All posts by Camp Director

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

Reclaiming State Sovereignty- How It’s Done!

This entry is part 27 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4

As this article and the attached video (see below) demonstrate, the Oklahoma Legislature continues to run an impromptu class on the “How-To’s” of reclaiming state sovereignty. And while they’re at it, they’re also giving an unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) advanced level seminar on long-term political strategy and tactics. What have they done?

Once again, Oklahoma has passed a state sovereignty resolution. The previous one was passed in both the Oklahoma House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry whose best excuse was to claim that it would require the “return of federal tax money,” thus proving that the Governor either completely failed to grasp the point of the resolution or grasped and rejected it.

What’s interesting here is that the Oklahoma House has come up with a parliamentary method to bypass the Governor who has proven himself to be a federal lick-spittle. Oklahoma House members led by Charles Key (R- Oklahoma City) has made the new resolution a House Concurrent Resolution which can be passed by both houses of the legislature and does not require the signature of the governor. The Oklahoma House passed it last Monday May 4, 2009.

But why is this bypass such a political coup, when the concurrent resolution really doesn’t have any legal punch?

The strategic reasons:

  1. Once state sovereignty begins to be discussed seriously, it means that discussion of the repeal of the 17th amendment, the amendment that requires Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than appointed as state government representatives to the federal legislature, can begin


  2. True federalism, i.e., Madison’s “divided sovereignty,” with true sovereignty of the states will only be returned through the repeal of the 17th amendment


  3. Repeal of the 17th amendment would make repeal of the 16th amendment, the amendment that allows the federal government to engage in direct taxation, far easier. This would be another step towards the re-establishment of true federalism. Direct taxation authority belongs only to the states in the original federalist design


  4. Once the federal leviathan is put on a strict forced tax diet, its unnecessary fat necessarily shrinks and falls away. The surest way to reduce the size, cost and intrusiveness of government is to reduce the revenue available to it.


  5. Repeal of the 17th would also make it possible to repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, which would go a long way to reducing the revenue available to grow government. It could be replaced with the old Independent Treasury System, often called the “most stable banking system of the 19th century”


  6. One state doing re-declaring its 10th amendment sovereignty is cause for derision from the “federal supremacy in all things” camp, 5 states is a cause for concern there, 10 states is reason for panic, 25 or more means that some form of completely irrational response would be forthcoming from those in the power centers which tends to awaken the sleeping populace.

The tactical reasons:

  1. Oklahoma Republicans now have their governor, a Democrat, on record as being against their state’s sovereignty. He has, in effect, said to them “We have to live with the federal boot on our necks to keep our own tax money coming back to us.”


  2. The Republican legislators now have a basis to work to expose an extremely popular governor of the other party who has clearly flouted the will of the electorate (this measure is quite popular in Oklahoma) who has now been show to be more interested in pleasing his federal overseers than protecting the constitutional guarantees of the rights of the citizens of his own state


  3. Republican legislators have demonstrated that they are willing to proactively go toe-to-toe with a popular governor in order to protect those same constitutional guarantees in spite of his efforts


  4. Republican legislators have demonstrated that they are willing to go toe-to-toe with the federal playground bully who has, up to now, had no qualms about whose lunch money it would steal


  5. Republican legislators have maneuvered Democratic legislators into demonstrating that they will do “whatever it takes” to protect a Democrat governor who kow-tows to the federal leviathan and disparages state sovereignty (thus exposing their own positions) from the political fallout of the resolution’s passage while Republicans have shown they’re willing to do “whatever it takes” to protect Oklahoma voters from federal usurpation


  6. A few state legislators working within the bounds of their authority in their own state legislature have made the now astronomically expanding federal leviathan begin to look over its shoulder to see the specter of the Constitution beginning to haunt its attempts to assume all authority and make the states an anachronism

The real question here is will other state legislatures, it really doesn’t matter what their party affiliation, recognize that there is a Constitution, that it sets boundaries and limits to federal authority and gives the states wide latitude to interpose on behalf of its citizens.

Frankly, that’s an open question in Ohio. If state leadership like the feckless Kevin DeWine have their way, Republican legislators would run screaming from the room if this type of legislation were to be mentioned. But it seems that there are some of that party who understand the two-fold utility of this type of resolution. It both alerts federal usurpers that Ohio will no longer stand idly by while the 9th and 10th amendments (not to mention article IV) are simply ignored by Congress and the Executive branch and it exposes those members of both parties who oppose Ohio’s move to protect its citizens from federal over-stepping of authority as despots or the toadys of despots. Thus, these resolutions HCR 11 in the Ohio House and the new resolution in the Ohio Senate (to be introduced today) are the tools Ohioans need to dig out from the avalanche of federal laws, rules, regulations and resolutions that are burying them in taxes and the fetters of government restriction.

What can be done?

Part of this article contains a promotion of a conference where you can learn how Oklahoma is getting the job done. Freedom21 is a grassroots coalition of state and national groups banded together to protect life, liberty and property from both federal and international assault. At its core, Freedom21 exists to oppose the UN’s laughably misnamed Agenda21 sustainable development power grab.

Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key is a headline speaker there and was last year as well. Last year Key, an aptly named key player, came to the Freedom21 conference and explained how he and other Oklahoma legislators stopped the NAFTA super-hiway (remember? It’s the road project that the federal government claimed never existed) from passing through Oklahoma.

