to come & go at lunchtime and break time or any other time.  When the students arrive at a public school, they need to be kept there until it is time to leave for the day.  The next thing you do is make sure enough teachers are packing concealed guns so they can converge on that one point of ingress instead of trying to figure out where the shooter is.

The latest school shooting had two resource officers, and at least one was wounded attempting to stop the shooter.  Why?  Because they were easily identifiable and the killer knew who they were, so he took at least one of them out right away.  But when the teachers are armed with concealed guns and shots ring out, the teachers know exactly where the ingress point is, and chances are that an armed teacher will still be able to stop the killer if he comes to their classroom.

Sure, there will still be some deaths and maimings no matter how many teachers are armed, but not to the extent that 23 kids, teachers and resource officers get shot with little resistance, and remember that these killers want the most bang for their buck.

Lastly, if you are a parent with school aged kids, get them the Hell out of Public School.  Use the many resources now available online to home-school your kids, and they won't be sitting ducks for some other parent's problem.  Further, your kids are now being indoctrinated into Liberal Socialist maggots by teachers who are more interested in imposing their ideology on YOUR children than they are in educating them, and the same is true of most college professors who have tenure and cannot be removed unless they get caught on videotape raping some kid on their desktop.

It is no secret that Liberals have chosen the public school and college environment to control and indoctrinate our future citizens to believe Capitalism is inherently evil and that Socialism is inherently good and, "fair".  That is why we have a Federal Department of Education, which is wholly unconstitutional and should be disbanded immediately, because, just like the Federal Highway System that can withhold funds from states that do not obey their new speed laws, the Department of Education can do the same to schools.  The Federal Department of Education can demand the students be taught certain things that have nothing whatsoever to do with basic education needs, like sex education, forcing the kids to view LBGT perversions as normal and encouraging abortion because students are just farm animals who cannot control their sexual urges.  The public schools reject teaching any form of Christianity, let alone God's code of morality, the Ten Commandments, so what did we expect?.

It only took a relatively few years to get God and his message out of public schools, and now that no Christian beliefs are allowed to be taught or even discussed there, we have a bunch of potential killers who have no fear of the Hell that awaits them for their actions, because they don't believe in such, "nonsense".  I had problems with bullies too, but it never occurred to me to take my Dad's gun to school and kill them!  Today, we have students who regard murder as a way to solve their people problems, and why?  It is because when there is no God, everything is permissible.  Everything they do can be rationalized in their minds, and when you don't think there are any afterlife consequences for the actions you take, you take them!

It's not rocket science why we are seeing these tragedies unfold more and more often, and these anti-American and anti-Christian Liberals who have taken control of our education system are entirely to blame for it.

Carl F. Worden
wolfeyes00@gmail.com 

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Syria, Gas, and Neocon Warmongers

Nelson Hultberg   
 
The war drums are beating loudly. The pundits are screaming ferociously. The neocons are howling that, "We must attack Syria. The recent gas attacks prove that we are dealing with an animal in Bashar al-Assad. No moral person or country can tolerate such horrific attacks."
 
But did Assad order such attacks? Would he take such an insane step when he is on the verge of winning the war against rebel troops? Right after Trump has declared that the U.S. and its anti-Assad forces are preparing to pull out of Syria? Of course not. 
 
Whatever one may say about Assad, he's not stupid. He knows that American presence threatens his regime. He knows that American neocon policy is geared to remove him from power. Why would he do something that would reinvigorate America's desire to remove him? Why would he bring Trump back into the war? The answer is that he wouldn't? But the neocons think the American people are so stupid that they will believe Assad has gassed his own people right on the eve of winning the war against ICIS and the rebel forces.
 
This recent gas attack is so clearly a "false flag" attack on the part of anti-Assad rebels because they know that America's presence is vital to their cause. They are on the verge of defeat, but lo and behold, there is always the "false flag attack" to goad Americans back into support for their fight.
 
Such strategy is not new. It has been part of wars for thousands of years. Create a false flag attack to make it easy to justify an invasion, a major bombing strike, an intervention of some kind, etc. The world will fall for it and not blame you for your attack because you have been "victimized," or you are merely helping those who have been "victimized." The problem is that only perceptive people realize the treachery involved. The great majority of the world's citizens fall for such a war tactic every time. Wars are extended and exacerbated all the time because of such strategic moves by power lusting people.
 
