Category Archives: Commentary

Taxation, Education, Executive Usurpation, Private Property, Commentary, Economics, Book Review

Hamilton’s Curse Chapter 8–Poisoned Fruits of “Hamilton’s Republic”

This entry is part 5 of 9 in the series Hamilton's Curse

HamiltonsCurse“Conservatives who genuinely believe in limited government are not generally exposed to the Hamilton who at the Constitutional Convention called for a king-like permanent president and who subsequently dedicated himself to undermining the limits on governmental power laid out in the very Constitution he championed in the Federalist Papers.”  This quote from page 171 of the book Hamilton’s Curse is a bit of an understatement, as most Americans, conservative and otherwise, are generally exposed to the results of Hamilton’s efforts in our government, our systems of education, business and finance, to name but a few.  The bowl of Hamilton’s poisoned fruit is spilling over with plenty.

As a matter of fact, the 1930’s saw the implementation of Hamiltonian ideology in a key area:  education.  Charles Beard, et.al., introduced the “economic basis” theory of government, which has since poisoned generations of students, policymakers and jurists with this pernicious theory.  This “economic basis” theorem is pure Hamiltonian, and is a consequence of the shift that happened in this country from 1913 onward (with the implementation of the income tax and the Federal Reserve laying the groundwork for a wholesale restructuring of our form of government.)

DiLorenzo lays out the case for the interface of big business interests supporting big government intervention programs (think the Bush/Obama “stimulus” packages and your on the right track); a laundry list of federal “welfare” to business interests that caps out at a neat $90 billion per year.  Other studies have shown it to be greater than that in some instances.

Couple this with a “justice” system at the federal level (Supreme Court) who from 1937-1995 couldn’t find a single piece of federal legislation to be unconstitutional, and you get the complete Hamiltonian package of an “energetic” government with the “fuel” of commercial interests to drive it onward.

This is an amazing record for a body that routinely passes unconstitutional legislation (and did during that period too).  The key to this amazing record is a wildly broad reading of the interstate commerce clause which basically posits that pretty much any form of human behavior has relationships to interstate commerce, and can therefore be regulated by federal statute.

So what are some of the fruits of this poisonous philosophy of “government uber alles?”  Here’s just a representative sample of the results:

–the use of federal grants to states as a control mechanism to kill states rights (think ‘highway funds’ or ‘crime prevention grants’ and you see the link);

–the use of the Incorporation doctrine (through the 14th Amendment) to apply the strictures on the federal government through the Bill of Rights to the states as a restriction on state sovereignty;

–adoption of the “higher law theory” of jurisprudence:  allowing the courts to sidestep the rules of the Constitution in order to apply novel legal (but extra-constitutional) theories;

–the use of executive orders by the President to control or seize power, thus allowing the Executive to act as dictator;

–manipulation of the monetary supply by the Federal Reserve in order to create economic instability as a precursor to radical shifts in power through legislative enactments;

–attaching citizens to the federal government, tying bondholders and others to a primary interest in the growth of government.  Woods illustrates it this way: “According to economist Gary Shilling, 52.6 percent of Americans in 2007 received significant assistance of some kind from the federal government.” and;

–creating an international mercantilist empire, the needs of which lead to agressive expansions of military force and presence.

These are just some of the ways the fruit of Hamilton’s philosophy has ripened (and rotted on the vine).  Woods sums up the chapter’s theme:  “The final characteristic of empires, according to Morley, is that they are sold to the public in grandiose terms about spreading blessings for all mankind, when in reality their main purpose is to allow those who pull the strings of the empire to accumulate money and power.”

Hamilton would be proud of seeing the modern results of his efforts.

Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Book Review, Taxation, Public Policy Radar

Hamilton’s Curse- The Hamiltonian Revolution of 1913

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

The American Revolution (incorrectly so-called, at least between 1775-83) didn’t end with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Once the British were defeated the real American Revolution, the internal battle over the form of the American government would take, began. The real revolution was fought between conservatives (the deliberately mis-named “Anti-Federalists” whom we will refer to as the “true federalists”), who originally wanted to retain but amend the Articles of Confederation and a group of nationalists (whose press-savvy leadership adopted the misnomer “Federalists” who we refer to in this article by their true view- “nationalists”) who desperately wanted to eliminate the state governments as sovereign entities and tried to use the Constitutional Convention, unsuccessfully, to do it. Just to clarify- there were Federalists who were true federalists, mostly in the south. That’s why we use the term “nationalists” instead of “Federalists” to differentiate these two groups using the same party label.

Since the nationalists had failed to eliminate the state governments at the convention they devised a plan under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton to subjugate them by adopting a new constitutional hermeneutic clearly not supported by the text of the document. The hermeneutic they adopted said, in effect, whatever authority is not expressly forbidden to the federal government by the Constitution was permitted to it, including the powers reserved to the states and to the people alone. And the method they chose to impose this hermeneutic on the new federal government was to pack the judiciary branch with its adherents.