Texas activists also did their part to stop the corridor using local planning commissions. They were so effective that Gov. Rick Perry (who appears to have gotten the message if his latest statements at a Texas TEA Party is any indication) came out and announced that the road project that didn’t exist was now officially canceled in Texas. These folks were at Freedom21’s conference last year as well to explain how they did it.

Will you be there this year to find out how to do it? Come out to Freedom21 in August and learn how to re-take your state’s sovereignty- proactively.

In the meantime, contact your state Senators and Representatives and urge them to co-sponsor and vote for the state sovereignty resolutions.


Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Taxation

Is Alan Keyes Really a Constitutionalist?

In a word-NO!

In the video posted below you can see Alan Keyes being questioned on several core constitutionalist issues. He gives a mixed-bag of answers. He likes the mis-named “Fair Tax” which supposedly replaces the hated income tax with a GIGANTIC federal sales tax. We say supposedly because there’s no guarantee that the income tax will disappear, leaving us with both an income AND what amounts to a value-added tax or VAT. There are many objections to the “Fair Tax” but that is not the subject of the article.

What the article is about is a practical application of what we have learned from our (incomplete) study of the character of Alexander Hamilton and the tactics he used to achieve his strategic goal of twisting a federal constitution into a mercantilist national government. As the study continues we hope to provide more tools to enable you to understand that Hamilton’s vision is the dominant one in American government and has been since the War Between The States. We also hope to help you develop the skills to recognize what that means to you and how it effects the way your government works.

Chances are if your representative, it really doesn’t matter at what level- city, township, county, state, federal, gets elected by running as a “conservative” but consistently votes for bills which ignore constitutional limits on his particular branch of government while citing the “greater public good” as justification then he is a political descendant of Alexander Hamilton. Especially if the bill in question ultimately creates new powers for government and/or concentrates that power in very few hands, especially un-elected ones especially while granting special exemptions, rights and privileges to common interest blocs, either business or social.

Watch this clip then we’ll discuss specifics.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkkXT84PoI[/youtube]

Alan Keyes is an excellent example of a Hamiltonian in the guise of a constitutionalist. A true Hamiltonian is an extremely intelligent and charismatic political chameleon who has no qualms against assuming the political disguise of having a philosophy that he disdains in order to win the support of those who are adherents to that philosophy. Like all Hamiltonians, Keyes is a master at equivocation. He is able to speak in terms that can be interpreted by both constitutionalists and nationalists as friendly to their positions, depending upon his audience.  Only by examining in detail his statements can we get anything like a clear view of his constitutional interpretation.

Take, for instance, Keyes’ view of the “Fair Tax.” This author has heard Alan Keyes make impassioned pleas for the end of the 16th amendment, the amendment that allows direct taxation of individuals by the federal government. We ran a review of a conference where just such a plea was made by Keyes available here. We noted that within 4 hours Dr. Keyes employed two diametrically opposite hermeneutics of constitutional interpretation for different reasons to different audiences, thus bolstering our case.

In the video Keyes’ position on the “Fair Tax” does not comport with his claim at the conference reviewed that the 16th amendment should be repealed. If the 16th amendment is repealed then an authorization for ANY direct taxation of individuals evaporates and the “Fair Tax” necessarily dies since there’s no longer any direct taxation authority. An intelligent man like Dr. Keyes must know this. Why not be truthful about it then? The facts in detail do not fit the needs of the proponents, therefore the facts in detail may be equivocated because it’s for “the common good.” Hamiltonian to the core.

Dr. Keyes also makes a rather absurd claim that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) appropriated his views on the Federal Reserve (Fed) from him. This is nothing more or less than an attempt to “earn his chops” among skeptical constitutionalists who know who Paul is and where he stands on issues like taxation, the Fed, presidential authority, war powers and US sovereignty issues. Many do not know where Keyes stands on some of these key issues so he’s attempting to skim off some of Paul’s supporters to his own camp.

As we showed in our review of our personal conversations with Keyes and what he spoke about at the conference, He and Rep. Paul are on completely different wavelengths regarding presidential power, war powers, US sovereignty, especially as regards the surrender of that sovereignty to the UN via the treaty power. Keyes “stand” against the Fed on the basis of  our economy being controlled by “international bankers” flies in the face of his support of the idea that the US has legally surrendered at least some of its sovereignty to the UN via treaty obligation, which he unsuccessfully argues is allowed under article VI of the US Constitution. In short, Keyes is trying to equivocate his way into the constitutionalist camp while remaining firmly in the nationalist camp with feelers out to the globalist camp.

Frankly, no one except some policy wonks ever heard of Dr. Alan Keyes before he was appointed to the UN Economic and Social Council ambassadorship in 1985. His explanation of his opposition to the Fed in the video is, at best, nebulous and appears that it is being developed extemporaneously as he is asked questions. Some of it seems to be  a kind of modified Independent Treasury System and some of it is just platitudinous nonsense; ear candy for the uninformed who know that something’s wrong with the economy and the Fed’s the most likely culprit.

Keyes is the perfect example of a politician who is truly pro-life (and we are definitely not questioning his stand on the life issue) and believes that his pro-life credentials is a get-out-of-jail-free card with Christian constitutionalists on other issues as long as he says what seem to be the right things. This attitude is all too prevalent among Christian Republicans who are ALWAYS surprised when their favorite pro-life “conservative” betrays them on taxes, gun control, education, business regulation,campaign finance, free speech, police powers and you name it.