The rebels have a motive to create such a gas attack because they are on the verge of defeat, and the neocons have a motive to believe such an attack (or at least pretend that they do) because they want American forces to take Assad out. They've been desirous of such a goal for many years now. It is all part of their "benevolent global hegemony" that they have been pursuing for the past 25 years.
 
Rational thinkers in the freedom movement know that the world is a ruthless, often primitive, and irrational assortment of national regimes that simply do not understand the principles of freedom. This is why Jefferson and the Founders urged upon us a foreign policy of "independence" from foreign wars. Stay out of the conflicts of the old world, they said to American patriots. Take care of our own nation. Lead by building a shinning light of liberty here at home. Make ourselves an example of freedom and justice, and the rest of the world will eventually come to our way of doing things.
 
In other words, don't go abroad in search of dragons to slay. Don't try to bend other nations to our will with the butt ends of our rifles. Don't try to police the world; it's always been a swamp of idiocy and cruelty, and our interventions into its conflicts can only bleed us of vital wealth and young lives. Leave people alone. Pursue truth, freedom and equal rights within our borders, and our resultant prosperity and happiness will convert the world into like philosophical approaches.
 
The Beginning of Interventionism
 
Unfortunately we have not lived up to the vision of Jefferson and our Founders. We have become over the past 120 years relentless "interventionists" under the guise that our national security is at stake, or morality compels us to intervene into helpless primitives' lives, or the world must be "stablized", and only American power can accomplish such stability, or the most recent neocon policy of "benevolent global hegemony" must be pursued.
 
From 1787 to 1898, American foreign policy was based on maintaining a powerful military to use only when we are under attack, or if our national security and survival are at stake in some foreign affair. Our intervention to help Cuba win its independence from Spain under the McKinley administration did not really fit that rule. Since then the sanity of the Founders' vision of independence from other nations' conflicts has been discarded in favor of muscularly intervening into those conflicts.
 
What did our intervention into WW I in 1917 gain us? It got us 116,708 Americans dead, and over 204,000 wounded. Yet our security and survival were not at stake. 
Obviously we had to fight WW II; we were attacked. But was our intervention into Korea, resulting in 36,914 deaths and 103,284 wounded, a necessary intervention? Was American security and survival being threatened? Not really.
What did our intervention in Vietnam get for us? Disaster with 58,220 Americans killed, 304,000 wounded, and the loss of Vietnam to communism anyway. What have our interventions since the fall of the USSR into Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine brought us? Billions of dollars lost, thousands of American lives lost or wounded, and still a chaotic, tyrannical Mideast with Ukraine split between Ukrainian loyalists and Russian loyalists.  
 
Toward a Rational Foreign Policy
 
Trying to fight other people's wars and save other people's misguided regimes is not a rational way to conduct a foreign policy. Far more often than not, it brings about a worse state of affairs than what had prevailed before (and thus needless deaths). We need to get back to America First. Take care of our own. End "benevolent global hegemony" now before it ends us.
 
It appears that Trump understood this when he was campaigning, but has now lost his grasp of it in face of the neocon warmongers. The Pentagon-CIA-NSA complex is a powerfully persuasive set of institutions. They have converted every contrary president for 58 years to their worldview, and the one they couldn't convert, John F. Kennedy, they killed. (See my review of JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James W. Douglas). 
 
The insanity of our intervention into Syria has the potential of starting World War III with Russia. The problems of Syrians in this horrific conflict are certainly heartbreaking, but the world is filled with heartbreaking conflicts. It always has been, and will be, I'm sure, for many thousands of years into the future. We cannot be the world's policeman.
 
For some rational analysis of the Syrian "false flag attack," see the following:
 
https://www.rt.com/news/423627-russian-military-checks-chemical-douma/
 
 
Also here are some examples of contemporary "false flag attacks":
                                              
 
 
------------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, TX and Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, Insight, Liberty, The Freeman, The Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email: NelsonHultberg@afr.org

Friday, January 05, 2018

TRUMP VS. THE SWAMP (?) -- YEAR TWO

Just over a year ago, the United States' two-party duopoly gave Americans a "choice" between the two must unelectable candidates in recent memory. But one of them had to win: and the reason why it was an egomaniacal Reality TV personality and serial bankrupt rather than the even more loathsome (and certainly more corrupt) former first lady, senator and Secretary of State was due to the former selling himself as the true outsider. A billionaire not "owned" by anyone (unlike his opponent, who has sold and re-mortgaged herself umpteen times.) A man who would "drain the swamp."