The battle to subjugate the states see-sawed for 126 years. From splits over a national bank and foreign policy during the Washington administration to Jefferson’s “revolution” of 1800 to the War of 1812, the Monroe Doctrine, Jackson’s “Tariff of Abominations,” the nullification and secession crises, battle over the Bank of the United States, the Missouri Compromise, the Mexican War, “Manifest Destiny,” the Kansas-Nebraska Act, “Bleeding Kansas,” the Dred Scott decision, the “Secret Six,” John Brown’s raid and state treason trial were all merely the warm-ups to the real showdown between nationalists and true federalists over the Constitution and its proper interpretation- the War Between The States. The military victory of the nationalist northern Union over the federalist southern Confederation seemed to answer the question of constitutional interpretation and the nature of the Union by force. But questions answered by force of arms are rarely actually settled.

Even after a victory by force of arms the nationalists realized that there still existed in the language of the Constitution elements of state sovereignty and stiff controls on the growth of size in the federal government in the form of the minting and value of money and restriction of direct taxation (like income taxes). Nationalists knew that those parts of the Constitution that covered these restrictions intact could not be pushed aside by nationalist judicial reinterpretation, something Thomas Jefferson warned against –

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

Nationalists knew this because even a Supreme court packed with their cronies simply could not create by construction an argument that made explicit prohibition of direct taxation impermissible. That was demonstrated when the Supreme court declared the first two federal income taxes unconstitutional in 1872 and 1896. They just couldn’t get the job done by simply declaring they had the power to pass a tax and attempting to justify it by manipulating the meaning of the clear words of the Constitution.

Nationalists also knew that they had to stop the 10th amendment to the Constitution from being used to stifle federal usurpation of state and local authority as had been done before 1861. The only way to accomplish this was to remove the state governments’ representation in the federal Congress. They had to strip the authority to choose Senators from the state governments and place that authority in the hands of a more easily manipulated body with a short memory and nationalize it as much as possible. They were creating a super-representative with a term length guaranteed to keep the average voter from remembering that a Senator was a profligate tax-and-spender for the first 41/2 years of his term, especially if he supported some showy but meaningless legislation that allowed him to claim that he had been a “true fiscal conservative” his whole term (sound familiar?) during the final 18 months of it.

Last but certainly not least, nationalists understood that their grip on power would be tenuous and their ability to manipulate the populace would be limited without complete control of money and credit. They needed a national bank with the ability to nationalize interest rates and a fiat money supply which could be inflated or deflated to help manipulate voters, especially around presidential election years.

DiLorenzo explains in this chapter how all of this was accomplished within the span of a single year- 1913. He also explains that this was not the result of recent “progressive” tinkering as some historians have claimed but the result of deliberate and concerted efforts by men dedicated to accumulating and centralizing power in a national government at the expense of state and local governments over more than a century.

He also explains that the movement has had several incarnations during that period. Hamilton and his followers were advocates for a high tariff to “protect infant American industry” and an American form of Mercantilism.

Later, Henry Clay modified Hamilton’s vision into his “American System” of corporate welfare for road and canal building (which bankrupted several states, including Lincoln’s Illinois) and other “vital” industries, a national bank to “create credit” for these schemes and centralization of power in Washington, especially the power to tax.

Lincoln, calling himself Clay’s political heir, then further modified and implemented Clay’s system by claiming that the federal government had the “right” to keep states from seceding from the union by force of arms, thus stripping the 10th amendment of any real meaning, and tacitly claiming that it was necessary for northern corporate welfare that southern tariffs continue to be collected. Since he no longer had southern revenues to pay for the war to coerce them back into the union, he forced a graduated income tax (including withholding) through Congress claiming that it was constitutional because it was an “indirect direct tax,” making a mockery of the constitutional prohibition against direct taxation without apportionment.

I have included some media to illustrate what is meant about how nationalists think about the Constitution. Especially illustrative of the ultra-nationalist “living document” theory of constitutional interpretation is this conversation between Judge Andrew Napolitano and Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) on the constitutionality of the federal health care law. Napolitano is taking the strict constitutional constructionist position (and dropping the ball on federal intervention in education matters).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Xcqp46A64[/youtube]

In this article, Republican party “big tent” proponent, self-titled “conservative” and  naturalized American citizen born in Canada, David Frum, completely fails to make the case that the health care law is somehow constitutional. He does, however, expose his position as a nationalist in the Hamilton-Webster-Lincoln tradition as described earlier by adhering to the arguments stemming from the constitutional position described for that group of thinkers.