Dr Paul, on the other hand, has been in Congress, with hiatus, since 1976. He has a well-developed stance on economics, being from the hard currency, local control of banking Austrian economic school. He has a well-defined body of work on the constitutional issues that Dr. Keyes is the most ambiguous on. He has never been afraid to tackle difficult constitutional subjects and has always been open and honest about where he stands on issues. He is a strict constitutional constructionist. He isn’t perfect by any means, but he is open and honest. In short, he is a true constitutionalist. There isn’t any question of what Dr. Paul means when he is done speaking or has written a paper. He does not engage in ambiguities or equivocation.

We bring Ron Paul into the picture because Keyes does. It is obvious he is at least trying to compare himself to Paul because Paul has such a loyal base and he wants in on the action. In order to do that he is willing to make ridiculous claims regarding Paul’s position on economics, war powers, presidential authority, state sovereignty, etc and to gloss over his own globalist/interventionist leanings to make it appear that he and Dr. Paul are not that far from one anothers viewpoints. The fact that some have bought into this in spite of the evidence to the contrary that surfaces only when  Keyes’ statements are examined in detail bolsters our point about his being a Hamiltonian heir.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse- Hamilton’s Bank Job

This entry is part 4 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurse

Alexander Hamilton is widely credited with being the father of the modern American economic system. In fact it can be said that Hamilton is the Victor Frankenstein to the monstrosity that Henry Clay, a master propagandist, dubbed the American System. The American System consisted of a central bank, permanent debt, corporate welfare, centralized authority, heavy taxation, “protective tariffs,” fractional reserve banking, etc. Prof. DiLorenzo describes this system as Hamilton’s attempt to adapt the British system of Mercantilism, one of the primary causes of the War For Independence, to the new republic.

DiLorenzo delves into the opposition to a central bank that Hamilton faced from divided sovereignty advocates like Jefferson, a recently converted James Madison, Edmund Randolph and others. At the request of Washington reports were prepared on the constitutionality of the bank. The strict constructionists all declared it illegal, based on the explicit rejection of the power to create  a national bank by the Constitutional Convention while Hamilton prepared a masterpiece of equivocation in which he revealed his strategy for getting the Constitution he really wanted but couldn’t get at the convention.

Hamilton introduced the idea of “implied powers” based on an expansionist interpretation of the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses of Article I.  Further, Hamilton introduced the doctrine that the Federal government may exercise ANY power not expressly prohibited to it by the Constitution, flying in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments and ignoring the state ratification debates.

Foreshadowing much worse abuses to come, a national bank bill was passed and signed by Washington as the result of a compromise involving the expansion of the District of Columbia to make it adjacent to Washington’s property on the Potomac river. Senators threatened Washington that they would withhold their votes on the DC bill until he agreed to sign the bank bill.

DiLorenzo shows that the creation of the Bank of the United States (BUS) resulted in what fractional reserve banking on a national scale must do- inflated the currency, prices rose 72% from 1791-96,  and created cheap credit for northern industrialists, but increased costs for southern planters via import tariffs to pay the service on increased government debt. Thus the regional cracks became sectional divides.

One of the most interesting aspects of the BUS is that the corruption and growth of centralization it spawned at the national level created resentment and opposition at the state level. Several states imposed exorbitant taxes on state branches of the BUS. One of these was Ohio which actually imposed a $50,000 per year tax  in spite of a ruling by John Marshall’s Supreme Court claiming that it was unconstitutional, which it collected (two-years worth) from the BUS branch by force of arms.

The BUS sued Ohio deputies on the basis of Marshall’s decision which earned it the equivalent of a legislative “raspberry,” the Ohio legislature declaring the Supreme Court’s decision meaningless under Ohio’s 10th amendment sovereignty. One wonders if the current Ohio legislature will pass a resolution (HCR 11) in the current session which simply declares that Ohio retains its sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, no forcible collection of taxes necessary?

DiLorenzo explains the common view that while Marshall’s court had usurped the authority of “judicial review” many of its decisions were simply ignored as mere opinion until after the War Between The States and why.

The book chronicles  Hamilton’s BUS legacy in terms of its impact on state banks after it usurped regulatory authority over these banks.  It did so by buying their bank notes, which necessarily kept them afloat, then redeeming their notes demanding payment in specie (gold,  silver and precious metal coins). In so doing it forced many state banks to overextend well beyond their specie reserves causing bank runs.

Favored state banks were not subjected to such treatment but state banks opposed to the BUS were savaged by it.  DiLorenzo explains how policy set by the BUS continued to wreak havoc even after the BUS was de-chartered in 1811 and went out of business. The US Treasury continued many of the BUS policies and even expanded some, due largely to the War of 1812, wreaking inflationary havoc and leading to a re-chartering of the BUS.

The re-institution allowed an inflationary, cheap credit (based on the fact that the BUS had paper out at about 10 times the specie available) real estate boom and an inflation of real estate values followed by a huge bust, the country’s first depression, the Panic of 1819, where real estate values plummeted causing a huge increase in bankruptcies and a lack of available credit causing a decrease in production. Sound familiar? DiLorenzo uses the details of what has been related here to quickly explain, in simple terms, the Austrian theory of boom-bust cycles caused by centralized credit interventionism.

Andrew Jackson, a Jeffersonian, was so appalled by the blatant abuses of power and economic corruption engaged in by the BUS, especially its president, Nicholas Biddle, that he determined to destroy it before its charter expired. Jackson also offered his opinion that John Marshall’s Supreme Court opinion that the BUS was constitutional, was just that, an opinion. And he declared that he believed it to be unconstitutional.