As we enter Year two of the most improbable presidency in a very long time, the romanticized view of President Donald J. Trump has in numerous ways had to reckon with reality. One of the best (and most unabashedly pro-Trump) cartoonists in the land, Ben Garrison, whose GREAT work on many a subject can be found at https://grrrgraphics.com/, summed up the struggle nicely a while back in (a) cartoon. And despite (or perhaps because of) the media and Establishment onslaught that never goes away against the 45th president, the great majority of those who voted for Trump remain loyal, and steadfast in their belief that at least Trump would try his best to truly shake up government and drain that swamp.

But the reality is that--like former President Ronald Reagan--Trump's speeches and what idealism he seems to possess have similarly become victim to that very swamp. In the above cartoon it was a lonely Steve Bannon who was attempting to pull Trump away from the swamp creatures. The National Investor – Jan. 3, 2018 https://nationalinvestor.com/ 2 He--and America--lost that battle. Wall Street and the "swamp" arguably won. As one pro-market and somewhat ant-Trump pundit happily put it a while back, "The departure of Steve Bannon (former White House chief strategist) is a positive story because it means that on economic issues, 'the Goldman Sachs faction' has won: Steve Mnuchin (Treasury Secretary), Gary Cohn (Trump’s chief economic advisor) and other Goldman alumni in the administration will dominate. So, in Wall Street’s eyes, the good guys have won."

That has turned out to be true where foreign policy and the security/military Deep State are concerned as well; they have largely co-opted Trump. As I have said all along, the strongest point about Trump to me is that he--as a candidate for president--often eloquently channeled the sentiments of former President John Quincy Adams who once famously described an independent America as a nation which ". . .goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice , and the benignant sympathy of her example." Candidate Trump properly excoriated both Republican and Democrat predecessors alike for the waste of trillions of dollars and countless innocent lives; and basically screwing up everything this country (more accurately, its Deep State rulers, military-industrial complex and neocon Establishment) has touched for quite a while now.

But as president, Trump has done almost nothing to change things. So much has he been coopted by the Cheneyesque folks in Washington that even such war mongers/ "nation building" advocates as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-GA) have gone from loathing Trump to fawning over him with their approval of his bravado in threatening half the world. I'll have more to say about a few of those subjects in the issue immediately following this one.

One thing is for certain: thus far, the attacks on the president by the Establishment news media and a still-stunned political establishment in Washington certainly have not cramped his style. Far from it. Whatever our views of various elements of policy, it is on one level enjoyable to see Trump give back to these sorts as good as (usually better than) he gets. Clearly, the man thoroughly enjoys the fight.

At least for public consumption, Trump seems even fairly nonplussed over the ongoing Mueller investigation. By most present The National Investor – Jan. 3, 2018 https://nationalinvestor.com/ 3 appearances, the kind of "collusion" that Trump's half-crazed "The Russians Are Coming!" detractors thought might manifest itself remains nowhere to be found. Between that and the Democrat Party's relative inability to do much more than the G.O.P. did with Barack Obama--just resist, and often hysterically so, for the mere sake of doing so--we will probably get through another year with the Trump haters' hopes of impeachable offenses being uncovered dashed.

Chris Temple
The National Investor

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

STEVE BANNON TO DELIVER KEYNOTE ADDRESS AT THE REMEMBRANCE PROJECT’S LUNCHEON IN D.C.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Maria Espinoza, Co-founder and National Director of The Remembrance Project, announced that Stephen K. Bannon will be the keynote speaker at her 2017 Remembrance Luncheon to be held at the Willard Intercontinental in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, November 4, 2017. The organization’s first conference and luncheon, held in Houston, Texas, in 2016 featured now-President Donald Trump as its keynote speaker. 

In a December 2015 interview with Ms. Espinoza on Breitbart News Daily radio, Bannon praised Espinoza’s grassroots primary challenge of Texas moderate Republican John Culberson, saying, “This is the beginning of the counter-revolution.” Bannon continued, “Maria Espinoza is a good woman. She has fought the fight consistently with her back against the wall to represent victims who got murdered by people who should never have been in this country…it’s people like Maria we have to have the back of.” 