By the late 19th century it became clear to nationalists that they still had one obstacle in their path; the Constitution. The language in certain sections of the constitution simply could not be adequately de-constructed by re-interpretation and changes HAD to be made.

Hence the concerted efforts by nationalists to get the 16th and 17th amendments passed. Unfortunately, there was such a complete lack of understanding among the citizenry of what money and its purpose and function were, let alone the constitutional restrictions connected with the coining of it and the regulation of its value, that there was very little protest when the Federal Reserve System, a privately owned and operated national banking system, was created by law in complete violation of the Constitution, in the same year that the 16th and 17th amendments were finally passed. Thus, the last vestiges of the original American Republic  disappeared in a single year. The Revolution of 1913 completed what was started in 1861-5. The conversion of the United States from a federated republic of autonomous states ruled by law under a Constitution which limited the powers of the federation government to a single government entity free from limitations of its power by decree of its own courts and driven by the “will of the people” as manipulated by government/media for the “common good.”

DiLorenzo explains how this all took place in the course of a few short months and what the devastating results have been in the years since.

Commentary, Satire

Enviro-dolt Has “Animal House” Moment In An Attempt To Make Some Sort of Point

“I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.”– Otter in Animal House.

The opening line of the story on the Fox News website is the first indicator of  the depths of nit-wittery that some are willing to engage in to draw attention to some issue they clearly haven’t thought through to its logical endpoint.

A British endurance swimmer summoned the peak of his powers to become the first person to swim under the summit of Mt. Everest, Sky News reported Sunday.


Needless to say, this was an incredibly dangerous stunt.  According to the article

He came close to drowning during test swims for the event amid bouts of altitude sickness on the Pumori Lake, which sits 17,000 feet above sea level.

Why would someone undertake such an incredibly dangerous stunt? Unlike athletic attention hoarders of old who did “adventurous” things because they were a challenge, not to mention potentially lucrative if the effort was successful, this dare-devil ostensibly has a higher purpose in mind. As Mr. Lewis Gordon Pugh (the swimmer, known as the “Human Polar Bear”) put it-

“I have seen glaciers in the Arctic, the Alps, Central Africa, Antarctica and the Himalayas — and it’s the same story everywhere,” he said.

“Most glaciers are melting away. The glaciers in the Himalayas are not just ice. They are a lifeline — they provide water to approximately two billion people.”

Did you catch that? “The glaciers in the Himalayas are not just ice… They provide water to approximately two billion people” Yes, indeed they do. And how do they provide water to those two billion people? BY MELTING!

The same as they have every spring for thousands of years since the glaciers first formed.

Yeah, yeah, we know. His point is that there is more melting now than in the recent past. Apparently, Mr. Pugh is completely unfamiliar with (or in denial about) climate records that indicate that glaciers worldwide have advanced and retreated, more dramatically and at much more regular intervals than science once thought. There have been warm periods where they did not exist at all and cold periods where they covered vast expanses of the continents. Man didn’t cause these advances and retreats, just as he is not now causing them.

But, of course that admission would make his effort completely pointless, wouldn’t it? Mr. Pugh has a faith in anthropogenic global warming and no form of proof to the contrary can shake that faith. Furthermore, Mr. Pugh has chosen to become the modern day equivalent of a Flagellant, a fanatical sect of Christians who would ritually whip themselves in public until they bled as a form of penance; it was a particularly nasty form of mortification of the flesh.

This author has no information regarding the state of Mr. Pugh’s faith or his lack of it. But we would be willing to wager that Mr. Pugh would treat the stories of the Flagellants with derision and contempt, judging them as ignorant religious fanatics. Perhaps that is the deepest irony of this entire incident.

Education, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

Powerful Forces Now Calling for a Constitutional Convention

1 Comment
This entry is part 5 of 8 in the series Ohio Con Con Call

April 27, 2010

By Tom DeWeese

In December, 2008, my American Policy Center (APC) led a fight to stop Ohio from becoming the 33rd state to call for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) (The Institute For Principled Policy was the first to discover the joint resolution calling for the Con Con and alerted other allied groups including APC- ed). In the 1980’s 32 other states had passed Con Con resolutions for the specific purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment. Had that resolution passed the Ohio legislature, we would have been just one state away from such an event. We argued then that one cannot call a Con Con to discuss just one issue. Once a Con Con is in place, there is no controlling the agenda.

We fought to stop the Con Con because of fear. Today there is massive ignorance among the American people about the Constitution. Worse, there are powerful forces who consider that document to be antiquated and a hindrance to their vision of an all powerful government. These things, and more, make today the worst possible time in our nation’s history to mess with the greatest governing document of all time.

We stopped the effort in 2008, but the battle is on again as an even more determined plan is under way to gather support from the nation’s governors and state legislatures to pass Con Con resolutions. Again, this is not the work of wild-eyed leftists intending to gut the Bill of Rights. This is an effort by conservative legislators who are alarmed by the growing power of government.