Jackson’s actions toward the BUS were based on a number of factors which DiLorenzo explains well. Jackson stood for free-market economics, reduced tariffs, hard money (money backed by gold) and paying off the national debt. Thus Jackson’s Democrats were the sworn ideological enemies of Hamilton’s Federalists later Whigs and even later Republicans.

The book explains the brilliant methodology by which Jackson managed to drive a stake through the heart of the BUS vampire, though Biddle did not give it up without a fight. Before its death knell, Biddle attempted to manipulate credit so as to create a depression and he was successful in creating a short-lived recession. DiLorenzo chronicles how Jackson and Van Buren worked to establish the Independent Treasury System, considered by many to be the most stable monetary system of the 19th century. It was a hard money system.

The book goes into deeper detail regarding the continued legacy of Hamilton’s economic system; inflation, currency debasement and constant boom-bust, also called bubble-burst, cycles. Inflation can be a boon to unscrupulous politicians (a redundancy?) who use the newly created money to pander for votes, as long as they can slough off blame for the problem onto non-participants (the ubiquitous “middle-man,” private sector, “unregulated” businesses, etc.) or rival political parties.

The book chronicles how inflation is actually a hidden tax and how government interventionism essentially causes businesses to mis-allocate assets due to a lack of knowledge about future values. Hence, depreciation schedules are often meaningless and replacement of old equipment is discouraged. Consumers are also effected because they are not sure of the cost of an item in the future. Thus, they adopt a “buy now” philosophy which discourages savings  meaning less assets are available for investment. Once their credit is used up they retrench. The resulting boom-bust cycles are then blamed on a “lack of regulation” and new centralized restrictive policies are introduced to “fix” the problem, making things, in reality, worse.

In the concluding section of the chapter DiLorenzo asks the question- “how can someone as obviously brilliant, if not a  genius, have been so politically naive as to not know the destruction his system would bring?” He also begins to go about answering it. You’ll have to read it to find out that answer.

Next chapter- Chapter 4- Hamilton’s Disciple: How John Marshall Subverted The Constitution

Commentary, The Church, Biblical Worldview

Christian America Has Vanished!

The Crumbling Church…Or Maybe It Was Never Real in the First Place.

You might want to read this week’s cover story in Newsweek magazine.

It’s entitled “The End of Christian America”.

As I sit writing this report in my hotel room, the TV is on in the background with live calls to the host, and a young man came on line to say how he thought it impossible for any Christian to vote for a Democrat.

The Christian host responded with a question: “Do you believe in the death penalty?”

“Why no,” said the young man.  “No man should be able to take life . . .”

And there he was cut off by the host to illustrate that Christians are not united on the death penalty, nor are they united Democrat or Republic.

Come to think of it, Christians are not united on much at all.  We can’t even agree on what are the criteria to determine if America or any other country, is Christian.

And therein lies the reason for the apparent collapse of “Christian” America.

I have made comment before, that the Christian West has been in decline, at least since the rise of the monarchy and the eventual decline of the Papacy as they fought over this issue: Who was to control the earthly kingdom?  That’s a decline starting 800 years ago approximately.  How can say we have “Christian” America when the very foundation of the nation was built on questionable activities.  Patrick Henry really did smell a rat –everywhere.  And he had the decency not to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787 because of its questionable legitimacy.

This struggle between church and state over this issue only goes to illustrate the problem.  A decline in real Christianity leads to the rise of the secular state.

Christianity is on the decline because it has no “Christian” answers to many issues.  Christians are not united, and a house divided cannot stand.  That’s what Jesus thought, anyway.  Maybe he has a point worth listening to.

If you’re interested, go to The End of Christian America and read the article.  It’s worth the read.

Then go to work to fix the problem.

God bless you in your efforts for His kingdom.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

Executive Usurpation, Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse- The Rousseau Of The Right

This entry is part 2 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurseRecently my two oldest daughters and I were talking about a “test” they’d taken on Facebook- Which President Are You? My youngest and oldest daughters were both Millard Fillmore. My middle daughter and I were both Calvin Coolidge. This goofy little “test” sparked a deeper discussion of a series on the presidents on the History Channel. I was given a copy of this series for Christmas and had already taken note of an interesting phenomena that is quite prominent in this series.

How do you judge whether a US President is good, bad or mediocre? What are the exact criteria that you use to make your determination? Careful. How you answer that question says a lot about your philosophy of American government. It is a direct indicator pointing to whether you are a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian, as described in the first post of the series.

In this chapter of the book, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor of Economics at Loyola College in Maryland, lays the foundations necessary to explain which of these two basic philosophies we either consciously or unconsciously employ when evaluating the actions of government. Dr. DiLorenzo, a self described library rat, accomplishes this with research into the writing and correspondence of both Jefferson and Hamilton as well as other important thinkers in the Hamiltonian Federalist and Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist traditions. What his research uncovers is the vast differences between these two camps regarding constitutional interpretation, the relationship between state and federal governments, presidential power and the extent of judicial authority.