Mr. Bannon, a former Naval officer and veteran, was CEO of Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign, playing a pivotal role in the successful and stunning November 2016 Trump election victory. Once inaugurated, Trump appointed Bannon as his White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor, positions he held until August 18, 2017, when he resigned and returned to Breitbart News as its executive chairman. According to Amazon-owned Alexa analytics, Breitbart is the 50th most popular website in all of America. In September, he was named by Politico Magazine #1 of their Annual Top 50 for being “the man who got us here.” He is the cofounder and former executive chairman of the Government Accountability Institute which investigates and exposes crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other government corruption or malfeasance. 

Mr. Bannon is an entrepreneur and financier in the media and film industries and a former investment banker in Mergers & Acquisitions at Goldman Sachs. He wrote and directed Generation Zero, The Undefeated, Occupy Unmasked and Torchbearer, among other groundbreaking political documentaries. The luncheon, part of The Remembrance Project’s second annual conference bringing together families of Americans killed by illegal aliens, will also feature Judicial Watch CEO Tom Fitton, and Lenny DePaul, star of “Manhunter” series on A&E. 

For more information on the conference and luncheon, go to www.TheRemembranceProject.org

Monday, October 02, 2017

A Constitutional Convention: American Suicide

Nelson Hultberg

The enemies of freedom today (both liberal and conservative) are closer than ever to realizing their dream of forming a Constitutional Convention to pass crucial amendments to our present Constitution and restructure it for the modern world. The desire to get rid of the Founders' Constitution has been a fanatical goal of political collectivists for the past 53 years when "in 1964 the Ford Foundation funded and orchestrated – via the CSDI (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions) – the drafting of a new constitution for America." [1]

The danger involved here has its roots in the two basic methods to change the Constitution given to us by the Founders in Article V. One is to form joint resolutions in Congress for amendments and present them to the individual states' legislatures to accept or reject. This is the process by which all 27 amendments have been passed throughout our history. It is deliberate and sound and has served us well. But the second means to change our Constitution is not so sound. In fact it is downright dangerous. It provides for the formation  of a Convention of States (COS) to be called to propose and pass amendments whenever two-thirds of the several states desire such a convention.

It is this second method, the COS, that looms ominously before us today. On surface it would seem to be a beneficial procedure to control government in Washington. But if formed, it will be nothing of the kind. Because of the ideological corruption of our citizens over this past century, a COS formed today would almost surely decide to dismantle our present Constitution and give us a totally new document, one geared to accommodate the tenor of the times, which is pervasive collectivism instead of individualism.

A New Constitution

It is this writer's belief that if a COS is formed, it would be the final nail in freedom's coffin. We would lose America totally to authoritarian government domestically and our nation's sovereignty to Orwellian globalism. We would be presented, not with just a new amendment or two (such as a Balanced Budget mandate and Term Limits), but with a radically altered Constitution that changes our entire way of life. A thousand year Dark Ages would descend upon us.

Is this alarmism and hyperbole? Not at all. The nature of humans (especially those who think of themselves as intellectually indispensible) will drive the delegates of any COS to rewrite the rules that govern their actions and duties so as to have more leeway in forming a more perfect alteration of the Constitution as it now stands. They will then rewrite the Constitution itself. It will be a runaway affair, and contrary to what the COS promoters tell us, there will be nothing that the state legislatures will be able to do about it. The Constitutional delegates are not under any obligation to do the will of the state legislators. The Constitution does not mandate this, Congress will not support this, and the courts will not enforce such an obligation. (More on this shortly.)

The COS delegates will consider themselves to be representatives of "the people" of the various states, which will translate in their minds into a perceived responsibility to act in the best interests of the nation and the future as they see it, which they will feel obligated to do. This sentiment will drive the delegates just as it drives our representatives and senators we presently send to Washington to govern the nation. They feel they are obligated to act in the best interests of the nation and the future as they see it.

An Increase of Government Activism

Because of these inherent traits of human nature, any COS gathering to pass amendments to the Constitution will result in egoism and hubris mixed with the guiding ideology of modernity to increase the role of government in our lives, not restrict it.

The alleged goals of COS enthusiasts (a Balanced Budget mandate and Term Limits) are geared only toward making government more financially responsible and less prone to entrenching political careerism. They don't really do anything to reverse the paramount problem of modern times – the disease of "government activism" throughout our society. And unfortunately this is what would spur the delegates to provide for a radically altered Constitution that could allow for more government activism. Why? Because this is the ideology that animates the overwhelming majority of Americans today.