The new plan making its rounds in state capitals is much more ambitious than the 2008 Ohio resolution to simply discuss a balanced budget. Now an entire package of ten amendments to the Constitution is being proposed and promoted to state legislatures through a powerful and well funded campaign.

The main groups pushing for a Con Con are the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative association of state legislators; and a new group calling itself the 10 Amendments for Freedom, Inc, chaired by William Fruth, President of POLICOM Corporation, which provides independent economics research

While ALEC is working behind the scenes to build support for a Con Con among state legislators, Fruth and his 10 Amendments for Freedom group has moved into the public eye to sell the Con Con idea to mainstream America. In March, Fruth kicked off his campaign by mailing out a slick, expensive package to conservative leaders and to over 7,000 state legislators. The package contained a book written by Fruth entitled “10 Amendments for Freedom.”

In the book, Fruth lays out an argument for the need for, not just a balanced budget amendment, but a total package of 10 Amendments to the Constitution including, the balanced budget; repay the national debt in 50 years; government transparency; line item veto; term limits for Congress; control illegal immigration; English-speaking nation; no foreign law shall bind us; government restraint (preventing the Federal Government from growth beyond constitutional powers; and finally, an amendment declaring “in God we trust.” Of course, there is no doubt that these amendments have great appeal for most conservatives, answering their growing frustration and fear of government expansion.

Arguing that Congress “will not likely take any action to cause the 10 Amendments for Freedom to become law of the land,” Fruth calls for all ten amendments to be packaged by state legislatures to be passed in a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. His package would include specific instructions to Congress as to how the delegates would be selected and outlining rules that would be enforced to assure only the ten amendments would be voted on.

Arguing the advantages of the Con Con, Fruth says, “Can you imagine the excitement in the nation leading up to the Convention? Schools will have to dust off history books which teach how our nation was founded. Many people for the first time will read the Constitution. The issue will be discussed at length, exposing what happened to our country over the years.”

Fruth then scoffs at our fears of a Con Con and efforts to stop it. He says, “Simply, it is not reasonable to assume there can be enough delegates sent to a convention who will propose amendments which ‘repeal the Bill of Rights’ or ‘legalize socialism.’ Even if they did, the amendments would never be ratified,” concludes Fruth.

Anticipating opposition to his scheme for a Con Con, Fruth says that those who opposed the effort in the 1980’s, to call for a Con Con for a balanced budget amendment, told the American people that the delegates at the convention can “change the Constitution any way they want.” Argues Fruth, “We know that is not true.”  He says, “it is both irresponsible and disingenuous for anyone to publicly say that the convention can change the Constitution.” And he says, “any recommended changes must be approved by three-fourths of the states.”

These are the arguments now being presented to every single state legislator and Governor in the nation as Fruth and ALEC put on a full-court-press to call for a Constitutional Convention. While the intention may be an honest desire to reign in the power of government, the fact remains that every one of these arguments for a Con Con is wrong.

The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to discuss only a specific issue like a balanced budget – or the whole package offered by the 10 Amendments for Freedom group — is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts, the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table and the delegates can take a “scalpel” (pen) to it and change any section or even the entire document if they desire.

What proof do I offer? Here are the exact words of Article V of the Constitution: “…on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, (Congress) shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which…shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

Article V gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide. It does not matter if the states passed resolutions as Fruth proposes, containing absolute guidelines for delegate selection. The Constitution provides no rules – it is up to Congress to decide how delegates are selected and what qualifications they will have. The guidelines proposed by Fruth carry absolutely no weight in the final process – even if every state passes the exact same resolution including those rules. Again, Article V simply says that when 34 states have called for a Con Con the Congress “shall call a Convention…” Period.

And there is more legal proof in support of the argument that delegates are not bound by any instructions or resolutions from the states.

First, of course, is the famous letter written by former Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger to Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum. In the letter Burger writes, “…there 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 confederated Congress…”

And there is more legal documentation proving that Congress or the states can control the agenda of a Con Con. Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. The following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Con Con. (From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S. 9) “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vesting in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) 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 (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)” The footnote numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made. (1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v Fredericks (11 So. 472); (2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v Hill (14N.W. 738); (3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v Jackson (6 W. Va. 613); (4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v Autry (91 p. 193); (5) Texas (1912) Cox v Robison (150 S.W. 1149).

Clearly, the position put forth by Fruth, and ALEC, that state legislatures can pass a resolution dictating the rules of the Con Con is simply wrong.

Delegate selection is another dangerous trap waiting to spring. Again, Article V provides no guidelines. The process is left for Congress to decide. That means the current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. Under the rules that Congress could set, States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates, then what would be the method? Again, Congress will decide. Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?