DiLorenzo chronicles the tireless efforts of Alexander Hamilton from 1780 onward to create a centralized national government. As the philosophical leader of what would later, during the two-year battle to ratify the new Constitution become the Federalist faction and then the Federalist party, Hamilton proved to be a shameless propagandist. He was critical of Jefferson’s supposed adoration of French radicals but he himself adopted the ideas and language of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the  philosopher whose ideas led to the terror of the French Revolution,  regarding the existence of the “general will” which is not necessarily expressed by the public but is “sensed by the ruling elite.” Hence, the “Rousseau of the right” moniker. Terms like “the public interest,” “the general interest,” and “the welfare of the community” pepper his work which was designed to gain democratic favor for his attempts to concentrate and centralize authority. The brilliant Hamilton wrote in a fashion designed to manipulate “the general will” into demanding “more vigorous government.”

It was this talent for constructing nebulous but compelling phraseology that made him one of the chief apologists for ratification of the Constitution. DiLorenzo points out that Hamilton took great pains to reassure the opponents of centralized national authority that the states would maintain their sovereignty. He also points out that this was pure deception on Hamilton’s part. Having worked for years to get a Constitutional Convention convened, he bolted the convention in June of 1787 after it became clear that both his own nationalist plan to eliminate the state governments and appoint an executive who would serve during “periods of good behavior” and James Madison’s plan that also eliminated the state governments were completely stymied by a strong TRUE federalist faction which wanted strong state governments and wanted them to be powerful enough to resist a vigorous central governments attempts to consolidate power.

Hamilton only returned to the Constitutional Convention in September after his true federalist New York colleague delegates, Yates and Lansing, had left and he had worked out a plan by which the new Constitution could be gradually “reinterpreted” to achieve his vision for the government. DiLorenzo does a masterful job of uncovering and explaining the strategy that Hamilton used in his day and which continues even today to weaken the state governments and grow the power of the presidency and the judiciary. In short, Hamilton is the father of the “living document” philosophy of constitutional interpretation.

DiLorenzo finishes the chapter with by recounting Hamilton’s role in the suppression of the Whiskey rebellion of Washington’s second term. Hamilton’s despotic actions in dealing with western farmers, many of them Revolutionary War veterans is one of the most revealing parts of the chapter. Hamilton eschewed negotiations in favor of conscripting an army to invade and conquer the rebellious areas, marching old, sick men through the snow in chains and then attempting to force confessions including implications of others, presaging the actions of one of his philosophical direct descendents, Abraham Lincoln’s actions in the southern states 67 years later.

Next- Chapter 2; Public Blessing or National Curse?

>

Biblical Worldview, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

Constitutional Government 101

This entry is part 6 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

constitutionOne can get so used to watching career party politicians stretch, bend, fold, spindle, mutilate or openly flout the Constitution that it comes as a shock when one of them actually makes a correct reference to it.

And that correct reference when wielded by a courageous legislator can be a “shock and awe” spectacle striking fear in appointed bureaucrats who have never seen the Constitution used as it was designed.

Just such a case has happened recently as Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R) Minn. as a member of the House Financial Services Committee asks a question that is rarely uttered and obviously a subject of dread among both the unelected nomenklatura and the elected representatives in attendance. The question that wreaked such havoc? “What provision in the Constitution can you point to to give authority for the actions that have been taken by the Treasury since March of  ’08?”

Posted below is a video of the hearing on from Youtube. Things to watch for:

  1. Chairman Barney Frank’s seeming (but not shocking) gender confusion. He seems to calls Rep. Bachmann “The gentleman from Minnesota.” Having met and conversed with Rep. Bachmann, this author can testify that there could be no mistaking her for a gentleman.
  2. The complete inability of Secretary Geithner to cite a single constitutional delegation of power, explicit or “implied,” for what he, the Treasury Dept. or the Fed are doing to the economy.
  3. Fed Chair Ben Bernanke’s a) suicidal tendency to rush in where angels fear to tread b) a complete inability to point to any actual constitutional authority other than an undefined congressional authority to appropriate funds and c) the American public should be kept in the dark because we are too stupid to discern how central banking works.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9DgMG-_6Ls[/youtube]

What Rep. Bachmann gives here is a quick lesson in Constitutional Government 101, a class that should be required for all freshman Representatives and Senators an all members sitting for 2 terms or more. Note too, that Rep. Frank gives a lesson in old-style partisan political hackery. When Bachmann asks a question that will,  frankly, cause Geithner and Bernanke to only make the inescapable hole that they have dug even deeper, he quickly steps in so that they will not have to answer the question, since there is no good answer to it.

This is the kind of representation that Christian constitutionalists want. What we need in the United States Congress is 435  Michelle Bachmann’s and Ron Paul’s and 100 more like them in the Senate. Then we might, if we are as a nation sufficiently repentant and reliant on Christ as our guide, begin to dig out from the unconstitutional nightmare that is the federal leviathan.

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

The Return of “Divided Sovereignty”

This entry is part 5 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

constitutionThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. -James Madison in Federalist 51

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.- The Virginia Resolution of 1798

At least 20 states are currently crafting or holding hearings on legislative resolutions that re-asserts the original jurisdictions and powers guaranteed to them in the 9th and, especially, 10th amendments (quote above).

And now that list has expanded to include Ohio. Just this week (Wednesday March 18, 2009) House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 11 was introduced into the Ohio House. Virtually all of the resolutions in the various states cite what has become in the last century or so the largely forgotten 10th amendment to the US Constitution. All of the various state resolutions have slightly different language and motivation behind them, according to the needs of the individual state.