This powerful cerebral drive among humans is being ignored by conservatives and libertarians favoring a Constitutional Convention. Philosophical COLLECTIVISM governs our intellectual class, where philosophical INDIVIDUALISM governed the intellects of the founding era. A huge difference. Also the Judeo-Christian ethos prevailed in the founding era. Today secularism dominates. National sovereignty was crucial to the Founders. Today national sovereignty is viewed as dangerous and evil. These powerful ideological views will push the delegates of any COS gathering toward dismantling what they perceive as the "antiquated Constitution" of Jefferson, Madison and Adams.

Ideology rules history! It is a commanding force inside all intellectuals' brains that pushes them toward statist aggrandizement when fallacious, and toward freedom when true. False ideology, however, dominates today via the use of relentless sophistry from our professors in the colleges, galvanized by the irrational philosophical visions of past thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau, Auguste Comte, and Karl Marx. [See Nelson Hultberg, The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.]

The delegates to the COS will adhere to various beliefs from capitalist to statist and from constitutional originalists to "living document" advocacy. Unfortunately far too many will be statists and "living document" advocates. The false rationale of mega-statism has, for the past eight decades, been indoctrinated into 80% of our intellectuals during their college years. How many of them would be prevalent at any COS gathering? Far too many to ever risk such a gathering. It is a mistaken belief that individuals in life vote their conscience. On the contrary, they vote their ideology. And the ideology of socialism prevails today under the guise of social welfarism, not free-enterprise Americanism.

It is this dramatic ideological difference between the founding era and that of today that will doom the future of America if we attempt to form a COS to amend the Constitution. All the values the Founders believed in – limited government, equality of rights, objective law, free enterprise, self-reliance, etc. – are considered to be archaic in today's world. Our reigning intellectuals believe in flexible government, arbitrary law, legal conveyance of privileges, bureaucratic interventionism, corporatism, and state welfare. Any governing vision that results from a COS gathering would be a far cry from that of the Founders.

Nothing would prevent the delegates from shutting out the media and working in secret as the Founders did in 1787. Their justification would be that this would forge a smoother path to "meaningful" alteration. Also as with the Founders, nothing would prevent the convention delegates from revising their instructions from their state legislatures once they have been convened. They would see themselves as heroic New Founders of the New States of America. Worst of all nothing would prevent them from eliminating the governing views of the Founders' era, which most of today's intellectuals see as "naïve and outdated" in need of reform. They would dive into such reform with a nefarious gusto. They would not give us a stronger Republic. They would banish "republicanism" from our system altogether.

Chief Justice Warren Burger's View

In a letter to Phyllis Schlafly in 1983, Chief Justice Burger wrote that:

"[T]here is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress 'for the sole and express purpose.'

"With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups….

"Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a 'miracle.' Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention… Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments." [2]

The constitutional legalist, Jackie Patru, concurs dramatically with Burger in "Unbridled Powers of Delegates in a Constitutional Convention." She tells us that all members of a COS would lawfully be able to act on their own regardless of how their state legislators instruct them. The courts have ruled that:

"The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order, and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate…" [3]

Patru goes on to say in another article:

"In 1787 the founders had convinced the people a Conference of States should be held for the purpose of 'making some changes' in the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to the Conference in Philadelphia were under strict instructions from their respective states and the Congress to meet ‘for the sole and express purpose’ of revising the Articles of Confederation. As we know, they did much more than that. They threw out the Articles of Confederation and drafted a new constitution.

"The 55 men present at that conference locked the doors – and even nailed the windows shut – to the public and the press, and proceeded to draft an entirely new document which replaced the Articles of Confederation." [4]

Human nature being a constant, today's COS delegates would act in similar fashion to the Founders of 1787. The difference, however, would be that Marxist collectivism animates their brains, not Lockean individualism.

And they are dangerously close to accomplishing their COS dream. At last count, 27 of the needed 34 state legislatures had called for a Convention of States to pass a Balanced Budget amendment. In addition ten more states have bills pending calling for a Constitutional Convention. [5] 

Too many conservatives today have been bamboozled into believing that such a Constitutional Convention can be a magic gathering to save America with a Balanced Budget mandate and Term Limits. But these two issues do not address the major flaw of modern government and the political activists who structure it, which is their loss of faith in leaving the capitalist marketplace alone for men, women, and local communities to operate freely and voluntarily. Coercive COLLECTIVISM dominates both liberal and conservative minds today, and this is what would drive the overwhelming majority of COS delegates to bring about wholesale changes in our Constitution.  