Or could it be a plebiscite – a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement,” allow all citizens, and potentially foreign nationals (illegal immigrants) to vote for this “special election?” There are no guidelines and anything is possible.

And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation” of all special interest groups – NGO’s? Will some be excluded because of “extreme” convictions? Of course, according to the Federal Department of Homeland Security, “extreme convictions” includes those who want to protect the Constitution. So, what will the criteria for eligible delegates be? All of these choices would be made by Congress – that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

But again, none of that will matter, according to those calling for the Con Con.  William Fruth argues that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two-thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.

There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation – that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time performing commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, some delegations were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.

However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.

Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. These are the people who will decide the rules for the convention, including delegate selection. Keep in mind, these are the people who just managed to ram through a health “reform” bill that the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed. These are the same people who managed to pass the bailout package opposed (according to polls) by almost 80% of the American people.

Do you trust them to follow the rules dictated by state legislatures? Do you think Pelosi and Reid would pass up an opportunity to set their own rules to guarantee a Constitution to their liking?  Do you think for one minute that they would take any steps to protect our Constitution? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to assure our own laws are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. Barack Obama has expressed his belief that the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events. Pelosi and her cohorts are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, once a Con Con is called, delegates (picked though a Pelosi process) can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.

And there is more. Concerning the argument that no matter what the delegates produce, the states still must ratify it – thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact: The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land – until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, suddenly they needed only two-thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was used – even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document produced by the Con Con said ratification only required a vote of Congress – or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection by the states.

And rather than an excitement in the nation with a rebirth of study of the Constitution, as Furth envisions, there would in fact be a long, hard, ugly and expensive battle over the process, guaranteed to leave the nation split along ideological lines. It’s not difficult to envision civil unrest, riots or even civil war as a result of any re-writing of the current Constitution.

These are the reasons why I, and many others around the nation, adamantly oppose a Constitutional Convention at this time. We fear a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled. And if the worst happens, there is no guarantee that we can stop ratification. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. That new document, as precedence has shown, could be enforced without ratification by the states. Remember, our current Constitution was not ratified by the rules set forth in the Articles of Confederation, but by an Article V that wasn’t yet law of the land. Now that the precedence is there, it can happen again. The Pelosi’s of the nation, proven to have the power and the will to twist any issue or initiative as they desire, are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a Con Con.

No doubt there is great need for several of the amendments Fruth and his group propose. But he seems to ignore the fact that there is a powerful, organized opposition. Again, I call your attention to the continuing battle over health care. That’s child’s play compared to what will happen in a Con Con. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times? Every freedom-loving American must stand up against this misguided call for a Con Con. Tell your state legislators NO.

Reprinted by permission of Tom DeWeese

Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online, for more information click here.

Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary

An Open Letter To Rep. John Boccieri

To the editor:

Though I address this letter to the editor, I am really addressing this to our 16th district congressman, Representative John Boccieri.  Congressman, it is well known that you first voted in opposition to the recently passed health care bill, but then shortly before the final vote changed your position and voted for this bill.  You have released some public rationale for your change, but since your vote was such a crucial vote in this very important decision affecting many of us in your district I am requesting that you publicly explain some things to your constituents.   Would you please address these issues?  I am sure many others share these questions and concerns:

  1. The administration is calling this health care bill a transition, what President Obama called a “fundamental changing of America” with more to follow.  Could you please explain philosophically what this means to you and how you want America to “fundamentally” be changed?


  2. In supporting this Bill, I assume you believe that health care is a fundamental right that is owed to every American, could you then explain what the basis for this fundamental right is since I do not see it in the Constitution or in Natural Law?


  3. Socialism is defined as central government control or oversight of economics, I’ve read and taught such socialists as Robert Owen, Marx, and Stalin and it looks like socialism to me; do you understand and accept it as socialized medicine, why or why not?


  4. Can you explain how this Senate version of the health care bill is a significant improvement over the one that you voted against in the House?


  5. Since you were a former state house representative how do you expect the financially strapped State of Ohio to pay for the loss of Medicare funding for Ohio that will occur with this Bill?


  6. The Senate version you voted for supports that the government should pay for abortions, that those of us who are pro-life should subsidize abortion.  Can we now assume that you support tax-payer funded abortion?  How do you reconcile that to your Roman Catholic faith?


  7. Physicians are divided on this bill.  Some reports say that as many as 30% of general practice physicians may resign their practices with the activation of this bill.  Can you explain to us how we can increase and improve medical care when there will be more patients and fewer general practice physicians?


  8. Section 52.10 of the Health Care Bill has a provision in it that allows the government to establish a “ready reserve” private army.   Why is this hidden in a health care bill?  As a person with a military background do you really support the establishment of a new private army?