In Oklahoma, for instance, the underlying motivation is the attempt by the federal government to force Oklahoma to allow a NAFTA superhighway (actually a HUGE multi-lane car, truck, rail, communication corridor under international control; just imagine being pulled over for going 66 in a 65 zone by a law enforcer who answers not to some local elected body but an unelected international board and may not even be an American citizen) that allows foreign rail and trucking, beginning in Central America and terminating at a hub in Canada, onto US territory without benefit of Customs inspection until they reach the main terminal in Kansas City (no terror threat to see here; move along), to cut a huge swath through the center of the state. Of course, the federal government has been busy denying that any such corridor actually exists.

Unfortunately, Texas Department of Transportation let the cat out of the bag a couple of months ago by holding a press conference to announce that Texas’ portion of the project that never existed had been canceled by popular demand of Texas residents. Enterprising Texans had gotten control of local and regional zoning and planning boards and simply refused to allow the corridor permission to begin construction within the confines of their jurisdiction. This was forcing an exceptionally large detour in the highway (3 counties or so). Further information can be obtained by purchasing DVD’s of last July’s Freedom 21 Conference in Dallas TX, available here. The details of this was one of the best presentations at Freedom 21 last year. This year’s looks to be at least as good.

In Ohio the fulcrum is unfunded federal mandates. This is a brilliant move on the part of the drafters. The drafters also wisely cite Article IV, sec. 4 and the 9th Amendment of the US constitution. Article IV, sec. 4 guarantees each state a separate republican form of government, meaning that each state has the right of self-determination through the action of its duly elected representation. The 9th Amendment states that men have many more inherent rights than are mentioned in the bill of rights and that the fact that they are not mentioned does not mean they may be usurped by an omnipotent federal leviathan but are to be protected as strenuously as the others which have been mentioned. This has become an extremely important consideration but has been virtually ignored since the War between the States.

“OK,” you might be saying, “but why is this such an important consideration?” The answer lies in the Virginia Resolution, quoted above. Passed immediately following the passage of the Alien and Sedition acts, federal laws which openly violated the 1st and 5th Amendment protections of the right of free speech and press and the right to due process of law. Virginia and Kentucky each passed resolutions declaring their sovereignty under the 9th and 10th Amendment and furthermore declared their intention to interpose on behalf of citizens of their own states whose rights were being trampled by means of federal usurpation.

It is interesting to note that the word interposition has virtually disappeared from modern legal dictionaries even though, obviously, it was a well-known legal concept in the early part of the American Republic. The War between the States nearly killed the concept.Interposition takes place when the lesser (state) authority places itself between the greater (federal) authority (exercising its authority unlawfully) and the citizen subject to both authorities.  Thus, the Article IV guarantee of a republican form of government for each state.

It must be understood that the Constitution is a negative law document. In contrast, the old Soviet Constitution was a positive law document; the Soviet government assumed all authority and the peoples rights were specifically outlined within the document. The US Constitution, on the other hand, assumes that all authority rests in the people (there is an important distinction that the Christian must make here, discussion of which we are going to forego right now. Suffice it to say that the Christian knows that ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus Christ. Individuals have authority to establish government insofar as Christ delegates it to them) and that the government’s power is strictly restricted to those specific powers that the people willingly delegate to it. All other authority is forbidden to government and reserved to the individual. Hence, the enormity and complexity of positive law documents and the simplicity and, often, eloquence of negative law documents. It’s much simpler and easier to say “you have all rights except these” versus “here is a specific list of your rights.”

The purpose of government in the limited authority model is the protection of the rights of the individual both from other individuals and from government abuse. In this light, the lesser authority has not just the right to interpose in opposition but the duty to do so since the whole of his authority was given to protect the rights of the citizen.  So what does this have to do with unfunded mandates? Because of the loss of the original balance precipitated by the growth of federal power at the expense of state authority and individual liberty in violation of the 10th Amendment, the federal authority has assumed the power to dictate to the states that they must administer certain programs at their own expense.

In essence the federal authority is shirking its responsibilities to pay for the state administered federal programs that they have forced on the states, usually over the objection of the citizens, mostly because of political considerations. It’s a lot easier to let state authorities take the heat over unpopular tax increases that must come with unfunded mandates than to increase federal taxes to cover their cost.

The former insures that political wrangling at the state level over how to make it look like the other political party was “really at fault” for mandatory tax increases from federal mandates will both disgust and eventually numb the citizens to the real problem which is with their federal representation. The latter option would quickly result in a change in federal representation and a quick end to the programs that are increasingly consuming the citizens’ assets against their wills. In this light it is easy to see why the unfunded mandate is the method of choice for the federal politician.

“But aren’t you talking about nullification with resolutions like these?” you might be asking. Quite simply the answer is no. Interposition is not nullification. Nullification is a complex political activity. It requires the calling of a special state convention independent of the state legislature, the selection of delegates to represent the people of the state and debate of the issue followed by a vote of those delegates based on whatever criteria that convention develops on whether or not to declare the federal legislation null and void within the confines of that particular state.  Interposition is an act of a state legislative body saying simply “you can’t do that here because you don’t have the constitutional authority.”

Some might be saying “you just want to use this as an excuse to start a secession movement, don’t you?” The answer is obviously no. Interposition and nullification are both remedies: one legislative, the other political, for grievances against federal usurpation of state authority and individual liberty. They are specifically designed to eliminate the possibility of  secession, not make it more likely. No one who thinks is thinking of secession.

What sovereignty resolutions like HCR 11 are about is the re-balancing of the state-federal government equation. It is a re-distribution of authority, already constitutionally restricted to the states and local bodies, back to its intended delegates.