The Collectivists' Proposed New Constitution

Thus we now confront the vision to remake America that socialist liberals and naïve conservatives have been pushing for the past 53 years since the Ford Foundation launched its drive for a new Constitution in 1964.

"This model constitution," writes Patru, "drawing upon the efforts of more than 100 people, took ten years to write. The 40th draft was published in a book titled The Emerging Constitution, by Rexford G. Tugwell (Harper & Row, 1974). The project cost [$25 million] and produced the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America." [6]

This proposed new Constitution would radically change America from a Republic to an authoritarian dictatorship. As Patru points out, the states would be replaced with ten regions, our elected representatives would be replaced with appointed bureaucratic overseers for each region, and individual rights would be replaced with privileges granted by the United Nations. [7]

If a Convention of States gathering should take place today, this proposed new Constitution would be very much on the minds of many of the delegates. It acts as a guide to what can be accomplished by Fabian mentalities if they persist over the years. They can banish free enterprise and individual rights from America. They can open up government to a much more expansive affair. They can realize their perverted hopes of leveling down the populace of the country. They can realize their vision of pervasive egalitarianism.

Limited government would be subtly asphyxiated and replaced with arbitrary government beholden to world governing bodies such as the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Organization of American States (OAS), etc. This is the ideology of modernity; it rules 80% of intellectuals in our society. The rule of this ideology over any COS gathering would be as sure as smog settling over a town that creates too many factories.

The Most Frightening Aspect

Here is the most frightening aspect, however, of today's COS movement. If America suffers a dollar collapse and plunges into an economic Depression during this upcoming decade (a distinct possibility), the populace would be very much in the mood to support a radical retooling of our political system. When times are tough, advocates of limited government become much more tolerant of dictatorial governing policies.

There is no greater peril to America today than the economic crisis looming over the horizon that would bring about the collectivist dream of purging the Founders' Constitution from the land. The concept of a free country would be lost to mankind for centuries. A hideous society would be thrust upon us and our progeny. A Convention of States to amend the Constitution would provide freedom's enemies with a means to destroy everything we hold dear in America.

A Constitutional Convention must be opposed vigorously by all patriots. Collectivists never relent. We must be equally tough. We are defending truth and justice. They are promoting fallacy and tyranny. It is the classic battle of good and evil, and it affects all of our lives. The era we live in today is becoming one of the most epochal in history. We must oppose all efforts to organize a Constitutional Convention; it would be a dreadful dagger into the heart of limited government and our cherished freedoms.



Notes

1. Jackie Patru, "The Effort to Dismantle Our Constitution," http://www.sweetliberty.org

2. Chief Justice Warren Burger, "Chief Justice Burger on the Danger of a Constitutional

3. Jackie Patru, "Unbridled Powers of Delegates in a Constitutional Convention,"
    16 C.J.S 9
    Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472.
    Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738.
    West Virginia (1873)  Loomis v. Jackson;  6 W. Va. 613.
    Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry;  91 p. 193.
    Texas (1912)  Cox v. Robison;  150 S.W. 1149.

4. Patru, "The Effort to Dismantle Our Constitution," op.cit.  

5. Ashley Balcerzak, "The Constitutional Convention 2016," Slate,  http://www.slate.com

6.  Patru, "The Effort to Dismantle Our Constitution," op.cit.  

7.  Ibid.


----------------------
Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, TX and Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. A graduate of Beloit College in Wisconsin, his articles have appeared in such publications as The American Conservative, InsightLibertyThe FreemanThe Dallas Morning News, and the San Antonio Express-News, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.  Email: NelsonHultberg@afr.org   

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

President Grant's Exploitative Economic Plan

After the first transcontinental railroad connected Omaha with Sacramento during President Grant’s first year in office in 1869, other tycoons sought government financing to build additional lines. One was Jay Cooke whose investment company was the leading underwriter of federal bonds during the Civil War. Cooke backed the Northern Pacific Railroad, which was to connect Lake Superior with Puget Sound.

Originally chartered by Congress in 1864, the Northern Pacific had not built a mile of track by 1870. Cooke reasoned that he could buy the company at a bargain price if he could later get Congress to extend the life of its charter and provide him other concessions. After paying consulting fees to one of President Grant’s personal secretaries, Horace Porter, he learned that Grant was as “firm as a rock” on a bill tailor-made to his needs.