  9. The health care bill has inserted a segment into it that removes the oversight of student loans from the banks into the direct hands of the government.   There are good reasons on both sides of this issue.  The question is, why do you support this hidden in a health care bill without permitting any transparent public debate on the issue?

Thank you for your kind attention to these issues.

Mark Hamilton.

Dr. Hamilton is an associate professor of philosophy at Ashland University where he has taught for 28 years.  He is also the NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative at Ashland University.  He currently serves as the board chairman of the Institute for Principled Policy

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

Diagnosis on Health Care Vote – A Symptom of a Sick and Dying Nation

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

The despicable health care vote of March 21, 2010 is not the fault of Barack Obama or the democrats. It’s not the fault of republicans for squandering twelve years of congressional power on federal expansion. It’s not the fault of MSNBC, the SEIU, ACORN, or the G.E. Corporation. It’s not the fault of the American public for electing Obama in 2008, or their collective 70% approval rating at the onset of his term. (It’s not as if everything was fine in 2008 and then suddenly turned south in 2009). It’s not even the fault of the public education system for finally producing a generation of dumbed-down Americans that would gleefully elect a cadre of radical leftists to run the federal government. In fact, this is the exact result one would expect from a sick and dying nation.

It’s easy to curse the darkness and start targeting the above villains that have brought us to this socialist storm brewing on the horizon. It’s easy to treat each of these evils as if they are the real problem, endlessly plugging holes in the dyke only to bolster the flood waters. It’s easy to play “what if” – if only we’d elected McCain – if only the tea party were more organized – if only the media would stop being biased – if only Congress would heed the will of the people – if only the republican party would get its act together, etc. Maybe it’s time to stop trying to treat the symptoms and tackle the disease itself.

What then is the root cause? Why is America sick and dying, with that process now having been accelerated by the advent of a European-style socialized heath care system? It really is a simple answer – THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST IN AMERICA HAS FAILED. The church has failed for decades to be salt and light in the culture, and here we are scratching are heads wondering why the average American doesn’t “get it”. The fact is most Christians don’t get it either. Polling shows that at best, ten percent of Christians evangelize the lost. And a substantial percentage of that evangelism assumes that we still live in the nominally Christianized society of the 19th century. Couple that with the absolute lack of worldview training and discipleship, and the lack of doctrine and biblical literacy in the average evangelical church. Then couple that with the frightening trends among Christian youth in America, a group that almost monolithically rejects absolute truth (to say nothing of the secular youth). This combination makes one begin to realize that socialized medicine is only the beginning of sorrows in America.

Socialized medicine has been decades in the making, it was inevitable. As societal rejection of God increases every year, the state must rise in His place. In fact, the Marxists have telegraphed their plans for the last 100 years, why are we surprised? The church in America has failed to the be the storehouse and beacon of truth in our society. Now a majority of Americans decide for themselves what truth is, and are dumbfounded when the state passes draconian legislation against the consent of the governed. As William Penn stated over 300 years ago: Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants. Outside of a moral society based on Christianity, the principle of the consent of the governed no longer operates. The sinful nature of human beings cannot co-exist with true liberty, the state must fill the void.

Even still, there is much deserved backlash against the passage of so-called health reform. Now there is a “conservative ascendency” in America as people look for a GOP takeover of Congress in 2010 to lead us to the promised land. There other movements afoot as well – Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty and of course the loose coalition of Tea Party groups. However, we had a republican congress from 1994-2006. The anarchist and godless French revolution of 1789 only produced more tyranny. Secular political solutions will at best produce short term victories, delaying the inevitable result of a sick nation – DEATH. Lost people are dead spiritually. Yes the proposed repeal of this legislation and the reassertion of tenth amendment state’s rights are noble endeavors. However, unless the collective spirit of America is awakened, the nation will still riding the long, black train to the graveyard – it will just take a little longer to get there. Only the power of Christ can accomplish the miraculous, and only God’s absolute truth can sustain a free and vibrant nation.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?What good is liberty to dead people?

Mark 8:36

Will the church rise up once again as did in the Great Awakening to shine the light of truth on America, and offer real solutions that will reverberate throughout eternity? Or will she continue to build buildings, play rock concerts, reject sound doctrine, fail to evangelize the lost and disciple the found, while retreating further from the culture? The church has a golden opportunity to disciple the nation is true liberty, and yet she is allowing secular movements to fill the void – much like education has ceded to government schools. If the church will not tell the truth in society, then who will? We are endowed by God with our rights, and yet Americans reject that God in favor of human saviors and self pleasure. Americans therefore have no right to complain as those rights are stolen right before our eyes. As Josh McDowell has pointed out, this could well the be the last Christian generation in America. If that is the case, it will also be the last generation to have any memory of a free society. Government health care will be just the beginning of the nation’s death throes. Is the church ready for CPR yet?