Commentary, Economics, Biblical Worldview

A Financial Idiot’s Guide To The Economy

The Sinking Dollar

How do you tell if a 6,500 Dow is good or bad?

I know, you tell by whether or not you’re making or losing money.  But that’s not the answer I’m looking for.

We live in interesting times.  How is your perspective on things such as the state of the economy?

To help you put things in perspective, in 1987 there was a stock market crash.  The Dow Jones did not fall as far as other stock markets in the world.  But this was a “correction” that was apparently necessary.  Just a little while after that a recession took place and the then Prime Minister of Australia, Paul Keating, referred to this as “the recession we had to have.”

Well, recessions are not always comfortable events for many people.  But for those of who have been around long enough, a 6,500 point Dow at one time was a significant event.  It was not considered a recessionary number.  In fact it was a boom-time number.

Now, a decade or more later, everyone bemoans and complains about a 6,500 point Dow.  Why?

Because of the starting point that is used.

Complaints about the market assume that the starting point of the assessment is the “right” one.  Not too many commentators complained about the increase in the numbers.  After all, too many people were making money off the higher numbers.

Is this you?  If so, you have a false perspective on the numbers.  You have been conditioned into thinking that increasing numbers is better for you while falling numbers are worse.

This is an idiotic perspective.  Here’s why.   Prices are a ratio between money and goods.  All things being equal, as economists like to remind us, if you have ten gold coins on one hand, and ten bright red apples in the other, the average price is one gold coin each.  Change one hand to 20 apples, then the average price is half a gold coin each (or two for the price of one).  But if you doubled the number of coins while keeping the 10 apples, then the new average price is double what it was before.

Now ask yourself this question:  Under which circumstance are you better off?  Higher prices ($20:10) or lower prices ($10:20)?

This is not rocket science.  This was the older view of economic theory until a perverted group of people decided price theory ruined their ideas of how an economy ought to function, so they either ignored price theory altogether (as C.H. Douglas does in his Social Credit theory), or changed the way price theory is discussed if it is discussed at all (as John Maynard Keynes.)  For more details, see my book Baptized Inflation, available here.

If you are going to maintain any part of the free-market system, you must maintain price theory and the underlying assumptions of free exchange.  If you did all this in the past, you would have argued for a halt to the increasing prices of these past decades.  Rising prices the most important indicator of a manipulated economy.

But many people have instead ignored the warning signs that higher prices indicate, and with a “since you can’t change or beat the system, we might as well join it” attitude have remained silent while the economy has apparently boomed as indicated by the higher numbers.

The trouble is, your price theory when it is right, tells you the exact opposite.  The economy is booming when prices fall.  The GNP maxes out when all the money is allocated to the purchase of goods and services.  The only way it can increase is if there is more money around.  Thus, a rising GNP is not necessarily a sign of health.  It may be a sign of impending disaster.

So, where has your mind been in these recent decades of expanding prices, booming markets, and now the falling indices?  Where is your starting point to make the evaluation if the times are good or bad?  What, in other words, are the criteria you’re willing to use in your assessment of the economy?

More importantly, will your criteria have at its center the idea of just weights and measures — the foundation of a stable, God-honoring economy, and the relevant theory of prices that flows out of that foundation?

If you’re waiting for the next recovery, like many people, you’ve missed the point.  This is the recovery phase now — the return of the market to lower prices. Why on earth would you want prices to go up again?  This is nuts.

So if you don’t mind me asking, what are you waiting for?

God bless you in your activities for His kingdom.   Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button.

The Vote, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

How Not To Think About The Electoral College

This entry is part 4 of 5 in the series Federalism, Democracy And Presidential Elections

Voting MachineAn article in The Oregonian for March 12, 2009 has one of the most surreal headlines this author can recall.

“Oregon House votes to end the Electoral College” screams the headline. All efforts to find other gems like Oregon Senate Passes Bill Rescinding The Law of Gravity; Awaits Governor’s Signature With Austronaut Pen Designed For Weightlessness or Perpetual Motion Machines Now Possible As Oregon Legislature Repeals Laws of Thermodynamics came to nought. Apparently there is still at least some sense of the impossible in Oregon journalism.

Not to be too snarky, but the Oregon legislature has no more authority to end the Electoral College (EC) than it does to create the laws mentioned repealing basic laws of physics. Journalists (not to mention editors, a problem noted earlier in this series of articles) should have at least a general working knowledge of the basic design and operation of the Electoral College before being turned loose to distort the facts of stories and misinform the public on the subject.

What are the problems with the article exactly? Here’s a list-

  1. The Oregon House voted today to end the electoral college system in favor of the popular vote in electing a U.S. president-

    WRONG! The Oregon House voted to surrender it’s sovereign authority to choose electors pledged to a specific presidential candidate. Oregon already awards its EC votes on the basis of the popular vote- within Oregon. The proposed legislation would ignore the will of Oregon voters  and awards its states precious EC votes on the basis of the national popular vote winner.

  2. Four states have endorsed legislation to ban the current system, which awards all the electoral college votes in a state to one candidate-

    Where, oh where to start with this mish-mash of disinformation? First, states have no constitutional authority to “ban the current system.” What they can do is pass a law thumbing their collective noses at their own state’s popular vote to impose a tyrannical system that would hand over EC authority to choose a specific candidate to the the 10-15 largest cities in the United States. They can perform this supremely irresponsible act because states are guaranteed nearly unlimited constitutional authority to choose presidential electors in any way that suits the state. But, legally speaking, they must still appoint presidential electors. Thus, the claim that the legislature passed a bill to  “ban the system” is an egregious display of journalistic buffoonery.