The 1870 act gave the company more time to complete construction without losing its rights to land subsidies, which were unusually generous. (The NP would eventually be given enough land to encompass all the acreage in a state the size of Missouri.) It also permitted Cooke to collect a $200 fee in stock for each $1,000 bond sold as well as a 12% cash commission.

As the railroad stretched westward from Minnesota rumors of corruption filtered back east. Civic leaders in the towns along the route competed to have their sites included on the line and contractors seemed to be inflating construction costs. Still, Cooke was selling about a million dollars in bonds every month. Overseas investors arrived on junkets to ride the rails to the ever-lengthening end of the line. By the late summer of 1873 it had reached Bismarck in present-day North Dakota.

But the railroad was generating little revenue. Nearly all its operations and construction were funded by debt. Anything that prevented Cooke from selling more bonds and stock would cause the Northern Pacific to coast to a halt. A March 1873 congressional report about corruption and political bribery involving the original transcontinental railroad was just such a factor. The public perceived the scandal as an indictment of widespread immorality within the railroad industry and the federal government.
Nonetheless, when Jay Cooke & Company collapsed on September 18, 1873 there could hardly have been a bigger blow to the public confidence. One Philadelphia newspaper reported, “No one could have been more surprised if snow had fallen during a summer noon.” Without new sales of Northern Pacific securities, Cooke & Company ran out of cash. The night before it shut down President Grant was a Cooke house guest. The two shared a breakfast the very morning of the debacle.

Cooke’s failure triggered a panic and a five-year depression. The New York Stock Exchange closed for ten days, amplifying the panic. Business failures in 1873 climbed to 5,000, from 4,000 in 1872 and 3,000 in 1871. Track construction across the nation declined by a third in 1874, causing 500,000 layoffs within the railroad eco-system including the iron and steel industry. Prices fell. Pig iron dropped from $56 a ton in 1872 to $17 five years later. Wages fell about 50% from 1873 to 1877. The country seemed to be overrun with vagrants.

As the economy progressively weakened in the months following Cooke’s bankruptcy, President Grant reflected upon how earlier gold discoveries in California and the Rocky Mountains had promptly energized America’s economy. Thus, in the summer of 1874 he sent a military expedition into the Black Hills of present-day South Dakota to look for evidence of rumored gold deposits. Since the Hills were part of a Lakota Sioux reservation—officially off limits to white civilians—the expedition’s goal was falsely represented as a site search for a new military

Lieutenant-Colonel George Custer led the thousand-man expedition that included President Grant’s eldest son as well as three newspaper reporters, a photographer and two gold miners. Although the group saw few Indians they discovered modest, but tempting, quantities of gold. Soon the first rush of prospectors began tearing through the Hills. Within two years the largest deposit in the continental United States—ultimately to become the Homestake Mine—was discovered. A year after discovery, George Hearst and two partners purchased the mine for $70,000. Before ending production in 2001, Homestake yielded over $1 billion in gold and helped finance the businesses of George’s legendary son, William Randolph Hearst, and modern publications such as Women’s Wear Daily, Elle, and Cosmopolitan.

Initially Grant made little effort to control the prospecting, but within a year there were so many prospectors that the he decided that the government must acquire the Black Hills from the Sioux. When chief Red Cloud learned of Grant’s intent in May 1875 he traveled with several other chiefs to Washington to meet with the “Great White Father.” The Indian leaders reminded Grant that the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie granted their tribes ownership of the Black Hills in perpetuity.

Grant told Red Cloud that the Indian leaders must confront two unpleasant truths. First, the government’s obligation of under the treaty to supply rations to the Sioux reservation had expired. They continued only because of the President’s kind feelings toward the tribes. Second, Grant could not prevent miners from swarming over the Black Hills. He concluded by telling his visitors that they must either agree to cede the Black Hills or risk losing their rations. Red Cloud returned to the Great Plains without an agreement.

In response Grant organized a civilian commission that traveled to the Dakota Territory in September 1875 to negotiate the purchase of the Black Hills. The Indians demanded more than ten times the amount the commission was authorized to pay. When the commission leader returned to Washington he recommended that the Sioux be starved until they agreed to cede the Hills at a price to be set by Congress.