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, The Church, Economics, Biblical Worldview

HEALTH CARE: A Biblical Critique – part 1

This entry is part 1 of 1 in the series HEALTH CARE: A Biblical Critique

Dr. Mark Hamilton is  Chairman of the Board of the Institute For Principled Policy, Professor of Philosophy Ashland University and an Elder for Providence Church

Health care is dominating the news and our culture.  It is also apparent that most people want all Americans to be treated fairly and compassionately and that the current costs of health care have burdened many and threaten this desire for fairness.  But the current proposed health care bill presents numerous reasons for concern and there are specific aspects of the bill which are wrong and morally unacceptable.

God cares about our health. The Bible refers to the words heal, healer, healed, health, healthy at least 169 times.  1 Corinthians 6:19-20 states, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?  For you have been bought with a price, therefore glorify God in your body.”  We should take care of our bodies as service to God.  Jesus came to heal and redeem, and ultimately we must understand that all healing comes from God and is dependent upon Him.  Jesus alone is our healer.  He came to make us well and bring life.

God cares about our Laws.  Isaiah 10:1 says, “Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees….” But how do we know an unjust law?  As Christian I believe in the “sufficiency of scripture.”  This means that scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”  Since this is so we must look to Scripture as the supreme standard to evaluate the proposed government takeover of health care. The only standard by which any one can really evaluate any laws is by the standard of Scripture.  In this analysis I will evaluate the proposed Health Care Bill by the standards of Scripture and particularly by the Standard of God’s Law, the Ten Commandments.

The proposed health care bill builds on the modern American trend of statism. Statism is when power is centralized and located in the state not in the people.   In statism, a person’s life and work belong to the state.  For the past 150 years America has become gradually more nationalized in its approach toward government with the state taking more and more control over economic planning and policy including the lives of its citizens.  The American Founding Fathers understood the tendency of governments to move in this direction of restricting freedom so they implemented means to block that movement.  They also understood power ultimately rests in God and that all nations rise and fall by the authority of God.  They often acknowledged the sovereignty of God.  The Declaration of Independence even states, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge our Lives, Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”  They understood that God, not the state, society, class, or church is our security.  God alone is ultimately sovereign and all power and authority rests in Him.  Furthermore only God can be trusted with power.  Human power and freedom is always a threat or danger because of sin.

Because of the effects of sin, whenever God’s sovereignty is reduced, then humans or human institutions step forward and fill that vacuum. For example in theology when God’s supremacy is reduced then individual human authority intervenes and results in Arminian theology and a reduction in God’s work of grace in salvation.  Understanding God’s sovereignty properly leads to an understanding of the limited power and authority of humans and human institutions.  The American Constitution created a government of limited and enumerated powers with a separation of powers because the Founders and Authors understood the nature of God’s sovereignty and the dangers of human autonomy and power.  In this formula no man or department exercises all the power of even a limited government.  God alone is to be trusted with power.  This type of Federalism is based on a presbyterian form of corporate church government with a plurality of leaders and with no monopoly of jurisdiction.  The Christian should understand the need is to fragment and limit political power because of sin so it cannot threaten the lives and liberties of the people.

Statism is the modern idolatry of the state.  We must understand that the nationalization of Health Care violates the First Commandment which exclaims, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.”  Growing statism makes the state into a deity.  During the medieval periods ecclesiolatry was responsible for much of the world’s suffering.  When God’s sovereignty was reduced prior to the Reformation in Europe, the church emerged as the sovereign entity and an ecclesiocracy was established as the church ruled over the state.   The situation is now reversed.  It is now this crossing of the state into the realm of the Church which has caused the suffering of the 20th century.  “All modern dictators—Communist, Facist, or disguised—have at least one thing in common.  They all believe in social security, especially in coercing people into governmentalized medicine” stated economist Melchoir Palyi in 1949 in Compulsory Medical Care and the Welfare State (Chicago) (quoted from the November 2009 The Trinity Review) .

Here then is a second form of idolatry as the state usurps the role of the Church in its quest for sovereignty. We could say it violates the tenets of separation of church and state causing the state to enter into the realm that is the Church’s.  Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, Lenin and Stalin of the USSR, Salazar of Portugal, Mussolini of Italy, Franco of Spain, Yoshito and Hirohito of Japan, Peron of Argentina, Castro of Cuba, Mao of China, and Hitler of Germany all were autocrats and all were advocates of National Health Care (November 2009 The Trinity Review).