    Second, not all states award their precious EC votes on the basis of the popular vote, at least not entirely. Maine and Nebraska award their share of EC votes representing their members of the Federal House of Representatives on the basis of the popular vote within that specific congressional district. The EC votes representing the 2 federal Senators are awarded on the basis of the popular vote statewide. This most fair and representative of  systems insures that the cities cannot overwhelm the vote of the countryside and a truly proportional result is achieved.

  3. “For Oregon to join this interstate compact would move the nation one step closer to making sure every vote counts in presidential elections,” said Rep. Ben Cannon, D-Portland, who carried the bill-

    Except for the voters of Oregon whose explicit wishes may very well be completely ignored in favor of the combined votes cast in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Atanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cleveland, San Francisco, etc. Rep. Cannon’s quote is possibly one of the most cynical and asinine utterances we’ve seen since…well…since the last presidential election cycle.

  4. The National Popular Vote would take effect when and if enough states equaling 270 electoral votes — a majority –approve the legislation to join the multi-state compact-

    How about some details here? What does this “multi-state compact” say exactly? What are the details of the agreement? Can states withdraw? If so- how? If not- why? What happens if, for instance, Oregon voters give presidential candidate “A” 60% of the popular vote but the rest of the country give presidential candidate “B” 50.01% of the popular vote in a squeaker with obvious fraud and Oregon then awards all of their electoral votes to candidate B on the basis of the compact? What if Oregon voters strenuously or even violently object to their electoral will being thwarted? Worse yet, what if the 50.01% of the vote was completely dependent on the votes cast in a single large state, the popular votes of the remaining states in the compact going to presidential candidate “A?” Has anyone asked these questions? How about it journalists?

Frankly, this effort appears to be one of the most poorly thought out attempts to circumvent the Constitution that has come along in some time. No one seems to be think through the possible scenarios and no one seems to be taking the time to examine the original intent of the EC, beyond talking in platitudes about its being “outmoded” (and stumbling badly or suddenly remembering an appointment when asked to be specific) and the like.

Last summer this author had the privilege of teaching a class on the EC at Camp American. They  will be posting some of the more relevant sections as class samples in the next few days and we will post some of them here to illustrate that while the EC is not perfect it is most certainly superior to the grossly  ill-considered and irrational reaction to the 2000 election outcome that is the National Popular Vote movement.

Commentary, Biblical Worldview

…For Such A Time As This

Queen EstherThis author doesn’t normally waste too much time thinking about or paying much attention to what goes on in Hollywood, except during the once-a-year trip there for a conference when attempting to ignore the place is nearly impossible due to having to drive in it. But once in a while our attention is drawn to someone or something that happens there that might actually have a positive impact on the way Christians think (or whether or not they do think) about culture.

I was confronted in one of these rare cases today. In an article in Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood Blog by Cheryl Felicia Rhodes , The Actress In The Glass Booth,  she demonstrates the impact that a single individual, especially one that has earned the respect of those being addressed, can have on a seemingly entrenched culture. Like most confronted with similar situations, Ms. Rhodes was at first reluctant to speak out. She feared for her professional status and chose to keep quiet about a virtually constant barrage  of rude, insulting behavior and blasphemous speech being perpetrated in her agent’s office while she was there for professional purposes. The agent was unaware of Ms. Rhodes political sympathies and apparently assumed that everyone that would come in contact with his agency would be in ideological lockstep with his views.

Like the biblical Queen Esther, Rhodes spoke out at just the right time in just the right way. She risked being blacklisted (don’t kid yourselves; the Hollywood blacklist has existed for decades- its target? “Conservatives”. Hollywood “conservatives” except for a very few very big stars  are forced to keep their politics to themselves if they want to work. Hollywood insiders deny this. They are liars. Hence the Breitbart blog.) from her chosen profession. She kept her cool and didn’t break into a shrill rant, decrying the obvious bigotry of her agent and his employees. She went to the agent privately, explained in a reasonable manner what her objections were and especially that she had been personally insulted by things the agent had said and let it go at that. While the agent claimed that he was shocked- SHOCKED!- to find that there were any political posters in his office and indicated that he had never thought that someone might not agree with his personal opinions it obviously made him think about his actions and those of his employees.

Ms. Rhodes made a decision to speak out in a manner that comports with the Matthew 18 methodology for bringing someone who has stepped out of line back into line. She didn’t necessarily say so but that’s what she did. And the fact that she had a 19 year long professional working relationship with this man who obviously respected her professional abilities to the point that he was willing to accept the possibility that the manner in which he expounded his opinions might be insulting or otherwise offputting to people he knows well and respects (not to mention makes his living with).

This is a lesson that many in conservative circles need to be cognizant of. In order to re-claim culture you must first have influence in some specific area of culture. Influence comes with respect which comes from ability and a willingness to work and sacrifice for the cause of Christ. Influence does not come from showing up unannounced at places of business, demanding that things be done your way “or else!” then making highly visible and embarrassing demonstrations to “bring attention to the problem (not that demonstrations don’t need to be made sometimes- after the more subtle approach has failed).” Every conservative and Christian, no matter what his vocation and avocation,  should be working to build up the kind of capital that Cheryl Rhodes has built and each should be willing to spend it when directed by God to do so in the manner demonstrated by her example.