But Grant settled on a more radical solution. He resolved to contrive a reason to start a war in order to justify seizing the Hills by force. His plan was to provoke the small minority of Lakota living off their reservation in “un-ceded” lands where the Fort Laramie Treaty granted them hunting privileges. Historian John Gray explained that, “A punishing terrifying campaign against these wild bands would certainly subdue them and at the same time so intimidate their…relatives [on the reservation] that a legal three-fourths might sign away the Black Hills. And failing that, the nation could seize the Black Hills as spoils of war without legal hindrance.”

In November 1875 Grant summoned the general commanding the region and the commissioner of Indian affairs to a White House meeting. Although the general and the commissioner were both on record as reporting that the Lakota had been peaceful in recent years, an inspector of the Indian Affairs Bureau issued a contrary report nine days later. According to historian James Donovan the report “cited various trumped-up accusations and smoothly worded falsehoods regarding Indian violations.” Accordingly, the “wild” Indians in the hunting territories were told that they must return to the reservation by January 31, 1876 or be declared hostile, which would thereby authorize the Army to force their return.

It was an impossible demand. The weather-weakened Indian ponies could not move entire villages that included women and children. One warrior later said, “It was very cold and many of our people and ponies would have died in the snow. We were in our own country and doing no harm.” Even the departmental military commander said the ultimatum “will in all probability be regarded as a joke by the Indians.”

After an abortive winter campaign, the Army launched a three-pronged offensive against the off-reservation Lakota in June 1876. They converged on the Powder River country in the southeastern part of present-day Montana. One column approached from the south out of Wyoming and a second approached downstream along the Yellowstone River from western Montana. A third column under General Alfred Terry marched upstream along the Yellowstone from the column’s starting point at present-day Bismarck, North Dakota. Terry’s force included the Seventh Cavalry Regiment under Custer’s command.

In response, the scattered Indian settlements concentrated into a single big village along a tributary of the Big Horn River blandly named the Little Big Horn. The Wyoming column was quickly turned back at the Battle of Rosebud Creek. As Terry continued marching westward along the Yellowstone with his infantry, he sent the Seventh Cavalry on a reconnaissance in force south of the river to find the Indian village, or villages. Custer located the Little Big Horn village on 25 June. He divided his command into three components and attacked the village with two of them. The third guarded the slower moving pack train but was also sent on a vague reconnaissance mission to the southwest, perhaps to search for unseen hostiles.

The village had about 1,800 warriors as compared to about 500 troopers in the entire Seventh Cavalry. Custer’s column totaled 225 men. He allocated 140 of the regiment’s men to Major Marcus Reno with orders to attack the village from the south, while Custer apparently intended to attack the village from either the east or the north. The pack train under Captain Frederick Benteen contained 125 men.

After Reno’s attack was repulsed his command was thrown into a disorderly retreat to a defensive position on the east side of the Little Big Horn on a bluff overlooking the stream where Benteen’s force joined him. The Indians annihilated Custer’s troopers, also east of the river but at points about four-to-five miles north of the Reno-Benteen hill. Reno and Benteen suffered 53 killed and 60 wounded. The Lakota moved their village beyond sight of the enemy the evening before General Terry’s infantry arrived on 27 June.

The Indian victory was merely temporary and only intensified white hostility. A new Indian commission led by George Manypenny arrived in Dakota Territory in September 1876 to annex the Black Hills from the Sioux who remained on the reservation. When the Indians replied that the Fort Laramie Treaty required a three-quarter super majority vote by their adult males, the commissioners replied that the treaty had been abrogated when the Indians attacked the cavalry. This was hard for the Sioux who had remained on the reservation to understand since none of them had fired a shot. To compel acceptance some commissioners implied that unless the Indians signed they would be moved to present-day Oklahoma, forfeit their firearms and horses and no longer be supplied rations. Congress approved the resulting Manypenny Agreement in February 1877.

Sioux descendants litigated the agreement well into the twentieth century. In 1980 the U. S Supreme Court awarded eight Sioux tribes $106 million in compensation for “a taking of tribal property,” but the tribes refused it. The money has remained in escrow and by 2011 grew to $1.3 billion due to accumulated interest. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, a lower court judge wrote in 1975 of the Manypenny Agreement: “A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealing will never, in all probability, be found in our history.”

Philip Leigh
Tampa, Florida
Phil_Leigh@me.com