Virtue must be voluntary. It is not the role of government to increase the virtues, “Render to God what is God’s.” The government must give opportunity for virtuous men to act appropriately, to get out of their way.  American generosity is the consequence of Christianity and capitalism.  Compulsory charity is an absurdity like involuntary volunteerism.  The state cannot love; It cannot force compassion.  Its role is to wield the sword and punish evil-doers.  Get the state out of the affairs of the Church.  To refuse to do so is to commit idolatry.

Fun, Satire, Biblical Worldview, Education, Commentary

When Educators Tell The Truth

PlayPlay

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

This was too good to let pass. Though we have not been able to verify whether or not this is real, it is difficult to argue with the sentiment.

In an age where parents are scrambling to avoid their responsibility to properly educate their children and are willing to pay thousands of dollars per year to get others to do it for them, there are still some refreshing responses from educators that indicate that the teachers and administrators “get it” even if the parents don’t.

Unfortunately, this attitude has not yet penetrated the thinking of the majority of  educators in the United States. But if Australian teachers have gotten it can we be far behind?

Enjoy!

General, Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, Economics

McCain Flip-Flops On Supplement Regulation

Reprinted with Permission from the Rainrock Nutritionals website

In an article in the Over The Counter Today blog we learned that Sen. John McCain has withdrawn all support of his own bill (S. 3002), the laughably misnamed Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010.

In effect this bill would have imposed draconian penalties for dietary supplement companies who made new products with recently uncovered ingredients if they weren’t marketed in the United States prior to the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act (Oct. 15, 1994). In other words, only drug companies would have access to ingredients that became available prior to nearly 16 years ago. If a company were to use one of these ingredients, the FDA would be empowered to call it “adulterated” and to order an instant recall. It also handed the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to ban ingredients by simply striking them from a list called “Accepted Dietary Ingredients.”

It is clear that McCain is feeling the political heat. He is in a tense primary battle to keep his Arizona US Senate seat and apparently, enough of you have contacted his office and expressed your displeasure with this new power grab to give him the idea that maybe supplements ought to be left alone. This effort of McCain’s was really just one of the many steps the federal government is taking to turn control of all dietary supplements and pharmaceuticals over to the control of international “authorities” by adopting the European “Codex Alimentarius” as law in the United States. This essentially would place all regulation of supplements under the control of European bureaucrats who are themselves under the control of German Pharmaceutical giants.

McCain was convinced by both internal and external pressure to withdraw support for this bill. Your calls helped as did this letter from Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But we must be vigilant. Dietary supplements are in the cross hairs of regulators and the current administration. I was told at a meeting of Complementary and Alternative Medicine providers and patients last summer that the Obama health care bill would ensure the continuation of the easy availability of dietary supplements. This is an absurd notion. The European example tells a very different story. Dietary supplements throughout the EU are rapidly becoming an endangered species (except in the UK which doesn’t care for German control of ANYTHING).

Please take this opportunity to join and support the National Health Federation and purchase Director Scott Tips book on the Codex Alimentarius- Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism

Public Policy Principles News, Life Issues, Biblical Worldview, Marriage and Family, Public Policy Radar, Commentary

More Information On Gardasil

Way back in 2007 the Institute For Principled Policy Led the fight to oppose mandatory Gardasil vaccinations for girls as young as 10. Gardasil is a vaccination created to immunize against a limited number of strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It was being touted as a cervical cancer prevention method. We cited a complete lack of information on vital statistics regarding length of anti-viral activity, adverse immunological effects, possible adverse reactions (Guillain-Barre Syndrome, etc), actual statistical analysis regarding reduction of cancer, etc. For a complete list of the questions we were asking in the Spring of 2007 you can read our main article HERE.

Now, 3 years later, the bloom is off the “miracle vaccination” rose. It is becoming clear that the objections we raised were more than justified. Merck & Co. the pharmaceutical giant that developed this vaccine and has spent millions trying to guarantee itself indemnity from lawsuit via a little known section of the PATRIOT Act that makes mandatory vaccinations immune from damage lawsuits. That’s what was going on in Ohio in 2007 and we at the Institute For Principled Policy exposed it early, thus killing the bill (HB 81) that would have made the vaccine mandatory.

Since that time there have been nearly 9000 adverse reaction reports, including deaths, paralysis, mysterious pain, immunological impacts, reports of passing out, etc. Now Merck & Co. are trying to get boys in the act, claiming the vaccine will work in them, as well.

Here is a video that gives an interesting overview of the situation including a CBS Evening News report on Gardasil adverse reactions-

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

There is also a very well done video response to the first video that looks at the problem from a more scientific perspective. It targets both the medical journals and marketing of the vaccine-

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ32gAb1o-E[/youtube]

As the second video makes clear, there are many questions that MUST be answered about Gardasil primarily but also many other vaccinations. Vaccinations can be wonderful things (polio), but there is an immunological price to pay for their use. The extent of that price is not yet fully known. As consumers we need to be given considerably more information on that price than we now have.